This article was downloaded by: [University of East London]On: 27 March 2015, At: 11:46Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The International Journal of HumanResource ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

The organizational career: not dead butin need of redefinitionMarilyn Clarke aa Business School, University of Adelaide , Adelaide , SouthAustraliaPublished online: 16 Jul 2012.

To cite this article: Marilyn Clarke (2013) The organizational career: not dead but in need ofredefinition, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24:4, 684-703, DOI:10.1080/09585192.2012.697475

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.697475

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (theContent) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The organizational career: not dead but in need of redefinition

Marilyn Clarke*

Business School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia

The organizational career has been portrayed as increasingly irrelevant in a worldwhere organizations are either unwilling or unable to offer job security, and whereindividuals are seeking greater independence and flexibility with regard to careerdevelopment. In theory, new models of career, such as boundaryless or protean career,offer a better fit for both individuals and organizations. This paper argues, however,that not only does the organizational career still exist, but it is also still relevant anddesirable. Rather than simply discarding it there is much to be learned from exploringhow it has evolved and then redefining it to meet the needs of contemporaryorganizations.

Keywords: boundaryless career; career management; new organizational career;organizational career; protean career

Introduction

Much has beenwritten about the decline of the organizational career. In 1996Hall declared:

The (organizational) career is dead: Long live the (protean) career. But it may be that, as in

Mark Twains case, rumours of the death have been greatly exaggerated. Hall himself has

recently stated: We were wrong: the organizational career is alive and well (Hall and Las

Heras 2009, p. 182). In the meantime, however, it seems that interest in organizational

careers has all but disappeared, being replaced by a sudden fashion for flexible, adaptive

career forms, such as the boundaryless career (Arthur andRousseau 1996a;Arthur,Khapova

and Wilderom 2005), protean career (Hall 1996a; Briscoe, Hall and Frautschy De Muth

2006), post-corporate career (Peiperl and Baruch 1997) and kaleidoscope career (Mainiero

and Sullivan 2005). If the organizational career is indeed still alive and well, why have

researchers allowed it to disappear from their radar for so long? What can be done now to

redefine it and to build it into future research agendas? (Hall 1976).

The aim of this paper is to examine the organizational career with a view to identifying

its current status and value as a valid and alternative career form. It begins by outlining the

history of the organizational career to examine what value it has provided and may still

provide for career and management studies. It then reviews the recent careers literature

searching for evidence that the organizational career is in fact still alive, and if so to

determine its current status. Further evidence is provided through findings froman empirical

study into managers careers, which suggests that many of todays managers continue to

enjoy, and to prefer, long periods where their careers are unambiguously organizational,

though not always in themode suggested by early organizational career theorists. The paper

concludes by proposing amodel referred to as the neworganizational career that combines

ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online

q 2013 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.697475

http://www.tandfonline.com

*Email: marilyn.clarke@adelaide.edu.au

The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Vol. 24, No. 4, February 2013, 684703

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

characteristics of the traditional organization career, the boundaryless career and the

protean career.

Theory and research on organizational careers: a brief history

The notion of the organizational career was implicit in Webers (1947) conceptualization

of the ideal bureaucracy with its well-defined hierarchy of authority and selection and

promotion based on technical competence. Similarly, Whytes (1956) concept of the

organization man reflected an organizational career in which the person not only worked

for the organization but also belonged to it. Organizational careers became more explicit in

the 1970s with the work of writers such as Schein (1971, 1978) and Hall (1976). The

supposed organizational career was associated not only with long-term organizational

membership and security, but also with what Kanter (1989, p. 305) described as the logic

of advancement as career-minded employees moved up the ladder through a sequence of

well-defined positions in the organizations hierarchy. In this context career progress was

supported by the organization through training, development and career management.

Career success was easily and objectively evaluated by the rewards and status markers

associated with that climb (Kanter 1989).

Whether the organizational career model ever existed in its true form is open to debate,

but conceptually it dominated business-school thinking and academic literature until the

early 1980s when in response to globalization, competition and economic conditions

organizational downsizing and restructuring apparently led to mass layoffs and the

flattening of traditional hierarchies; outsourcing meant that long-term careers were

replaced with a series of contracted projects. Suddenly, it seemed that organizational

careers were no longer in fashion and no longer relevant.

By the late 1990s two streams of thought had emerged in the careers research literature.

The first stream was characterized by a robust debate concerning what form careers had

taken before the restructurings of the 1980s, what they had become post-1980s and what

they could be expected to look like in the future (Hall 1996a). Central to this debate was the

issue of whether or not career jobs, also referred to by Capelli (1999) as good jobs, were

headed for extinction (Jacoby 1999). There was a growing belief that the traditional

employment relationship, with its promise of employment security and employer managed

career development, was being replaced by an employability doctrine in which

responsibility for careers was largely transferred from the employer to the employee

(Capelli 1999, p. 154).

The second stream of thought was based on the taken for granted assumption that

traditional organizational style careers were rapidly becoming obsolete and that new

boundaryless forms of career were emerging to more accurately reflect the current state of

organizational life (Arthur and Rousseau 1996a). This change in thinking required a new

way of looking at, and defining career. Instead of seeing career as a course of professional

advancement . . . restricted to occupations with formal hierarchical progression careers

were now defined as the unfolding sequence of any persons work experiences over time

(Arthur and Rousseau 1996b, pp. 2930). Movement between jobs, validation agents and

networks external to the organization became the basis for these new career forms which, it

was thought, increasingly characterized managerial and professional work. Careers also

began to incorporate work-related and other relevant experiences, both inside and outside

organizations (Sullivan and Baruch 2009, p. 1543), not just organizationally specific

experience.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 685

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

A feature of both streams in the literature was the use of the term traditional career as

a synonym for organizational career, with the implication that at some time in the past

organizational careers had been the norm but that now they were becoming obsolete

(Baruch 2006, p. 129). The focus in the academic literature shifted to more flexible

individual models (Baruch and Peiperl 2000, p. 347) reflecting employment relationships

defined in many cases by less loyalty, greater mobility, and less certainty (Briscoe and

Hall 2006, p. 5). A key differentiator was that rather than taking place in one or two roles

in one or two organizations these new careers involved varied experiences across jobs,

industries and organizations (Goffee and Jones 2000; Peiperl, Arthur, Goffee and Morris

2000).

The boundaryless career was originally defined as one that goes beyond the boundaries

of a single employer, and where the individual is independent of organizational career

arrangements (Arthur and Rousseau 1996a). This was later redefined to include both

physical and psychological mobility (Sullivan and Arthur 2006), although the focus in

much of the literature continues to be on physical movement. The protean career is

described as one where the individual reshapes and repackages knowledge, skills and

abilities to fit a changing work context, seeks to maintain employability, and values

flexibility, continuous learning and intrinsic rewards (Sullivan and Baruch 2009, p. 1544).

Briscoe and Hall (2006) added a further two dimensions: values driven and self-directed.

Even though a protean career could occur within an organization the assumption in much

of the literature is that it involves crossing organizational boundaries as part of the process

of learning and reshaping.

To a large extent these new models were predicated on two underlying assumptions:

first, that given the dynamic nature of the employment environment in many organizations

an organizational career was no longer a viable option (Cascio 2000), and, second, that the

new models provided a better fit for individuals and organizations by focusing on

employability over employment security (King 2004). The new models promoted career

self-management (Sullivan and Emerson 2003), employability (Van Buren 2003),

mobility (Eby, Butts and Lockwood 2003), improvisation (Arthur, Inkson and Pringle

1999), the development of external networks (Arthur and Rousseau 1996b) and an

emphasis on subjective rather than objective success (Arthur et al. 2005). As well as a

change in the way careers would be managed it was also predicted that in the future careers

would increasingly take place either entirely or to a great extent outside organizations

(Iellatchitch, Mayrhofer and Meyer 2003, p. 729).

