Content area
Purpose
Currently, lifelong learning and sustainable employability are increasingly fostered in the context of interorganizational networks, which provide workers with access to network activities (e.g., training, career counseling). This study aims to investigate the relationship between workers’ participation in network activities and their sustainable employability by considering workers’ experiences with the network activities. This study also examines the role of relational factors, including network trust and leader-member exchange, as conditions that may influence the link between workers’ participation in network activities and their sustainable employability (i.e. workability, perceived employability and vitality).
Design/methodology/approach
This study has a mixed methods design. A quantitative approach (cross-sectional, questionnaire) was used to establish associations between variables. This approach was supplemented with qualitative data (semistructured interviews) to explore whether Self-Determination Theory can provide an explanation for the associations and the role of (relational) factors that workers perceive as hindering or facilitating in that process.
Findings
The results suggest that participating in network activities have promising benefits for both workers and organizations by facilitating the work ability and perceived employability components of sustainable employability. For these relationships, workers’ satisfaction of their need for competency and relatedness serves as explanatory mechanisms. Moreover, the actualization of benefits of network activities is influenced by relational factors both within the network (i.e. trust) and within organizations (i.e. leader-member exchange).
Originality/value
This study investigates workers’ experiences with network activities, regarding fostering workers’ sustainable employability, and the role of relational factors. Specifically, it considers Human Resource Management practices from a network-level perspective, which is currently understudied. By doing so, this study adds a unique perspective to the Human Resource Management, sustainable employability and career literature streams.
Introduction
Demographical trends are occurring in many developed countries, resulting in aging workforces and a lack of young talent, leading to labor market shortages (Ybema et al., 2020; van Dam et al., 2017; Pak et al., 2019). Many governments are therefore increasing the retirement age and stimulating workers to extend their working life (OECD, 2020). These trends create major human capital challenges for organizations (Wainwright et al., 2019). Additionally, rapid technological developments drive skill and job obsoletion, resulting in increased skill mismatches between workers and their job requirements (Goos et al., 2009). These societal trends prompt organizations to recognize the importance of supporting their worker’s sustainable employability to ensure that the organization has the required talent to remain competitive in the long term (Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden, 2006). In this context, sustainable employability means that workers are able to make and maintain a valuable contribution to their work throughout their working life (Ybema et al., 2020).
To support workers’ sustainable employability, organizations implement Human Resource Management (HRM) practices with a focus on development and lifelong learning (Pak et al., 2019; Pinnington et al., 2022). Examples of HRM practices include: training, intraorganizational job transitions and career development (Pak et al., 2019). Previous research suggests that these practices positively impact worker’s employability, motivation, and ability to work, which are core components of sustainable employability (Ybema et al., 2020; Pak et al, 2019). Yet, both practical and financial barriers often constrain the degree to which practices can be provided for workers (Stynen et al., 2019).
To overcome the practical and financial barriers, organizations that strive to foster sustainable employability for their workers, are increasingly collaborating with external organizations by joining an interorganizational network (Bakker et al., 2018; Courchesne et al., 2024). The aim of these networks is to promote sustainable employability for workers from member organizations. The formation of interorganizational networks transcends the boundaries of single organizations to foster sustainable careers by jointly organizing and sharing HRM practices (van Gestel et al., 2018). These networks are often formed by public and/or private organizations of varying sizes. The size of the networks ranges from 8 to 100+ member organizations. Some networks focus on strengthening a specific region, while others span several regions. Some networks concentrate on a specific sector, while others are intersectoral. Facta non Verba, located in South Holland, The Netherlands, is an example of an interorganizational network. It is comprised of 31 organizations across various sectors, which facilitates workers’ personal development by offering workshops, secondments and knowledge sharing across organizations. Furthermore, events such as matching tables and career days provide workers with opportunities to foster their career development and job mobility. These forms of worker support can be regarded as network activities, which are the result of collaborative efforts that all network partners have access to. This network-centric organization of HRM is a novel way to address common challenges that organizations face (Ferraro et al., 2015). Such networks can be found in several European countries including the UK (Ingold and Valizade, 2017), Denmark (Ingold and Valizade, 2017) and The Netherlands (Bakker et al., 2018; Courchesne et al., 2024). The benefits of interorganizational network membership seem manifold for workers and organizations. Workers have opportunities for lifelong learning where they can develop their knowledge, skills and abilities and have direct access to job opportunities within the network that may be a better match with their skills and career aspirations. Organizations can develop shared opportunities for lifelong learning with trusted and reliable partners (Hudson, 2004) without exhausting their time and financial resources. In addition, organizations can draw from other member organization’s talent pool for hiring purposes or can let other member organizations make use of their talent pool for relocation purposes.
Although interorganizational networks are increasingly popular, there is currently a lack of research regarding their success in fostering a more circular labor market (i.e. reusing and renewing human capital through job mobility) (Koster, 2021). This study investigates whether workers’ participation in network activities is associated with their sustainable employability, namely: perceived employability, vitality and work ability. Perceived employability refers to workers’ subjective perceptions of their employability, or their perceived opportunities to work (Vanhercke et al., 2014). Vitality refers to worker’s willingness or motivation to work (Bakker et al., 2008). Work ability refers to workers’ capability to adequately complete their work tasks (Ilmarinen et al., 2005). These three components have been identified as central facets of the conceptualization of sustainable employability (Pak et al., 2019; Ybema et al., 2020). Practices which foster sustainable employability have been widely studied within organizations (Veth et al., 2019), but not in the context of interorganizational networks (Courchesne et al., 2024). The current study focuses on the role of network activities organized in networks (e.g., workshops, career advice, internships, etc.), not within the boundaries of a single organization (e.g., organizational career management) or pursued by individuals on the external market (e.g., individual career management) (Verbruggen et al., 2007). Our study provides empirical evidence on whether and to what degree workers’ participation in network activities contributes to their sustainable employability, thereby filling a gap in current understanding. We rely on Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Ryan and Deci, 2000) to help understand the relationship between participation in network activities and sustainable employability. Self-Determination Theory is an established framework to explain how HRM practices can bolster sustainable employability (Marescaux et al., 2013; Gürbüz et al., 2022). The network activities we study are shared HRM practices: i.e. opportunities for workers organized and provided to workers in the context of the network.
