The Organizational Career - Not Dead But in Need of Redefinition (Clarke, M. 2012)

This article was downloaded by: [University of East London]
On: 27 March 2015, At: 11:46

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The International Journal of Human

Resource Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20
The organizational career: not dead but

in need of redefinition
Marilyn Clarke
Business School, University of Adelaide , Adelaide , South

Australia
Published online: 16 Jul 2012.
To cite this article: Marilyn Clarke (2013) The organizational career: not dead but in need of
redefinition, 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 (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and 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 Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial 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/termsand-conditions
The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

Vol. 24, No. 4, February 2013, 684703
The organizational career: not dead but in need of redefinition

Marilyn Clarke*
Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015
Business School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia

The organizational career has been portrayed as increasingly irrelevant in a world
where organizations are either unwilling or unable to offer job security, and where
individuals are seeking greater independence and flexibility with regard to career
development. 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 and
desirable. Rather than simply discarding it there is much to be learned from exploring
how it has evolved and then redefining it to meet the needs of contemporary
organizations.
Keywords: boundaryless career; career management; new organizational career;
organizational career; protean career
Introduction
Much has been written about the decline of the organizational career. In 1996 Hall 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 and Rousseau 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 from an 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 the mode suggested by early organizational career theorists. The paper
concludes by proposing a model referred to as the new organizational career that combines
*Email: marilyn.clarke@adelaide.edu.au
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
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
685
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. 29 30). 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.
686
M. Clarke
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
687
from the constraints of organizational life (Platman 2003, 2004; Mallon and Walton 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, sociocultural 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 1992 2006 in countries such as France, Germany, the Netherlands
and Portugal job stability has not declined but in fact has increased marginally
688
M. Clarke
(Rodrigues and Guest 2010). A study of job tenure in the UK in the period 1975 1993
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 work life and work family 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
689
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
690
M. Clarke
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 work life 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 a more mobile 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 20 30 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.
691
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 development.
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
692
M. Clarke
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
the managers 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 selfmanagement and organizational career support (e.g. Sturges, Conway, Guest and
Liefooghe 2005; Sturges, Conway and Liefooghe 2010), or on the link between career selfmanagement 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
693
approach that combines more 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 twoway 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
694
M. Clarke
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 employer employee 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 work life
balance or family choices, which as previously discussed is a form of psychological
695
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
696
M. Clarke
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 relationships make 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
697
Table 1. The new organizational career.

Bureaucratic organizational
career
Employment security
Stability
Long-term tenure in same
role
Loyalty to organization
Organizationally managed
career
Development to meet
organization needs
Career focus is internal to
organization
Linear progression
Relational employment
contract
Objective measures of
success
New organizational career
Boundaryless career
Employment continuity
Flexibility and adaptability
Medium-term tenure across
different roles
Loyalty to organization and
outside groups
Jointly managed career
Employability
Mobility
Flexible tenure across
different organizations
Loyalty to own career
Development to meet organization and individual needs

