Marketing and management literature has increasingly incorporated career stage effects into studies of work attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors (e.g., Allen and Meyer 1993; Cohen 1991; Cron and Slocum 1986a, 1986b; Flaherty and Pappas 2002a, 2002b). The contention is that employee job attitudes and behaviors are likely to vary across career stages (Mehta, Anderson, and Dubinsky 2000; Van Maanen and Schein 1977). Several studies have provided support for the direct effects of career stages on a variety of job-related variables, such as job satisfaction (Cron and Slocum 1986b), role ambiguity (Haler 1986), and motivation (Cron, Dubinsky, and Michaels 1988). Other studies have provided evidence supporting the moderating roles of career stages on relationships involving employee work-related variables, such as job longevity-job satisfaction (Katz 1978) and compensation mix-job satisfaction/turnover intention (Flaherty and Pappas 2002a).

In sales, the interest in career stage effects has been growing since the early 1980s (Cron 1984; Cron, Dubinsky, and Michaels 1988; Flaherty and Pappas 2000, 2002b). Although Hackman and Oldham's (1976) job characteristics model (JCM) and its relationships with job satisfaction have been widely studied in various settings, including guest worker salespersons (Bhuian and Menguc 2002), the likely effects of career stages on the preceding relationships are yet to be examined. We attempt to empirically examine the moderator roles of career stages on the JCM-job satisfaction relationships among a unique type of global sales force-guest workers (Askari, Bazzari, and Tyler 1998) in an international setting, Saudi Arabia.

Guest workers are prevalent in the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states--Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Rapid economic expansion over the past three decades has created a severe labor shortage in these states that can only be filled by a huge influx of foreign labor. In fact, the proportion of guest workers to the total labor force ranges from over 50 percent in Saudi Arabia to 84 percent in the United Arab Emirates. The guest workers are drawn mostly from countries such as Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, the Phillipines, Sri Lanka, and oil-poor Arab countries (Shaw et al. 2000). These GCC states also host thousands of foreign companies, subsidiaries, joint ventures and their representatives, agents, and distributors from around the world. According to the Foreign Companies and Their Representatives in Saudi Arabia Yearbook (2000-2001), 372 U.S. companies operate in Saudi Arabia. These foreign companies also have to rely on guest workers for their human resource needs. When these guest workers in Saudi Arabia work for foreign companies, they can also be called third-country workers (Honeycutt, Ford, and Simintiras 2003). Further, guest workers are hired on a contractual basis, which is generally renewed automatically. In this regard, Shaw, Delery, and Abdulla (2003) have reported that the average stay of a guest worker in a Gulf state is over 13 years. Thus, for the average guest worker, an upward movement along the career path is plausible. Interestingly, there is a growing stream of research that has focused on guest workers in the Gulf region for over a decade (Al-Meer 1989; Askari, Bazzari, and Tyler 1998; Baker and Abou Ismail 1993; Bhuian and Abdul-Muhmin 1997; Shaw, Delery, and Abdulla 2003; Shaw et al. 2000). A small number of studies have even explored the JCM's influence on job outcomes among guest workers (Bhuian and Abdul-Muhmin 1997; Bhuian and Menguc 2002). We attempt to further extend this literature by examining career stage effects as the moderator.

BACKGROUND

A career can be defined as the sequence of job-related experiences and attitudes an individual shares over the span of their work life (Hall and Mirvis 1996). This lifelong developmental process generally goes through four stages--namely, exploration (less than 30 years old), establishment (30 to 45 years old), maintenance (over 45 years old), and disengagement (transition from working to retirement) (see Cron 1984; Weeks et al. 1999). As the individual moves from the early career stages toward the later stages, their job focus changes from learning to seeking a higher salary to maintaining the earned position and, finally, to disassociating from the work. Regarding job characteristics, we adopt Hackman and Oldham's (1976) widely used JCM, consisting of job autonomy, variety, identity, and feedback (see Singh 1998). Finally, following Hunt, Chonko, and Wood (1985), we view job satisfaction as the degree to which an individual feels positively or negatively about the intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of one's job.

The relationships between job characteristics and job outcomes, such as job satisfaction, have long been important elements of research and practice in sales (Singh 1998). Recently, this research has more and more incorporated various contingency or moderator factors into the relationships (Singh 1998). However, despite calls in the literature (Flaherty and Pappas 2000, 2002a, 2000b), no study has examined the plausible moderator roles of career stages on job characteristics--job satisfaction relationships. We attempt to specify these relationships with respect to guest worker salespersons next (see Figure 1).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

According to the career theory, during the early career stage, an individual's greatest need is professional developmental support as the individual seeks to identify and build competencies. As the individual becomes seasoned at later career stages, they are likely to become accustomed to doing things their own way and rely less on external support (Keenan and Newton 1986; McEnrue 1989). In addition to organizational support in areas such as product knowledge, territory/customer information, field management procedures, and sales presentation, guest worker salespersons are likely to require additional support to adjust successfully to the foreign environment (Black 1994; Hill and Allaway 1993; Tung 1998) at the early career stage. However, as they move up the career path, they acquire more personal selling skills and overcome the challenges of foreign adjustment. Consequently, at the later career stages, not only does their dependence on organizational support decrease, they are also likely to perceive a high level of organizational intervention as an impediment to their seasoned ways of doing things. The preceding discussion implies that at the early career stage, a high degree of job autonomy, control in scheduling, and freedom in doing the job may not be viewed by guest worker salespersons as helpful for their career growth and are unlikely to lead to high job satisfaction. In contrast, guest worker salespersons are likely to welcome a high level of job autonomy at the later career stages and, in consequence, be satisfied with their jobs. Therefore, we hypothesize:

   H1: Job autonomy will have less influence on job satisfaction
   of guest worker salespersons in the exploration stage
   than in the establishment or the maintenance stage.

As per the career literature, an individual attempts to find the task(s) in which they will be successful during the early career stage (Cron and Slocum 1986b; Feldman and Thomas 1992). For instance, a salesperson has to find out what types of products or customers are suitable for them. Also, a salesperson seeks to know if they are better at prospecting, or account development, or account servicing, and so forth. Consequently, a salesperson needs to have the opportunity to experience a wide range of jobs at the early career stage. However, at the later stages of the career, a salesperson will likely achieve a balance between their abilities and the requirements of the chosen job (Flaherty and Pappas 2002b). They will focus on specializing in fewer job options. Thus, a high job variety may be advantageous for career advancement at the early career stage but not at the later career stages.

