Career Development

A Human Resource Development

Perspective

Kimberly McDonald and

Linda Hite
Career Development

Career Development: A Human Resource Development Perspective

offers a strategic framework that demonstrates the role of career
development within the human resource function. It goes beyond
conventional interventions and includes key topics such as diversity,
work–life balance, and ethics.
Historically, the career development literature has been viewed either
from the perspective of the individual (how to build a career) or from an
economic perspective (how an organization benefits from developing
employees). In this book, McDonald and Hite bring together the strengths
of both traditions, offering an integrated framework for career
development. The theoretical foundation expands on the counseling
literature by incorporating the literature from human resource
development and related fields. The application section reflects on the
wide range of ages and working options that characterize the current and
future workplace. The final section of the book addresses career
development issues such as managing a diverse, global workforce;
ethics; and work–life balance.
This book will help prepare human resource development students,
scholars, and practitioners to develop and maintain successful career
development programs, and to foster more innovative research that
advances the discourse.

Kimberly McDonald is Professor of Organizational Leadership and

Supervision at Indiana-Purdue University Fort Wayne, USA. Her
research focuses on career development, ethical issues in human
resource development, and diversity education. She recently
completed her term as editor-in-chief of the journal Advances in
Developing Human Resources.
Linda Hite is Professor of Organizational Leadership and Supervision
at Indiana-Purdue University Fort Wayne, USA. Her research focuses
on workforce diversity, career development, and diversity education.
She is book and media review editor for New Horizons in Adult
Education and Human Resource Development.
First published 2016
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa

business

© 2016 Taylor & Francis

The right of Kimberly McDonald and Linda Hite to be identified as
the authors of this work has been asserted by them in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
McDonald, Kimberly.
Career development : a human resource development
perspective / Kimberly McDonald & Linda Hite. – 1 Edition.
pages cm
1. Career development. 2. Personnel management. I. Hite, Linda.
II. Title.
HF5549.5.C35M383 2015
658.3’124–dc23
2015017694

ISBN: 978-1-138-78612-7 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-78613-4 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-76740-6 (ebk)

Typeset in Times New Roman

by Sunrise Setting Ltd, Paignton, UK
To Dave and Rich, our spouses and soulmates. Thanks for
your continued patience, support, and love.
Contents

1 An introduction to career development 1

2 Career theory and concepts 15

3 Strategic career development 36

4 Career development interventions 68

5 Career development links to career psychology 99

6 Career development barriers and diverse populations 123

7 Career challenges 151

8 Ethical considerations and conclusions 182

Index 197
1 An Introduction to Career
Development

Think of yourself not as the architect of your career but as the sculptor.
Expect to have to do a lot of hard hammering and chiseling and
scraping and polishing.
B.C. Forbes, founder of Forbes magazine

Your work is to discover your work and then with all your heart to give
yourself to it.
Attributed to the Buddha

What Does It Mean to Have a Career?

This book is about careers and how they develop, but, to understand
what it means to have a career, we should begin at a more foundational
level, specifically, work and the role it plays in our lives.
The meaningfulness of work in life has global and enduring appeal,
as seen in the two quotes that open this chapter. Work and careers are
such an integral part of life that the discourse devoted to those
interrelated topics spans centuries and extends from social media and
popular press to scholarly articles and books. For example, over two
decades ago, an article appeared in Fortune Magazine titled “Why do
we work?” (Dumaine & Sample, 1994). Then, as now, the most
obvious answer seemed to be to make money. Yet, the point of the
article was that work encompasses more than just financial security.
While some work primarily to make ends meet, given the choice, then
as now, people tend to seek out occupations that enhance a sense of
self. As Warren Bennis, leadership scholar and consultant, observed,
“Work really defines who you are. So much of a person’s self-esteem is
measured by success at work” (Dumaine & Sample, 1994).
More recently, Hall and Las Heras (2012) reinforced the idea that,
in some cultures, work and career are closely tied to individual
2 An Introduction to Career Development
identity and help define one’s sense of life purpose. It is a means to
fulfill one’s potential. Similarly, Duffy and Dik (2013) have noted the
prevalence of the idea of a calling in scholarly literature on careers.
While definitions vary, three components seem to make up a sense of
calling: “an external summons,” feeling drawn to do a particular type
of work; “meaning/purpose,” connecting work to a life purpose; and
“prosocial motivation,” contributing to the well-being of others
(p. 429). While more research is needed regarding this concept, links
are evident between seeing one’s career as a calling and positive
outcomes such as career commitment and job satisfaction (Duffy &
Dik, 2013). Not surprisingly then, the loss of a job often means more
than just reduction of income. It may bring into question one’s sense
of worth and purpose. In short, careers matter to us and may have a
profound impact on how we see ourselves and how happy we are in
our lives.
The idea of meaning and work is also revealed in how employees
determine their career goals. Hall and Las Heras (2012) observed that
careers can be seen from two different perspectives: the subjective,
derived from an individual sense of meaningfulness regarding a career;
and the objective, focusing on what others often identify as key indi-
cators of success (e.g., promotions, pay). While traditional career
research often honed in on the objective hallmarks, the subjective
aspect has gained in prominence as the career environment has
changed. Our current view of careers is much more expansive and
open to individual interpretation and initiative. As a result, the study
of careers and career development has become not only more varied,
but also more important to human resource development (HRD).
Before we go further, let’s define key terms for our continued
discussion.

Defining Careers and Career Development

Moore, Gunz, & Hall (2007) provided a helpful context by observing
that, while people have worked for millennia, the word “career” in
reference to a path of employment was not used prior to the nineteenth
century, and it did not come into common usage until the twentieth
century. Herr (2001) was more specific, noting that “the term career
was rarely used before the 1960s” (p. 196).
While definitions of “career” may be found in any dictionary, in the
research literature, those descriptors often reveal the scholar’s view of
how s/he perceives two key elements, time and space. Time refers to
how a career evolves during an interval, while space addresses the
 An Introduction to Career Development 3
scope of what a career entails; is it only work-for-pay positions or
all of one’s work-related experiences, paid or not? (Baruch &
Bozionelos, 2011). Arthur (2008) called upon his previous work
and that of Gunz and Peiperl (2007) to define a career as “the evolving
sequence of a person’s work experiences over time” (p. 166). This
description is intended to include unpaid work and it leaves out refer-
ences to advancement as a prerequisite for success, reflecting a more
intrinsic view. Inkson (2007) added that the definition also illustrates
the continuity of a career, including the past while suggesting the
future. Further, it confirms that “each person has only one career”
(p. 3), reinforcing that, although an individual may change jobs or
cross into different industries from time to time, all of those experi-
ences contribute to the same career journey. So, a career path unfolds
over time in steps that may or may not be linear and it may span
across several professional domains as well as different organizations.
It is important to clarify at this point that the perspective of careers in
the US and many parts of Europe has an individual focus, based on
the interests and goals of the person, not on the needs of the family or
larger group, as might be expected in more collectivist societies
(Inkson, 2007). This viewpoint makes a difference in the sense of
individual agency that one has when approaching career decision
making and planning.
Just as there are many definitions of “career,” “career development”
has been defined in varied ways, often depending on the discipline.
Those differences highlight one of the interesting aspects of the career
development field. Some have approached it from an individual
perspective (i.e., focusing on the person’s interests, abilities, goals),
while others have taken an organizational productivity perspective
(i.e., concentrating on the needs of the organization and how individual
employees can help fulfill those needs). As we will discuss later, that
dichotomy of viewpoints reflects a point of contention in the field that
is still playing out. An early definition endeavored to combine these
two perspectives:

Career development is an ongoing process of planning and directed

action toward personal work and life goals. Development means
growth, continuous acquisition and application of one’s skills.
Career development is the outcome of the individual’s career
planning and the organization’s provision of support and oppor-
tunities, ideally a collaborative process which focuses on both the
individual and the organization.
(Simonsen, 1997, pp. 6–7)
4 An Introduction to Career Development
A few years later, Gilley, Eggland, & Gilley (2002) offered this
variation: “career development is a process requiring individuals
and organizations to create a partnership that enhances employees’
knowledge, skills, competencies, and attitudes required for their current
and future job assignments” (p. 94). In light of current research, we
suggest this definition. Career development is the process of acquiring
and experiencing planned and unplanned activities that support attain-
ment of life and work goals. Within an organization, this will be a
collaborative process that enhances individual skills and employability
while fulfilling organizational needs. This definition recognizes that
career development will be individually driven, so it accommodates
career paths built outside of organizations and acknowledges that, while
some activities will be part of a thought-out strategy, spontaneous,
unexpected opportunities may be equally valuable in this process.
Before we explore the HRD–career link further, a historical review
will provide context for how what we now recognize as “career
development” evolved and how we arrived at our current crossroads
regarding career development and HRD.

Historical Context
As noted, our current connotation of “career” is relatively recent, and
the phrase “career development” was not used extensively until the
1950s according to Pope (2000) or the late 1960s, as noted by Herr
(2001). It is not because the concept was unknown, but because the
traditional terminology was more likely to be “vocational guidance”
in the earliest years and, later, “career counseling” as that field rose
into prominence. The origins of what we now know as career theory
represent varied fields and a series of developments over decades.
Moore et al. (2007) suggest that the discourse on careers and career
development has a long history, beginning with the ancient philoso-
phers Cicero and Plato, who alluded to careers in their writings on
how individuals should approach life and discern a calling. Moving
forward by millennia, the foundational roots of what we now know as
career development were evident in the vocational education offered
through the European trade guilds of the twelfth century. Once accep-
ted into a guild, apprentices worked under the tutelage of a master
until they reached journeymen status and could ply their trades
(Wollschlager & Guggenheim, 2004).
Coming to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the
industrial revolution in the US and in Europe prompted the need for
vocational training to match the needs of the newly emerging
 An Introduction to Career Development 5
manufacturing-based economy (Herr, 2001; Pope, 2000; Savickas &
Baker, 2005). In the UK, much of the focus was on helping young
people “to make the transition to work” (Watts & Kidd, 2000, p. 485).
At the same time in the US, two factors brought eager job seekers into
the factories in numbers that necessitated more job training. The first
was increasing immigration of those seeking work with higher wages
by relocating to the US; and the second was domestic movement from
farms to cities as equipment replaced many manual labor jobs (Herr,
2001; Pope, 2000). The move towards a manufacturing society also
meant exploration of varied future job options, representing a shift from
a more agrarian culture, where work patterns tended to be more regi-
mented, with fewer choices.
While the world faced a shift in how and where work would be
accomplished, scholars from varied fields began to contemplate issues
that would affect a future workforce. An example is eminent sociologists
Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. Although they did not directly address
careers and career development in their writings, their work brought to
light the ideas of division of labor, the struggle of balancing the security
of working within an organizational bureaucracy with maintaining
individual freedom, and the differing status of occupations. While their
writings first appeared in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the topics
remain relevant in the current workplace (Moore et al., 2007).
A key figure in the early establishment of vocational guidance also
represented a field not typically associated with career development.
Frank Parsons, an engineer and lawyer by background, is credited with
originating the phrase “vocational guidance” (Herr, 2001). Although
other books at the time and some written earlier addressed occupational
selection and success, his 1909 Choosing a Vocation (published post-
humously) provided an early model for the career counseling of the day
(Herr, 2001; Moore et al., 2007; Pope, 2000). Although Parsons based
his model on his practical experience rather than on research, his work
was well respected. He was an early proponent of matching individual
interests and skills with job requirements. With that in mind, he
proposed three basic tenets of vocational guidance: understanding
oneself, recognizing what different types of work require, and coordi-
nating those two factors to find a suitable job (Parsons, 1909). Parsons’s
approach was focused on working one-on-one with the individual and,
rather surprisingly for his era, he saw vocational guidance as applicable
to both men and women (Herr, 2001).
At this early stage, Parsons was not alone in grounding his vocational
guidance model on application rather than research. This was largely
the case throughout the US and Europe. Researchers on both continents
6 An Introduction to Career Development
rose to the occasion by beginning to develop instruments that might be
used to shore up the practice with theoretical constructs (Herr, 2001).
One mechanism for finding this fit between person and job was
centered on testing. The testing movement resulted over time in three
types of instruments designed to inform individuals and organizations
of potential best matches: “ability or intelligence testing, aptitude or
technical competence testing, and interest or personality testing”
(Moore et al., 2007, p. 23). Early uses included intelligence and apti-
tude testing to match people and jobs, fueled by US military interests in
World War I and widespread unemployment. In the career context, the
1920s–‘30s were characterized by economic depression in Europe and
the US, giving rise to federal jobs programs and organized labor move-
ments, one designed to boost employment and the other born out of
concern for the potential exploitation of workers so desperate for
work that they would endure poor wages and treatment (Pope, 2000).
Then, beginning in the late 1920s, but coming to the forefront later,
interest testing offered a different approach by seeking to tap into
individual preferences rather than divining a “static, inherited ability”
(Moore et al., 2007, p. 24).
The 1940s and ‘50s saw an upswing in career counselor training in
colleges and universities, verifying its place as a profession. As often
happens, the needs of society influenced careers in this era through the
dual impact of more women entering the workforce during World War
II and returning veterans seeking new careers through the GI Bill
(Pope, 2000).
While the three-step approach advocated by Parsons persisted in
some circles, it was challenged in the ‘50s and ‘60s by developmental
psychologists, advocating the view that career development was not a
one-time, rational match, but rather a longitudinal process (Hershenson,
2009). Donald Super, a key scholar in the developmental approach, was
particularly noted for proposing a model of career development that
was based on life stages and roles. It was built on the idea that different
aspects of the career journey became more salient as an individual
moved through stages of life and that vocational maturity would be
indicative of progress in the career development process (Hershenson,
2009). Although stage-based career models like Super’s have come
under some criticism over time, they mark significant milestones in
the development of career practice and theory. We will explore that
further in later chapters.
The late 1960s–‘70s, often remembered in the US for John
Kennedy’s presidency and the Vietnam War (during the latter decade),
brought legislation to promote a more diverse workplace and interest
 An Introduction to Career Development 7
among employees in finding meaningful work (Pope, 2000). This era
also saw a revival of Parsons’s matching idea in John Holland’s
theory of linking types of people with occupational environments
(Hershenson, 2009). His RIASEC (realistic, investigative, artistic,
social, enterprising, and conventional) system of categorizing remains
the mainstay of key interest inventories.
During the 1980s–‘90s, job losses fostered growth of outplacement
counseling, declines in labor unions, and more concern about devel-
oping career theories that addressed diverse groups (Pope, 2000). The
ramifications of job loss during this period had a profound and linger-
ing influence on how work and careers are perceived.

A Changed Career Landscape

The current career landscape has been characterized as turbulent,
unpredictable, and challenging. Several interconnecting factors have
contributed to this changed environment, including economic turmoil,
technological advances, a more diverse workforce, governmental
policies, and societal influences. As noted in the timeline, a less than
robust economy and widespread global debt led to unemployment as
organizations embarked on extensive downsizings in an effort to regain
financial balance (OECD, 2011). Technological advances ushered in
the rising knowledge-economy and have influenced not only types of
jobs available, but also how work is done (i.e., virtual teams, on-line
meetings), where work is done (i.e., telecommuting from home,
airports, the beach!), and the scope of work (i.e., global access to
potential suppliers and customers) (Arthur, 2008). Changing domestic
demographics, global access to workers, and government legislation
have created a widely diverse workforce that, not surprisingly, has
varied career goals and interests. Combined economic, global, and
societal influences have had wide-ranging impact, prompting more
dual wage-earner households; the expansion and shrinking of some
career fields (i.e., proliferation of health care workers to accommodate
an aging society; the decline of labor unions); and the reality of hop-
scotch careers, as workers transition frequently from one job to another.
The result is a less stable and more precarious career environment
(Savickas et al., 2009) that presents significant challenges for career
development and, by extension, HRD.
This turmoil has fundamentally changed how career development is
viewed by individuals and how it is addressed by organizations.
Ultimately, by dismissing employees with apparent disregard for work
records or skills, companies inadvertently gave up employee loyalty
8 An Introduction to Career Development
and commitment. Researchers refer to this as breaking the psycho-
logical contract that had implicitly existed between employer and
employee, upholding a mutual exchange of good work performance for
job security (Rousseau, 1995; Turnley & Feldman, 1998). In response
to this shift, many individuals no longer were willing to trust their
future employment or development to their employers and began taking
control of their own career trajectories. This approach was noted and
described by Hall (1996) as pursuit of the protean career. Near the same
time, the term “boundaryless career” (Arthur, 1994) came to the fore-
front as a way to describe eschewing ties to any one organization or
profession and being ready to move when opportunities appear. Those
concepts will be described in more detail in a later chapter, but they are
presented briefly here to illustrate the challenges facing HRD as it
reviews its current and future role in career development.

Career Development and HRD

The connection of career development to HRD officially began with
Patricia McLagan’s 1989 assignment of three sub-areas to HRD. Along
with training and development and organization development, career
development was identified as an integral component of the field. As
the historical timeline suggests, career development in practice and
theory had a well-established history by this point. Given the role of
HRD in organizations, career development would seem a natural fit.
However, over time, career development has receded from the fore-
front in HRD. One illustration of this is evident in Swanson and
Holton’s definition of HRD, which notes organization development
and training and development as the field’s “major realms of practice”
(Swanson & Holton, 2009, p. 5). They include career development in a
longer list of HRD-related components, but the implication is that
career development has been pushed into the background. How did
this happen?
Once the bond of the psychological contract was breached, the goal of
organization-based, mutually beneficial career development fell by the
wayside, and it has yet to be fully recovered within HRD. Systems,
scholars, and practitioners entrenched in the traditional career develop-
ment mindset seemed perplexed for a time about what to do when
employees were no longer expected to have long careers climbing higher
within a single organization. At the same time, the interdisciplinary
character may also have contributed to HRD’s lack of decisive progress.
Multiple areas of research and practice lay claim to career development as
an interest (e.g., sociology, education, economics, psychology). These
 An Introduction to Career Development 9
diverse roots often have led to more confusion than collaboration,
creating a field with varied interpretations and little agreement about
approaches or sharing of expertise (Gunz & Peiperl, 2007).
One of these subfields, vocational psychology, has had continuing
influence on career development scholarship and practice over time.
However, Savickas and Baker (2005) have expressed concern that
current factions within that field may be weakening psychology’s
historically strong presence in career development. They described a
sharp divide between scholars advocating the dominance of “occupa-
tional choice” in the field (a decidedly individual focus held by those in
counseling psychology) and their equally adamant peers who value
“work adjustment” (an organizational focus supported by industrial/
organizational psychologists) (p. 43). A similar schism exists in HRD
that has made the revival of career development as a viable and vibrant
aspect of human resources (HR) more challenging. Those who view
career development as focused on the individual and his/her needs
recognize that workers need to be flexible and strive for employability
in their overall careers rather than stability within one organization.
This mindset cautions against linking the career development process
too closely to any one system, particularly when future careers are
expected to be fluid across industries as well as between organizations.
Those who perceive career development as primarily a staffing func-
tion, building and maintaining a pipeline of qualified workers to ensure
organizational productivity, are cautious of expending resources on
individuals who may not stay with the organization. This dichotomy
in perspectives has resulted in what has been called the “contested
terrain” of career development (Inkson & King, 2011). Just as the
disparate viewpoints in psychology threaten to derail career studies in
that field, this dissention in HRD has slowed the progress of developing
a responsive career development approach. This will be addressed in
more detail in a later chapter, but it is important to note here briefly in
order to provide a context for addressing career development in HRD.
Despite the current fractious and somewhat chaotic environment
surrounding career development, Herr (2001) has urged career develop-
ment practitioners and researchers not to give up but to continue to
evolve to meet the challenges of the global, technologically advanced
future. He noted the value of career development as a way to affirm
human dignity to individuals buffeted by harsh economic realities and
persistent workplace discrimination, and to help them build the flexibil-
ity that they will need to thrive in a constantly changing world of work.
Other HRD researchers have called for new approaches to career devel-
opment that will revive its relevance and reinforce it as a critical function
10 An Introduction to Career Development
of HRD by responding to the realities of the current and future workplace
(Egan, Upton, & Lynham, 2006; McDonald & Hite, 2005). One way to
begin that process is to expand our view of career development to
embrace research and practice from other fields as a way to build a
stronger, more resilient career development within HRD (Cameron,
2009). We will explore more of those options throughout this book.

Competencies for the New Era of CD

A revised career development process will require HR practitioners to
have a more extensive skill set to meet the needs of individuals and
organizations. Professional career development associations in other
fields provide insights into competencies required (e.g., British Columbia
Career Development Association; The Canadian Standards & Guidelines
for Career Development Practice; Career Industry Council of Australia;
National Career Development Association—NCDA). The following list
provides representative highlights from the Canadian Standards (2012)
and NCDA (2009). In addition to an insightful and open-minded attitude,
practitioners should have knowledge and skills in:

 career development models and theories

 career resources (including organizations or other sources of
information)
 career counseling for individual and group work
 career assessment
 career development for diverse populations
 ethical career counseling practices
 technology related to career planning
 developing and implementing a career development program

Career practitioners also must be knowledgeable about ways to help

individuals continue to develop their careers throughout their lives
(Herr, 2001), because the current (and future) uncertain career environ-
ment puts individuals in control of setting their own career paths. These
competencies reinforce the importance of recognizing career develop-
ment as a critical part of HRD that requires a depth of knowledge and
skills not always addressed in the HRD curriculum. This book provides
a starting point to building those competencies. HRD professionals
particularly interested in career work may even choose to pursue addi-
tional training, such as the National Career Development Association
career development facilitator certification (see Chapter 5 for more on
this). Recalling the rich and varied history of career development,
 An Introduction to Career Development 11
HRD career development practitioners can seek out additional resour-
ces in those related fields, particularly counseling and psychology.
By spanning boundaries and exploring the full complement of multi-
disciplinary research on career development from other fields of study,
HRD can learn from what others have already investigated and imple-
mented (Cameron, 2009). This integration of knowledge can better
prepare future career development practitioners for guiding individuals
and systems and discovering new ways to bring synergy to career
development in HRD. (See Chapter 5 for a more detailed discussion.)

Overview of the Book

This book is divided into sections, inviting you to read it all the way
through or in segments that best fit your interests. Part one provides the
fundamentals, this Introductory chapter and Chapter 2 on key theories and
concepts. Part two (Chapters 3–5) addresses career development within HR
specifically, including an overview of strategic career development/HR, HR
interventions related to career development, and how career counseling fits
into the current approach to career development within HRD. Part
three (Chapters 6–8) includes critical issues that span across career
development and HR: the diverse workforce, work–life balance, and ethics.
Each chapter invites you to reflect on the future of career development in
HRD and to develop your knowledge and skills to help build that future.
As we start this journey, let’s review some key assumptions about
careers and career development as context. The first five appeared in an
earlier publication (McDonald & Hite, 2005, pp. 422–423). You may
find others that you would like to add as you go through this book.

 HRD remains integral to the career development process.

 The return on investment of career development must be consid-
ered in order to gain organizational interest in expanding career
development efforts.
 Career development should not be restricted to a select few or to
those at particular levels within the system.
 Career development can be both formal and informal and may take
place within and outside of the organization.
 Individual life and work priorities influence choices about careers
and development opportunities.
 Careers are complex and multi-dimensional with diverse challenges
and benefits.
 Individuals are responsible for their careers, but organizations have
a responsibility to assist in that process.
12 An Introduction to Career Development
 Career development can be mutually beneficial to individuals and
organizations.
 Career development practitioners need particular competencies.
 Career development programs must continue to evolve to match
the changing career environment.

Summary and Implications for Individuals and

Organizations
This new era of career development in HRD will require individuals
to be actively involved in their own career development and planning.
While organizations once pre-determined career paths within their
own systems and designated particular steps to climb the rungs of
career advancement, employees now must set their own routes to
reach their goals. Some may see this as a daunting task, preferring the
relative security of following a well-worn course towards an easily
identifiable title or position. Others will be energized by the
possibilities of setting their own trajectories, finding security in
building their knowledge and skills to increase their employability,
preparing to move from one system to another in pursuit of their own
definition of career success.
Organizations must adapt as well. Traditional career development
programs, designed to ensure a pipeline of qualified replacements for
key positions, are being questioned and often replaced by more fluid
mechanisms. The old standard that employers held the power in
determining career paths is no longer the norm. While some will choose
to remain in the same organization for much or all of their career, others
will be ready to move on to new endeavors. Employees in charge of
their own careers will be most attracted to organizations that offer them
growth opportunities and most likely to stay with systems that continue
to foster their engagement. This will require organizations to acquire a
new mindset: one that invests in employees, without expecting or
providing a long-term commitment. Career development will be a
vibrant part of this process, but it will need to be re-constructed to
respond to this new era of careers. So our exploration begins.

References
Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A new perspective for
organizational inquiry. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 295–306.
Arthur, M. B. (2008). Examining contemporary careers: A call for
interdisciplinary inquiry. Human Relations, 61(2), 163–186.
 An Introduction to Career Development 13
Baruch, Y. & Bozionelos, N. (2011). Career issues. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA
handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol 2: Selecting and
developing members for the organization (pp. 67–113). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Cameron, R. (2009). Theoretical bridge building: The career development
project for the 21st century meets the new era of human resource
development. Australian Journal of Career Development, 18(3), 9–17.
Canadian Standards and Guidelines for Career Development Practice (2012).
Retrieved from [Link]
standards-guidelines/core-competencies.
Duffy, R. D. & Dik, B. J. (2013). Research on calling: What have we learned
and where are we going? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 428–436.
Dumaine, B. & Sample, A. (1994, December 26). Why do we work? Fortune
Magazine, 130(13). Retrieved from [Link]
fortune/fortune_archieve/1994/12/26/80094.
Egan, T. M., Upton, M. G., & Lynham, S. A. (2006). Career development:
Load-bearing wall or window dressing? Exploring definitions, theories, and
prospects for HRD-related theory building. Human Resource Development
Review, 5(4), 442–477.
Gilley, J. W., Eggland, S. A., & Gilley, A. M. (2002). Principles of human
resource development (2nd edn.). Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
Gunz, H. & Peiperl, M. (2007). Introduction. In H. Gunz & M. Peiperl (Eds.),
Handbook of career studies (pp. 1–12). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hall, D. T. (1996). Protean careers of the 21st century. The Academy of
Management Executive, 10(4), 8–16.
Hall, D. T. & Las Heras, M. (2012). Personal growth through career work: A
positive approach to careers. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreizer, The
Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship (pp. 507–518).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Herr, E. L. (2001). Career development and its practice: A historical
perspective. Career Development Quarterly, 49(3), 196–211.
Hershenson, D. B. (2009). Historical perspectives in career development
theory. In I. Marini & M. Stebnicki (Eds.), The professional counselor’s
desk reference (pp. 411–420). New York: Springer.
Inkson, K. (2007). Understanding careers: The metaphors of working lives.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Inkson, K. & King, Z. (2011). Contested terrain in careers: A psychological
contract model. Human Relations, 64(1), 37–57.
McDonald, K. S. & Hite, L. M. (2005). Reviving the relevance of career
development in human resource development. Human Resource
Development Review, 4(4), 418–439.
McLagan, P. A. (1989, September). Models for HRD practice. Training &
Development Journal, 49–59.
Moore, C., Gunz, H., & Hall, D. T. (2007). Tracing the historical roots of
career theory in management and organization studies. In H. Gunz &
14 An Introduction to Career Development
M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of career studies (pp. 13–38). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
National Career Development Association (NCDA) (2009). Career counseling
competencies. Retrieved from [Link]
pt/sd/news_article/37798/_self/layout_ccmsearch/true.
OECD (2011). “Economic growth perspective weakening as recovery
slows,” OECD says. Retrieved from [Link]/document/25/0,3746,
en_21571361_44315115_48633433_1_1_1_1,[Link].
Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Pope, M. (2000). A brief history of career counseling in the United States.
Career Development Quarterly, 48(3), 194–211.
Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Under-
standing written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Savickas, M. & Baker, D. B. (2005). The history of vocational psychology:
Antecedents, origin, and early development. In W. B. Walsh & M. Savickas
(Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology: Theory, research, and practice
(3rd edn.) (pp. 15–50). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Savickas, M., Nota, L., Rossier, J., Dauwalder, J.-P., Duarte, M. E., Guichard,
J., Soresi, S., Van Esbroeck, R., & Van Vianen, A. (2009). Life designing:
A paradigm for career construction in the 21st century. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 239–250.
Simonsen, P. (1997). Promoting a development culture in your organization.
Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.
Swanson, R. A. & Holton, E. F., III. (2009). Foundations of human resource
development (2nd edn.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Turnley, W. H. & Feldman, D. C. (1998). Psychological contract violations
during corporate restructuring. Human Resource Management, 37(1), 71–83.
Watts, A. G. & Kidd, J. M. (2000). Guidance in the United Kingdom: Past,
present and future. British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 28(4),
485–502.
Wollschlager, N. & Guggenheim, E. F. (2004). A history of vocational
education and training in Europe—from divergence to convergence.
European Journal of Vocational Training, 32, 1–17.
2 Career Theory and Concepts

Regardless of one’s enthusiasm for the idea of a radically

changing career environment, common wisdom has it that careers
nowadays are more erratic and diverse than they were several
decades ago.
Strunk, Schiffinger, & Mayrhofer, 2004, p. 496

As we noted in the previous chapter, global economic, technological,

and lifestyle changes have had a significant impact on careers. As a
result, the past three decades have seen the development of new
approaches and concepts related to careers and career development.
While several perspectives have been proposed, we will focus on four:
the protean career, the boundaryless career, the organizational career,
and the kaleidoscope career. These are significant for a variety of
reasons. First, they help us to understand how careers are evolving in
the twenty-first century. This is valuable for individuals wanting to
develop career competencies that will help them experience career
success. Additionally, they provide practitioners engaged in career
development with varied tools and perspectives that will help them be
better equipped to assist others. Second, these approaches provide a
framework for more research on careers, which ultimately should
broaden our knowledge and practice of career development. This is
important because the current and future career environment requires
flexibility and innovation that is informed by and grounded in solid
research. We will begin this chapter by examining the two perspectives
that have received the most attention from both scholars and career
practitioners in recent years: the protean and the boundaryless career
(Briscoe & Hall, 2006).
16 Career Theory and Concepts
Career Perspectives
The Protean Career
The protean career got its name from the Greek god Proteus, a sea-god
who was capable of changing his shape. From a career perspective, this
suggests a person who can be flexible and adaptable in a turbulent, ever-
changing career landscape. Hall (1976) described the protean career as
“a process which the person, not the organization, is managing” (p. 201).
In other words, the individual is in charge of his/her own career. For
many of you this will not seem particularly novel—of course, one is in
control of one’s career! However, prior to the 1970s, a career was often
conceived of as one’s job within an organization. Individuals went to
work for an organization, remained there for most of their working lives,
and found their chances for advancement were often managed by the
organization and guided by the needs of that system.
The protean career is comprised of two dimensions: (a) a values
driven dimension, meaning that one’s internal values drive how a
person views one’s career and its development; and (b) self-directed
career management, suggesting that an individual is responsible for his/
her career choices and development. Self-directed career management
can be further broken down into two components: a reflective and a
behavioral component. In other words, individuals who take charge of
their own careers think about their professional goals and plans,
developing insights about their careers (reflective), and they can then
choose to act on those thoughts (behavioral) (DeVos & Soens, 2008).
As Briscoe and Hall (2006) pointed out, the notion of a protean career is
a mindset about careers more than anything else. It is “an attitude toward
the career that reflects freedom, self-direction, and making choices based
on one’s personal values” (Briscoe & Hall, 2006, p. 6). It is an “internally
focused” career orientation (Briscoe, Henagan, Burton, & Murphy, 2012),
reinforcing that the individual determines his/her own career path, rather
than relying on direction from organizational systems.
The development of the Protean Career Attitude scale (Briscoe, Hall,
& DeMuth, 2006) prompted more empirical research on the protean
career. For example, studies have found that a protean career attitude
is positively related to career satisfaction and perceived employability
(DeVos & Soens, 2008) as well as performance, career success, and
psychological well-being (Briscoe et al., 2012). Each of these factors
is valuable, particularly the idea of employability, which has become
increasingly important as organizations reconfigure and individuals strive
to keep their skills updated, ready to move on to new opportunities.
 Career Theory and Concepts 17
While there is evidence of positive career outcomes associated with a
protean career orientation, this approach also has been criticized for not
reflecting the careers of most individuals. As Kuchinke (2014) wrote:

While there is little doubt that some individuals in the current era
have been able to carve out their own niche and succeeded in
remaking their careers in line with their talents, values and desires,
there is little evidence to suggest that this model is true for a
majority. . It is hard to envision the protean career as the blueprint
for anyone other than an educated elite or a lucky few.
(pp. 212–213)

These dichotomous views pose one of many questions for the future
of career development. In this case, can the idea of a protean career be
generalized across varied income and education levels? Does it fit for
many types of work or will it be seen as available only to those with
sufficient financial means and educational capital?

The Boundaryless Career

The boundaryless career is characterized as “one of independence from,
rather than dependence on, traditional career arrangements” (Arthur &
Rousseau, 1996, p. 6). In their seminal work, Arthur and Rousseau
identified various forms that the boundaryless career might take. One
form, for example, would involve “mobility across the boundaries of
separate employers,” moving readily (and perhaps frequently) from one
organization to another to take advantage of new opportunities. Another
form would be “constructed around personal and family commitments,”
allowing individuals to re-configure their work to better accommodate
their other life needs and interests (Tams & Arthur, 2010, p. 631).
Boundaryless careers include both physical mobility (e.g., moving
across jobs, occupations, countries, etc.) and psychological mobility,
which is “the capacity to move as seen through the mind of the career
actor” (Sullivan & Arthur, 2006, p. 21). Early studies tended to focus
on physical mobility because it was much easier to operationalize
(Sullivan & Arthur, 2006). The development of the Boundaryless
Career Attitudes scale provided a way to measure psychological mobi-
lity (Briscoe et al., 2006). This scale measures both a “boundaryless
mindset,” which is the “attitude that people hold toward initiating and
pursuing work-related relationships across boundaries” (Briscoe et al.,
2006, p. 31), as well as “organizational mobility preference,” which is
18 Career Theory and Concepts
the amount of interest one might have regarding actual movement (for
example, across multiple employers).
The advent of Briscoe et al.’s scales has prompted a great deal of
research examining boundaryless careers. The boundaryless mindset and
mobility preference have been found to be related to certain personality
characteristics (i.e., proactive personality) (Briscoe et al., 2006), career
competencies (Colakoglu, 2011), and motivators (e.g., autonomy, affili-
ation) (Segers, Inceoglu, Vloeberghs, Bartram, & Henderickx 2008).
However, some studies have had conflicting results. For example,
Verbruggen (2012) found that having a boundaryless mindset led to tangi-
ble indicators of career success (e.g., increased promotions and salaries);
however, having an organizational mobility preference tended to result in
fewer promotions, and lower job and career satisfaction.
The notion of the boundaryless career has been criticized by some
scholars in the field. Some believe the concept to be overly ambiguous,
confusing due to the various ways it has been defined, and misleading
since the focus actually appears to be on crossing boundaries, rather than
not having boundaries, which the term seems to suggest (Inkson, Gunz,
Ganesh, & Roper, 2012). Rodrigues and Guest (2010) argued that there is
still a need for boundaries in careers. While many boundaries have been re-
defined and modified due to the economic environment (as organizations
merge and downsize, often on a global scale), they still exist and are still
needed. Perhaps the most compelling criticism of the boundaryless career
is the lack of empirical support for it (Inkson et al., 2012; Rodrigues &
Guest, 2010). These scholars point to labor statistics on job tenure and
stability to suggest that most individuals are still employed in traditional
organizational careers. Dries, Van Acker, & Verbruggen (2012) also found
that many employees still desire traditional careers and that these careers
result in more satisfaction than those that fit the “boundaryless” ideal.
So, perhaps when we discuss the boundaryless career, it might be helpful
to consider it as a continuum. For example, it might range from being fully
bounded (i.e., seeing one’s career within the confines of one organization
or field), through permeable boundaries (i.e., retaining the mindset of
flexibility and opportunity whether one acts on it or not), to boundaryless
(i.e., those who readily and perhaps frequently move from one organization
and/or profession to another). This perspective might better fit the variety of
workplaces and career opportunities that make up our global society.

The Organizational Career

As indicated above, some evidence suggests that the traditional
career, characterized as occurring “within the confines of traditional
 Career Theory and Concepts 19
organizational structures” (Sullivan & Baruch, 2009), is still alive and
thriving. A study conducted with managers in an Australian public organ-
ization found that many still followed a traditional career path based on
tenure and steady advancement through the ranks (McDonald, Brown, &
Bradley, 2005). Another study comparing 1970 and 1990 business grad-
uates found marginal changes in the two groups’ career patterns. Both
cohorts tended to make traditional intra-organizational and upward tran-
sitions. Chudzikowski, the author of the study, concluded that the tradi-
tional career “appears far from dead” (2012, p. 304).
However, like most social phenomena, the nature of the organiza-
tional career has changed. Clarke explained (2012) that “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’” (p. 696).
She elaborated on potential characteristics of the “new organizational
career,” including:

 continuity in employment, “long-term” rather than “lifetime”

employment
 flexibility and adaptability on the part of employees to handle change
 medium-term tenure across different roles
 loyalty to organization and to outside groups
 jointly managed career (both organizational and self)
 development to meet both organization and individual needs
 career focus that is both internal and external to the organization
 career path is a spiral progression
 relational employment contract
 both objective and subjective measures of success (Clarke, 2012,
p. 697).

Clarke’s view reminds us that we must think expansively when we

view the past, present, and potential future of careers. Increasingly, career
research and practice suggest the need to build on parts of the past while
we adapt to where we are now and envision where we are headed as a
global workplace. Similarly, career development is not bounded by phases
locked in time, but rather is a fluid, moving entity that must continue.

The Kaleidoscope Career

Mainiero and Sullivan developed their model using the metaphor of a
kaleidoscope to describe careers. Imagine a kaleidoscope which changes
20 Career Theory and Concepts
patterns as a result of rotating the tube; every movement reveals a new
perspective. Similarly, according to their model, careers develop and
evolve in patterns as well. The resulting kaleidoscope career model
(KCM) “describes how individuals change the pattern of their career by
rotating the varied aspects of their lives to arrange their relationships and
roles in new ways” (Sullivan & Baruch, 2009, p. 1557).
Mainiero and Sullivan (2005) proposed three parameters as impor-
tant in influencing career decisions:

 authenticity: making choices that allow one to be true to oneself

 balance: making choices that allow an individual to balance both
work and non-work responsibilities
 challenge: making choices that provide interesting and stimulating
work, and opportunities to advance in one’s career and continually
develop.

Mainiero and Sullivan’s research clearly suggested that one of these

three parameters would be the primary focus at different times during
an individual’s career, depending on changes occurring in one’s life.
In formulating this model, they were particularly interested in
understanding women’s career patterns. They found that relationism
typically dominated women’s thinking when making decisions regard-
ing their careers. They also found gender differences in what issues
dominate at different times in men’s and women’s careers. Both men
and women appear most concerned with challenge and goal accom-
plishment in the early years of their careers. The differences between
men and women tend to appear during mid- and late career stages.
Balance issues seem to be a major influence for women during mid-
career, while authenticity becomes increasingly important to men
during this time. In late career an emphasis on authenticity often
dominates women’s careers, whereas balance is more likely the focus
for men in late career (Cabrera, 2008; Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005).
Empirical research supporting the KCM is limited. However, Sullivan
and Mainiero (2008) offered specific suggestions as to how HRD might
support and promote individuals’ authenticity, balance, and challenge.
For example, they suggest developing short sabbaticals and corporate
wellness programs to support authenticity, policies that allow for “stop-
out career interruptions” to promote balance, and job rotations and
overseas assignments to support the challenge parameter (pp. 38–41).
The four approaches or career perspectives described above are
distinct, yet all respond to the complex landscape where careers are
enacted in the twenty-first century. They offer new ways of thinking
 Career Theory and Concepts 21
about careers and how individuals evaluate their careers. In addition,
they consider the impact and importance of networks, work–life issues,
technology, and other environmental influences. Table 2.1 summarizes
the four approaches.

Implications for Practice

These four career perspectives suggest a variety of ways by which
human resource development (HRD) practitioners might help individ-
uals develop their careers. For example:

 Help individuals develop protean and boundaryless career atti-

tudes. Briscoe et al. (2012) found that these attitudes may facilitate
Table 2.1 Career Perspectives
Career Description Focus Measures
Perspective

Protean Career The career is directed Individual Protean Career

and controlled by the Attitudes scale
individual. It is driven by (Briscoe et al.,
internal values and the 2006)
individual self-directs
his/her career.
Boundaryless The career does not Individual Boundaryless
Career rely on traditional Career
organizational structures; Attitudes
rather, it is independent (Briscoe
of these potential et al., 2006)
constraints. It includes
both physical and
psychological mobility.
Organizational The career occurs within Individual and
Career an organization and is organization
jointly managed by the
employee and the
organization.
Kaleidoscope The career develops and Individual and 15-item scale
Career Model evolves in patterns. Three organization that
(KCM) parameters influence how measures
the career progresses: authenticity,
authenticity, balance, and balance, and
challenge. One of these challenge
parameters is likely to be (Sullivan,
most influential at Forret, Carraher,
different times during & Mainiero,
one’s career. 2009)
22 Career Theory and Concepts
career skill development, which may be beneficial in navigating
insecure employment environments. According to these authors
and DeVos and Soens (2008), both protean and boundaryless atti-
tudes can be learned.
 Create opportunities to develop employees’ flexibility and adapt-
ability. More information regarding career adaptability is provided
in Chapter 3, including a description of a training program
designed to increase adaptability.
 Encourage employees to establish both external and internal
networks and provide support for the development of various
networks (e.g., based on interests, group affinity). More informa-
tion regarding networks is provided in Chapter 4.
 Provide creative development opportunities that allow employees
to do cross-function work and that encourage lateral movement as
well as vertical movement within the organization.
 Carefully consider development opportunities that will bring chal-
lenge to individuals’ careers, promote balance between work and
family/other life issues, and build one’s sense of authenticity.

Career Concepts
Additional understanding of careers includes becoming familiar with
various concepts that are used in the study of careers. We will focus on
four major concepts: career success, career competencies, career
transitions, and career identity.

Career Success
The majority of us will at various times in our lives reflect on and
assess our careers. We may deem that they are successful or
unsuccessful and, like many things we make judgments about, these
assessments are likely to change with the passage of time and vary from
individual to individual. Career scholars have devoted a lot of attention
to the notion of career success in an attempt to understand what it
entails and what predicts it. Let’s first examine what career success
means.
Career success has been defined as a positive outcome of a career
experience and as a process of achieving work-related goals (Arthur,
Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005; Mirvis & Hall, 1996). Most acknowl-
edge that career success involves two distinct components: subjective
career success which is internally focused, meaning it is an individ-
ual’s unique and personal assessment of his or her career, and
 Career Theory and Concepts 23
objective career success which include those indicators of achieve-
ment that are more tangible and externally focused (Arthur et al.,
2005; Heslin, 2005). Subjective career success has most commonly
been conceived as a sign of career satisfaction (Heslin, 2005),
although other judgments like the value of individuals’ human capital
and self-appraisals of one’s efficacy and capabilities would also be
considered measures (Stumpf & Tymon, 2012). Common indicators
of objective career success include salary, promotions, and occupa-
tional status—all of which can be assessed by others (Ng, Eby, Soren-
sen, & Feldman, 2005). It is important to recognize that these two
types of career success are interdependent; for example, objective
indicators of success are likely to influence subjective factors such
as career satisfaction.
However career success is a lot more complicated than simply
identifying these two components. Heslin (2005) argues that another
compelling issue when considering career success is the criteria used
to evaluate one’s career experiences. Some are more likely to use
self-referent criteria, with standards set by the career agent. For
example, one of the authors of this text wanted to achieve the
rank of professor by the time she was 50 (which was considered a
success since it was accomplished!). Another way that career
outcomes are assessed is through the use of other-referent criteria
(Heslin, 2005). Usually this involves making comparisons to others
—for example, an individual might feel as if she failed because her
colleague has already made partner in the law firm and she has not.
It also could include the idea of living up to others’ expectations
regarding your career. Some individuals may feel an obligation to
enter a certain profession, make a particular salary, or attain promo-
tions due to expectations placed on them from family, peers, super-
visors, for example. As Heslin points out, individuals will evaluate
objective and subjective career success using both self- and other-
referent criteria.
Dries (2011) further illustrates the complexity of defining career
success by identifying a variety of contextual factors that influence
our meanings of career success. Specifically, she explains how histor-
ical, cultural (e.g., national culture), and ideological (e.g., societal and
organizational) contexts will influence our definitions and our perspec-
tives of career success. She pointed out that, while we may understand
this influence, as employees and employers we often don’t use this
knowledge in developing careers. One suggestion she offered is that
both employees and employers need to broaden their perspective of
what career success means. This broadening will enhance employees’
24 Career Theory and Concepts
“feelings of authenticity,” which will lead to a more diverse and more
productive workforce (Dries, 2011, p. 380).
Beyond understanding how career success is defined and perceived,
it is important to consider what predicts it. Research has identified
various predictors of career success including, but not limited to, the
following:

 Human capital such as education, training, and work experience:

Ng et al. (2005) in their meta-analysis of predictors of objective
and subjective career success found that many of these factors
related to success, particularly objective career success (e.g., salary
and promotions).
 Social capital such as interpersonal relationships, networks, and
mentors: for example, a study conducted by Seibert et al. (2001)
found that social capital related to both subjective and objective
career success; however, they also found that it is not a simple
matter of “schmoozing.” Rather, through developing social capital,
individuals gained three important networking benefits: access to
information, resources, and career sponsorships, which led to
higher salaries and more promotions, and career satisfaction.
 Organizational sponsorship such as supervisory support and HRD
initiatives (e.g., training and development) (Ng et al., 2005; Wayne,
Liden, Kraimer, & Graf, 1999): while we recognize that organiza-
tional sponsorship overlaps with both human and social capital
factors, we want to highlight it given the HRD focus of this book.
These initiatives will be explored in greater detail in Chapter 4.
 Socio-demographic variables such as gender, race, and age: for exam-
ple, you are likely to have a higher salary if you are White, male,
married, and older (Ng et al., 2005). While progress has been made,
women, minorities, and individuals raised in poverty are still less
likely to experience career success, particularly when considering
objective indicators such as salary and promotions. Further discussion
of inequalities in career development will be included in later chapters.
 Stable individual characteristics or traits such as the Big Five
personality factors, locus of control, and cognitive ability (Ng
et al., 2005): while these variables may be relatively fixed, they
do impact career success. Measures such as conscientiousness,
cognitive ability, and even physical attractiveness have been found
to be predictors (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999;
Judge, Hurst, & Simon, 2009).
 Structural or contextual factors: Baruch and Bozionelos (2011)
indicate that organizational characteristics (e.g., size, ownership),
 Career Theory and Concepts 25
environmental factors (e.g., economic conditions), and societal
factors (i.e., legislation, education systems) will impact career
success. Judge, Cable, Boudreau, & Bretz (1995), for example,
found that variables such as type of industry and the perceived
success of the organization positively predicted executives’ salaries
and satisfaction with their careers. Certainly, the recent global
economic downturn created havoc for many people’s careers.

Clearly the notion of success is an important concept in the study of

careers. It is an important way in which we, as career agents, and others
evaluate our worth. Additionally, it is a complex phenomenon that
continues to be re-defined and re-investigated to more appropriately
reflect contemporary society.