Career focus is internal and
external to organization
Spiral progression
Relational employment contract
Objective and subjective
measures of success
Development to meet
primarily individual needs
Career focus is internal to the
individual
Transitory progression
Transactional employment
contract
Subjective measures of
success
Self-managed career
Source: Adapted from Baruch (2004b).
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 have multiple loyalties, not just loyalty
to the organization. For example, there may also be professional loyalties, loyalties to
colleagues or loyalty to ones own career. This means that organizations will 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).
698
M. Clarke
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. 58 59). 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
699
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 organizational
careers 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 of
European Industrial Training, 28, 2/3/4, 141 158.
Allred, B.B., Snow, C.C., and Miles, R.E. (1996), Characteristics of Managerial Careers in the 21st
Century, The Academy of Management Executive, 10, 4, 17 27.
Arnold, J., and Cohen, L. (2008), The Psychology of Careers in Industrial and Organizational
Settings: A Critical But Appreciative Analysis, in International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology (Vol. 23), eds. G.P. Hodgkinson and J.K. Ford, Chichester: John
Wiley and Sons, pp. 1 44.
Arthur, M., and Rousseau, D. (eds.) (1996a), The Boundaryless Career, New York: Oxford
University Press.
700
M. Clarke
Arthur, M., and Rousseau, D.M. (1996b), A Career Lexicon for the 21st Century, Academy of
Management Executive, 10, 4, 28 39.
Arthur, M., Inkson, K., and Pringle, J. (1999), The New Careers: Individual Action and Economic
Change, London: Sage.
Arthur, M.B., Khapova, S.N., and Wilderom, C.P.M. (2005), Career Success in a Boundaryless
Career World, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 177 202.
Atkinson, C. (2004), Career Management and the Changing Psychological Contract, Career
Development International, 7, 1, 14 23.
Barnett, B.R., and Bradley, L. (2007), The Impact of Organisational Support for Career
Development and Career Satisfaction, Career Development International, 12, 7, 617 636.
Baruch, Y. (2003), Career Systems in Transition: A Normative Model for Organizational Career
Practices, Personnel Review, 32, 2, 231 251.
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, 58 73.
Baruch, Y. (2006), Career Development in Organizations and Beyond: Balancing Traditional and
Contemporary Viewpoints, Human Resource Management Review, 16, 125 138.
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 of
Work & Organizational Psychology, 8, 2, 295 306.
Baruch, Y., and Peiperl, M. (2000), Career Management Practices: An Empirical Survey and
Implications, Human Resource Management, 39, 4, 347 366.
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, 4 18.
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, 30 47.
Brousseau, K.R., Driver, M.J., Eneroth, K., and Larsson, R. (1996), Career Pandemonium:
Realigning Organizations and Individuals, Academy of Management Executive, 10, 4, 52 66.
Bujold, C. (2004), Constructing Career Through Narrative, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 4,
470 484.
Burgess, S., and Rees, H. (1997), Transient Jobs and Lifetime Jobs: Dualism in the British Labour
Market, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 59, 309 328.
Burgess, S., and Rees, H. (1998), A Disaggregate Analysis of the Evolution of Job Tenure in Britain,
1975 1993, British Journal of Industrial Relations, 36, 4, 629 655.
Cabrera, E.F. (2009), Protean Organizations: Reshaping Work and Careers to Retain Female
Talent, Career Development International, 14, 2, 186 201.
Capelli, P. (1999), Career Jobs are Dead, California Management Review, 42, 1, 146 167.
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. 3 32.
Cavanaugh, M.A., and Noe, R.A. (1999), Antecedents and Consequences of Relational Components
of the New Psychological Contract, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 323 340.
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 CountryComparative Perspective, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 4,
825 849.
Cohen, L. (2006), Remembrance of Things Past: Cultural Process and Practice in Analysis of Career
Stories, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 189 201.
Cohen, L., and Mallon, M. (1999), The Transition from Organisational Employment to Portfolio
Working: 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 the
Psychological Contract: Employee and Employer Perspectives, Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 11, 1, 69 86.
Cullinane, N., and Dundon, T. (2006), The Psychological Contract: A Critical Review,
International Journal of Management Reviews, 8, 2, 113 129.
701
Currie, G., Tempest, S., and Starkey, K. (2006), New Careers for Old? Organizational and
Individual Responses to Changing Boundaries, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 17, 4, 755 774.
Dany, F. (2003), Free Actors and Organisations: Critical Remarks About the New Career
Literature, Based on French Insights, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
14, 5, 821 838.
De Meuse, K.P., Bergmann, T.J., and Lester, S.W. (2001), An Investigation of the Relational
Component of the Psychological Contract Across Time, Generation and Employment Status,
Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 1, 102 118.
Donnelly, R. (2008), Careers and Temporal Flexibility in the New Economy: An Anglo-Dutch
Comparison of the Organisation of Consultancy Work, Human Resource Management Journal,
18, 3, 197 215.
Duberley, J., Mallon, M., and Cohen, L. (2006), Exploring Career Transitions: Accounting for
Structure and Agency, Personnel Review, 35, 3, 281 296.
Eby, L.T., Butts, M., and Lockwood, A. (2003), Predictors of Success in the Era of the Boundaryless
Career, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 689 708.
Farber, H.S. (1995), Are Lifetime Jobs Disappearing in the United States: 1973 1996, NBER
Working Paper no. 5014.
Feldman, D.C., and Ng, T.W.H. (2007), Careers: Mobility, Embeddedness, and Success, Journal of
Management, 33, 3, 350 377.
Goffee, R., and Jones, G.P. (2000), Career, Community, and Social Architecture: An Exploration of
Concepts, 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. 256 272.
Gold, M., and Fraser, J. (2002), Managing Self-Management: Successful Transitions to Portfolio
Careers, Work, Employment and Society, 16, 4, 579597.
Granrose, C.S., and Baccili, P.A. (2006), Do Psychological Contracts Include Boundaryless or
Protean Careers? Career Development International, 11, 2, 163182.
Griffin, M.A. (2007), Specifying Organizational Contexts: Systematic Links Between Context and
Processes in Organizational Behaviour, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 28, 859 863.
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. 24 53.
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,
8 16.
Hall, D.T. (2004), The Protean Career: A Quarter-Century Journey, Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 65, 1 13.
Hall, D.T., and Las Heras, M. (2009), Long Live the Organisational Career, in Vocational,
Psychological, and Organisational Perspectives on Career: Towards a Multidisciplinary
Dialogue, eds. A. Collin and W. Patton, Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense, pp. 181 196.
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
Inkson, K., and Arthur, M. (2001), How to Be a Successful Career Capitalist, Organizational
Dynamics, 30, 1, 48 61.
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 Work
Biography of Information Technology Workers in Nigeria, Career Development International,
11, 1, 48 65.
Jacoby, S. (1999), Are Career Jobs Headed for Extinction? California Management Review, 42, 1,
123 145.
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.
702
M. Clarke
King, Z. (2003), New or Traditional Careers? A Study of UK Graduates Preferences, Human