The literature on expatriates indicates that the perception of a strong connection between current task activities and longer-term career paths is important for successful expatriate assignments (Feldman and Thomas 1992; Tung 1998). As they actively manage their careers (protean career oriented), guest worker salespersons are also likely to view high job variety as helpful for their career growth during the early stage of the career (Baird and Kram 1983). This perceived career benefit of job variety will possibly enhance their job satisfaction. Conversely, because guest worker salespersons at the later career stages will have a conscious commitment to a particular job area/domain (Flaherty and Pappas 2002a), high job variety may not be perceived favorably and, hence, is unlikely to lead to high job satisfaction. Therefore, the following hypothesis is advanced:

   H2: Job variety will have more influence on job satisfaction
   of guest worker salespersons in the exploration stage
   than in the establishment or the maintenance stage.

Task identity, one of our job characteristics, is defined as the capacity for an individual to complete an entire piece of work and to identify with the results (Singh 1998). As mentioned earlier, the career literature contends that, while at the early career stage, the individual focuses on skill development and learning, at the later career stages the individual's focus shifts to success and achievement (Flaherty and Pappas 2002b; Mehta, Anderson, and Dubinsky 2000). Based on this logic, identification with a job from the beginning to the end may not be critical at the early career stage. However, since achievement and success may require an involvement with the entire sales job, from account development to closing and servicing the account, job identification may be critical at the later career stages. As guest workers salespersons become better adjusted to both the sales job and the foreign country at the later career stages, they are increasingly likely to value task identity, which can be perceived as a sign of success and achievement in the job. At the later career stages, task identity may lead to high job satisfaction for guest worker salespersons. Conversely, a high degree of task identity may not be a strong predictor of job satisfaction of guest worker salespersons at the early career stage. Thus,

   H3: Task identity will have less influence on job satisfaction
   of guest worker salespersons in the exploration stage
   than in the establishment or the maintenance stage.

Job feedback, our final job characteristic, is defined as the individual receiving information on how well they are performing (Sims, Szilagyi, and Keller 1976). As noted above, at the early stage of the career, the individual focuses on acquiring skills. Specifically, a salesperson will seek to learn how to prospect, how to develop call plans, how to make presentations, how to negotiate, how to close a sale, and so forth. Moreover, guest worker salespersons will have to learn how to interact with host country nationals. Thus, during the early career stage, job feedback is likely to be helpful for guest worker salespersons in assessing how well they are learning and acquiring skills.

Kraimer, Wayne, and Jaworski (2001) argue that, initially, expatriates experience high levels of stress because of the challenges they face in adjusting both to new tasks and to the new country. Stress management theories imply that social supports in terms of aid, affect, and affirmation are vital for managing stress (Ashford and Taylor 1990). Aid refers to the information and assistance given to help the salesperson make sense of the work environment, affect is the interpersonal attraction between the mentor and the salesperson, and affirmation relates to reaffirming the salesperson's ability to deal with the stressful situation. At the early career stage, job feedback may be perceived favorably and, hence, is likely to lead to high job satisfaction. On the contrary, guest worker salespersons at the later career stages may not place a great deal of importance on formal job feedback. By this time, these guest workers salespersons will have acquired the necessary skills to perform successfully. From the preceding, although feedback may be an important determinant of job satisfaction for guest worker salespersons at the early career stage, it may be less critical at the later career stages. Therefore, we hypothesize:

   H4: Job feedback will have more influence on job satisfaction
   of guest worker salespersons in the exploration stage
   than in the establishment or the maintenance stage.

RESEARCH METHOD

Sample and Data Collection Procedure

Utilizing both judgmental and snowball sampling techniques, data were collected from various companies located in the cities of Dammam, Khobar, and Dhahran in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia. The lack of a sampling frame and experience in responding to surveys necessitated the use of judgmental approach in Saudi Arabia (Bhuian and Abdul-Muhmin 1997). Three business school professors at King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals in Dhahran helped in identifying the companies. Thirty-five undergraduate students of the business school were employed to collect data. Each student was asked to collect responses from about 30 guest worker salespersons using the drop-off and pickup method. The students started contacting and distributing questionnaires in the beginning of the spring semester. In six weeks, they distributed 700 questionnaires. The students made three callbacks, and 537 questionnaires were retrieved at the end of 12 weeks. After dropping five unusable responses, the response rate was 76 percent (n = 532).

Our respondents are of different cultural backgrounds. Hence, it was important to maintain the equivalence of the concepts and definitions used in our survey. Conceptual equivalence exists when individuals interpret concepts and behaviors similarly across different cultures (Craig and Douglas 1999). One way of maintaining this is to administer the survey in the native languages of the respondents. However, in a study such as ours, in which respondents have different cultural backgrounds, it was not feasible to conduct our survey in the respondents' native languages (i.e., threat to translation equivalence). Following the research tradition in the area (Bhuian and Abdul-Muhmin 1997; Shaw et al. 2000), the questionnaire was administered in English. We chose English because it is the business language in Saudi Arabia, and guest workers are required to be fluent. Further, English serves as the common language for the guest workers who come from different countries with different native languages. Although this survey administration does not fully promise conceptual equivalence across different cultures, the commonality of the English language among respondents provides us with some confidence that conceptual equivalence is not totally violated.

Our data came from a total of 337 companies (35 percent manufacturing, 38 percent services, 27 percent retail). Seventy percent of the companies were larger than 100 full-time employees. Of the respondents, most were young (70 percent were between 20 and 40 years of age), highly educated (81.5 percent had a bachelor's degree or above), and relatively well-off (54 percent made more than $30,000, which is a substantial income for guest worker salespersons relative to their income potentials in their home countries). Almost 24 percent had more than 15 years of sales experience, 47 percent had between 8 and 15 years of experience, and 29 percent had between 1 and 7 years of experience. Regarding the level of responsibility, 31 percent had a single sales territory 31 percent had a sales district, 30 percent had a sales region, and the rest had national-level responsibility. In terms of the number of firms the guest workers worked for, 35 percent worked for one firm, and 65 percent worked for more two or more firms.

To detect likely differences across firms with different size in terms of the demographic characteristics of our respondents, we conducted both P-tests and Scheffe tests. Results revealed statistically significant differences between firms with regard to the respondents' educational level (F = 4.03; p < 0.01), income level (F= 23.17;,0 < 0.001), responsibility level (F = 8.38; 10 < 0.001), and years of experience in sales (F = 3.67; p < 0.01). We did not observe a significant difference across firms in terms of respondents' age (F = 1.89;p = 0.112) and the number of-firms the guest workers worked for (F = 0.99; p - 0.412). In addition, there was a statistically significant difference between firms regarding the activity level (i.e., manufacturing, service, retail) (F = 11.96; p < 0.001).