This study also adds a relational perspective by investigating the role of trust within the network and Leader-Member Exchange (LMX), as experienced by workers. Based on the Social Exchange Theory (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), these constructs are assumed to play a role in determining the quality of these (emerging) exchange relationships. Firstly, interorganizational networks center on forming new and reinforcing resource exchanges between partners (Khalid and Ali, 2017). In this context, trust between member organizations creates the foundation for the exchange of workers (i.e. temporary work placements such as internships or secondments, and recruiting personnel from partner organizations), time, resources and knowledge (Khalid and Ali, 2017). Also, HRM practices are typically seen as acts of investments in the worker by the employer and workers will reciprocate such investments when they perceive the investor as trustful, or aimed at their well-being (Veth et al., 2019). In the context of this study, network activities can be considered as resources that are available in the network to foster workers’ personal and career development. Yet, workers may feel vulnerable as they transcend the familiar organizational boundaries and trusted pathways for development (organization’s HRM department, line manager) (Abrams et al., 2003). Hence, for reaping the benefits of these network activities, the development by workers of new entrusted relationships with others in the network is essential.
Secondly, workers who participate in networks still have an employee-employer relationship within their parent organization. Hence, in addition to the role of trust workers experience with novel network partners, the quality of the exchange relationship between a worker and their direct supervisor (i.e. the person who monitors the daily performance and whom workers directly report to) in their parent organization remains important too. The quality of current employer-employee relationship, i.e. LMX (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden et al., 1997) is known to impact subordinates’ career prospects (Yang et al., 2020) and transfer of training (Govaerts and Dochy, 2014), which are important for sustainable employability. Direct supervisors are often gatekeepers to development opportunities thereby controlling workers’ access to development opportunities in general (Bezuijen et al., 2010), and likely in the context of networks too.
In sum, this study investigates the link between workers’ participation in network activities and their sustainable employability, which has been understudied thus far (Courchesne et al., 2024). By doing so, we extend upon the literature on sustainable employability careers and HRM practices by considering interorganizational networks as a new contextual factor. By studying the role of the relational factors trust in the network and LMX as moderators in these relationships, we aim to better understand under what conditions such potential impacts may occur.
Literature review and theoretical framework
To understand the relationship between participation in network activities and worker’s sustainable employability, this section provides a literature review. First, this section elaborates on the concept of sustainable employability. Then, the relationship between workers’ participation in interorganizational networks and sustainable employability is considered from a Self-Determination Theory perspective. Afterwards, the role of workers’ perception of network trust and their LMX is examined using Social Exchange Theory as a guiding framework.
Sustainable employability
Sustainable employability refers to “the extent to which workers are able and willing to remain working, now and in the future” (Ybema et al., 2020, p.888). It consists of workers’ perceived employability, vitality and work ability (Pak et al., 2019; Ybema et al., 2020). First, perceived employability refers to workers’ subjective evaluations of opportunities to obtain and maintain employment (Vanhercke et al., 2014). Specifically, self-evaluations reflect workers’ perceptions of job opportunities that match their knowledge, skills and abilities (De Cuyper and de Witte, 2011). The greater the match, the higher workers rate their perceived employability. Second, vitality refers to the degree that workers are energetic and motivated to work (Ybema et al., 2020). Finally, work ability reflects workers’ physical and mental ability to work (Ilmarinen et al., 2005).
Network activities in interorganizational networks
Currently, organizations may join an interorganizational network to increase their workers’ access to development opportunities (Bakker at al., 2018). Inter-organizational networks consist of multiple independent organizations that willingly collaborate to achieve a mutual goal. There are several other network forms, for example: strategic alliances, joint ventures, partnerships and subcontracting (Provan and Kenis, 2008). However, the interorganizational networks central to this paper explicitly strive to foster sustainable employability for workers of member organizations. They have a flat structure with informal ties between member organizations. Moreover, they often operate in a regional setting, can be sectoral or intersectoral, and contain both private and public organizations (Bakker et al., 2018). The collaborative nature of interorganizational networks circumvents the barriers to HRM implementation by reducing costs, spreading risks among several organizations, fostering learning between organizations, and providing easier access to resources (e.g., knowledge, HRM practices and job candidates) (Wulf and Butel, 2017; Courchesne et al., 2024).
In these networks, personal development activities (e.g., workshops, themed meetings) target the development of workers’ knowledge, skills and abilities relevant for one’s current or future job. Career development activities (e.g., career counseling, open house days, networking events) target workers’ career competencies such as having the knowledge and skills required for their career (“knowing-how”), having insights into one’s strengths, weaknesses and career goals (“knowing-why”), and having career related contacts and support (“knowing-whom”) (De Fillippi and Arthur, 1994). Job matching (e.g., matching tables, CV exchanges, sharing job vacancies) focuses on connecting workers to jobs and/or employers. The network activities we study parallel the HRM practices in support of workers’ sustainable employability. Yet, they differ from HRM practices in that HRM practices are shaped by a single organization’s goals (Ybema et al., 2020), whereas network activities are shaped by network’s goals. Moreover, HRM practices are typically implemented for a single organization (Ybema et al., 2020; Pinnington et al., 2022). Conversely, network activities are developed and provided for workers of all participating network organizations. This configuration provides workers of partnering organizations with more opportunities to foster sustainable employability (Koster, 2021; Bakker et al., 2018).