Career Competencies
What are the essential elements needed to enact a career? Career
competencies develop over time and are important to both individuals
working to acquire the necessary capabilities to facilitate their careers
and to organizations attempting to attract and develop talent (Francis-
Smythe, Haase, Thomas, & Steele, 2012). DeFillippi and Arthur (1994)
offered three major career competencies: know why, know how, and
know whom. Know-why competencies focus on self-awareness; in other
words, it is an understanding of one’s interests and values. According to
DeFillippi and Arthur these competencies “answer the question ‘Why?’
as it relates to career motivation, personal meaning and identification”
(p. 308). Know-how competencies are the job-related knowledge and
career-relevant skills that career agents possess and that contribute to
organizations’ and individuals’ capabilities (DeFillippi & Arthur, 1994).
Training is a common initiative offered to enhance these competencies.
Finally, knowing-whom competencies are those career-related networks
and contacts that benefit organizational communication and individuals’
learning and marketability (DeFillippi & Arthur, 1994; Eby, Butts, &
Lockwood, 2003).
There is evidence suggesting that developing these competencies can
enhance one’s career. These three competencies have been found to be
predictors of perceived career success and perceived marketability (Eby
et al., 2003). In addition, Colakoglu (2011) found that two of the
competencies—knowing why and knowing how—increased feelings
of autonomy and reduced career insecurity.
Other career competency models have been proposed. Francis-Smythe
et al. (2012), for example, argued that a model such as DeFillippi and
26 Career Theory and Concepts
Arthur’s overlaps with personality traits and that competencies suggest
that behaviors should be emphasized. Their alternative model identified
seven career competencies:

1 goal setting and career planning

2 self-knowledge (e.g., of interests, values, strengths, weaknesses)
3 job-related performance effectiveness
4 career-related skills (e.g., seeking out development opportunities)
5 knowledge of (office) politics
6 career guidance and networking
7 feedback seeking and self-presentation (Francis-Smythe et al.,
2012, p. 236).

This model may more accurately illustrate the complexity of career

competencies (Francis-Smythe et al., 2012). In addition, it may be more
useful to both organizations and individuals by providing specific
behaviors to identify, assess, and develop. Francis-Smythe et al., devel-
oped the Career Competencies Indicator (CCI) to assess these compe-
tencies. Their initial studies provide support for the reliability and
validity of the CCI, however, more work is needed to determine the
usefulness of this instrument for both research and practice.

Career Transitions
Career transition has been defined as “events or non-events in the career
development process causing changes in the meaning of the career,
one’s self assumptions, and view of the world” (O’Neil, Fishman, &
Kinsella-Shaw, 1987, p. 66). Most career transitions involve either a
change in tasks, position, or occupation (Heppner, Multon, & Johnston,
1994) and will vary considerably based on the controllability, the
magnitude, and the ambiguity of the transition (Wanberg &
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2008).
Common career transitions experienced by many individuals include
initial career choice, entry into the organization, reassessment of career,
involuntary job loss, and retirement (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller,
2008). While initial career choice occurs prior to entering an organization,
HRD can play an important role in most of the transitions listed above.
Initial entry into an organization can be quite stressful as the new
employee is filled with ambiguity and anxiety regarding his/her super-
visor, colleagues, and the job itself. Well-developed orientation
programs, networking opportunities, and coaching are just a few of
the initiatives that have the potential to assist employees through this
 Career Theory and Concepts 27
adjustment process. Career counseling and alternative career paths could
be beneficial to the individual re-evaluating his/her career. Outplacement
services and career counseling can help employees who experience job
loss due to downsizing, restructuring, closings, etc. Finally, offering
alternative work structures such as bridge employment and phased
retirement, as well as educational programs to prepare employees for
retirement, are examples of HRD initiatives that can help the employee
making the transition to retirement (Callanan & Greenhaus, 2008).
Regardless of the type of transition, individuals experiencing some
type of change in their careers are likely to encounter feelings of or a
period of instability. According to Ng, Sorensen, Eby, & Feldman
(2007) “careers unfold with alternating periods of equilibrium and
job mobility transitions” (p. 367). They propose that three important
factors will cause this equilibrium to be disrupted:

 structural factors, including: economic conditions, societal charac-

teristics (e.g., war, technology breakthroughs, social movements),
industry differences (e.g., male or female dominated, compensation
practices, industry growth), and staffing policies within organiza-
tions (e.g., internal mobility options);
 individual differences, including: personality traits, career interests,
values, and attachment styles;
 decisional perspective, suggesting that intentions to make a tran-
sition are determined by subjective norms about the change (e.g.,
popularity of a particular type of job mobility make it easier to
change), desirability of mobility, and readiness for change.

Ng et al. (2007) point out that these factors are not independent and
in most situations one factor will influence another, suggesting that
decisions to engage in job mobility are complex.
In a study conducted across five countries, individuals reported internal
causes for making career transitions, specifically those individuals from
the US and from three European countries (Chudzikowski et al., 2009).
The participants from the US in particular were motivated to change due
to some individual reason, for example the desire to do something differ-
ent or the desire to change careers to create more balance in one’s life.
Those study participants from China attributed transitions to external
factors such as government policies and organizational re-structuring,
similar to the structural factors identified by Ng. et al. (2007).
Two studies on career transitions have important implications for
career development practitioners and HRD. A study of Korean post-
retirement workers examining the transition from voluntary retirement
28 Career Theory and Concepts
to post-retirement employment found that the transition process
consisted of four stages:

 a period of disequilibrium in a previous career;

 a period of reflection regarding self and situations before making
any changes;
 a period developing new professional connections and changes;
 committing to a new career (Kim, 2014, p. 9).

Kim pointed out that these stages are not necessarily linear—instead
“each is an iterative process that requires disruptions at each step” (p. 15).
In addition, learning (both formal and informal) played a significant role
in the career transition process of these post-retirement individuals.
Another study of Chinese MBA graduates found that individuals
experience constraints and challenges when undergoing a career
transition. The three most common challenges perceived by the
respondents all focused on lack of knowledge—lack of knowledge
regarding career paths, unfamiliarity with the “environment and the
mechanism of career transition,” and “lack of industry knowledge and
experience” (Sun & Wang, 2009, p. 521). The authors point to the
inadequacy of organizations and education in preparing workers to
deal with career transitions. Both of these studies illustrate the impor-
tant role of learning in successfully moving from one career to another.
HRD systems and career development practitioners can assist individ-
uals during these transition processes through a wide variety of initia-
tives such as career coaching and counseling, training, and mentoring.

Career Identity
Many of us, in attempting to define “who we are,” will use our occupation
or profession as one means of identifying self. Fugate, Kinicki, &
Ashforth (2004) explained and differentiated career identity in the follow-
ing manner:

Career identity resembles constructs like role identity, occupational

identity, and organizational identity in that they all refer to how people
define themselves in a particular work context. Career identity,
however, is inherently longitudinal because it involves making sense
of one’s past and present and giving direction to one’s future.
(p. 20)

Holland and colleagues identified and defined the construct “voca-

tional identity” as “the possession of a clear and stable picture of one’s
 Career Theory and Concepts 29
goals, interests, and talents” (Holland, Gottfredson, & Power, 1980,
p. 1191). Vocational identity has been found to relate strongly with
tasks associated with crystallizing one’s preferences regarding a career
(Savickas, 1985). While vocational identity is clearly related to career
identity, it usually has been used in career counseling and in research on
young adults’ career choices (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008), thus
having limited application to the ongoing construction of identity asso-
ciated with work and careers. Additional criticisms of Holland et al.’s
construct are offered by Vondracek (1992), who argued that it “is too
simple and sterile to be of much use” (para. 25).
Identities are constructed and re-constructed during the course of
one’s career (Turnbull, 2004) and particularly when individuals are
experiencing career transitions (Ibarra, 1999). A qualitative study of
career transitions being made by junior management consultants and
investment bankers found that participants engaged in three adaptive
behaviors to construct a professional identity that would be perceived
as “credible with important role-set members and congruent with one’s
self-concept” (Ibarra, 1999, p. 782). These three behaviors included:
observing successful role models, experimenting with provisional
selves (either by imitating role models or through experimenting to
find their authentic style or approach), and evaluating the results
through internal standards and feedback from others. These behaviors
suggest that mentors, networks, and coaches can play important roles in
identity formation and that ultimately the development of a career
identity is a complex learning process (Meijers, 1998).
While career identities will evolve over time, some speculate that this
form of identity will be increasingly important. Ashforth et al. (2008)
explained: “Of the many possible bases of identification in one’s work
life, occupational and career identification may become more important
to individuals as environmental turbulence continues to erode long-
term relationships with organizations and the various bases nested
within them” (p. 352). Meijers (1998) reinforced the importance of
developing a career identity in a climate of insecurity, change, and
individual control over one’s employment.
These four concepts, success, competencies, transitions, and identity,
have significance to any individual interested in careers. HRD
practitioners, in particular, need an understanding of these concepts
and recognize how they can enhance individuals’ careers through this
knowledge. Table 2.2 provides a listing of some of the ways in which
these concepts are operationalized, measured, and assessed in the liter-
ature. Some of these measures could be useful to both individuals and
practitioners working to develop their own and others’ careers.
30 Career Theory and Concepts
Table 2.2 Career Concepts
Career Measures, Assessment Tools
Concepts

Career Success Objective success: common measures include salaries,

promotions, occupational status
Subjective success: one of the most commonly used scales
is the Career Satisfaction Scale (CSS) (Greenhaus et al.,
1990), a five-item, self-reported scale
Career Career Competencies Indicator (CCI), 43-item scale that
Competencies measures seven competencies:
 goal setting and career planning
 self-knowledge
 job-related performance effectiveness
 career-related skills
 knowledge of office politics
 career guidance and networking
 feedback seeking and self-presentation (Francis-
Smythe, et al., 2012)
Career Career Transitions Inventory (CTI), a 40-item measure of
Transitions five factors facilitating a successful career transition:
 readiness: motivation to make a transition
 confidence: to do the necessary tasks to complete a
transition
 control that one feels in handling the transition
 social support
 decision independence (or are the considerations of
others important in making a career transition decision?)
(Heppner et al., 1994)
Career Identity Vocational Identity Subscale (VI) of the My Vocational
Situation (MVS) is an 18-item true–false scale (Holland,
Gottfredson & Power, 1980).
Narratives are considered an important way to understand
how individuals construct their career identities (Ashforth
et al., 2008; Fugate et al., 2004)

Implications for Practice

There are a variety of ways that HRD practitioners might help
individuals develop their careers through knowledge of these concepts.
For example:

 understand the varying ways in which individuals define and

perceive career success and act as an advocate in the adoption of
a variety of practices that will support individuals’ pursuits of
success;
 Career Theory and Concepts 31
 using a career competency model such as the one proposed by
Francis-Smythe et al. (2012), design initiatives that will assist indi-
viduals in developing their career competencies. A wide variety of
activities could help, such as training, performance improvement
strategies, coaching, mentoring, and networking. Francis-Smythe
et al. concluded that organizations will benefit as well as individual
employees, citing lower turnover rates and increased commitment to
the organization as potential results from developing workers’ career
competencies;
 recognize that voluntary and involuntary career transitions are inex-
tricably tied to learning. As a result, there are numerous ways (many
of which were mentioned earlier) in which HRD can assist individ-
uals through these transitions with the goal of restoring equilibrium
and achieving success (however they define it) in their new career;
 acknowledge the important role that careers play in identity
construction and re-construction. HRD can facilitate the process
of locating role models for individuals to observe and learn from
and provide support for the external feedback process that is neces-
sary during identity formation.

Summary
This chapter provides an overview of four career perspectives: the
protean, boundaryless, organizational, and kaleidoscope career. Three
of these approaches (protean, boundaryless, and kaleidoscope) were
conceived and developed to address the “radically changing career
environment” that Strunk et al. (2004) were describing in this chapter’s
opening quote. While the organizational career has a long history,
scholars and practitioners are focusing on new ways to configure it
to reflect changing times. In addition, four career concepts—career
success, career competencies, career transitions, and career identity—
are introduced and explained. Human resource practitioners play an
important role in developing employees’ careers through an under-
standing of these career perspectives and concepts.

References
Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. M. (2005). Career success
in a boundaryless career world. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26,
177–202.
32 Career Theory and Concepts
Arthur, M. B. & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). The boundaryless career: A new
employment principle for a new organizational era. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in
organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of
Management, 34, 325–374.
Baruch, Y. & Bozionelos, N. (2011). Career issues. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), The
APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 67–113).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Briscoe, J. P. & 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., & DeMuth, R. L. F. (2006). Protean and boundaryless
careers: An empirical exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69,
30–47.
Briscoe, J. P., Henagan, S. C., Burton, J. P., & Murphy, W. M. (2012). Coping
with an insecure employment environment: The differing roles of protean
and boundaryless career orientations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80,
308–316.
Cabrera, E. F. (2008). Protean organizations: Reshaping work and careers to
retain female talent. Career Development International, 14, 186–201.
Callanan, G. A. & Greenhaus, J. H. (2008). The baby boom generation and
career management: A call to action. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 10, 70–85.
Chudzikowski, K. (2012). Career transitions and career success in the “new”
career era. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 298–306.
Chudzikowski, K., Demel, B., Mayrhofer, W., Briscoe, J. P., Unite, J., Milikic,
B. B., Hall, D. T., Las Heras, M., Shen, Y., & Zikic, J. (2009). Career
transitions and their causes: A country-comparative perspective. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 825–849.
Clarke, M. (2012). The organizational career: Not dead but in need of
redefinition. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
24, 684–703.
Colakoglu, S. N. (2011). The impact of career boundarylessness on subjective
career success: The role of career competencies, career autonomy, and
career insecurity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 47–59.
DeFillippi, R. J. & Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A competency-
based perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 307–324.
DeVos, A. & Soens, N. (2008). Protean attitude and career success: The mediating
role of self-management. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 449–456.
Dries, N. (2011). The meaning of career success. Career Development
International, 16, 364–384.
Dries, N., Van Acker, F., & Verbruggen, M. (2012). How “boundaryless” are
the careers of high potentials, key experts and average performers? Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 81, 271–279.
 Career Theory and Concepts 33
Eby, L. T., Butts, M., & Lockwood, A. (2003). Predictors of success in the era of
the boundaryless career. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 689–708.
Francis-Smythe, J., Haase, S., Thomas, E., & Steele, C. (2012). Development
and validation of the Career Competencies Indicator (CCI). Journal of
Career Assessment, 21, 227–248.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-
social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 65, 14–38.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race
on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations, and career
outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64–86.
Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman & Co.
Heppner, M. J., Multon, K. D., & Johnston, J. A. (1994). Assessing
psychological resources during career change: Development of the Career
Transitions Inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 55–74.
Heslin, P. A. (2005). Conceptualizing and evaluating career success. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 26, 113–136.
Holland, J. L., Gottfredson, D. C., & Power, P. G. (1980). Some diagnostic
scales for research in decision making and personality: Identity,
information, and barriers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
39, 1191–1200.
Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity
in professional adaptation. Administrative Quarterly Science, 44, 764–791.
Inkson, K., Gunz, H., Ganesh, S., & Roper, J. (2012). Boundaryless careers:
Bringing back boundaries. Organization Studies, 33, 323–340.
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1995). An
empirical investigation of the predictors of executive career success.
Personnel Psychology, 48, 485–519.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big
five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the
life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652.
Judge, T. A., Hurst, C., & Simon, L. S. (2009). Does it pay to be smart,
attractive or confident (or all three)? Relationships among general mental
ability, physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and income. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94, 742–755.
Kim, S. (2014). The career transition process: A qualitative exploration of
Korean middle-aged workers in postretirement employment. Adult Education
Quarterly, 64, 3–19.
Kuchinke, K. P. (2014). Boundaryless and protean careers in a knowledge
economy. In J. Walton & C. Valentin (Eds.), Human resource development:
Practices and orthodoxies (pp. 202–222). London: Palgrave MacMillan.
McDonald, P., Brown, K., & Bradley, L. (2005). Have traditional career
paths given way to protean ones? Career Development International, 10,
109–129.
34 Career Theory and Concepts
Mainiero, L. A. & Sullivan, S. E. (2005). Kaleidoscope careers: An alternate
explanation for the “opt-out” revolution. Academy of Management Executive,
19, 106–123.
Meijers, F. (1998). The development of a career identity. International Journal
for the Advancement of Counseling, 20, 191–207.
Mirvis, P. H. & Hall, D. T. (1996). Psychological success and the boundaryless
career. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career
(pp. 237–255). New York: Oxford University Press.
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors
of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 58, 367–408.
Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., Eby, L. T., & Feldman, D. C. (2007).
Determinants of job mobility: A theoretical integration and extension.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 363–386.
O’Neil, J. M., Fishman, D. M., & Kinsella-Shaw, M. (1987). Dual-career
couples’ career transitions and normative dilemmas: A preliminary
assessment model. Counseling Psychologist, 15, 50–96.
Rodrigues, R. A. & Guest, D. (2010). Have careers become boundaryless?
Human Relations, 63, 1157–1175.
Savickas, M. L. (1985). Identity in vocational development. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 27, 329–337.
Segers, J., Inceoglu, I., Vloeberghs, D., Bartram, D., & Henderickx, E. (2008).
Protean and boundaryless careers: A study of potential motivators. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 73, 212–230.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory
of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219–237.
Strunk, G., Schiffinger, M., & Mayrhofer, W. (2004). Lost in translation?
Complexity in organizational behavior—the contributions of systems
theories. Management Revue, 15, 481–509.
Stumpf, S. A. & Tymon, Jr., W. G. (2012). The effects of objective success
on subsequent subjective success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81,
345–353.
Sullivan, S. E. & Arthur, M. B. (2006). The evolution of the boundaryless
career concept: Examining physical and psychological mobility. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 69, 19–29.
Sullivan, S. E. & Baruch, Y. (2009). Advances in career theory and research:
A critical review and agenda for future exploration. Journal of
Management, 35, 1542–1571.
Sullivan, S. E., Forret, M. L., Carraher, S. M., & Mainiero, L. A. (2009).
Using the kaleidoscope career model to examine generational differences in
work attitudes. Career Development International, 14, 284–302.
Sullivan, S. E. & Mainiero, L. (2008). Using the kaleidoscope career model to
understand the changing patterns of women’s careers: Designing HRD
programs that attract and retain women. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 10, 32–49.
 Career Theory and Concepts 35
Sun, J. Y. & Wang, G. G. (2009). Career transition in the Chinese context: A
case study. Human Resource Development International, 12, 511–528.
Tams, S. & Arthur, M. B. (2010). New directions for boundaryless careers:
Agency and interdependence in a changing world. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 31, 629–646.
Turnbull, S. (2004). Perceptions and experience of time-space compression
and acceleration. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 809–824.
Verbruggen, M. (2012). Psychological mobility and career success in the
“new” career climate. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81, 289–297.
Vondracek, F. W. (1992). The construct of identity and its use in career theory
and research. Career Development Quarterly, 41.
Wanberg, C. R. & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. (2008). A self-regulatory perspective
on navigating career transitions. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard
(Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 433–469). New York:
Routledge.
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Kraimer, M. L., & Graf, I. K. (1999). The role of
human capital, motivation and supervisor sponsorship in predicting career
success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 577–595.
3 Strategic Career Development

Change in career systems does not mean that organizations need to

abandon their role in managing careers. Instead, the organization has a
new significant role—being supportive, enabler, developer of its
human assets. Organizations need to move away from the traditional
“command and control” approach, and become “supportive and
developmental.”
Baruch, 2006, p. 130

The past two to three decades have been characterized as turbulent for
careers. Economic fluctuations, amazing advances in technology,
globalization, and demographic shifts have led to new and different
conceptualizations of the meaning of career and the role that individuals
and organizations play in the shaping, growth, and development of
careers. Some have concluded that career development must be
individually driven, rather than relying on organization structure and
support. While there is some merit to this argument, it is important to
remember that, for the most part, individuals experience their careers
through organizations. As Inkson and King (2011) pointed out,
“Careers . result from deals negotiated between individual career
actors and the organization in which they work over their working
lives” (p. 37). This suggests that organizations still play a vital role
in career development but, as Baruch (2003) noted, a “new paradigm”
is needed. Gilley, Eggland, & Gilley (2002) described the career devel-
opment relationship between the organization and the individual as a
“marriage.” This marriage involves:

organizations engage in developmental planning, the process of

assessing appropriate goals and objectives, and the proper alloca-
tion of physical, financial, and human resources. Concurrently,
 Strategic Career Development 37
employees engage in career/life planning, which includes analysis
of personal goals, competencies, and a realistic evaluation of future
opportunities.
(p. 65)

Contested Terrain
Yet like most marriages, tension between partners is likely to occur.
Often there will be conflict between the individual’s career needs and
desires, and the interests of the organization. Inkson and King (2011)
suggested that this can often result in careers becoming “contested
terrain” between the two parties. This term was introduced by econo-
mist Richard Edwards (1979) in his book entitled Contested Terrain. To
describe this tension, Edwards wrote:

Conflict exists because the interests of workers and those of

employers collide, and what is good for one is frequently costly
for the other. Control is rendered problematic because, unlike
the other commodities involved in production, labor power is
always embodied in people, who have their own interests and
needs and who retain their power to resist being treated like a
commodity.
(p. 12)

While Edwards focused on the workplace in general, Inkson and

King (2011) provided a psychological contract model of careers
which outlined both individual and organization inputs and objectives
to explain how the notion of contested terrain applies to careers.
They emphasized the significance of careers becoming contested
terrain:

Career-related issues create particular tensions for the contract

because career goals are often long-term and tentative, because the
timing and size of the payback is uncertain, and because violation
of the contract may not be apparent until long after the investments
have been committed.
(p. 46)

While it is important to recognize these often competing interests,

career systems can be developed that will promote the goals of both the
organization and the employees. Communicating expectations and
needs is critical, as is listening and understanding each party’s interests
38 Strategic Career Development
regarding career development (Inkson & King, 2011). HRD practi-
tioners can play an important role in facilitating negotiations between
employees and employers regarding these issues (McDonald & Hite,
2015). We will further discuss this later in this chapter.
So how can career systems be created that satisfy the needs and
interests of both organizations and employees? What would be the
essential elements? What needs to be considered before implementing
career development within an organization? How will the effectiveness of
career development be determined? In this chapter we will attempt to
answer these questions by providing a framework which will outline the
processes necessary to achieve an effective career development system.
Baruch (2003) argued that career management systems have become
antiquated and need to become much more “integrative.” He wrote:
“An adequate model should reflect the complexity and multi-dimensional
nature of career systems, as well as examining the need to adjust them to
the contemporary dynamic business environment” (p. 232). We hope that
the framework presented here will address these concerns.

Strategic Career Development

Effective career development requires integrating career issues with the
strategic direction of the organization (Baruch, 2003; Gilley et al.,
2002; Greenhaus, Callanan, & Godshalk, 2010). To be strategic, career
development must be an integral part of all human resource manage-
ment (HRM) functions. This is essential if organizations wish to recruit
and retain talent (Kaye & Smith, 2012). As Baruch (2003) pointed out:

It has long been established that an essential part of HRM is the

strategic aspect. Integrating HRM into a strategic management of
the organization, rather than holding a minor supportive role of an
administrative function is a distinctive sign of the role of HRM, and
this should be reflected in the career management systems.
(p. 238)

Current, as well as future, career needs should be considered when

strategic decisions regarding the organization are made. Likewise, career
development initiatives must address the business needs of the organ-
ization and adapt as the strategic direction of the organization changes. This
fluidity is explained by Brousseau, Driver, Eneroth, & Larsson (1996):

Firms should view organizational career culture as dynamic,

requiring periodic readjustments as strategic considerations demand
 Strategic Career Development 39

Support
Mechanisms

Practices and
Contextual Influences Programs
Strategic CD
planning • Organizational Outcomes
• External strategic practices
• Organization • Employee • Individual level
development practices • Organization level

Individual
Characteristics

Figure 3.1 A Framework for Organizational Career Development

and as the changing mix of employees’ career motives and

competencies shift, either as employees turn over, or as individual
employees change career motives and competencies over time.
(p. 63)

With these thoughts in mind, we offer a framework that can be used

as a way to develop strategic career development within an organ-
ization. This framework attempts to capture the importance of
integrating career development with other HR systems and recognizes
that a career development system must be nimble—able to adapt to
changes in the environment, organization, and the individual employee
(Figure 3.1).

Contextual Influences
Career development does not occur in a vacuum. Yet, often, career
development efforts in organizations are criticized for not recognizing the
various factors that should influence how career development is enacted
in an organizational system. At some level, this is understandable—the
accelerated rate of change in society results in many systems in
organizations scrambling to keep up. So, traditional career manage-
ment systems are likely to be outdated (Baruch, 2003; Doyle, 2000).
However, these contextual factors are critical to consider because they
40 Strategic Career Development
Table 3.1 Careers
Extinct or nearly extinct careers Emerging careers

Bowling alley pinsetter Mobile app developer

Ice cutters Web content strategist
Lamp lighters Elder care specialist
Switchboard operator Emergency management specialist
Lector Computer game designer
Elevator operator Biomedical engineer
River driver Physical therapist assistant
Milkman Logistic analyst
Typesetter Event management
Telegraph operator Biostatistician

Source: [Link]
for-young-professionals-in-2014.
[Link]/extinct-jobs.
[Link]/featured-jobs/7-emerging-jobs.
[Link]/blog/jobsearch/job-search-tips/top-10-emerging-careers/.
[Link]/templates/story/[Link]?storyId=124251060.

affect careers at both the individual and the organizational level.

Careers and organizations may become extinct or emerge due to these
contextual influences. See Table 3.1 for some examples.
So what are these contextual influences? The environment external to
the organization and characteristics of the organization will both signifi-
cantly affect how career development is planned and implemented within
an institution. Let’s examine both of these influences more closely.
External environment: specific outside forces impacting career
development include the following:

 Technology has influenced and will continue to influence careers and

career development in a multitude of ways. Clearly, from the list
offered in Table 3.1, one can see how careers often expire and emerge
due to technological changes. Advances in technology can change
how we work, when we work, and the speed at which we work. An
article entitled “How Technology is Destroying Jobs” (Rotman,
2013) presented varying views from economists regarding the impact
that technology has on jobs. While many believe that technological
advances are eliminating jobs, others contend that technology simply
allows for the creation of other employment opportunities. Among
the issues discussed in this article is the contention “that technology is
widening the income gap between the tech-savvy and everyone else”
(para. 33). Clearly, decision makers within organizations must
 Strategic Career Development 41
consider these issues and the implications for development of
employees’ careers. Lack of consideration of the impact of technol-
ogy is likely to result in organization obsolescence.
 Workforce demographics have shifted dramatically in the last
30 years. Women constitute almost half of the labor force in
many countries. For example in Australia, Canada, Israel, South
Africa, and the US the percentage of women in the workplace
ranges from 45.8 percent in Australia to 47.3 percent in Canada
(Catalyst, 2014). Increasingly, immigrants are becoming a larger
percentage of the workforce in developed countries (Guest &
Rodrigues, 2012; Lyons, Ng, & Schweitzer, 2014). For example,
in the US it is estimated that immigrants currently constitute approx-
imately 16.4 percent of the labor force as compared to approxi-
mately 5 percent of the labor force in 1970 (Singer, 2012).
Additionally, the workforce is becoming more diverse in terms of
age. Many Western countries (e.g., the US, Canada, and Europe) are
faced with an aging labor force (Lyons et al., 2014; Toossi, 2012).
These are just three important demographic trends that will
significantly impact career development efforts within an organiza-
tion. These changes in demographics (as well as others not high-
lighted here) suggest that the workforce will have greater diversity
in terms of career expectations and experiences, which will need
to be addressed if organizations want to remain competitive and
relevant (Lyons et al., 2014).
 The economy greatly influences career development efforts. Both
Chapters 1 and 2 outline some of the ways in which economic trends
have impacted careers. New career approaches (e.g., protean, boun-
daryless) have emerged due partly to economic changes, and the
consequences of economic turmoil have resulted in many organiza-
tions abandoning their career development efforts (McDonald &
Hite, 2005). The development of a knowledge-based economy and
the move to greater globalization have significantly changed jobs,
the knowledge and skills required for these jobs, and competition
within firms to attract and retain talent (Guest & Rodrigues, 2012).
 Industry trends play an important role in how careers evolve.
Whether one is in advertising, health care, banking, or farming,
new regulations, new technology, and new knowledge will impact
career development. DeFillippi, Arthur, & Lindsay (2006) pointed
out that some industries are conducting most of their business
virtually, citing the call-center, web-trading, and travel industry
as examples. The transportation industry is likely to change as
ride-sharing companies like Lyft and Sidecar become popular.
42 Strategic Career Development
Career development efforts in organizations in those industries and
others facing change will need to be tailored to meet employees’
career needs and to remain competitive.
Competition within an industry can also influence career devel-
opment. To survive in this type of climate, organizations will
need to design career development initiatives that will enhance
employees’ skills and that will assist in retaining them.
 There are numerous social and political issues that impact careers and
career development. The women’s movement and the civil rights
movement in the US are just two examples of social revolutions that
resulted in massive change and continue to have an impact in the
workplace, communities, and our homes. International conflicts, legis-
lation, and political systems have affected work and careers for centu-
ries. For example, World War II resulted in an influx of women into
the workforce for a period of time; civil rights legislation has resulted
in more career opportunities and access to career development for
under-represented groups; and careers and career development in
communist countries are very different than in democratic nations.
For example, Skorikov and Vondracek (1993) described career devel-
opment in the former Soviet Union as focused on “the attainment of
collective goals” with no thought of “individual self-fulfillment.”
Inkson (2007), emphasizing the importance of examining career
contexts, wrote:

In many countries, poverty and lack of economic opportunity

might mean that contextual concepts that provide the backdrop
assumed for career studies—for example, freedom of choice, free
enterprise, open labor market, peace, occupation, profession,
occupational choice, hierarchy, progress, personal development,
full employment, and work ethic—might make Western concepts
of career quite alien.
(pp. 5–6)
Organization factors also need to be considered when planning and
implementing career development. A number of characteristics can be
influential: the size of the organization, the type of organization (e.g.,
non-profit/profit; industry type), and whether the organization is interna-
tional are three that readily come to mind. We will focus on four organ-
ization influences:

 The customs, culture, and core values of the organization are

important considerations. Organizational cultures can greatly
 Strategic Career Development 43
influence employees’ careers. Higgins (2005), in her analysis of the
health care firm Baxter, characterized its culture as having a “sense
of collective identity” and an “extreme pressure to perform.” She
concluded that

this particular kind of strong culture, this “up-or-out” culture

and the kinds of responsibilities that people at Baxter were
given, fed into the kinds of capabilities that were developed—
entrepreneurial capabilities that would prove useful later on in
their careers.
(p. 66)

 According to Brousseau et al. (1996), the strategic direction of the

organization needs to be supported by the career culture and should
shape the career culture. They identified four different organiza-
tional career cultures—linear, expert, spiral, and transitory—that
might support various strategic directions. For example, they
suggested that a transitory career culture (described as one involv-
ing frequent movement from one field or job to another) might
work best when an organization is focused on new market creation.
Career paths and the types of development opportunities provided
to employees are likely to change based on the organization’s
strategy (Higgins, 2005).
 The current employee base will influence career development. Anal-
ysis of existing employees’ competencies, knowledge, skills, and
career goals is needed, as well as an assessment of future labor needs
(Gilley et al., 2002; Gottfredson, 2005). For example, is the organ-
ization’s labor force aging? If so, this will significantly impact a
variety of career development initiatives and help determine future
ones (e.g., succession planning, training and development offerings).
While this factor may seem rather basic, Gottfredson (2005) pointed
out that, often, systematic assessment of an organization’s workforce
has not been done, making it very difficult to establish effective
career development practices.
 Finally, the organization’s history of career development should be
considered. How has career development been perceived in the
past? Has it been viewed as a nice thing to do or as a core function
of human resources (HR)? Has career development kept up with
organizational and societal change? Is it perceived as a value-added
system or a waste of time and resources? This historical perspective
can be informative—particularly in assessing whether a career
management system needs to be transformed or simply tweaked.
44 Strategic Career Development
It also can provide a career development practitioner with a better
understanding of resistance to efforts to transform a system.

This is not an exhaustive list of contextual influences on career

development. And, while all of these factors potentially will affect
career development efforts in an organization, some will have a greater
impact than others. But consideration of the contextual elements that
shape careers is essential in creating a practical and vibrant career
development system.

Developing a Career Development Strategy

Establishing an effective career development process must begin with
the assessment of the contextual factors mentioned above. This
assessment, as well as an analysis of resources available, is critical in
determining the career development goals for the organization. While
these goals will vary from organization to organization, some common
career development objectives include:

 assisting employees in managing their careers;

 planning for leadership succession;
 identifying, matching, and assessing the talent within the
organization;
 developing employees’ competencies and knowledge;
 establishing plans for organizational disruptions that will impact
careers (e.g., mergers, downsizing);
 retaining key personnel;
 recruiting and retaining a diverse workforce (Gottfredson, 2005;
Kaye & Smith, 2012).

While HR is likely to lead this effort, it is important to have input

from a variety of individuals who have a stake in career development:

 Top management, whose support for career development is needed

for the process to thrive. These individuals are likely to be focused
on the strategic direction of the organization, which can be beneficial
in ensuring alignment between strategy and career development.
 Managers, who play a critical role by providing support and guidance
to employees in developing their careers. Insightful managers are
likely to understand their employees’ career needs and trends within
the industry that should be considered in developing a career devel-
opment strategy.
 Strategic Career Development 45
 Employees who are charged with managing their careers. As Kaye,
Cohen, & Crowell (2011) pointed out: “No longer can employees
wait for career development to happen to them or for them. .
They pave the way by taking charge of their careers” (p. 164).

Also important in planning the direction of career development is to

establish the evaluation processes that will be employed to determine
the effectiveness of the initiatives developed (Gottfredson, 2005;
Schutt, 2012). The specific measure to be assessed will be determined,
based on the career development goals that have been established. It is
reasonable to expect career development efforts to be evaluated at the
organizational level as well as the individual level, since both the
organization and the employees should benefit from career develop-
ment and assume responsibility for career development (McDonald &
Hite, 2005; Rothwell, Jackson, Knight, & Lindholm, 2005).
Evaluation should be done strategically as well—for example, it may
be beneficial to evaluate a new initiative early in its existence to determine
what is working and what is not going well. It may be beneficial to re-
evaluate after improvements are made and again when it has been in
operation long enough to assess its effectiveness. In other words, there
will be considerable overlap among planning, implementing, and
evaluating. All three processes should continually inform the others.
Most organizations will find it beneficial to assess the benefits that both
the organization and individuals derive from career development systems
(McDonald & Hite, 2005). While differing career development goals will
result in varied evaluation criteria and measurements, organizations will
benefit from involving all stakeholders and using both qualitative and
quantitative approaches (Rothwell et al., 2005; Young & Valach, 1994).
Additionally, organizational support mechanisms, which are critical to an
effective career development system, need to be evaluated as well. These
support systems will be explored in detail later in this chapter.

Career Development System Components

When considering a career management system within an organization,
often the programs and practices associated with the system become the
focus. We believe this should be viewed as one element of a complex
system. While a lot of emphasis is placed here, programs without consid-
eration of two other elements simply will not be effective. Rather, practices
and programs, as well as support mechanisms and individual employee
characteristics, must be considered when developing a career development
46 Strategic Career Development
Table 3.2 Organizational Career Development Practices
Organizational career development practices:

Job postings
Career counseling
Tuition reimbursement/formal education
Career paths
Career ladders
Job rotations
Succession planning
Mentoring
Coaching
Career workshops
Pre-retirement planning/workshops
Assessment centers
Training
Performance appraisals
Orientation programs
Expatriation/repatriation
Action learning
Project-based learning
Special assignments
Networking
Written materials/websites on career issues

Sources: Baruch & Peiperl (2000); Eby, Allen, et al. (2005).

system. Let’s begin by discussing the most popular element, the practices
and programs that are relevant to the career development of employees.

Career Development Practices and Programs

There are a number of career practices frequently used by organ-
izations to accomplish career development goals. Common ones are
included in Table 3.2.
Some scholars have created taxonomies or categories of practices as
a means of examining how connected HR practices correlate with
certain organizational outcomes (Baruch & Peiperl, 2000; Eby, Allen,
& Brinley, 2005). These taxonomies can also serve as a best practice, as
Baruch and Peiperl described:

HR managers and others charged with managing careers in

organizations should develop career systems as actual systems: that
is, as sets of practices which naturally fit together and are appropriate
to the organization’s stage of development, form, and/or industry.
(p. 360)
 Strategic Career Development 47
Eby, Allen, et al. (2005) explained that organizations have a
tendency to arrange HR practices into “integrated packages that rein-
force the organization’s culture and strategy” (p. 568).
Baruch and Peiperl (2000) surveyed managers in the UK to deter-
mine what career development practices were commonly employed in
their organizations. Through factor analysis, they developed five major
factors or clusters of organizational career management practices. The
five groups included:

 Basic: those most frequently used practices such as job postings,

pre-retirement programs, and lateral moves.
 Active planning: practices that require active organizational
involvement and plans to develop employees. These practices
include performance appraisals, career counseling, and succession
planning.
 Active management: practices that have an “informational element”
such as assessment centers, formal mentoring, and career
workshops.
 Formal: practices in which the organization offers formalized
information (usually downward) to assist in career development.
These practices include written personal career plans, dual career
ladder, and written materials designed to inform employees about
career opportunities.
 Multi-directional: practices designed to provide employees with
feedback to assist in their development. Peer appraisals and
upward appraisals are included in this cluster (Baruch & Peiperl,
2000).

In another study examining career management practices and career

attitudes, practices were “bundled” in the following manner:

 Career planning and exploration: included the practices of career

planning workshops and formal mentoring programs.
 Future strategic planning: succession planning and outplacement
were the practices that comprised this factor.
 Internal labor market information: this bundle consisted of indi-
vidual career counseling, career ladders/paths, and job postings.
 Formal external training: this included external training programs
and tuition reimbursement.
 Informal internal training: in-house training and pre-retirement
workshops were the practices comprising this factor (Eby et al.,
2005).
48 Strategic Career Development
Table 3.3 Individual Development Practices
Practice Formal Informal External Internal

Mentoring X X X X
Coaching X X X X
Networking X X X X
Education/Tuition Reimbursement X X
Training X X X X
Job assignments/rotations X X X X
Volunteering X X X
Career Counseling X X X X

While both of these taxonomies are useful in considering broad

categories of practices to consider, they may be too limiting,
particularly since the nature of careers has changed significantly.
Most of the practices included in these two studies are traditional
practices that have been employed in organizations for a number of
years. To remain relevant, organizations may need to adopt more
innovative practices to support and achieve career development goals.
As a result, we suggest two broad categories of practices: organiza-
tional strategic career development practices and individual develop-
ment practices. Individual development practices can be further
categorized as being internal or external to the organization and
informal or formal. The category “organizational strategic practices”
would include, for example: succession planning, career ladders and
paths, job posting systems, and outplacement services. Individual
development practices would consist of activities such as mentoring,
coaching, and training (see Table 3.3 for a more complete listing).
Most of these practices could potentially be both informal and formal
and be delivered external to the organization or internally. For example,
a lot of training practices are formal—meaning that they have been
carefully prepared, offered with a particular set of goals in mind to a
specific group, delivered face to face or on-line, and may include
specific follow-up and evaluative processes. However, a great deal
of training is also done on the job in a just-in-time manner; in
other words, it is much more informal in terms of development and
delivery. Additionally, many organizations provide a lot of formal and
informal training internally, but encourage external training opportu-
nities as well.
When considering who benefits or the outcome of these practices, a
Venn diagram may be useful (Figure 3.2). While some practices may
 Strategic Career Development 49

Education
Education Education
Education Education
Education
Education Education

External Informal
Internal Formal

Figure 3.2 Career Development Practices and Programs

help the organization or the individual more, both parties are likely to
profit from many of the activities. Also, there is quite a bit of overlap
in terms of the activities themselves. For example, a successful
succession plan usually involves several of the individual develop-
ment practices as ways to ensure that individuals have the capabilities
needed to assume leadership positions.
There are a variety of factors to weigh in determining which of
these potential practices to employ. The contextual factors discussed
earlier in this chapter must be considered. For example, Baruch and
Peiperl (2000) found that active planning activities (e.g., career
counseling and succession planning) correlated with organizations
having dynamic, open, and proactive climates. So organizational
culture and climate will influence the practices employed. Informa-
tion regarding employees might be utilized to determine practices.
Baruch and Sullivan (2008) discussed the importance of considering
the various career needs of a diverse workforce and suggested differ-
ent practices for individuals with certain career orientations. Baruch
(2003) offered a normative model that practitioners might use to
analyze career systems. His six dimensions could be used as criteria
to determine practices to employ and to evaluate continued use. The
dimensions are:

1. organizational involvement to enact a specific career practice

2. sophistication and complexity of a career practice
3. strategic orientation of the practice
50 Strategic Career Development
4. developmental focus of the practice
5. the relevance of the practice to organizational decision-making
6. the innovativeness of the practice (p. 239).

It is up to the organization to determine the criteria/contextual factors

that will be most critical in determining the career development
practices. It is essential that some assessment is conducted that goes
beyond “let’s do this latest fad.” As Baruch pointed out: “practices
should not be applied in a vacuum, as individual, stand-alone activities,
but rather comprise an integrative career system” (p. 232).
A well planned and effectively developed set of practices can result in
a positive impact on employees and organizations. Career development
initiatives have been found to contribute to individual career success
(Maurer & Chapman, 2013), career attitudes (Eby, Allen, et al., 2005),
employee commitment, and career advancement (De Vos, Dewettinck, &
Buyens, 2009). More detailed information regarding these practices is
provided in Chapters 4 and 5.

Support Mechanisms
Organizations need to provide a variety of support mechanisms to
assist employees’ career development efforts. To determine what
support mechanisms are needed, it may be useful to first consider the
challenges that individuals encounter in developing their careers.
These challenges or barriers can significantly affect an individual’s
perception of his/her career progress, development, and satisfaction
(Ng & Feldman, 2014; Van der Sluis & Poell, 2003). A lot of the
research on career barriers has emerged from studies examining
women’s career development (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000), partic-
ularly in professions such as medicine, law, management, academia,
and engineering. London (1998) identified a number of organiza-
tional/environmental barriers (e.g., poor supervision, organizational
change, multi-role conflict, limited opportunities) as well as individ-
ual barriers (e.g., traits, motivation, skill level, age, gender, race).
Some challenges are not easily addressed through organizational
initiatives. For example, low motivation or experiencing physical
decline in certain professions are challenges that are less likely to
receive attention when determining how the organization can support
employees’ career development. And some (e.g., lack of skill) can be
addressed through the practices and programs discussed in the
previous section. From that perspective, career development practices
are a form of support. However, we wish to focus on those sources of
 Strategic Career Development 51
support that will increase the likelihood that employees will engage in
career development practices and programs. Specifically, five organ-
izational support mechanisms will be highlighted: policies and reward
structures, work–life initiatives, inclusive work environment, super-
visory support, and a continuous organizational learning culture.

 Policies and reward structures: these structures need to serve both to

encourage employees to be active participants in career development
efforts and to minimize barriers to participation. Baruch and Sullivan
(2008) argued for getting rid of “outdated evaluation and reward
systems” and replacing them with innovative policies and reward
structures that offer a variety of choices that meet the diverse needs
of today’s workforce. They also pointed out that many benefits—
such as creative work arrangements, flexible work practices or
arrangements (FWPs/FWAs), leave, etc.—have become a necessity
for organizations to recruit and retain highly performing workers.
 Work–life initiatives: work–family issues have a profound influence
on employees’ careers. Numerous studies have found that women’s
career choices, aspirations, patterns, satisfaction, and success are
affected by family conflicts and/or the desire for balance between
family and work (see for example, Eby, Casper, Lockwood,
Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; Hite & McDonald, 2003; Martins,
Eddleston, & Veiga, 2002). However, women and men alike are
affected by work–family issues and desire support to minimize the
conflicts that they encounter. Increasingly organizations are
responding by implementing flexible work practices or arrange-
ments and offering dependent care and other benefits to help
employees negotiate career and family obligations. Given the impor-
tance of work–life concerns on career development, a more complete
discussion of work–life issues is provided in Chapter 7.
 Inclusive work environment: employees from under-represented
groups (e.g., individuals with disabilities, people of color, GLBT
—gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender people) often experience
barriers in the development of their careers (Niles & Harris-
Bowlsbey, 2013). A host of societal, cultural, and organizational
norms, biases and stereotypes, and practices often result in under-
represented employees being denied access to opportunities that
may be necessary to experience career success. There are a number
of ways in which organizations can create a more inclusive work
environment which will be discussed in Chapter 6.
 Supervisory support: There is evidence suggesting that supervisors
play a critical role in employees’ career development (van der Heijden,
52 Strategic Career Development
2003; van der Heijden, 2002; van der Rijt, Van den Bossche, van de
Wiel, Segers, & Gijselaers, 2012; Van der Sluis & Poell, 2003; Wayne,
Liden, Kraimer, & Graf, 1999). Lack of supervisory support has been
found to negatively affect employees’ subjective feelings of career
success (Ng & Feldman, 2014). Supervisors are important, particularly
since they are likely to observe, provide feedback on, evaluate, and
reward employees’ performance. There are a number of ways that
supervisors can assist in their employees’ career development. Some
examples are provided in the box below.

Ways Supervisors Can Support and Develop Employees’

Careers
1. Provide high quality feedback.
2. Be knowledgeable about development opportunities, inform employ-
ees of these opportunities, and provide access to these career
development programs, practices, and resources.
3. Encourage employees to participate in internal and external
networks.
4. Work with individual employees, help identify their development
needs.
5. Consider both individuals’ present career needs as well as their
future.
6. Offer opportunities for employees to apply new skills and
knowledge.
7. Create an environment where employees are allowed to take risks
and make mistakes.
8. Look beyond formal programs to develop employees. Create stretch
assignments, job rotations, shadowing opportunities, and special
projects to help employees grow and develop in their careers.
9. Be aware of the barriers that employees may encounter in developing
their careers (e.g., work–family conflicts, lack of resources, organiza-
tional change) and consider ways of assisting employees in over-
coming these obstacles.
10. Provide rewards and recognition for career-related activities such
as developing new skills, achieving goals, or taking on a challenge
at work.

Sources: Brown (2010); London (1998); van der Heijden (2002); van der
Rijt et al. (2012)

Managers will not necessarily know how to perform the roles of

coach, counselor, and consultant for employees’ career develop-
ment. So opportunities need to be provided to assist supervisors so
that they can better serve their employees. HRD initiatives such as
training, coaching, and mentoring managers will help them develop
the coaching, counseling, and communication skills necessary to be
effective developers (Tansky & Cohen, 2001; Wayne et al., 1999).
 Strategic Career Development 53
Additionally, managers need to be evaluated on their abilities to
develop employees and be rewarded for their efforts (London,
1998). Without these support mechanisms in place, supervisor
support for career development will be less likely to occur and
will be potentially ineffective where it does exist.
 Continuous learning culture: Organizations that offer a variety of
career development practices and the support mechanisms listed above
are likely to be perceived as having a culture that promotes continuous
learning. Scholars have advocated for a continuous learning culture,
suggesting that this type of environment can help in the transfer of
learning (Egan, Yang, & Bartlett, 2004; Tracey, Tannenbaum, &
Kavanagh, 1995), assist in fostering self-directed career strategies by
employees (Park & Rothwell, 2009), and stimulate informal feedback-
seeking behaviors, which can be important to employees, particularly
in the early stages of their careers (van der Rijt et al., 2012).

There is a great deal of overlap between these support mechanisms.