Measures

We adopted a four-item, five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) from Brown and Peterson (1994) to assess job satisfaction. We employed the job classification index (see Sims, Szilagyi, and Keller 1976) to measure the four dimensions of job characteristics: autonomy (three items), identity (four items), feedback (four items), and variety (four items). Each dimension was measured with a five-point Likert format (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).

Both theoretical and empirical work has long viewed the individual's career stages in conjunction with their life stages. This was due to the assumption that an individual's progress in their career shares similar characteristics with the progress in their personal life (e.g., Hall and Nougaim 1968). More importantly, developments in the individual's personal life influence their career. Consequently, individuals' job-related expectations, attitudes, and behaviors vary at different age levels (Veiga 1973). Hence, it is methodologically plausible to operationalize career stages using the life stage models of careers (e.g., Hall and Nougaim 1968; Slocum and Cron 1985). Following Slocum and Cron (1985), we categorized guest workers into the three career stages: the exploration (early) group (less than 30 years of age); the establishment (middle) group (between 30 and 44 years of age) and the maintenance (late) group (45 years of age and over). Weeks et al. used the same approach to operationalize career stages: "since age can be measured quite accurately it can be argued that this measure has adequate reliability and objectivity when compared to other measures of career stage" (1999, p. 307). Further, the concept of protean career--the orientation of our guest worker salespersons--implies that individuals are active agents in terms of their career management, and a career can traverse multiple organizations. That is, an individual can begin with an organization at any stage of the career. In that sense, lower age is likely to correspond to the early career stage, whereas higher age is likely to match the later career stage.

The preceding variations in the demographic characteristics could potentially influence our dependent variable and distort our findings. To isolate the effects of our independent variables from the potential noise, we incorporated six demographics in our analyses as control variables. The control variables were: firm size (i.e., number of full-time employees) (1: less than 100; 2: 100-249; 3: 250-499; 4: 500-999; 5:1,000 and more); education (1: less than college; 2: bachelor's degree; 3: master's degree; 4: doctorate); income (1: less than $20,000, 2: $20,000-29,999; 3: $30,000-39,999; 4: $40,000-49,999; 5: $50,000-59,999; 6: $60,000-69,999; 7:$70,000 and more); job experience (1:1-7 years; 2:8-15 years; 3: more than 15 years); the number of firms worked for; and the level of responsibility (1: unit territory; 2: district; 3: region; 4: national).

ANALYSES AND RESULTS

Measurement Model

We first estimated confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for each of the three career groups individually, using LISREL 8.3 (Joreskog and Sorbom 1996). Because some constructs violated the rule of normality, we utilized the technique of ERLS (iteratively reweighed generalized least squares). Singh notes, "the ERLS procedure is advantageous because the estimates obtained are less biased than ML (maximum likelihood) estimates in the case of non-normal data" (1993, p. 20).

We used the procedure recommended by Podsakoff et al. (1990) to assess the extent to which common method variance may have affected the results in this study. Following Allen et al. (1999), we tested four alternative models for the three career groups individually: null model (Model 1); common method factor model (Model 2); the trait measurement model (Model 3); and trait and an uncorrelated common method factor model (Model 4). Table 1 shows that, despite a statistically significant chi-square difference between Model 2 and Model 1 for all three groups, Model 2 does not fit the data well. For the exploration group, an insignificant chi-square difference indicates that Model 4 does not fit the data better than Model 3. However, for the establishment and maintenance groups, despite a significant chi-square difference between the two models, the gain in fit was relatively small ([DELTA]NFI = -0.03). We found that common method factor explained 6 percent, 7 percent, and 7 percent of the variance for the exploration, establishment, and maintenance groups, respectively, whereas trait factors explained 43 percent, 42 percent, and 45 percent of the variance for the exploration, establishment, and maintenance groups responding. Nevertheless, we kept the common method factor along with other constructs in our further analysis, multigroup measurement test. Table 2 shows individual CFAs.

It is noteworthy that, in studies such as ours, metric equivalence (i.e., equality of factor structure and loadings) is needed to make comparisons of the inferences about relationships between variables across the three career stages. More explicitly, metric equivalence indicates that scale and scoring procedures are equally familiar to informants across the three career groups, and that the scores obtained across the three career groups have the same meaning and interpretation (cf. Craig and Douglas 1999). Therefore, we employed a multi-group test of the three groups. An unconstrained CFA that allowed parameter estimates to vary across samples showed a good fit of the measurement to the data ([[chi square].sub.(369)]/= 545.1; GFI [goodness-of-fit index] = 0.90; TLI [Tucker-Lewis index] = 0.93; CFI [comparative fit index] = 0.95; RMSEA [root mean square error of approximation] = 0.04). To test the equivalence of the measurement model across the three career groups, we conducted a constrained CFA that allowed the factor loadings to be invariant. The constrained model showed a good fit to the data ([[chi square].sub.(455)] = 595.0; GFI = 0.89; TLI = 0.92; CFI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.04). Compared with the unconstrained model, factor structure was insignificant across samples ([DELTA][[chi square].sub.(86)] = 49.9, ns) (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). We repeated the same analyses for all possible pairs of career groups and observed no significant differences (exploration/establishment: [DELTA][[chi square].sub.(67)] = 11.50; exploration/maintenance: [DELTA][[chi square].sub.(67)] = 9.92; establishment/maintenance: [DELTA][[chi square].sub.(67)] = 14.92).

The convergent validity of the scales was supported in that all the estimated coefficients of all the indicators were significant (t > 2.0) (Gerbing and Anderson 1988) and all the estimates for the average variance extracted (AVE) were equal to or higher than 0.50, except for the scale of job autonomy for the maintenance group and the scales of job feedback and job identity for the exploration group (Bagozzi and Yi 1988). All the tests for discriminant validity were supportive for each career group. Confidence intervals of the correlations for the constructs did not include 1.0 (p < 0.05) (Anderson and Gerbing 1988) and the square of the intercorrelations between two constructs was less than the AVE estimates of the two constructs for all pairs of constructs (Fornell and Larcker 1981). Table 3 shows descriptive statistics and correlations for the constructs.

Structural Model

We computed the structural model for each group to validate the hypothesized model. We also performed a multigroup simultaneous analysis to determine whether the path coefficients were equal across the three career groups (Calantone, Schmidt, and DiBenedetto 1997). We first constrained one path to be equal across the three groups and then freely estimated this path. An insignificant difference in [chi square] between the constrained and unconstrained models with respect to the degrees of freedom would suggest an equal path coefficient across three groups. A significant difference would imply that at least one path coefficient is statistically different among the three. We conducted a paired comparison to detect differences between any two groups.