The shift from organizational careers to the so-called flexible careers has been

explored in numerous studies (e.g. Cohen and Mallon 1999; Mallon 1999; Gold and Fraser

2002; Ackah and Heaton 2004; Arthur et al. 2005; Currie, Tempest and Starkey 2006).

An underlying assumption in many of these studies is that the transition to a more

boundaryless or protean style career, as exemplified, for example, by the portfolio career,

is driven by the desire for both the physical and psychological mobility that such a career

can provide, as well as the desire to pursue careers that offer, a good fit for personal value

and belief systems. This dichotomy is reflected in Mallon and Cohens (2001) study of

managerial and professional women who made the transition from careers within an

organization to self-employment. They note that the decision to quit organizational life

was influenced by structural changes, personal circumstances and a perception that the

organization was no longer a good match for their values (Mallon and Cohen 2001, p. 225).

Self-employment offered them the chance to adopt a more flexible approach to work and

to realign their professional values with their internal belief systems. Other studies note

that physical transitions tend to reflect the desire for psychological mobility or freedom

M. Clarke686

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

from the constraints of organizational life (Platman 2003, 2004; Mallon andWalton 2005).

There is also evidence that for some people career changes tend to align with the

psychological dimensions associated with different life stages. Sullivan and Mainiero

(2007) found that professional careers generally incorporate the search for authenticity,

balance or challenge, but that men and women focus on different aspects depending on

their life and career stage. While there are many examples of individuals who have chosen

to leave behind an organizational career, Arthur et al. (2005) note that boundarylessness

may refer to the opportunity for physical mobility rather than an actual physical transition.

In other words, the individual sees him/herself as having psychological mobility because

physical movement is an option. Alternatively, individuals may opt to remain in an

organizational career but reject opportunities for advancement through the hierarchy to

pursue personal interests or to spend time with family, another form of psychological

mobility (Sullivan and Arthur 2006).

Certainly there is evidence that some individuals are choosing careers that combine

elements of the boundaryless or protean career and that are characterized by a degree of

physical or psychological mobility. But have we been too eager to dismiss the

organizational career? Has it in fact disappeared as a valid and continuing career form?

Furthermore, by claiming that it lacks relevance for the twenty-first century and beyond,

have we overlooked some of the positive attributes associated with this model?

Empirical evidence for the demise of the organizational career

Career transitions are influenced by many factors including national, institutional, socio-

cultural and political environments. For example, Chudzikowski et al. (2009) note that

career decisions and attributions of causality can be linked to social, family and work

contexts, the level of dynamism in economic change and the global context. Thus career

transitions in the US are more likely to result from individual choice than in China where

complex, dynamic global forces and firm-level forces are seen as the major cause of job

loss or job change. Similarly, Arnold and Cohen (2008) argue that the socio-economic

environment, characterized by the impact of globalization and market competition, has led

to a more individualistic approach to careers in line with boundaryless and protean career

models. Yet, at the same time, they note that in their own research they have spoken to

countless people who continue to describe their careers in organizational terms, with

implied notions of hierarchical movement, and who see experience in diverse

organizations as essential to developing the credibility, knowledge, and social capital

required to progress (Arnold and Cohen 2008, p. 8).

In fact, despite widespread acceptance there is surprisingly little empirical evidence to

support the notion that the organizational career has disappeared, or even that it is no

longer the desired model. While proponents of the new forms of career as replacements for

organizational careers dominate much of the current research, their evidence tends to be

limited to assertion, citing each others assertions, special case studies and anecdotes

(Inkson, Roper and Ganesh 2008).

Labour force data appears to support the ongoing existence of the organizational career

with statistical studies showing little change in labour turnover rates in the relevant period

(Jacoby 1999; Stevens 2005). Through all the apparent upheaval of the last quarter

century, the average organizational tenure of American men in their last jobs has remained

constant at about 21 years. A similar picture emerges from European data which indicates

that over the period 19922006 in countries such as France, Germany, the Netherlands

and Portugal job stability has not declined but in fact has increased marginally

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 687

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

(Rodrigues and Guest 2010). A study of job tenure in the UK in the period 19751993

found that there had been almost no change (Burgess and Rees 1998) while a further study

found that 40% of men and 20% of women were still in lifetime jobs (Burgess and Rees

1997). Later figures support this finding with job tenure in the UK increasing slightly from

an average of 8.1 years in 1992 to 8.8 years in 2006 (Rodrigues and Guest 2010). This is

not to say that the situation has remained static. For example, structural changes in the US

labour market indicate the deterioration of job duration for unskilled men in comparison to

skilled men (Farber 1995). A Canadian Labour Force Survey found no change in mean

tenure but a slight increase in short-term jobs (Heisz 1996). Yet, despite some changes,

predictions that the career was either dead or about to become extinct seem both premature

and, as King (2003, p. 5) suggests, somewhat exaggerated.

Empirical research provides further evidence that the organizational career is alive and

well. Several recent studies have focused on managerial and professional groups whose

members appear to have been able to continue their careers over many years in a single

organization (Gunz, Evans and Jalland 2000; Wajcman and Martin 2001; Ituma and

Simpson 2006; Smith and Sheridan 2006; Donnelly 2008; Pang, Chua and Chu 2008). This

is particularly evident in bureaucratic structures, as typified by public sector organizations

or large financial institutions, where career patterns are still primarily characterized by

long-term employment and linear career progression (McDonald, Brown and Bradley

2005) and also highly relevant to managerial careers. Wajcman and Martin (2001)

concluded that careers, involving lengthy periods in one or two organizations, were not only

the preferred option for both younger and older managers but also had potential benefits for

organizations through the retention of critical organizational skills and knowledge. Studies

of recent graduates, who it could be assumed would be likely to choose more flexible and

mobile careers in keeping with the so-called Generation X and Generation Y work values

(King 2003), have found that developing a career within a single organization is still highly

valued and sought after (Sturges, Guest and Davey 2000; Sturges and Guest 2001). Some

graduates also continue to seek organization support for career development and expect that

this will take place within a traditional organizational structure (King 2003).

Thus, while academics proclaim the end of the organizational career, evidence to date

indicates there has only been a limited uptake of new career models and that this has been

limited to certain professional groups or demographic sectors. For example, Mallon (1999)

and Mallon and Cohen (2001) found that some professional women were adopting

portfolio careers in their search for worklife and workfamily balance or because their

personal circumstances necessitated a degree of flexibility not offered by more structured

organizational careers. Similarly, Mainiero and Sullivan (2005) suggested that many

women were pursuing what they termed kaleidoscope careers or careers that continually

shifted and turned in ways that enabled them to manage changing roles, responsibilities

and relationships. Cabrera (2009) found that due to family responsibilities professional

women tended to adopt a more protean or kaleidoscope career as they moved through

different life and career stages, although some women still managed to retain a traditional

career orientation.

Among those who have chosen different (non-organizational) career forms there have

been mixed evaluations of the benefits associated with individually managed careers. One

study reported that although portfolio careers had brought participants some degree of

freedom and variety, many were still searching for ways to re-embed themselves in

organizational worlds (Cohen and Mallon 1999, p. 346) by negotiating long-term

contracts more akin to conditions in an organizational career. A study by Lips-Wiersma

and Hall (2007) suggested that individuals still value organizational careers and that from

M. Clarke688

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

an employer perspective they are still seen as a viable option, although perhaps in a

modified form.

None of this evidence denies that boundaryless and other new models of career are

important and prevalent and deserve appropriate theoretical and empirical consideration.

But why have organizational careers been written out of the career studies agenda as if

they really were defunct and therefore no longer worth studying? Lazarova and Taylor

(2009) describe a bandwagon effect in which researchers have perhaps allowed

themselves to be stampeded by a perception of spectacular external events into eschewing

the familiar and possibly dull in favour of the apparently dynamic and the new.