For example, many policies supportive of career development center
around work–life issues. Supervisors can play an important role in
helping with work–family conflicts that might interfere with one’s
career. In addition, all four rely on communication to be effective
support mechanisms. Employees and managers must be aware of
policies, reward structures, and work–life initiatives offered by the
organization that may assist in their career development (Kraimer,
Seibert, Wayne, Liden, & Bravo, 2011). Supervisory support relies
heavily on managers’ communication skills and the relationships that
they have built with their employees. Finally, communication is an
essential ingredient of a continuous learning culture. Marsick and
Watkins’s (1999) dimensions of a learning organization—1. create
continuous learning opportunities; 2. promote inquiry and dialogue;
3. encourage collaboration and team learning; 4. establish systems to
capture and share learning; 5. empower people toward a collective
vision; 6. connect the organization to its environment; and 7. provide
strategic leadership for learning—clearly suggest that communication is
an important foundation in all these dimensions.
It is also important that fairness issues be considered regarding these
support mechanisms (Guest & Rodrigues, 2012). Wooten and Cobb
(1999) wrote:

By its very nature, CD involves basic issues of fairness over the

allocation of CD resources, the policies and procedures used to
54 Strategic Career Development
decide who receives them, and the interactions between those who
provide and those who not only receive CD rewards but also
experience its losses.
(p. 173)

The literature on women and under-represented groups clearly

indicates that fairness needs to be addressed in developing career
development systems. For example, lack of access to opportunities
such as mentors and networks is often cited as a reason for the glass
ceiling (Elacqua, Beehr, Hansen, & Webster, 2009). Many organiza-
tions choose to concentrate their career development efforts on their
professional and technical staffs, as well as their managerial employ-
ees, often leaving their hourly and less skilled workers to fend for
themselves (Gutteridge, Leibowitz, & Shore, 1993). See Chapter 6 for
more information on the disparate treatment of women’s and under-
represented groups’ career development.
Managing perceptions of fairness does not mean that employees have
to necessarily be treated the same. As Rousseau (2005) pointed out,
“workers as individuals don’t always want the same things. Moreover,
it is often impractical for employers to offer the same things to every-
one” (p. x). Rewards, for example, can be distributed based on different
“rules”—one might apply an “equality” rule, where everyone receives
the same outcome; an “equity” rule, which allows for differing amounts
based on differences, such as performance; or an “individual need” rule,
which distributes outcomes based on particular need such as flexible
working hours to handle childcare issues (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004, p.
213). All of these practices could be perceived as fair if the rules are
clearly explained and understood, and employees understand how deci-
sions are made (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Allowing and using input
regarding policies, rewards, work–life initiatives, etc. is another way to
increase employees’ perceptions that organization-sponsored career
development is fair and just (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Rousseau,
2005). A specific way of providing voice regarding career development
efforts is through idiosyncratic deals (see box for additional
information).

I-DEALS: Idiosyncratic Deals

According to Denise Rousseau, most formal employment arrange-
ments are not complete; it is virtually impossible for supervisors,
employees, and HR to anticipate all of the roles, responsibilities,
needs, and demands that may arise during an employee’s tenure with
an organization. As a result, employees may seek out and negotiate
 Strategic Career Development 55

special employment arrangements, which Rousseau has labeled

“i-deals.” She defines them as “voluntary, personalized agreements of
a nonstandard nature that individual employees negotiate with their
employers regarding terms that benefit them both” (Rousseau, 2005, p. 8).
While i-deals can vary both in scope and content, the two most common
forms are flexible scheduling arrangements of work hours and special
opportunities to develop skills and/or careers (Hornung, Rousseau, &
Glaser, 2008).
While i-deals can create a mutually beneficial situation for employees
and their employers, they can be controversial. Often they are viewed as a
way to reward performance and to help an employee in need. However,
third parties (usually co-workers) may view the arrangement as unjust and
a demonstration of favoritism. These concerns should be carefully
considered when i-deals are negotiated. According to Rousseau (2005):

Despite the potential within-group friction, idiosyncratic arrange-

ments can be seen as fair by their parties, if steps are taken to
appropriately differentiate i-deals from other arrangements that are
patently unjust and self-serving. Differentiating i-deals from favori-
tism and illicit arrangements is important to protect coworkers, the
employer, and the i-dealer from the potentially negative consequen-
ces that poorly implemented i-deals can have.
(p. 12)

Individual Characteristics
This chapter is about organizational career development. However,
organization-sponsored programs, practices, and support will not be
effective unless individuals are motivated and active participants in the
process. Because effective career development is a collaborative
process, it is critical to include characteristics of the individual
employee in this framework.
Traits such as conscientiousness, extroversion, and proactivity have
been found to be predictors of career success (Maurer & Chapman,
2013; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005), whereas traits such as
neuroticism and low core self-evaluation have been found to be nega-
tively related to career success (Ng et al., 2005; Ng & Feldman, 2014).
While it is important to recognize the important role that traits play in
individuals’ career success, other characteristics may be more suscep-
tible to change. In other words, organizational practices and support
mechanisms may influence the development of these individual char-
acteristics, which will then influence individual career success. We will
focus on four of these characteristics.
One of these characteristics is career self-management which
involves the individual taking control of his/her career and being
56 Strategic Career Development
self-reliant and in control of decisions and plans regarding one’s career
(De Vos et al., 2009; Sturges, Guest, Conway, & Davey, 2002).
King (2004) proposed three important behaviors associated with career
self-management:

 Positioning behavior, which involves having the contacts, skills,

and the experience to accomplish career goals.
 Influence behavior, which is focused on influencing the decisions
of “key gatekeepers” (e.g., immediate supervisors, mentors, senior
managers) who affect careers.
 Boundary management, which is concerned with handling the
boundaries between home and work.

Self-management has been positively linked with perceptions of

career success, but studies have determined that it should not be
considered as a substitute for organizational career development
(De Vos et al., 2009; Sturges et al. 2002). Employees demonstrating
high levels of career self-management expect the organization to
provide career development practices (De Vos et al. 2009). Addition-
ally, these self-management skills may enhance their ability to access
sources of career support within the organization (Sturges et al., 2002).
Both career self-management skills and organizational support for
career development is likely to result in successful outcomes for both
employees and the organization.
The turbulent career landscape has resulted in literature advocat-
ing that individuals develop resiliency, adaptability, and employ-
ability skills related to their careers. Career resiliency is “the ability
to adapt to change, even when the circumstances are discouraging or
disruptive” (London, 1997, p. 34). The presence of barriers such as
age, family demands, low self-confidence, inflexibility on the part of
the organization, and financial issues suggest that one needs to
demonstrate resiliency to overcome them (Bimrose & Hearne,
2012). There are certain traits associated with resiliency. For exam-
ple, individuals who are tenacious and determined, goal oriented,
and have an internal locus of control are likely to be resilient
(Bimrose & Hearne, 2012; Rickwood, Roberts, Batten, Marshall,
& Massie, 2004). They also are likely be characterized as doing
the following:

People who are high in resilience need to achieve, believe in their

ability to make positive things happen, feel they are able to control
events, are willing to take reasonable risks, need to establish why
 Strategic Career Development 57
things happen to them, and are willing to search for negative
feedback about themselves and the (sic) their interpretations of
events.
(London, 1998, p. xx)

Individuals can develop career resiliency. Many career development

practices listed earlier in this chapter can foster career resiliency. For
example, career counselors can assist clients in learning coping skills,
developing self-awareness, and creating a career action plan (Rickwood
et al., 2004). Waterman, Waterman, & Collard (1994) offered a number
of ways to create a “career-resilient workforce,” recommending that
organizations create a system where employees assess their competen-
cies and interests, benchmark their skills consistently, and ensure that
they have the skills necessary to remain competitive. More information
on resiliency is provided in Chapter 7.
Related to career resiliency is the concept career adaptability, which is
“the readiness to cope with the predictable tasks of preparing for and
participating in the work role and with the unpredictable adjustments
prompted by changes in work and working conditions” (Savickas,
1997, p. 254). While both resiliency and adaptability focus on handling
change, adaptability is often considered a more “proactive” approach to
handling career change (Bimrose & Hearne, 2012). There are four
resources and strategies (4Cs) used by individuals to handle “tasks,
transitions, and traumas as they construct their careers” (Savickas,
2013, p. 158). These are:

 Concern about the future and how to prepare and plan for it.
Competence in career planning may be demonstrated.
 Control, which allows individuals to take responsibility for their
future. Decisive decision making will be evident.
 Curiosity, which stimulates individuals to explore future roles and
situations. This will prompt a thorough, realistic view of them-
selves and their career options.
 Confidence to pursue their career goals and aspirations. This may
be demonstrated through engaging in problem solving when
faced with a career obstacle (Koen, Klehe, & Van Vianen, 2012;
Savickas, 2013; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012).

The Career Adapt-Abilities Scale (CAAS) has been created to

measure these four dimensions (Porfeli & Savickas, 2012; Savickas &
Porfeli, 2012). International forms of this scale have been constructed
and researchers from various countries have both validated and used it
58 Strategic Career Development
to investigate the relationship between career adaptability and a variety
of other variables (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012).
There is evidence suggesting that career adaptability is malleable and
that training can enhance individuals’ adaptability. Training designed to
address the 4Cs enhanced university graduates’ career adaptability.
The training participants also reported higher employment quality than
those who had not attended the training (Koen et al., 2012). More
information regarding how the training was designed can be found in
the box below.

Training Career Adaptability

Koen et al. (2012) were interested in determining whether training
could increase university graduates’ career adaptability and if training
could assist participants in finding suitable employment. Recent
graduates with bachelor’s or master’s degrees from a large university
in the Netherlands were the participants in this study. A control group
was employed as well.
The training involved a one-day (8.5 hours) workshop, structured in
the following way:

 Introduction: explained the relevance of the training and asked

participant to reflect on their career preparation.
 Section 1, Knowing the self: focused on understanding participants’
values. Two activities were employed. The first was a card-sort
exercise, where participants chose cards with career-relevant values
to get them to hone in on what is important to them. The second activity
was a job interview in which the participants, working in pairs,
interviewed each other regarding their knowledge, skills, and abilities.
 Section 2, Knowing the environment: focused on an activity that asked
trainees to “visualize an ideal working day in order to explore career
interests and decide upon career options” (p. 400). Another exercise
involved a discussion of information-seeking strategies employed to
meet career goals.
 Section 3, Implementation (general): participants were asked to create
a general plan, using information gained from the exercise completed
above.
 Section 4, Implementation (concrete): trainees developed specific and
concrete actions and goals to help them accomplish their plan.

The first two sections focused on enhancing participants’ curiosity—

one of the 4Cs identified by Savickas (1997) as a career adaptability
strategy. The last two sections aimed at facilitating concern (planning
for the future) and control (taking responsibility for the future).
Throughout the training reflection, individualized feedback, role model-
ing, and written exercises were employed to reinforce learning.
Findings: the training group increased their career adaptability
(specifically career concern, curiosity, and control) following training
and six months after the training. More difference between the control
group and the training group was found at six months on curiosity and
 Strategic Career Development 59

control. Additionally, at the six-month follow-up, training participants

who had found employment reported higher quality employment than
those in the control group (e.g., job satisfaction, lower turnover
intentions, career success).

Source: Koen et al. (2012)

The final individual characteristic we want to highlight is employ-

ability which “refers to an employee’s capacity and willingness to
remain attractive in the labour market” (Carbery & Garavan, 2005,
p. 493). According to Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashforth (2004) it is a
“psycho-social construct” consisting of three dimensions:

 career identity, which can serve as a “compass”—providing direc-

tion and motivation in pursuing career goals.
 personal adaptability, which suggests flexibility and an openness to
change and to learning.
 social and human capital investments such as networking (social),
work experience, and education (human capital) that enhance one’s
career opportunities (Fugate et al., 2004).

Fugate et al. (2004) acknowledged that, while each of these dimen-

sions are distinct and often studied and considered as independent
constructs, it is the three of them “in concert” that create “employ-
ability” (p. 18).
Many of the career development practices discussed in this chapter can
increase employees’ employability. Clarke and Patrickson (2008) recom-
mended that organizations help employees develop skills that are needed in
most jobs—such as communication skills, problem solving, and decision-
making capabilities. There is a risk that organizations that promote employ-
ability may lose members of their workforce. However, the perception of
an “employability culture” characterized as an organization that encour-
ages experimentation, job changes, and skill broadening was found to be
negatively related to turnover intention (Nauta, van Vianen, van der Heij-
den, van Dam, & Willemsen, 2009). Paradoxically, Nauta et al.’s “results
suggest that organizations can retain their employees just by creating
opportunities that facilitate leaving” (p. 247).

Career Development Outcomes

Finally, strategic career development must involve a consideration of
the outcomes that can be achieved through a strong system. Since an
60 Strategic Career Development
effective system requires both employee and organization involvement
and commitment, it seems logical that the intended outcomes benefit
both parties. Therefore, individual-level outcomes include both objec-
tive and subjective career success. In Chapter 2 it was noted that
objective indicators of positive career outcomes would include salary,
promotions, and occupational status. While these indicators are impor-
tant to many individuals, some employees are more interested in how
their capabilities and careers help others, or experiencing balance in
terms of work and family responsibilities, or having a career that allows
for flexibility and autonomy. These would be considered subjective
indicators of career success. Many individuals are interested in and
desire both forms of these positive career outcomes, and often objective
success will impact subjective career success and vice versa.
Several of the factors included in this strategic career development
framework have been found to influence career success. For example,
supervisory support can influence employees’ subjective career success
(Ng & Feldman, 2014; Wayne et al., 1999) as well as objective career
success indicators such as salary progression (Wayne et al., 1999). Career
practices, such as providing training opportunities, can have a long-term
impact on career success, particularly if the support is offered early in
employees’ careers and continues over time (Maurer & Chapman, 2013).
Individual characteristics such as career self-management and career
adaptability positively influence subjective career success (De Vos
et al., 2009; Zacher, 2014). Career success is an important goal and
outcome of career development. As a result, a lot of research has been
done examining predictors and variables that impact it. More information
regarding career success is included in other chapters of this book.
There has been less research done looking at the impact that career
development has had on organizational outcomes. The focus of many
career researchers and practitioners has been on the individual rather
than the organization (Egan, Upton, & Lynham, 2006). The vocational
perspective (e.g., career counseling) has traditionally concentrated on
individual outcomes (Inkson & King, 2011), and the current emphasis
on employees managing their own careers has resulted in less attention
on benefits to the organization.
We propose two categories of organizational outcomes resulting
from a strategic career development system: talent retention and
competitive advantage. These are very broad categories—most organ-
izations will want to be more specific as to what they want to achieve
in terms of outcomes. More precise outcomes will facilitate clearer
ways to assess results and determine the effectiveness of the system.
 Strategic Career Development 61
However, most specific outcomes are likely to fall within these two
broad-based groupings.
Organizations are likely to experience positive results for their career
development efforts if they are done well. There is evidence linking
employees’ perceptions of organizational support for their development
to their affective commitment to the organization (De Vos et al., 2009;
Lee & Bruvold, 2003), higher job performance (Kraimer et al., 2011),
job satisfaction (Lee & Bruvold, 2003), and employee engagement
(Shuck, Twyford, Reio, Jr., & Shuck, 2014). Research also provides
support for the notion that career development efforts can impact reten-
tion efforts (e.g., Kraimer et al., 2011; Lee & Bruvold, 2003; Peterson,
2009; Shuck et al., 2014). Retaining talent has been identified as a
major concern for many companies. A well integrated career develop-
ment system can be very valuable in helping to address this issue (Kaye
& Smith, 2012).
According to Kraimer et al. (2011), employees need to perceive
high levels of both organizational support for development and career
opportunities for the organization to reap the benefits of higher job
performance and lower turnover rates. And Shuck et al. (2014)
advised that organizations must go beyond simply promoting their
development efforts. They wrote: “It is not about having a robust

Support Mechanisms
• Policies and rewards
• Work–life initiatives
• Inclusive work
environment
Contextual Influences • Supervisory support
• External • Continuous learning
o Technology culture
Outcomes
o Demographics
• Individual level
o Economy
- Objective and
o Industry trends
subjective
o Social/political issues Practices and
- Career success
Programs
• Organization Strategic CD • Organizational
• Organization level
o Culture Planning strategic practices
- Talent
o Strategic direction • Employee
retention
o Current employees development practices
- Employee
o History of CD
engagement
- Competitive
advantage
Individual characteristics
• Career self-management
• Career resiliency
• Career adaptability
• Employability

Figure 3.3 Framework for Organizational Career Development Expanded

62 Strategic Career Development
offering of programs and colorful catalogues within a corporate learn-
ing and development function—it is equally about employees’ (sic)
perceiving equal access to and support for their involvement in those
activities” (p. 263).
A career development system that includes consideration of
contextual factors, as well as practices that develop individuals and
enhance important HR strategies, and that offers additional mechanisms
to promote and support career development will result in organizational
success. Many employees will want to remain, and their commitment,
productivity, and engagement will result in a highly performing firm.
As Lee & Bruvold (2003) concluded:

If sustained competitive advantage is what most organizations are

looking for, then one way to achieve it is through sustained
employee development. Not only do such programmes enhance
the well-being of individual employees by providing benefits such as
skill acquisition and career development, they may also enhance the
organization’s productivity. In fact, investing in employee develop-
ment may create a dynamic relationship where employees may work
harder because they have a greater sense of job satisfaction and
commitment to the organization.
(p. 994)

Summary
This chapter has provided a framework to employ when creating,
modifying, and implementing a career development system within an
organization. A more complete listing of the various factors needing
consideration is provided in Figure 3.3. Career development is a process
that will be influenced by a number of factors, hence a stable, linear process
is unlikely. Rather, all of the elements included in this framework have the
potential to impact each other. This dynamic process requires adept, knowl-
edgeable career development practitioners working collaboratively with
employees and management to ensure that the system meets the needs of
everyone involved.

References
Baruch, Y. (2003). Career systems in transition: A normative model for
organizational career practices. Personnel Review, 32(2), 231–251.
Baruch, Y. (2006). Career development in organizations and beyond:
Balancing traditional and contemporary viewpoints. Human Resource
Management Review, 16, 125–138.
 Strategic Career Development 63
Baruch, Y. & Peiperl, M. (2000). Career management practices: An empirical
survey and implications. Human Resource Management, 39(4), 347–366.
Baruch, Y. & Sullivan, S. E. (2008). Career development processes in
organizations. In R. J. Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Building more
effective organizations: HR management and performance in practice
(pp. 183–206). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bimrose, J. & Hearne, L. (2012). Resilience and career adaptability:
Qualitative studies of adult career counseling. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 81, 338–344.
Bowen, D. E. & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM–firm performance
linkages: The role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Academy of
Management Review, 29(2), 203–221.
Brousseau, K. R., Driver, M. J., Eneroth, K., & Larsson, R. (1996). Career
pandemonium: Realigning organizations and individuals. Academy of
Management Executive, 10(4), 52–66.
Brown, P. T. (2010, April). Having their backs: Improving managers’ skills in
developing others. T+D, 60–64.
Carbery, R. & Garavan, T. N. (2005). Organisational restructuring and
downsizing: Issues related to learning, training and employability of
survivors. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29(6), 488–508.
Catalyst (2014). % Knowledge Center: women in labor force in Australia,
Canada, Israel, South Africa, and United States. Retrieved from www.
[Link]/knowledge/women-labor-force-australia-canada-israel-south-
africa-and-united-states.
Clarke, M. & Patrickson, M. (2008). The new covenant of employability.
Employee Relations, 30(2), 121–141.
DeFillippi, R. J., Arthur, M. B., & Lindsay, V. J. (2006). Knowledge at work:
Creative collaboration in the global economy. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
De Vos, A., Dewettinck, K., & Buyens, D. (2009). The professional career on
the right track: A study on the interaction between career self-management
and organizational career management in explaining employee outcomes.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(1), 55–80.
Doyle, M. (2000). Managing careers in organisations. In A. Collin &
R. A. Young (Eds.), The future of careers (pp. 228–242). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., & Brinley, A. (2005). A cross-level investigation of
the relationship between career management practices and career-related
attitudes. Group & Organization Management, 30(6), 565–596.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005).
Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the
literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124–187.
Edwards, R. (1979) Contested terrain. New York: Basic Books, Inc.
Egan, T. M., Upton, M. G., & Lynham, S. A. (2006). Career development:
Load-bearing wall or window dressing? Exploring definitions, theories, and
64 Strategic Career Development
prospects for HRD-related theory building. Human Resource Development
Review, 5(4), 442–477.
Egan, T. M., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. R. (2004). The effects of organizational
learning culture and job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and
turnover intention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 279–301.
Elacqua, T. C., Beehr, T. A., Hansen, C. P., & Webster, J. (2009). Managers’
beliefs about the glass ceiling: Interpersonal and organizational factors.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 285–294.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability:
A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 65, 14–38.
Gilley, J. W., Eggland, S. A., & Gilley, A. M. (2002). Principles of human
resource development. Cambridge: Perseus Books.
Gottfredson, G. D. (2005). Career development in organizations. In W. B.
Walsh & M. L. Savickas (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology:
Theory, research, and practice (pp. 297–318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Greenhaus, J. H., Callanan, G. A., & Godshalk, V. M. (2010), Career
management. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Guest, D. E. & Rodrigues, R. (2012). Can the organizational career survive?
An evaluation within a social exchange perspective. In L. M. Shore,
J. A-M. Coyle-Shapiro, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), The employee–organization
relationship: Applications for the 21st century (pp. 193–222). New York:
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Gutteridge, T. G., Leibowitz, Z. B., & Shore, J. E. (1993). Organizational
career development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Higgins, M. (2005). Career Imprints: Creating leaders across an industry.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hite, L. M. & McDonald, K. S. (2003). Career aspirations of non-managerial
women: Adjustment and adaptation. Journal of Career Development, 29(4),
221–235.
Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. (2008). Creating flexible work
arrangements through idiosyncratic deals. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93, 655–664.
Inkson, K. (2007). Understanding careers: The metaphors of working life.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Inkson, K. & King, Z. (2011). Contested terrain in careers: A psychological
contract model. Human Relations, 64, 37–57.
Kaye, B., Cohen, J., & Crowell, B. (2011). Career development:
Encompassing all employees. In L. A. Berger & D. R. Berger (Eds.),
The talent management handbook (2nd edn.) (pp. 159–168). New York:
McGraw-Hill Companies.
Kaye, B. & Smith, C. P. (2012, January). Career development: Shifting from
nicety to necessity. T+D, 52–55.
 Strategic Career Development 65
King, Z. (2004). Career self-management: Its nature, causes and
consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 112–133.
Koen, J., Klehe, U. C., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2012). Training career
adaptability to facilitate a successful school-to-work transition. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 81, 395–408.
Kraimer, M. L., Seibert, S. E., Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., & Bravo, J. (2011).
Antecedents and outcomes of organizational support for development:
The critical role of career opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology,
96(3), 485–500.
Lee, C. H. & Bruvold, N. T. (2003). Creating value for employees: Investment
in employee development. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 14(6), 981–1000.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and
barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 47, 36–49.
London, M. (1997). Overcoming career barriers: A model of cognitive and
emotional processes for realistic appraisal and constructive coping. Journal
of Career Development, 24, 25–38.
London, M. (1998). Career barriers: How people experience, overcome, and
avoid failure. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Lyons, S. T., Ng, E. S., & Schweitzer, L. (2014). Changing demographics and
shifting nature of careers: Implications for research and human resource
development. Human Resource Development Review, 13(2), 181–206.
McDonald, K. S. & Hite, L. M. (2005). Reviving the relevance of career
development in human resource development. Human Resource
Development Review, 4(4), 418–439. doi: 10.1177/1534484305281006.
McDonald, K. S. & Hite, L. M. (2015). Career development in the context
of HRD: Challenges and considerations. In R. F. Poell, T. S. Rocco, &
G. L. Roth (Eds.), The Routledge companion to human resource development
(pp. 67–77). London: Routledge.
Marsick, V. J. & Watkins, K. E. (1999). Facilitating learning organizations:
Making learning count. Brookfield, VT: Gower.
Martins, L. L., Eddleston, K. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2002). Moderators of the
relationship between work–family conflict and career satisfaction. Academy
of Management Journal, 45(2), 399–409.
Maurer, T. J. & Chapman, E. F. (2013). Ten years of career success in relation
to individual and situational variables from the employee development
literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 450–465.
Nauta, A., van Vianen, A., van der Heijden, B., van Dam, K., & Willemsen,
M. (2009). Understanding the factors that promote employability
orientation: The impact of employability culture, career satisfaction, and
role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 82, 233–251.
Niles, S. G. & Harris-Bowlsbey, J. E. (2013). Career development
interventions in the 21st century (4th edn.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
66 Strategic Career Development
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors
of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 58(2), 367–408.
Ng, T. W. H. & Feldman, D. C. (2014). Subjective career success: A meta-
analytic review. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 85, 169–179.
Park, Y. & Rothwell, W. J. (2009). The effects of organizational learning
climate, career-enhancing strategy, and work orientation on the protean
career. Human Resource Development International, 12(4), 387–405.
doi: 10.1080/13678860903135771.
Peterson, S. (2009). Career decision-making self-efficacy, integration, and the
likelihood of managerial retention in governmental agencies. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 20(4), 451–475. doi: 10:1002/hrdq.20024.
Porfeli, E. J. & Savickas, M. L. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale-USA
form: Psychometric properties and relation to vocational identity. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 80, 748–753.
Rickwood, R. R., Roberts, J., Batten, S., Marshall, A., & Massie, K. (2004).
Empowering high-risk clients to attain a better quality of life: A career
resiliency framework. Journal of Employment Counseling, 41, 98–104.
Rothwell, W. J., Jackson, R. D., Knight, S. C., & Lindholm, J. E. (2005).
Career planning and succession management: Developing your
organization’s talent—for today and tomorrow. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Publishing Group.
Rotman, D. (2013). How technology is destroying jobs. MIT Technology
Review. Retrieved from [Link]/featuredstory/
515926/how-technology-is-destroying-jobs.
Rousseau, D. M. (2005). I-DEALS: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for
themselves. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
Savickas, M. L. (1997). Career adaptability: An integrative construct for life-
span, life-space theory. The Career Development Quarterly, 45, 247–259.
Savickas, M. L. (2013). Career construction theory and practice. In S. D.
Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling:
Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed.) (pp. 147–183). Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Savickas, M. L. & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: Construc-
tion, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 80, 661–673.
Schutt, D. A., Jr. (2012). Establishing a thriving career development program.
In D. Capuzzi & M. D. Stauffer (Eds.), Career counseling: Foundations,
perspectives, and applications (pp. 253–277). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Shuck, B., Twyford, D., Reio, T. G., Jr., & Shuck, A. (2014). Human resource
development practices and employee engagement: Examining the connection
with employee turnover intentions. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
25(2), 239–270.
Singer, A. (2012). Immigrant workers in the US labor force. Retrieved from
[Link]/research/papers/2012/03/15-immigrant-workers-singer.
 Strategic Career Development 67
Skorikov, V. & F. W. Vonracek. (1993). Career development in the
Commonwealth of Independent States. Career Development Quarterly,
41(4), 314–330.
Sturges, J., Guest, D., Conway, N., & Davey, K. M. (2002). A longitudinal
study of the relationship between career management and organizational
commitment among graduates in the first ten years at work. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23, 731–748.
Tansky, J. W. & Cohen, D. J. (2001). The relationship between organizational
support, employee development, and organizational commitment: An
empirical study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14, 285–300.
Toossi, M. (2012). Labor force projections to 2020: a more slowly growing
workforce. Retrieved from [Link]/opub/mlr/2012/01/[Link].
Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1995). Applying trained
skills on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80(2), 239–252.
van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2002). Individual career initiatives and their
influence upon professional expertise development throughout the career.
International Journal of Training and Development, 6(2), 54–79.
van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2003). Organisational influences upon the
development of occupational expertise throughout the career. International
Journal of Training and Development, 7(3), 142–165.
van der Rijt, J., Van den Bossche, P., van de Wiel, M. W. J., Segers, M. S. R., &
Gijselaers, W. H. (2012). The role of organizational characteristics in
feedback seeking behavior in the initial career stage. Human Resource
Development International, 15(3), 283–301. doi: org/10.1080/13678868.
2012.689216.
Van der Sluis, L. & Poell, R. (2003). The impact on career development of
learning opportunities and learning behavior at work. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 14(2), 159–180.
Waterman, R. H., Waterman, J. A., & Collard, B. A. (1994, July–August).
Toward a career-resilient workforce. Harvard Business Review, 72, 87–95.
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Kraimer, M. L., & Graf, I. K. (1999). The role of
human capital, motivation and supervisor sponsorship in predicting career
success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 577–595.
Wooten, K. C. & Cobb, A. T. (1999). Career development and organizational
justice: Practice and research implications. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 10(2), 173–179.
Young, R. A. & Valach, L. (1994). Evaluation of career development
programs. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 28(4), 299–307.
Zacher, H. (2014, February). Career adaptability predicts subjective career
success above and beyond personality traits and core self-evaluations.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(1), 21–30.
4 Career Development Interventions

Society is very short-sighted as yet in its attitude towards the

development of its human resources. It trains its horses, as a rule,
better than its men (sic). It spends unlimited money to perfect the
inanimate machinery of production, but pays very little attention to
the business of perfecting the human machinery, though it is by far the
most important in production.
Parsons, 1909, p. 160

As we have noted previously, career development is an interactive

endeavor, including both organizations and employees. Although,
increasingly, individual employees are taking more responsibility to
seek out opportunities to learn and develop the skills and knowledge
that they will need for future career initiatives. This is actually good
news, because it gives the career seeker more control over those
choices.
That was not always the case. At one time, career development
planning and implementation was controlled by the organization,
designed to build and maintain the skill sets required to keep the
system operating efficiently (Forret & Sullivan, 2002). Similarly,
employees viewed as having high potential were often singled out
to participate in specific learning activities intended to prepare them
for promotion. If you did not distinguish yourself early in your
tenure with the company, or if you did not fit their image of the
ideal high potential candidate (often expected to mirror the existing
upper management), your chances of being in that select group were
limited; and so, consequently, was your career (Forret & Sullivan,
2002). HRD often coordinated these programs and was integral in
their implementation, but typically had little input into who could
participate.
 Career Development Interventions 69
Not all career development was focused on promotion to top
positions; some was designed to build job-related knowledge and
skills, to make people better at their work. However, most of the
initiatives sponsored by the organization were created to fill system-
specific needs. It was not their goal to train employees to go elsewhere;
and often the employees did not see the need to move, staying with the
same company throughout their working lives. One co-author experi-
enced this first hand. In the early 1990s, my job in a large
manufacturing company included coordinating the tuition reimburse-
ment program. The vice president of human resources (HR) made it
clear that employees seeking funding approval for college courses
needed to be in majors that fit the company’s mission. In his mind, there
was no benefit in educating individuals for any purpose than to serve
that organization. His rationale was reinforced by the number of people
who, at that time, stayed in that system for decades. That kind of system
longevity is much less common in the twenty-first century.
The era of the organization-driven career development plan mainly
came to an end during the economic downturn that prompted systems
to downsize and reduce what they considered to be extraneous
programming and people (Brown, 2012). Not surprisingly, employees
who lost jobs or saw others released to save money generally lost trust
in organizations to care for their careers.
Currently, organizations are striving to boost effectiveness by attract-
ing and retaining skilled and knowledgeable workers, and they are
recognizing that one way to do that is to offer employees career
development-related services (Brown, 2012). Since individuals realize
that they are ultimately responsible for setting and implementing their
career development plans, HRD’s role in career development is evolving.
It now includes bringing the needs of the system and the interests of the
individual employees together to create initiatives that will respond to
both. In this chapter, we will explore some of these interventions, includ-
ing both individual development and organizational strategic practices
(also see Chapter 3). Within those categories, we will informally group
key individual development initiatives that often are addressed in the
literature together, for example connecting activities (mentoring, coach-
ing, and networking) and those that we consider experience-building
initiatives (training, job assignments, and informal learning). Then we
will explore organizational-level strategic practices (career paths, succes-
sion planning, and performance appraisals). In our exploration, we will
discuss the advantages and drawbacks to each; how individuals can best
access these opportunities; and how organizations can develop them to
build effective strategic career development processes.
70 Career Development Interventions
Individual Development Initiatives: Connecting Activities
Scholars currently writing about developmental relationships may use
the phrase “high-quality connections” (HQCs) to describe those that are
viewed as energizing, rather than draining (Higgins, 2007). In the work-
place, individuals may have multiple types of HQCs that they draw
upon for different reasons (Higgins, 2007). We begin by describing
three of the most commonly discussed connecting activities: mentoring,
networking, and coaching. While coaching and networking seem to
appear in the popular press often recently and are gaining a presence
in scholarly research, mentoring literature has had a following among
scholars and practitioners in HRD and related fields for some time. It is
not feasible in this book to fully cover all aspects of mentoring, but we
will begin this section by highlighting some of the key points that make
it a valuable career development activity.

Mentoring
Mentoring has had a long history, but as a career development
intervention, it moved into the spotlight with the publication of Kathy
Kram’s 1985 Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships in
Organizational Life. In that volume, Kram characterized mentoring as
a developmental relationship between a senior professional (someone
with more experience) and an individual with less experience that offers
the junior member career and psychosocial assistance (Kram, 1985).
The career function includes help with career decisions and strategies
(i.e., gaining visibility, taking on difficult assignments to prove abil-
ities), while the psychosocial function encompasses helping the junior
member build confidence and a sense of professional identity (i.e.,
providing a sounding board or being a role model; Ragins & Kram,
2007). Research over time has indicated that some mentoring relation-
ships do provide both, but others may vary in how much of each of
those functions are fulfilled. Higgins (2007) suggested that, since those
variations do not fit the definition of mentoring, they might better be
characterized as sponsors (giving only high career support), friends
(giving only high psychosocial support), or allies (providing low levels
of each). These variations help build the case for diversifying develop-
ment relationships, a concept that we will discuss later in this chapter.
As the mentoring literature has grown, so has the view of what
mentoring can be. For example, Ragins and Verbos (2007) advocated
for relational mentoring, as a relationship that is less one-sided, focus-
ing less on just the protege’s career, and more oriented towards mutual
 Career Development Interventions 71
learning and development for mentor and protege. Haggard, Dougherty,
Turban, & Wilbanks (2011) reinforced that idea when they suggested
that the “three core attributes” that “distinguish mentoring from other
kinds of work-related relationships” (p. 292) are:

 reciprocity, meaning that mentoring is a two-way street with all

members part of the mutual exchange;
 developmental benefits, connected with the protege’s career (and
not limited to a particular organization);
 consistent interaction, over an expanse of time.

Incidentally, while the term “mentor” has become readily accepted to

describe the senior member in this relationship, a definitive term for the
junior person remains somewhat unsettled, with both “mentee” and
“protege” being used. It may be a helpful reminder also to note that,
while one might be considered “senior” due to experience in a
particular system or profession, that status is not necessarily age-
related; so a mentor may be chronologically younger than the mentee.
Similarly, a mentor may or may not share the protege’s profession,
company (Ragins & Kram, 2007), or even geographic location. This
adaptability makes mentoring flexible as individuals change organiza-
tions or span industries during their career journeys.
Much of the mentoring research has concluded that there is a “positive
relationship between the presence of a mentor and career outcomes”
(Ragins & Kram, 2007, p. 7), supporting mentoring as valuable for the
protege’s career development. However, some researchers have ques-
tioned if the benefits really are due to the act of mentoring, if they can
be accounted for by the type of employee who seeks out mentoring
(or who is sought out by influential mentors), or if positive results are a
combination of the two (Ragins & Kram, 2007). While this remains to
be fully substantiated, most mentoring scholars support the role of
mentoring in career success for proteges (e.g., Bozionelos et al.,
2011) and for mentors (e.g., Bozionelos, Bozionelos, Kostopoulos, &
Polylchroniou, 2011; Ghosh & Reio, 2013). This leads to one of the key
issues regarding mentoring: accessibility.
Left to chance, not every aspiring young professional gets a mentor.
Initially, mentors typically choose proteges who might carry on their
“values and perspectives on the world” and proteges often pursue
mentors whom they admire (Kram, 1983, p. 615). Mentoring based on
this type of mutual identification and selection is known as informal
mentoring (Lankau & Scandura, 2007). While typically successful
for those mentoring pairs, this selection process leaves out some
72 Career Development Interventions
individuals who do not find informal mentors. As the potential career
benefits of mentoring became better known by research, and a more
diverse workforce became an obvious reality, organizations began to
explore formal mentoring.
Basically, “formal mentoring refers to organizationally initiated
efforts to match mentors and proteges” (Eby & Lockwood, 2005).
While some have questioned if formal mentoring can yield the full
benefits of informal mentoring, the rationale has often been that
some mentoring is better than none at all (Allen, Eby, & Lentz,
2006). Although research indicates that, while formal mentoring can
help fulfill career-related functions, the psychosocial support factor is
often lacking, suggesting, despite the “mentoring” title, that these may
be more like sponsorships (Higgins, 2007).
Research on formal mentoring programs has been limited compared
to that devoted to the informal variety (Baugh & Fagenson-Eland,
2007; Parise & Forret, 2008) but it does provide helpful insights. For
example, Baugh and Fagenson-Eland (2007) suggested that the differ-
ences between the two types of mentoring center around “the initiation
and the duration of the relationship” (p. 251). Unlike the serendipitous
mutual choice of the informal process, formal mentoring requires some
type of matching process to link mentors and proteges. Decisions
around this process include if program participants volunteer or are
required to take part and if they have input into the matching process.
Research suggests that the volunteer aspect makes little difference, but
participant involvement in the matching activity contributes to effec-
tiveness of the program (Allen et al., 2006). Similarly, while informally
formed relationships are free to run their course, formal matches typi-
cally include an expiration date when mentor and protege are no longer
obligated to remain in the relationship. Another distinction is the intro-
duction of participant training into the process in most formal programs
to clarify expectations among participants and to reinforce the organ-
ization’s goals for the program (Baugh & Fagenson-Eland, 2007).
HRD often takes a lead in coordinating and structuring these formal
mentoring programs.
While research has confirmed many benefits to mentoring, not all
mentoring relationships are good. Sometimes it is just a poor fit and the
mentor and protege part ways amicably, with mutual acknowledgment
that it is time to move on. Other times, more disconcerting issues arise.
Chapter 8 will address ethical issues in career development in more
detail, but some issues are particularly related to the mentoring
relationship and the power that mentors hold relative to their proteges.
While it is not an exhaustive list, Hurst and Eby (2012, pp. 84–86) have
 Career Development Interventions 73
identified five concerns regarding mentoring behaviors, based on the
Ethical Principles of the American Psychological Association, which
address some of the most common difficulties.

 Beneficence and nonmaleficence: mentors demonstrating low

investment in the mentoring relationship or not recognizing their
competence limitations. This also includes mentors mistreating
proteges or hindering their careers.
 Fidelity and responsibility: mentors failing to develop the profes-
sional relationship or to uphold standards as role models.
 Integrity: mentors betraying the trust of their proteges; not acting in
the proteges’ best interests.
 Justice: mentors indulging in favoritism or unfair treatment regard-
ing their professional relationships.
 Respect for rights and dignity: mentors abusing the power of their
positions, not respecting proteges’ rights of confidentiality, taking a
paternalistic approach to the relationship, or not letting go when it
is time for the protege to move on.

We will address how to minimize the risk of these occurring later in

the chapter.
Traditionally, mentoring has been interpreted to mean a dyad with
one mentor and one protege, although, even in 1985, Kram referred to
the value of individuals seeking out more than one person to assist with
their professional growth. In a later collaboration, Higgins and Kram
(2001) described what they called a “developmental network” that
essentially expanded the mentoring relationship, fitting into changes
in the way individuals approach their own careers (e.g., boundaryless
and protean), technological advances that foster greater reliance on
knowledge work, changing organizational structures (e.g., international
expansion), and a more diverse workforce. The focus remained on
career and psychological support, but it may come from varied sources,
including lateral (i.e., peers) as well as hierarchical relationships. This
leads us to networks as another connecting initiative.

Networking
The term “networking” is used widely in popular culture as well as in
career development literature. Cell phone providers advertise their
expansive networking capabilities, campuses sponsor networking
events to encourage business connections, and social networking is
a global phenomenon. A quick check of Amazon books for the word
74 Career Development Interventions
“networking” showed over 56,000 titles (including of course,
Networking for Dummies). Clearly, “networking” has become a famil-
iar (if not over-used) word, giving the impression that everyone
knows what it means, but do we really? To paraphrase a popular credit
card ad:

“Who’s in your network?”

How you respond will depend on how you define “network.”

Career development scholars face a similar dilemma in defining

networking as a career development initiative. Gibson, Hardy, &
Buckley (2014) and Kim (2013) observed that, while career network-
ing may often be grouped with similar types of connecting constructs
(i.e., mentoring, social networking) it differs from each. For example,
while Gibson et al. (2014) concede that there may be some overlap
between behaviors often attributed to mentoring and networking, they
saw mentoring as focusing more on the strength of the mentor(s)–
protege relationship and networking, rather than fixing on the protege
and his/her professional development.
Gibson et al. (2014) also noted that one of the weaknesses in the
literature “is the lack of a consensus definition” (p. 147). After review-
ing some of the definitions that appear in the literature, they devised
their own as a way to integrate some of the key concepts addressed by
other researchers: “Networking is a form of goal-directed behavior,
both inside and outside of an organization, focused on creating, culti-
vating, and utilizing interpersonal relationships” (p. 150). This defini-
tion illustrates three factors that Gibson et al. (2014) and Kim (2013)
asserted separate networking from other linking interactions. First is the
instrumental motive of a network, meaning that members are deliber-
ately selected for their potential to offer career support. The specific
career development goal of a network will vary depending on the
individual, but the goal-related aspect separates networking from other
types of more open-ended interactions (like groups of friends or
Twitter followers). In an effort to clarify this difference, Chandler,
Hall, & Kram (2010) revived the adjective “developmental” to distin-
guish career development networks from other types of networks.
Ibarra and Hunter (2007) suggest that these networks are distinct and
valuable because they offer referral opportunities. Second is permeabil-
ity of networking boundaries, including members inside and outside of
one’s current organization. Strong networks are not confined to any
particular system, to make them more flexible when individuals change
jobs or career direction. Third, network relationships are scattered
 Career Development Interventions 75
across a continuum, with some being more useful than others at differ-
ent times; so they are constantly in flux, and maintaining a network is a
continuous process. Similarly, there is a reciprocity involved in
networking (based on social exchange theory) that suggests mutual
gain from the relationship over time. It may be helpful to reinforce
here that the explicit trading of favors in networking differs from the
mutual benefit perspective of relational mentoring, that advocates shar-
ing and helping because one can, not because one is seeking a favor
down the road. So, while these may seem like similar ideas, they are
based on differing philosophical perspectives.
Given those parameters, establishing a viable career development
network does not just happen. While some encounters may occur
naturally through work assignments or spontaneous social encounters,
networking typically requires planning and effort. Results of Kim’s
(2013) multinational, mixed gender study identified two key ways to
build contacts. Perhaps, not surprisingly, the first was socializing,
intentionally engaging others, either in casual conversations or
through formal meetings, then building on those initial interactions.
However, this contradicted an earlier study by Forret and Dougherty
(2004) that found that socializing had little utility in obtaining either
subjective or objective measures of career success, but increasing
one’s visibility in the organization had a significant impact on both.
That connects to the second factor identified by Kim (2013), involve-
ment in career-related activities (e.g., professional organizations,
company projects or committees) that lets others see one’s potential.
The potential success of these activities to actually build a network,
and not just expand one’s list of acquaintances, depends on the indi-
vidual’s initiative and strategic approach (Kim, 2013). Similarly, the
next step, maintaining contacts, also requires intentional action. Kim’s
(2013) study indicated that this requires a mix of self-prioritization
(e.g., showing what you can do and communicating your successes)
and other-prioritization (e.g., successfully addressing the needs of
others in your network). Key at this stage is finding “compatible
interests” with network members (Kim, 2013, p. 128) so that there
is some investment in staying in contact. In that way, this type of
network building is similar to maintaining any relationship, virtual or
face to face; if there is not an essential connection, the relationship
will be short-lived. So, while this is an iterative process, with build-
ing, revising, and maintaining going on simultaneously over time;
ultimately, networks are intended to grow and remain viable through-
out the career, so longevity matters. This plays into the reciprocity
part of the network concept. The idea is not just to seek out favors
76 Career Development Interventions
when you need them, but to develop a cadre of people with whom you
have mutual give and take over the years.

Networking Notes
There is no one best way to network, but some guidelines can be helpful
reminders. The following represent some of the ideas that others have
tried. Feel free to add some of your own.

 Look for opportunities to network.

B Choose events you find interesting to meet like-minded people.

 Bring your best self, ready to engage.

B It does no good to attend if you hide in a corner.

 Think of some questions ahead of time.

B It helps to get people talking about their work and interests.

 Ask . then listen.

B Being an active listener is a valuable skill in networking.

 Be genuine.
B Trust that you can make that good impression being your unique

self.
 Follow up with new contacts.
B Exchanging business cards makes this easier, but don’t just file

them away.
 Remember the mutuality of the relationship.
B Don’t just call when you have a favor to ask.

 Be the kind of networking member you would like to have.

Sources: Dickison (2011, Jan); Navarro (2011, Jan–Feb); Rosato (2009,

Apr); Tips for Successful Networking (2013, Sept).

Career networking requires a sustained investment of both time and

energy, so what are the career benefits associated with those potential
costs? Research supports the value of networking for increased
compensation (Forret & Dougherty, 2004; Wolff & Moser, 2009),
gaining promotional opportunities (Forret & Dougherty, 2004; Wolff &
Moser, 2010), and “perceived career success” (Forret & Dougherty,
2004, p. 431; Wolff & Moser, 2009). Wolff and Moser (2010) added a
variation that is not particularly surprising as you think about it. They
concluded that internal networks were beneficial for promotions,
while external networks had greater potential when one is planning
to change employers. However, since openings that lead to career
opportunities elsewhere may happen at any time, they advised keeping
a viable network of external contacts so you can be ready (Wolff &
Moser, 2010). Forret and Dougherty (2004) also included a caveat to
their findings. Their research found that networking offered more util-
ity for men than for women. In particular, regarding objective meas-
ures of career success (e.g., promotions, salary), men appeared to
 Career Development Interventions 77
benefit more than their female counterparts from networking initiatives
like increasing their visibility in the organization or participating in
professional activities. This is an important consideration for HRD, as
they guide career development initiatives. An early step may be
exploring the organizational culture and potential inequities in how
these constructs (visibility, professional service) are perceived across
gender lines.
So, what kinds of networks do you maintain? Which capture your
attention and time most often? How do you feel about using your
networking relationships to further your career? Since networking is a
two-way street, what can you offer to your network participants?