Table 4 shows that job autonomy was positively and significantly related to job satisfaction for the establishment group and for the maintenance group, but not for the exploration group. A significant chi-square difference ([DELTA][[chi square].sub.(2)] = 8.8, p < 0.05) between the constrained model and unconstrained model suggested that the path coefficient was not equal across the three career groups. The relationship was statistically higher for the maintenance group than for both the exploration group ([DELTA][[chi square].sub.(1)] = 18.1,p < 0.01) and the establishment group ([DELTA][[chi square].sub.(1)] = 7.1, p < 0.05). It was significantly higher for the establishment group than for the exploration group ([DELTA][[chi square].sub.(1)] = 18.8,p < 0.01). Hence, H1 was supported.

Job variety was not significantly related to job satisfaction in any group. Hence, H2 was not supported. However, job identity was positively and statistically related to job satisfaction for all groups. The path coefficient was not equal across the three career groups ([DELTA][[chi square].sub.(2)] = 13.4,p < 0.01). The relationship was statistically higher for the maintenance group than for both the exploration group ([DELTA][[chi square].sub.(2)] = 13.9, p < 0.01) and establishment group ([DELTA][[chi square].sub.(2)] = 12.3, p < 0.01). It was also significantly higher for the establishment group than for the exploration group ([DELTA][[chi square].sub.(2)] = 12.9, p < 0.01). These findings supported H3.

Job feedback was positively and significantly related to job satisfaction for the exploration and establishment group, but not for the maintenance group. The estimated coefficient was not equal across the three career groups ([DELTA][[chi square].sub.(2)] = 8.9,p < 0.05). The relationship was not statistically different between the exploration group and establishment group ([DELTA][[chi square].sub.(1)] = 0.74, ns). However, it was significantly higher for the exploration group ([DELTA][[chi square].sub.(2)] = 4.6, p < 0.05) and the establishment group ([DELTA][[chi square].sub.(2)] = 6.0, p < 0.05) than for the maintenance group. Hence, we found partial support for H4. Finally, annual income was negatively and significantly associated with job satisfaction in the exploration and establishment group. Educational level was positively and significantly associated with job satisfaction in the exploration group. No other significant effects were detected.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Drawing from career and expatriate adjustment theories, we proposed that the influence of JCM on job satisfaction would differ across career stages of guest worker salespersons. In general, our contentions were supported. Specifically, we have found that the strength of the influence of job autonomy on job satisfaction is different at each career stage. Evidently, the relationship is stronger at the later career stages than at the early stage. This finding corroborates the career literature that higher external interventions--in other words, less autonomy--are more critical during the early career development stage than at the later stages (Baird and Kram 1983; Chay and Aryee 1998; Cron 1984). This result also confirms the view in the expatriate adjustment research that organizational support and task help are essential for successful international assignments (Kraimer, Wayne, and Jaworski 2001). This is particularly so for younger expatriates who perceive international assignments as career-enhancing opportunities more strongly than older expatriates (Tung 1998). Hence, managers are well advised to allow more job autonomy (e.g., territory management, sales presentations, account development, and account servicing) to guest worker salespersons at later career stages than at the early career stage.

Contrary to our expectation, we found no relationship between job variety and job satisfaction for any of the three groups of guest worker salespersons. This is inconsistent with most previous research among domestic salespersons. Perhaps this counterintuitive result can be explained by the unique circumstances of guest worker salespersons. Even though job variety is likely to help in their pursuit of career growth, guest worker salespersons may be overwhelmed with the challenges of adjustment to foreign life (Kraimer, Wayne, and Jaworski 2001). Therefore, at all career stages, guest worker salespersons may prefer to handle a limited number of products and customers.

Further, we have demonstrated that job identity has a stronger influence on job satisfaction during the later career stages than at the early career stage among guest worker salespersons. As a consequence, managers may be advised to allow guest worker salespersons at the later career stages to perform a job from the beginning to the end, unhindered by any external interventions. This is an important finding given that the expatriate adjustment literature advocates universal organizational support for expatriate foreign adjustment (Black 1994). According to our finding, providing task support the career stage of the guest worker salesperson needs to be considered.

Finally, as per our hypothesis, job feedback is a stronger determinant of job satisfaction of guest worker salespersons at the early career stage than at later career stages. Thus, managers of expatriate salespersons may be advised to provide a high level of job feedback to salespersons at the early career stage and less to those at later career stages.

Our study has several limitations that deserve future research attention. To our knowledge, this is the first study to focus on the effects of career stages on JCM-job satisfaction relationship among guest worker salespersons. Although guest workers are also expatriates and face similar challenges in foreign countries, they are somewhat different from the traditional expatriates. For instance, guest workers are only accountable to the host country organization, whereas traditional expatriates are accountable to both the host and the parent organizations (Kraimer, Wayne, and Jaworski 2001). A comparison between guest worker salespersons and traditional expatriates is needed before the findings can be applied to traditional expatriates. Also, earlier we indicated that several other potential determinants of job satisfaction and the moderator roles of career stages have been advanced in domestic sales settings, such as job complexity, compensation mix, and strategic business unit (SBU) strategy (Flaherty and Pappas 2002a; Katz 1978). In addition, the expatriate adjustment literature has also addressed the issue of job satisfaction for expatriates. Several individual, organizational, and cultural factors have been identified as potential determinants, such as perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, social support, and psychological contract (Kraimer, Wayne, and Jaworski 2001; Yan, Zhu, and Hall 2002). However, the moderating roles of career stages in these job satisfaction linkages have not been examined in the expatriate adjustment literature. Extending the preceding studies to expatriates or guest worker salespersons with career stages as the moderator will be helpful for theory development in international sales management (Marshall and Michaels 2001).

Further, the literature has defined career stages in a number of ways, including by age, job tenure, occupational tenure, and a multi-item career concerns inventory (Flaherty and Pappas 2002a). Although limited support is provided for a positive correlation between some of the methods, future studies should cross-validate the various methods. Nevertheless, we have provided an additional test, comparing total years of experience to career stages to cross-validate our findings (Appendix A). While the findings of both approaches converge in terms of the autonomy--satisfaction relationship and the identity--satisfaction relationship, we observe a discrepancy between the two approaches in terms of the job variety--job satisfaction relationship and the job feedback--job satisfaction relationship (Appendix B). This further suggests that there is need for more scholarly attention on how to measure career stages and, more important, how to find a common way among different approaches.

Also, we were unable to find guest worker salespersons at the disengagement stage largely because, for guest workers, their retirements coincide with the end of job contract and their subsequent immediate exit from the country. Most early research also could not obtain enough respondents at the disengagement stage because only a small percentage of the workforce are obtainable at any given point in time. Future efforts should be extended to include this stage. Finally, our study points to the importance of regarding the moderator roles of career stages in studies of salesperson job satisfaction and one of its critical precursors, job characteristics.