A concerning by-product of the apparent demise of organizational control over careers is

the disappearance of organizational career management from textbooks of HRM (e.g.

Stone 2005; Boxall, Purcell and Wright 2008).

However, all this suggests that organizational careers have not only survived the

organizational upheaval of the latter part of the twentieth century, but also continue to

permeate career practice. This evidence raises a perplexing question: how do individuals

now experience the organizational career? Does it take the same form as outlined in the

early texts of Schein (1978) and Kanter (1989) or has it taken on a different form more

suited to contemporary organizational life and one that reflects aspects of the new

careers?

In the following section these questions are explored through five propositions about

the nature of organizational careers in the twenty-first century. These propositions are

based on recent career research, and the career experiences a small group of managers

whose career experiences not only embody certain aspects of the traditional organizational

career but also exemplify the way in which this model of career has evolved in the last two

decades.

Reflections on organizational careers

The study adopted an explicitly interpretive and qualitative research design using a career

narrative approach (Cohen 2006). Career narratives allow the individual to construct

meaning out of past experiences and to offer explanations for their career choices and

decisions (Bujold 2004). They also facilitate the generation of rich data appropriate to

socially constructed phenomenon (Sekaran 2000). In keeping with this approach

participants were invited to tell their career stories through in-depth and open-ended

interviews that focused on two main questions: tell me about your career to date, and, in

what ways have jobs and careers changed since you entered the workforce? Each

interview lasted for about an hour which allowed adequate time to explore issues relating

to career experiences, options and decisions.

The 20 participants (13 men and 7 women) were clients of a firm specializing in

executive placements in a large Australian city. All were currently in career transition and

thus were experiencing a time of career reflection and reassessment. Sampling was

purposive with the aim of selecting a diverse population with experience of the research

topic. Interviewees were deliberately selected by the organizations operations manager on

the basis that they had an interesting story to tell and that they would thus provide the

researcher with relevant, information-rich data (Patton 1990). Their ages ranged from 30

to 55 years, 18 had tertiary qualifications and all had worked in mid-level to senior

management positions. Time out of the workforce ranged from one to six months.

Interviews were conducted at the placement firms head office; they were digitally

recorded and then transcribed verbatim. Data analysis began by reading through individual

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 689

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

transcripts to gain an overview of each persons career story. This was followed by an

initial coding of the data to highlight keywords, phrases and themes using NVivo

(QSR 2009), a qualitative software tool designed to assist in the analysis of interview data.

A second iteration of the coding process was used to check that all key points had been

identified and categorized under appropriate themes. Once individual transcripts had

been coded the researcher undertook a systematic comparison between cases to identify

commonalities and differences in how careers had evolved and how they were described

(Strauss and Corbin 1990). Career narratives were examined in terms of what, when

and why; that is, what career paths had individuals pursued, when had they made

different career decisions and why had they made those choices. In particular, the

analysis looked for evidence of career transitions and career self-management in keeping

with protean and boundaryless career orientations (Hall 2004; Arthur et al. 2005) as well

as more stable career patterns. Preliminary analysis indicated that nine managers had

pursued careers involving moves across organizations and industries on a regular basis.

More in-depth analysis showed that this had been driven by a desire for career and

personal development and a concern that they remained relevant and up-to-date in their

skills. In keeping with protean careers, many career decisions had been made on the basis

of personal values, particularly the desire for worklife balance and the desire for a good

cultural fit with their employer (Briscoe and Hall 2006).

The remaining 11 managers had followed more traditional career paths characterized

by lengthy periods of at least 10 years in the same organization. In-depth analysis of their

career narratives indicated an interesting and somewhat surprising commonality of

experience in terms of how careers had evolved. In recounting their stories each one

stressed that an organizational career had provided flexibility and challenge and a wide

range of opportunities for career development. Career management had been a shared

responsibility within a supportive environment based on a strong employeremployee

relationship. At the same time, and with the benefit of hindsight, they recognized that early

career choices had ultimately constrained opportunities to experience amoremobile career.

It is the reflections of this group that provide insights into contemporary organizational

careers and an alternative viewpoint to that expressed in much of the contemporary careers

literature. Key themes identified from the interviews are presented in the following section

as five propositions for understanding more traditional, organizational style careers. The

propositions are explored separately but in reality all five are strongly interrelated which

highlights the complexity of many career stories.

Proposition 1: Organizational careers can be flexible, challenging and mobile.

The organizational career is typically portrayed as one which involves steady, linear

progression through a stable, structured hierarchy. The metaphor most frequently used to

describe this progression is climbing the ladder, a metaphor that assumes career success

to be based on an upwards movement leading to objective measures of success, such as

higher benefit packages, and managerial titles. The reality is that over the past 2030 years

many managerial careers have been enacted within volatile organizational systems

characterized less by stability and more by mergers, acquisitions, downsizing and

restructuring. Organizational hierarchies have flattened and organizational structures have

evolved to include more organic forms (Baruch 2004a). As a consequence the career

ladder as a stable bottom to top progression has been reshaped to reflect the characteristics

of new organizational structures.

Allred, Snow and Miles (1996) argue that under more traditional career structures

managers could expect to spend their whole career in their area of technical specialty.

M. Clarke690

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

There were few opportunities to acquire more generic skills or to move into different

functional areas. However, contemporary managerial careers operate in flatter structures

where cross-functional knowledge and skills, lateral moves, and cross-cultural and

international experience have become the order of the day. Smaller, flatter organizations

require a much broader set of skills and thus open up new opportunities for personal and

career development.

Griffin (2007, p. 859) observes that contexts shape and are shaped by the individuals

who interact with them. In the context of rapidly changing organizational structures it is

entirely possible for individuals to adopt a protean career orientation while remaining in a

single organization. Just as organizations are forced to change and adapt in response to

environmental pressures, so too employees are learning to be more flexible, to respond to

the challenges of ongoing change and to seek out opportunities for growth and

professional development, opportunities that are provided within organizational career

structures (Sargent and Domberger 2007).

The career stories of the managers in this study reflect that view. One manager

observed that, in theory, her career had taken place in one company but in practice a series

of mergers and acquisitions meant that she had worked across four different organizations

gaining both national and international experience as the company refashioned itself to

meet competitive market pressures. Another noted that in his 27 years with the same

company he had continually changed roles every three to four years, each time moving

into significantly different roles that required the acquisition of new skills, until eventually

becoming General Manager in a newly merged organization. Although he had made

it to the top his career had been punctuated by as many sideways moves as upwards

moves.

Critics of the organizational career suggest that people stay in the same job or same

organization because they either lack initiative or are afraid to embrace change. In fact, the

flexibility and variety to be found in medium to large organizations may mean that the

benefits of staying outweigh the potential benefits that could be gained by seeking

employment in another company (Dany 2003). The decision to remain in the same

organization can be seen as a sign of deliberate career choices made within a positive

career environment. A common theme in these managers stories was that they had all

experienced periods of intense change and upheaval which meant that the need to move

from one organization to another, a core characteristic of boundaryless and protean

careers, had been negated by the availability of new roles in restructured organizations.

Proposition 2: Organizational careers provide opportunities for employee develop-

ment.

The organizational career is often portrayed as one where career and personal

development are constrained by what the organization needs rather than what the

individual wants (Cavanaugh and Noe 1999; Baruch 2003). This contrasts markedly with

the new career models which promote the concept of self-directed career behaviour

underpinned by deeply held personal values (Briscoe and Hall 2006) and careers that

evolve independent of organizational boundaries (Arthur et al. 2005).

