Search results

Mobility processes, the routines that organizations use to move employees into and across jobs, are a critical determinant of the way that human capital is allocated within organizations and careers developed. Most existing work on these mobility processes has examined processes in which mobility is tightly coupled to the filling of vacancies. There is substantial evidence, though, that many organizations adopt very different processes for managing mobility. In this theory chapter, I compare vacancy-based, “job-pull” systems with alternative, “person-push” systems in which mobility is keyed to employees' attainment of performance and skill thresholds to explain how and why mobility processes vary. I identify two, inter-related dimensions along which mobility processes vary: whether their decision processes emphasize the need to match employees to tasks versus providing predictable rewards; and whether the system of jobs that people move between prioritizes flexibility or control of agency costs. I use these dimensions to predict when organizations will adopt different mobility processes, and how those processes will affect employees' mobility.

This paper shows the results of a survey to Spanish employees about labour mobility and its determinants. Job non‐related factors are more significant than job related factors to explain the employees’ labour mobility. The employee's perceptions about job satisfaction, pay fairness, and work‐family conflict are more explanatory of labour mobility than traditional job‐related factors like pay or social benefits.

This paper analyzes the results of a survey about labor mobility of a sample of 1,182 Spanish employees. The results indicate that women have lower mobility than men, and that the mobility of men and women is explained by different factors. The employee’s perceptions about job satisfaction, pay fairness, and employment stability are also more explicative of job mobility than traditional job‐related factors, such as wages or training. These results have managerial implications for the segmentation of men and women in the labor market.

The purpose of this paper is to address the impact of the subjective evaluation of job characteristics on voluntary mobility, the impact of voluntary mobility on changes in these job characteristics, and differential education and gender patterns.

Ordered and multinominal logistic regression analysis and longitudinal panel analysis.

Dissatisfaction with one's wage, the match between job content and personal capacities, working hours, and the job in general cause voluntary external mobility. The latter two also increase the odds of voluntary internal mobility. Voluntary internal and external mobility in turn decreases dissatisfaction with several job characteristics. The higher the educational level, the weaker the impact of dissatisfaction with working hours on voluntary internal mobility. For women, wage dissatisfaction has a stronger impact on voluntary external mobility than for men. Moreover, dissatisfaction with the number of working hours and the job in general more often cause voluntary internal mobility for women than for men. The revenues of changing positions within or between firms, however, do not substantially differ across education and gender.

This paper shows that subjectively evaluated job characteristics are important push factors and result in voluntary mobility, and in some cases for women to a stronger degree than for men. Even though it could be expected that returns to voluntary mobility are lower for women and lower educated individuals, they do not differ substantially from the returns that men and higher educated workers receive.

Examining the process of job mobility and its effect on earnings, the authors find that this particular labour market is characterised by a high incidence of specific training, that upward mobility is largely experienced within the same organisation and is mainly of the osmotic type. It is felt that a technique must be devised to measure osmotic mobility accurately.

The purpose of this paper is to compare internal and external job mobility (quits and promotions) as separate mechanisms for workers improving earnings and job fit.

The authors sample the core workforce from the British Household Panel Survey, estimating the effects of quits and promotions on two sets of outcomes. The first is subjective; satisfaction with work, pay and hours. The second is objective realities about the job; gross monthly pay and weekly working hours. The authors use linear fixed-effects estimation to control for individual heterogeneity.

Quits and promotions are distinctly different mechanisms for improving earnings and job fit. Quits improve measures of job fit (satisfaction with work, pay and hours) but have little effect on earnings. Internal promotions bring earnings growth but have little effect on job fit. The findings shed light what drives “voluntary” mobility; internal mobility may be driven by higher “reservation wages” and career progression, while external mobility may be driven by job matching and the need to find more appropriate work.

Researchers should treat mobile labour markets with scepticism. The growth of “boundaryless careers” may closer resemble a release valve for poor working conditions in a varied market than a growth in new opportunities for earnings and career progression.

Studies of job mobility overwhelmingly focus on the effects quitting without explicitly comparing this mobility to promotions. This omission gives an incomplete picture of mobility. Bringing promotions back into the discussion, helps to understand why workers commit to internal careers and firm tenure. The paper shows that quits and promotions yield distinctly different outcomes for core workers, despite both mobility types being labelled “voluntary”. Thus, the authors show that inequality in earnings and working conditions is closely tied to access to the “life-chances” of mobility; those who are able to pursue promotion are rewarded objectively; those who quit for a new employer seek a better job fit.

This study aims to investigate whether top management team (TMT)’s job mobility experience is related to firm innovation.

The authors use different strategies, including a two-stage instrumental model, difference-in-differences analysis based on TMT members’ sudden deaths, propensity score matching and firm fixed-effects model, to mitigate endogeneity concerns.

The authors find that firms whose TMT experienced more job mobility have better firm innovation. In addition, the authors reveal that the job mobility experience is positively related to engagement in explorative innovation strategies that generate new knowledge. The findings are robust to a battery of tests to alleviate potential endogeneity concerns. Overall, the results highlight the role of job mobility experience in influencing firm innovation.

This study contributes to the rising literature on the determinants of firm innovation. By showing the TMT’s job mobility experience is related to innovation, the authors expand the literature about the economic consequences of the heterogeneous TMT characteristics. Given that firm innovation is essential to competitive advantage, the results should be of interest to a range of stakeholders, including investors, directors and managers and policymakers.

This paper examines the gender patterns of occupational mobility in post-reform urban China using a national representative dataset. The results show there are marked gender differences in both direction and self-reported cause of occupational mobility. With respect to the direction of mobility, married women are more likely than married men to undergo downward occupational changes, but are less likely to experience upward moves. In terms of the cause of mobility, compared to married men, married women are less likely to change jobs for career development or move to a new job assigned by the employer, but are more likely to change jobs for family reasons or as a result of involuntary separation. The results also show that the public-sector restructuring has increased the incidence of downward occupational mobility, more for women than men. The analysis suggests that women are disadvantaged in the occupational mobility process by a variety of social and institutional factors.

There are conflicting views of the primary role of income inequality in economic development. Many expect that higher income shares at the top reflect substantial economic contributions while others think that these increases in top shares have not translated into higher economic growth. Recently, this debate has been reinvigorated by a new proposal: higher income inequality could hurt economic performance by decreasing future intergenerational mobility. We contribute to this debate by examining the relationship between intergenerational perceived job status mobility and past income inequality. We find a robust negative association of lagged income inequality with upward intergenerational job status mobility and a robust positive association of lagged income inequality with downward intergenerational job status mobility. In addition, we find that the quality of political institutions and religious fractionalization both contribute positively to job status mobility. Higher levels of past Gross Domestic Product (GDP) result in less upward job status mobility and more downward job status mobility.

Introduction The literature on earnings change has increasingly suggested that the key processes generating earnings inequality are those operating within the firm. However, there has been little empirical work on these phenomena, largely reflecting data deficiencies. Very few data‐sets on earnings contain information about internal processes and those which do often measure them narrowly. For example, most surveys of labour mobility define it either as movement between firms or as such movement plus major, once‐and‐for‐all changes of work type.