APPENDIX A

Cross-Validation

The career stage literature has yet to reach consensus on a methodology to operationalize career stages (Flaherty and Pappas 2002b). Nevertheless, we operationalized career stages using the life stage models of careers (i.e., age) as suggested by previous researchers (e.g., Hall and Nougaim 1968; Slocum and Cron 1985; Weeks et al. 1999). However, some scholars (e.g., Mehta, Anderson, and Dubinsky 2000; Slocum and Cron 1985) suggest that career stages could also be operationalized in terms of the number of years of experience in sales: early (1-7 years), middle (8-15 years), and late (more than 15 years). We tested our hypotheses using these career stages to cross-validate our initial findings. We first categorized our sample into three stages: early (n = 153), middle (n = 251), and late (n = 128). We employed all the methodological steps necessary to estimate the measurement model and the structural model at both individual group-level and multigroup-level as we analyzed our data when employing "age" to specify career stages. We also entered the demographics previously mentioned (including age) into the model as control variables.

Appendix B shows that job autonomy was positively and significantly related to job satisfaction for all groups. A significant chi-square difference ([DELTA] [[chi square].sub.(2)] = 9.4, p < 0.05) between the constrained model and unconstrained model suggested that the path coefficient was not equal across the three career groups. The relationship was statistically less significant for the early group than for both the middle group ([DELTA] [[chi square].sub.(1)] = 9.7, p < 0.01) and late group ([DELTA] [[chi square].sub.(1)] = 8.7, p < 0.01), but higher for the middle group than for the late group ([DELTA] [[chi square].sub.(1)] = 3.7, p < 0.10). Hence, H1 was supported.

Job variety was positively and statistically related to job satisfaction for the early group, but not for the middle and the late group. The path coefficient was not equal across the three career groups ([DELTA] [[chi square].sub.(2)] = 13.2, p < 0.01). The relationship was statistically higher for the early group than for both the middle group ([DELTA] [[chi square].sub.(1)] = 11.6, p < 0.01) and the late group ([DELTA] [[chi square].sub.(1)] = 10.3, p < 0.01). In addition, the same relationship was not significantly different between the middle and the late group. These findings supported H3.

Job identity was significantly related to job satisfaction for the middle and the late group, but not for the early group. The path coefficient was not equal across the three career groups ([DELTA] [[chi square].sub.(2)] = 11.3, p < 0.05). The autonomy--satisfaction relationship was statistically less for the early group than for the middle group ([DELTA] [[chi square].sub.(1) = 19.9,p < 0.01) and for the late group ([DELTA] [[chi square].sub.(1)] = 20.1, p < 0.01). There was no statistical difference between the middle group and the late group. Hence, H3 was supported. Job feedback was not significantly related to job satisfaction for any group. Hence, H4 was not supported.

In addition, we found that age was positively and significantly related to job satisfaction for the late group, whereas annual income was negatively and significantly related to job satisfaction for the early group. No other significant associations were detected.

APPENDIX B
Structural Model Estimates (Dependent Variable = Job Satisfaction)

Model Fit                Early   Middle   Late      Multigroup

[chi square] (df = 222)  435.10  439.60  432.90  1,312 (df = 666)
GFI                        0.89    0.91    0.90        0.90
NFI                        0.80    0.87    0.84        0.85
TLI                        0.91    0.93    0.94        0.92
CFI                        0.94    0.95    0.96        0.94
RMSEA                      0.05    0.06    0.05        0.04

                              Early              Middle

Variables                  b      t-value      b      t-value

Age                      -0.025  -0.318       0.040   0.661
Educational Level         0.126   1.579       0.061   0.980
Firm Size                 0.154   1.838      -0.023  -0.367
Annual Income            -0.351  -4.274 ***  -0.103  -1.623
Responsibility Level      0.029   0.365      -0.041  -0.704
Number of Firms Worked    0.073   0.909       0.049   0.833
Autonomy                  0.176   2.105 *     0.235   3.776 ***
Variety                   0.176   2.188 *    -0.014  -0.239
Identity                  0.117   1.503       0.358   5.648 ***
Feedback                  0.109   1.388       0.076   1.169
[R.sup.2]                 0.25                0.27

                               Late

Variables                  b      t-value

Age                       0.217   2.513 **
Educational Level        -0.082  -0.980
Firm Size                 0.085   0.965
Annual Income            -0.103  -1.157
Responsibility Level      0.091   1.074
Number of Firms Worked   -0.044   0.504
Autonomy                  0.246   2.667 **
Variety                   0.076   0.883
Identity                 -0.357   4.112 ***
Feedback                 -0.024  -0.252
[R.sup.2]                 0.29

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 (two-tailed test).

Table 1
Individual Group Analyses

                            [chi square]   df      [DELTA]      GFI
                                                 [chi square]
Exploration Group
  1. Null Model               1,419.2      180        --        0.49
  2. Single Method Factor       774.8      152     644.4 **     0.51
  3. Measurement Model          271.9      142     502.9 **     0.88
  4. Measurement Model +
     Method Factor              247.5      123      24.4 (ns)   0.89
Establishment Group
  1. Null Model               1,578.4      180        --        0.42
  2. Single Method Factor       798.3      152     780.1 **     0.54
  3. Measurement Model          265.4      142     532.9 **     0.93
  4. Measurement Model +
     Method Factor              157.2      123     108.2 *      0.95
Maintenance Group
  1. Null Model               1,498.6      180        --        0.43
  2. Single Method Factor       802.4      152     696.2 **     0.57
  3. Measurement Model          278.5      142     523.9 **     0.89
  4. Measurement Model +
     Method Factor              209.5      123      69.0 *      0.91

                            RMSEA   NFI    CFI    TLI

Exploration Group
  1. Null Model             0.18     --     --     --
  2. Single Method Factor   0.13    0.46   0.53   0.51
  3. Measurement Model      0.06    0.81   0.92   0.90
  4. Measurement Model +
     Method Factor          0.06    0.82   0.93   0.92
Establishment Group
  1. Null Model             0.24     --     --     --
  2. Single Method Factor   0.11    0.49   0.55   0.53
  3. Measurement Model      0.04    0.88   0.97   0.96
  4. Measurement Model +
     Method Factor          0.03    0.91   0.98   0.97
Maintenance Group
  1. Null Model             0.22     --     --     --
  2. Single Method Factor   0.10    0.51   0.57   0.56
  3. Measurement Model      0.06    0.85   0.95   0.93
  4. Measurement Model +
     Method Factor          0.06    0.88   0.96   0.95

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

Table 2
Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Constructs and items                      Exploration    Establishment