Coaching
Similar to networking, the term “coaching” is so familiar in our current
discourse that it is easy to assume that we all know what it means.
Athletes and sports observers often have a singular idea of what it
means to be a coach. This view frequently popularizes the idea of a
coach as a cross between a parent and a military drill sergeant. Outside
of sports, the options expand to include executive coaches, workplace
coaches, and life coaches (Ellinger & Kim, 2014), each with a different
focus. Segers et al. (2011) observed that there are also variations in
the source of coaching, professional coaches inside or outside the
organization, managers who take on coaching responsibilities, and
self-coaching.
Our vague familiarity about coaching gives us some sense of what
it is, but it can be confusing at times to identify how it differs from
other connecting relationships, like mentoring or even counseling
(Ellinger & Kim, 2014). Ellinger and Kim (2014) suggested that the
coaching versus counseling distinction may be based on the focus of
the interaction (immediate career-related goals versus more extensive
planning and exploration) or practitioner credentials (licenses or partic-
ular degrees are required to counsel but not to coach). A description of
the arc of the career coaching relationship, from contracting to disen-
gagement, provided by Hazen and Steckler (2014) illustrates the clearly
defined intent of that relationship.
Garvey, Stokes, & Megginson, (2009) reflected that both coaching
and mentoring claim origins in ancient Greece, often (although not
always) are enacted in pairs, and share some common competencies
(e.g., communication, facilitation). They indicated, however, that the
research traditions appear to differ between the two. For example, they
found mentoring research tends toward the academic with an emphasis
78 Career Development Interventions
on theoretically grounded research methods and models for data inter-
pretation. The intent often is to gauge how mentoring impacts career
development and opportunities. In contrast, their analysis of coaching
research suggests a pragmatic, more subjective approach often based on
anecdotal data. The measure of success is “business relevance” focused
on performance improvement and return on investment (Garvey et al.,
2009). The latter description fits with Ellinger and Kim’s (2014)
note that coaching has at times been criticized for being atheoretical,
lacking a solid research-based foundation. However, Bachkirova, Cox, &
Clutterbuck, (2014) countered that the multidisciplinary nature of coach-
ing lets it draw on various theoretical backgrounds; so, rather than being
theoretically adrift, coaching is based on a wealth of theories from multi-
ple fields. Overall, this discourse suggests that the lines separating these
approaches to career development are often blurred, and that they are
more likely to converge than to become more distinct over time.
Given the identity dilemma described above, how is coaching
defined? Segers, Vloeberghs, Henderickx, & Inceoglu, (2011) offered
this definition of coaching:

an intensive and systematic facilitation of individuals or groups by

using a wide variety of behavioral techniques and methods to help
them attain self-congruent goals or conscious self-change and self-
development in order to improve their professional performance,
personal well-being and, consequently, to improve the effectiveness
of their organization.
(p. 204)

As you may have noted, this expansive definition seems to reinforce

how much like mentoring and counseling coaching is, rather than to set
it apart. However, since each coaching specialty has its own definition,
let’s explore this further.
Stokes and Jolly (2014) suggested that some definitions of execu-
tive coaching are so broad that almost any type of development work
with a coach would qualify. They offered the following as a more
defined way to describe this specialty: “work with senior level exec-
utives that focuses on the executive becoming more self-aware in
order to carry out their leadership role more effectively” (p. 244).
Although there is limited empirical research to support the utility of
executive coaching (Maltbia, Marsick, & Ghosh, 2014), top leaders
may be particularly inclined to seek out this type of coaching if
they are newly promoted and struggling with adjusting their behaviors
to match the role requirements of that lonely and visible position
 Career Development Interventions 79
(Stokes & Jolly, 2014). The allure must be strong, because, although
coaching has had a long history, executive coaching as a professional
focus has recently come to the forefront.
It is difficult to determine which came first to prompt the rise of
interest in coaching: the demand for coaching or the number of
professionals offering their services as coaches. In any event, an increase
in professional coaches has led to a proliferation of professional
associations, the largest being the International Coach Federation
(ICF), which, as its name implies, encompasses multiple types of
coaching (Maltbia et al., 2014). The relatively rapid growth has come
with some growing pains, particularly in determining issues like creden-
tialing, identification of key competencies, and setting of ethical stand-
ards. Maltbia et al. (2014) acknowledged that one current challenge is
that the professional associations setting up the credentialing standards
are the same entities that accredit the education and training programs to
prepare individuals for certification.
Other aspects of coaching key to HRD are managerial, peer, and
team coaching, focused on helping employees below the executive
level improve their “skills, competence, and performance” (Beattie
et al., 2014, p. 186). While some researchers see each of these as a
separate type of coaching practice, Beattie et al. (2014) grouped these
three with a fourth variation, cross-organizational coaching, under the
umbrella of “managerial coaching.” They differentiated among them
depending on who was acting as coach and the configuration of the
relationship. For example, the hierarchical version finds the line
manager in the coaching role, representing the more traditional mana-
gerial coaching focus. Considered to be an effective method to share
learning and foster development, research also suggests that, while
managers are well positioned to perform on the coaching role, not all
have the facilitation skills and knowledge to take on this key respon-
sibility (Beattie et al., 2014). In contrast, peer coaching relies on
colleagues for shared coaching. Ladyshewsky (2014) noted that coach-
ing peers typically have common backgrounds, fostering the sense of
“mutual support” (p. 285). Parker, Hall, & Kram (2008) determined that
“the effective peer coach adopts the role of ‘critical friend,’ providing a
balance of support and challenge” (p. 499). Beattie et al. (2014)
described team coaching being closest to the sports model that we
mentioned earlier, with one manager/coach heading up a team of
employees who are aligned in goals and provided with regular feed-
back. As a variation, Clutterbuck (2014) identified four types of team
coaching, depending on the role that the coach takes (involved in the
action; simply observing and providing feedback for guidance;
80 Career Development Interventions
observing, but limited to strategic thinking with the team; and getting
data from the team, but not involved with them). As the term cross-
organizational coaching indicates, the key difference in this interaction
is that the coaching spans different types of organizational systems.
When the “crossing” also involves international borders (e.g., expatri-
ate assignments, multicultural teams, cross-country mergers) the
complexities of cultural differences also must be factored into crafting
and maintaining the coaching relationship (Abbott, 2014). Recognizing
that individual careers increasingly may move across organizational,
and possibly international, boundaries, this type of coaching will likely
rise in prominence.

The On-Line Option

E-mentoring and e-coaching are increasingly being considered as ways to
expand support outside of the confines of a single organization. Notable
for saving money and time, overcoming geographical distance, and
optimizing flexibility regarding meeting times and matching opportu-
nities (Hunt & Fielden, 2013), on-line mentoring and coaching options
appear to be logistically beneficial. Some suggest that these relationships
also foster more egalitarian interactions because the relative anonymity
of virtual communication makes status or physical differences (i.e., race,
gender) less obtrusive (Hunt & Fielden, 2013). The view of electronic
options is not unilaterally positive, though. Empirical data on the benefits
of on-line delivery of coaching and mentoring is limited. There are also
potential concerns that generational differences in comfort with elec-
tronic communication might deter some more experienced professionals
from being virtual mentors or coaches (Beattie, et al., 2014).

Individual and Organizational Actions to Foster Connecting Initiatives

As we have noted, while mentoring, networking, and coaching vary in
focus and implementation, they share enough similarities that we can
group them together when discussing individual and organizational
initiatives to foster these HQCs.
For individuals:

 Be “developmentally proactive” (Blickle, Witzki, & Schneider,

2009; Chandler et al., 2010, p. 49):
B Actively seek out assistance from others.
B Follow up on new contacts.
B Maintain those connections.
 Career Development Interventions 81
 Seek and be open to feedback (Higgins & Kram, 2001):
B Look for opportunities to learn from others.
 Show your skills and reliability (Chandler et al., 2010):
B Prepare well.
B Take on tasks and follow through.
B Build a portfolio of your work that tracks what you are learning
and how you are using your skills and knowledge (Forret &
Sullivan, 2002).
 Practice strong interaction skills (Chandler et al., 2010):
B Be an active listener and an engaged speaker.
 Access multiple means of connecting (Singh, Ragins, & Tharenou,
2009):
B Expand your types of relationships to add strength.
B Consider alternative support systems, like peers and professional
organizations (Allen & Finkelstein, 2003).

This means not only taking responsibility to build HQCs but also
making the commitment to maintain them over time. Granted, this will
come more naturally to some than to others, but it is rapidly becoming a
career skill that one must learn.
For organizations seeking to help foster HQCs:

 Consider a formal mentoring program to maximize equal access:

B Design the program to match the goals of the organization
(Baugh & Fagenson-Eland, 2007).
B Let potential participants have input into the matching process.
B Clearly communicate expectations including ethical behavior,
responsibilities of each role, meeting frequency.
B Offer guidance on interpersonal skills, gender and race issues.
B Provide alternatives to traditional mentoring pairs such as peer
mentoring, mentoring circles or e-mentoring.
B Provide equal access to these opportunities.
 Expand HQC opportunities:
B Include system support for networking and coaching.
B Encourage e-mentoring and e-coaching to augment options
outside of the organization.
82 Career Development Interventions
 Provide training on networking-, mentoring-, coaching-related
skills:
B Include guidance about the benefits and limitations of each.
B Incorporate practice opportunities (de Janasz and Forret, 2008).
B Ensure that managers are trained in facilitation and coaching
skills.
 Recognize the role of organizational culture on HQC development:
B Set policies and reward systems that encourage employees to
engage with others (Gibson et al., 2014).

HRD is likely to lead the organizational response to developing

individuals with skills in HQCs. Part of the task of HRD will be to help
balance the needs of the system with those of the employees in the
process of developing these initiatives. While it may appear as if the
benefits are skewed towards individuals, the system can gain directly
from potential improved job performance (Gibson et al., 2014) and well
prepared candidates for succession planning, as well as from less tangi-
ble benefits that arise from fostering a culture that values learning and
development. Additionally, while these connecting developmental
activities help prepare individuals for opportunities elsewhere, some
employees will choose to stay in an environment that has fostered their
professional growth so well.

Individual Development Initiatives: Experience-building

As noted previously, our exploration of experience-building initiatives
will focus on training, job assignments, and informal learning. While
each of these has a long history within the work context, compared to
the connecting activities that we discussed, relatively little has been
researched about how these interventions specifically contribute to
long-term career development.

Training
Since training has traditionally been part of HRD, we will begin there.
While this may sound contradictory, given the previous statement about
research, there is no lack of training and development-related literature.
However, often it is focused on topics like training transfer or
evaluation, rather than on training as a career development activity.
Traditionally, HRD literature has made a distinction, indicating that the
 Career Development Interventions 83
“training” part of this function was related to knowledge and skill
building for one’s current job, while the “development” aspect
generally referred to learning that would influence future career
opportunities as well as augmenting abilities to perform well in the
present (Werner & DeSimone, 2012). The former might include getting
oriented to the organization, gaining technical skills (e.g., data entry),
enhancing managerial capabilities (e.g., delegation), or even changing
behaviors to comply with legal requirements (e.g., preventing sexual
harassment; Werner & DeSimone, 2012). Development covers more
varied options, such as taking on stretch assignments or working
with more experienced employees to learn a process. So, we might
think of training as constructing a foundation for developmental initia-
tives to build upon. However, it might be more accurate to visualize a
continuum with training on the left, development on the right, and a
range of activities between them, some closer to one side or the other,
and many in the middle. From a career development perspective, the
dividing line between training and development often is blurred,
making the distinction between them rather inconsequential. However,
for clarity, we will address some training issues first.
Using a career development lens, when training is done well, it helps
individuals gain job confidence and competence. For example, a study
by Laud and Johnson (2012) determined that training and education
were among the key tactics used by those seeking career advancement.
That prompts strong work performance that can foster a greater sense of
employability and optimism about future opportunities. The organiza-
tion providing the training can gain not only the immediate reward of
skilled employees doing their jobs well, but also the potential that
current employees will choose to stay with a system that invests in
their learning, and potential employees will be impressed with their
learning commitment. However, reaping the benefits of training
depends on several factors, individual and systemic. We will explore
those briefly.
Research indicates that motivation to participate in and apply work-
related training is an early indicator of individual career development,
because it builds that foundation for the future. Feldman and Ng (2008)
suggested individual motivational antecedents for training include having
the cognitive and physical ability to access and acquire new knowledge,
seeing the career mobility potential of the training, and possessing the
personality traits most attracted to learning endeavors (e.g., self-efficacy).
Other researchers also have identified particular personality or demo-
graphic traits as influencing training motivation. For example, Major,
Turner, & Fletcher (2006) found that a proactive personality and
84 Career Development Interventions
willingness to take initiative and persist in working for change was
positively linked to training motivation. However, Bertolino, Truxillo, &
Fraccaroli (2011) determined that age moderates a proactive person-
ality, such that, over time, even a proactively inclined individual may
lose motivation for training. They recommended more research to
explain why. Not surprisingly, research indicates that Big Five person-
ality traits, such as openness to experience, also affect training moti-
vation (Feldman & Ng, 2008; Major et al., 2006).
Organizational factors are critical in fostering successful training
initiatives. Feldman and Ng (2008) identified several that can reinforce
or discourage training motivation. They considered individual job
empowerment, stress level, and position level as motivational influ-
encers (i.e., more empowerment, less negative stress, and a higher
position yield more motivation). Similarly, the organizational culture’s
support of training (i.e., supervisor encouragement to attend and
apply training) helps determine motivation to put time and energy
into training (Feldman & Ng, 2008). Gorman, Thibodeaux, Eisinger, &
Overstreet (2012) added another key aspect, specifically how potential
trainees are selected and how that impacts career options, as illustrated
in this statement:

Selection for training is a critical employment decision because

employees who complete certain training programs may improve
their knowledge and skills which can lead to an increase in
available opportunities for promotions, skill-based pay increases,
bonuses, and other career advancement outcomes.
(p. 97)

While these objective measures represent only one type of career

success, their point is clear that HRD can assist organizations in
reviewing and revising their policies and practices for determining
training decisions and building a culture of learning. Ethical and equitable
access to training and other growth opportunities is critical in creating and
sustaining a successful career development process, as well as for gaining
employee trust, which is an essential aspect of a learning culture.
The turbulence of the current career environment has prompted
discussions about another potential role of training: teaching career
resilience. On our continuum of interventions, this one would likely be
placed somewhere between traditional training and more open-ended
career development interventions, because it can be taught, but it also
becomes a mindset and a practice. Resilience has been described as
“a multifaceted construct that includes a person’s determination and
 Career Development Interventions 85
ability to endure, to be adaptable and to recover from adversity”
(Taormina & Taormina, 2014, p. 347). While much of the research to
date combining careers and resilience has gravitated toward jobs often
susceptible to burn-out (e.g., nursing, emergency services), maintaining
employability in a changing career landscape will increasingly require
an ability to endure and adapt. Factors often linked to resilience include
(Borgen, Amundson, & Reuter, 2004, p. 52; Taormina & Taormina,
2014, p. 347):

 internal locus of control

 adaptability
 sense of purpose
 optimism
 determination
 problem-solving skills
 endurance
 recuperability.

Some of these factors may seem to be personality-driven rather than

skills to learn. However, research suggests that training can enhance
skills that contribute to a sense of optimism and self-efficacy, and also
foster a mindset that encourages a greater sense of purpose and control
over one’s future (Borgen et al., 2004; Taormina & Taormina, 2014).
Empirical research remains scarce on how to build resilience, but it is a
concept to watch for in the future of career development.

Job Assignments
Moving more towards the developmental part of the continuum, we
will explore job assignments and informal learning. To begin our
discussion, it is helpful to recognize that research supports a positive
link between challenging assignments and career advancement
(De Pater, Van Vianen, Fisher, & Van Ginkel, 2009). These opportu-
nities are also called stretch assignments, because they require individ-
uals to gain new skills and knowledge, diversify their interactions, and
address unfamiliar circumstances (Dragoni, Tesluk, Russell, & Oh,
2009; McCall, 2004), prompting individuals to push on the perceived
limits of their capabilities. These assignments may be seen as the
double-edged sword of career development: do well and you gain
recognition and additional chances to shine; do poorly and you risk a
career setback. An example of the latter is the person promoted too far,
86 Career Development Interventions
too fast, suddenly elevated to a position without proper preparation,
knowledge, or skills to succeed.
Dragoni et al. (2009) indicated three key factors that influence the
potential success of stretch assignments to contribute to career develop-
ment. One is that the job includes tasks that really are developmental,
not an accumulation of the same responsibilities. Another is access to
and availability of these assignments. If such opportunities are rare and
not well distributed, neither organization nor individuals will benefit
fully. The third is the individual learning orientation. They noted, “indi-
viduals holding a learning goal orientation perceive challenging tasks
as opportunities to learn . they exhibit an adaptive response pattern in
which they actively choose more difficult tasks” (p. 734). These ideas
reinforce earlier observations by McCall (2004) who stated:

The challenge of using experience for development lies in giving

the right experiences to the people who will learn the most from
them (often described as “open to learning” or “learning agile”)
then providing the kind of support that will let them learn what the
experiences offer.
(p. 128)

McCall (2004) also addressed the aspect of access, suggesting that

organizations often use a “short-term performance” mindset about chal-
lenging assignments, giving them to the people who already are doing
that kind of work, rather than taking a “long-term development” view
and offering these tasks to talented, but untried, individuals who might
learn the most from the experience (p. 128).
An interesting caveat applies when considering stretch tasks. We often
think of this initiative as being most applicable to those in the early years
of their careers as a way to prove themselves and perhaps speed their
professional advancement. An empirical study by Belgian researchers
Careete, Anseel, & Lievens (2013) added support to that perception.
They studied early- and mid-career employees in the same organization.
Their results showed that the performance boost attributed to taking on
challenging tasks was in effect for younger careerists, but not for their
mid-career counterparts, whose performance declined as the challenge
increased. The data prompted them to suggest that organizations consider
a measured approach to these types of assignments for mid-career
employees, adjusting the demands of the tasks more carefully to match
current abilities so that the stretch required is less strenuous. However,
their study did not explore how this might play out for a mid-career
individual moving into a new organization or making a career change
 Career Development Interventions 87
to a different type of work. Might that significant change in direction
prompt someone to re-create an “early” career perspective, eager to rise
to bigger challenges in their new environment?
So, what can individuals do to be considered for and to succeed in
stretch assignments? Sometimes you need to ask for the opportunity.
Systems may fall into the risk-avoidance perspective, noted above by
McCall (2004), choosing to give tough assignments to the already
proven performers. HRD can help to moderate that view, but individ-
uals also need prepare themselves by developing skills, knowledge, and
the sense of self-efficacy that comes from believing in your own
competence, so that they are ready when the opportunities arise. Addi-
tionally, given our current, more mobile career environment, offering
individuals the chance to reinvent their professional personas periodi-
cally, maintaining an agile learner mindset, might be the most valuable
skill that one can practice, not only to obtain challenging assignments
but also to retain employability.
Organizational support also can help to maximize the potential for
successful challenge assignments by providing mentoring or coaching
assistance (McCall, 2004) and advocating a learning culture that
acknowledges mistakes and missteps as part of development. Dragoni
et al. (2009) suggested that HRD can assist in this process by helping
build career development plans that use job assignments and rotations
to “systematically increase exposure to more developmental dimen-
sions and thereby enhance managers’ overall opportunity to augment
competencies” (p. 741), letting individuals build confidence and skills
incrementally, instead of in one big leap. This approach also can help
minimize the perceived risk of handing a big assignment to a less
experienced employee, making it easier for organizations to adhere to
their developmental intentions. Stretch assignments may include chan-
ces for informal learning, but they are not the only way to engage in
these opportunities.

Informal Learning
The phrase “informal workplace learning” covers such a wide range of
possibilities that it may be more easily defined by what it is not. In contrast
to formal learning, which typically refers to structured, class-focused,
organizationally arranged and controlled learning events (e.g., system-
wide training sessions), informal learning is initiated and directed by the
individual. “Unlike formal learning, informal learning can be planned or
unplanned and structured or unstructured” (Lohman, 2005, p. 501). It
encompasses multiple means of enhancing workplace wisdom, such as
88 Career Development Interventions
“reading a book or article, asking each other for help and feedback, and
sharing knowledge with each other” (van Rijn, Yang, & Sanders, 2013,
p. 611). It also may include on-line searches, trying out new techniques to
learn by trial and error, and observing others (Lohman, 2005).
By its nature, informal learning is flexible, responsive to the needs of
the learner, and readily accessible to individuals. This makes it a
valuable career development tool for individuals as well as organiza-
tions, which can benefit from this cost-effective, personally directed
and driven approach to learning. “Voluntary participation in informal
learning activities may enhance individual performance through
knowledge acquisition and practice, ultimately leading to increased
organizational performance” (Bednall et al., 2014, p. 56).

Actions to Foster Experience-building Individual Development

Initiatives
For individuals: recognize this as an opportunity to take control of your
own learning and development:

 Cultivate a proactive, learning mindset.

 Be creative and persistent in seeking out learning opportunities.
 Develop strong self-efficacy.
 Make a commitment to excellence.
 Be supportive of others (Lohman, 2005).

For organizations: recognize that some of what you can offer is less
tangible than structured training or workshops, but still critically important:

 Create a supportive environment that encourages knowledge-

sharing and collaborative work:
B Foster a learning culture.
B Reward collaboration over competition.
B Develop chat spaces throughout the facility.
B Build in unstructured workplace time for individuals to meet
and discuss ideas (Lohman, 2005).

For example, a company in the co-authors’ community deliberately

designed areas throughout their new corporate building with small groups
of tables and comfortable chairs to encourage informal dialogue among
employees from different functional areas. These non-meeting-room
 Career Development Interventions 89

gathering spots not only offer space and place for conversation, but also
serve as a reminder of the company’s interest in collaborative innovation.

Organizationally Based Development Initiatives

While we have already acknowledged that the responsibility for
career development has shifted from being wholly organizationally
controlled to being more individually driven, some career develop-
ment initiatives still are systemically based and guided. We will
explore three of those in this section: career paths, performance
appraisals, and succession planning.

Career Paths
Carter, Cook, & Dorsey (2009) define a basic career path as a layout of
sequential jobs that an individual would hold while advancing in his/
her career over time. For each position on the list, the path includes the
qualifications required at that point (e.g., licensure, education level),
developmental experiences linked to moving from that job to the next
(e.g., managing a challenging project), competencies that would be
learned or enhanced at each step (e.g., managing a complex budget),
and critical career success factors to ensure smooth progress within the
system (e.g., taking an expatriate position; Carter et al., 2009). At first
glance, career paths might appear to be simply a new term for an
organizationally controlled career but, if done properly, there is greater
transparency about what it takes to continue to advance and a more
strategic focus to the process. For the individual, the start-to-finish
clarity of the outline can help alleviate anxiety about what criteria
will be used to judge performance and what the future may hold.
The organization gains a better grasp of their talent management pros-
pects and hopefully can use the system to make wise hiring and promo-
tion decisions. It may also help to reinforce retention when talented
individuals can see a clear road to advancement and recognize that the
organization has made an investment in their future.
As described by Carter et al. (2009), career paths may seem restric-
tive and system-bound in an era of boundaryless and protean careers.
However, some individuals still prefer the sense of stability that build-
ing a career within a particular system can offer, and some organiza-
tions use their career paths as a way to let new employees know that
they invest in their people and want them to stay. See the box overleaf
on Chipotle as an example of the latter.
90 Career Development Interventions

Chipotle Career Paths

Chipotle Mexican Grill is noted for seeking talent within for promotions.
The career path is clearly laid out on the company website, complete
with expected salary and benefits listed for each step. The journey
extends from crew member through apprentice to restauranteur (in
charge of a restaurant) and potentially beyond. A LinkedIn review in
2014 (Petrone [Link]
283620963-chipotle-s-brilliant-hiring-process) noted that the company
emphasizes career development in tangible as well as intangible ways.
For example, an employee aspiring to move up the path is required to train
his or her replacement, reinforcing the importance of helping others
to move up. Employees also receive financial compensation if someone
they hire progresses into management, so that encourages looking for the
best potential new hires. The company website offers multiple examples of
employees who started at the entry level and followed the career path to
the top, a reinforcing reminder for prospective new hires.

Those more inclined to move on could use the career path model to
build employability for changing from one system to another. A
potential limitation is that the path typically is geared towards one
organization within a specific industry, so following it over time may
complicate transition to an entirely different type of work. Organiza-
tions could alleviate this dilemma by designing career paths that allow
for flexibility and help employees develop adaptability (Clutterbuck,
2012). In our changing work environment, individuals who can retain a
flexible, adaptable career approach have potential to increase their own
employability and to contribute to organizations that need a dynamic
workforce.

Performance Appraisals
Progression through a system leads us to another systemically focused
initiative that influences career development, the performance appraisal
(PA) process. What do you think of when you hear the phrase
“performance appraisal”? Does it bring up anxiety or apprehension,
eagerness or anticipation, or maybe opportunity or learning? Your first
thoughts are likely the result of your personal experience with
performance appraisals to date; or, if you lack personal experience,
what you have heard from others. Interestingly, the idea of career
development may not be your first thought when you consider PAs, but
if used properly, performance appraisals can be a valuable part of career
development. Performance appraisals are chances for feedback, and,
good news or bad, feedback is important for career progress (as we
noted earlier, it can even be considered a type of informal learning).
 Career Development Interventions 91
Grote (2011) defined performance appraisal as “a formal record of a
supervisor’s opinion of the quality of an employee’s performance”
(p. 45). While the “opinion” aspect can appear more subjective than
one might like, a solid performance appraisal should evaluate behavior
(demonstrating the competencies required by the organization) and
results (achieving the goals and responsibilities of the job) (Grote,
2011). Unfortunately, in some systems, the established performance
appraisal system is “biased against people who do not fit the ideal
profile,” misrepresenting the potential talents of individuals who vary
from the status quo (Clutterbuck, 2012, p. 13). This leads to mistrust of
the system and limits developing a diverse workforce, which is an
increasing need for organizations operating in our global economy.
From an organizational perspective, a well designed and appropriately
implemented PA process can help ensure that employees are contributing
to the system’s strategic priorities, identify talented individuals for
advancement opportunities, inform decisions about pay or other rewards,
and develop a skilled and dedicated workforce (Insler & Becom, 2011).
Perhaps a key phrase here is “well designed and implemented.” Research
indicates that an effective performance appraisal system that employees
trust and buy into can positively influence their organization commit-
ment and intention to stay (Abdulkadir, Isiaka, & Adedoyin, 2012;
Mustapha & Daud, 2012). Additionally, “high-quality performance
appraisal (i.e., with high clarity, regularity, and openness) appears to
promote increases in reflection, knowledge sharing, and innovative
behavior over time” (Bednall et al., 2014, p. 54). Building that “high
quality” appraisal format and process is where HRD can make a strong
contribution. Performance appraisals should not just be something super-
visors check off their “to do” lists, but should be designed to provide
quality data for both individuals and organizations. The risk to both
individuals and the organization is that a poorly designed or haphazardly
implemented PA system will yield inaccurate data that wastes the time
and energy of all involved and can lead to mistrust in the process as well
as in the organization as a whole.
If done well, however, the potential benefit to individuals may extend
beyond just the value of obtaining good feedback. Bednall et al. (2014)
observed that “by receiving accurate information about their performance,
employees may feel more confident in making informed choices about
suitable informal learning activities and, therefore, may feel encouraged
to increase their participation” (p. 54). Further, the process can also lead
to better goals development and links to other activities that can
enhance career progress (Bednall et al., 2014). So individuals can gain
insight, guidance for future planning, and ideas for additional career
92 Career Development Interventions
developmental opportunities. Organizations also gain by developing the
workforce that they need and laying the foundation for succession plans,
our next organizationally based initiative.

Succession Planning
From an organizational perspective, succession planning often has been
seen as a way “to identify, develop, and properly place qualified
individuals into key positions to meet present and future strategic
needs” (Rothwell, Jackson, Knight, & Lindholm, 2005). Sometimes
implemented by way of a list of “haves and have nots” that periodically
plucks someone from the ranks to move to the executive office, succes-
sion planning often has been perceived as an unknown quantity except
for those closest to the top. However, if done well, it can have an
impact beyond just filling open slots in upper management. Clutterbuck
(2012) suggested conceptualizing this process with a dual focus that
includes individuals as well as organizations. He defines succession
planning as:

A dynamic process of aligning employee aspirations and talents

with the constantly evolving needs of the organization and of
providing employees with the resources and support they need to
grow into new roles.
(p. 11)

This perspective makes succession planning less about controlling

access and outcome and more about developing talent, which is a much
better fit for HRD (Clutterbuck, 2012).
Organizations still benefit because it offers an opportunity to plan
strategically for turnover in leadership by determining what compe-
tencies are needed to take on those responsibilities (McCall, 2004). The
rapidly changing global work environment presents a good reason to
regularly review what knowledge and skills future leaders will need.
Clearly identifying competencies can help a system minimize the
potential for developing an insular upper management that replicates
itself when choosing successors. A competencies profile can also help
managers begin to identify and develop individuals within the organ-
ization to build those competencies, preparing a pipeline of qualified
people ready to lead when a vacancy occurs, whether planned or unex-
pected (McCall, 2004). From an individual perspective, when linked
with career paths and performance appraisals, succession planning can
 Career Development Interventions 93
become part of the career development process, providing more clarity
about potential opportunities.
HRD’s role is to be an advocate for integrating succession planning
with career development as a strategic initiative and as another way to
show employees that the organization is interested in investing in their
professional growth. As part of repositioning succession planning as a
developmental initiative, HRD can encourage a comprehensive compe-
tencies review that may expand how the organization defines leadership
qualities and open doors for individuals from under-represented groups
who often do not fit a more prescriptive view of leadership potential.

Maximizing Organizational Initiatives

For organizational-level initiatives, individuals may have limited
influence about what is implemented, but they can be prepared to
take advantage of opportunities when they arise by:

 learning about career paths and using them to their advantage;

 being an active participant in the performance appraisal process,
using it as a way to set challenging goals and gain feedback on their
performance;
 seeking out information about their organization’s succession plan.

Since organizations have the responsibility for creating and main-

taining these initiatives, their responsibilities should include:

 putting as much energy into developing employees as they put into

attracting new talent (Clutterbuck, 2012);
 setting up multiple flexible career paths to accommodate different
types of work in the system (i.e., technical advancement, admin-
istrative advancement) and to foster employability;
 constructing a performance appraisal system that is unbiased and
clearly linked to organization goals and strategy;
 training employees on the purpose and use of performance apprais-
als for goal accomplishment and career development;
 regularly reviewing and revising competencies profiles for upper-
level positions;
 integrating career paths, performance appraisals, and succession
planning into the career development process (Clutterbuck, 2012);
 setting up evaluation feedback loops and metrics to review the
success of career paths, performance appraisals, and succession
planning (Clutterbuck, 2012).
94 Career Development Interventions
Summary
The development initiatives described in this chapter represent
activities that are not new to HRD nor to career development, but
that need to be considered in a more consolidated, comprehensive way
for what they can offer to both individuals and organizations. In
isolation, each one provides some benefits and each has some
drawbacks, yielding a hit-or-miss approach to career development. In
combination, they can yield an effective career development program
that can be guided by HRD while still fulfilling the needs of the
organization and letting individuals take responsibility for accessing the
options that fit best for them.

References
Abbott, G. (2014). Cross-cultural coaching: A paradoxical perspective. In
E. Cox, T. Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook
of coaching (2nd edn.) (pp. 342–360). London, CA: Sage.
Abdulkadir, D. S., Isiaka, S. B., & Adedoyin, S. I. (2012). Effects of strategic
performance appraisal, career planning and employee participation on
organizational commitment: An empirical study. International Business
Research, 5, 124–133.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). Mentorship behaviors and
mentorship quality associated with formal mentoring programs: Closing
the gap between research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91(3), 567–578.
Allen, T. D. & Finkelstein, L. M. (2003). Beyond mentoring: Alternative sources
and functions of developmental support, The Career Development Quarterly,
51(4), 346–355.
Bachkirova, T., Cox, E., & Clutterbuck, D. (2014). Introduction. In E. Cox,
T. Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of
coaching (2nd edn.) (pp. 1–18). London, CA: Sage.
Baugh, S. G. & Fagenson-Eland, E. A. (2007). Formal mentoring programs:
A “poor cousin” to informal relationships. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram
(Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research and practice
(pp. 249–272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Beattie, R. S., Kim, S., Hagen, M. S., Egan, T. M., Ellinger, A. D., & Hamlin,
R. G. (2014). Managerial coaching: A review of the empirical literature and
development of a model to guide future practice. Advances in Human
Resource Development, 16(2), 184–201.
Bednall, T. C., Sanders, K., & Runhaar, P. (2014). Stimulating informal
learning activities through perceptions of performance appraisal quality
and human resource management system strength: A two-wave study.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13(1), 45–61.
 Career Development Interventions 95
Bertolino, M., Truxillo, D. M., & Fraccaroli, F. (2011). Age as moderator of
the relationship of proactive personality with training motivation, perceived
career development from training, and training behavioral intentions.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 248–263.
Blickle, G., Witzki, A., & Schneider, P. B. (2009). Self-initiated mentoring and
career success: A predictive study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74,
94–101.
Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Reuter, J. (2004). Using portfolios to
enhance career resilience. Journal of Employment Counseling, 41, 50–57.
Bozionelos, N., Bozionelos, G., Kostopoulos, K., & Polylchroniou, P. (2011).
How providing mentoring relates to career success and organizational
commitment: A study in the general managerial population. Career
Development International, 16(5), 446–468.
Brown, D. (2012). Career information, career counseling, and career
development (3rd edn.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Careete, B., Anseel, F., & Lievens, F. (2013). Does career timing of
challenging job assignments influence the relationship with in-role job
performance? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 61–67.
Carter, G. W., Cook, K. W., & Dorsey, D. W. (2009). Career paths: Charting
courses to success for organizations and their employees. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Chandler, D. E., Hall, D. T., & Kram, K. E. (2010). A developmental network
and relational savvy approach to talent development: A low-cost
alternative. Organizational Dynamics, 39(1), 48–56.
Clutterbuck, D. (2012). The talent wave: why succession planning fails and
what to do about it. London: Kogan Page.
Clutterbuck, D. (2014). Team coaching. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova, &
D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of coaching (2nd edn.)
(pp. 271–284). London, CA: Sage.
de Janasz, S. C. & Forret, M. L. (2008). Learning the art of networking:
A critical skill for enhancing social capital and career success. Journal of
Management Education, 32, 629–650.
De Pater, I. E., Van Vianen, A., Fisher, A., & Van Ginkel, W. P. (2009).
Challenging experiences: Gender differences in task choice. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 24(1), 4–28.
Dickison, S. (2011, January). Networking: A how-to guide for both introverts
and extroverts. Writer 124 (1), 10. Retrieved from [Link]
com
Dragoni, L., Tesluk, P. E., Russell, J. E. A., & Oh, I. S. (2009). Understanding
managerial development: Integrating developmental assignments, learning
orientation, and access to developmental opportunities in predicting
managerial competence. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 731–743.
Eby, L. T. & Lockwood, A. (2005). Proteges’ and mentors’ reactions to
participating in formal mentoring programs: A qualitative investigation.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 441–458.
96 Career Development Interventions
Ellinger, A. D. & Kim, S. (2014). Coaching and human resource development:
Examining relevant theories, coaching genres, and scales to advance research
and practice. Advances in Human Resource Development, 16(2), 127–138.
Feldman, D. C. & Ng, T. W. H. (2008). Motivation to engage in training and
career development. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work
motivation: Past, present, future (pp. 401–431). New York: Routledge.
Forret, M. L. & Dougherty, T. W. (2004). Networking behaviors and career
outcomes: Difference for men and women? Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25, 419–437.
Forret, M. L. & Sullivan, S. E. (2002). A balanced scorecard approach to
networking: A guide to successfully navigating career changes. Organiza-
tional Dynamics, 31(3), 245–258.
Garvey, R., Stokes, P., & Megginson, D. (2009). Coaching and mentoring:
Theory and practice. London: Sage.
Ghosh, R. & Reio, T. G., Jr. (2013). Career benefits associated with mentoring
for mentors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83, 106–116.
Gibson, C., Hardy, J. H., III, & Buckley, M. R. (2014). Understanding the role
of networking in organizations. Career Development International, 19(2),
146–161.
Gorman, C. A., Thibodeaux, C. N., Eisinger, S. E., & Overstreet, B. L. (2012).
Selection for training: The forgotten employment decision? In N. P. Reilly,
M. J Sirgy & C. A. Gorman (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, future
(pp. 95–105). New York: Routledge.
Grote, D. (2011). Designing a performance appraisal for driving organization
success. In L. Berger & D. Berger (Eds.), The talent management handbook:
Creating a sustainable competitive advantage by selecting, developing, and
promoting the best people (2nd edn.) (pp. 45–54). New York: McGraw Hill.
Haggard, D. L., Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. G., & Wilbanks, J. E. (2011).
Who is a mentor? A review of evolving definitions and implications for
research. Journal of Management, 37, 280–304.
Hazen, B. & Steckler, N. (2014). Career coaching. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova,
& D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of coaching (2nd edn.)
(pp. 329–341). London, CA: Sage.
Higgins, M. C. (2007). A contingency perspective on developmental
networks. In J. E. Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive
relationships at work (pp. 207–224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Higgins, M. C. & Kram, K. (2001). Reconceptualizing mentoring at work:
A developmental network perspective. Academy of Management Review,
26(2), 264–288.
Hunt, C. M. & Fielden, S. L. (2013). E-coaching as a technique for developing
the workforce and entrepreneurs. In S. Vinnicombe, R. Burke, S. Blake-
Beard, & L. Moore (Eds.), Handbook of research on promoting women’s
careers (pp. 471–486). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Hurst, C. S. & Eby, L. T. (2012). Mentoring in organizations: Mentor or
tormentor? In N. P. Reilly, M. J. Sirgy, & C. A. Gorman (Eds.), Work and
 Career Development Interventions 97
quality of life: Ethical practices in organizations (pp. 81–94). New York:
Springer.
Ibarra, H. & Hunter, M. L. (2007, January). How leaders create and use
networks. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https:[Link]/2007/
01/how-leaders-create-and-use-networks.
Insler, D. & Becom, A. (2011). Conducting performance reviews that improve the
quality of your talent base. In L. Berger & D. Berger (Eds.), The talent
management handbook: Creating a sustainable competitive advantage by
selecting, developing, and promoting the best people (2nd edn.) (pp. 65–75).
New York: McGraw Hill.
Kim, S. (2013). Networking enablers, constraints and dynamics: A qualitative
analysis. Career Development International, 18(2), 120–138.
Kram, K. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management
Journal, 26(4), 608–625.
Kram, K. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in
organizational life. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Company.
Ladyshewsky, R. (2014). Peer coaching. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova, &
D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of coaching (2nd edn.)
(pp. 285–297). London, CA: Sage.
Lankau, M. J. & Scandura, T. A. (2007). Mentoring as a forum for personal
learning in organizations. In B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook
of mentoring at work: Theory, research and practice (pp. 95–122). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Laud, R. L. & Johnson, M. (2012). Upward mobility: A typology of tactics
and strategies for career advancement. Career Development International,
17(3), 231–254.
Lohman, M. C. (2005). A survey of factors influencing the engagement of two
professional groups in informal workplace learning activities. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 16, 501–527.
McCall, M. W. (2004). Leadership development through experience.
The Academy of Management Executive, 18(3), 127–130.
Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive
personality and the big five to motivation to learn and development
activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 927–935.
Maltbia, T. E., Marsick, V. J., & Ghosh, R. (2014). Executive and organizational
coaching: A review of insights drawn from literature to inform HRD practice.
Advances in Human Resource Development, 16(2), 161–183.
Mustapha, M. & Daud, N. (2012). Perceived performance appraisal
effectiveness, career commitment and turnover intention of knowledge
workers. International Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 10, 157–165.
Navarro, A. (2011, January–February). Good networking/bad networking.
PEJ, 58–60.
Parise, M. R. & Forret, M. L. (2008). Formal mentoring programs: The
relationship of program design and support to mentors’ perceptions of
benefits and costs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 225–240.
98 Career Development Interventions
Parker, P., Hall, D. T., & Kram, K. (2008). Peer coaching: A relational process
for accelerating career learning. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 7(4), 487–503.
Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Ragins, B. R. & Kram, K. (2007). The roots and meaning of mentoring. In
B. R. Ragins & K. E. Kram (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work:
Theory, research and practice (pp. 3–16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ragins, B. R. & Verbos, A. K. (2007). Positive relationships in action:
Relational mentoring and mentoring schemas in the workplace. In J. E.
Dutton & B. R. Ragins (Eds.), Exploring positive relationships at work
(pp. 3–28). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosato, D. (2009, April). Networking for people who hate to network. Money,
38(4), 25–26.
Rothwell, W. J., Jackson, R. D., Knight, S. C., & Lindholm, J. E. (with Sang,
W. A. & Payne, T. D.) (2005). Career planning and succession
management: Developing your organization’s talent—for today and
tomorrow. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Segers, J., Vloeberghs, D., Henderickx, E., & Inceoglu, I. (2011). Structuring
and understanding the coaching industry: The coaching cube. Academy of
Management Learning and Education, 10(2), 204–221.
Singh, R., Ragins, B. R., & Tharenou, P. (2009). What matters most?
The relative role of mentoring and career capital in career success.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 56–67.
Stokes, J. & Jolly, R. (2014). Executive and leadership coaching. In E. Cox,
T. Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of
coaching (2nd edn.) (pp. 244–255). London, CA: Sage.
Taormina, W. W. & Taormina, R. J. (2014). A new multidimensional measure
of personal resilience and its use: Chinese nurse resilience, organizational
socialization and career success. Nursing Inquiry, 21(4), 346–357.
Tips for successful networking (2013, September). Sound & Video Contractor,
31(9), 12.
van Rijn, M. B., Yang, H., & Sanders, K. (2013). Understanding employees’
informal workplace learning: The joint influence of career motivation and
self-construal. Career Development International, 18(6), 610–628.
Werner, J. M. & DeSimone, R. L. (2012). Human resource development (6th
edn.). Mason, OH: South-Western.
Wolff, H.-G. & Moser, K. (2009). Effects of networking on career success: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 196–206.
Wolff, H.-G. & Moser, K. (2010). Do specific types of networking predict
specific mobility outcomes? A two-year prospective study. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 77, 238–245.
5 Career Development Links to
Career Psychology

The only reliable prediction is that we will have to become perpetual

learners, more self-reliant and more capable than ever in dealing with
surprises of all sorts.
Schein, 1996, p. 88; commentary on the future of
career development

Career development has eclectic origins and remains a multidisciplinary

field. Recognizing the potential strength in drawing from the research
and practice of varied disciplines, researchers have advocated for sharing
theories (e.g., Cameron, 2009; Egan, Upton, & Lynham, 2006;
McDonald & Hite, 2014), yet collaboration has not been the norm. As
we noted in Chapter 1, dissention remains within two of those fields,
human resources (HR) and psychology, over emphasis on individual
career needs and interests versus those of the organization (known as
the contested terrain in HR, Inkson & King, 2011). Both disciplines feel
the strain of those internal disputes and that may have hindered an
inclination to look to other fields for ideas and insights, or both may
simply be following the historic precedent to go it alone. Whatever the
reason, the challenging reality of the current career environment should
provide a greater sense of urgency to seek out new perspectives.
For its part, HR must recognize the importance of individual agency
as it looks to the future of career development and provide supportive
initiatives that fit both person and system. The recognition phase has
been ongoing, with several researchers noting the need for a resurgence
of career development within HRD to address current career issues (see
for example, Egan et al., 2006; McDonald & Hite, 2005). However, the
implementation seems to have stalled. This chapter offers an introduc-
tion to career development theories originating in the career psychology
tradition which typically has focused on the quest of the individual to
100 Career Psychology
seek out meaningful work. That field’s theoretical progression towards
a holistic view of the individual as career seeker provides valuable
insights for HR.
We will begin with an overview of some key career development and
counseling theories to provide a basic understanding; then explore how
those theories might better inform HR career development within
systems. We will finish by suggesting some next steps to keep up with
the changing nature of careers and the evolving needs of individuals
pursing them.

Theories from Career Psychology

There are a myriad of career development theories and varying ways to
categorize them. One overarching classification divides theories into
two eras, modern and postmodern, each representing a different
epistemological perspective. Modern theoretical traditions indicate
that “there is a reality ‘out there’ and that the theory is an attempt
to map or to represent that reality” (Richardson, Constantine, &
Washburn, 2005, p. 55). Postmodern approaches also recognize reality,
but suggest that it is much more fluid and that how it is perceived will
vary depending on individual cultural and life experience (Richardson
et al., 2005). We will explore both, because, while the postmodern
theories seem to fit better with individually driven careers, some of
the previous approaches continue to influence current career develop-
ment. As we explore theoretical constructs, you will see how these
methods differ in application.
Some career development theories have proved to have more lasting
impact than others, as well as more potential influence on HR, and those
will be our focus here. We will explore the theories classified as
“modern” first. Researchers (see, for example, Juntunen & Even, 2012;
Shoffner Creager & Deacon, 2012) often consider them in three main
categories: person–environment (P–E), developmental, and social cogni-
tive. We will use current researchers to give us a valuable retrospective
look at each theory to gauge how well they have lasted over time. Let’s
begin chronologically with the person–environment approach.

Person–Environment Fit
Our previous discussion of the history of careers and career develop-
ment (Chapter 1) mentioned Frank Parsons (1909) as an early advocate
and practitioner. His belief that choosing the appropriate vocation was
based on matching individual traits with “factors required for success in
 Career Psychology 101
a given workplace environment” (Juntunen & Even, 2012, p. 239) is the
origin of this approach. Decades after Parsons proposed his plan, the
idea of linking people’s interests with career requirements led John
Holland (1962) to develop a theory that categorized individual person-
alities into six types, each representing a type of work. It became
identified as the RIASEC hexagon (see the box below), because the
positioning in the model set similar categories side by side and oppos-
ing categories across from one another. Take a moment, as you review
the brief descriptions in Textbox 5.1, to consider what RIASEC type or
combination comes closest to how you see yourself. The theory has
endured, in part because the RIASEC types still appear to cover most/
all potential career-related options. Can you think of any other catego-
ries that should be included?

RIASEC
RIASEC Categories

 Realistic: “those who do things” (p. 46), showing a preference for

hands-on work including working with tools or objects (e.g., skilled
trades or service work).
 Investigative: “those who think about things” (p. 46), representing a
scientific, problem-solving perspective involving imaginative inves-
tigation (e.g., physician, biologist, chemist).
 Artistic: “those who create things” (p. 46), suggesting a flare for artistic,
expressive endeavors (e.g., theater, interior decorator, musician).
 Social: “those who help others” (p. 47), with an interest in human
interaction that might include social welfare or education (e.g., training,
teaching, counseling).
 Enterprising: “those who persuade others” (p. 47), preferring connec-
tions that involve persuasion, selling; sense of self as ambitious
(business owner, consultant).
 Conventional: “those who organize things” (p. 47), demonstrating skill
in “systemic processes, numbers, records, accounting, and clerical
occupations” (p. 47) (accountant, administrative assistant).