There is however an alternative perspective. One of the attractions of an organizational

career is that employee development is integral to the employment relationship,

particularly in larger organizations where there are likely to be opportunities for lateral and

vertical career progression. A study of three large New Zealand organizations cited

learning, advancement and personal development as key themes underpinning careers

(Walton and Mallon 2004). Employees noted that their organization had provided

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 691

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

opportunities for development through structured training programmes and experience

gained across roles in various functional departments. This experience included roles at

the same level and promotions to higher levels. While personal development was seen as

primarily an individual responsibility, it was also linked to staff training and performance

management.

Another study that focused on the career orientation of recent graduates who had

joined the public sector, typically regarded as a large bureaucratic organization, had found

many opportunities for personal and career development within this framework. Although

they were self-directed in managing their careers, they had engaged in job rotations and

other activities that demonstrated a co-constructing approach to careers. That is, there

were multiple opportunities to achieve both subjective and objective success with support

from their organization (Sargent and Domberger 2007).

In recounting their career stories managers in this study also reported that there had

been many opportunities for personal as well as career development. It was common

practice to move across functional departments. In fact, the majority had changed roles

every three to five years as a means of adapting to their ever changing environment.

In many ways their career paths reflected a protean rather than an organizational model of

career despite having stayed in the one parent company. Over time they had developed

broad expertise which contributed to increased job satisfaction and a sense of personal

achievement. One managers career included domestic and international appointments in a

large accounting firm. Over the course of his career he had moved from accounting to

consulting to project management, describing himself as a chameleon who liked to

reinvent himself to take on new challenges. Career development had been further

supported by organizationally sponsored training and developmental opportunities, such

as in-house or professional training programmes, or by undertaking tertiary studies, such

as completing an MBA.

Proposition 3: Organizational careers can be jointly managed.

The organizational career has been referred to as one that is largely controlled and

managed by the organization via a paternalistic, centralized and top down career system

(Nicholson 1996, p. 41). The new models of career, on the other hand, define careers as the

property of the individual (Atkinson 2004). The underlying assumption appears to be that in

the past careers were managed by the organization with a view to achieving its own ends,

whereas now they are managed by the individual with a focus on personal and career

development and ongoing employability. Baruch (2006, p. 127) refers to this apparent

transition as one in which people are becoming the masters of their own destiny, and thus

themanagers of their careers. In fact, career researchers consistently argue that individuals

are driven more by their own desires than by organizational career management practices

(Sullivan and Baruch 2009, p. 1543).

The extent to which this has transition has taken place is open to conjecture. Studies of

career self-management have tended to focus on either what is meant by this concept in the

context of the new careers (e.g. King 2004) or on the relationship between career self-

management and organizational career support (e.g. Sturges, Conway, Guest and

Liefooghe 2005; Sturges, Conway and Liefooghe 2010), or on the link between career self-

management and career success (e.g. Seibert, Crant and Kraimer 1999; Ng, Eby, Sorenson

and Feldman 2005). There is however very little evidence, apart from anecdotal stories, to

indicate a widespread shift from organizational to individual career management.

On the other hand, there is evidence of a shift towards joint responsibility between

employer and employee. Lips-Wiersma and Hall (2007) describe this as an integrated

M. Clarke692

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

approach that combinesmore traditional career planning and career management activities.

Employers continue to offer career opportunities but employees are expected to create their

own career paths. Employers make their expectations explicit and employees then look for

ways to meet those expectations. There are also indications that employees differentiate

between different forms of career support. For example, Granrose and Baccili (2006) found

that employees not only expected help from the organization in terms of upwards mobility

(traditional career), but also wanted training that would assist the transition to another

organization sometime in the future (boundaryless career). Career management provides

significant value to both parties (Allred et al. 1996). Numerous studies have shown that

organization career support leads to higher levels of organizational commitment and thus

reduces voluntary turnover (Sturges et al. 2010). It also encourages individuals to engage in

career self-management which in turn is likely to be rewarded with additional support from

line managers (Sturges et al. 2005).

The personal stories of this group of managers showed that although organizations had

clearly played a role in career management, their perception was that they had also

participated in many of their own career choices. Some noted that regardless of their

current role they were always thinking about where they wanted to go next and how they

might get there. They were conscious of needing to remain fresh and challenged by

seeking out new opportunities which might mean moving into a new role, undertaking

further study, or accepting an overseas posting. At the same time career self-management

could be seen not only in the roles that were accepted but also in roles that were declined.

Several managers had chosen not to take up promotions that would have taken them in a

direction that they did not want to go.

The organizations role in career management was acknowledged, but less in terms of

career planning and more in terms of providing support for upgrading of qualifications,

maintenance of professional expertise or formal management development programmes,

either in-house or through educational institutions. Job opportunities had often come from

internal networking. Job changes had resulted from personal approaches from people in

other departments who believed that they had the right skills to fill a particular position.

Only one person described career planning as something that had been largely managed by

the organization.

Proposition 4: Organizational careers foster balanced relationships.

Organizational careers are generally associated with the old psychological contract

(Cullinane and Dundon 2006). This contract is based on assumptions of long-term

employment security, reciprocal loyalty, trust and expectations of career progression

(Rousseau 1989). It is essentially defined as a relational contract which emphasizes a two-

way exchange between employer and employee. However, some critics have argued that

rather than offering reciprocal rights the old contract embodied an overly paternalistic

employment relationship (Waterman, Waterman and Collard 1994; Iles 1997; Baruch and

Hind 1999), a model that is no longer appropriate in a world where employees want the

freedom to make their own career choices. Others have suggested that one reason for a

shift in career management is that the values of younger employees are incompatible with

organizational commitment and traditional career hierarchies (Brousseau, Driver, Eneroth

and Larsson 1996). Contemporary models of career thus stress the shift to a new form of

individual career management freed from the constraints of organizational structures.

The new psychological contract encourages short-term transactional relationships based

on career resilience rather than career dependence (Atkinson 2004). Intuitively, this

concept may be appealing but there is considerable evidence that organizational careers

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 693

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

are still a desirable option and that individuals still want something more than a purely

transactional relationship with their employer.

Several studies have shown that graduates value organizational support for careers

because they foster a sense of mutual investment (Sturges et al. 2000; Sturges and Guest

2001; King 2003; Sturges et al. 2005). In other words, employees who receive career

support feel wanted and appreciated. Loyalty and commitment are enhanced and a more

positive psychological contract is maintained. It is also possible that the structured

opportunities afforded by organizational careers provide a sense of security which

enhances the retention of key employees (Granrose and Baccili 2006). Interestingly, it

would appear that opportunities for internal career progression are important not only to

those who prefer a more traditional organizational career but also to those who are

concerned for their employability and their external career development (King 2003).

Contrary to popular thinking, it would appear that initiatives designed to enhance external

employability can also foster greater loyalty and long-term commitment, an outcome with

significant benefits not only for the employer but also for the organization (Tsui, Pearce,

Porter and Tripoli 1997).

In this study early organizational careers were described in terms reminiscent of a

family relationship. There was a strong identification with the organization as a place in

which careers were enacted, not simply a place to do a job, a relationship that appeared to

offer significant benefits to both parties. For example, in many cases participants reported a

high degree of give and take as career and family responsibilities moved through different

phases. Caring cultures, demonstrated in part by interest in and concern for careers,

promoted a range of positive employee behaviours, such as loyalty and commitment, and

reciprocal employeremployee values, such as trust and respect. Unsurprisingly, over time

organizational change had led to a deterioration of this relationship. The reality of

organizational life was that in many cases secure employment contracts had been replaced

by more contingent contracts. Organizations were now more likely to be characterized by

high levels of turnover, which included both natural attrition and planned redundancies.

While many recognized that change was inevitable, and that some changes had been

beneficial, they lamented that they had become a figure on the balance sheet instead of a

valuable employee. What had begun as a balanced relationship had ended as one in which

the balance of power appeared to have shifted in favour of the organization and where

individuals experienced feelings of alienation and a loss of trust.

Proposition 5: Organizational careers can hinder mobility.