Network activities and sustainable employability
Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Ryan and Deci, 2000) provides a foundation for explaining the possible relationship between network activities and sustainable employability (Marescaux et al., 2013). The theory posits that in the working context, workers have three universal basic needs: autonomy (i.e. need to be self-governing agents and act from their own volition), competence (i.e. need to feel capable and achieve desired outcomes) and relatedness (need to be connected and have a sense of belonging with others) (Deci et al., 2017). Frustration of any of these needs results in decreased well-being and motivation at work (Marescaux et al., 2013; Deci et al., 2017). Contrastingly, fulfilling these basic needs leads to an increased performance, motivation, well-being, commitment and psychological growth (Greguras and Diefendorff, 2009; Deci et al., 2017). Within the literature, contextual factors like HRM practices have been shown to foster sustainable employability by fulfilling workers’ basic needs (Gürbüz et al., 2022).
First, network activities targeting personal and/or career development may help satisfy workers’ need for autonomy. Personal development opportunities have been shown to increase workers’ perceptions of control and autonomy as they provide access to resources that help workers tackle challenges in their work (Stynen et al., 2016). By attending network activities that target personal development (e.g., workshops) workers’ are better able to increase their knowledge, skills, abilities and opportunities (“knowing-how”) (Colakoglu, 2011; Kulkarni et al., 2015). Furthermore, network activities that focus on career guidance and labor market orientation (e.g., conversations with career counselors, job fairs, open house days) helps workers’ plan and direct their career that is aligned with their career goals (“knowing-why”) (Colakoglu, 2011). Such practices may help workers identify their ambitions, values and desires, which help shape workers’ self-concept and vocational interest (Chen, 2017). Thus, they may perceive more control over their career (Chen, 2017). Regarding network activities aimed at networking, an increased network provides workers with more connections, which can support them in pursuing their desired career trajectory (“knowing-whom”) (Colakoglu, 2011).
Second, network activities may help satisfy workers’ need for competence. Network activities such as workshops, career counseling, job fairs, open house days at organizations, provide workers with opportunities for personal and career development. Regarding personal development, job-related competencies are likely to be strengthened through participation in network activities. By attending personal development activities, workers increase their knowledge, skills and abilities, which satisfies their need for competence (Stone et al., 2009). Regarding career development, workers’ have access to career related expertise (e.g., career counselors, Human Resource professionals, recruiters) that may contribute to career competencies (“knowing how”). Moreover, workers may have better insights into their strengths and weakness (“knowing why”) (De Fillippi and Arthur, 1994; Chen, 2017). These insights can be used to help workers identify job opportunities that match their competencies or craft their current job to better capitalize on their strengths (De Vos et al., 2020). Finally, networking may help workers’ identify people who can help the worker further their career (“knowing whom”).
Finally, networks form a social environment that promotes worker development and well-being, which helps satisfy workers’ need for relatedness. Networks exist to achieve common goals, which creates common ground among various stakeholders (Ferraro et al., 2015). This context stimulates collaboration with others, which contributes to fulfilling one’s need for relatedness (Stone et al., 2009). When workers’ values are aligned with others in the network, they may identify with others and feel a sense of belongingness (Greguras and Diefendorff, 2009). Additionally, workers may meet others who are in similar positions. Their shared understanding can also help fulfill their need for relatedness (Greguras and Diefendorff, 2009). Moreover, network activities and the opportunities organizations provide, may make workers believe that their organization cares about their personal and career development, thus satisfying workers’ need for relatedness (Marescaux et al., 2013). Overall,the three basic needs are all vital for worker functioning and they reinforce each other (Deci and Ryan, 1985).
Extending upon this line of reasoning, network activities help fulfill workers’ needs and may increase their sustainable employability. They can stimulate psychological growth by providing workers with access to resources that help workers to identify and utilize their strengths, which has strong links to increased vitality (Gürbüz et al., 2022; van Dam et al., 2017; Pak et al., 2019). Moreover, increasing workers’ knowledge, skills and abilities may help reduce or prevent skill mismatches (Chen, 2017), which is essential for their work ability (Pak et al., 2019; Veth et al., 2019). Workers lacking sought-after skills and abilities are less attractive to employers (Kulkarni et al., 2015) and reduces their perceived employability (Wittekind et al., 2010). Ultimately, it follows that network activities create a unique context where exchanges occur that help satisfy workers’ need for autonomy, competence and relatedness, which is crucial for maintaining and fostering workers’ sustainable employability.
Hence:
The role of worker perceptions of trust in the network
Inter-organizational networks consist of intergroup relations among various stakeholders and create a social context where exchanges occur (Bakker et al., 2018; Khalid and Ali, 2017). Trust among stakeholders has been identified as a necessary condition for exchanges to occur between network stakeholders (Khalid and Ali, 2017). It refers to the willingness to make oneself vulnerable in a situation which is uncertain (Chua et al., 2008). Social Exchange Theory posits that behavior in the traditional workplace is a result of exchanges between worker and employer, which provides both with improved access to resources (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Within networks, exchanges may occur beyond traditional dyadic relationships as workers may reciprocate with their exchange partner indirectly, via other network stakeholders (e.g., Human Resource professionals, peers, career coaches) (Khalid and Ali, 2017). Workers may reciprocate opportunities, for example, by increasing their engagement with network activities or committing themselves to transfer what they have learned elsewhere in the network. Yet, workers’ perceptions of trust are likely to influence the likelihood that workers engage in such behaviors and subsequently the benefits of participation (Sutha et al., 2016). Empirically, research on informal networks within organizations suggests that workers’ judgements concerning the other interacting party’s credibility are important prerequisites for the development of exchange relationships (Abrams et al., 2003; Chua et al., 2008). Furthermore, asking for information or advice can make a worker feel vulnerable (Abrams et al., 2003). When workers trust others, they are more likely to share information about themselves that others can use to provide more tailored advice and recommendations. From this perspective, workers’ perceptions of trust can enhance the degree to which participation in network activities leads to increased sustainable employability for workers.