Source: Shoffner Creager & Deacon (2012)

The reasoning behind the RIASEC theory is that determining the

type or type combination that best fit a particular person would provide
a clear career direction; helping the individual to narrow a vocational
search to those jobs that best matched personal interests. The RIASEC
system endures as “one of the most prevalently used in research and
practice articles” (Sampson et al., 2014), a testament to its influence in
the field. However, it is open to criticism, for focusing only on interests
102 Career Psychology
to the exclusion of outside factors like economic or cultural limitations
(Juntunen & Even, 2012) and for fostering a prescriptive view of career
development.
The latter concern has been prompted by the popularity of the use of
the RIASEC types in traditional career testing, including the Strong
Interest Inventory and Self Directed Search (SDS, developed by
Holland), two of the “most frequently used” interest inventories (Dik
& Rottinghaus, 2013, p. 331) in the field of career counseling. Other
prevalent inventories (e.g., the Campbell Interest and Skill Inventory)
use structures similar to Holland’s hexagon. While well-validated
instruments, the often expressed apprehension is that their use may
foster a “test and tell” approach to career development, where the
results are presented as definitive determinations of a career rather
than as one piece of information in a wide and varied picture of possi-
bilities. A variant of that concern attests to the power of test results that
prompts some individuals to see “the answer” in their scores, assuming
that the test knows them better than they know themselves. That
becomes particularly disconcerting since the SDS (and other less valid
options) is readily available on-line, so potential career seekers have
easy access. The result is often information without context. As we
explore these theories further, the importance of context in career devel-
opment will be reinforced. It may be useful to note at this point, that
caution about relying on testing alone to circumvent a more individu-
ally driven, comprehensive career development process is indicative of
a larger debate that prompted the postmodern career counseling move-
ment, which we will discuss later in this chapter.
Additional criticisms aimed at Holland’s hexagon and the tests based
on it are prompted by the potential gender and cultural biases in the
RIASEC types. They were originally developed in the 1950s, an era
when gender roles were more restrictive and the career-focused
workforce was more homogeneous (Einarsdottir & Rounds, 2009).
Interest inventories in general have come under scrutiny for gender
bias, despite efforts in recent years to update the instruments and
include more women in the norming process. Concerns include
ongoing gender bias in test materials (Einarsdottir & Rounds, 2009;
Hansen, 2005), as well as bigger-picture issues, like the presumed
salience of work over other aspects of life (Fitzgerald & Harmon,
2001). Interest inventories (and the RIASEC) have also been called
into question for their Western, especially US, conceptualization of
careers, severely limiting their adaptability to a global workforce
(Fouad, 2002; Watson, 2006; Watson, Duarte, & Glavin, 2005).
This limitation becomes exacerbated if the test results are left to
 Career Psychology 103
interpretation by a career practitioner lacking sufficient understanding
of other cultures (Watson, 2006).
Although developed decades after both Parsons and the RIASEC,
the primary goal of matching worker and workplace is also reflected
in the Minnesota Theory of Work Adjustment (TWA). As the name
implies, the TWA “focuses on the process of persons’ adjustment to
their work environments, including the characteristics of persons
that predict their satisfaction with the work environment,” as well as
how happy the organization is with them (Swanson & Schneider,
2013, p. 30). The predictive aspect of this theory follows the typical
P–E fit approach, assessing the person and potential environments to
find the appropriate fit. What makes the TWA different and note-
worthy is that it also has a process aspect that expects that both the
individual and the workplace will change over time and adjust
accordingly to maintain the relationship (Shoffner Creager &
Deacon, 2012; Swanson & Schneider, 2013). Each entity determines
how much variation from the ideal will be tolerated and for how
long. So, for example, a system may keep a person on even though
skills may be lacking in some area as long as other requirements are
being met; or an individual may justify a lack of raises as a tempo-
rary step or may adjust personal salary expectations to achieve
congruence.
The assessment aspect of TWA prompts apprehension because the
instruments designed for this theory are not readily accessible
(Swanson & Schneider, 2013), and while others can be used instead,
they may bring their own set of difficulties, as noted above. However,
research to date suggests that the TWA may work well with diverse
populations because its implementation determines personal percep-
tions of fit within a work environment (meaning it captures concerns
like those we discuss in Chapter 6), making it more individually adapt-
able than traditional trait and factor approaches (Juntunen & Even,
2012; Swanson & Schneider, 2013).

Developmental
This category broadens the scope of careers to include the influence
of “sequential life experiences, including those of childhood, on
subsequent vocational development” (Juntunen & Even, 2012,
p. 244), taking the idea of “development” into a more expansive
realm. This marks a significant shift in perspective regarding careers,
recognizing how life and careers might intersect. Approaches up to
this point did not address how early or current life experiences or roles
104 Career Psychology
might affect career choices or opportunities. Our current understand-
ing acknowledges the value of putting careers in context, but it was a
new idea when these models were created. Two theories represent
the developmental approach; both closely identified with their
designers, but one clearly viewed as defining the genre. We will
begin there with Donald Super’s life span, life space theory; early
ideas of this theory began in the 1950s but were revised over subse-
quent decades.
In his overview of the life span, life space theory, Hartung (2013a)
explained that the dual concepts in the title signify careers as a syner-
gistic process, building over time through different life phases or roles
that reflect how self-concept is entwined with all other aspects of life.
He observed:

Life-span, life-space theory underscores the point that individuals

develop not just one but rather constellations of self-concepts, or
ideas about themselves, based on experiences in a wide array of
life spheres. The primary concern within life-span, life-space
theory, of course, is the vocational sphere, wherein the individual
rests at the center of career choice, development, and decision
making.
(p. 89)

The life span aspect proposes that individuals go through a series of

five phases over time, each linked to an age range and a set of
experiences or tasks that lead to the next (see the box below for the
stages).

Super’s 5 Stages of Career Development

Growth: birth–14
 First exposure to work
 Begin developing self-concept

Exploration: 15–24
 Try out work with first jobs
 Explore self-concept and work

Establishment: 25–44
 Find a place in your field
 Seek advancement, recognition
 Career Psychology 105

Maintenance: 45–64
 Stay the course
 Adapt as needed to be relevant

Disengagement: 65–death
 Winding down; retirement
 Engage with roles outside work

Source: Shoffner Creager & Deacon (2012)

The stage progression of Super’s model is both a hallmark of this theory

and a focus of criticism. As you look at his proposed phases of career life,
you may join the critics in observing that rigid representation of career
progression may have fit traditional career paths decades ago, but it does
not fit for you or others you know. It seems to ignore gender and cultural
differences in life roles and the possibility that other aspects of life or
society might impose on the closely prescribed pattern. Super reportedly
added samples of women in his later research (Hartung, 2013a; Juntunen
& Even, 2012), but remnants of gender bias lingered. While the theory
remained the same, there are indications that Super acknowledged that
circumstances might lead individuals to deviate from the linear progres-
sion and revisit some earlier stages as they pursued career changes or
transitions (Hartung, 2013a; Juntunen & Even, 2012). How closely do
Super’s stages fit your own career path so far? What would you change to
make this stage model more applicable to current careers?
Although the theory has waned in influence over time, the life span,
life space theory is noted for bringing two key ideas into the ongoing
career development discourse (Hartung, 2013a; Juntunen & Even,
2012):

 career maturity, readiness to make career-related decisions (i.e.,

investment in career planning, understanding of self and work);
 career adaptability, flexibility in pursuing a career path so that one
can respond effectively to unexpected circumstances or make the
transition from one phase to another.

Another development approach, Gottfredson’s Theory of Circum-

scription and Compromise, appeared in 1981. While it is also
categorized as a developmental theory for its use of lifelong career
influences and stage-based orientation, it has no other links to Super;
and it has received much less attention. It proposes four stages,
106 Career Psychology
spanning from early childhood beyond age 14. At each successive
stage, children circumscribe their career options by eliminating
occupations that seem inappropriate, leaving a smaller subset of
“acceptable alternatives” after each progression (Gottfredson, 1981;
Juntunen & Even, 2012; Shoffner Creager & Deacon, 2012). Succes-
sive limitations imposed start with differences between fantasy and
reality and the power of being an adult, at ages 3–5 (i.e., recognizing
the difference between children and adults and seeing work as some-
thing adults are supposed to do); then gender roles, at ages 6–8 (i.e.,
what jobs are considered gender appropriate); then occupational pres-
tige and difficulty, at ages 9–13 (i.e., status of a particular occupation
versus the effort required to get there); and finally congruence with
personal interests and abilities, at age 14 and beyond (i.e., seeking
what careers fit personal preferences and skills from the acceptable
options determined to date; Gottfredson, 1981; Hutchinson & Niles,
2009; Juntunen & Even, 2012). The compromise aspect comes into
play when options on the acceptable list according to the circumscrip-
tion process are not accessible. Then the individual begins to forfeit
some of the options, backing away from those initial possibilities
towards something within reach. This process typically moves in
reverse order of the circumscription process, sacrificing interests first;
then, if necessary, giving up prestige; and, finally, abandoning gender
roles to come up with viable choice (Gottfredson, 1981; Juntunen &
Even, 2012; Shoffner Creager & Deacon, 2012).
Before we move to the next set of theories, consider another
difference between Super and Gottfredson. While the life span, life
space approach may seem overly prescriptive and perhaps outdated, it
can be perceived as seeing careers in an optimistic light, as one
plans for and supposedly achieves career opportunities. In contrast,
Gottfredson’s theory is about reigning in expectations, making do with
what is feasible as society or life circumstances dictate options. It is
difficult to grasp the meaning of that theory and not see implications for
children growing up in poverty or without role models or advocates that
would push them to consider non-traditional careers or continuing their
education. Some might say that it is the more realistic view, recognizing
that we all live within certain parameters. The next theory moves the
idea of environmental influences on careers to a higher level.

Social Cognitive
Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) first appeared in the mid-
1990s, created by Lent, Brown, and Hackett, and it has continued to be
 Career Psychology 107
updated and augmented over the years, making it “one of the most
comprehensive and popular theories in the contemporary counseling
psychology literature” (Juntunen & Even, 2012, p. 251). The SCCT
incorporates elements of both P–E fit and developmental theories,
but refines them to address the interaction between individual thoughts
and actions and the life experiences that may support or hinder career
planning and development. The result is a theory that works well for a
diverse workforce in a changing career environment. The title refers
to the focus on cognition and resulting behaviors that stem from
Bandura’s social learning theory and are contextualized through three
“cognitive-person variables” (Lent, 2013, p. 118). They are:

 self-efficacy: how individuals perceive their capabilities relative to

specific tasks;
 outcome expectations: what one believes about the potential conse-
quences of a career path;
 personal goals: intention to follow through, both in terms of what
to do and a commitment to how well a task will be completed.

These components interplay throughout the four overlapping models

that make up SCCT, focusing on: how career interests develop; factors
that affect career choice; task performance, including influences that
determine performance quality and persistence in the face of obstacles;
and achievement of work satisfaction or well-being (Lent, 2013; Lent &
Brown, 2006). Throughout the four models, multiple elements are
addressed, recognizing potentially supportive or complicating aspects
in each, and keeping the perspective of a lifelong career journey. For
example, the two types of environmental influencers included in the
career choices model represent a long-term progression. The term distal
refers to factors that one encounters while still developing self-efficacy
and outcome expectations, like support received for participating in
educational activities or having access to career role models. In contrast,
proximal factors typically come later in the career process, and may pose
barriers to career opportunities, like quality of one’s networks or encoun-
ters with discrimination in hiring (Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2000).
HR professionals might be most interested in the models on task
performance and work satisfaction, since they are more focused on the
experiences of individuals already in the workforce. For instance, the
model highlighting work satisfaction includes five variables, some
originating from the individual, others systemically based: “working
conditions and outcomes, goal-directed behavior, self-efficacy, goal and
efficacy relevant supports and obstacles, and personality and affective
108 Career Psychology
traits” (Juntunen & Even, 2012, p. 253; Lent & Brown, 2006). While
some aspects are within the individuals’ power to change, others clearly
point to HR as potential contributors to the process. Coaching on goals,
“job redesign or change, social support, mentoring, or other environ-
mental methods (e.g., advocacy) may also offer useful tools for reduc-
ing dissatisfaction or promoting satisfaction” (Lent & Brown, 2006,
p. 244). While the next section highlights the more person-centered
approaches coming out of the career counseling field, the SCCT
remains a well-supported theory that offers insights for HR into the
career development process.

Introduction to Constructivist Approaches

The divide between modern and postmodern approaches to career
development can be defined in various ways, but it is essentially a
break between theories that rely on objective outside sources (e.g.,
tests, historical patterns) to define career parameters for people and
those that encourage each individual to create his/her own career reality
through self-discovery.
The former has been labeled “logical positivist,” suggesting over-
reliance on the role of logic, precedents, and sequential career progress.
It has been called into question in a contemporary career environment
that is characterized by change and unpredictability. Recognizing the
need for a less prescriptive approach for an era when career develop-
ment is driven by individual agency, the postmodern or constructivist
worldview:

views the person as an open system, constantly interacting with the

environment, seeking stability through ongoing change. The
emphasis is on the process, not on an outcome; there is no
completion of a stage and the arrival at the next stage.
(Patton & McMahon, 2006a, p. 4)

However, in contrast to the specificity of more objectively based

approaches, constructivism has been described as a “way of thinking or
a set of values,” rather than a designated framework or set of steps,
leaving its application open to practitioner acceptance, understanding,
and implementation of the mindset and principles (Patton & McMahon,
2006a, p. 10). “Constructivists believe that there is no absolute
truth, that truth lies where individuals are and in how they derive
meaning from their environment and their experiences with others”
(Watson, 2006, p. 46).
 Career Psychology 109
The open structure plays into both the complexity and the flexibility
of constructionism. One of its strengths is recognizing and capturing
the influence of environment (e.g., social, cultural, economic) on
individual career planning and implementation, making it potentially
adaptable across cultures. However, its successful application in
multicultural settings is also dependent on the practitioner being aware
of his/her own potential cultural biases when facilitating the process
(Watson, 2006).

Theory of Career Construction

In our discussion, we will explore a few of the better known theoretical
frameworks that ascribe to the constructionist view. We will begin with
one that takes its name from the genre itself and was developed by one
of the key scholars in the constructivist approach, Savickas’s theory of
career construction, which:

asserts that individuals construct their careers by imposing meaning

on their vocational behavior and occupational experiences. Whereas
the objective definition of career denotes the sequence of positions
occupied by a person from school through retirement, the subjective
definition used in construction theory is not the sum of work
experience but rather the patterning of these experiences into a
cohesive whole that produces a meaningful story.
(Savickas, 2005, p. 43)

While clearly adhering to the tenets of the constructionist view, this

theory does not summarily discount all of the elements of logical
positivist theories, but instead may use them in context, as smaller
parts of a larger, holistic, ongoing journey of development (Savickas,
2005). This would manifest in different types of career development
interventions. P–E fit interventions can be helpful for expanding
knowledge about self and work options when individuals need to
revisit occupational choices or make decisions about additional
education. The developmental perspective may be useful when taking
stock of one’s career to date, preparing for transitions, and building
competencies. The constructivist approach then comes in when the
goal is to “clarify our identities, purpose and direction in life and how
we may use work to become more complete” (Hartung, 2013b, p. 47;
Savickas, 2013).
The life-design framework puts constructivist theory goals into
practice. Designed to highlight “flexibility, employability, commitment,
110 Career Psychology
emotional intelligence, and lifelong learning” (Savickas, 2012, p. 14), it
describes a career counseling intervention that takes an individual on a
progressive narrative journey. It begins with constructing an individual
perspective of career through capturing personal stories, continues
through deconstructing those stories (to expose “self-limiting ideas,
confining roles and cultural barriers”), then building a new vision of
a self and career, and finally settling on a plan of action to go forward
and embrace the next career transition (Savickas, 2012, p. 16). The
elements of this framework fit well with the current career environment,
so it may be particularly useful for HRD. A critical aspect of enacting
this intervention is a mainstay of all constructionist approaches: the
narrative—our next topic.

Narrative
The narrative is a ubiquitous part of constructivism. It is integral to the
process defined in all theories attributed to this genre, because it is the
key to capturing an individual’s unique story about his/her life and
work. More than a simple interview or conversation about careers, a
narrative offers the individual an extended opportunity to relate life
stories, complete with all the contextual factors (e.g., past work,
education, family, culture, values) that create a unique picture of one
person’s past, present, and goals for the future. While some earlier
theories may have made reference to the interaction between person and
environment related to careers, the narrative process illustrates the
inherent complexity of an individual life, while providing a backdrop
for what might come next.
Given its crucial role in the career development process, some
researchers have also described “narrative” as its own constructivist
approach (e.g., McIlveen & Patton, 2007; Sharf, 2013), rather than one
component of another theory. Whether as theory or method, the basic
intention remains the same, to foster self-understanding through artic-
ulation of and reflection upon one’s own experience that can help build
lifelong career adaptability. To capture the potential breadth of the
narrative, McIlveen and Patton (2007) listed some of the techniques
that would be categorized as part of the narrative process. They
included some predictable possibilities, like storytelling or written auto-
biographies, but they also added less expected options like guided
fantasies (about future career/life), life-lines (capturing significant
points on a time line), or card sorts (moving 50–100 cards “with an
occupation, skill, or value” on each into categories; Chope, 2015,
p. 74). In the spirit of lifelong learning, all are designed to foster
 Career Psychology 111
self-understanding and insights that may be applied to current and
future endeavors.

Chaos and Happenstance

While career models often have taken the stance that knowledge (of self
and work), insight, and planning are a part of navigating careers, two
constructivist theories add a different perspective, emphasizing the
influence of the unpredictable and the unexpected. These brief
descriptions will not fully do them justice but can serve as an
introduction. Chaos theory seeks to address the inherent complexity
in individual career paths. Pryor and Bright (2006) observed that, while
some general patterns may exist regarding careers, predictability is
illusive, because any one person’s unique qualities, in conjunction
with myriad environmental factors and combinations of factors (social,
economic, cultural), might yield vastly different results. Additionally,
career “decision makers both change and can be changed by the influ-
ences on them in an ongoing, interactive way” (Pryor & Bright, 2006,
p. 4). The overall result is a good deal of uncertainty, regardless of
effort, knowledge, retrospection, or planning. The idea in building
awareness of this potentially disturbing thought is to help individuals
realize the importance of remaining flexible and adaptable and to help
them develop the skills and mindset that they will need in their career
journey. A variation on this theme is behind the Happenstance Learning
Theory, which suggests that careers are subject to a lifetime of unex-
pected situations and opportunities, and it is unrealistic to think other-
wise (Krumboltz, 2009). These two theories epitomize a key point of
the postmodern view of careers, that career decision making is both
highly individualized and an on-going process, not a single event. Both
should resonate with HR professionals as they explore how to support
career development in organizations.

Systems Theory Framework

To summarize some of the key aspects of constructionist theories, we
will wrap up our exploration of these approaches with an overarching
view. Patton and McMahon’s Systems Theory Framework (STF)
(2006b) was proposed as a way to capture the range and depth of
various career development theories that adhere to the constructionist
mindset. STF was not designed to be a developmental theory itself, but
rather “an overarching framework” illustrating the multiple “interper-
sonal and contextual” influences on individual career development
112 Career Psychology
represented in other theories (p. 196). The designated key features of
career development influence are characterized as:

 the individual (e.g., gender, age, ability, aptitudes, etc.), a primary

focus in all constructionist theories;
 the environment, including:
B social systems (e.g., community, school, family, peers) that may
change over time;
B environmental–societal systems (e.g., socioeconomic status,
globalization, employment markets) that have a less direct, but
still pervasive impact.
Patton and McMahon (2006b, p. 197) further determined that those
elements are subject to the influence of three processes:

 recursiveness, representing the ongoing multidirectional interaction

among individual and environmental influences that signify open
systems;
 changes that may occur over time throughout the systems (recog-
nizing the enduring value of viewing career development as a life-
spanning concept);
 chance, an unpredictable but inevitable influence on career
development.

This overview provides a concise way to capture the basic

components of the constructivist approach.

HR and Career Psychology

Our goal in the previous section was to provide an introduction to the
theoretical constructs behind some current career psychology initia-
tives. Career development for the twenty-first century will require
ingenuity and insight, and HR scholars and practitioners will need to
draw on varied sources for information and ideas. For example, while
current wisdom exposes the weaknesses in some of the logical
positivist approaches, like P–E fit and developmental models, they
expand our current understanding about the appropriate use of testing
or the potential influences of early life experiences on career agency.
The SCCT framework series serves as a reminder of the complex
interactions of environmental influencers that affect career development
for individuals (including some of the barriers that we address in
Chapter 6). Beyond fostering understanding of career motivations and
 Career Psychology 113
limitations, recognition of the influencers that are part of the workplace
can guide change as systems strive to improve career development
processes.
While the logical positivist theories do not have an identifiable
parallel in the history of career development in HR, the progression to
the postmodern constructivist view illustrates the challenges of the
current career environment in HR. A diverse workforce requires a more
individualized approach to career development, but developing a
systemic structure to accommodate unique needs can be a daunting
task. Both career psychology and HR are struggling with this transition
(see the box below for some examples). We will explore potential
organizational and individual initiatives to address these concerns after
addressing two overarching concepts that span constructivist career
psychology and career development in HR.

Common Concerns: HR and Career Psychology

Practitioners
The two fields have rarely collaborated, but they have some common
concerns regarding twenty-first-century career development:
 Better integration of theory and practice: so that practitioners are
working with solid foundations.
 A contested terrain: both HR and psychology face organizational
versus individual career dichotomies; both see middle ground but
struggle to attain it.
 New roles for career practitioners as individual agency becomes the
focus: less “expert,” more “facilitator.”
 Educating and training professionals with the competencies they need
for career development work in the twenty-first century
 Measuring results when objective goals give way to more subjective
goals.

Sources: Patton & McMahon (2006b); Tang (2003); Watson (2006)

The first is lifelong learning. In a chapter appropriately titled

“Lifelong career development learning,” Patton and McMahon
(2006b) reiterated that the new job security is in developing employable
skills that translate into marketability elsewhere. They observed, “most
individuals will not only have to find and hold a job once, they will
have to do it repeatedly during their lifetime” (p. 229). Rottinghaus and
Van Esbroeck (2011) reinforced the need for lifelong learning and the
ideas behind chaos and happenstance theories when they observed,
“individuals must now construe their careers as an unpredictable, life-
long evolution” (p. 45). Historically, career decision making was largely
114 Career Psychology
confined to those starting their careers, but it has now become a skill to
be honed on a regular basis, requiring ready access to career informa-
tion and training on job search skills (Feller & Peila-Shuster, 2012;
Patton & McMahon, 2006b). The reality of a lifelong career search
and decision-making process means expanding the role of career devel-
opment for HR.
The constructivist emphasis on individual agency also highlights career
self-management as another skill set to be mastered in the workplace. HRD
research has acknowledged that the current career environment dictates a
shift away from a focus on system-controlled career development to
include individually driven development (e.g., Doyle, 2000; McDonald &
Hite, 2005), but movement in that direction has been slow. One way to
begin would be to prepare individuals for self-managing their careers
(Patton & McMahon, 2006b). Taking control of one’s own career requires
knowledge, an adaptive mindset, and system support.
Knowledge needs will be primarily dependent upon the individual’s
background, education, and work experience acquired so far. Younger
employees likely will require more assistance to learn about themselves
and about career planning (e.g., tapping into their own strengths, how
to gather career information, choose appropriate education and training,
develop a network; King, 2004). Their more experienced colleagues
will need support for learning how to augment their employability or
find new challenges. Helping individuals identify those learning needs
and meet them is part of the HR career development process.
Savickas (2005) defined career adaptability as “a psychosocial construct
that denotes an individual’s readiness and resources for coping with
current and imminent vocational development tasks, occupational transi-
tions, and personal traumas” (p. 51). This definition combines Super’s
constructs of career maturity and adaptability, noted earlier in this chapter.
Adaptability is conceptualized as demonstrating career concern, control,
curiosity, and confidence (see Chapter 3 for more on adaptability).
The combination of self-efficacy and motivation to plan, take
initiative, and explore career possibilities is essential for career manage-
ment, but career development interventions are needed to accomplish
proficiency in each of those. For example, efficacy comes with
experiences of successful fulfillment of challenging tasks (Savickas,
2005), but learning to choose those wisely and gaining access to them
involves career development. Similarly, motivation may vary, based on
environmental influencers that interact with individual interests (see the
SCCT mentioned earlier or Chapter 6). HR’s role in nurturing an adaptive
mindset will likely combine advocacy (e.g., for policies ensuring equal
 Career Psychology 115
access) with more traditional initiatives (e.g., training, mentoring
programs).
HR advocacy and initiatives leads to the final point, system support.
King (2004) suggested that, even within career self-management, “people
do not have full decision latitude over their desired career outcomes”
(p. 118), because decisions about issues such as salary, maintaining
employment, or access to opportunities are typically made by someone
else in the organization. However, when individuals perceive that an organ-
ization is invested in their career development, they may decide to join, to
stay on or simply to be more invested in their work (Arnold & Cohen,
2013). For example, a 2006 Dutch study summarized by stating:

An important conclusion for the field of human resource manage-

ment and development concerns the relation between career
competencies and career support at the workplace. Employees
who experience career support at work show more career
competence than employees who experience less career support.
(Kuijpers & Scheerens, 2006, p. 317)

The system support factor puts the responsibility on the organization to

review policies and practices for their impact on career development in
general and career self-management in particular. It also reinforces the
strategic power of a comprehensive career development system within HR
(see Chapter 4 for examples of specific career development interventions).

Organizational Action
Other chapters in this volume highlight systemic career development
interventions that will be part of the comprehensive career development
support within an organization. See Chapter 4, for example, for infor-
mation on mentoring, coaching, stretch assignments, succession plan-
ning, and career paths. Here we will focus primarily on additional
initiatives that most directly relate to individual agency in career
development.
Interestingly, career management may be the bridge that crosses the
contested terrain in HR. Arnold and Cohen (2013) observed that, while

there is a tendency to consider organizational and individual

perspectives on career as being in conflict . there is accumulating
evidence that when it comes to career management interventions,
individual and organization can operate in harmony, or at least in
cooperation.
(p. 294)
116 Career Psychology
They based this assessment on research that, similar to the Kuijpers &
Scheerens (2006) study mentioned earlier, found synergy between
organizational career support and career self-management, each bene-
fitting the other. A different study reinforced the potential for mutual
benefits, indicating that organizational career support “encourages
employees to improve both their internal and their external employ-
ability,” although the effect is stronger for internal employability
(Verbruggen, Sels, & Forrier, 2007, p. 79). Of course, the usual caveats
apply, for example if systems condone restricting access to certain
opportunities or using data gathered for individual feedback to fast
track some individuals over others under the guise of career develop-
ment, they will undermine any trust they might have gained (Arnold &
Cohen, 2013). So the first recommendation is the most comprehensive
and lays the foundation for the rest:

 Create a transparent and open developmental culture with policies

and procedures that support career access and opportunity.

Our discussion of lifelong learning and the need for recurring career
decision making sets the stage for some logistical support initiatives,
those that provide information about self and occupational opportu-
nities within and outside the organization. Some of these would fall
under the heading of targeted training, such as career planning
workshops, that might include individual assessments as well as skill
building. Workshops would work well in conjunction with career
resource centers offering information that fosters individual explora-
tion, either on-site or via the Internet (Arnold & Cohen, 2013).
Cautions and capabilities abound regarding on-line career development,
so we will address them briefly here.
Not surprisingly, Internet sources for career development have
expanded and advanced in recent decades. They now include assessment
and interpretations, and a range of career information (e.g., O*NET, an
extensive database, and the on-line version of the Occupational
Outlook Handbook, a mainstay of career data), as well as complete
computer-assisted career guidance systems (Sampson & Osborn,
2015). As expected, the main benefits are ease of access to information
and learning opportunities, lower costs, and anonymity. Unfortunately,
the limitations are critical ones, including uneven quality of information
or assessments, potential breaches of confidentiality, and lack of profes-
sional assistance when it might be needed (Sampson & Osborn, 2015).
Other resources might include development centers focused on
helping individuals access personal strengths and goals for improvement,
 Career Psychology 117
or personal development plans to build individualized career paths that
match goals for success (Arnold & Cohen, 2013). So the next recom-
mendation is:

 To develop logistical support interventions that offer both general

resources for use by anyone in the system and individualized feed-
back and planning.

The concern about professional assistance noted above taps into a

larger issue about this era of career development: competencies for career
development professionals. We addressed general competencies in
Chapter 1, but our discussion about career psychology theories and
practices suggests new challenges. The complexity of current careers
may require more support than HR professionals can offer. Consider
implementation of the constructivist theories that we covered earlier.
The extensive narrative approach demands a particular type of knowl-
edge and expertise that is not part of human resource development or
human resource management curricula. It is different from, yet comple-
mentary to, other career development initiatives. As employees continue
a lifelong journey to further their self-knowledge and career self-efficacy,
they are likely to both need and want this type of career development
intervention. In response, some organizations are incorporating career
counseling into their career development process (see box below).

Next Step: Career Counseling

According to the Wall Street Journal, several large companies are
adding career counselors to their payrolls. Aflac, Genentech, and Amer-
ican Express were among those listed as taking this step as companies
strive to reduce staff turnover through career development initiatives.
The counseling services often are part of a larger effort including career
centers and targeted training initiatives.

Source: Silverman (2015)

Depending on the needs of the system, career counselors may be

added to the HR staff or outsourced so that they remain external to the
organization. Verbruggen et al. (2007) considered external career coun-
seling as part of a larger study (using the assumption that counselors not
affiliated with the organization might be more impartial) and found that
employees benefitted from having that resource available. Arnold and
Cohen (2013) suggested that either could work. An alternative that
organizations may want to consider is to have HR staff trained as career
118 Career Psychology
development facilitators. The 120-hour training program sponsored by
the National Career Development Association (NCDA) addresses 12
competencies, including assessment comprehension and use, under-
standing of career development models and theories, and following
the professional code of ethics. Research also suggests training line
managers to be more knowledgeable about career development, since
individuals may approach them first for guidance. This leads to the final
recommendation for organizations:

 Add career counseling professionals to your career development

system.

Individual Actions
Recommendations in this section risk being repetitive of what we have
suggested throughout the book, suggesting both consistency in research
findings and clarity for those pursuing career development. Lips-
Wiersma and Hall (2007) looked at the new career parameters within
the context of organizations and suggested several actions that individ-
uals can take. We begin with a representative sample from their study
that reinforces advice from other sources and then add two others that
particularly fit career self-management:

 Be proactive—we have noted this before, indicating how founda-

tional it is to the entire pursuit of careers in the twenty-first century.
 Pursue opportunities to augment your skills—in Chapter 4 we
discussed stretch assignments as key to building employability
and visibility; succeeding in new endeavors also boosts your career
self-efficacy.
 Communicate your career goals—once others know your aspira-
tions, they can assist you in reaching them.
 Seek honest feedback—show that you are open to learning; go
beyond your performance appraisal to gather additional input about
potential career opportunities or changes.
 Build career resilience—remember that a career is a journey, not a
single destination. Adopt a lifelong learning perspective; prepare to
remain flexible and open to change (Casio, 2007; see Chapters 3
and 7 for more on resilience).
 Diversify your work experience—look for opportunities to work in
different contexts to build range as well as depth in your career
portfolio (Arnold & Cohen, 2013; Karaevli & Hall, 2006).
 Career Psychology 119
Summary
This chapter began by reinforcing the value of exploring knowledge
outside of HR to better inform career development in organizations.
The theories from career psychology reinforced the individual agency
aspect of twenty-first-century careers and provided insights applicable
to lifelong learning and career self-management. Those insights led to
recommendations for systems and individual career managers. It is our
hope as authors that organizations build career development systems
that reflect a wide range of knowledge and that serve both the system
and the individuals within it well.

References
Arnold, J. & Cohen, L. (2013). Careers in organizations. In W. B. Walsh,
M. L. Savickas, & P. J. Hartung (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology:
Theory, research, and practice (4th edn.) (pp. 273–304). New York:
Routledge.
Cameron, R. (2009). Theoretical bridge building: The career development
project for the 21st century meets the new era of human resource
development. Australian Journal of Career Development, 18(3), 9–17.
Casio, W. F. (2007). Trends, paradoxes, and some directions for research in
career studies. In H. Gunz & M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of career studies
(pp. 549–557). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Chope, R. C. (2015). Card sorts, sentence completions, and other qualitative
assessments. In P. Hartung, M. Savickas, & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), APA
handbooks in psychology: Vol. 2 Applications. APA handbook of career
interventions (pp. 71–84). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Dik, B. J. & Rottinghaus, P. J. (2013). Assessments of interests. In K. F.
Geisinger (Ed.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology:
Vol 2. Testing and assessment in clinical and counseling psychology
(pp. 325–348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Doyle, M. (2000). Managing careers in organisations. In A. Collins & R. A.
Young (Eds.), The future of careers (pp. 228–242). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Egan, T. M., Upton, M. G., & Lynham, S. A. (2006). Career development:
Load-bearing wall or window dressing? Exploring definitions, theories, and
prospects for HRD-related theory building. Human Resource Development
Review, 5(4), 442–477.
Einarsdottir, S. & Rounds, J. (2009). Gender bias and construct validity in
vocational interest measurement: Differential item functioning in the Strong
Interest Inventory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 295–307.
120 Career Psychology
Feller, R. W. & Peila-Shuster, J. J. (2012). Designing career development
plans with clients. In D. Capuzzi and M. D. Stauffer (Eds.), Career
counseling: Foundations, perspectives, and applications (2nd edn.)
(pp. 223–252). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.
Fitzgerald, L. & Harmon, L. (2001). Women’s career development: A
postmodern update. In F. Leong & A. Barak (Eds.), Contemporary
models in vocational psychology (pp. 207–230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Fouad, N. (2002). Cross-cultural differences in vocational interests: Between-
groups differences on the Strong Interest Inventory. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 49(3), 283–289.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental
theory of occupational aspirations (monograph). Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 28(6), 545–579.
Hansen, J. C. (2005). Assessment of interests. In S. Brown & R. Lent (Eds.),
Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work
(pp. 281–304). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hartung, P. J. (2013a). The life-span, life-space theory of careers. In S. Brown
& R. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and
research to work (2nd edn.) (pp. 83–114). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Hartung, P. J. (2013b). Career as story: Making the narrative turn. In W. B. Walsh,
M. L. Savickas & P. J. Hartung (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology:
Theory, research, and practice (4th edn.) (pp. 33–52). New York: Routledge.
Holland, J. L. (1962). Some explorations of a theory of vocational choice:
I. One- and two-year longitudinal studies. Psychological Monographs:
General and Applied, 76(26, Serial No. 545), 1–49.
Hutchinson, B. & Niles, S. G. (2009). Career development theories. In
I. Marini & M. Stebnicki (Eds.), The professional counselor’s desk
reference (pp. 467–476). New York: Springer.
Inkson, K. & King, Z. (2011). Contested terrain in careers: A psychological
contract model. Human Relations, 64(1), 37–57.
Juntunen, C. L. & Even, C. E. (2012). Theories of vocational psychology.
In N. A. Fouad (Ed.), APA handbook of counseling psychology: Vol. 1.
Theories, research, and methods (pp. 237–267). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Karaevli, A. & Hall, D. T. T. (2006). How career variety promotes the
adaptability of managers: A theoretical model. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 69, 359–373.
King, A. (2004). Career self-management: Its nature, causes and consequences.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 112–133.
Krumboltz, J. D. (2009). The happenstance learning theory. Journal of Career
Assessment, 17(2), 135–154.
Kuijpers, M. A. C. T. & Scheerens, J. (2006). Career competencies for the
modern career. Journal of Career Development, 32(4), 303–319.
 Career Psychology 121
Lent, R. W. (2013). Social cognitive career theory. In S. Brown & R. Lent
(Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to
work (2nd edn.) (pp. 115–146). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Lent, R. W. & Brown, S. D. (2006). Integrating person and situation
perspectives on work satisfaction: A social-cognitive view. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 69, 236–247.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2000). Contextual supports and
barriers to career choice: A social cognitive analysis. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 47(1), 36–49.
Lips-Wiersma, M. & 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, 771–792.
McDonald, K. S. & Hite, L. M. (2005). Reviving the relevance of career
development in human resource development. Human Resource Development
Review, 4(4), 418–439.
McDonald, K. S. & Hite, L. M. (2014). Contemporary career literature and
HRD. In N. E. Chalofsky, T. S. Rocco, & M. L. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of
human resource development (pp. 353–368). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
McIlveen, P. & Patton, W. (2007). Narrative career counselling: Theory and
exemplars of practice. Australian Psychologist, 42(3), 226–235.
Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Patton, W. & McMahon, M. (2006a). Constructivism: What does it mean for
career counselling? In M. McMahon & W. Patton (Eds.), Career
counseling: Constructivist approaches (pp. 3–15). London: Routledge.
Patton, W. & McMahon, M. (2006b). Career development and systems theory:
Connecting theory and practice. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
Pryor, G. L. & Bright, J. E. (2006). Counseling chaos: Techniques for
practitioners. Journal of Employment Counseling, 43, 2–16.
Richardson, J. S., Constantine, K., & Washburn, M. (2005). New directions
for theory development in vocational psychology. In W. B. Walsh & M. L.
Savickas (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology: Theory, research,
and practice (3rd edn.) (pp. 51–84). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum.
Rottinghaus, P. J. & Van Esbroeck, R. (2011). Improving person–environment
fit and self-knowledge. In P. J. Hartung & L. M. Subich (Eds.), Developing
self in work and career: Concepts, cases, and contexts (pp. 35–52).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sampson, J. P. Jr., Hou, P.-C., Kronholz, J. F., Dozier, V. C., McClain, M.-C.,
Buzzetta, M., Pawley, E. K., Finklea, J. T., Peterson, G. W., Lenz, J. G.,
Reardon, R. C., Osborn, D. S., Hayden, S. C. W., Colvin, G. P., & Kennelly,
E. L. (2014). A content analysis of career development theory, research, and
practice—2013. The Career Development Quarterly, 62, 290–326.
Sampson, J. P. & Osborn, D. S. (2015). Using information and communication
technology in delivering career interventions. In P. Hartung, M. Savickas,
& W. B. Walsh (Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology: Vol. 2 Applications.
122 Career Psychology
APA handbook of career interventions (57–70). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Savickas, M. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In
S. Brown & R. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting
theory and research to work (pp. 42–70). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Savickas, M. (2012). Life design: A paradigm for career intervention in the
21st century. Journal of Counseling and Development, 90, 13–19.
Savickas, M. (2013). Career construction theory and practice. In S. Brown &
R. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and
research to work (2nd edn.) (pp. 147–183). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Schein, E. H. (1996). Career anchors revisited: Implications for career
development in the 21st century. The Academy of Management Executive,
10(4), 80–88.
Sharf, R. S. (2013). Advances in theories of career development. In W. B.
Walsh, M. L. Savickas, & P. J. Hartung (Eds.), Handbook of vocational
psychology: Theory, research, and practice (4th edn.) (pp. 3–32).
New York: Routledge.
Shoffner Creager, M. F. & Deacon, M. M. (2012). Trait and factor, developmental,
learning, and cognitive theories. In D. Capuzzi & M. Stauffer (Eds.), Career
counseling: Foundations, perspectives, and applications (2nd edn.)
(pp. 43–79). New York: Routledge.
Silverman, R. E. (2015, January). Careers: Climbing career ladder with help.
Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition, B.6. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]/docview/1645012662?
Swanson, J. L. & Schneider, M. (2013). Minnesota theory of work adjustment.
In S. Brown & R. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting
theory and research to work (2nd edn.) (pp. 29–54). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Tang, M. (2003). Career counseling in the future: Constructing, collaborating,
advocating. The Career Development Quarterly, 52, 61–69.
Verbruggen, M., Sels, L., & Forrier, A. (2007). Unraveling the relationship
between organizational career management and the need for external career
counseling. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 17, 69–83.
Watson, M. B. (2006). Career counselling theory, culture and constructivism.
In M. MaMahon & W. Patton (Eds.), Career counseling: Constructivist
approaches (pp. 45–56). London: Routledge.
Watson, M., Duarte, M. E., & Glavin, K. (2005). Cross-cultural perspectives
on career assessment. The Career Development Quarterly, 54(1), 29–35.
6 Career Development Barriers and
Diverse Populations

Overall, a career-development strategy that enables organizations to

adapt to rapidly changing environments and to maintain their
employees’ employability needs to be based on the diversity of the
organization’s workforce.
Voelpel et al. 2012, p. 509

It has now become almost a cliche to say “we live and work in a
diverse global society.” Researchers no longer refer to a diverse
workplace as an emerging idea, but acknowledge it as a certainty.
Systems also grasp this reality and may be drawn to considering
diversity as a means to:

 maintain global competitiveness (appealing to niche markets,

harnessing the creativity of multiple perspectives);
 attract and retain the best employees (noting the changing demo-
graphics of the workforce);
 enhance their image in the industry or community as good partners
(doing well by doing good), or perhaps simply to be ethically
responsible citizens (Mor Barak, 2014; Thomas, 2005).

Yet, despite this recognition, many organizations still seem to

struggle with building inclusive cultures that actually embrace and
integrate differing practices and procedures into their traditional ways
of operating. For example, many have become more adept at recruiting
a diverse workforce (sometimes with the push of legislation; sometimes
by choice), but not necessarily more skilled at retaining those new
recruits or knowing how to use that diversity to strengthen the
organization. This dilemma has prompted an interest in engaging
diversity at a different level, as systems recognize:
124 Barriers and Diverse Populations
that the mere presence of a diverse group of employees in an
organisation does not guarantee that the organisation is neces-
sarily welcoming of cultural or other differences. Nor does a
diverse employee base necessarily indicate that a company is
making use of its diversity in a way that enhances organisational
performance.
(Bristol & Tisdell, 2010, p. 225)

One of the ways that systems can build more inclusive organizational
cultures is to review and revise their career development so that it
maximizes opportunities for their entire workforce (traditional majority
and under-represented members), which in turn can enhance system
performance.
Career development has never been a “one-size-fits-all” construct,
although historically systems were much less focused on individual
needs and more invested in how employees could be developed to
sustain the growth and continuity of the organization. Coincidently, that
singularly directed view of careers flourished when the workforce being
considered for career development was also narrowly defined as a
largely White, male majority. As we have noted earlier in this book, the
current climate of careers negates such an organizationally driven,
system-serving approach. Similarly, the view must expand to address
career development for employees that represent a multiplicity of
differences. Research confirms that individuals from under-represented
groups “encounter tremendous obstacles in their career development”
(Niles & Harris-Bowlsbey, 2013, p. 130). As individuals become more
invested in guiding their own career paths, human resources (HR) and
the systems that they assist must not only adapt to a new way of
supporting career development as a function, but also recognize and
address the barriers to career development of a diverse workforce. In
this chapter, we will explore some of the key barriers, examining them
from a systems and an individual level. We will also discuss potential
initiatives for building a more inclusive career culture as well as options
for individuals from under-represented groups to enhance their own
career development possibilities.
A caveat before we continue: in determining how to approach this
chapter, we recognized two factors:

 Proportionally, more workplace diversity research has been

devoted to gender than to other types of differences (Ryan &
Haslam, 2007). Not surprisingly, this also tends to be the case in
 Barriers and Diverse Populations 125
the subset of literature devoted to career development. That is
not to imply that we have resolved gender issues in the work-
place, just that researchers have explored it more than other types
of diversity. It seems to be the aspect of difference that organ-
izations and society as a whole are most comfortable addressing.
Also, while other non-dominant groups remain very much in the
minority in many organizations, White women make up a higher
proportion of many workplaces, providing greater numbers to
study. However, their increased presence has not resulted in
equal career opportunities. They remain under-represented in
positions of power. While we may extrapolate some from gender
research to identify issues for other under-represented groups,
those studies are inadequate to capture all diversity issues.
Each under-represented group experiences some unique barriers
that we cannot address in full here.
 While the nature of research often compels us to study diversity in
discrete segments that propose to be singular in nature (e.g.,
gender, race, age), there are few singularities in reality. The concept
of intersectionality reminds us that, as humans, we are mosaics of
various types of identities (e.g., Black lesbian, deaf man over 50).
Intersectionality also means that barriers that may exist as a result
of one aspect of difference from the majority are potentially exacer-
bated when several variations are compounded (Shore et al., 2011).
In any situation or for any individual, one aspect of identity may be
more salient than the others or may prompt stronger reactions, but
there is always the dynamic of a compounded effect.

Since we have only a chapter to address career development barriers

for a diverse workforce, we decided to frame our discussion by types of
barriers that impact non-majority employees, rather than addressing
each group separately. Consider references cited here as a springboard
to delve more deeply into issues that limit career development for
members of particular groups.

System-level Barriers
While many of the system-level barriers to career development for under-
represented groups reflect organizational culture, some are carry-overs
from the external environment (Thomas, 2005). In addition to those
identified in earlier chapters, these particularly affect non-majority group
members.
126 Barriers and Diverse Populations
Societal Influences
The term “stereotype” is well-known, but a brief definition seems in
order to begin. While Thomas was clearly not the first to define this
concept, we will use her definition as our starting point. “Stereotypes
are (often negative) generalizations that are based upon group member-
ship” (Thomas, 2005, p. 78). It is human nature to gravitate towards
using stereotypes. They provide a way for us to apply our limited
knowledge to interactions with others so that we feel more comfortable
(Mor Barak, 2014). The insidiousness of stereotypes is that they are
often based on broad, oversimplified generalities and that they deny
individual differences, lumping everyone of a particular group into one
large, amorphous category. So that means that even stereotypes that
may appear to be positive on the surface (e.g., Asians are smart in math)
can be damaging (Thomas, 2005).
Bell (2012) observed another concern about stereotypes and career
development: they “can lead to prejudice, which in turn can lead to
discrimination” (p. 43). Like stereotypes, prejudices are based on
flawed generalizations that are often stubbornly held despite evidence
to the contrary (Allport, 1979; Bell, 2012). Prejudice uses those gener-
alizations to pre-judge someone, usually negatively, for no reason other
than his/her membership in a particularly group (Mor Barak, 2014). As
with stereotypes, people are more likely to apply negative attributes to
people unlike themselves and more positive ones to those most like
themselves. Acting on those perspectives results in discrimination that
may be described as “isms” (e.g., sexism, racism, heterosexism, able-
ism, ageism, classism). While research indicates that it is human nature
to hold some prejudices, as it is to stereotype, the challenge becomes
recognizing and combating those tendencies so they are not acted on
unconsciously, hurting the career chances of others. However, our own
image management makes it difficult for many to admit that they hold
these biased views. Think of how many times you have heard someone
say “I’m not prejudiced.” Ironically, that phrase usually accompanies a
statement or action that suggests the opposite.
Similarly, it is not uncommon for individuals who see themselves as
open to different cultures to not realize that they are judging other
national or regional customs and values as inferior to their own. This
ethnocentric viewpoint uses one’s own culture as the norm or as the
standard and sets expectations accordingly (Thomas, 2005). It is also a
human tendency. We naturally think our culture is the best, so the
further from our own cultural practices that others seem to be, the
more unusual or unsuitable they appear. This restricted perspective of
 Barriers and Diverse Populations 127
correct behaviors and ideals may simply be the result of limited cultural
intelligence, or it may indeed be a stubbornly held narrow view of what
is deemed appropriate. In any event, it can lead to poor ratings or
ostracism for employees whose cultural principles do not fit the stand-
ard, if those in power remain unaware or unconcerned about their own
limited outlook. This has negative career ramifications for those
individuals.
Societal biases and stereotypes can have a profound impact on
organizational culture and, as a result, on career development,
potentially derailing careers with the power of assumptions. Descriptive
stereotypes define what members of a particular group are like, based on
generally held beliefs (Caleo & Heilman, 2013). Common descriptive
stereotypes suggest for example that women lack the qualities required
of leaders (Caleo & Heilman, 2013), that older workers cannot or will
not embrace new technology (Wang, Olson, & Shultz, 2013), or that
they are disinterested in career development (Ng & Feldman, 2012), or
that hiring employees with disabilities will result in less productivity
(Rocco, Bowman, & Bryant, 2014). These pervasive misperceptions
often carry over into organizations and may influence decisions about
hiring, training and development, mentoring options, or assignments to
key projects, choices that directly impact career development.
Often stereotypes come with a set of pre-determined expectations.
If not met, these prescriptive stereotypes result in a negative evaluation
(Caleo & Heilman, 2013). For example, Fernando and Cohen (2014)
described the dilemma of women in Sri Lanka who are expected to
uphold a societal ideal of “respectable femininity” that conflicts with
the requirements for career accomplishment and advancement. So
activities such as cultivating a professional network by attending
after-work social events, while considered essential for one’s career,
present a challenge to retaining one’s feminine respectability as defined
by the cultural norms. Navigating compromises to uphold both sets of
expectations takes additional time and energy that their male counter-
parts can apply elsewhere. In a US variation, Mor Barak (2014) referred
to a court case where a woman leader was denied a promotion because
her interpersonal style was considered too aggressive, apparently not
upholding someone’s stereotype of appropriate behavior for a female in
leadership. Recognition that women may be chastised for leadership
behaviors typically praised in their male counterparts points out the
inherent double standard (Caleo & Heilman, 2013). Although we often
think of gender examples first when discussing prescriptive societal
stereotypes, others are not immune. For example, when workplaces
expect people with disabilities to be grateful just to have a job rather
128 Barriers and Diverse Populations
than to seek promotions or assume that Asian employees prefer non-
leadership roles, they are reinforcing narrowly defined societal stereo-
types that thwart career opportunities.
HR professionals need to be particularly cognizant of stereotypes and
prejudices that they hold, since they may be making decisions about
hiring or selection for career development opportunities. They also are
in the position to guide managers and supervisors making those key
career-related choices for their subordinates. Biases often become part
of our subconscious from such an early age that we fail to recognize
them for what they are. For example, in a study conducted by one of the
authors, both White and Black women were mindful of gender
inequities regarding careers; but White women were unaware of the
additional injustices experienced by women of color (Hite, 2004). What
stereotypes or prejudices might you hold and how can you minimize
their impact on your work?