The four propositions discussed above demonstrate that the traditional style

organizational career offers a useful framework for managing a positive employment

relationship. They also show that, rather than becoming obsolete, organizational careers

continue to be a viable and highly desirable option. At the same time the nature of this

relationship, with its apparent promise of safety, security and long-term employment, has

the potential to constrain career decisions and thus create a more risk adverse workforce,

particularly for those in the mid to late career stages for whom the financial cost of leaving

(in terms of potential loss of salary and retirement benefits) may be prohibitive (Feldman

and Ng 2007). In this context individuals may choose to focus on psychological

boundarylessness, or the belief that they have the capacity for freedom and flexibility,

while neglecting actual mobility, or physical boundarylessness (Sullivan and Arthur

2006). They may continue to assume that given their skills and abilities actual movement

is still an option, or may rationalize their decision not to move on the basis of worklife

balance or family choices, which as previously discussed is a form of psychological

M. Clarke694

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

boundarylessness (Sullivan and Arthur 2006). It may also be that personality traits

influence the extent to which certain individuals prefer mobility versus stability and

security. For example, a study of graduates found that those preferring a more traditional

career path displayed personality traits and behavioural characteristics low on flexibility,

self-promotion, self-assertion, self-monitoring and networking, although they scored high

on conscientiousness (Mayrhofer et al. 2005).

To some extent lack of mobility is, as several authors have noted, a result of the multiple

boundaries that constrain career transition choices, such as prior work history, occupation,

qualifications and age (Gunz et al. 2000; Dany 2003; King, Burke and Pemberton 2005).

The ability to make successful career transitions is not only dependent on individual agency

but also on external variables within the labour market. Yet, as Tams and Arthur (2010)

observe, agency has been a central theme in the boundaryless career literature underpinning

concern about enabling individuals to engage effectively within the context of changing

and modernizing social structures (2010, p. 633). Contemporary career models promote

proactive behaviours, such as strategic positioning (which relates to planning for future job

moves) or influence (which is concerned with influencing key decision makers). These

behaviours are designed to promote ongoing employability and support positive career

outcomes (King 2004).

The problem for a number of participants in this study was that they had ignored the

signs of change and thus had failed to consider seriously the need to explore alternate

career options outside the organization until faced with redundancy. As one senior

manager commented it was as though the world had changed and no-one told me. From

time to time those in long-term careers may have looked outside the organization but

in most cases they had decided that they were better off staying where they were.

The decision to stay appeared to be influenced by the expectation that their current

employer still had much to offer as well as by the fact that they had fallen into what several

described as a comfort zone. While they remained where they were, they were able to

demonstrate a high degree of organizational competence. Leaving the organization was

seen as taking a risk as it would require stepping into the unknown and having to acquire

new skills and competencies. For many there was a growing realization that their lack of

experience in different organizations could limit their future employment prospects, that

by staying in the one place for too long they had become less employable, but when

opportunities to leave had arisen they had chosen to remain with their current employer.

Redefining the organizational career

The new academic models of career emerged during a period of economic and labour

market turbulence. At the time it seemed unlikely that long-term, linear careers were

sustainable in such a volatile environment and thus more flexible, individualized models,

such as the boundaryless career or the protean career, were promoted on the basis that they

were more relevant for both organizations and individuals. With some notable exceptions

(Sullivan 1999; Van Buren 2003; Currie et al. 2006; Vardi and Kim 2007; Rodrigues and

Guest 2010), there has been a tendency to emphasize their positive attributes at the

expense of critical discussion of potentially negative aspects. There has also been a

tendency to over-simplify and to over-generalize existing practices. The consequence is

that to a large extent we are left with an image of a precarious balance between

organizational careers and new careers (Duberley, Mallon and Cohen 2006, p. 291).

Furthermore, much of the careers literature is based on broad assumptions about the

nature of organizational careers that have obscured the complexities and subtle nuances

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 695

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

associated with this model. The organizational career has become synonymous with the

old style bureaucratic career with its promise of lifetime employment while climbing a

notional career ladder. Critics of the organizational career have thus failed to take into

consideration the personal satisfaction gained from career progress within one

organization, the opportunities for lateral growth and the sense of belonging which is

generated by a more relational psychological contract.

From an employee perspective it is clear that organizational careers are still an attractive

option particularly in larger private organizations and in the public sector (Barnett and

Bradley 2007). Employees want job security, even if it is only for as long as they choose to

stay, they want identifiable career paths and they want support from their employers in

managing and developing their careers (see Sturges, Guest, Conway and Davey 2002).

As Mallon (1999, p. 359) stated a decade ago individuals will not give up lightly the

aspirations and socially embedded notions of success embodied in the traditional career.

From an employer perspective the new career models have brought mixed outcomes.

Transactional employment relationshipsmake it easier for organizations to respond to rapid

changes in the environment, to be more flexible and thus more competitive. However, they

are also characterized by lower levels of trust, support, respect, loyalty, and commitment

(De Meuse, Bergmann and Lester 2001, p. 112).

From a career theory perspective findings presented in this paper raise a number of

points. First, there are indications that over time the organizational career has evolved into

a new hybrid form which combines aspects of the old bureaucratic career while

incorporating other dimensions more commonly associated with the new careers. Thus,

at least at a managerial level the organizational career is not always as linear or as

managerially controlled as it has been portrayed. Second, organizational careers can, and

do, exist in turbulent environments. They may be enacted in only one or two organizations

but the current pace of change requires that individuals continually adapt in response to

events in their immediate environment. Third, although careers are owned by individuals

they matter to organizations. Even in transactional relationships there is still an

understanding that employee development is good for both employee and employer

(Baruch 2004b).

Where to from here?

Overall, it would appear that the organizational career offers a useful framework for

managing a positive employment relationship. Rather than discarding the old bureaucratic

model of organizational career there may be benefits in developing an integrated model

more suited to the current environment, a model that reflects its more positive qualities

while recognizing the need for greater flexibility, adaptability and individual responsibility.

The new organizational career provides a starting point for debate (Table 1).

This model shifts the focus from employment security or employability to employment

continuity. Employment continuity reflects the needs of both the employer and employee,

and the environment in which careers are enacted. It acknowledges that organizations may

not be able to offer lifetime employment, but at the same time it provides employees with a

better deal than that offered by an employability contract. Under continuity of

employment organizations offer long-term but not lifetime employment, an arrangement

that engenders mutual loyalty while recognizing that employees should be willing and able

to make the transition to alternate employment as the need arises.

The new organizational career is also based on the understanding that constant change

has replaced stability as the norm of organizational life. To survive in this context

M. Clarke696

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

individuals need to demonstrate the capacity to adapt and change, to be flexible and to

cope with uncertainty, qualities that in recent years have been described more in relation to

boundaryless or protean than organizational careers. Organizational careers are thus likely

to be characterized by medium-term tenure across a range of different roles involving

lateral and vertical moves, or from time to time even backwards moves.

Unlike the bureaucratic career the new organizational career is enacted within a

complex environment where employees are likely to havemultiple loyalties, not just loyalty

to the organization. For example, there may also be professional loyalties, loyalties to

colleagues or loyalty to ones own career. Thismeans that organizationswill need to think of

creative ways to win the loyalty of their employees and to gain high levels of commitment if

they are to retain their best talent.

To achieve optimal outcomes both employer and employee will need to accept

responsibility for career management and employee development. Employees will be

expected to develop career goals and plans and then make use of all available opportunities

to achieve those goals, either through organizationally sponsored training and development

or by seeking opportunities outside of the organization, such as upgrading qualifications or

building networks. At the same time the organization will be expected to support career

planning and assist in reaching career goals through activities such as mentoring and job

rotation. In this way employee development will benefit both parties to the employment

relationship.