We hypothesize:
The role of worker perceptions of Leader-Member exchange (LMX)
Since workers’ parent organization is an important network stakeholder where intergroup exchanges occur, it is important to consider the quality of these exchanges too (Bakker et al., 2018). Specifically, the quality of the relationship between workers and their direct supervisor(s) within their parent organization has been identified as a factor affecting worker-organization exchanges (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). LMX (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden et al., 1997) is defined as “the quality of the exchange relationship between leader and subordinate” (Schriesheim et al., 1999, p.7). Within the context of this study, leaders are line managers or supervisors of the workers who participate in network activities. Yet, the quality of the dyadic worker-supervisor relationship varies. High quality LMX is characterized by mutual trust, support and loyalty (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995; Liden et al., 1997), whereas low quality relationships are more transactional and based on the fulfillment of contractual obligations.
LMX has been identified as an antecedent for participation in development opportunities (Maurer et al., 2002). Furthermore, workers with high quality LMX have more access to personal and career development opportunities than workers who experience low quality LMX (Yang et al., 2020; Wallo et al., 2021). Within the context of a network, supervisors can also facilitate worker development. For example, they can identify and recommend network activities that fit the workers’ needs and desires. Moreover, they can also remove barriers (e.g., workload) for participation.
Drawing on Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), the effectiveness of participating in network activities may also be influenced by supervisors. When workers perceive a high-quality relationship with their supervisor, they feel obligated to reciprocate to maintain the strong relationship. The reciprocation can occur either directly with the supervisor or indirectly via the network. Within the literature, supervisors have been found to play an influential role regarding workers’ motivation to learn and develop (Scaduto et al., 2008; Bezuijen et al., 2010). Workers may reciprocate the support they receive from their supervisors by increasing their engagement with the network activities that they attend. In this sense, workers with high LMX may be more motivated to engage in network activities than workers with low LMX. Additionally, workers with a high quality LMX tend to have a work environment that allows them to apply and experiment with what they learned from the network activities in the workplace (Scaduto et al., 2008). For example, supervisors with high quality LMX are more likely to provide their workers with feedback, which facilitates transfer of training and subsequently workers’ HC (Bezuijen et al., 2010). High LMX could help the worker to identify a position that better matches their career goals. If a job transition is realized within the network the worker serves as a link and can strengthen the tie between their previous employer and their new employer (Raghuram et al., 2017).
Following this line of reasoning, workers with high LMX may have increased effectiveness from participating in network activities compared to workers with low LMX.
We hypothesize:
Methods
Study design
This study utilized a mixed methods approach that employed quantitative methods (cross-sectional questionnaires) followed by qualitative methods (semi-structured interviews) (Harrison et al., 2020). In this configuration, the quantitative methods helps to establish whether and to what extent there are associations between making use of network activities and workers’ sustainable employability. The qualitative methods complements the quantitative methods by providing insights that explain, based on participants’ experiences, why possible associations emerge. Mixed methods approaches can provide a more comprehensive understanding of a phenomenon beyond a single method approach (Creswell and Clark, 2017). This allowed for the investigation of both the extent of relationships as well as the experiences of workers in understanding the relationships.
Sample and procedure
The researchers contacted network coordinators from their personal network and from Bakker et al.’s (2018) report. E-mails were sent to network coordinators, which introduced the researchers, the research and requested an introductory meeting to discuss the opportunities to recruit participants within the network. Several network coordinators introduced the researchers to others, who were subsequently contacted. In total, 10 interorganizational networks, all located in The Netherlands, are represented in this study.
The sample for the quantitative part of this study consisted of 80 workers who participated in at least one network practice (M = 13.13; SD = 56.06) offered by a network and were all 18 years or older. See Appendix 1 for a detailed overview of participant characteristics.
Network coordinators who agreed to help promote the study were given a flyer and/or a cover letter to pass along to participants. Additionally, the first author attended network events to personally promote the research. This entailed pitching the research to a group and talking to potential participants during coffee breaks and networking opportunities. Thus, convenience, snowball and purposive sampling techniques were used.
Participants could register for the study by clicking a link in the cover letter and flyer. Upon registration, they automatically received an email with detailed information on their rights, risks, and data procedures, as well as a link to the questionnaire. Before starting the questionnaire, active informed consent was obtained. Furthermore, the authors received ethical approval from their institution’s ethical committee. The questionnaire was online from May 2020 until December 2023.
In total, 107 participants registered, 100 started the questionnaire. Of the 100 responses, 15 were removed from the data set because they had 20% or more missing values. An additional five respondents were removed because they were unemployed. This resulted in 80 usable responses.
To complement the quantitative data, seven respondents partook in an online interview. Respondents were eligible to participate if they met the criteria stipulated in the quantitative part. The first researcher had personal contact with them during network events and invited them via e-mail. Before the interview commenced, participants were required to read, sign and return a letter of informed consent outlining the study’s purpose, potential risks, data collection and storage procedures specific to the interview. Each interview was hosted online, conducted in Dutch, moderated by the first author, audio recorded and lasted approximately 20–30 min. The qualitative component also received ethical approval from the authors’ institutional ethical committee.
Quantitative measures
Network activities were measured by a list of 12 descriptions, each describing one type of network practice. An example item is: opportunities to take part in internships and/or training days in other organizations. The list was compiled in close cooperation with network coordinators to make sure activities matched practice, and were exhaustive and mutually exclusive. We recorded from participants the activities they have participated in the last 3 months.
The network activities were combined into three categories: job matching activities, consisting of three activities (e.g., “possibilities to be informed of relevant job opportunities within the network”); career development activities, consisting of five activities (e.g., “opportunities to meet career counselors for one on one meetings or open consultation”); and personal development activities, consisting of four activities (e.g., ‘possibilities to attend workshop(s). These categories were transformed into dummy variables (1 = respondent participated in at least one activity from this category; 0 = respondent did not participate in an activity from this category).