Organizational Culture
Scholars and practitioners recognize that organizational culture is a
large and complex entity that defines how work is accomplished and
how employees interact with one another in the system. Some systems
are more open to embracing workplace diversity than others, and as
integral as that discourse is for HR, that is not our focus here. In this
section, we will address three aspects of organizational culture that
relate particularly to career development for members of under-
represented groups: structural integration, social integration, and
institutional bias.

Structural Integration
It is very likely that you have seen evidence of structural integration,
perhaps experienced it yourself. As we discuss it further, you will
certainly recognize some of the ideas that it includes. Structural
integration is the proportional representation of diversity throughout
the organization (Cox, 1993; Thomas, 2005). It may be characterized as
“the higher, the fewer,” meaning that, if you observe the system hier-
archically, diversity diminishes as you look higher. It is another way to
address the distribution of power in the organization. If most of the
under-represented group members are clustered in lower-level positions
and the “majority rules” as you approach the upper management, you
are seeing lack of structural integration. Occasionally there will be a
 Barriers and Diverse Populations 129
token non-majority group member in the upper echelon, but that excep-
tion does not sufficiently alter the skewed proportionality.
Structural integration is not simply a descriptive term but also a
career development issue that prompts the question of access to higher-
level positions. This is where some additional concepts come into play.
The most well known is probably the glass ceiling, that invisible barrier
that members of under-represented groups can see through, but rarely
move beyond, to upper-level positions (Bell, 2012; Thomas, 2005). The
underlying meaning is that under-represented group members have the
“motivation, ambition, and capacity for positions of power and prestige,
but invisible barriers keep them from reaching the top” (Sagrestano,
2004, p. 135). Fueled in part by some of the stereotypes and prejudices
discussed in the previous section, the glass ceiling is an example of a
concern that has received both scholarly and popular press attention
over decades, but recognition has not led to resolution. There is some
evidence that the ceiling, while still firmly in place, has risen for White
women, letting some of them get closer to the executive levels of
systems; that is not the case for other non-majority group members
(Bell & Nkomo, 2001). Researchers have also offered that the metaphor
of a sticky floor may more accurately describe the plight of those under-
represented groups who are so far down in the hierarchy of power that
the ceiling is not even within sight (Bell, 2012).
A related concept may be described as glass walls (Bell, 2012),
“invisible horizontal barriers” (p. 309), apparent when a particular
department or job category is almost entirely homogeneous. This occu-
pational segregation typically relegates non-dominant group members
to staff (support functions) rather than line (key to service or product)
positions, consigning them to functional areas that rarely lead to the
highest levels of power and responsibility (Bell, 2012). This type of
scenario leads to another career development concern when dispropor-
tionate power is involved, such as a group of female nurses headed by a
male director. The rapid ascendency to power positions for majority
group members who enter fields dominated by under-represented
groups is referred to as the glass escalator (Bell, 2012; Thomas,
2005). This rather self-explanatory phrase leads us to explore other
career hurdles that non-dominant groups encounter.
Yet another barrier using the medium of glass as a metaphor is the
concept of glass cliffs. Ryan and Haslam (2005) described glass cliffs
particularly in terms of gender, noting that, when women are promoted
to leadership positions, it is typically because the organization is expe-
riencing difficult times. This places the female leader in a precarious
position, setting her up for a challenging task with the risk of hurting
130 Barriers and Diverse Populations
her own career if her efforts do not result in bringing the organization
back to health. The rationale for this selection pattern has not been
definitively determined, although most of the potential reasons lead
to the conclusion of discrimination or stereotyping (Ryan & Haslam,
2007). Cook and Glass’s (2014) study of Fortune 500 companies over a
15-year span built on the idea and proposed that: “occupational minor-
ities are more likely than white men to be promoted CEO of weakly
performing firms; and when firm performance declines during their
tenure, occupational minority CEOs are likely to be replaced by white
men” (p. 1081). They observed that, not only does the glass cliff
phenomenon prove risky for the individual leader, by “creating greater
obstacles to successful leadership than their white male peers”
(p. 1087), but it also may reinforce old stereotypes that non-majority
employees are not suited for leadership. As Ryan and Haslam (2007)
concluded, the study of glass cliffs reinforces two points: “that oppor-
tunity is not the same as equal opportunity and that having a more
inclusive playing field does not necessarily mean that the field is any
more level” (p. 566).
Additional barriers have been identified for Black and Latina women
(Bell & Nkomo, 2001; Cocchiara, Bell, & Berry, 2006). The term
concrete wall was originally noted by Bell and Nkomo (2001) as a
way to envision the double career obstacle of “racialized sexism” as
a “two-dimensional structure: a concrete wall topped by a glass ceiling”
(p. 137). While manifested in multiple ways, concrete walls have been
described as “intense resistance from members of the dominant group
once minorities achieve high organization levels” (Cocchiara et al.,
2006, p. 279). It typically results in stalling, or in some cases derailing,
career progression. While this research has been limited to the inter-
section of race and gender, it is likely that this phenomenon might be
applicable to others representing multiple aspects of minority status.
We acknowledge that career goals differ greatly, certainly across
diverse groups. Yet some still seek the objective success of advance-
ment, and even those not focused on moving up in one system might
find their employability is enhanced by showing progressive career
movement. Whether by design or by inadvertent neglect on the part of
the system, barriers to advancement that target under-represented
groups are a manifestation of discrimination. The result costs diverse
employees career opportunities and hobbles organizations hoping to
gain from workforce diversity. Structural integration is a clue for HR
practitioners to look deeper into this aspect of career development.
 Barriers and Diverse Populations 131
Social Integration
Structural integration often prompts insufficient social integration,
minimizing opportunities for under-represented employees to interact
with those in power positions and consequently to build relationships
throughout the organization that could benefit their careers (Combs,
2003). Yet, as we observed in an earlier chapter, research confirms
the career advantage of building and maintaining strong connecting
relationships. Mor Barak (2014) chose the phrase “social exclusion”
to describe this barrier, when she observed:

Though diversity groupings vary from one culture or country to the

next, the common factor that seems to transcend national
boundaries is the experience of social exclusion, particularly in
the workplace. Individuals and groups are implicitly or explicitly
excluded . because of their actual or employer-perceived
membership in a minority or disfavored identity group.
(p. 6)

This experience of exclusion affects career development opportu-

nities on multiple levels. For example, Naraine and Lindsay (2011)
addressed the challenges that blind or low vision (B/LV) employees
face engaging in informal social events with work colleagues, from
navigating in a strange environment to struggling to build rapport
when they could not make eye contact. Their conclusion was that these
barriers yielded “an adverse impact for B/LV employees because these
important informal social networks are delayed in developing or do not
develop at all” (p. 399).
Sometimes employees’ efforts to build connections are hindered by
the effects of stigma about who they are and what they represent that
supersedes their career potential. Combs (2003) described the stigma
surrounding employees presumed to be Affirmative Action hires, indi-
viduals from non-dominant groups who are assumed to be less qualified
than their majority peers and hired simply to fulfill legislative require-
ments. Other researchers (Gedro, 2009; Kaplan, 2014) have observed
that LGBT employees, if out at work, may be subject to such negative
reactions that their skills are overshadowed by acknowledgment of
their sexual orientation. Similarly, Wilson-Kovacs, Ryan, Haslam, &
Rabinovich, (2008) found that people with disabilities were often
defined “solely in terms of their condition, rather than in terms of their
abilities” (p. 713). Some groups are discounted not for who they are,
but for where they are in the organization. For example, Bullock (2004)
commented on the stigma surrounding class differences at work, noting
132 Barriers and Diverse Populations
that: ”Judgments of occupational prestige not only reflect widely shared
cultural beliefs about the relative value of different types of labor, but
also justify differential rewards and treatment in the workplace by
valuing some workers and skill sets over others” (p. 229). The “unval-
ued” are not expected to move from their current status in the system,
regardless of their potential. In each instance noted above, informal
socialization may suffer since these employees are assumed to be less
deserving of time and attention than their counterparts, and as a result
are subjected to career limiting, discrimination-based exclusion.
Access to connecting relationships like mentoring and networking
are also included in social integration. We discussed these initiatives
earlier in this book, noting their value in career development. Here we
will focus on aspects of these relationships that are particularly relevant
for under-represented groups.
Interpersonal connections are essential in helping members of non-
dominant groups to build the social capital they need to progress in
their careers, yet establishing them is more challenging if you are not
part of the majority (Baruch & Bozionelos, 2011). Those in the minor-
ity often enter the organization defined as “the other,” more recogniz-
able for their obvious differences from the traditional majority than for
their expertise. Being part of a non-dominant group, they could clearly
benefit from building key relationships that would help acculturate
them into the system and perhaps provide advocacy and advice.
However, research reminds us that there is a strong tendency for the
majority of senior leadership to “consciously or unconsciously select
individuals who resemble themselves” because that makes them feel
most comfortable (Bristol & Tisdell, 2010, p. 227). As a result, it is
difficult for anyone who is not part of the dominant group to gain entry
into the very networks likely to help them the most.
One suggestion might be to establish a homogenous network,
seeking out others from one’s identity group. However, Cocchiara
et al. (2006) confirmed that the limited number of diverse others in
most organizations makes that challenging as well, requiring a more
extensive and wide-ranging search to get the level of assistance so
readily available to dominant group members. Additionally, Kulkarni
(2012) warned that focusing primarily on similarity-based networks
may further isolate and marginalize non-dominant group members
from the majority, hindering career development opportunities.
Attempting to formalize informal networks seems counterintuitive, so
HR practitioners and researchers will need to be creative in helping
under-represented group members to access and grow their career
networks.
 Barriers and Diverse Populations 133
Mentoring relationships are another way to build social capital. While
gender and race represent only two of multiple aspects of difference,
there is a dearth of research addressing mentoring with other non-
dominate groups (Ragins, 2007), so we often rely on the gender and race
studies and attempt to extrapolate to other groups. That is the approach
we are taking here. We recognize that members of under-represented
groups face multiple complexities in mentoring relationships. As a
demographic minority in an organization or profession, one is not
only less likely to be selected as a protege by majority members of
upper management but, as we noted earlier, there are typically few, if
any, non-majority members in positions of power. Those who are at that
level likely have been inundated with requests to mentor, so they are
unavailable, leaving potential proteges to fend for themselves. While
formal mentoring often can provide a match and access to leadership,
the dynamics of mixed gender or mixed race mentoring can make
those relationships more of a challenge. For example, a risk identified
early in cross-gender mentoring is the appearance or assumption of
sexual involvement, either of which could be damaging to mentor and
mentee (Ragins, 1996). However, a recent study conducted in Taiwan
concluded that “career mentoring positively influenced resilience levels
of proteges in cross-gender mentoring relationships” (Kao, Rogers,
Spitzmueller, Lin, & Lin, 2014, p.199), suggesting an unexpected bene-
fit of mixed mentoring relationships.
The inherent power disparity of a traditional mentoring relationship
complicates both cross-gender and cross-race relationships. Since issues
of racial power imbalances have both historic significance and current
resonance, White mentors and their protegees of color work in a context
already fraught with hurdles. This is particularly challenging for women
of color, since their experiences combine concerns involving gender and
race, making them twice removed from the traditional majority (Combs,
2003). To increase the likelihood of a connection that will yield career
benefits, Murrell, Blake-Beard, Porter, & Perkins-Williamson (2008)
advised that cross-race formal mentoring matches “must also be about
creating access to power and the development of trust among those who
traditionally have been excluded from the knowledge and resources that
will support their success and the success of their organization” (p. 277).
In response to systems that lack enough non-dominant group members
to serve as mentors, they suggested spanning organizations in creating
mentoring relationships for members of under-represented groups,
“providing people of color access to both career and psychosocial
support that may not be afforded by traditional formal mentoring efforts
within a single organization” (Murrell et al., 2008, p. 277).
134 Barriers and Diverse Populations
Institutional Biases
Some barriers to career development for under-represented group
members are the result of organizational policies and practices. It
should be noted that, often, these barriers were not designed to exclude
non-dominant group members, but they became established in the
culture at a time when the workforce was more homogeneous. While
those regulations and routines were acceptable for personnel of the past,
they inadvertently hinder career development for the current, more
diverse workforce. Cox (2001) identified three categories to explore as
potential system barriers: time, space, and people.
Time includes factors like workday length and the use of overtime,
time-off policies and schedule flexibility (Cox, 2001). Long work-days
with regular overtime expectations, limited time off or restricted sched-
ule flexibility can negatively impact the career prospects of workers with
other life concerns (e.g., single parents, care-givers, people with disabil-
ities) or priorities (volunteer work, family time; Holvino, Ferdman, &
Merrill-Sands, 2004; O’Neil, Hopkins, & Bilimoria, 2013). They risk
being seen as less reliable or less committed to their work if they do not
uphold the traditional standard, limiting their career progress.
Space factors are often related to manifestations of class and
hierarchy (Bullock, 2004; Cox, 2001) that may limit opportunities for
interacting with a range of employees (e.g., location of upper manage-
ment offices and availability of their occupants). Other aspects can
suggest subtle or overt biases (e.g., accessibility of work spaces, access
to off-site events, or even location of gender-appropriate restrooms).
While the latter may seem unrelated to career development, they are
physical representations of exclusion or inclusion and therefore of
potential opportunity.
People factors include a wide range of policies that can help or
hinder career opportunities, starting with recruitment (i.e., you can’t
win if you can’t play), through promotion and performance appraisal
practices (i.e., gateways to other possibilities), to succession planning
(i.e., who should make it to the top) (Cox, 2001). If the parameters of
these policies are narrowly prescribed to fit a traditional majority
ideal, members of under-represented groups have little chance of
being recommended for career development opportunities. This lack
of preparation makes them ineligible for taking on positions of power
in that system or for building their own employability to move up in
another organization. Ibarra, Ely, & Kolb (2013) have suggested that
these policies and the practices they foster are the result of second-
generation bias, assumptions that are not intentionally set to exclude,
 Barriers and Diverse Populations 135
but that yield an environment where women (and potentially other
non-dominant group members) “fail to thrive or reach their full
potential” (p. 64).
While institutional bias in many systems is inadvertent, the result of a
traditional culture that was never questioned or reviewed, some organ-
izations perpetuate deeply embedded purposeful means of keeping under-
represented group members from finding career success. For example, in
their study of career advancement for Lebanese women, Tlaiss and Kauser
(2010) described the practice of wasta, the use of a powerful intercessor to
speak on one’s behalf, to determine who gets career opportunities in Arab
organizations. Those who lack those key connections to power and priv-
ilege find their career opportunities stunted.
Often these policies and practices fall under HR, so HRD can take a
leading role in examining if or how they might be inadvertent barriers
to career growth for a diverse workforce. It is not easy to change
cultural norms about the timing of work, accessibility and access, and
employee selection and evaluation. However, as systems increasingly
recognize that they are no longer master planners, but now mutual
partners in employee career development, the motivation to make these
transitions is likely to be evident.
This section has explored some of the systemic factors that affect
career development opportunities for members of under-represented
groups. The next will focus on individual factors that also influence
career progress for diverse others.

Individual Factors
We have noted frequently so far that career development of the future
will be much more driven by the individual than by the organization.
While research indicates that most of the barriers to career development
for diverse employees are societal or system-based, it is valuable to
explore how individual factors may also hinder or help career progress.
Individual inclinations and perceptions will certainly influence how
career decisions are made and implemented. This section will examine
how those might affect members of under-represented groups differ-
ently than their majority peers.

External–Individual
Just as there are some societal factors that impinge on organizations,
under-represented individuals come into the workplace carrying their
own external influences that will impact how they approach career
136 Barriers and Diverse Populations
development. So, despite the trend towards more individually driven
career goals, they may feel much less freedom to choose their own
paths (Duffy & Dik, 2009). Family and life circumstance are two
powerful external factors (Duffy & Dik, 2009).
Family expectations, values, and needs may be particularly salient
for under-represented group members (Duffy & Dik, 2009). For exam-
ple, members of collectivist cultures may feel they cannot move away
from extended family to take promotions that could benefit their careers
(Stone & Stone-Romero, 2004). Some women live with cultural mores
that prohibit their careers from taking on more importance than their
families (Fernando & Cohen, 2014). Similarly, single parents often
cannot change cities and leave child-support networks behind to take
on positions that require overtime hours or extensive travel, despite
their own career hopes (Abele, Volmer, & Spurk, 2012).
Life circumstances include a wide range of factors, including
“poverty, marginalization, and stigmatization” (Duffy & Dik, 2009,
p. 33), which will vary in salience depending on the individual. For
example, we often discuss salary as an objective measure of success,
but salary can also be an economic constraint, one that determines if
one can meet immediate financial obligations (e.g., rent, bills) and still
take career risks. Similarly, the career literature that addresses the new
climate of individual free agency rarely includes the caveat that protean
and boundaryless careers are largely reserved for those whose expertise,
profession, or industry affiliation supersedes economic downturns.
Even the type of careers that one considers often is restrained by
economic status. Early access to role models, mentors, networks, and
good education can have a profound impact on long-term career possi-
bilities (Bullock, 2004). As Blustein, Coutinho, Murphy, Backus, &
Catraio (2011) explained: “the vision of self as originator of action
and driver of career exploration and development may not be viable
for individuals residing in communities in which opportunities are
limited” (p. 220).
Other external barriers relate to a different aspect of life circum-
stances. We addressed some aspects of marginalization and stigma from
a systems perspective, but there is a potential individual component as
well. Unlike majority group members who tacitly sense that they will fit
in wherever they go, members of under-represented groups may face a
more difficult scenario that adds a different dimension to their career
planning. For example, LGBT individuals often need to consider how
well they will be accepted if they relocate to a certain country or
community, if they choose to be out in a new organization, or if they
select a particular career path (Gedro, 2009). Older workers must
 Barriers and Diverse Populations 137
contemplate if they can change organizations or vary their career paths
after a certain age, or if they will be judged too old to be considered
viable candidates. People with disabilities are obliged to determine if
their skills will be overshadowed by their conditions, or if potential
employers will provide the resources they need (Wilson-Kovacs et al.,
2008). For members of these under-represented groups and others,
career self-direction often is tempered by the realization that they
need to overcome bigger societal and systemic hurdles than their major-
ity counterparts. HR practitioners need to be aware of these potential
barriers and how they might impact individual career planning.

Internal–Individual
While individual tendencies and personality have always influenced
career goals to some degree, these internal aspects take on a larger role
when career development responsibilities become more individually
driven. There are a myriad of factors that could be considered here
(e.g., the Big 5, locus of control), each with their own body of
literature. We chose to focus on three potential barriers that
particularly resonate with the interactive career development process
between systems and under-represented individuals.

Occupational Disidentification
In their studies of female surgeons, Peters, Ryan, Haslam, & Fernandes
(2012) determined that “people’s perceptions that they fit in with the
dominant identity in their occupation play an important role in their
occupational identification and that these identity fit dynamics may
have especially negative implications for women in male-dominated
occupations” (p. 156). On the surface, the idea of “fitting in” may
seem rather inconsequential initially. It is not uncommon for most
people to recall an awkward moment of feeling like the outsider in a
group. However, coping with those situational incidents is like going
over a speed bump compared to the steep mountain climb of feeling
that one is profoundly different from the norm in a particular profes-
sion: a norm that is defined by the majority currently dominating that
career. The result is likely to be a pervasive sense of incongruence
between the individual and what s/he perceives as the necessary char-
acteristics to succeed in a certain field or role (e.g., leadership) that may
influence non-dominant group members to opt out (Peters, Ryan,
Haslam, 2013). While some may persevere despite the odds, many
will determine that the stretch is too far from their own social identity
138 Barriers and Diverse Populations
to be reconcilable. This sets up a cyclical dilemma, since having more
varied individuals in a profession or at a particular organization level
(e.g., senior management) minimizes the perception of disidentification
for non-dominant group members.

So, How Brilliant Do You Feel?

A recent study, based in an academic setting, indicates that the lack of
diversity in certain fields may be connected to how that discipline is
perceived. The researchers have determined that “the extent to which
practitioners of a discipline believe that success depends on sheer
brilliance is a strong predictor of women’s and African Americans’
representation in that discipline” (Leslie, Cimpian, Meyer, & Freeland,
2015, p. 265). An example of the power of negative stereotypes, members
of those under-represented groups are presumed to lack the “innate
intellectual talent” (p. 265) required to succeed in these particular fields,
so they are not encouraged to pursue those careers. Similarly, to the
extent that women and African-Americans accept those stereotypes,
they opt out of those disciplines. The recommendation offered for
specialties wanting to diversify is to minimize the perceptions of requi-
site brilliance and instead to focus on the role of persistence in success.

Stress
A related, but different potential internal career barrier for individuals is
stress. HR literature often addresses workplace stress as it relates to
workload, working conditions, or lack of job security (Thomas, 2005).
Here we will focus on additional work-related stressors for members of
under-represented groups. Consider the previous paragraph, for exam-
ple. Those who persevere despite a sense of disindentification will be
likely to experience stress as they struggle to negotiate how to fit into the
work roles they are pursuing while remaining true to their own identities
(Heppner & Fu, 2011). Stress may also be prompted by incidents of
discrimination, prejudice, or harassment at work, whether the actions
of a few individuals or tacitly perpetuated by the organizational culture
(Sagrestano, 2004; Thomas, 2005). Earlier in this chapter, we discussed
structural and social integration as organizational barriers. At the indi-
vidual level, those concepts manifest as stressors when they result in
feeling alone, discounted, or targeted. For example:

 being in a solo or token role, where you are the only non-dominant
group member (in your organization, department, or level);
 being excluded by majority group members who fear being stig-
matized by association or who avoid interaction to compensate for
their own discomfort;
 Barriers and Diverse Populations 139
 being subjected to overt and covert discrimination on a regular
basis.
(Kulik, Bainbridge, & Cregan, 2008; Mohr & Fassinger, 2013;
Sagrestano, 2004; Thomas, 2005)

These stressors may have varying salience for different under-

represented groups. Similarly, each group may have added stressors
unique to their positions. For example, LGBT employees must determine
whether coming out at work will jeopardize their continued employment or
their career options (Gedro, 2009). Employees with disabilities often must
depend on others for assistance, risking appearing dependent and incapable
of taking on higher-level positions. Black women describe a life of constant
boundary-spanning, transitioning between Black and White worlds as
they go from work to home responsibilities and relationships (Bell &
Nkomo, 2001; Thomas, 2005). Individuals working outside their countries
of origin while still maintaining their cultural roots at home are likely to
encounter similar boundary-spanning stress. Stress takes energy and focus
away from performing well at work and takes a long-term toll on one’s
physical and emotional health (see Chapter 7). Recognizing that members
of under-represented groups experience added stressors beyond those
faced by others in the workplace can help human resource (HR) profes-
sionals acknowledge and address the significance of this career barrier.

Perceptions of Unfairness
An additional potential stressor for non-dominant group members is a
sense of unfairness or injustice. As we noted in Chapter 3, fairness
(or lack of it) is inherent in determining who is selected for career devel-
opment (Wooten & Cobb, 1999), an idea reinforced earlier in this chapter
in the discussion of organizational barriers. Interestingly, while dispar-
ities in access and opportunities for under-represented employees have
been readily acknowledged (see for example Bell & Nkomo, 2001;
Cokley, Dreher, & Stockdale, 2004; Giscombe & Mattis, 2002; Hite,
2004; Villanueva-Flores, Valle-Cabrera, & Bornay-Barrachina, 2014),
individual perceptions of fairness are rarely overtly addressed in the
discourse on workforce diversity and careers. However, it is reasonable
to assume that the perception that one’s organization condones unfair
treatment adds insult to the injury of discrimination and may lead to
actions (e.g., choosing to leave) and reactions (e.g., decreased work
motivation) that can hurt individual careers and systems.
The limited research linking career development and perceptions of
fairness indicates that non-dominant employees may have negative
140 Barriers and Diverse Populations
perceptions of how career development opportunities are distributed,
yielding less trust, lower job satisfaction, and a higher risk of a
“careerist” orientation (individuals working to advance their own
careers regardless of the cost to others; Crawshaw, 2006; Crawshaw
& Brodbeck, 2011). Given the societal and systemic barriers that we
have discussed in this chapter, the potential to see disparity in career
development is high among members of under-represented groups.
While the causes of those disparities may originate in society or within
the organization, the resulting sense of unfair treatment can negatively
affect individual career trajectories. HR professionals are in a position
to recognize the power of those perceptions and to help minimize the
causes.

Organizational Initiatives
Over 20 years ago, Cox (1993, p. 7) observed that an organizational
climate rife with prejudice, stereotyping, limited structural and social
integration, and institutional biases would negatively impact the career
outcomes of non-dominant group members. He noted that it would
limit their satisfaction, work involvement, performance appraisals,
and promotion opportunities, and that, ultimately, the effectiveness of
the system would suffer. Current research suggests that we have
not made much progress in minimizing the career barriers for under-
represented group members, so the negative ramifications continue for
individuals and organizations. In this section, we will focus on how HR
can take a more active role in fostering a better career environment for a
diverse workforce.
We should begin by recognizing that some systems make a concerted
commitment to becoming more inclusive across the board, including
career development, and they devote significant time and resources to
that endeavor. Others may be less willing to undergo such an extensive
transformation, but might be interested in improving access to career
development as a way to recruit and retain a strong workforce. The
recommendations here are intended to assist any system wanting to
minimize career barriers for all their employees. Each requires that HR
practitioners take an active role in assisting with this process.
Early in this exploration, we started with factors outside the
organization that foster career barriers for diverse employees. While
societal change is a slow and on-going process, organizations are not
destined to be powerless in combating stereotypes, prejudices, ethno-
centrism, and other biases that seep into the system through myths,
misinformation, and misguided intentions. Their effects can be
 Barriers and Diverse Populations 141
minimized through a multifaceted approach focused on individual
awareness and change (Holvino et al., 2004) including:

 implementing well-constructed, on-going, comprehensive training,

education, and learning opportunities that go beyond creating
awareness to helping employees build skills to work with diverse
others and to apply their knowledge (Bristol & Tisdell, 2010;
Cox, 1993, 2001; Holvino et al., 2004; Kaplan, 2014; Kulkarni,
2012; Mor Barak, 2014; Thomas, 2005). Make the training part of
a strategic diversity initiative, not a stand alone event. Note: poorly
designed training can actually reinforce biases, so this must be
approached carefully.
 providing coaching for individual leaders and decision makers to
identify their own biases and determine how to address them
(Holvino et al., 2004). “Individuals who have not progressed in
their own identity development are unable to create work contexts
in which diverse workers are engaged in their work and feel open
to contribute in novel ways” (Thomas, 2005, p. 193).
 initiating multicultural team building that helps members build
their own skills (Holvino et al., 2004), recognize the expertise
and abilities of their diverse counterparts, and get to know them
as individuals, making it harder to stereotype or stigmatize them.

Other organizational barriers typically are embedded into the culture

of the system. They may be difficult to identify and challenging to
change, because they are perpetuated by practices that have become
ingrained into daily work. However, lack of structural integration offers
a clue. If career development is working well for everyone in the
organization, diverse individuals should be represented throughout the
system, at all levels and in different departments or functional areas.
If that is not evident, begin by reviewing representation for signs of
where structural barriers (e.g., glass ceilings, escalators, concrete walls)
are most active.

 Seek leadership support for examining career barriers and imple-

menting initiatives to minimize them (Bristol & Tisdell, 2010; Cox,
1993, 2001; Thomas, 2005). Be prepared to educate them about
why inclusive career development matters.
 Consider a culture audit to gather more complete information about
which initiatives to implement and where to focus in the system
(Holvino et al., 2004; Kulkarni, 2012; Mor Barak, 2014). Examine
142 Barriers and Diverse Populations
enclaves of homogeneity as potential areas of concern (i.e., foster-
ing disidentification for non-dominant group members).
 Establish formal mentoring programs that are accessible to all
employees at every level and incorporate metrics to measure effec-
tiveness (Nugent, Dinolfo, & Giscombe, 2013). Consider alterna-
tives such as mentoring circles or peer mentoring to minimize
concerns that arise from mixed gender/race pairs or a dearth of
diverse mentors, and explore reverse mentoring to keep older
workers engaged (Chaudhuri & Ghosh, 2012). See Chapter 4 in
this book for more on mentoring specifics.
 Encourage employees to establish heterogeneous and homogene-
ous career networks that span inside and outside the organization.
Consider system-wide employee resource groups, in-house homo-
geneous networks (e.g., women managers, LGBT employees) that
provide peer support (Ibarra et al., 2013). Tread cautiously
however. Some fear resource group network membership will
segregate them further in the larger system; others express concerns
that the networks might be used to reinforce the power structure
status quo (O’Neil, Hopkins, & Sullivan, 2011). See Chapter 4 for
more networking specifics.

Best for Employee Resource Groups

Annually, DiversityInc chooses its top 10 companies for Employee
Resource Groups based on several criteria, including if the company
uses its resource groups to assist with recruiting, employee development,
and mentoring, and if the resource group program includes retention and
career development as measures of success. PricewaterhouseCoopers
came in as number one in 2014 because it met the criteria above and in
addition it has solid support for the program from company leadership
(upper management members are in sponsoring roles), and a large
number of employees (38 percent) are involved in one of the 9 groups
(with 80 chapters) in the US or their global affiliates.
(Retrieved from [Link]/top-10-companies-employee-
resource-groups)

 Review formal policies and procedures for potential institutional bias

related to diverse career development (Cox, 1993, 2001; Holvino
et al., 2004; Kulkarni, 2012). Study work scheduling for unnecessary
rigidity. Scrutinize recruiting routines, performance appraisals,
succession plans, and criteria for identifying high-potential candi-
dates for promotion to determine if there are built-in barriers for
non-dominant group members.
 Barriers and Diverse Populations 143
 Examine formal and informal practices regarding career develop-
ment recommendations (for training, stretch assignments, etc.;
O’Neil et al., 2013). Explore how those decisions are made and
suggest ways to ensure under-represented group members have
equal access to career opportunities (e.g., evaluating managers
and supervisors on how well they develop all their employees).
Remain cognizant of perceptions of justice and fairness in suggest-
ing and implementing change.
 Ensure that HR professionals become knowledgeable about the
career development barriers that specific under-represented group
members face (Gedro, 2009). While some obstacles are not within
their power to change (e.g., employee economic status or family
obligations), HRD can advocate for individuals by understanding
the factors that will influence their career development and by taking
an active role in making the organizational culture more career
inclusive.

What Can Organizations Do To Keep Women from Leaving

Engineering Jobs?
The dearth of women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics) fields remains a persistent concern. A recent report titled
“Stemming the Tide: Why Women Leave Engineering” (Fouad, Singh,
Fitzpatrick, & Liu, 2012) demonstrates that the difficulty goes beyond just
encouraging women to study in those fields. The researchers surveyed
over 5,500 women with bachelor’s degrees in engineering. The respond-
ents include women who never entered engineering, those who left, and
those who stayed. Based on the data, the authors concluded that
systems wanting to improve their odds of keeping qualified women in
engineering positions should:
 develop clear paths to advancement by
B being transparent about the criteria for promotion

B basing promotions on performance

B providing lots of opportunities to move up;

 offer training and development opportunities (e.g., stretch assign-

ments) to build leadership skills as well as technical expertise;
 be clear about goals, work tasks, and expectations and provide the
resources needed to accomplish the work (i.e., keep assignments
from growing out of control, requiring overtime and rushed work to
meet deadlines);
 build an inclusive culture that
B demonstrates that it values all employee contributions

B has zero tolerance for incivility and belittling behaviors

B fosters a climate of support from supervisors and peers

B encourages formal and informal mentoring

B supports work–life through initiatives and expects employees to

use them without repercussions.

144 Barriers and Diverse Populations
Individual Initiatives
In the diversity literature, researchers periodically chastise studies that
include how members of under-represented groups can adapt to
organizational expectations to succeed. The idea is that qualified
individuals should not have to adjust; the burden should be on systems
to become more inclusive. As we acknowledged in the previous
section, systemic barriers do need to change, and revisions at that level
can have a dramatic impact on career opportunities. However,
individuals remain responsible for their own career paths and plans,
and there are initiatives that they can take to claim their power in this
process. The items on the list are fit for any career seeker, but they are
particularly important for non-dominant group members who may need
to push harder to be recognized as ready or to be chosen. These include:

 Be proactive (Thomas, 2005; van Veldhoven & Dorenbosch,

2008). This is a repeating theme in the career development
literature and it should be a priority for non-dominant group
members, who may be passed by if they wait to be acknowl-
edged or chosen.

Proactivity or Karma?
Research tells us that women often are less likely than their male
counterparts to ask for raises or promotions and, as a result, their
salaries and advancement opportunities may lag behind their peers.
An interviewer’s efforts to get a CEO’s advice for women in this
situation resulted in some backlash for the CEO. In October 2014,
during an interview, Microsoft Chief Executive Satya Nadella gave this
response:

It’s not about asking for the raise, but knowing and having faith that
the system will actually give you the right raises as you go along. .
And that, I think might be one of the additional superpowers that
quite frankly women who don’t ask for a raise have. Because that’s
good karma.

Following swift and clear negative feedback about his suggestion that
women trust “karma” to reward their work, he later apologized saying:

I answered that question completely wrong. Without a doubt I

wholeheartedly support programs at Microsoft and in the industry
that bring more women into technology and close the pay gap.
I believe men and women should get equal pay for equal work. And
when it comes to career advice on getting a raise when you think it’s
deserved, Maria’s [the interviewer’s] advice was the right advice.
If you think you deserve a raise, you should just ask.
 Barriers and Diverse Populations 145

Interestingly, shortly after these statements by Nadella, Amit Chowdhry,

summarizing this situation in a Forbes article ([Link]/sites/
amitchowdhry/2014/10/10/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-apologizes-
for-comments-on-womens-pay), noted: “Glassdoor, a website that
contains information about jobs and salaries based on submissions by
anonymous employees, showed that men at Microsoft make more than
women in similar positions.”

 Foster personal and professional resilience. Exercise the power

that you have to define yourself, feel secure, become knowledge-
able, remain visible, and stay flexible (Alfred, 2001). This may be
particularly important for those coping with challenging family
and life situations, work stressors, and feelings of injustice (see
Chapter 7).
 Seek out developmental opportunities and take advantage of them
(Thomas, 2005). Be willing to stretch, to take on the challenging
tasks. Recognize “learning how to be an effective leader is like
learning any complex skill: It rarely comes naturally and usually
take a lot of practice” (Ibarra et al., 2013, p. 66). At the same time,
choose well to minimize the risk of a glass cliff situation.
 Build mentoring and networking relationships (Cocchiara et al.,
2006; Thomas, 2005). Search widely if you must to find mentors
similar to you, but include dominant group members as well to
broaden your access to power and possibilities. Use mentoring
and networking programs in your organization.

Summary
As we noted at the beginning of this chapter, career development for
members of under-represented groups takes on multiple dimensions.
Some concerns span across differences. Yet each group and the
individuals that make it up also experience some unique challenges
that we could not address in detail with the pages that we could
devote to the topic here. Seek out that information. Recognize, too,
that while we focused on non-dominant groups in this chapter to
highlight their particular concerns, diversity means everyone. Each
person, whether a member of the traditional majority or an under-
represented group, makes up the diverse workforce. Together, we are
the diversity in our organizations.
146 Barriers and Diverse Populations
References
Abele, A., Volmer, J., & Spurk, D. (2012). Career stagnation: Underlying
dilemmas and solutions in contemporary work environments. In N. P. Reilly,
M. J. Sirgy, & C. A. Gorman (Eds.), Work and quality of life: Ethical practices
in organizations (pp. 107–132). New York: Springer.
Alfred, M. V. (2001). Expanding theories of career development: Adding the
voices of African American women in the white academy. Adult Education
Quarterly 51(2), 108–127.
Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Baruch, Y. & Bozionelos, N. (2011). Career issues. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA
handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 67–113).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Bell, E. L. J. E. & Nkomo, S. M. (2001). Our separate ways: Black and white
women and the struggle for professional identity. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School.
Bell, M. P. (2012). Diversity in organizations. Mason, OH: South-Western,
Cengage Learning.
Blustein, D. L., Coutinho, M. T. N., Murphy, K. A., Backus, F., & Catraio, C.
(2011). Self and social class in career theory and practice. In P. Hartung &
L. Subich (Eds.), Developing self in work and career: Concepts, cases and
contexts (pp. 213–229). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Bristol, T. L. & Tisdell, E. J. (2010). Leveraging diversity through career
development: Social and cultural capital among African-American
managers. International Journal of Human Resources Development and
Management 10(3), 224–238.
Bullock, H. E. (2004). Class diversity in the workplace. In M. Stockdale &
F. Crosby (Eds.). The psychology and management of workplace diversity
(pp. 224–242). Oxford: Blackwell.
Caleo, S. & Heilman, M. E. (2013). Gender stereotypes and their implications
for women’s career progress. In S. Vinnicombe, R. J. Burke, S. Blake-
Beard, & L. L. Moore (Eds.), Handbook of research on promoting
women’s careers (pp. 143–161). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Chaudhuri, S. & Ghosh, R. (2012). Reverse mentoring: A social exchange tool
for keeping the boomers engaged and millennials committed. Human
Resource Development Review, 11(1), 55–76.
Cocchiara, F., Bell, M. P., & Berry, D. P. (2006). Latinas and black women:
Key factors for a growing proportion of the US workforce. Equal
Opportunities International, 25(4), 272–284.
Cokley, K., Dreher, G., & Stockdale, M. (2004). Toward the inclusiveness and
career success of African Americans in the workplace. In M. Stockdale &
F. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity
(pp. 168–190). Oxford: Blackwell.
 Barriers and Diverse Populations 147
Combs, G. M. (2003). The duality of race and gender for managerial African
American women: Implications of informal social networks and career
advancement. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 2(4), 385–405.
Cook, A. & Glass, C. (2014). Above the glass ceiling: When are women and
racial/ethnic minorities promoted to CEO? Strategic Management Journal,
35, 1080–1089.
Cox, T., Jr. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research &
practice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Cox, T., Jr. (2001). Creating the multicultural organization. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Crawshaw, J. (2006). Justice source and justice content: Evaluating the
fairness of organizational career management practices. Human Resource
Management Journal, 16(1), 98–120.
Crawshaw, J. & Brodbeck, F. (2011). Justice and trust as antecedents of
careerist orientation. Personnel Review, 40(1), 106–125.
Duffy, R. D. & Dik, B. J. (2009). Beyond the self: External influences in the
career development process. The Career Development Quarterly, 58, 29–43.
Fernando, W. D. A. & Cohen, L. (2014). Respectable femininity and career
agency: Exploring paradoxical imperatives. Gender, Work and Organization,
21(2), 149–164.
Fouad, N., Singh, R., Fitzpatrick, M., & Liu, J. (2012). Stemming the tide: Why
women leave engineering. (Research Report Women in Engineering.)
Retrieved from website: [Link]
[Link].
Gedro, J. (2009). LBGT career development. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 11(1), 54–66.
Giscombe, K. & Mattis, M. C. (2002). Leveling the playing field for women of
color in corporate management: Is the business case enough? Journal of
Business Ethics, 37(1), 103–119.
Heppner, M. J. & Fu, C. (2011). The gendered context of vocational self-
construction. In P. Hartung & L. Subich (Eds.). Developing self in work and
career: Concepts, cases and contexts (pp. 177–192). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Hite, L. M. (2004). Black and white women managers: Access to opportunity.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(2), 131–146.
Holvino, H., Ferdman, B., & Merrill-Sands, D. (2004). Creating and sustaining
diversity and inclusion in organizations: Strategies and approaches. In
M. Stockdale & F. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of
workplace diversity (pp. 245–276). Oxford: Blackwell.
Ibarra, H., Ely, R., & Kolb, D. (2013, September). Women rising: The unseen
barriers. Harvard Business Review, 61–66.
Kao, K., Rogers, A., Spitzmueller, C., Lin, M., & Lin, C. (2014). Who should
serve as my mentor? The effects of mentor’s gender and supervisory status
on resilience in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
85, 191–203.
148 Barriers and Diverse Populations
Kaplan, D. M. (2014). Career anchors and paths: The case of gay, lesbian, and
bisexual workers. Human Resource Management Review, 24, 119–130.
Kulik, C. T., Bainbridge, H. T. J., & Cregan, C. (2008). Known by the
company we keep: Stigma-by-association effects in the workplace.
Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 216–230.
Kulkarni, M. (2012). Social networks and career advancement of people with
disabilities. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11(2), 138–155.
Leslie, S., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015, January).
Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic
disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265.
Mohr, J. J. & Fassinger, R. E. (2013). Work, career, and sexual orientation. In
C. Patterson & A. D’Augelli (Eds.), Handbook of psychology and sexual
orientation (pp. 151–164). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mor Barak, M. E. (2014). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive
workplace (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Murrell, A. J., Blake-Beard, S., Porter, M., Jr., & Perkins-Williamson, A.
(2008). Interorganizational mentoring: Breaking the concrete ceiling
sometimes requires support for the outside. Human Resource Management,
47(2), 275–294.
Naraine, M. D. & Lindsay, P. H. (2011). Social inclusion of employees who
are blind or low vision. Disability & Society, 26(4), 389–403.
Ng, T. W. H. & Feldman, D. C. (2012). Aging and participation in career
development activities. In J. W. Hedge & W. C. Boreman (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of work and aging (pp. 137–150). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Niles, S. G. & Harris-Bowlsbey, J. (2013). Career development interventions
in the 21st century (4th edn.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Nugent, J. S., Dinolfo, S., & Giscombe, K. (2013). Advancing women:
A focus on strategic initiatives. In S. Vinnicombe, R. J. Burke, S. Blake-
Beard, & L. L. Moore (Eds.), Handbook of research on promoting women’s
careers (pp. 391–405). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
O’Neil, D. A., Hopkins, M. M., & Bilimoria, D. (2013). Sprinters,
marathoners and relay runners: Profiles of women’s career development
over time. In S. Vinnicombe, R. J. Burke, S. Blake-Beard, & L. L. Moore
(Eds.). Handbook of research on promoting women’s careers (pp. 87–105).
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
O’Neil, D. A., Hopkins, M. M., & Sullivan, S. E. (2011). Do women’s
networks help advance women’s careers? Career Development
International, 16(7), 733–754.
Peters, K., Ryan, M., & Haslam, S. A. (2013). Women’s occupational motivation:
The impact of being a woman in a man’s world. In S. Vinnicombe, R. J. Burke,
S. Blake-Beard, & L. L. Moore (Eds.), Handbook of research on promoting
women’s careers (pp. 162–177). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Peters, K., Ryan, M., Haslam, S. A., & Fernandes, H. (2012). To belong or not to
belong: Evidence that women’s occupational disidentification is promoted by
 Barriers and Diverse Populations 149
lack of fit with masculine occupational prototypes. Journal of Personnel
Psychology, 11(3), 148–158.
Ragins, B. R. (1996). Jumping the hurdles: Barriers to mentoring for women
in organizations. Leadership & Organization Journal, 17(3), 37–41.
Ragins, B. R. (2007). Diversity and workplace mentoring relationships:
A review and positive social capital approach. In T. D. Allen & L. T.
Eby (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of mentoring: A multiple
perspectives approach (pp. 281–300). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Rocco, T. S., Bowman, L., & Bryant, L. O. (2014). Disability, health and
wellness programs and the role of HRD. In N. Chalofsky, T. Rocco, &
M. L. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of human resource development (pp. 299–
313). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Ryan, M. K. & Haslam, S. A. (2005). The glass cliff: Evidence that women are
over-represented in precarious leadership positions. British Journal of
Management, 16, 81–90.
Ryan, M. K. & Haslam, S. A. (2007). The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics
surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions.
The Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 549–572.
Sagrestano, L. M. (2004). Health implications of workplace diversity. In
M. Stockdale & F. Crosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of
workplace diversity (pp. 122–144). Oxford: Blackwell.
Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., &
Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and
model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262–1289.
Stone, D. L. & Stone-Romero, E. F. (2004). The influence of culture on role-
taking in culturally diverse organizations. In M. Stockdale & F. Crosby
(Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity (pp.78–
99). Oxford: Blackwell.
Thomas, K. M. (2005). Diversity dynamics in the workplace. Toronto, Canada:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Tlaiss, H. & Kauser, S. (2010). Perceived organizational barriers to women’s
career advancement in Lebanon. Gender in Management: An International
Journal, 25(6), 462–496.
van Veldhoven, M. & Dorenbosch, L. (2008). Age, proactivity and career
development. Career Development International, 13(2), 112–131.
Villanueva-Flores, M., Valle-Cabrera, R., & Bornay-Barrachina, M. (2014).
Career development and individuals with physical disabilities. Career
Development International, 19(2), 222–243.
Voelpel, W., Sauer, A., & Biemann, T. (2012). Careeer planning for mid- and
late-career workers. In J. W. Hedge & W. C. Boreman (Eds.), The Oxford
handbook of work and aging (pp. 503–519). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wang, M., Olson, D. A., & Shultz, K. S. (2013). Mid and late career issues:
An integrative perspective. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis.
150 Barriers and Diverse Populations
Wilson-Kovacs, D., Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., & Rabinovich, A. (2008).
Just because you can get a wheelchair in the building doesn’t necessarily
mean that you can still participate: Barriers to the career advancement of
disabled professionals. Disability & Society, 23(7), 705–717.
Wooten, K. C. & Cobb, A. T. (1999). Career development and organizational
justice: Practice and research implications. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 10(2), 173–179.
7 Career Challenges

Smooth seas do not make skillful sailors.

African proverb

Most individuals will experience challenges as they navigate their

careers. These challenges will vary from person to person, and the
outcomes of working through them will vary as well. We prefer the
term “challenges” rather than “barriers” or “obstacles” because of
the negative connotations that are usually attached to the latter terms.
The issues we will discuss in this chapter are not necessarily perceived
as negative career influences and potentially can result in positive
outcomes. We will focus on four major challenges, recognizing that
many more exist—but these four are salient to most individuals and are
well documented in the literature. They are: job stress, career plateaus,
work–life issues, and inadequate employment.