Autonomy ([alpha]/CR/AVE) (1)            0.73/0.74/0.50  0.76/0.77/0.54
  1. I am often left on my own to do my
     own jobs.                              0.63            0.60
  2. I have enough freedom to do what I
     want on my job.                        0.85            0.89
  3. My job has enough opportunity for
     independent thought and action.        0.61 (2)        0.68 (2)
Variety ([alpha]/CR/AVE) (1)             0.81/0.82/0.61  0.80/0.81/0.59
  1. There is enough variety in my job.     0.68 (2)        0.75 (2)
  2. My duties are repetitious.             0.85            0.74
  3. The tasks I perform in a typical
     work day are similar.                  0.80            0.82
  4. My job provides me with
     opportunities to do different
     things.                                0.83            0.85
Identity ([alpha]/CR/AVE) (1)            0.66/0.67/0.40  0.76/0.77/0.52
  1. I often complete all aspects of
     jobs that I started.                   0.74            0.74
  2. I often handle work from beginning
     to end.                                0.50            0.74
  3. My job has enough opportunity to       0.65 (2)        0.69 (2)
     complete the work I start.
  4. My job allows me to do a job from
     beginning to end.                      0.93            0.71
Feedback ([alpha]/CR/AVE) (1)            0.73/0.74/0.49  0.75/0.76/0.52
  1. I receive enough information from
     my supervisor about my job
     performance.                           0.77 (2)        0.80 (2)
  2. I receive enough feedback from my
     supervisor on how well I am doing.     0.87            0.87
  3. There is enough opportunity in my
     job to find out on how I am doing.     0.61            0.61
  4. I know how well I am performing on
     my job.                                0.70            0.73
Job Satisfaction ([alpha]/CR/AVE) (1)    0.74/0.75/0.51  0.75/0.76/0.52
  1. This job is worse than most. (r)       0.56 (2)        0.54 (2)
  2. My job is very worthwhile.             0.72            0.70
  3. My job is better than most.            0.83            0.88
  4. I sometimes feel this job is a
     waste of time. (r)                     0.39            0.52

Constructs and items                      Maintenance

Autonomy ([alpha]/CR/AVE) (1)            0.73/0.74/0.49
  1. I am often left on my own to do my
     own jobs.                              0.59
  2. I have enough freedom to do what I
     want on my job.                        0.88
  3. My job has enough opportunity for      0.60 (2)
     independent thought and action.
Variety ([alpha]/CR/AVE) (1)             0.79/0.80/0.58
  1. There is enough variety in my job.     0.63 (2)
  2. My duties are repetitious.             0.83
  3. The tasks I perform in a typical
     work day are similar.                  0.81
  4. My job provides me with
     opportunities to do different
     things.                                0.80
Identity ([alpha]/CR/AVE) (1)            0.77/0.78/0.54
  1. I often complete all aspects of
     jobs that I started.                   0.63
  2. I often handle work from beginning
     to end.                                0.69
  3. My job has enough opportunity to       0.87 (2)
     complete the work I start.
  4. My job allows me to do a job from
     beginning to end.                      0.82
Feedback ([alpha]/CR/AVE) (1)            0.73/0.74/0.50
  1. I receive enough information from
     my supervisor about my job
     performance.                           0.84 (2)
  2. I receive enough feedback from my
     supervisor on how well I am doing.     0.90
  3. There is enough opportunity in my
     job to find out on how I am doing.     0.51
  4. I know how well I am performing on
     my job.                                0.73
Job Satisfaction ([alpha]/CR/AVE) (1)    0.76/0.77/0.53
  1. This job is worse than most. (r)       0.62 (2)
  2. My job is very worthwhile.             0.68
  3. My job is better than most.            0.86
  4. I sometimes feel this job is a
     waste of time. (r)                     0.72

(1) ([alpha]/CR/AVE) = (Cronbach's alpha/composite reliability/average
variance extracted); (2) item was fixed 1 to set the scale; all factor
loadings are significant at the p < 0.01 level; (r) are reverse-scored
items.

Table 3
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations

Exploration (N = 151)         1      2      3      4      5      6
 1. Firm Size
 2. Education               -0.07
 3. Income                  0.30   0.03
 4. Job Experience          0.01   -0.01  -0.08
 5. Number of Firms Worked  -0.09  0.05   -0.18  0.22
 6. Responsibility Level    0.26   -0.21  0.11   -0.04  -0.10
 7. Autonomy                -0.05  0.09   0.07   0.10   0.04   0.20
 8. Variety                 -0.08  -0.13  -0.14  0.12   0.11   0.16
 9. Feedback                0.09   0.01   0.01   0.13   -0.01  0.03
10. Identity                0.06   -0.03  -0.08  0.15   0.09   0.15
11. Job Satisfaction        0.07   0.13   -0.21  0.06   0.05   0.09
Mean                        3.72   1.92   2.55   1.31   1.67   3.10
Standard Deviation          1.27   0.56   1.57   0.60   0.94   0.84

Establishment (N = 226)       1      2      3      4      5      6

 1. Firm Size
 2. Education               0.23
 3. Income                  0.40   0.27
 4. Job Experience          0.13   -0.07  0.13
 5. Number of Firms Worked  -0.22  -0.04  -0.29  -0.03
 6. Responsibility Level    0.25   0.10   0.05   -0.03  -0.12
 7. Autonomy                0.01   -0.09  -0.11  -0.14  0.04   0.04
 8. Variety                 -0.07  -0.30  -0.20  -0.13  0.09   0.13
 9. Feedback                0.07   -0.10  0.18   0.03   0.05   -0.07
10. Identity                0.05   -0.02  0.18   -0.04  0.03   0.11
11. Job Satisfaction        -0.04  -0.01  -0.20  -0.13  0.13   0.02
Mean                        3.68   2.03   3.22   2.37   2.32   2.89
Standard Deviation          1.42   0.65   1.79   0.90   1.25   0.95

Maintenance (N = 155)         1      2      3      4      5      6

 1. Firm Size
 2. Education               0.13
 3. Income                  0.32   0.31
 4. Job Experience          0.26   -0.10  0.13
 5. Number of Firms Worked  0.04   -0.01  -0.08  0.21
 6. Responsibility Level    0.12   -0.15  -0.09  -0.12  0.13
 7. Autonomy                -0.01  -0.21  -0.06  -0.01  -0.05  0.08
 8. Variety                 -0.09  -0.21  -0.18  -0.02  -0.13  0.11
 9. Feedback                0.14   -0.18  0.07   0.05   0.05   -0.17
10. Identity                0.01   0.09   0.14   0.07   0.02   0.01
11. Job Satisfaction        0.05   -0.14  0.02   0.06   0.04   0.09
Mean                        3.43   2.19   3.50   3.91   3.28   2.60
Standard Deviation          1.45   1.00   2.03   1.20   1.78   1.14