Network trust was measured by adapting Rampersad et al.’s (2010) seven-item network trust scale. A sample item is: most network members kept their promises they made to me. The scale ranged from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree) and showed good reliability (α = 0.92).
LMX was measured using the seven item leader-member exchange scale (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995), which was translated to Dutch by Janssen and van Yperen (2004). A sample item is: I have an effective working relationship with my supervisor. The scale ranged from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree) and showed good reliability (α = 0.95).
Perceived employability (sustainable employability) was measured using four items from De Witte’s (1992) perceived employability scale. A sample item is: I am confident that I could quickly get another job. The scale ranged from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree) and showed good reliability (α = 0.82).
Vitality (sustainable employability) was measured using three items from the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2003). A sample item is: At my work, I feel that I am bursting with energy. The scale ranged from 1 (never) to 7 (everyday) and showed good reliability (α = 0.74).
Work ability (sustainable employability) was measured with the work ability index (Ilmarinen, 2007) and translated to Dutch by TNO (2018). Respondents were asked: if you give 10 points to your work ability in the best period of your life, how many points would you assign to your work ability at the moment? Answers could range from 0 (completely unable to work physically and mentally) to 10 (more able than ever).
Control variables consisted of: age, gender and educational level. Age was measured in years. Gender was dummy coded as male (reference category), female and other. Education was divided into low education (primary education, higher secondary education, beginner vocational education, intermediate vocational education, bachelor’s degree) and higher education (master’s degree and higher).
Quantitative analysis
First, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted in MPlus 7 (Muthén and Muthén, 2012) to evaluate the fit of our measurement model consisting of vitality, employability, network trust and LMX. The measurement model fitted the data well (χ2 = 283.72, df = 183; p < 0.001; CFI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.09; SRMR = 0.08). Harman’s one factor test was conducted to test for common method variance. The one factor model fitted significantly poorer compared to the measurement model (χ2 = 904.18, df = 189; p < 0.001; CFI = 0.33; RMSEA = 0.23; SRMR = 0.23; Δ χ2 = 620.46, df = 6; p < 0.001). These findings suggest that construct validity was sufficiently established for our measurements.
To test the hypotheses, three hierarchical regressions, one for each sustainable employability indicator, were executed in SPSS 28.
Qualitative measures
A topic guide was used during the semi-structured interviews and covered the following themes: interviewees’ experiences with network activities, relational aspects within the network and their relationship with their direct supervisor from their parent organization. These topics were chosen because they tap into the factors and mechanisms central to our study, thus complementing the quantitative analysis by providing a more nuanced understanding of the proposed relationships.
Qualitative analysis
The interview recordings were transcribed verbatim to ensure accuracy and completeness of the data. In the first phase, thematic analysis using open coding was conducted to identify themes using Atlas.ti, which allows for a detailed and nuanced understanding of the data as well as to ensure that the analysis is grounded in the participants’ own words and experiences (DeCuir-Gunby et al., 2011; Xu and Zammit, 2020). To this end, the first author created 34 descriptive codes (in vivo) that were derived inductively. In the second phase, thematic analysis was applied both inductively and deductively to allow for the emergence of unexpected insights (Xu and Zammit, 2020). The first author applied theoretically driven categories, for instance the role of basic need satisfaction, as the authors expected that it serves as an explanatory mechanism based on existing literature. This was done to align the analysis with existing theoretical frameworks (i.e. Self-Determination Theory), while also allowing for the emergence of new themes. The authors also wanted to remain open to worker experiences regarding the relational aspects, to capture any additional, emergent themes that might not be covered by the theory. The first and second author discussed the content of each code to enhance the reliability and validity of the coding process. They identified overlapping codes and combined or split codes as they were re-categorized to refine and sharpen the thematic structure. This resulted in 16 codes that were categorized into the following themes: sustainable employability (perceived employability, work ability), basic need satisfaction (competency, relatedness), the role of relational factors between participants and network stakeholders (safe and open environment) and the role of the supervisor in worker’s own organization (developmental support, support for network participation). In the third phase all the authors discussed the patterns and (sub) themes that emerged to ensure that the final themes were comprehensive and robust.
Results
Quantitative results
Since the construct validity was sufficient, the means, standard deviations and correlations were calculated (Table 1).
Table 2 presents the results. Our data did not support our hypotheses for perceived employability and vitality. Regarding the analysis for work ability, the associations of career development activities (ß = 0.24; p < 0.05) and personal development activities (ß = 0.26; p < 0.05) were significant, but the association with job matching activities was not. Therefore, H1 regarding the work ability component of sustainable employability is partially supported. We did not find support for the interaction model with network trust (Model 3). Regarding the interaction model with LMX (Model 4), only the interaction between LMX and personal development activities (ß = 1.15; p < 0.05) was significant. A simple slope analysis indicated that the relationship between personal development activities and work ability was significant when LMX (ß = 3.15; t = 3.44; p < 0.001) was high, but not low (ß = −0.22; t = −0.37; p > 0.05) (see Appendix 2). In other words, workers who report high LMX (i.e. one standard deviation above the mean) reap more benefits from participating in personal development activities, compared to workers who report low LMX (i.e. one standard deviation below the mean). Therefore, H3 regarding work ability c is partially supported.
Qualitative results
An overview of the themes and example quotes are presented in Appendix 3. First, within the respondents’ narratives we found indications that participating in network activities supports work ability. Workers indicated that these activities were helpful to better perform their daily work and strengthened their social network. Participation also promoted perceived employability by helping workers develop relevant skills.