A critical difference between the bureaucratic career and the new organizational career

is that for individuals the career focus shifts from one that is internal to the organization to

one that includes both an internal and external focus. That is, there is an expectation that in

the longer term career advancement will most likely require the crossing of organizational

boundaries. Career horizons are widened to embrace intra- and extra-organizational

possibilities. The new organizational career will thus incorporate elements of the

boundaryless career in which both physical and psychological boundarylessness will be

seen as the norm (Briscoe and Hall 2006).

Table 1. The new organizational career.

Bureaucratic organizationalcareer New organizational career Boundaryless career

Employment security Employment continuity EmployabilityStability Flexibility and adaptability MobilityLong-term tenure in samerole

Medium-term tenure acrossdifferent roles

Flexible tenure acrossdifferent organizations

Loyalty to organization Loyalty to organization andoutside groups

Loyalty to own career

Organizationally managedcareer

Jointly managed career Self-managed career

Development to meetorganization needs

Development to meet organ-ization and individual needs

Development to meetprimarily individual needs

Career focus is internal toorganization

Career focus is internal andexternal to organization

Career focus is internal to theindividual

Linear progression Spiral progression Transitory progressionRelational employmentcontract

Relational employment con-tract

Transactional employmentcontract

Objective measures ofsuccess

Objective and subjectivemeasures of success

Subjective measures ofsuccess

Source: Adapted from Baruch (2004b).

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 697

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

The concept of linear progression is replaced by a career path more closely resembling

the spiral career (Brousseau et al. 1996). Career success will be seen less in terms of

climbing an organizational ladder and more in terms of lateral moves that provide

opportunities for creativity, learning, skill diversity and personal satisfaction. According

to Brousseau et al. (1996, p. 57) the spiral career involves periodic moves of ideally

between seven to ten years, a span that seems to permit individuals sufficient time to

develop in-depth competence, if not full mastery, in many fields before moving on to new

ones. This approach to career transition provides a degree of stability, beneficial to both

employer and employee, while still encouraging the flexibility and adaptability necessary

to maintain individual employability.

Underpinning this model is the expectation that the employment contract will be based

on an essentially relational psychological contract, a contract that offers clarity and

predictability thus fostering commitment to the organization and a willingness to invest

time and effort in acquiring organization specific skills and knowledge (Coyle-Shapiro and

Kessler 2002). In the future it will be important for organizations to balance their needs

with the needs and expectations of their employees if they are to retain quality employees

with critical skills. In a context of skills and labour shortages a more relational contract

may provide a competitive advantage as organizations look for ways to prevent

employees becoming free agents in constant search of the highest bidder for their services

(Maguire 2002, p. 178).

Finally, the new organizational career will be measured in terms of both subjective and

objective measures of success (Ng et al. 2005). Lateral career moves will be seen as

equally as important as linear career progression thus supporting behaviours and values

more in line with the spiral career, such as lateral assignments, skill diversity, creativity

and cross-training (Brousseau et al. 1996, pp. 5859). Measures of success will include

personal satisfaction, mastery of skills and the acquisition of career capital (knowing

why, knowing how and knowing whom) (Inkson and Arthur 2001).

Conclusion and suggestions for future research

The organizational career would indeed appear to be alive and well. However, there are

strong indications that in twenty-first century an organizational career is no longer

synonymous with a bureaucratic career. Over time it has adapted and evolved in response

to economic and labour market contexts. It may no longer promise stability and life-time

tenure but there is the possibility of pursuing an interesting, non-linear, satisfying career

within the boundaries of one or a few organizations. Boundarylessness is not a prerequisite

to career success, nor is it confined to those who choose to move from job to job and from

organization to organization. It is in fact possible to make regular transitions across job

boundaries within one organization and thus to experience a personal form of

boundarylessness. In addition, protean careers do not only emerge as individuals reshape

themselves to fit a different organization or a new career identity. To survive in modern

organizational contexts a degree of protean behaviour would appear to be mandatory, and

thus individuals are learning to change and adapt in the face of downsizing, restructuring,

mergers and acquisitions.

In presenting these propositions the author acknowledges a number of limitations in

this paper. First, the empirical data used in support of these propositions are based on a

small sample of managers undergoing career transition. Managers typically experience

organizational life in ways that may not be applicable to other employees and thus the

findings from this sample may not be applicable to other groups, particularly given the

M. Clarke698

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

sample size. Second, the sample was selected by the outplacement agency. Interviewees

may have been chosen because they had a generally positive story to tell, although the

interviews did reflect quite different experiences ranging from relatively stable careers to

more mobile careers across different divisions in both domestic and international roles.

Third, observations on the organizational career may have been skewed by recall bias in

which memories of the more positive aspects of their careers outweighed negative aspects.

For example, it is quite likely that participants presented their own role in career

management in ways that highlighted decisions with good outcomes and downplayed

decisions that led to poor outcomes. Fourth, having only worked in one or two

organizations they had very little with which to compare their own experiences. It is likely

that having now become redundant they would seek to justify the benefits of an

organizational career as opposed to more flexible protean careers.

Despite these limitations the research findings and general propositions presented in

this paper provide some evidence in support of the organizational career. It would seem

that this model is potentially as relevant for contemporary careerists as the new models and

that, rather than discarding it as an outdated artefact of the mid-twentieth century,

researchers would do well to explore ways to reconfigure it for the future. Further studies

could, for example, focus on how individuals and organizations can manage careers within

constantly changing organizational structures, or on how best to meet the human resource

needs of the organization while also meeting the developmental needs and interests of the

individual. Other research could explore the characteristics of psychological contracts in

an organizational setting under a medium-term tenure employment relationship and in a

context of multiple loyalties. As Baruch and Peiperl (2000, p. 348) observe, currently very

few models of career represent both individual and organizational perspectives and the

ones that do exist are clearly outdated, based on . . . static single firm perspective.

Studies that consider organizational and individual perspectives across a range of different

firms are needed to ensure that future organizational career research incorporates both

academic rigour and practical application.

Organizational career research is a fertile field that in recent years has been largely

ignored. It would seem, however, that the time has come for a resurgence of interest in a

career form that has not only survived the upheavals of the late twentieth century but also

appears to have adapted and thrived. To paraphrase Hall (1996a), the bureaucratic career

is dead, long live the new organizational career.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Kerr Inkson for sharing his thoughts with me on the topic of organizationalcareers and for his helpful comments on an early draft of this paper.

References

Ackah, C., and Heaton, N. (2004), The Reality of New Careers for Men and Women, Journal ofEuropean Industrial Training, 28, 2/3/4, 141158.

Allred, B.B., Snow, C.C., and Miles, R.E. (1996), Characteristics of Managerial Careers in the 21stCentury, The Academy of Management Executive, 10, 4, 1727.

Arnold, J., and Cohen, L. (2008), The Psychology of Careers in Industrial and OrganizationalSettings: A Critical But Appreciative Analysis, in International Review of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology (Vol. 23), eds. G.P. Hodgkinson and J.K. Ford, Chichester: JohnWiley and Sons, pp. 144.

Arthur, M., and Rousseau, D. (eds.) (1996a), The Boundaryless Career, New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 699

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

Arthur, M., and Rousseau, D.M. (1996b), A Career Lexicon for the 21st Century, Academy ofManagement Executive, 10, 4, 2839.

Arthur, M., Inkson, K., and Pringle, J. (1999), The New Careers: Individual Action and EconomicChange, London: Sage.

Arthur, M.B., Khapova, S.N., and Wilderom, C.P.M. (2005), Career Success in a BoundarylessCareer World, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 177202.

Atkinson, C. (2004), Career Management and the Changing Psychological Contract, CareerDevelopment International, 7, 1, 1423.

Barnett, B.R., and Bradley, L. (2007), The Impact of Organisational Support for CareerDevelopment and Career Satisfaction, Career Development International, 12, 7, 617636.