Job Stress
Job stress can have a significant impact on an individual’s performance
in the workplace and one’s career satisfaction and success (Baruch,
2006). The current career environment, characterized by turbulent
economic conditions, increasing use of technology, and the increasing
need to balance work and home, suggests that most workers will expe-
rience stress from time to time. The Stress in America 2013 survey
found that 42 percent of adults reported an increased level of stress over
the past five years and, although 61 percent felt managing stress is very
important, only 35 percent felt they were managing it well (APA,
2013). A survey conducted in 2010–2011 in Slovenia found that
62 percent of the respondents found their work to be “stressful or
highly stressful” and, while a survey in Belgium indicated employees
152 Career Challenges
were generally positive about their work, 30 percent still reported that
job stress was an issue (EuroFound, 2014).
Selye (1974) defined stress simply as “the nonspecific response of
the body to any demand made upon it” (p. 27). Since his seminal work
on stress appeared, various definitions have been offered, but central to
many of these explanations is the notion that stress is a condition that
occurs when an individual is confronted with an opportunity, constraint,
and/or demand, is uncertain of the outcome, and perceives the outcome
as being important (Greenhaus, Callanan, & Godshalk, 2010; Schuler,
1980). Usually we associate negative consequences with job stress, and
managers and HRD professionals clearly need to know how to attend to
the detrimental effects of stress. Yet increasingly scholars are recogniz-
ing that there are positive forms of stress as well (Hargrove, Nelson, &
Cooper, 2013). The concept “eustress,” which is considered a positive
response to stress, was introduced by Hans Selye in the 1970s (Selye,
1974). More recently, researchers have proposed two forms of self-
reported work stressors: challenge-related stressors and hindrance-
related stressors (Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000).
Challenge-related stressors are those “associated with challenging job
demands” such as heavy workloads, responsibility, and broad job
scope (Cavanaugh et al., 2000, p. 66). Hindrance-related stressors
are those “constraints that interfere with or hinder an individual’s ability
to achieve valued goals” (p. 67). Examples of hindrance-related stres-
sors might include excessive bureaucracy, organizational politics,
and job security concerns. Whereas hindrance stressors are related to
turnover intentions, job searches, and disengagement, challenge stres-
sors are positively related to job satisfaction and organizational
commitment (Cavanaugh et al., 2000; Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine,
2007). Demanding work that stretches employees’ capabilities, a
reasonable and realistic work pace, enough complexity in the job to
keep it interesting and extend workers’ capabilities, and assigning the
appropriate level of responsibility are ways to infuse challenge stressors
that may have positive results (Hargrove et al., 2013).
An employee’s reaction to stressors is referred to as strain (Beehr,
1995; Hurrell, Nelson, & Simmons, 1998). Three major types of strain
have been identified: physiological, psychological, and behavioral
(Beehr, 1995; Schuler, 1980). Physiological strain includes responses
such as hypertension, ulcers, compromised immune systems, and head-
aches (Hurrell et al., 1998; Schuler, 1980). Psychological strain involves
those affective and cognitive responses that we often associate with stress
(e.g., withdrawal, irritability, anxiety, and depression). Behavioral reac-
tions might include changes in appearance, increase use of alcohol and
 Career Challenges 153
tobacco, and absenteeism, to name a few (Schuler, 1980). All three types
of strain have the potential to affect individual careers and to impact
organizations. According to Gilbreath and Montesino (2006):

Absenteeism and turnover are likely to increase as employees flee a

negative work environment. Grievances, complaints and lawsuits
are likely to increase as overly stressed employees seek redress.
And health insurance premiums and workers’ compensation rates
increase as organizations’ experience ratings (e.g., injury rates)
begin to reflect the effects the workplace is having on employees.
(p. 564)

Just as there are numerous reactions to job stress, there are many
potential sources of stress as well. Some of the most common sources
include the following:

 Role characteristics: stress often results due to role overload or

underload (too much or not enough work), role ambiguity (job
expectations are unclear), and role conflict (competing demands
or expectations). Nurses, for example, consistently report that a
heavy workload is a significant source of stress (McVicar, 2003).
 Organizational characteristics: there are a number of organizational
factors such as compensation (e.g., pay inequities), inadequate
resources, constant change, and poor communication that can result
in increased levels of stress.
 Interpersonal relationships: incivility, competition among individ-
uals and groups, perceptions of bias, and discrimination are exam-
ples of social interactions that may cause increase levels of stress in
the workplace.
 Supervisors: individuals who experience abusive supervision often
report increased levels of psychological distress (Tepper, 2000).
Conversely, positive supervisor behaviors can significantly impact
the psychological well-being of employees (Gilbreath & Benson,
2004).
 Technology: while technology often facilitates work, it can result in
increased strain and stress (Day, Paquet, Scott, & Hambley, 2012).
Increasingly, researchers are examining the relationship between job
stress and information and communication technology (ICT), such as
social media and email (Brown, Duck, & Jimmieson, 2014; Bucher,
Fieseler, & Suphan, 2013). Common demands associated with ICT
include information overload, hassles such as computer crashes,
increased expectations regarding availability, increased workload,
154 Career Challenges
lack of control over ICT, constant need to update and learn new ICT,
potential for miscommunication, and concerns regarding the use of
ICT to monitor employees’ performance (Day et al., 2012).
 Job control: the amount of latitude an individual has in determin-
ing how and when the work gets done can impact stress levels.
Perceived job control can result in individuals believing the stress
is manageable and yield more constructive coping behaviors
(Spector, 2002). Because high job control is linked to many positive
outcomes (e.g., engaged employees, motivated employees), it is
reasonable to assume that control over one’s job may be associated
with perceptions of career success (Eatough & Spector, 2014).

In many cases there are multiple variables interacting together that

will potentially lead to stress. For example, Karasek’s (1979) Job
Demand–Control Model (JD–CM) proposes that having a high degree
of job control will buffer the impact of high job demands, whereas high
demands and a low degree of control will result in more employee
strain. Yet, other individual and contextual factors may influence this
interaction between job demands and job control. For example, Tucker,
Jimmieson & Oei (2013) found that, when work groups perceived the
group as being competent (e.g., collective efficacy), job control did
serve as a buffer of high job demands. But high levels of job control
did not serve as a buffer if the group perceived collective efficacy as
being low; rather, it “appeared to act as a stress-exacerbator” (p. 15).
The authors concluded that organizations need to consider both indi-
vidual and contextual factors when designing stress interventions.
There are different ways to approach the management and prevention
of occupational stress. Cooper and Cartwright (1997) identified three
major types of interventions:

 Primary prevention involves taking actions to change or eliminate

potential sources of stress in the workplace. Changing the
workload, work schedule, task design, and/or social environment
are all examples of primary intervention strategies.
 Secondary prevention is focused on assisting individuals in coping
with and managing stress. Rather than concentrating on the sources of
stress, secondary prevention will address the consequences of stress.
Developing self-awareness, providing stress management training,
and relieving the symptoms of stress (e.g., relaxation techniques,
physical activity) are examples of secondary intervention strategies.
 Tertiary prevention is concerned with the rehabilitation and treat-
ment of individuals who have experienced serious health problems
 Career Challenges 155
resulting from stress. Oftentimes organizations rely on employee
assistance programs (EAPs) to help employees needing this type of
assistance.

Another way to classify interventions concentrates on the focus of

the intervention. DeFrank and Cooper (1987) categorized them as
targeting:

 The individual. Like many secondary prevention strategies, these

interventions help employees understand, manage, and cope with
stress.
 The organization. These interventions include policies and practi-
ces that prevent or reduce employee stress. Biron, Cooper, &
Gibbs (2012) identify these as “macro level” initiatives (p. 939).
 The individual/organization. The interventions address concerns
related to the interconnection between employees and their work.
For example, periodically assessing person–environment fit and
role issues (e.g., ambiguity, conflict) would be considered inter-
ventions that might help with the stress occurring at this level
(Giga, Cooper, & Faragher, 2003).

Most organizations tend to address stress-related problems by relying

on secondary prevention or individual-level interventions (Beehr, 1995;
Cooper & Cartwright, 1997). Giga et al. (2003) wrote that “This
implies that stress in the workplace is still considered to be an issue
that should be controlled by individual employees and that situations
that get out of control are a direct consequence of human incompetence
or weakness” (p. 288). While these interventions are helpful to individ-
ual employees, they are less likely to address the sources of the stress,
and consequently the workplace will remain stressful.
There are numerous specific interventions that can help in the
prevention and/or management of occupational stress (see Table 7.1 for
specific examples). Additionally, positive approaches, such as appre-
ciative inquiry and work policies promoting fun, are being encouraged
as ways to promote employee well-being and healthy organizations
(Biron et al., 2012). But before implementing interventions, organiza-
tions, with employee input, need to determine what stress-related issues
must be addressed. Assessments such as employee attitude surveys,
ergonomic analyses, turnover and absenteeism data, compensation
claims, and stress audits will help determine what interventions
appear most appropriate and will provide baseline measures for evalu-
ation of implemented interventions (Giga et al., 2003; Gilbreath &
156 Career Challenges
Table 7.1 Stress Interventions
Organizational (Primary Prevention) Individual
(Secondary Prevention)

Job redesign Stress management training

Flexible work schedules and Relaxation techniques
arrangements
Pace-of-work alterations Cognitive-behavioral
therapy (CBT)*
Selection practices (e.g., determine Time management training
P–E fit, realistic job preview)
Fair, consistently applied workplace Wellness programs
policies and reward systems
Job and career training and Fitness programs
development
Supervisor training (e.g., to recognize Employee assistance
signs of employee stress and their programs (EAPs)
role in assisting workers)
Participative management approaches
Effective communication practices
Cohesive teams
Clear roles, expectations, and goals
A psychosocial safety environment

Note: *Cognitive-behavioral therapy is an intervention often used to treat anxiety

disorders. It involves challenging and altering thought processes to accept unpleasant
experiences (Giga, et al., 2003).
Sources: Biron et al. (2012); Cooper & Cartwright (1997); Giga et al. (2003); Quick
et al. (2014).

Montesino, 2006; Quick, Bennett, & Hargrove, 2014). Additionally,

taking an integrated approach regarding interventions is important as
well. A combination of both individual- and organization-level initia-
tives is necessary to create healthy work organizations (Biron et al.,
2012; Cooper & Cartwright, 1997; Quick et al., 2014).

Burnout
We would be remiss in leaving the topic of job stress without briefly
discussing job burnout. The prevalence of burnout is difficult to ascertain;
however, a study done with Swedish workers found that nearly a fifth
(17.9 percent) of the respondents were categorized as experiencing a high
level of burnout (Lindblom, Linton, Fedeli, & Bryngelsson, 2006). Much
of the early work on burnout focused on individuals employed in
education, human services, and health care; yet it is now widely acknowl-
edged that burnout can occur in many occupations.
 Career Challenges 157
Job burnout has been defined as “a psychological syndrome in
response to chronic interpersonal stressors on the job” (Maslach,
Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001, p. 399). There are three major dimensions
of burnout: exhaustion, depersonalization (or cynicism), and inefficacy
(or reduced personal accomplishment), although exhaustion is widely
considered the most “obvious manifestation of this complex syndrome”
(Maslach et al., 2001, p. 402). Both individual (e.g., personality char-
acteristics) and organizational/environmental (e.g., workload, control,
reward structure) factors have been found to correlate with burnout
(Halbesleben & Buckley, 2004; Maslach et al., 2001). Specifically,
Maslach et al. proposed that burnout occurs when there is a lack of
fit between an employee and one or more dimensions of worklife.
These major domains include: workload, control, reward, community,
fairness, and values. Interventions targeting both individuals and organ-
izations are recommended to help manage and prevent burnout, which
may help cultivate engagement with work (Maslach et al., 2001).
Most researchers and practitioners focus on job burnout, rather than
career burnout. However Pines (2000), employing a psychoanalytic–
existential approach, has argued that individuals choose careers with
the hope that they will engage in something that is significant and
meaningful. Career burnout occurs when individuals no longer believe
that what they are doing is meaningful; hence career choice plays a
significant role in understanding burnout. A study done on medical
students appears to support Pines’s argument. Pagnin et al. (2013)
found that medical students who indicated that they were motivated
to become doctors because of an experience with an illness or death
were more likely to experience emotional exhaustion. The authors
provided an explanation for why this might happen, suggesting that
this motivation may conflict with the focus on cognitive knowledge that
so often dominates medical school training. This conflict may result in
students feeling that what they are learning will not lead to making “a
difference in the world” (p. 391). This literature points to the impor-
tance of career counseling and providing information regarding burnout
in programs that prepare individuals for specific careers.

Career Plateauing
Career plateauing has been conceptualized as hierarchical plateauing,
which occurs when it is unlikely that an individual will experience
vertical movement in an organization (Allen, Poteet, & Russell, 1998;
Feldman & Weitz, 1988). Career plateauing can also occur in terms of
job content, meaning that the work one does is no longer perceived as
158 Career Challenges
challenging (Bardwick, 1988). According to Chao (1990, p. 182),
career plateauing should be conceptualized as an “individual’s percep-
tion of his or her career future” rather than using job tenure or age to
define plateaus.
Career plateaus have been associated with several negative
outcomes. Research has found that individuals who perceive them-
selves as plateaued are likely to report lower job and career satisfaction,
lower organizational commitment and identification, and higher
intentions to turnover than those who do not consider themselves
plateaued (Allen et al., 1998; Chao, 1990; Lee, 2003). Additionally,
plateaued employees have also been found to experience greater stress
and more depression than the general population (McCleese, Eby,
Scharlau, & Hoffman, 2007). These potential negative consequences
suggest that organizations should be knowledgeable regarding why
employees may plateau and what can be done to help those who
have plateaued or are at risk of plateauing.
Let’s first explore some of the reasons why people plateau in their
careers. Feldman and Weitz (1988) identified six major sources of
career plateaus. They are:

 Individual skills and abilities—insufficient knowledge, skills, and

abilities (KSAs) can impede one’s career progress.
 Individual needs and values—some individuals may value other
aspects of life more than a career.
 Lack of intrinsic motivation—employees may perceive that their
jobs lack challenge or that the work they do is meaningless.
 Lack of extrinsic rewards—no or small pay raises, perceptions of
unfairness in the distribution of rewards, and other extrinsic incen-
tives may result in dissatisfaction and poor performance.
 Stress and burnout—may lead to inadequate performance and
negative attitudes regarding one’s job.
 Slow organizational growth—the prevalence of organizations
downsizing and flattening their structures can result in fewer career
opportunities.

The turbulent economic environment, and increased use of technol-

ogy to accomplish work, have potentially exacerbated the number of
individuals feeling plateaued in their careers. And increasingly, some
are considering “work as marginal”—choosing to focus on balance and
viewing their jobs simply as means to other ends, secondary in
importance to other aspects of their lives (Guest & Sturges, 2007).
 Career Challenges 159
There are, however, many individuals who would prefer to not feel
plateaued in their careers. A variety of coping strategies and organiza-
tional strategies may be helpful in assisting these workers. Let’s first
consider what individuals can do:

 Discuss feelings of being plateaued with a supervisor, colleagues,

or family members. McCleese et al. (2007) found that, although
individuals reported using a variety of coping strategies when expe-
riencing a plateau, discussing the problem and withdrawing on the
job were the most frequently cited. While job withdrawal may have
significant negative implications in terms of job performance,
discussing the issue with those who may be able to assist can be
a positive first step in alleviating perceptions of being plateaued.
 Engage in career development activities such as training, career
planning, and career exploration. Allen, Russell, Poteet, &
Dobbins (1999) found that those individuals who established a
career plan, which included investigating various career paths
and opportunities, were more likely to perceive that they had mobi-
lity and therefore perceptions of being plateaued were minimized.
 Seek out new opportunities like serving on a special project, taking
on a different task/assignment or mentoring a less experienced
employee (Rotondo & Perrewe, 2000). The impact of mentoring
others has been studied and found to potentially “alleviate the
negative effects associated with job content plateauing” (Lentz &
Allen, 2009, p. 379).

Organizations also need to play a role in assisting those feeling

plateaued. Some noteworthy interventions include:

 Careful examination of jobs to determine if re-designing them

might alleviate perceptions of being plateaued. Expanding job
responsibilities and working on projects as a team are two exam-
ples of how organizations might alter jobs to help employees feel
challenged and engaged (Rotondo & Perrewe, 2000).
 Provide developmental activities such as training and career coun-
seling to assist those who may be plateaued due to lack of skills.
Opportunities to mentor others may be particularly helpful for those
who feel job content plateaued and can lead to a variety of positive
outcomes including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
fewer turnover intentions (Lentz & Allen, 2009, p. 379).
 Develop alternative career paths focused on functional or techni-
cal competencies rather than hierarchical movement. This may
160 Career Challenges
involve redesigning compensation systems to reward those who
develop these competencies and demonstrate strong performance
(Feldman & Weitz, 1988).
 Create a supportive culture that fosters learning, respect, and encour-
agement. Armstrong-Strassen (2008) found that older employees were
less likely to report feelings of job content plateauing if they perceived
organizational support and respect from the organization, their super-
visor, and colleagues. Supervisors in particular play an important role
in helping employees who may be feeling plateaued (Allen et al., 1999;
McCleese et al., 2007). Often employees will seek them out to discuss
their concerns, so managers need to be skilled in how to handle these
conversations and provide meaningful assistance. HRD can help
educate and train supervisors regarding ways to pro-actively deal
with plateaued employees. One important message for managers to
receive is that career plateauing is not necessarily related to age and job
tenure, so they should not necessarily assume that their older or more
experienced employees will be experiencing plateaus or that younger
employees do not (Chao, 1990; Lee, 2003).

Like most of these career challenges, it is important to be aware that

plateauing may be more widespread in particular types of organizations
and/or in certain professions. Also, rather than looking at career
plateauing as a dichotomous construct, it should be conceptualized on a
continuum (Chao, 1990). Some individuals may perceive that their
career is very stagnated, while others may feel slightly plateaued. These
differences are likely to influence a host of important outcomes like job
satisfaction, turnover intention, and organizational commitment. In
addition, understanding that there is a broad range of “plateauness” is
likely to influence what interventions are employed to assist the
plateaued individual.
There may be little that managers and HRD practitioners can do to
assist those experiencing hierarchical plateauing, given the push
towards flattening organizational structures and the demise of “labor-
intensive economies” (Lee, 2003, p. 539). However, much can be done
to prevent job content plateauing. Bardwick (1986) wrote:

content plateauing need never occur. No one ever knows every-

thing; no one has ever done everything. There are no limits to
change and challenge except those created by personal fear or
organizational laziness. Content plateauing is preventable and, if it
has occurred, is remediable.
(p. 67)
 Career Challenges 161
Most of the recommendations listed above will address content
plateauing rather than hierarchical plateauing.

Work–Life Issues1
Consider these statistics:

 In 2013, approximately 70 percent of all US mothers with children

under 18 were employed; 93 percent of all fathers with children
under 18 were employed (Catalyst, 2012a).
 Labor force participation for mothers in Canada increased from
39 percent in 1976 to 73 percent in 2009 (Catalyst, 2012a).
 Women, on average, spend approximately 2.3 hours more per day
doing unpaid work (e.g., caring, cleaning, and cooking) than men
do in OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-
opment) nations. This discrepancy is even more pronounced in
some countries (e.g., Mexico and Turkey), where women spend
approximately 4.3 hours per day more than men on unpaid work
(OECD, 2013).
 Men’s levels of work–life conflict have increased from 34 percent
in 1977 to 49 percent in 2008 (Catalyst, 2012b).
 A study conducted by Catalyst in India found that 90 percent of the
women responded that the workplace does not meet their work–life
needs (Catalyst, 2012b).
 Surveys on millennials indicate that a large majority (88 percent) want
employment that fosters “work–life integration” (Asghar, 2014).

As these figures suggest, a significant career challenge for many

individuals is negotiating the multitude of roles we undertake as adults.
For the past four decades this has become a more important issue as
women’s participation in the workforce has steadily increased. Scholars
and practitioners alike recognize the need to determine how to assist
employees handling the intersection between work and family. As a
result, a lot of research has been generated and many organizational
initiatives have been developed; and much of this work has produced a
number of constructs and approaches. Let’s first discuss some of the
most common frameworks used to understand this intersection:

 Work–life conflict: this construct is closely linked to job stress and

occurs when one role (e.g., employee) conflicts with another (e.g.,
parent, spouse, or partner). Powell, Francesco, & Ling (2009) defined
this conflict as “negative interdependencies between work and family
162 Career Challenges
roles” (p. 602). It is a bi-directional construct, where work may cause
interference with family (w-to-f conflict) or family interferes with
work (f-to-w conflict). A number of negative outcomes are associated
with work–life conflict such as job dissatisfaction, intention to turn-
over, poor job/family performance, family dissatisfaction, and health
problems (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005;
Frone, 2003). A meta-analysis of the literature found that work–life
conflict was the predominant paradigm used to explore the intersection
between work and family (Eby et al., 2005).
 Work–life balance: for many, this concept suggests an absence of
work–life conflict (McMillan, Morris, & Atchley, 2011). And, while
this concept is frequently used, there appears to be less agreement as
to what work–life balance really means. Grzywacz and Carlson
(2007) defined it as “accomplishment of role-related expectations
that are negotiated and shared between an individual and his or
her role-related partners in the work and family domains” (p. 458).
This definition suggests that balance is a social construct (Grzywacz
& Carlson, 2007), involving intention and action on the part of the
agent. Another definition is “the extent to which an individual is
equally engaged in—and equally satisfied with—his or her work
role and family role” (Greenhaus, Collins, & Shaw, 2003, p. 513).
These authors conceptualized balance as involving three compo-
nents: time balance (meaning an equal amount of time for work
and family roles), involvement balance (meaning an equal level of
psychological involvement in these roles), and satisfaction
balance (which suggests an equal level of satisfaction in both
work and family roles). While these three components may be
useful in analyzing one’s specific work–life situation, the notion
of “equal level” has been criticized as being overly prescriptive
or, as Friedman (2014) indicated, it becomes a “zero-sum game.”
We prefer the more subjective approach advocated by Kossek,
Valcour, & Lirio (2014) that “the picture of work–life balance
looks different from one person to another, as well as at different
points in a person’s career and life” (p. 301).
 Work–life enrichment: many scholars and practitioners recognize
that the intersection between work life and family life can have
positive effects. According to Greenhaus and Powell (2006),
work–life enrichment is “the extent to which experiences in one
role improve the quality of life in the other role” (p. 73). Similar to
work–life conflict, enrichment is conceived as being bi-directional.
In other words, work can improve family life (work–family enrich-
ment) and family experiences can enrich one’s work (family–work
 Career Challenges 163
enrichment). Many parents, for example, discuss how raising chil-
dren helps them in their work environment (e.g., developing more
patience with co-workers or clients, demonstrating a sense of
humor). Likewise, in previous jobs as corporate trainers, employees
would often tell us that the skills they learned in a training program
on conflict management were being used at home to handle issues
arising with a spouse, partner, or a teenage son or daughter.
 Work–life harmony: as a way to integrate work–life conflict and
work–life enrichment, McMillan et al. (2011) proposed that
“harmony” be used to describe the desired interaction between work
and life. According to Morris and McMillan (2014), work–life
harmony is:

a state-like indicator of well-being influenced by adaptive

strategies used to intentionally create a synchronized and
complementary arrangement of work and life (e.g., personal,
friend, spouse, parent, child) roles, relationships, and resources
that are aligned and positively reinforce an integrated narrative
of work and life that is productive, satisfying, and fulfilling in
both domains.
(p. 231)

This idea of harmony is not new. For example, it has been a focal point
of Stewart Friedman’s work on leadership and work–life integration for
quite some time. One of the goals of his Total Leadership method, which
identifies four domains in life—work, self, community, and home—is to
produce harmony in these four domains (Friedman, 2014). Much of his
work concentrates on helping individuals move towards this harmony as
a way to improve performance. While much of Friedman’s work focuses
on the individual, McMillan et al. (2011) believed that harmony can be
considered at both the individual and the organizational level. They argue
that work–life harmony can be evaluated at the individual level (assess-
ing conflicts experienced and enrichments gained) and at the organiza-
tional level (assessing the health of departments to determine what
interventions might be needed to achieve harmony).

Impact on Careers
Responsibilities in other life domains will have an impact on individuals’
careers. For example, women are more likely to experience disruptions in
their careers due to family obligations (Eby et al., 2005) and work–family
conflict has been found to have a negative impact on the career
164 Career Challenges
satisfaction of women and on older male employees (Martins, Eddleston,
& Veiga, 2002). Family responsibilities also have been found to nega-
tively affect career success, which may be due to a number of factors. For
example, family obligations may result in more career interruptions
which then might impact success (Eby et al., 2005). Family roles may
influence the amount of time and energy one can devote to work (work
centrality) which will then affect both objective and subjective career
success (Mayrhofer, Meyer, & Schiffinger, 2007). Increasingly work–life
issues appear to influence career choice, with millennials in particular,
who often have voiced strong expectations regarding the need for
balance or harmony regarding work and other aspects of their lives
(McDonald & Hite, 2008; Ng, Schweitzer, & Lyons, 2010).
From the enrichment perspective, non-work roles (e.g., parent,
friend, volunteer) can make significant contributions to individuals’
careers. A study done with women managers found that non-work roles
provided them with psychological resources (e.g., confidence, esteem,
satisfaction) and managerial skills that helped their work performance
(Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, & King, 2002). Developing non-work roles
can add value to one’s work roles as this study clearly points out. These
non-work roles can result in strong socio-emotional support which may
also help individuals deal with work–family conflict and other job
stressors (Martins et al., 2002) as well.

Work–Life Initiatives
A recent article in our local paper titled “Work–life balance is big business”
pointed out that “work–life balance is not a problem just for women or a
concern that is going to be solved—but rather an ongoing challenge”
(Goodman, 2014, p. 8B). With this now considered a multi-billion dollar
industry, organizations have come to the realization that helping employ-
ees negotiate work and non-work roles is important since it affects their
bottom line. As a result, various initiatives have been developed to meet
both employees’ and organizations’ needs. There are various ways to
categorize and describe these interventions. Many organizations focus
on what Kossek, Lewis, & Hammer (2009) refered to as structural
work–life support, which includes a variety of initiatives such as:

 Human resources (HR) practices/policies and job redesign as ways

to enhance workers’ choices regarding “when, where, and for how
long they engage in work-related tasks” (Hill et al., 2008, p.149);
 HR policies regarding absenteeism, vacations, and sick leave;
 child care and elder care benefits.
 Career Challenges 165
Table 7.2 provides a more comprehensive listing of these types of
work–life initiatives.
However, these initiatives will only be effective if there is cultural
work–life support. This support, defined as “informal workplace social
and relational support” (Kossek et al., 2009, p. 4), needs to be present at
the work group level (e.g., supervisors and co-workers) as well as the
organizational level (e.g., resources allocated, values demonstrated).
The importance of cultural work–life support should not be underesti-
mated. Allen (2001) found that individuals who perceived that their
organization was “family supportive” reported less work–life conflict,
more job satisfaction, less turnover intention, and more organizational
commitment than those who perceived their organization as not “family
supportive.” Cultural work–life support is important since it has a
tremendous impact on whether employees will utilize the work–life
initiatives provided (Allen, 2001; Kossek et al., 2009; Veiga, Baldridge,
& Eddleston, 2004). Employees may believe that using a work–life
benefit can result in unfair burdens placed on their co-workers, or that
their supervisor or co-workers will develop unfavorable attitudes toward
them, or that their careers will be jeopardized (Veiga et al., 2004). These
concerns can be alleviated if the organization and work group demon-
strate support for work–life integration. Particularly important in this
discussion is the employee’s supervisor (Allen, 2001; Kossek &

Table 7.2 Organizational Work–Life Initiatives

Work–Life Benefits

 Flexible work arrangements (FWAs):

B Compressed work week
B Flexible hours
B Telecommuting
B Part-time work
B Job sharing
B Reduced hours
 On-site elder/child care
 Financial assistance for elder/child care
 Information/referral systems for elder/child care
 Employee assistance programs (e.g., family/individual counseling,
financial assistance)
 Paid leaves and sabbaticals
 Phased-in work schedule after a leave
 Phased-in retirement
 Services at the work site (e.g., dry cleaners, fitness center)

Source: Sullivan & Mainiero (2007).

166 Career Challenges
Ruderman, 2012; Morris, 2012; Purcell, Lewis, Smithson, & Caton,
2008; Swody & Powell, 2007; Veiga et al., 2004). Purcell et al., drawing
conclusions based on a study of work–life practices in seven European
countries, found that parents emphasized the importance of line manag-
ers in the implementation of these practices. Supportive supervisors play
a key role, since they often are the ones that can most readily inform
employees of these benefits, support participation in initiatives when
needed, grant requests for participation, and encourage and support co-
worker acceptance.
Other factors, beyond supervisors and managers, can contribute to an
unsupportive work–life culture. Inconsistency and lack of clarity in HR
policies and practices and poor communication about the availability,
accessibility, affordability, and benefits of work–life initiatives can
negatively impact both employees and organizations (Morris, 2012).
HRD can play a significant role in developing cultural work–life
support by:

 training supervisors so they have the skills and knowledge to assist

employees with their work–life issues;
 conducting audits and/or assessments regarding usage of work–life
benefits, obstacles individuals are encountering in accessing and
using benefits, and employee satisfaction with work–life initiatives;
 assisting in organizational efforts to clearly communicate with
employees regarding work–life issues and initiatives (e.g., educa-
tional programs);
 creating, developing, and promoting networks and mentor programs
to provide socio-emotional support for individuals experiencing
work–life conflict;
 advocating for redesigned work that promotes realistic workloads
and deadlines (Kossek et al., 2014; Martins et al., 2002; Morris,
2012).

Another important issue that needs to be addressed is the impact

that usage of work–life benefits can have on an individual’s career. To
date, only a few studies have examined this issue, and the results are
mixed. A qualitative study of female part-time managers in the UK
found that participants perceived their careers had stalled since
beginning part-time status (Tomlinson & Durbin, 2010). However,
other research has indicated that flexible work arrangements
(e.g., reduced loads) help individuals sustain their careers by allowing
them to stay in the workforce and help satisfy specific goals
(e.g., balance) depending on their specific life/career circumstances
 Career Challenges 167
(Hall, Lee, Kossek, & Heras, 2012; Shapiro, Ingols, O’Neill, & Blake-
Beard, 2009). A longitudinal study conducted by Konrad and Yang
(2012) debunked the notion that using work–life benefits is a “career-
limiting move,” finding that benefit usage enhanced employee
promotability—primarily due to the lessening of strain which led to
improved performance. Leslie, Manchester, Park, & Mehng (2012)
found that the usage of flexible work practices (FWP) had consequen-
ces in terms of career success—depending on managers’ attributions
of that usage. It (usage) had a positive impact on career success when
managers attributed use to a “desire to improve productivity.”
However, if managers attributed usage to a “desire for personal life
accommodations,” it had the potential to constrain career success
(p. 1425). In general, the research suggests work–life benefit usage
is not necessarily a barrier to career development. Both individuals
and managers need to take a long-term perspective regarding this
issue. Employees need to recognize that using work–life benefits
can make them more productive and, hence, more valuable to their
employers. Managers need to realize that any inconveniences that
might arise from employees using these benefits (and effective organ-
izations will have mechanisms in place to prevent this) are likely to be
short term, and the organization will benefit by retaining productive
and satisfied employees.
Work–life initiatives can have a positive impact on organizational
outcomes. Morris (2008) identified five:

 improved productivity;
 reductions in turnover and increases in retention;
 improved job satisfaction, morale, loyalty, commitment, motivation,
organizational citizen behavior, volunteerism, and engagement;
 enhanced corporate image, customer satisfaction and loyalty, ethi-
cal behavior, and ability to attract investors;
 retaining women and re-engaging older employees (pp. 101–103).

Many of these outcomes were supported by a follow-up study

conducted by Morris, Heames, & McMillan (2011) which looked at HR
executives’ perceptions of the strategic impact of work–life initiatives.
However, they also found that most organizations surveyed had not
developed metrics to assess the strategic impact of work–life initiatives.
Clearly this is needed to ensure strong return on investment, to help
with future decisions made on work–life issues, and to assist in recruit-
ing talent.
168 Career Challenges
The literature on work–life issues is vast, indicating that the
intersection between work and non-work is complex. A number of
contextual factors need to be considered beyond the organization.
Family structure (e.g., dual-earner, single-earner, parental status), for
example, will impact the amount of work–life conflict experienced,
career decisions, life enrichment, and a host of other work–life issues.
Socio-economics and status are important contextual factors as well.
Individuals struggling to make ends meet by working two or three jobs
may struggle to understand or relate to the notion of work–life
enrichment or harmony.
Governmental policies can play an important role in facilitating
work–life or cause greater inequities in supporting employees’ needs.
Munn (2013) pointed out that many employees in the US with low
wages cannot realistically use unpaid FMLA (Family and Medical
Leave Act) time. Many developed nations (e.g., the EU and Australia)
provide work–life support through various policies and programs, yet,
even in countries with these policies, individuals still may struggle to
gain access to the benefits they are entitled to and need (Purcell et al.,
2008). Kossek et al. (2009) speculated that, perhaps because of the lack
of governmental support, the US focuses more on organizational based
work–life initiatives than other countries. However, increasingly,
governments throughout the world are recognizing the need to develop
policies and provide assistance that support work–life issues (Munn &
Lee, 2015).
Beyond governmental policies, the national culture needs to be
considered as well. Lewis, Gambles, & Rapoport (2007) argued for “an
international perspective” on work–life balance that questions the
“Anglo-centric taken-for-granted assumptions embedded in the WLB
discourses” (p. 362). Powell et al. (2009) emphasized the importance of
culture-sensitive theories and practices regarding work–life issues for
multinational corporations so that they will have a better understanding
of what initiatives are needed, likely to be used, and likely to be
effective in various parts of the world.

Inadequate Employment
Economic unrest around the world has prevailed for about a decade,
resulting in devastating consequences for many workers. Involuntary
job loss and underemployment became pervasive during the Great
Recession and these concerns remain important for many individuals.
Even though many economies have recovered or are recovering,
feelings of insecurity about jobs persist (Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, &
 Career Challenges 169
Harris, 2014). We recognize that the term “inadequate employment” is
broad and potentially could cover a number of employment arrange-
ments. We will focus on involuntary job loss and underemployment—
both of which present challenges to employees and to organizations. It is
important to recognize that these two types of inadequate employment
overlap considerably in terms of their effect on individuals and
organizations. However we will begin our discussion by focusing on
involuntary job loss.
Job loss has a profound effect on many employees. It can result in
loss of self-esteem and well-being and it is considered one of the most
stressful life events (Gowan, 2014; Zikic & Klehe, 2006). Sometimes
the reaction to experiencing job loss is such that people may display
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms “such as ruminating
on or re-experiencing the layoff event, as well as anxiety or agitation
that was triggered by job loss” (McKee-Ryan, Virick, Prussia, Harvey,
& Lilly, 2009, p. 575). There are many factors associated with job loss
that will produce stress such as lack of financial security, feelings of
isolation due to the loss of opportunities to interact with others and be a
member of a group, and feelings of inadequacy, which often results in
pressures to develop new skills (Blustein, Kozan, & Connors-Kellgren,
2013). However, in some instances job loss can result in career growth
(Gowan, 2014). For example, in a qualitative study conducted with
unemployed and underemployed participants, Blustein et al. found
that some individuals felt that their unemployment was a positive event
in that it provided an opportunity to pursue another career.
There are a variety of factors that can influence employees’ job loss
experience. How the organization handled the lay-off or termination
can impact employees’ responses to job loss. Providing advance notice
of the lay-off, offering outplacement services, and extending severance
packages can influence employees’ perceptions of fairness and help
minimize the stress (McKee-Ryan et al., 2009). Individuals with strong
social support networks often weather job loss better than those without
strong support from family, friends, and colleagues (Blustein et al.,
2013; Gowan, 2014). Additionally, individuals will react differently
to job loss based on individual characteristics such as hardiness, resil-
iency, and employability. In Chapter 2, employability was presented as
an important career construct consisting of three dimensions: adaptabil-
ity, career identity, and human and social capital. Fugate, Kinicki, &
Ashforth (2004) proposed that employable individuals will be less
likely to be psychologically harmed by job loss, more likely to involve
themselves in job searches, and apt to gain high quality re-employment.
Support for these contentions was found in a study conducted with
170 Career Challenges
unemployed Australians. The authors concluded that employability
plays a significant role “in relation to self-esteem, job search, and
re-employment” (McArdle, Waters, Briscoe, & Hall, 2007, p. 262).
There are a variety of career interventions that can help those
individuals who have suffered a job loss. Career and mental health
counseling can help displaced workers come to grips with their distress,
assist them in developing coping skills, and begin the process of sorting
out next steps in their career journey (Blustein et al., 2013). Zikic &
Klehe (2006) found that career exploration and planning had a signifi-
cant impact on re-employment quality, suggesting a need for outplace-
ment services that can help individuals gain the knowledge and skills to
effectively engage in these activities. Outplacement programs that assist
displaced employees in developing resiliency and employability are
needed as well (Gowan, 2012). At the community and national level,
interventions and policies to help the unemployed and to reduce unem-
ployment are needed (Blustein et al., 2013). Gowan (2014) argued that,
to shape governmental programs and public policy, new information is
needed “about how to guide the unemployed into the right jobs
programs and how to assist them in equipping themselves mentally
and skill-wise to respond to inevitable career transitions” (p. 267).

Underemployment
This phenomenon often occurs when individuals are re-employed after
losing their jobs. However, underemployment can occur to anyone, at
any time, for a variety of reasons. Underemployment is “when workers
are employed in jobs which are substandard relative to their goals and
expectations” (Maynard & Feldman, 2011, p. 1). There are several ways
in which one might come to the conclusion that he/she is underem-
ployed. Some of these are relatively objective job characteristics, and
others are more subjective interpretations of one’s job experiences
(Feldman, Leana, & Bolino, 2002; McKee-Ryan & Harvey, 2011).
Specifically, underemployment can mean that:

 employees are underpaid or at a lower hierarchical status than other

similar workers (in terms of knowledge, skills, and abilities);
 employees are involuntarily working fewer hours than desired;
 employees are working a schedule, shift, or hours not congruent
with their preference;
 employees are overeducated for the position they currently occupy;
 employees are working in a job outside the field in which they were
educated or trained;
 Career Challenges 171
 employees’ skills or experiences are underutilized in their current job;
 employees perceive that they are overqualified for the job they are
doing; or
 employees perceive that their jobs are lacking and should be better
(also known as “relative deprivation”).
(Feldman et al., 2002; McKee-Ryan & Harvey, 2011)

There are a number of factors that lead to underemployment.

Economic factors, such as the recent recession, often lead to greater
underemployment. Other factors such as the type of jobs, employee
characteristics and traits, work preferences, and career history may
impact underemployment (McKee-Ryan & Harvey, 2011). There are also
certain groups of individuals who are more likely to be underemployed.
These include: youth, older workers, women, ethnic minorities and
immigrants, and contingent employees (Maynard & Feldman, 2011).
There are several negative career outcomes of underemployment. For
example, Nabi (2003) found that underemployed graduates reported
lower career satisfaction, less opportunity to use skills, and lower
extrinsic career success (e.g., earnings) than did fully employed grad-
uates. Feldman et al. (2002) found that the inability to use one’s skills
resulted in negative reactions among underemployed executives—more
so than salary cuts or demotions. It may be difficult to leave the ranks
of the underemployed; there is evidence to suggest that individuals
leaving jobs due to being overskilled do not necessarily improve their
lot (Erdogan & Bauer, 2011). All of this points to a less than positive
career trajectory for the underemployed.
There are, however, some interventions that might help the under-
employed. Some of this needs to begin early on—providing informa-
tion to teens and young adults regarding the importance of early job
choices and career planning. On an individual level, workers may find
it useful to develop a good relationship with their managers and
demonstrate a willingness to take on new tasks and behave in prosocial
ways (Erdogan & Bauer, 2011). This may lead to job enrichment and/or
enlargement and the potential to move to a more desirable position
(Nabi, 2003). HR needs to be vigilant in examining and analyzing their
organization’s employment trends and how these may lead to employ-
ees perceiving that they are underemployed. Managers and HR need to
know their employees so that they can determine if an employee is
underemployed by choice or because he/she needed a job. They also
need to know what type of underemployment this employee is experi-
encing—does she feel she is overqualified for the job? Underutilized in
terms of skills? Knowing this information can help managers and HR
172 Career Challenges
determine what they might be able to do to improve the situation
(e.g., focus on restructuring the job, training/skill enhancement, chang-
ing work schedules).

Additional Considerations
There are potentially many career challenges that individuals may face
throughout their lifespans. We have chosen to focus on four that are
frequently encountered and that can significantly affect careers. While we
discuss them as distinct challenges, it is important to recognize that
usually they will overlap and result in multiple challenges to assess and
manage. For example, work–life issues, career plateauing, and inad-
equate employment are all likely to result in job stress. This suggests that
both individual strategies and organizational interventions should be
developed that can help employees handle multiple challenges.
How organizations and individuals respond to these four challenges
is highly dependent on the culture of the organization and individual
characteristics. When the organizational culture promotes open commu-
nication, creates a sense of caring for and among its employees, and
supports employee learning and development, individuals are likely to
respond positively to these challenges, resulting in happier and more
productive employees. Throughout this chapter specific recommenda-
tions have been provided as to how organizations can assist individuals
in handling job stress, career plateauing, work–life issues, and
inadequate employment. Organizations that care about their employees
and the development of their careers have adopted many of these
recommendations and continually assess their effectiveness.
At the individual level, characteristics such as hardiness, high self-
esteem, and a proactive personality have been found to impact how
employees react to work–life challenges and unemployment (Frone, 2003;
McArdle et al., 2007). But perhaps the most important individual character-
istic needed to effectively respond to these challenges is resiliency. This
concept was briefly introduced in Chapter 3 as an important individual
characteristic influencing career development. Much of the early research
on resiliency was done in clinical and developmental psychology; a focus
on resilience at work has developed in the past 15–20 years (Caza &
Milton, 2012; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Resiliency is the ability to
“bounce back” or “rebound” from adversity (Luthans, 2002). It is consid-
ered a state-like construct that is malleable (Luthans, Vogelgesang, &
Lester, 2006; Luthans, Avey, Avolio, & Peterson, 2010). Therefore, it
can be learned. As Youssef and Luthans (2007) explained, resiliency
 Career Challenges 173
“allows for not only reactive recovery but also proactive learning and
growth through conquering challenges” (p. 778).
There are a number of ways to develop one’s resilience. There are, for
example, several self-help books that offer information and self-guided
activities to develop resiliency. Social support, such as networking
and mentoring, can be helpful as well. A recent study found that
mentoring—particularly psychosocial (e.g., providing emotional support),
being mentored by one’s supervisor, and cross-gender career mentoring
relationships—resulted in higher protege resilience (Kao, Rogers,
Spitzmueller, Lin, & Lin, 2014). The authors reasoned that the functions
that mentors serve (e.g., career advice, psychosocial support) and the posi-
tive outcomes that often occur from these relationships (e.g., increased
salaries and promotions) would suggest that proteges’ resiliency would
be higher than non-mentored individuals.
Resilience training programs are yet another way to develop this
capacity in individuals. This training takes various forms; it may involve
developing a stronger awareness of the resources (e.g., talents, skills, and
networks) one has available, as well as determining how these resources
can be leveraged to accomplish goals and overcome obstacles (Luthans
et al., 2010). Seligman (2011) described a training program for the US
Army that begins with assessing soldiers’ “psychological fitness,” and
then provides training modules that develop four types of fitness
(emotional, family, social, and spiritual) and a module on “post-traumatic
growth.” This program also includes “Master Resilience Training” or
MRT, which assists drill sergeants and other managers to learn about
resiliency and their role in helping the soldiers they lead to develop this
capacity. While the training will differ based on the needs of the indi-
viduals, there is evidence that these programs can help increase employ-
ees’ resiliency (Bardoel, Pettit, De Cieri, & McMillan, 2014; Luthans
et al., 2010).
Many of the organizational initiatives that will help employees and
organizations handle the four challenges presented in this chapter can
help build resilience. A variety of HR practices can enhance resiliency,
including employee assistance programs, work–life initiatives, occupa-
tional health and safety systems, diversity management, social support
networks, employee development programs (e.g., resilience training),
policies and benefits, and crisis and risk management processes
(Bardoel et al., 2014). As Luthans et al. (2006) wrote, “perhaps the
biggest contribution to the resiliency process may be efficacy” (p. 34).
So support systems, programs, and policies that enhance self-efficacy
may be extremely helpful in developing resilience as well.
174 Career Challenges
Conclusion
The African proverb cited at the beginning of this chapter nicely sums
up our intent. Most careers will experience rough seas periodically. But
the hope is that individuals will emerge from these bumpy patches with
a greater sense of what they want from their careers and plans to move
forward to accomplish their goals. For some, these challenges
are exciting and embraced. Others will struggle for a variety of
reasons—perhaps the nature of the challenge, individual characteristics
or traits, or unsupportive bosses or organizations will impede their
progress. HR functions can help by advocating for, implementing, and
assessing initiatives designed to minimize these challenges. On an
individual level they can help employees develop or enhance their
resilience and they can assist managers in developing the necessary
skills they need to provide support and guidance to their direct reports.

Note
1 Individuals often use the term “work–family” rather than “work–life” and,
granted, much of the literature has focused on work and family rather than
other aspects of life (e.g., community involvement, religion). We prefer
the term work–life, given its broader focus and implications.

