Refining the challenges of the boomerang mobility process

Abstract

Boomerang workers are both a common phenomenon in practice and theoretically interesting, so the fact that the literature studying them is in its infancy is somewhat surprising. At the same time, the relative dearth of studies opens numerous possibilities for research. In “Navigating the boomerang mobility process: A conceptual framework and agenda for future research” Dlouhy, Froidevaux, and Akkermans review published boomerang studies, build a process model that delineates stages of boomeranging, and present an agenda for future research. Their individual-level perspective provides a necessary complement to employer-centric theory and encourages theorizing about psychological mechanisms as well as agency and volition on the part of the mover. Further, their careers' perspective lends itself to thinking about the past and future and the process of becoming a boomerang, which has both proximal and distal antecedents that the authors build into their model.

In addition to presenting a process model with a comprehensive set of items and issues at each stage, Dlouhy et al. pose three challenges that researchers should address as knowledge about boomerang workers develops. Addressing each of these three challenges yields a number of questions that need to be resolved. We, too, find that addressing these challenges presents additional opportunities to enrich understanding of the phenomenon. We believe that further refining these challenges can enable an even richer set of research directions that will advance theoretical knowledge about boomerangs and careers and organizations more generally.

Establishing conceptual clarity is an important aspect of producing a framework like the boomerang mobility process proposed by Dlouhy et al. The authors define boomerangs and propose future research questions intended to further explore the conceptual clarity of boomerangs and the boomerang mobility process. We agree that conceptual clarity is needed yet wonder if the model developed for boomerang career transitions could have broader application to both work and nonwork transitions.

Dlouhy et al. recommend that the boomerang mobility process focuses only on boomerang transitions between organizations (Organization A➔Organization B➔Organization A), consistent with boomerang definitions in other careers research (e.g., Keller et al., 2020; Swider et al., 2017). However, as noted by the authors, research exists that also delineates other life experiences such as self-employment or temporarily leaving the workforce (Shipp et al., 2014; Snyder et al., 2021) as boomerang transitions. This inconsistency in the literature makes the conceptual clarity about what a boomerang career transition is and the applicability of the proposed framework warranting additional discussion.

Since fewer modern careers involve traditional career paths moving from one company to another (Spreitzer et al., 2017), perhaps the boomerang mobility process established by Dlouhy et al. could serve as that guide for future research even in the absence of an Organization B. We note that the definition of the boomerang process provided (“a series of career transitions, starting with the exit transition from the original employer (“Organization A”) and ending with the boomerang transition when that employee returns to the original employer.”) does not preclude nonemployment interim experiences. Theoretically, if an individual experiences the distal and proximal push and pull antecedents proposed to be associated with Organization B, even if in a nonorganization setting, the process may operate similarly. For instance, people leaving an organization to take on family care-giving responsibilities like child-rearing or elder care will likely feel pulls and antipulls toward these responsibilities and push and antipush away from them, which could affect the experience and outcomes of returning to Organization A. It is possible that limiting boomerang career transitions to only those involving working at another organization may unnecessarily restrict the ability to apply the proposed model to guide future research.

A second consideration with regards to conceptual clarity of the boomerang mobility process is a clear classification of what it means to work for Organization A. Typically one might assume it means full-time employment. However, in the modern work environment, employment models are changing with an increase in contract work, remote work, gig work, and part-time work (Ashford et al., 2018; Sullivan & Al Ariss, 2021). This shift has motivated research on how these work arrangements influence individual and team attitudes and behaviors as well as organizational outcomes (Spreitzer et al., 2017). Thus, defining which employee–organization relationships constitute employment at Organization A is theoretically important for the conceptual clarity of the boomerang mobility process and proposed framework.

Understanding the interplay between push and pull factors and the psychological dynamics underlying them is a relevant challenge for boomerangs who may face unique circumstances when compared to other types of career transitions. In addition to the questions considered by the authors regarding this challenge, there is value in exploring the push/pull process itself by considering (1) the role of organizations in the offboarding process, (2) the pull factors associated with destinations, and (3) the pull-back that may exist in the persistence of identity.

