Human capital and mobility as competing antecedents of career success: the case of academia

Abstract

Purpose Human capital and boundaryless career theory prevail in studies that examine objective and subjective career success respectively. However, evidence indicating that each framework offers superior suitability for its respective career outcome is unclear. The purpose of this study is to contrast the predictive validity of the frameworks with respect to both career success criteria. Design/methodology/approach The sample involved 182 management faculty in the USA. The authors relied on hierarchical regression analyses to test the study hypotheses. Findings Results indicate that human capital outperforms mobility across career success criteria. Yet, this study found that industry segment amplifies the effect of mobility on career success. Research limitations/implications While findings primarily speak to the superiority of human capital as a career success antecedent, the significant effect of the industry segment as moderator of mobility calls for a granular definition of the setting where careers are analyzed. Replication of findings across industries are needed before assuming the generalization of results. Practical implications Findings reveal the relevance of early career movements for professional careers in academe. Originality/value Despite the extensive use of human capital and mobility as antecedents of career success, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study that directly contrasts the predictive validity of these competing antecedents.

Third space professionals and undergraduate teaching – A comparative study in China, the United Kingdom and Canada

“…Many service tasks can be perceived as commodities embedded within the routine work of monotonous committees. Service work can also be idiosyncratic to the routines of a focal employer, thus limiting the value of such competency in labour markets (transferability) (Varela & Premeaux, 2023). In higher education, instead of diving into the numerous types of professionals, this model presents an approach to including all staff who are involved in both general and professional services.…”