Second, competency and relatedness from Self Determination Theory were identified as possible mechanisms for these relationships. Respondents noted that by participating in network activities they fulfilled their need for competency, by learning about their sector, increased their self-knowledge (“knowing why”) and work specific knowledge (“knowing how”). They also mentioned that they were able to meet people, which fulfilled their need for relatedness. Moreover, interaction is crucial for facilitating more in-depth connections between people, which was seen as contributing to knowledge sharing and collaborative problem solving.
Third, interviewees noted that the various stakeholders that they interacted with during network events created an environment where personal and career development flourish, which Self Determination Theory also recognizes as an important contextual factor. They noted that the general communication style is direct, which is vital for obtaining information. Also, participants’ willingness to open up to those in the network helped to maximize the benefits of network participation. Additionally, trainers were identified as a stakeholder that can foster an open and safe environment.
Finally, some interviewees highlighted the pivotal role of their direct supervisor in fostering their development. Direct supervisors are important for facilitating a supportive environment that facilitates personal and career development. In particular, supervisors assist subordinates in practically realizing goals, pursuing interests, and evaluating network event experiences. One interviewee highlighted relational quality as crucial for knowledge exchange with their supervisor. Supervisors support network participation by allocating time, valuing personal development, and recognizing improved work ability as a benefit. However, some supervisors are unaware of their subordinates’ participation in network activities, as per our respondents.
Discussion
The quantitative and qualitative results emphasized that work ability is a benefit of participating in network activities, particularly career and personal development activities. Drawing on Self-Determination Theory and congruent with the narratives, interaction within a network helps fulfill workers’ need for relatedness and competency (Marescaux et al., 2013). Workers can form and strengthen relationships with others (relatedness), which increases their access to information which can boost their competency. This strengthens the idea that interaction with others is a key component for fostering work ability in the context of an interorganizational network in which practices are shared.
Furthermore, LMX plays an influential role on the relationship between participating in personal development activities and work ability. Workers who report high (vs low) levels of LMX are able to increase their work ability more by participating in personal development activities. Based on Social Exchange Theory, it is possible that workers reciprocate high LMX by optimizing their efforts in participation in personal development activities (Maurer et al., 2002). Furthermore, with high levels of LMX, supervisors are more likely to engage in behaviors that facilitate transfer of training (Govaerts and Dochy, 2014). They may motivate their subordinators to integrate what they learned into their daily work, or to foster a workplace that promotes their use (Scaduto et al., 2008; Wallo et al., 2021). Respondents noted their supervisor’s support in applying learned knowledge by stimulating reflection on their experience. Possibly, career development activities and job matching activities are more distal for supervisors in the sense that these activities are not focused on a worker’s current job. Therefore, it could be more difficult for them to help their subordinates maximize the benefit of participation. This could elucidate why LMX only moderated participation in personal development activities.
Several interviewees identified perceived employability as a benefit of participating in network activities, which aligns with other studies that found a positive relationship between HRM practices and employability (Veth et al., 2019; Pak et al., 2019). However, we could not quantitatively establish a link between network activities and perceived employability. Possibly, perceived employability requires movement capital (human capital, social capital, self-awareness and adaptability) to grow over time, which has been suggested by other research (Forrier et al., 2015). However, our study is cross-sectional, which may explain why we did not detect a significant relationship. Workers may need to first develop their personal and career skills before they perceive an increase in their employability.
Regarding vitality, both the quantitative and qualitative results did not find evidence that network practices have an impact. This contrasts with the literature on HRM practices which suggested the opposite (Gürbüz et al., 2022; van Dam et al., 2017; Pak et al., 2019). A possible explanation is that by participating in network activities, workers may learn about themselves in terms of their strengths, weaknesses and goals (“knowing why”) (De Fillippi and Arthur, 1994; Chen, 2017). Such insights may also lead some workers to conclude that their current job is not a good fit (Boon et al., 2011). In such instances, network activities may not necessarily foster vitality, but rather add to job detachment.
Theoretical implications
This study contributes to the literature on HRM, sustainable employability and careers in multiple ways.
First, this study contributes to the sustainable employability and career literature by examining interorganizational networks as a new contextual factor beyond the organizational level. Our results indicate that the mechanisms at the network level and organizational level differ. Within organizations, HRM practices have strong ties with workers’ perceived employability, vitality and work ability (Veth et al., 2019; Pak et al., 2019; Ybema et al., 2020). Yet, within networks, we found that such practices only have ties with perceived employability and work ability. Due to the growing popularity of interorganizational networks to solve human capital challenges in the labor market (Bakker et al., 2018; van Gestel et al., 2018), additional research is required to understand the factors, mechanisms and dynamics at the network level, but also the interaction between the network and organizational levels. Furthermore, the career and employability literature predominantly focus on the role of “agency” and tends to neglect the role of “structure” (Delva et al., 2021). By examining interorganizational networks as a contextual factor that shapes workers’ sustainable employability and careers, we provide insights into a novel aspect of the role of “structure”.
Second, this study adds to HRM literature by providing unique insights into HRM practices (network practices) in the context of interorganizational networks. HRM has been well studied within organizations (Pak et al., 2019; Ybema et al., 2020), but barely at the network level. We used Self-Determination Theory (Deci et al., 2017) to explore this new context and found that this theory is helpful for understanding the relationship between network practices and sustainable employability.
Finally, we examined contingency factors that influence the success of network practices in fostering sustainable employability. Specifically, our study provides insights into relational factors concerning the developing ties in the network (i.e. network trust) and as well as the remaining ties with the parent organizations (i.e. LMX). We demonstrate that Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005) is useful for understanding how the relational factors operate in this unique context.
Practical implications
This study has implications for network coordinators and Human Resource professionals. Specifically, it is important to ensure that networks create an open and safe environment to increase the quality of interactions and relations among various networks stakeholders (e.g., workers, career coaches, trainers, etc.). Additionally, network stakeholders should ensure that their network activities provide opportunities for attendees to interact (need for relatedness). For Human Resource professionals, encouraging line managers to support their workers in participating in network activities is vital. This ensures that their organization maximizes network membership benefits.