Exploration (N = 151)         7      8      9     10     11
 1. Firm Size
 2. Education
 3. Income
 4. Job Experience
 5. Number of Firms Worked
 6. Responsibility Level
 7. Autonomy
 8. Variety                 0.24
 9. Feedback                0.24   0.10
10. Identity                0.29   0.22   0.26
11. Job Satisfaction        0.24   0.18   0.23   0.31
Mean                        2.55   2.85   2.16   2.49   2.59
Standard Deviation          0.85   0.77   0.75   0.85   0.83

Establishment (N = 226)       7      8      9     10     11

 1. Firm Size
 2. Education
 3. Income
 4. Job Experience
 5. Number of Firms Worked
 6. Responsibility Level
 7. Autonomy
 8. Variety                 0.24
 9. Feedback                0.32   0.02
10. Identity                0.24   0.17   0.43
11. Job Satisfaction        0.29   0.17   0.24   0.33
Mean                        2.32   2.73   1.98   2.41   2.44
Standard Deviation          0.82   0.70   0.69   0.83   0.78

Maintenance (N = 155)         7      8      9     10     11

 1. Firm Size
 2. Education
 3. Income
 4. Job Experience
 5. Number of Firms Worked
 6. Responsibility Level
 7. Autonomy
 8. Variety                 0.25
 9. Feedback                0.41   0.18
10. Identity                0.17   0.12   0.29
11. Job Satisfaction        0.42   0.19   0.19   0.46
Mean                        2.03   2.73   1.89   2.33   2.49
Standard Deviation          0.79   0.71   0.73   0.77   0.82

Note: Correlations above 0.11 are significant at the p < 0.05 level
(two-tailed test).

Table 4
Structural Model Estimates (Dependent Variable = Job Satisfaction)

Model Fit                Exploration  Establishment   Maintenance

[chi square] (df = 222)    321.90        311.50         301.90
GFI                          0.88          0.92           0.89
NFI                          0.79          0.86           0.83
TLI                          0.90          0.94           0.93
CFI                          0.92          0.96           0.95
RMSEA                        0.06          0.05           0.05

Model Fit                   Multigroup

[chi square] (df = 222)  935.0 (df = 666)
GFI                            0.90
NFI                            0.83
TLI                            0.93
CFI                            0.95
RMSEA                          0.04

                            Exploration        Establishment

Variables                  b      t-value      b      t-value

Educational Level         0.164   2.107 *     0.104   1.553
Firm Size                 0.132   1.592       0.052   0.753
Annual Income            -0.250  -3.087 **   -0.273  -3.784 **
Responsibility Level      0.044   0.528      -0.021  -0.333
Experience               -0.019  -0.247      -0.057  -0.922
Number of Firms Worked   -0.018  -0.236       0.059   0.934
Autonomy                  0.133   1.587       0.136   2.043 *
Variety                   0.089   1.104       0.058   0.863
Identity                  0.186   2.255 *     0.274   3.986 ***
Feedback                  0.139   1.651 *     0.144   1.977 *
[R.sup.2]                 0.22                0.24

                           Maintenance

Variables                  b      t-value

Educational Level        -0.120  -1.594
Firm Size                -0.018  -0.246
Annual Income             0.049   0.645
Responsibility Level      0.038   0.526
Experience                0.010   0.145
Number of Firms Worked    0.074   1.063
Autonomy                  0.361   4.797 ***
Variety                   0.058   0.805
Identity                  0.433   6.056 ***
Feedback                 -0.113  -1.428
[R.sup.2]                 0.37

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 (two-tailed test).

REFERENCES

Allen, Natalie J., and John P. Meyer (1993), "Organizational Commitment: Evidence of Career Stage Effects?" Journal of Business Research, 26 (1), 49-61.

Allen, T.D., J.E.A. Russell, M.L. Poteet, and G.H. Dobbins (1999), Learning and Development Factors Related to Perceptions of Job Content and Hierarchical Plateauing, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 (7), 1113-1137.

Al-Meer, A.R.A. (1989), "Organizational Commitment: A Comparison of Westerners, Asians, and Saudis," International Studies of Management and Organization, 19 (2), 74-84.

Anderson, J.C., and D.W. Gerbing (1988), "Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach," Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411-423.

Ashford, S.J., and S.M. Taylor (1990), "Adaptation to Work Transitions: An Integrative Approach," in Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, vol. 8, G.R. Ferris and K.M. Rowland, eds., Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1-39.

Askari, H., M. Bazzari, and W. Tyler (1998), "Policies and Economic Potential in the Countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council," in Economic challenge facing Middle Eastern and North African Countries, N. Shafik, ed., New York: St. Martin's Press, 225-255.

Bagozzi, R.P., and Y. Yi (1988), "On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1), 74-94.

Baird, L., and K. Kram (1983), "Career Dynamics: Managing the Superior/Subordinate Relationship," Organizational Dynamics, 11 (3), 46-64.

Baker, M.J., and F. Abou-Ismail (1993), "Organizational Buying Behavior in the Gulf," International Marketing Review, 10 (6), 42-60.

Bhuian, Shahid N., and A.G. Abdul-Muhmin (1997), "Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment Among 'Guest-Worker' Salesforces: The Case of Saudi Arabia," Journal of Global Marketing, 10 (3), 27-44.

--, and Bulent Menguc (2002), "An Extension and Evaluation of Job Characteristics, Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction in an Expatriate, Guest Worker, Sales Setting," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22, 1 (Winter), 1-11.

Black, J.S. (1994), "O Kaerinasai: Factors Related to Japanese Repatriation Adjustment," Human Relations, 47 (3), 1489-1503.

Brown, Steven P., and Robert A. Peterson (1994), "The Effect of Effort on Sales Performance and Job Satisfaction," Journal of Marketing, 58 (2), 70-80.

Calantone, R., J.B. Schmidt, and Anthony C. Di Benedetto (1997), "New Product Activities and Performance: The Moderating Role of Environmental Hostility," Journal o/c Product Innovation Management, 14, 3 (May), 179-189.

Chay, Yue-Wah, and Samuel Aryee (1999), "Potential Moderating Influence of Career Growth Opportunities on Careerist Orientation and Work Attitudes: Evidence of the Protean Career Era in Singapore," Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 (5), 613-623.

Cohen, Aaron (1991), "Career Stage as a Moderator of the Relationships Between Organizational Commitment and Its Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis," Journal of Organizational Psychology, 64 (3), 253-268.