References
Allen, T. D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of
organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.
Allen, T. D., Poteet, M. L., & Russell, J. E. A. (1998). Attitudes of managers
who are more or less career plateaued. The Career Development Quarterly,
47, 159–172.
Allen, T. D., Russell, J. E. A., Poteet, M. L., & Dobbins, G. H. (1999). Learning
and development factors related to perceptions of job content and hierarchical
plateauing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1113–1137.
American Psychological Association (APA). (2013). Stress in America 2013
highlights. Retrieved from [Link]/news/press/releases/stress/2013/
[Link].
Armstrong-Strassen, M. (2008). Factors associated with job content plateauing
among older workers. Career Development International, 13, 594–613.
Asghar, R. (2014). What millennials want in the workplace (and why you should
start giving it to them). Retrieved from [Link]/sites/robasghar/
2014/01/13/what-millennials-want-in-the-workplace-and-why-you-should-
start-giving-it-to-them.
 Career Challenges 175
Bardoel, E. A., Pettit, T. M., De Cieri, H., & McMillan, L. (2014). Employee
resilience: An emerging challenge for HRM. Asia Pacific Journal of Human
Resources, 52, 279–297.
Bardwick, J. M. (1988). The plateauing trap: How to avoid it in your career
. and your life. New York: AMACOM.
Baruch, Y. (2006). Career development in organizations and beyond:
Balancing traditional and contemporary viewpoints. Human Resource
Management Review, 16, 125–138.
Beehr, T. A. (1995). Psychological stress in the workplace. London: Routledge.
Biron, C., Cooper, C. L., & Gibbs, P. (2012). Stress interventions versus positive
interventions: Apples or oranges? In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship
(pp. 938–950). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blustein, D. L., Kozan, S., & Connors-Kellgren, A. (2013). Unemployment
and underemployment: A narrative analysis. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 82, 256–265.
Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Harris, T. B. (2014). I cannot afford
to have a life: Employee adaptation to feelings of job insecurity. Personnel
Psychology, 67, 877–915.
Brown, R., Duck, J., & Jimmieson, N. (2014). E-mail in the workplace: The
role of stress appraisals and normative response pressure in the relationship
between e-mail stressors and employee strain. International Journal of
Stress Management, 21(4), 325–347.
Bucher, E., Fieseler, C., & Suphan, A. (2013). The stress potential of social
media in the workplace. Information, Communication & Society, 16(10),
1639–1667.
Catalyst (2012a). Catalyst quick take: Working parents. Retrieved from
[Link]/knowledge/working-parents.
Catalyst (2012b). Catalyst quick take: Work–life: Prevalence, utilization, and
benefits. Retrieved from [Link]/knowledge/work–life-prevalence-
utilization.
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W.
(2000). An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among US
managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 65–74.
Caza, B. B. & Milton, L. P. (2012). Resilience at work: Building capability in
the face of adversity. In K. S. Cameron & G. M. Spreitzer (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of positive scholarship (pp. 895–908). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Chao, G. T. (1990). Exploration of the conceptualization and measurement of
career plateau: A comparative analysis. Journal of Management, 16, 181–193.
Cooper, C. L. & Cartwright, S. (1997). An intervention strategy for workplace
stress. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 43(1), 7–16.
Day, A., Paquet, S., Scott, N., & Hambley, L. (2012). Perceived information
and communication technology (ICT) demands on employee outcomes:
176 Career Challenges
The moderating effect of organizational ICT support. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 17(4), 473–491.
DeFrank, R. S. & Cooper, C. L. (1987). Worksite stress management
interventions: Their effectiveness and conceptualization. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 2(1), 4–10.
Eatough, E. M. & Spector, P. E. (2014). The role of workplace control in
positive health and wellbeing. In P. Y. Chen & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Work
and wellbeing: Wellbeing: A complete reference guide, Vol. III (pp. 91–109).
Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. (2005).
Work and family research in IO/OB: Content analysis and review of the
literature (1980–2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 124–187.
Erdogan, B. & Bauer, T. N. (2011). The impact of underemployment on turn-
over and career trajectories. In D. C. Maynard & D. C. Feldman (Eds.),
Underemployment: Psychological, economic, and social challenges
(pp. 215–232). New York: Springer.
Eurofound (2014). Stress and burnout prevalent in the workplace. Retrieved
from [Link]/observatories/eurwork/articles/other-quality-
of-life/stress-and-burnout-prevalent-in-the-workplace.
Feldman, D. C., Leana, C. R., & Bolino, M. C. (2002). Underemployment and
relative deprivation among re-employed executives. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 75, 453–471.
Feldman, D. C. & Weitz, B. A. (1988). Career plateaus reconsidered. Journal
of Management, 14, 69–80.
Friedman, S. D. (2014). Total leadership: Be a better leader, have a richer life.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Frone, M. R. (2003). Work–family balance. In J. C. Quick & L. E. Tetrick
(Eds.), Handbook of occupational health psychology (pp. 143–162).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability: A
psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 65, 14–38.
Giga, S. I., Cooper, C. L., & Faragher, B. (2003). The development of a framework
for a comprehensive approach to stress management interventions at work.
International Journal of Stress Management, 10(4), 280–296.
Gilbreath, B. & Benson, P. G. (2004). The contribution of supervisor behavior
to employee psychological well-being. Work & Stress, 18(3), 255–266.
Gilbreath, B. & Montesino, M. U. (2006). Expanding the HRD role:
Improving employee well-being and organizational performance. Human
Resource Development International, 9, 563–571.
Goodman, C. K. (2014, September 2). Work–life balance is big business. The
Journal-Gazette, 8B.
Gowan, M. A. (2012). Employability, well-being and job satisfaction
following a job loss. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27, 780–798.
 Career Challenges 177
Gowan, M. A. (2014). Moving from job loss to career management: The past,
present, and future of involuntary job loss research. Human Resource
Management Review, 24, 258–270.
Greenhaus, J. H., Callanan, G. A., & Godshalk, V. M. (2010). Career
Management (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2003). The relation between
work–family balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
63, 510–531.
Greenhaus, J. H. & Powell, G. N. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory
of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72–92.
Grzywacz, J. G. & Carlson, D. S. (2007). Conceptualizing work–family
balance: Implications for practice and research. Advances in Developing
Human Resources, 9, 455–471.
Guest, D. E. & Sturges, J. (2007). Living to work—working to live: Concept-
ualizations of careers among contemporary workers. In H. Gunz & M. Peiperl
(Eds.), Handbook of career studies (pp. 310–326). Los Angeles, CA: Sage
Publications.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. & Buckley, M. R. (2004). Burnout in organizational life.
Journal of Management, 30, 859–879.
Hall, D. T., Lee, M. D., Kossek, E. E., & Heras, M. L. (2012). Pursuing career
success while sustaining personal and family well-being: A study of reduced-
load professionals over time. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 742–766.
Hargrove, M. B., Nelson, D. L., & Cooper, C. L. (2013). Generating eustress by
challenging employees: Helping people savor their work. Organizational
Dynamics, 42, 61–69.
Hill, E. J., Grzywacz, J. G., Allen, S., Blanchard, V. L., Matz-Costa, C.,
Shulkin, S., & Pitt-Catsouphes, M. (2008). Defining and conceptualizing
workplace flexibility. Community, Work & Family, 11, 149–163.
Hurrell, J. J., Jr., Nelson, D. L., & Simmons, B. L. (1998). Measuring job
stressors and strains: Where we have been, where we are, and where we
need to go. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(4), 368–389.
Kao, K., Rogers, A., Spitzmueller, C., Lin, M., & Lin, C. (2014). Who should
serve as my mentor? The effects of mentor’s gender and supervisory status
on resilience in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
85, 191–203.
Karasek, R. A., Jr. (1979). Job demands, job discussion latitude, and mental
strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,
285–308.
Konrad, A. M. & Yang, Y. (2012). Is using work–life interface benefits a
career-limiting move? An examination of women, men, lone parents, and
parents with partners. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 1095–1119.
Kossek, E. E., Lewis, S., & Hammer, L. B. (2009). Work–life initiatives and
organizational change: Overcoming mixed messages to move from the
margin to the mainstream. Human Relations, 63, 3–19.
178 Career Challenges
Kossek, E. E. & Ruderman, M. N. (2012). Work–family flexibility and the
employment relationship. In L. M. Shore, J. A-M. Coyle-Shapiro, & L. E.
Tetrick (Eds.), The employee–organization relationship: Applications for
the 21st century (pp. 223–253). New York: Routledge.
Kossek, E. E., Valcour, M., & Lirio, P. (2014). The sustainable workforce:
Organizational strategies for promoting work–life balance and wellbeing. In
P. Y. Chen & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Work and wellbeing: Wellbeing: A complete
reference guide, Vol. III (pp. 295–318). West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Lee, P. C. B. (2003). Going beyond career plateau: Using professional plateau
to account for work outcomes. Journal of Management Development, 22,
538–551.
Lentz, E. & Allen, T. D. (2009). The role of mentoring others in the career
plateauing phenomenon. Group & Organization Management, 34, 358–384.
Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., Park, T., & Mehng, S. A. (2012). Flexible
work practices: A source of career premiums or penalties? Academy of
Management Journal, 55, 1407–1428.
Lewis, S., Gambles, R., & Rapoport, R. (2007). The constraints of a ‘work–
life balance’ approach: An international perspective. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 18, 360–373.
Lindblom, K. M., Linton, S. J., Fedeli, C., & Bryngelsson, I. (2006). Burnout
in the working population: Relations to psychosocial work factors.
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 13, 51–59.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695–706.
Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., & Peterson, S. J. (2010). The
development and resulting performance impact of positive psychology
capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 41–68.
Luthans, F., Vogelgesang, G. R., & Lester, P. B. (2006). Developing the
psychological capital of resiliency. Human Resource Development
Review, 5, 25–44.
Martins, L. I., Eddleston, K. A., & Veiga, J. F. (2002). Moderators of the
relationship between work–family conflict and career satisfaction.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 399–409.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual
Review of Psychology, 52, 397–422.
Maynard, D. C. & Feldman, D. C. (2011). Introduction. In D. C. Maynard &
D. C. Feldman (Eds.), Underemployment: Psychological, economic, and
social challenges (pp. 1–9). New York: Springer.
Mayrhofer, W., Meyer, M., Schiffinger, M., & Schmidt, A. (2007). The
influence of family responsibilities, career fields and gender on career
success. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23, 292–323.
McArdle, S., Waters, L., Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (2007). Employability
during unemployment: Adaptability, career identity and human and social
capital. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 247–264.
 Career Challenges 179
McCleese, C. S., Eby, L. T., Scharlau, E. A., & Hoffman, B. H. (2007). Hierarchical,
job content, and double plateaus: A mixed-method study of stress, depression
and coping responses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 282–299.
McDonald, K. S. & Hite, L. M. (2008). The next generation of career success:
Implications for HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10,
86–103. doi: 10.1177/1523422307310116.
McKee-Ryan, F. M. & Harvey, J. (2011). “I have a job, but .”: A review of
underemployment. Journal of Management, 37, 962–996.
McKee-Ryan, F. M., Virick, M., Prussia, G. E., Harvey, J., & Lilly, J. D.
(2009). Life after the layoff: Getting a job worth keeping. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30, 561–580.
McMillan, H. S., Morris, M. L., & Atchley, E. K. (2011). Constructs of the work/
life interface: A synthesis of the literature and introduction of the concept of
work/life harmony. Human Resource Development Review, 10, 6–25.
McVicar, A. (2003). Workplace stress in nursing: A literature review. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 44(6), 633–642.
Morris, M. L. (2008). Combating workplace stressors: Using work-life initiatives
as an OD intervention. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19, 95–105.
Morris, M. L. (2012). Unleashing human expertise through work/life
initiatives. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23, 427–439.
Morris, M. L., Heames, J. T., & McMillan, H. S. (2011). Human resource
executives’ perceptions and measurement of the strategic impact of work/
life initiatives. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 265–295.
Morris, M. L. & McMillan, H. S. (2014). Guiding HRD research in the work/
life interface: The importance of work/life harmony in the development of
interventions. In N. E. Chalofsky, T. S. Rocco, & M. L. Morris (Eds.),
Handbook of human resource development (pp. 228–245). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Munn, S. L. (2013). Unveiling the work–life system: The influence of work–
life balance on meaningful work. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 15, 401–417.
Munn, S. L. & Lee, H. (2015). An international perspective of the work–life
system within HRD. In R. F. Poell, T. S. Rocco, & G. L. Roth (Eds.), The
Routledge companion to human resource development (pp. 552–561).
London: Routledge.
Nabi, G. R. (2003). Graduate employment and underemployment:
Opportunity for skill use and career experiences amongst recent business
graduates. Education + Training, 45, 371–382.
Ng, E. S. W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, great
expectations: A field study of the millennial generation. Journal of Business
and Psychology, 25, 281–292. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9159-4.
OECD (2013). Work–life balance. Retrieved from [Link].
org/topics/work–life-balance.
180 Career Challenges
Pagnin, D., De Queiroz, V., Filho, M. A. D. O., Gonzalez, N. V. A., Salgado,
A. E. T., Oliveira, B. C., Lodi, C. S., & Melo, M. D. S. (2013). Burnout and
career choice motivation in medical students. Medical Teacher, 35, 388–394.
Pines, A. M. (2000). Treating career burnout: A psychodynamic existential
perspective. JCLP/In Session: Psychotherapy in Practice, 56, 633–642.
Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge
stressor-hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover
intentions, turnover, and withdrawal behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 92, 438–454.
Powell, G. N., Francesco, A. M. & Ling, Y. (2009). Toward culture-sensitive
theories of the work–family interface. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
30, 597–616.
Purcell, C., Lewis, S., Smithson, J. & Caton, S. (2008). Work–life balance,
best practices and healthy organisations: A European perspective. In R. J.
Burke & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Building more effective organizations: HR
management and performance in practice (pp. 228–251). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Quick, J. C., Bennett, J., & Hargrove, M. B. (2014). Stress, health, and wellbeing
in practice. In P. Y. Chen & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Work and wellbeing:
Wellbeing: A complete reference guide, Vol. III (pp. 175–203). Oxford: John
Wiley & Sons.
Rotondo, D. M. & Perrewe, P. L. (2000). Coping with a career plateau: An
empirical examination of what works and what doesn’t. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 30, 2622–2646.
Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & King, S. N. (2002). Benefits of
multiple roles for managerial women. Academy of Management Journal,
45, 369–386.
Schuler, R. S. (1980). Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 184–215.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2011, April). Building resilience. Harvard Business
Review, 100–106.
Selye, H. (1974) Stress without distress. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams &
Wilkins.
Shapiro, M., Ingols, C., O’Neill, R., & Blake-Beard, S. (2009). Making sense
of women as career self-agents: Implications for human resource
development. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20, 477–501.
Spector, P. E. (2002). Employee control and occupational stress. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 11(4), 133–136.
Sullivan, S. E. & Mainiero, L. A. (2007). Benchmarking ideas for fostering
family-friendly workplaces. Organizational Dynamics, 36, 45–62.
Swody, C. A. & Powell, G. N. (2007). Determinants of employee participation
in organizations’ family-friendly programs: A multi-level approach.
Journal of Business Psychology, 22, 111–122.
Tepper, B. J. (2000). Consequences of abusive supervision. Academy of
Management Journal, 43(2), 178–190.
 Career Challenges 181
Tomlinson, J. & Durbin, S. (2010). Female part-time managers: Work–life
balance, aspirations and career mobility. Equality, Diversity and
Inclusion: An International Journal, 29, 255–270.
Tucker, M. K., Jimmieson, N. L. & Oei, T. P. (2013). The relevance of shared
experiences: A multi-level study of collective efficacy as a moderator of job
control in the stressor–strain relationship. Work & Stress, 27(1), 1–21.
Veiga, J. F., Baldridge, D. C., & Eddleston, K. A. (2004). Toward
understanding employee reluctance to participate in family-friendly
programs. Human Resource Management Review, 14, 337–351.
Youssef, C. M. & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the
workplace: The impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of
Management, 33, 774–800.
Zikic, J. & Klehe, U. (2006). Job loss as a blessing in disguise: The role of
career exploration and career planning in predicting reemployment quality.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 391–409.
8 Ethical Considerations and
Conclusions

It is curious—curious that physical courage should be so common in

the world, and moral courage so rare.
Mark Twain
There is no such thing as a minor lapse of integrity.
Tom Peters

This book would not be complete without a discussion of ethical issues

related to career development. However, since our focus has been on
career development (CD) as it occurs primarily within organizations,
the treatment of ethics is complicated. Practitioners need to be aware of
potential issues that can arise working one-on-one with employees, but
they also can play an important role in shaping the ethical climate of the
organization. We will briefly discuss the former—relying on literature
from career counseling, mentoring, and coaching that describe common
dilemmas. Then we will explore the impact that the organizational
climate can have on ethics in career development. The second half of
this chapter will provide some concluding thoughts (themes) on career
development that must be considered when helping individuals grow
and develop their careers.

Ethical Issues Facing Practitioners

According to Abele, Volmer, & Spurk (2012), unethical behavior is
“the injury of employees’ rights of balance, respect, responsibility,
autonomy, participation, justice, and voice” (p. 108). Therefore, practi-
tioners working with individuals to develop their careers should strive
to respect these rights when providing guidance or designing and
implementing initiatives or interventions, and in assessing the impact
of these efforts. While this may appear to be fairly straightforward and
 Ethical Considerations and Conclusions 183
simple to do, often it is not. Career development practitioners must
begin by examining their own values, assumptions and biases. Niles
and Harris-Bowlsbey (2013) wrote:

value issues permeate the career development intervention process.

Any intervention in the lifespace or lifestyle of people carries with
it values implications. . The need for practitioners to clearly
understand their own values represents an essential starting point
for career service delivery and is an ethical issue within career
services. Because value-free career interventions do not exist,
career practitioners must be cognizant of how their personal values
influence their work with clients
(p. 470)

Beyond understanding oneself, practitioners need to be cognizant of

the types of dilemmas they may encounter. This can help them identify
potential problems early on and proactively work to resolve them.
Several bodies of literature have addressed ethical issues as they pertain
to certain initiatives designed to help individual employees develop their
careers. Specifically the career counseling, coaching, and mentoring
literature identifies potential dilemmas that practitioners may face. The
most common include:

 Confidentiality: whether helping an individual deal with a career

transition, career stagnation, work–life conflict or a number of
other career-related issues, it is important that the human resource
practitioner respect the confidential nature of the relationship estab-
lished with the employee. Often this becomes a dilemma when
someone else in the organization (e.g., the employee’s supervisor)
wants information regarding the employee’s progress regarding the
issue at hand. Clearly letting both parties (in this case the employee
and the supervisor) know what you will divulge up front can alle-
viate this issue. Another recommendation is to encourage the
employee to discuss his/her progress with the supervisor (Brennan
& Wildflower, 2014). This is just one example of how confiden-
tiality plays a role in career development.
 Conflicts of interest: there is always the potential for competing
interests to occur between the employee or client and the career
development practitioner or any person charged with helping the
employee. This can occur, for example, when an employee with a
strong performance record begins to inquire about career advance-
ment opportunities and the supervisor, fearing she may lose a valued
184 Ethical Considerations and Conclusions
employee, ignores or delays providing any information. The super-
visor should disclose her interest in retaining this employee and then
proceed to assist the individual in advancing his/her career.
 Competence: career development practitioners need to be aware of
their competencies and what they should not take on due to lack of
knowledge, skill, or training. For example, most HRD practitioners
have not been trained to do career counseling and may best serve
employees by contracting this service. There are many individuals
who potentially can offer career services to individuals. HRD practi-
tioners, career counselors, and coaches (e.g., management, executive,
career, and life) are just a few of the types of professionals who may
consider themselves experts in career development. The potential
problem is that, with the exception of career counseling, there is no
standard certification or training that individuals must undertake
before practicing career development (Chung & Gfroerer, 2003;
Krishna, 2014). Gottfredson (2005) characterized staffing in the
career development field as “where unqualified or quasi-qualified
practitioners are spreading like weeds in a corn field” (p. 311) and
recommended that those who oversee career development services
have both training and experience in industrial–organizational and
vocational psychology. Most ethical standards or codes mention the
importance of competence, including the Academy of Human
Resource Development Standards on Ethics and Integrity (Russ-Eft,
2014). Some codes provide specifics as to what competence entails.
For example, the American Counseling Association’s (ACA) (2014)
includes information regarding qualifications for being employed as
a counselor, monitoring effectiveness, responsibilities for continu-
ing education, handling impairment, etc. However, many codes of
ethics simply emphasize the importance of knowing the boundaries
of one’s competence. In other words, they are primarily aspirational
reminders and will not necessarily prevent incompetence.
 Power differentials: typically there is an unequal balance of power in
most career development relationships. Whether it is a supervisor,
mentor, coach, or counselor providing career development guidance,
the relationship will typically be characterized as one of unequal
power. This power differential can become even more problematic
in cross-gender, cross-race, or cross-cultural relationships (McDo-
nald & Hite, 2005; Toporek, Kwan, & Williams, 2012). Regarding
cross-cultural relationships, Niles and Harris-Bowlsbey (2013) wrote
that “a career practitioner adhering to European–American career
intervention models steeped in individual action runs the risk of
violating clients’ values when those values reflect a collectivistic
 Ethical Considerations and Conclusions 185
orientation” (p. 471). The ethical consequences of this imbalance are
most apparent when the power is abused, resulting in a dysfunctional
relationship. A dysfunctional relationship can occur due to a variety
of issues such as sabotage, harassment, deceit, intentional exclusion
(e.g., information, access), or imposing one’s value system on a
client (Eby & Allen, 2002; Niles & Harris-Bowlsbey, 2013).

To avoid and effectively resolve these potential dilemmas, individual

practitioners need to become knowledgeable and skilled in career
development theory and practice (Niles & Harris-Bowlsbey, 2013).
Unfortunately there are too many individuals providing career services
without career development training. There are degree programs as well
as certification programs available that will provide the prerequisite
knowledge and skills needed to practice career development. There are
a number of codes of ethics that address career development issues and
can provide guidance as well. For example, the ACA code of ethics offers
principles that can be helpful to any career development practitioner—
even those not providing career counseling. These principles are:

 autonomy, or fostering the right to control the direction of one’s life;

 nonmaleficence, or avoiding actions that cause harm;
 beneficence, or working for the good of the individual and society
by promoting mental health and well-being;
 justice, or treating individuals equitably and fostering fairness and
equality;
 fidelity, or honoring commitments and keeping promises, including
fulfilling one’s responsibilities of trust in professional relationships;
and
 veracity, or dealing truthfully with individuals with whom career
development professionals come into contact (ACA, 2014, p. 3).
Other sources of codes of ethics are included in Table 8.1.

Ethical Career Climate

As we have mentioned in other chapters, the organizational culture can
have an important impact on how career development is implemented. It
also can have a profound effect on whether it is implemented and managed
in an ethical manner. Increasingly, the ethics involved in career develop-
ment have become more pronounced, as Adams (2006) explained:

As organizational changes accelerate, new situations with un-

certain ethical overtones require action: downsizing, outsourcing,
186 Ethical Considerations and Conclusions
Table 8.1 Codes of Ethics Relevant to Career Development
Codes of Ethics

Academy of Human Resource Development (AHRD) Standards on Ethics and

Integrity
Academy of Management (AOM) Code of Ethics
American Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics
American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical Principles of
Psychologists and Code of Conduct
British Columbia Career Development Association (BCCDA) Code of Ethics
Career Development Association of New Zealand (CDANZ) Code of Ethics
and Professional Conduct for Career Practitioners
Career Industry Council of Australia, Inc., Professional Standards for
Australian Career Development Practitioners
Career Professionals of Canada (CPC) Standards and Ethics
Global Career Development Facilitator (GCDF) Code of Ethics
Indian Career Education and Development Council (ICEDC) Code of Ethics
International Association of Educational and Vocational Guidance (IAEVG)
Ethical Standards
National Board for Certified Counselors (NBCC) Code of Ethics
National Career Development Association (NCDA) Code of Ethics
Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) Code of Ethical and
Professional Standards in Human Resource Management

employability replacing career ladders, use of contingent workers,

technological changes, and the increasingly global nature of
competition. These changes impact careers at all organizational
levels and present new challenges to those trying to balance their
own career development and the needs of the organizations that
employ them. The changing nature of workers’ psychological
contracts introduces new tensions between individual career
considerations and obligations to employers.
(p. 299)

There are a number of ways in which the corporate culture can

perpetuate unethical practices affecting individuals’ careers. We will
focus on three: career success, career inequalities, and the changing
career landscape.

Organizational Culture and Career Success

The culture of an organization can influence individual career success.
For example, a culture with a strong emphasis on objective indicators
of success (e.g., pay, promotions) may result in an environment
 Ethical Considerations and Conclusions 187
characterized by competition, workaholism, and impression manage-
ment as individuals vie to get ahead. As Callanan (2003) explained:

This narrow view of success leads to career goals and strategies that
can be inconsistent with personal values and beliefs. Further, many
highly successful managers and executives can experience feelings
of personal failure, reflecting regret over having sacrificed family
relationships and other affiliations in the ambitious pursuit of the
objective form of career success.
(p. 131)

A culture that treats its employees as disposable commodities or

engages in other questionable activities may find workers conforming
as a way to maintain employment. Those who choose not to remain
silent or question authority may end up plateaued or looking for a job
(Callanan, 2003). Another potential response to an inhospitable career
culture is increased problematic behavior on the part of employees.
Vardi and Kim (2007), in their framework of organizational misbehav-
ior management (OMB), suggested that employees may respond with a
number of misbehaviors including:

 intrapersonal (e.g., workaholism)

 interpersonal (e.g., violence, bullying, harassment)
 production (e.g., social loafing)
 property (e.g., theft, vandalism)
 political (e.g., favoritism).

In turn, these misbehaviors are likely to result in both financial and

social costs and can negatively affect both individuals’ careers and
organizations.

Organizational Culture and Career Inequalities

Van Buren (2003) categorized most workforces in industrialized soci-
eties as being “two-tiered.” The top tier is a relatively small group of
employees with skills that are in demand and enable them to “receive
fair treatment from employers.” The second tier is a large group of
workers “whose skills are fungible and easily replaced” (p. 134).
Unfortunately, organizations often ignore the career needs of this
second tier of employees and often these are individuals from under-
represented and/or socially marginalized groups. In Chapter 6 we
discuss how these inequalities manifest as differential treatment in
188 Ethical Considerations and Conclusions
terms of selection and evaluation, and accessibility and access to oppor-
tunities, and ultimately influence career success.
There is increasing recognition that the gap between the haves and
the have-nots is widening. According to the OECD:

The gap between rich and poor is at its highest level in most OECD
countries in 30 years. Today the richest 10% of the population in
the OECD area earn 9.5 times more than the poorest 10%. By
contrast, in the 1980s the ratio stood at 7:1.
(OECD, 2014, p. 1)

Organizations often through their culture, policies, and practices

perpetuate and exacerbate this gap. While income is only one indicator
of career success, it is important and has important implications for
employees’ lives beyond the workplace. Organizations have an
ethical responsibility to consider these inequalities and act to minimize
them.

Organizational Culture and the Changing Career Landscape

Newer career approaches such as the boundaryless career are based on
a transactional contract rather than a relational one (Callanan, 2003;
Van Buren, 2003). Whereas a relational contract is typically long term,
involving commitment and loyalty in exchange for job security, workers
in a transactional contract are likely to have less stable jobs and lower
levels of commitment to their employers.
Van Buren (2003) argued that particularly the boundaryless career
pattern is fraught with fairness issues. For example, second-tiered
employees who have replaceable skills are likely to suffer most since
they will be in a weaker bargaining position than first-tiered employees.
In most situations, the majority of risk is transferred to employees since
employers can reduce costs under these arrangements, yet employees
must absorb the costs associated with more frequent job transitions. He
concluded that employers have an ethical obligation to ensure the
employability of workers, which can be accomplished by investing in
employees’ skill development. He wrote:

By ensuring the continued employability of individual workers,

employers will be acting in ways that ensure individual and
collective well-being. The ability of employers to structure as
they see fit the terms of exchange agreements with employees must
therefore be tempered by considerations of justice and benevo-
lence. In the absence of justice and benevolence, it is likely that
 Ethical Considerations and Conclusions 189
employers will seek to shift responsibility for employee skill
enhancement to employees—with deleterious effects on employers,
employees, and society.
(p. 144)

Recommendations
These cultural issues are not easily changed. As we have previously
discussed, often these dilemmas have existed so long that they may be
deeply ingrained in the organization. Developing awareness may be the
first step in recognizing that an organizational culture is not conducive
for ethical career development. Practitioners who have responsibilities
for career development must begin by:

 examining how the organization views and promotes career success.

Does it focus primarily on objective indicators of success (e.g., salary
and promotions)? How are individuals rewarded and how might these
reward structures foster misbehavior or unethical behavior?
 reviewing policies and practices regarding career development oppor-
tunities. Do under-represented and marginalized groups have access to
career development activities that can lead to better career opportuni-
ties? Are they encouraged to engage in career development? A number
of considerations to address inequalities are provided in Chapter 6.
 analyzing employment practices such as the retention of employees,
employee engagement, and the use of contract and/or temporary
workers. Are there trends to indicate that a transactional contract
exists between employees and the organization? What is being
done within the organization to ensure the employability of workers?

Conclusions
Throughout this book a number of re-occurring themes about careers
have been introduced that are important to reinforce. We believe that
they serve as important reminders of how careers are evolving and,
therefore, have valuable implications for all practitioners whose
responsibilities include career development for individuals.

Technology Impacts Careers

The ways in which technology has changed our lives and the pace in
which these changes have occurred is often difficult to comprehend.
Technological advances have resulted in jobs being created as well as
being eliminated. Technology has changed how we work, when we
190 Ethical Considerations and Conclusions
work, and with whom we work. The skills we need to develop successful
careers in a technology-driven age are different from the skills needed by
our ancestors. Conceição and Thomas (2015) wrote: “Problem solving,
knowledge management, development of creative solutions, information
technology management and collaboration are all essential skills to keep
up with the demands of a digital workplace” (p. 612).
Technology can assist individuals developing their careers and
organizations implementing career development initiatives. Tracking
systems for talent management, on-line training, virtual job fairs, and
webcasts are just a few ways in which technology can assist in making
career opportunities easily accessible to employees (Conceição &
Thomas, 2015). However, Cascio (2007) pointed out that, “while tech-
nology frees people to work anytime, anywhere, it also shackles them as
never before” (p. 553). Having the tools to stay connected with work at
all times can result in work–life conflict and job stress. Organizations,
through their managers and human resource (HR) practitioners, must
assist employees in setting boundaries and creating a culture where
“healthy work practices” are the norm (Kossek, Valcour, & Lirio, 2014).

Leadership is Essential in Effective Career Development

Top management and supervisors are important influences in how
career development is enacted in organizations. Leadership at the
executive level is important in fostering a culture that promotes
employees’ career growth. Specifically, a culture that is inclusive,
ethical, and learning oriented needs to be promoted if career develop-
ment efforts are to be effective. A “positive career development
culture” can result in more engaged and productive employees, equal
opportunity for all employees, and forecasting and planning of future
talent needs, including succession plans (Conger, 2002).
Employees’ immediate supervisors may be the most important link in
individual career development. Research clearly suggests that super-
visors play a key role in promoting career development, providing
access to career development, removing obstacles to career develop-
ment, and serving as career developers. According to McGuire and
Kissack (2015), line managers increasingly are taking on a number of
roles often considered to be HR tasks, including:

 workforce planning, including scouting for talent

 coaching
 mentoring
 fostering a learning climate
 Ethical Considerations and Conclusions 191
 career planning
 operational training (pp. 525–527).

These roles add to managers’ already heavy workloads, and many

have received little or no training in how to effectively undertake these
tasks (McGuire & Kissack, 2015; Renwick & MacNeil, 2002). Addi-
tional concerns may come from HR functions within the organization
that may perceive supervisors as encroaching on their territory and
making their work redundant (Renwick & MacNeil, 2002). These
concerns point to the importance of developing a learning culture
that embraces and supports employees, HR, and management’s role
in career development. HRD needs to partner with supervisors by
providing training, resources, and encouragement to managers so that
they can effectively do their part to help with career development
efforts. Additionally, supervisors need to be rewarded for their contri-
butions in developing employees’ careers (McGuire & Kissack, 2015).

Career Development Cannot Be a “One-Size-Fits-All” Endeavor

A multitude of contextual factors and individual differences must be
considered when planning and implementing career development. In
Chapter 3 various contextual factors—both external to the organization
and internal—are described as influencing a career development strategy.
Additional individual differences—including traits and skills, demo-
graphic characteristics, and employment status—need to be considered
in planning for career development. Employment status alone might
include a variety of employment arrangements (e.g., part time, full
time, contingent, temporary) as well as types or categories of workers
(e.g., blue collar, exempt, non-exempt, professional, managerial, clerical,
skilled, semi-skilled). Organizations will vary in what they need and
hope to accomplish through career development efforts, just as individual
employees will differ in their career development needs and goals.
In the past we have advocated for organizations to be “agile and
creative” in how they approach and implement career development
initiatives (McDonald & Hite, 2014). Developing a “continuous learning
climate” (Park & Rothwell, 2009, p. 401) and preparing managers to take
on career development roles are two ways to begin developing a career
development strategy to meet the needs of the organization and its
employees. Managers, working in collaboration with HR, are in a posi-
tion to better understand their direct reports’ career needs and advocate
for customized career development efforts. In addition, employees need
to be socialized to take control of their careers, which should involve
192 Ethical Considerations and Conclusions
taking the initiative to seek out the support and opportunities that they
need to achieve their specific career goals.

The Boundaries Between Work and Other Aspects of

Life Have Become Blurred
There are a number of reasons for the interdependencies between work
and life outside of work. More diversity in the workplace (e.g., dual-
earner partners, single parents, women’s participation), technology, and
flexible work arrangements are just three reasons why these boundaries
are becoming blurred. In response to this phenomenon, scholars are
suggesting new perspectives on careers. For example, Greenhaus and
Kossek (2014) have proposed a work–home perspective that “explicitly
recognizes the interdependencies between individuals’ work and home
domains” (p. 363) (“home” includes various non-work roles and
settings). They argued that the work–home perspective is different
from work–life conflict or work–life enrichment in that these interde-
pendencies do not necessarily result in negative or positive outcomes.
A work–home perspective would focus on individuals’ priorities
regarding these domains, “the permeability of the boundaries they
construct around the domains ., and the way in which they define
success in each domain” (Greenhaus & Kossek, 2014, p. 364).
Another new perspective that recognizes the intersection between
work and other aspects of life is the sustainable career. According to
Newman (2011), sustainability suggests “preserving and enhancing
human capital” and “restoring and maintaining balance” (p. 138). She
indicated there are three aspects of a sustainable career: opportunities
for renewal, careers that are flexible and adaptable, and an integration
“across life spheres and experiences that lead to wholeness, complete-
ness, and meaning” (p. 138). Kossek, Valcour, & Lirio (2014) defined a
sustainable career as one that offers enough security to handle
economic needs, provides a fit between career and life values, affords
“flexibility and capability of evolving to satisfy individuals’ changing
needs and interests,” and offers renewal so that individuals can rejuve-
nate (p. 309). Both Newman (2011) and Kossek et al. (2014) offered a
number of recommendations for organizations to promote sustainable
careers such as leave control (e.g., sabbaticals, part-time work),
reducing work intensification (e.g., job redesign, realistic deadlines),
and social support at work (e.g., cross-training).
The work–home perspective and the sustainable career overlap
considerably in their focus, Greenhaus and Kossek (2014) pointed to
the sustainable career as a major influence in their conception of the
 Ethical Considerations and Conclusions 193
work–home perspective. Both clearly address the blurring boundaries
between work and life outside of work. However, to date little research
has been done to determine what is needed to support a work–home
perspective or a sustainable career (Greenhaus & Kossek, 2014). It
may involve some radical changes in how organizations and societies
organize work. One of our concerns is that these perspectives may
help employees in professional, technical, and managerial positions,
but organizations may choose not to consider supporting a work–
home perspective or a sustainable career for those employees consid-
ered as “second-tiered” workers.

A Social Justice Perspective is Needed in CD

Careers are important to us. Blustein (2008) eloquently described the
meaning of work when he wrote: “work is a central aspect of life; indeed,
the struggle to earn one’s livelihood represents perhaps the most consis-
tent and profound way in which individuals interface with their social,
economic, and political contexts” (p. 237). Yet, while our work is impor-
tant to us, Blustein and colleagues previously had noted that: “Indeed, the
world of work . represents life contexts in which the harsh reality of
social inequities and injustices is perhaps most evident” (Blustein,
McWhirter, & Perry, 2005, p. 142). We have attempted to describe this
challenging reality, particularly in demonstrating the restricted access,
inadequate inclusion, and the underutilization of under-represented popu-
lations in organizations (Fassinger, 2008).
The notion of social justice is not new for the discipline of vocational
guidance and counseling. Pope, Briddick, & Wilson (2013) traced the
roots of career counseling to the progressive social reform movement in
the late 1890s and early 1900s. Frank Parsons, commonly considered the
founder of the vocational guidance movement, had a strong commitment
to social justice issues and was involved in various social justice organ-
izations (Pope et al., 2013). However, for many practitioners (e.g.,
human resource development (HRD) and HRM practitioners), particu-
larly those who work within for-profit organizations, social justice is
rarely discussed and even less likely to be acted upon. Byrd (2014) wrote:
“In the field of HRD, a paradigm shift toward social justice means not
only taking an active stance against social oppression through research
and practice, but assuming a moral responsibility in our professional
communities; it means enacting moral agency” (p. 292).
A social justice perspective suggests that systems that perpetuate
inequalities in career development and that disempower individuals
need to be changed or demolished. Throughout this book we have
194 Ethical Considerations and Conclusions
discussed various ways in which organizations can create more
inclusive cultures that promote equity in career development oppor-
tunities for all employees, that consider perceptions of fairness when
making career development decisions, and that have policies and
practices that help all employees handle challenges that they are likely
to face periodically throughout their careers. HRD practitioners can
serve as both advocates for a fair and just organization and as educators
working to instill “critical consciousness” among the “powerful and
privileged” (Blustein et al., 2005, p. 167).
Beyond organizational change, societal change is also important to
achieve fairness and equality. Both Blustein (2008) and Fassinger
(2008) advocated for public policies to address the needs of marginal-
ized groups. Blustein indicated that, because work is so central to
individuals’ psychological well-being, public policies that help those
recovering from a serious mental illness, policies that support occupa-
tional health psychology, and policies that address racism still need to
be crafted and implemented.

Summary
Career development practitioners must consider the ethical issues
involved in helping individuals develop their careers. This chapter
focused on some common ethical dilemmas that practitioners may face:
confidentiality issues, questions of competence, potential conflicts of
interests, and power differentials that often exist in career development
relationships. The importance of an ethical career climate was high-
lighted as well. The organizational culture impacts this climate in a
variety of ways. One is through the signals that are sent about what
constitutes career success and how it is achieved. Additional ethical
implications arise when an organization perpetuates career inequalities
and when an organization embraces a transactional rather than relational
employment arrangement for its employees.
We conclude this final chapter with five important themes that are
suggested in current career literature. These themes attempt to describe
today’s career landscape and to inspire practitioners to consider their roles
in shaping the future of careers. HR is well positioned to take the lead in
creating the new era of career development. There is much work to be done!

References
Abele, A. E., Volmer, J., & Spurk, D. (2012). Career stagnation: Underlying
dilemmas and solutions in contemporary work environments. In N. P. Reilly,
 Ethical Considerations and Conclusions 195
M. J. Sirgy, & C. A. Gorman (Eds.), Work and quality of life: Ethical
practices in organizations (pp. 107–132). New York: Springer.
Adams, J. S. (2006). Ethics and careers. In J. H. Greenhaus & G. A. Callanan
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Career Development (pp. 298–302). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
American Counseling Association (ACA) (2014). Code of ethics. Retrieved
from [Link]/knowledge-center/ethics.
Blustein, D. L. (2008). The role of work in psychological health and well-
being. American Psychologist, 63, 228–240.
Blustein, D. L., McWhirter, E. H., & Perry, J. C. (2005). An emancipatory
communitarian approach to vocational development theory, research, and
practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 141–179.
Brennan, D. & Wildflower, L. (2014). Ethics in coaching. In E. Cox,
T. Bachkirova, & D. A. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of
coaching (2nd edn.) (pp. 430–444). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Byrd, M. Y. (2014). A social justice paradigm for HRD: Philosophical and
theoretical foundations. In N. E. Chalofsky, T. S. Rocco, & M. L. Morris
(Eds.), Handbook of human resource development (pp. 281–298).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Callanan, G. A. (2003). What price career success? Career Development
International, 8, 126–133.
Cascio, W. F. (2007). Trends, paradoxes, and some directions for research
in career studies. In H. Gunz & M. Peiperl. (Eds.), Handbook of career
studies (pp. 549–557). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Chung, Y. B. & Gfoerer, M. C. A. (2003). Career coaching: Practice, training,
professional, and ethical issues. The Career Development Quarterly, 52,
141–152.
Conceição, S. C. O. & Thomas, K. J. (2015). Virtual HRD (VHRD). In R. F.
Poell, T. S. Rocco, & G. L. Roth (Eds.), The Routledge companion to
human resource development (pp. 606–615). London: Routledge.
Conger, S. (2002). Fostering a career development culture: Reflections on the
roles of managers, employees and supervisors. Career Development
International, 7, 371–375.
Eby, L. T. & Allen, T. D. (2002). Further investigation of proteges’ negative
mentoring experiences. Group & Organization Management, 27, 456–479.
Fassinger, R. E. (2008). Workplace diversity and public policy. American
Psychologist, 63, 252–268.
Gottfredson, G. D. (2005). Career development in organizations. In W. B.
Walsh & M. L. Savickas (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology
(3rd edn.) (pp. 297–318). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Greenhaus, J. H. & Kossek, E. E. (2014). A contemporary career: A work–home
perspective. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology, 1, 361–388.
Kossek, E. E., Valcour, M., & Lirio, P. (2014). The sustainable workforce:
Organizational strategies for promoting work–life balance and wellbeing. In
P. Y. Chen & G. L. Cooper (Eds.), Work and wellbeing: Wellbeing: A
196 Ethical Considerations and Conclusions
complete reference guide, volume III (pp. 295–318). Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons.
Krishna, V. (2014). Certification of HRD professionals. In N. E. Chalofsky,
T. S. Rocco, & M. L. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of human resource
development (pp. 661–672). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
McDonald, K. S. & Hite, L. M. (2005). Ethical issues in mentoring: The role
of HRD. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7, 569–582.
McDonald, K. S. & Hite, L. M. (2014). Contemporary career literature and
HRD. In N. E. Chalofsky, T. S. Rocco, & M. L. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of
human resource development (pp. 353–368). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
McGuire, D. & Kissack, H. C. (2015). Line managers and HRD. In R. F. Poell,
T. S. Rocco, & G. L. Roth (Eds.), The Routledge companion to human
resource development (pp. 521–530). London: Routledge.
Newman, K. L. (2011). Sustainable careers: Lifecycle engagement in work.
Organizational Dynamics, 40, 136–143.
Niles, S. G. & Harris-Bowlsbey, J. (2013). Career development interventions
in the 21st century (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
OECD (2014, December). Focus on inequality and growth. Retrieved from
[Link]/social/[Link].
Park, Y. & Rothwell, W. J. (2009). The effects of organizational learning
climate, career-enhancing strategy, and work orientation on the protean
career. Human Resource Development International, 12, 387–405.
Pope, M., Briddick, W. C., & Wilson, F. (2013). The historical importance of
social justice in the founding of the National Career Development
Association. The Career Development Quarterly, 61, 368–373.
Renwick, D. & MacNeil, C. M. (2002). Line manager involvement in careers.
Career Development International, 7, 407–414.
Russ-Eft, D. (2014). Morality and ethics in HRD. In N. E. Chalofsky,
T. S. Rocco, & M. L. Morris (Eds.), Handbook of human resource
development (pp. 510–525). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Toporek, R. L., Kwan, K. K., & Williams, R. A. (2012). Ethics and social
justice in counseling psychology. In N. A. Fouad (Ed.), APA handbook of
counseling psychology: Vol. 2. Practice, interventions, and applications
(pp. 305–332). Washington, DC: The American Psychological Association.
Van Buren III, H. J. (2003). Boundaryless careers and employability obligations.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 131–149.
Vardi, Y. & Kim, S. H. (2007). Considering the darker side of careers: Toward
a more balanced perspective. In H. Gunz & M. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of
career studies (pp. 502–511). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Index

adaptability 22, 56–9, 61, 85, 105, (PE) fit 100–3, 107, 109 112,
114 155–6; RIASEC 7, 101–3;
Arthur, M.B. 3, 8, 17, 22, 23, 25 Social Cognitive Career Theory
(SCCT) 106–8, 112; Systems
boundaryless career 8, 15, 17–18, Theory Framework (STF)
21–2, 136, 187 111–12, 114; Theory of
Briscoe, J.P. 16, 18, 21–2 circumscription and compromise
burnout 156–8 105–6
career development: competencies
career: barriers 50–2, 56, 107, 124–5, 10–11; contextual influences
129–31, 134–44; challenges 28, 39–40; 44, 61, 111; definition of
50, 151, 172–3, 185; competencies 3–4; external factors 125, 135;
10, 25–6, 29–31, 92–3, 115, 117– framework 38–9; implementation
18; culture 39, 43, 124; definition 68, 99; history 4–6; initiatives
of 2–3, 109, 191; emerging 40; 69–70; 80; 82–4; 88–9; 93;
extinct 40; history 2, 4–7; identity 115–17; 140–1; 144; models 5, 26,
2, 28–31, 59; inequities 77, 128, 49, 105, 107, 154; planning 39,
192; landscape 7–8, 85, 187–8; 42, 47, 61, 68, 170–1; programs
maturity 6, 105; meaningfulness of 12, 39, 45–6, 49, 61; strategy 4,
1–2; organizational 15, 18–19, 21, 43–4, 47, 123, 190; systems 37–8,
31, 43; paths 43, 48, 89–90, 92, 46, 49, 54
160; plateau 157–61, 172; career success: 22–5, 29, 30, 31, 55–6,
psychology 99–100, 112–13; 164, 167; ethics and 185–7;
resiliency 56–7, 172–3; objective 23, 30, 60–1, 75, 76, 84;
self-management 55–6, 114–16, subjective 22, 23, 30, 52, 60–1, 75
118–19, 60–1, 190; testing 6, 102, Catalyst 161
112; theories 7, 10, 100–12; coaching 70, 77–80, 81, 182
transitions 22, 26–31, 170 contested terrain 9, 37, 113, 115
career counseling: chaos 111, 113; counseling psychology 9, 107
constructivist 108–14, 117;
Minnesota Theory of Work developmental psychology 172
Adjustment (TWA) 103; narrative diverse workforce 7, 44, 72–3, 107,
30, 110, 117; person–environment 113, 124–5, 134–5
198 Index
economy 7, 41, 61 Mainiero, L. 19–20, 157
employability 9, 56, 61, 87, 90, mentoring 46–8, 70–4, 80–2, 132–3,
169–70; definition of 59 142–3, 145, 173
engagement 12, 61–2, 157, 167, 188
ethics: codes of 183–5; competence National Career Development
73, 183; confidentiality 73, 116, Association (NCDA) 10, 118, 185
182; conflicts of interests 182; Networking 24, 46, 48, 73–7, 132,
ethical career climate 184–5; 145
power differentials 183–4
occupational disidentification 137–8
fairness 53–4, 139–40; 143 organizational career 15, 18–19, 21, 31
organizational culture 42, 124–8,
glass ceiling 54, 129–30 172, 184–8
glass cliff 129–30, 145 Organization for Economic
glass wall 129 Cooperation and Development
(OECD) 7, 161, 187
Hall, D.T. 1–2, 8, 15–16
Holland, J. 7, 28–30, 101–02 Parsons, Frank 5, 100, 192
human resources 9, 99–100, 108, performance appraisals 46, 89–93
112–18, 143 policies 27, 51, 53–4, 61, 115–16,
human resource development (HRD) 134–5, 142, 156, 165–6, 168, 188
2, 8–12, 20, 21, 26–31, 68–72, practices 39, 45–53, 61, 134–5, 155,
82–4, 160–1, 166, 183, 192–3 156, 165–8, 188–9
prejudice 126–9, 138, 140
idiosyncratic deals (IDEALS) 54–55 proactive personality 18, 84, 172
inadequate employment 151, 168–70, protean career 8, 15–17, 21, 89
172 psychological contract 8, 37, 185
inclusive work environment 51, 61
informal learning 69, 82, 85, 87–8, resiliency 56–7, 61, 169–70, 172–3
90 reward systems/structure 51, 53, 82,
institutional biases 134–5, 140 156, 188
Rousseau, D.M. 8, 17, 54–5
job assignments 48, 69, 82, 85–7
job control 154 Savickas, M.L. 9, 57–8, 109–10, 114
job loss 7, 26–7, 168–70 social justice 192
job stress 151–6, 161, 164, 172, 184; STEM careers 143
interventions 154–6 stereotyping 130, 140
structural integration 128–31, 141
kaleidoscope career 15, 19–21, 31 succession planning 46–9, 92–3
Sullivan, S.E. 17, 19–20, 49, 51, 157
leadership 92–3, 127–33, 163, Super, D. 6, 104–6, 114
189–90 supervisory support 24, 51–3, 60–1
learning organization 53 support mechanisms 39, 45, 50–5, 61
 Index 199
talent retention 60–1, 89, 142, 188 vocational guidance 4–5, 192
technology 30–1, 61, 144, 153–4, vocational psychology 9, 183
188–9
training 8, 46–8, 58, 82–5, 141, work–life issues 21, 53, 161–2,
156, 173 166–8, 172: balance 162, 164,
168; conflict 161–5, 191;
underemployment 168, 170–1 enrichment 162–3, 168,
under-represented groups 51, 54, 191; harmony 163;
124–5, 130–9 initiatives 51, 54, 61,
unemployment 170–2 164–8, 173