Resource Management Journal, 13, 1, 5 26.
King, Z. (2004), Career Self Management: Its Nature, Causes and Consequences, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 65, 112 133.
King, Z., Burke, S., and Pemberton, J. (2005), The Bounded Career: An Empirical Study of
Human Capital, Career Mobility and Employment Outcomes in a Mediated Labour Market,
Human Relations, 58, 8, 981 1001.
Lazarova, M., and Taylor, S. (2009), Boundaryless Careers, Social Capital, and Knowledge
Management: Implications for Organizational Performance, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 30, 119139.
Lips-Wiersma, M., and Hall, D.T. (2007), Organizational Career Development is Not Dead: a Case
Study on Managing the New Career During Organizational Change, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 28, 771792.
Maguire, H. (2002), Psychological Contracts: Are They Still Relevant? Career Development
International, 7, 3, 167 180.
Mainiero, L.A., and Sullivan, S.E. (2005), Kaleidoscope Careers: An Alternate Explanation for the
Opt-Out Revolution, Academy of Management Executive, 19, 1, 106 203.
Mallon, M. (1999), Going Portfolio: Making Sense of Changing Careers, Career Development
International, 4, 7, 358 369.
Mallon, M., and Cohen, L. (2001), Time for a Change? Womens Accounts of the Move from
Organizational Careers to Self-Employment, British Journal of Management, 12, 217 230.
Mallon, M., and Walton, S. (2005), Career and Learning: The Ins and the Outs of It, Personnel
Review, 34, 4, 468 487.
Mayrhofer, W., Steyrer, J., Meyer, M., Strunk, G., Schiffinger, M., and Iellatchitch, A. (2005),
Graduates Career Aspirations and Individual Characteristics, Human Resource Management
Journal, 15, 1, 38 56.
McDonald, P., Brown, K., and Bradley, L. (2005), Have Traditional Career Paths Given Way to
Protean Ones? Evidence From Senior Managers in the Australian Public Sector, Career
Ng, T.W.H., Eby, L.T., Sorenson, K.L., and Feldman, D.C. (2005), Predictors of Objective and
Subjective Career Success: A Meta-Analysis, Personnel Psychology, 58, 367 408.
Nicholson, N. (1996), Career Systems in Crisis: Change and Opportunity in the Information Age,
Academy of Management Executive, 10, 4, 40 51.
Pang, M., Chua, B.-L., and Chu, C.W.L. (2008), Learning to Stay Ahead in an Uncertain
Environment, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19, 7, 1383 1394.
Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Peiperl, M., Arthur, M., Goffee, R., and Morris, 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, 6 22.
Platman, K. (2003), The Self-Designed Career in Later Life: A Study of Older Portfolio Workers in
the United Kingdom, Ageing and Society, 23, 281 302.
Platman, K. (2004), Portfolio Careers and the Search for Flexibility in Later Life, Work,
Employment and Society, 18, 3, 573 599.
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, 1157 1175.
Rousseau, D.M. (1989), Psychological and Implied Contracts in Organizations, Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2, 121 139.
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, 416 427.
Sekaran, U. (2000), Research Methods for Business, New York: Wiley.
703
Smith, T.F., and Sheridan, A. (2006), Organizational Careers Versus Boundaryless Careers: Insights
from 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 LongTerm Employment in the United States, 1969 2002, National Bureau of Economic Research
Working 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, Organizational
Commitment and Work Behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 821 838.
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, 108 141.
Sturges, J., and Guest, D. (2001), Dont Leave Me This Way! A Qualitative Study of Influences on
the Organisational Commitment and Turnover Intentions of Graduates Early in Their Career,
British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 29, 4, 447 462.
Sturges, J., Guest, D., Conway, N., and Davey, K.M. (2002), A Longitudinal Study of the
Relationship Between Career Management and Organizational Commitment Among Graduates
in 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 and
Experiences of Career Management and Their Relationship With Organizational Commitment,
European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 9, 3, 351 370.