Craig, C.S., and S.P. Douglas (1999), International Marketing Research; Concepts and Methods, 2d edition, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Cron, W.L. (1984), "Industrial Salesperson Development: A Career Stages Perspective," Journal of Marketing, 48 (4), 41-52.

--, and J.W. Slocum, Jr. (1986a), "Career-Stages Approach to Managing the Sales Force," Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 1 (1), 51-60.

--, and -- (1986b), "The Influence of Career Stages on Salesperson's Job Attitudes, Work Perceptions, and Performance," Journal of Marketing Research, 23 (2), 119-129.

--, Alan J. Dubinsky, and Ronald E. Michaels (1988), "The Influence of Career Stages on Components of Salesperson Motivation," Journal of Marketing, 52 (January), 78-92.

Feldman, D.C., and David C. Thomas (1992), "Career Management Issues Facing Expatriates," Journal of International Business Studies, second quarter (2), 271-293.

Flaherty, Karen E., and James M. Pappas (2000), "The Role of Trust in Salesperson-Sales Manager Relationships," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 20, 4 (Fall), 271-279.

--, and -- (2002a), "The Influence of Career Stage on Job Attitude: Toward a Contingency Perspective," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 22 (3), 1-16.

--, and -- (2002b), "Using Career Stage Theory to Predict Turnover Intentions Among Salespeople," Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10 (3), 48-57.

Foreign Companies and Their Representatives in Saudi Arabia Yearbook (2000-1), London: Business Monitor International.

Fornell, C., and D.F. Larcker (1981), "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error," Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (November), 39-50.

Gerbing, D.W., and J.C. Anderson (1988), "An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment," Journal of Marketing Research, 20 (May), 186-192.

Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R. Oldham (1976), "Motivation Through the Design of Work: Test of a Theory," Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 16 (August), 250-279.

Haler, J.C. (1986), "An Empirical Investigation of the Salesperson's Career Stage Perspective," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 6, 3 (November), 1-7.

Hall, D.T., and P. Mirvis (1996), "The New Protean Career: Psychological Success and the Path with a Heart," in D.T. Hall, ed., The Career Is Dead, Long Live the Career, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 15-45.

--, and K. Nougaim (1968), "An Examination of Maslow's Need Hierarchy in an Organizational Setting," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3 (February), 12-35.

Hill, John S., and Arthur W. Allaway (1993), "How U.S.-Based Companies Manage Sales in Foreign Countries," Industrial Marketing Management, 22 (1), 7-16.

Honeycutt, Earl D., John B. Ford, and Antonis C. Simintiras (2003), Sales Management: A Global Perspective, London: Routedge Taylor & Francis.

Hunt, S.D., L.B. Chonko, and V.R. Wood (1985), "Organizational Commitment and Marketing," Journal of Marketing, 49 (1), 112-126.

Joreskog, K.G., and D. Sorbom (1996), LISREL 8: User's Reference Guide, Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Katz, Ralph (1978), "Job Longevity as a Situational Factor in Job Satisfaction," Administrative Science Quarterly, 23 (2), 204-223.

Keenan, A., and T.J. Newton (1986), "Work Aspirations and Experiences of Young Graduate Engineers," Journal of Management Studies, 23 (2), 224-237.

Kraimer, M.L., S.J. Wayne, and R.A. Jaworski (2001), "Sources of Support and Expatriate Performance: The Mediating Role of Expatriate," Personnel Psychology, 54 (1), 71-99.

Marshall, Greg W., and Ronald E. Michaels (2001), "Research in Selling and Sales Management in the Next Millennium: An Agenda from the AMA Faculty Consortium," Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 21, 1 (Winter), 15-17.

McEnrue, M. (1989), "Self-Development as a Career Management Strategy," Journal of Vocational Behavior, 34 (1), 57-68.

Mehta, Rajiv, Rolph E. Anderson, and Alan J. Dubinsky (2000), "The Perceived Importance of Sales Managers' Rewards: A Career Stage Perspective," Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 15 (7), 507-524.

Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, R.H. Moorman, and R. Fetter (1990), "Transformational Leader Behaviors and Their Effects on Followers' Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment," Leadership Quarterly, 1 (Summer), 107-142.

Shaw, Jason D., John E. Delery, and Mohamed Hussain Ali Abdulla (2003), "Organizational Commitment and Performance Among Guest Workers and Citizens of an Arab Country," Journal of Business Research, 56 (12), 1021-1030.

--, Michelle K. Dully, Mohamed Hussain Ali Abdulla, and Romila Singh (2000), "The Moderating Role of Positive Affectivity: Empirical Evidence from Bank Employees in the United Arab Emirates," Journal of Management, 26 (1), 139-154.

Sims, H.P., A.D. Szilagyi, and R.I. Keller (1976), "Measurement of Job Characteristics, "Academy of Management Journal, 21 (2), 123-128.

Singh, J. (1993), "Boundary Role Ambiguity: Facts, Determinants, and Impacts," Journal of Marketing, 57 (2), 11-31.

-- (1998), "Striking a Balance in Boundary-Spanning Positions: An Investigation of Some Unconventional Influences of Role Stressors and Job Characteristics on Job Outcomes of Salesperson," Journal of Marketing, 62 (3), 69-86.

Slocum, J.W., and W.L. Cron (1985), "Job Attitudes and Performance During Three Career Stages," Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26 (April), 126-145.

Tung, Rosalie L. (1998), "American Expatriates Abroad: From Neophytes to Cosmopolitans," Journal of World Business, 33 (2), 125-144.

Van Maanen, J., and E. Schein (1977), "Improving the Quality of Work Life: Career Development," in Improving Life in Organizations, J.R. Hackman and J.L. Suttle (eds.), Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear, 30-95.

Veiga, J.F. (1973), "The Mobile Manager at Mid-Career," Harvard Business Review, 51 (1), 115-119.

Weeks, W.A., C.W. Moore, J.A. McKinney, and J.G. Longenecker (1999), "The Effects of Gender and Career Stage on Ethical Judgment," Journal of Business Ethics, 20 (4), 301-313.

Yan, Aimin, Guorong Zhu, and Douglas T. Hall (2002), "International Assignments for Career Building: A Model of Agency Relationships and Psychological Contracts," Academy of Management Review, 27 (3), 373-391.

Bulent Menguc (Ph.D., Marmara University), Associate Professor of Marketing, Faculty of Business, Department of Marketing, Brock University, bmenguc@brocku.ca.

Shahid N. Bhuian (Ph.D., Texas Tech University), Associate Professor of Marketing, College of Administration and Business, Department of Marketing and Analysis, Louisiana Tech University, sbhuian@cab.latech.edu.