Baruch, Y. (2003), Career Systems in Transition: A Normative Model for Organizational CareerPractices, Personnel Review, 32, 2, 231251.

Baruch, Y. (2004a), Managing Careers, Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.Baruch, Y. (2004b), Transforming Careers: From Linear to Multidirectional Career Paths.

Organizational and Individual Perspectives, Career Development International, 9, 1, 5873.Baruch, Y. (2006), Career Development in Organizations and Beyond: Balancing Traditional and

Contemporary Viewpoints, Human Resource Management Review, 16, 125138.Baruch, Y., and Hind, P. (1999), Perpetual Motion in Organizations: Effective Management and the

Impact of the New Psychological Contracts on Survivor Syndrome, European Journal ofWork & Organizational Psychology, 8, 2, 295306.

Baruch, Y., and Peiperl, M. (2000), Career Management Practices: An Empirical Survey andImplications, Human Resource Management, 39, 4, 347366.

Boxall, P., Purcell, J., and Wright, P. (2008), Strategy and Human Resource Management, Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Briscoe, J.P., and Hall, D.T. (2006), The Interplay of Boundaryless and Protean Careers:Combinations and Implications, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 418.

Briscoe, J.P., Hall, D.T., and Frautschy De Muth, R.L. (2006), Protean and Boundaryless Careers:An Empirical Exploration, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 3047.

Brousseau, K.R., Driver, M.J., Eneroth, K., and Larsson, R. (1996), Career Pandemonium:Realigning Organizations and Individuals, Academy of Management Executive, 10, 4, 5266.

Bujold, C. (2004), Constructing Career Through Narrative, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 4,470484.

Burgess, S., and Rees, H. (1997), Transient Jobs and Lifetime Jobs: Dualism in the British LabourMarket, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 59, 309328.

Burgess, S., and Rees, H. (1998), A Disaggregate Analysis of the Evolution of Job Tenure in Britain,19751993, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 36, 4, 629655.

Cabrera, E.F. (2009), Protean Organizations: Reshaping Work and Careers to Retain FemaleTalent, Career Development International, 14, 2, 186201.

Capelli, P. (1999), Career Jobs are Dead, California Management Review, 42, 1, 146167.Cascio, W.F. (2000), New Workplaces, in New Directions is Career Planning and the Workplace

(2nd ed.), ed. J.M. Kummerow, Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black, pp. 332.Cavanaugh, M.A., and Noe, R.A. (1999), Antecedents and Consequences of Relational Components

of the New Psychological Contract, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 323340.Chudzikowski, K., Demel, B., Mayrhofer, W., Briscoe, J., Unite, J., Milikic, B.B., Hall, D.T., Las

Heras, M., Shen, Y., and Zikic, J. (2009), Career Transitions and Their Causes: A Country-Comparative Perspective, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 4,825849.

Cohen, L. (2006), Remembrance of Things Past: Cultural Process and Practice in Analysis of CareerStories, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 189201.

Cohen, L., and Mallon, M. (1999), The Transition from Organisational Employment to PortfolioWorking: Perceptions of Boundarylessness, Work, Employment and Society, 13, 2, 329352.

Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.-M., and Kessler, I. (2002), Exploring Reciprocity Through the Lens of thePsychological Contract: Employee and Employer Perspectives, Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 11, 1, 6986.

Cullinane, N., and Dundon, T. (2006), The Psychological Contract: A Critical Review,International Journal of Management Reviews, 8, 2, 113129.

M. Clarke700

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

Currie, G., Tempest, S., and Starkey, K. (2006), New Careers for Old? Organizational andIndividual Responses to Changing Boundaries, International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, 17, 4, 755774.

Dany, F. (2003), Free Actors and Organisations: Critical Remarks About the New CareerLiterature, Based on French Insights, International Journal of Human Resource Management,14, 5, 821838.

De Meuse, K.P., Bergmann, T.J., and Lester, S.W. (2001), An Investigation of the RelationalComponent of the Psychological Contract Across Time, Generation and Employment Status,Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 1, 102118.

Donnelly, R. (2008), Careers and Temporal Flexibility in the New Economy: An Anglo-DutchComparison of the Organisation of Consultancy Work, Human Resource Management Journal,18, 3, 197215.

Duberley, J., Mallon, M., and Cohen, L. (2006), Exploring Career Transitions: Accounting forStructure and Agency, Personnel Review, 35, 3, 281296.

Eby, L.T., Butts, M., and Lockwood, A. (2003), Predictors of Success in the Era of the BoundarylessCareer, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 689708.

Farber, H.S. (1995), Are Lifetime Jobs Disappearing in the United States: 19731996, NBERWorking Paper no. 5014.

Feldman, D.C., and Ng, T.W.H. (2007), Careers: Mobility, Embeddedness, and Success, Journal ofManagement, 33, 3, 350377.

Goffee, R., and Jones, G.P. (2000), Career, Community, and Social Architecture: An Exploration ofConcepts, in Career Frontiers: New Conceptions of Working Lives, eds. M.A. Peiperl, M.B.Arthur, R. Goffee and T. Morris, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 256272.

Gold, M., and Fraser, J. (2002), Managing Self-Management: Successful Transitions to PortfolioCareers, Work, Employment and Society, 16, 4, 579597.

Granrose, C.S., and Baccili, P.A. (2006), Do Psychological Contracts Include Boundaryless orProtean Careers? Career Development International, 11, 2, 163182.

Griffin, M.A. (2007), Specifying Organizational Contexts: Systematic Links Between Context andProcesses in Organizational Behaviour, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 28, 859863.

Gunz, H., Evans, M., and Jalland, M. (2000), Career Boundaries in the Boundaryless World,in Career Frontiers: New Conceptions of Working Lives, eds. M.A. Peiperl, M.B. Arthur, R.Goffee and T. Morris, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 2453.

Hall, D.T. (1976), Careers in Organizations, Glenview, IL: Scott, Foreman.Hall, D.T. (1996a), The Career is Dead Long Live the Career, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Hall, D.T. (1996b), Protean Careers in the 21st Century, Academy of Management Executive, 10, 4,

816.Hall, D.T. (2004), The Protean Career: A Quarter-Century Journey, Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 65, 113.Hall, D.T., and Las Heras, M. (2009), Long Live the Organisational Career, in Vocational,

Psychological, and Organisational Perspectives on Career: Towards a MultidisciplinaryDialogue, eds. A. Collin and W. Patton, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense, pp. 181196.

Heisz, A. (1996), Changes in Job Tenure and Job Stability in Canada, Canada: Mimeo Statistics.Iellatchitch, A., Mayrhofer, W., and Meyer, M. (2003), Career Fields: A Small Step Towards a

Grand Career Theory? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14, 5, 728750.Iles, P. (1997), Sustainable High-Potential Career Development: A Resource-Based View, Career

Development International, 2, 7, 347353.Inkson, K., and Arthur, M. (2001), How to Be a Successful Career Capitalist, Organizational

Dynamics, 30, 1, 4861.Inkson, K., Roper, J., and Ganesh, S. (2008), The New Careers as Discourse, Paper Presented at the

European Group for Organisation Studies, 24th Annual Colloquium, VU University,Amsterdam.

Ituma, A., and Simpson, R. (2006), The Chameleon Career: An Exploratory Study of the WorkBiography of Information Technology Workers in Nigeria, Career Development International,11, 1, 4865.

Jacoby, S. (1999), Are Career Jobs Headed for Extinction? California Management Review, 42, 1,123145.

Kanter, R.M. (1989), When Giants Learn to Dance: Mastering the Challenges of Strategy,Management, and Careers in the 1990s, New York: Simon and Schuster.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 701

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

King, Z. (2003), New or Traditional Careers? A Study of UK Graduates Preferences, HumanResource Management Journal, 13, 1, 526.