Sullivan, S.E. (1999), The Changing Nature of Careers: A Review and Research Agenda, Journal
of Management, 25, 3, 457 484.
Sullivan, S.E., and Arthur, M. (2006), The Evolution of the Boundaryless Career Concept:
Examining Physical and Psychological Mobility, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 19 29.
Sullivan, S.E., and Baruch, Y. (2009), Advances in Career Theory and Research: A Critical Review
and Agenda for Future Exploration, Journal of Management, 36, 6, 1542 1571.
Sullivan, S.E., and Emerson, R. (2003), Recommendations For Successfully Navigating the
Boundaryless Career: From Theory to Practice, Paper Presented at the Midwest Academy of
Management Annual Meeting, 30 March 1 April, Chicago, IL.
Sullivan, S.E., and Mainiero, L.A. (2007), The Changing Nature of Gender Roles, Alpha/Beta
Career and Work-Life Issues, Career Development International, 12, 3, 238 263.
Tams, S., and Arthur, M.B. (2010), New Directions for Boundaryless Careers: Agency and
Interdependence in a Changing World, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 629 646.
Tsui, A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W., and Tripoli, A.M. (1997), Alternative Approaches to EmployeeOrganization Relationships, The Academy of Management Journal, 40, 5, 1089 1121.
Van Buren III, H.J. (2003), Boundaryless Careers and Employability Obligations, Business Ethics
Quarterly, 13, 2, 131 149.
Vardi, Y., and Kim, S.H. (2007), Considering the Darker Side of Careers: Toward a More Balanced
Perspective, in Handbook of Career Studies, eds. H.P. Gunz and M.A. Peiperl, Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, pp. 502 510.
Wajcman, J., and Martin, B. (2001), My Company or My Career: Managerial Achievement and
Loyalty, British Journal of Sociology, 152, 4, 559 578.
Walton, S., and Mallon, M. (2004), Redefining the Boundaries? Making Sense of Career in
Contemporary New Zealand, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 42, 1, 75 95.
Waterman, R.H., Waterman, J.A., and Collard, B.A. (1994), Towards a Career-Resilient
Workforce, Harvard Business Review, July August, 87 95.
Weber, M. (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Whyte, W. (1956), The Organization Man, New York: Simon and Schuster.

The Organizational Career - Not Dead But in Need of Redefinition (Clarke, M. 2012)

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Organizational Career - Not Dead But in Need of Redefinition (Clarke, M. 2012)

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

This article was downloaded by: [University of East London]

On: 27 March 2015, At: 11:46

The International Journal of Human

The organizational career: not dead but

Business School, University of Adelaide , Adelaide , South

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The International Journal of Human Resource Management,

The organizational career: not dead but in need of redefinition

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

Business School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

Theory and research on organizational careers: a brief history

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

Organizational careers can be flexible, challenging and mobile.

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Organizational careers provide opportunities for employee development.

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

opportunities for development through structured training programmes and experience

Organizational careers can be jointly managed.

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Organizational careers foster balanced relationships.

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

Organizational careers can hinder mobility.

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Table 1. The new organizational career.

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

New organizational career

Development to meet organization and individual needs

Source: Adapted from Baruch (2004b).

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

King, Z. (2003), New or Traditional Careers? A Study of UK Graduates Preferences, Human

Downloaded by [University of East London] at 11:46 27 March 2015

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Você também pode gostar