Dlouhy et al. identify an important point that the voluntary or involuntary nature of why people leave could be a relevant push factor. In addition to why, how individuals leave matters in that the exit and offboarding process can impact future decisions related to boomeranging (Dachner & Makarius, 2021). Research suggests that how individuals feel when they leave (i.e., turnover affect) influences alumni attitudes and behaviors, which may impact the experience and likelihood of a boomerang returning to an organization (Makarius et al., 2024). Individuals who leave organizations with desirable exit and alumni practices (e.g., offboarding with celebrations, job assistance, and support) are more likely to view that firm positively after they leave, to engage in alumni citizenship behaviors that benefit the organization and to eventually return. Firms have agency in managing how individuals experience this process by both improving exit management and creating alumni programs to maintain relationships with former employees (Dachner & Makarius, 2022).

Relatedly, the destination of where individuals go could be a pull factor and influence the experience and likelihood of a return. Former employers may not look positively upon individuals that go work for competitors, as they are much less likely to partner with those individuals (Carnahan & Somaya, 2013). On the other hand, studies indicate that alumni may aggregate in certain destination firms (Brymer et al., 2014), making the social dynamics in both the pull of leaving and likelihood of coming back more challenging. Just as nonwork destinations are a consideration for conceptual clarity, the psychological mechanisms underlying them as a pull factor may work differently making the individual boomerang experience in that setting interesting and complex.

In addition, pull-back to an origin organization could occur with the persistence of identity. Research has shown that legacy identification occurs such that individuals maintain a feeling of connection with former employers (Eury et al., 2018; Wittman, 2019). Future studies on boomeranging could examine the endurance of identification and how multiple movements over time impacts identification and the likelihood of return. Research on human capital flow indicates the importance of reputation in driving movement (Makarius & Stevens, 2019), so it is possible that firms with stronger reputations are more likely to see identity endure and thus boomeranging. The role of career imprints, or cognitive and behavioral patterns formed during key career moments (Dokko & Jiang, 2024; Higgins, 2006), on identity could also be interesting for future research.

Aligning individual and organizational perspectives on performance certainly has value, and this may be especially true for boomerangs, who are hired on the presumption that they will be able to “hit the ground running” and start performing faster than other new hires (Keller et al., 2020). But as Dlouhy et al. point out, the record on boomerang performance is mixed. Understanding boomerang performance is key to aligning perspectives, since individual performance is of primary importance to both individuals and organizations, and individual capabilities are the basis of human capital resources for a firm (Ployhart et al., 2014; Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011).

One way of getting a better theoretical understanding of boomerang performance is to investigate the unique underlying mechanisms of a boomerang's performance. Boomerangs have firm-specific skills and cognitive schemas that can facilitate transition, as Dlouhy et al say, but what do boomerangs actually do when they re-enter an organization that affects performance? Boomerangs have been shown to be more helpful to incumbents than other new hires (Grohsjean et al., 2024), which may impact their own performance but can also enhance the performance of co-workers and work teams. Boomerangs' helpfulness may also underlie their ability to coordinate with and gain cooperation from other internal work groups, impacting their performance (Keller et al., 2020).

Helpfulness that leads to better coordination and cooperation can be a mechanism that aligns boomerangs and organizational performance, but alignment depends critically on the behavior of incumbents. Integrating newcomers into workgroups is complex (Rink et al., 2013), and when the newcomer is a boomerang, incumbents may behave in unexpected ways. For example, incumbents are not more helpful to boomerangs, despite receiving more help from them (Grohsjean et al., 2024).

Finally, aligning individual and organizational perspectives requires examining the process of transition into an organization, as well as the characteristics of the transition. Socialization is the process of shaping people to fit organizations (Ashforth et al., 2007; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979), and it is not clear how organizations should socialize boomerangs. Treating them like any other newcomer discounts the familiarity they have with the organization, while assuming that they are already socialized ignores other characteristics of the transition, such as the temporal and similarity gaps that widened while the boomerang was away.

The challenges presented by Dlouhy et al. present an opportunity for future research to better understand the cognitive alignment or misalignment between expectations and reality of leaving and returning. Boomeranging may be coming back to the same river, but the flow has likely changed. Recent research on career transitions suggests that career frictions in the task content, social context, and cognitive context are important to understand (Dokko & Jiang, 2024). What individuals remember of the work, people, and perceptions of a place to be versus the reality it is when they reenter will be relevant topics for future studies to explore. Building upon the challenges Dlouhy et al. identified of ensuring conceptual clarity, understanding push and pull dynamics, and aligning individual and organizational perspectives of boomeranging can open new avenues for theoretical rigor and empirical exploration going forward.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.