Limitations and future research
Although this study possesses numerous strengths, some limitations should be noted. First, our cross-sectional quantitative data does not allow us to make causal claims. Although cross-sectional research is a valuable first step concerning a novel, and under investigated topic, future research could adopt a longitudinal design to examine relationships.
Second, the sample size for the quantitative analysis was limited by being reliant on the networks to bring us into contact with possible respondents, while due to COVID-19 network activities were often rescheduled or downsized in terms of number of participants. The limited sample size reduces power and subsequently increases type 2 error for our quantitative analysis. To increase the sample size, the data collection was prolonged and lasted 3 years and 7 months (May 2020 until December 2023). During this period it is possible that unaccounted external factors (e.g., labor market trends, governmental regulations) impacted our results. Future research could benefit from examining larger sample sizes within more defined time windows.
Third, most participants indicated that they have participated in at least 1 personal development activity and career development activity, which restricted the range of the data. Future research could measure network activity participation in more nuanced way to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the link between participation in network activities and sustainable employability.
Finally, convenience, purposive and snowball sampling techniques were used to invite participants. However, the researchers strived to recruit participants from a variety of networks and network activities to increase the representativeness of the sample. Yet, attendees who regularly attend network activities may have more positive experiences and have a higher chance to be included in this study. This may have limited the range of potential responses. Additionally, since the qualitative sample is a sub-set of the quantitative sample, it is possible that the positive tendency in the quantitative results carried over to the qualitative results. However, although many of the interviewed participants’ narratives were positive, some participants’ narratives provided a more critical perspective.
The current study provides a starting point for additional research on this topic. The group of workers attending network activities is heterogenous and it could be relevant to distinguish different motives for participation (poor job fit, development in one’s current job) in relation to the outcomes. Also, individual outcomes beyond sustainable employability (e.g., actual job mobility) are relevant to study. Moreover, it would be valuable to explore whether network membership pays off at the organizational level (e.g., organizational performance, human capital, social capital and personnel flow). Furthermore it is possible that by participating in network activities, workers learn about attractive job opportunities elsewhere, and develop stronger turnover intentions. This is especially problematic for organizations who seek to retain their valued workers. Future research could examine such potentially negative effects.
Finally, many workers still have no access to interorganizational networks and the provided opportunities. A follow-up study might consider the determinants of the attractiveness of networks for workers and their willingness to participate in these networks.
Figure A1.Interaction between participation in personal development activities and LMX on work ability
Table 1.
Descriptive results: means (M), standard deviations (SD) and intercorrelations
| Variable | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Age | 42.96 | 11.94 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 2. Gender | 0.40 | 0.49 | 0.25* | 1 | |||||||||
| 3. Education | 0.40 | 0.49 | −0.07 | −0.04 | 1 | ||||||||
| 4. Job matching activities | 0.44 | 0.50 | 0.08 | −0.10 | −0.31** | 1 | |||||||
| 5. Career development activities | 0.78 | 0.42 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 1 | ||||||
| 6. Personal development activities | 0.86 | 0.35 | −0.16 | 0.10 | 0.25* | −0.01 | 0.13 | 1 | |||||
| 7. Perceived employability | 3.82 | 0.69 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 1 | ||||
| 8. Vitality | 5.92 | 0.73 | 0.26* | 0.35** | −0.13 | 0.03 | 0.19 | 0.03 | 0.21 | 1 | |||
| 9. Work ability | 7.96 | 1.21 | −0.02 | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.18 | 0.28* | 0.29** | −0.02 | 0.43** | 1 | ||
| 10. Network trust | 3.72 | 0.57 | −0.04 | 0.02 | −0.01 | 0.10 | 0.20 | 0.09 | 0.35** | 0.34** | 0.29* | 1 | |
| 11. LMX | 3.84 | 0.81 | −0.06 | 0.05 | −0.02 | 0.18 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.33** | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.16 | 1 |
Notes:*p < 0.05; two-tailed. **p < 0.01, two tailed; Gender: 0 = male; 1 = female. Education:0 = lower education; 1 = higher education. Activities: 0 = did not participate in any activities from specified category; 1 = participated in at least 1 activity from specified category
Source: Authors’ own work
Table 2.
Regression analysis for shared network activities on vitality, perceived employability and work ability
| Predictors | Employability | Vitality | Work ability | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 | Step 4 | Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 | Step 4 | Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 | Step 4 |
| Age | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.18 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.22 | −0.04 | −0.02 | 0.02 | −0.02 |
| Education | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.06 | −0.10 | −0.17 | −0.16 | −0.15 | 0.01 | −0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
| Gender | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.30** | 0.25* | 0.24* | 0.27* | 0.08 | 0.05 | −0.03 | 0.05 |
| Model 2 | ||||||||||||
| Job matching activities | 0.07 | 0.04 | −0.03 | −0.02 | −0.04 | −0.02 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.21 | |||
| Career development activities | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.08 | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.24* | 0.13 | 0.18 | |||
| Personal development activities | −0.00 | 0.01 | −0.10 | 0.22 | 0.20 | 0.32* | 0.26* | 0.18 | 0.35** | |||
| Model 3 | ||||||||||||
| Network trust | 0.23 | 0.36 | 0.87 | |||||||||
| Network trust*job matching activities | −0.31 | −0.11 | 0.11 | |||||||||
| Network trust*career development activities | 0.25 | −0.02 | −0.42 | |||||||||
| Network trust*personal development activities | 0.12 | 0.00 | −0.35 | |||||||||
| Model 4 | ||||||||||||
| LMX | 1.51** | −0.90 | −1.38* | |||||||||
| LMX*job matching activities | 0.06 | −0.02 | −0.12 | |||||||||
| LMX*career development activities | −0.28 | −0.01 | 0.34 | |||||||||
| LMX*personal development activities | −0.97 | 0.97 | 1.15* | |||||||||
| F | 0.37 | 0.28 | 1.62 | 1.49 | 4.57 | 3.33 | 2.77 | 2.26 | 0.15 | 2.58 | 3.20 | 2.24 |
| R² | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.16 | 0.23 | 0.30 | 0.26 | 0.01 | 0.18 | 0.32 | 0.25 |
| ΔR² | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.07 |
Notes:*p < 0.05, two-tailed. **p < 0.01; two tailed. ***p < 0.001; Standardized Beta Coefficients are reported. Gender: 0 = male, 1 = female. Education:0 = lower education; 1 = higher education; Activities: 0 = did not participate in any activities from specified category; 1 = participated in at least 1 activity from specified category
Source: Authors’ own work
Table A1.