King, Z. (2004), Career Self Management: Its Nature, Causes and Consequences, Journal ofVocational Behavior, 65, 112133.

King, Z., Burke, S., and Pemberton, J. (2005), The Bounded Career: An Empirical Study ofHuman Capital, Career Mobility and Employment Outcomes in a Mediated Labour Market,Human Relations, 58, 8, 9811001.

Lazarova, M., and Taylor, S. (2009), Boundaryless Careers, Social Capital, and KnowledgeManagement: Implications for Organizational Performance, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 30, 119139.

Lips-Wiersma, M., and Hall, D.T. (2007), Organizational Career Development is Not Dead: a CaseStudy on Managing the New Career During Organizational Change, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 28, 771792.

Maguire, H. (2002), Psychological Contracts: Are They Still Relevant? Career DevelopmentInternational, 7, 3, 167180.

Mainiero, L.A., and Sullivan, S.E. (2005), Kaleidoscope Careers: An Alternate Explanation for theOpt-Out Revolution, Academy of Management Executive, 19, 1, 106203.

Mallon, M. (1999), Going Portfolio: Making Sense of Changing Careers, Career DevelopmentInternational, 4, 7, 358369.

Mallon, M., and Cohen, L. (2001), Time for a Change? Womens Accounts of the Move fromOrganizational Careers to Self-Employment, British Journal of Management, 12, 217230.

Mallon, M., and Walton, S. (2005), Career and Learning: The Ins and the Outs of It, PersonnelReview, 34, 4, 468487.

Mayrhofer, W., Steyrer, J., Meyer, M., Strunk, G., Schiffinger, M., and Iellatchitch, A. (2005),Graduates Career Aspirations and Individual Characteristics, Human Resource ManagementJournal, 15, 1, 3856.

McDonald, P., Brown, K., and Bradley, L. (2005), Have Traditional Career Paths Given Way toProtean Ones? Evidence From Senior Managers in the Australian Public Sector, CareerDevelopment International, 10, 2, 109129.

Ng, T.W.H., Eby, L.T., Sorenson, K.L., and Feldman, D.C. (2005), Predictors of Objective andSubjective Career Success: A Meta-Analysis, Personnel Psychology, 58, 367408.

Nicholson, N. (1996), Career Systems in Crisis: Change and Opportunity in the Information Age,Academy of Management Executive, 10, 4, 4051.

Pang, M., Chua, B.-L., and Chu, C.W.L. (2008), Learning to Stay Ahead in an UncertainEnvironment, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 7, 13831394.

Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Peiperl, M., Arthur, M., Goffee, R., andMorris, T. (eds.) (2000), Career Frontiers: New Conceptions

of Working Lives, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Peiperl, M., and Baruch, Y. (1997), Back to Square Zero: The Post-Corporate Career,

Organizational Dynamics, 25, 4, 622.Platman, K. (2003), The Self-Designed Career in Later Life: A Study of Older Portfolio Workers in

the United Kingdom, Ageing and Society, 23, 281302.Platman, K. (2004), Portfolio Careers and the Search for Flexibility in Later Life, Work,

Employment and Society, 18, 3, 573599.QSR (2009), NVivo 8 (Application Software Package), Melbourne: Qualitative Software and

Research.Rodrigues, R.A., and Guest, D. (2010), Have Careers Become Boundaryless? Human Relations,

63, 8, 11571175.Rousseau, D.M. (1989), Psychological and Implied Contracts in Organizations, Employee

Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121139.Sargent, L.D., and Domberger, S.R. (2007), Exploring the Development of a Protean Career

Orientation: Values and Image Violations, Career Development International, 12, 6, 545564.Schein, E.H. (1971), The Individual, the Organization, and the Career: A Conceptual Scheme,

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7, 4, 410426.Schein, E.H. (1978), Career Dynamics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Seibert, S.E., Crant, J.M., and Kraimer, M.L. (1999), Proactive Personality and Career Success,

Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 3, 416427.Sekaran, U. (2000), Research Methods for Business, New York: Wiley.

M. Clarke702

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5

Smith, T.F., and Sheridan, A. (2006), Organizational Careers Versus Boundaryless Careers: Insightsfrom the Accounting Profession, Journal of Management and Organisation, 12, 3, 223233.

Stevens, A.H. (2005), The More Things Change, the More they Remain the Same: Trends in Long-Term Employment in the United States, 19692002, National Bureau of Economic ResearchWorking Paper No. 11878, Cambridge, MA.

Stone, R.J. (2005), Human Resource Management, Sydney: Wiley.Strauss, A., and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Sturges, J., Conway, N., Guest, D., and Liefooghe, A. (2005), Managing the Career Deal: the

Psychological Contract as a Framework for Understanding Career Management, OrganizationalCommitment and Work Behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 821838.

Sturges, J., Conway, N., and Liefooghe, A. (2010), Organizational Support, Individual Attributes,and the Practice of Career Self-Management Behaviour, Group and Organization Management,35, 1, 108141.

Sturges, J., and Guest, D. (2001), Dont Leave Me This Way! A Qualitative Study of Influences onthe Organisational Commitment and Turnover Intentions of Graduates Early in Their Career,British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 29, 4, 447462.

Sturges, J., Guest, D., Conway, N., and Davey, K.M. (2002), A Longitudinal Study of theRelationship Between Career Management and Organizational Commitment Among Graduatesin the First Ten Years of Work, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 6, 731748.

Sturges, J., Guest, D., and Davy, K.M. (2000), Whos in Charge? Graduate Attitudes to andExperiences of Career Management and Their Relationship With Organizational Commitment,European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 9, 3, 351370.

Sullivan, S.E. (1999), The Changing Nature of Careers: A Review and Research Agenda, Journalof Management, 25, 3, 457484.

Sullivan, S.E., and Arthur, M. (2006), The Evolution of the Boundaryless Career Concept:Examining Physical and Psychological Mobility, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 1929.

Sullivan, S.E., and Baruch, Y. (2009), Advances in Career Theory and Research: A Critical Reviewand Agenda for Future Exploration, Journal of Management, 36, 6, 15421571.

Sullivan, S.E., and Emerson, R. (2003), Recommendations For Successfully Navigating theBoundaryless Career: From Theory to Practice, Paper Presented at the Midwest Academy ofManagement Annual Meeting, 30 March1 April, Chicago, IL.

Sullivan, S.E., and Mainiero, L.A. (2007), The Changing Nature of Gender Roles, Alpha/BetaCareer and Work-Life Issues, Career Development International, 12, 3, 238263.

Tams, S., and Arthur, M.B. (2010), New Directions for Boundaryless Careers: Agency andInterdependence in a Changing World, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 629646.

Tsui,A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W., andTripoli, A.M. (1997), AlternativeApproaches toEmployee-Organization Relationships, The Academy of Management Journal, 40, 5, 10891121.

Van Buren III, H.J. (2003), Boundaryless Careers and Employability Obligations, Business EthicsQuarterly, 13, 2, 131149.

Vardi, Y., and Kim, S.H. (2007), Considering the Darker Side of Careers: Toward a More BalancedPerspective, in Handbook of Career Studies, eds. H.P. Gunz and M.A. Peiperl, Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage, pp. 502510.

Wajcman, J., and Martin, B. (2001), My Company or My Career: Managerial Achievement andLoyalty, British Journal of Sociology, 152, 4, 559578.

Walton, S., and Mallon, M. (2004), Redefining the Boundaries? Making Sense of Career inContemporary New Zealand, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42, 1, 7595.

Waterman, R.H., Waterman, J.A., and Collard, B.A. (1994), Towards a Career-ResilientWorkforce, Harvard Business Review, JulyAugust, 8795.

Weber, M. (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Whyte, W. (1956), The Organization Man, New York: Simon and Schuster.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management 703

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Eas

t Lon

don]

at 11

:46 27

Marc

h 201

5