Participants’ characteristics: gender, education and employment status
| Characteristic | n | % |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 34 | 20.43 |
| Female | 46 | 79.58 |
| Education | ||
| Higher secondary education | 1 | 1.25 |
| Beginner vocational education | 1 | 1.25 |
| Intermediate vocational education | 4 | 5.00 |
| Bachelor’s degree | 42 | 52.50 |
| Post-bachelor education | 2 | 2.50 |
| Master’s degree | 27 | 33.75 |
| Higher than a master’s degree | 3 | 3.75 |
| Employment status | ||
| Employed | 68 | 85.00 |
| Self-employed | 7 | 8.75 |
| Employed and self-employed | 5 | 6.25 |
Notes:n = 80. Participants were on average 43.53 years old (SD = 11.97) and on average participated in network activities 13.13 (SD = 56.06) times
Source: Authors’ own work
Table A2.
Emerging themes and example quotes from qualitative data analysis
| Themes | Example quotes |
|---|---|
| Sustainable employability | |
| Perceived employability | |
| Increased ability to maintain employability | "I myself was in a surplus position a couple years ago […] to avoid that your position was no longer needed, to avoid that you are out of a job. Then I also followed training and it helped me a lot” (Interviewee 1) |
| Development of relevant skills | "The goal was to orient myself better and more broadly on the software and techniques that I |
| Work ability | |
| Increased ability to perform daily work tasks | "Helps me in my daily work” (Interviewee 7) |
| Increased contacts who can help find solutions | "But also a lot of people you can call, whom you can ask questions to, whom you can turn to if you have problems … and that your work just goes easier as well” (Interviewee 3) |
| Basic need satisfaction | |
| Competency | |
| Learn about sector/external environment | "The most important thing that I got out of it, is just a better, better understanding of how the housing corporation sector works” (Interviewee 7) |
| Increased self-knowledge (knowing why) | "On a very personal level, looking at yourself. You always go into something with a certain image of yourself any, and sometimes it is hard to see yourself from a different perspective” (Interviewee 7) |
| Increased skills (knowing how) | "You do gain a lot of knowledge of how others do it, how you could then do it better yourself in your own organization” (Interviewee 3) |
| Relatedness | |
| Ability to meet people | "I always find [name of network] a very nice way to meet each other” (Interviewee 1) |
| Interaction facilitates connections | "If it [the network activity] is interactive, then that does make it easier to engage in conversation during the breaks” (Interviewee 3) |
| Increased knowledge exchanges | "It was just interesting for both of us to sit at the table … sharing experiences because that also offers, yes, more knowledge and that also broadens your knowledge” (Interviewee 7) |
| Increased collaboration to find solutions | "You first explore in depth together. What exactly is the problem? And if we know the problem we can also invent possible solutions together” (Interviewee 1) |
| Relational factors between participants and network stakeholders | |
| Safe and open environment | |
| Direct communication within network | "I notice that within the network, yes, it is fairly direct … that is very nice because then you get the purest information” (Interviewee 3) |
| Openness between network stakeholders | "Only at the moment when you are open to each other can you maximize that [the benefits]. I think that indeed with everyone, that openness has indeed been the most important thing” (Interviewee 7) |
| Role of trainers is to foster safe and open environment | "If someone once gave a, yes, somewhat wrong or stupid answer, then they [the trainer] always come back to make that person feel comfortable, so that the threshold remains as low as |
| Structure of activities influences interaction | "But also how the program is set up…if that [the activity] is more interactive, that also makes it easier to engage in conversation during the break” (Interviewee 3) |
| Role of supervisor in own organization | |
| Developmental support | |
| Supervisor helps subordinates realize their goals | "It is really a matter of thinking along about which direction you could go? Who could you approach? In what way can you do that? So more thinking along or talking along” (Interviewee 3) |
| Evaluate and reflect on network activity | ” very shortly after, we always have an evaluation moment of what did you think of that? How was it for you? Did you learn anything from that?” (Interviewee 5) |
| Relationship quality fosters collaboration and knowledge exchange | ” We also have a very nice collaboration, which makes you, yes, really want to learn a lot from each other” (Interviewee 5) |
| Support for network participation | |
| Supervisor facilitates participation by allotting time | "By indeed offering me the option to participate regarding indeed just giving me the time off when there are training days” (Interviewee 7) |
| Supervisor’s perception of the value of personal development | "She sees the importance of personal development” (Interviewee 6) |
| Supervisor sees improved work ability as a benefit | "That you just gain a lot of knowledge of how others do it, how you yourself could do it better in the organization. So that is actually where his [the supervisor’s] approach is” (Interviewee 7) |
| Supervisor’s awareness of network participation | "My supervisors did not even know, according to me, that I was going to do that. I told them afterwards that I did it” (Interviewee 2) |
Source: Authors’ own work
© Sarah A. Courchesne, Dave Stynen, Judith H. Semeijn and Marjolein C.J. Caniëls. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.