Organizational Career Development Is Not Dead - Case Study Method PDF

Journal of Organizational Behavior
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 771–792 (2007)

Published online 12 April 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.446
Organizational career development is not

dead: a case study on managing the new
career during organizational change
MARJOLEIN LIPS-WIERSMA1* AND DOUGLAS T. HALL2
1
Department of Management, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
2
School of Management and Organizational Behavior, Boston University, 595 Commonwealth Ave,
Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Summary New forms of careers have received increased attention in contemporary organizational
research. A prominent focus in this research has been whether and how, in an increasingly
unpredictable career environment, individuals are taking responsibility for their own career
development. The implication is that career is becoming less central to organizational
management practices. At the same time there is evidence that organizational changes
typically described in this literature (such as delayering the organization in a quest for
flexibility) have had a negative impact on career progress, resulting in resistance to change.
The implication here is that career concerns are more central to organizational management
practices. This in-depth qualitative case study examines whether individuals do in fact take
more responsibility for their career development during times of organizational change. We
also examine whether this does indeed mean that the organization takes less responsibility for
career management. Our data indicate that individuals are, in fact, taking more responsibility
for their own careers. At the same time we found that the organization in our case study also
became more actively involved in career development and management. However, this active
approach did not resemble traditional top-down career management and development. To us,
the pattern of organizational and individual career development actions appear to constitute a
kind of ‘organizational dance,’ a highly interactive mutual influence process, in which both
parties are at once the agent and the target of career influence. Strengths and limitations of the
study are discussed, as are directions for future research. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
Is the organizational career dead? Recent writings have argued that the field of careers has moved
beyond organizations to flexible and individual approaches such as the boundaryless, Protean, and
post-corporate career (Arthur, Inkson, & Pringle, 1999; Baruch & Peiperl, 2000; Hall, Zhu, & Yan,
2002). ‘The bulk of research in the careers area has moved beyond organizations to focus on more
flexible, individual models’ (Baruch & Peiperl, 2000, p. 347). The message is that the individual is in
* Correspondence to: Marjolein Lips-Wiersma, Department of Management, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800,
Christchurch 8020, New Zealand. E-mail: marjo.lips-wiersma@canterbury.ac.nz
Received 3 January 2005

Revised 2 June 2006
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 16 December 2006
772 M. LIPS-WIERSMA AND D. T. HALL
charge of her or his career and is taking increasing responsibility for it. As a result, it is suggested,
careers are becoming less central to organizational management practices.
At the same time, there is evidence that organizational changes typically described in this literature
(such as delayering the organization in a quest for flexibility) have impacted individual career progress
and as a result have created employee resistance to change (Mills & Ungson, 2003). Changes in
organizational structures influence the nature of careers (Brousseau, Driver, Eneroth, & Larsson, 1996;
Kelly, Brannick, Hulpke, Levine, & To, 2003) and individual career concerns influence ‘buy-in’ to the
change process. The implication here, quite the opposite of recent career writings, is that career
concerns are more, rather than less, central to organizational management practices.
Our case study organization has gone through a process of change that included many of the new career
realities. The change process has been driven by a need for flexibility and adaptability and has resulted in
flatter decentralized structures, boundary-crossing assignments, and curbing of tenure-based promotion.
Our first objective is to study whether employees adapt to this new career environment by taking more
responsibility for their careers. Our second objective is to study whether, if individuals do indeed take more
responsibility, this also means the organization is taking less responsibility for career management.
The New Career in Organizational Context
The new career
During the 1990’s a wide range of new ideas in career dynamics entered the field of organizational
studies. We have been introduced to concepts such as the boundaryless career (Arthur & Rousseau,
1996), the Protean career (Hall, 1996), and the post-corporate career (Peiperl & Baruch, 1997).
Boundaryless career theory addresses changes in the inter- and intra-organizational career environment
and the career competencies one should have to be successful in this changing environment (Arthur &
Rousseau, 1996). We are interested in who takes responsibility for developing these competencies
during organizational change. Protean career theory addresses career adaptability, and we draw on
Protean career concepts in the context of an organization in which individuals have to adapt their
mental models of career success. The post-corporate career (Peiperl & Baruch, 1997) focuses
somewhat more on the corporate delayering and restructuring that have led to changes in career. We are
interested in the effect of those changes in one organizational context. We use the term ‘new career’ to
broadly indicate that we are drawing on a range of concepts introduced by the boundaryless,
post-corporate, and Protean career.
Individual responsibility in the new career
The new career emphasizes individual responsibility (Arthur et al., 1999). For the individual the new
career is a ‘tabula rasa of fresh opportunity’ (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996, p. 4) where one is freed from
stifling organizational determinants of career success and where it is acceptable to make major moves
across occupational areas and disciplines (Brousseau et al., 1996). The various theories underpinning
the new career have in common that they argue that the individual can and should take more
responsibility for her career. Being responsible means to ‘achieve goals that are personally meaningful
to the individual, rather than those set by parents, peers, an organization, or society’ (Mirvis & Hall,
1996, p. 138). It also means internalizing a measure of career success that is not measured by
hierarchical progress in one particular organization, but measured by marketability and employability
(Viney, Adamson, & Doherty, 1995). It entails the individual assuming greater responsibility for
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 771–792 (2007)
DOI: 10.1002/job
MANAGING THE NEW CAREER DURING CHANGE 773
developing portable skills and investing in ongoing education and other means of acquiring flexible
know-how (DeFillippi & Arthur, 1994). The individual is responsible for developing not only
marketable skills, but also new attitudes, such as career resilience and adaptability (Hall, 2002).
Critics argue that in the new career too much responsibility is placed with the individual and that the
organization is morally responsible for softening possible negative effects for the individual. These
negative effects may include job insecurity, decline in employability as a result of an organization
investing less in training, and decline of the benefits that come with long-term employment
relationships, such as organizational contributions to superannuation (Humphries & Dyer, 2001;
Meyer, 1996; Perrow, 1996; Van Buren, 2003).
While the new career has proven to be a remarkably popular and influential concept, it is argued to be
theoretically and empirically undeveloped, limiting its explanatory potential (Pringle & Mallon, 2003).
With empirical studies primarily focusing on the individual perspective, the new career in an
organizational context, in particular, lacks empirical investigation.
Convergence in individual and organizational approaches to career development

Numerous reviews of career literature show there has been little convergence between individual and
organizational approaches to career development (Greenhaus, Callanan, & Godshalk, 2000; Savickas
& Lent, 1994). Peiperl and Arthur (2000) express concern that this lack of convergence is continuing in
new career research in which researchers have primarily tried to understand its impact on individuals.
In our paper, we take a more convergent approach by studying the new career in the context of the
organizational changes that drive it and by simultaneously studying individual and organizational
response to the new career.
To date the limited amount of studies that have taken a convergent approach show that individual
career development and organizational career management do not develop independently of each other.
For example, it is shown that those who manage their own careers also receive more career
management help from the employer (Guest, Conway, & Davey, 2002). The extent to which workers
and employers share beliefs regarding the exchange of career development for commitment in
psychological contracts is also found to impact career advancement (Dabos & Rousseau, 2004). Ideally
both the organization (in providing the learning opportunities) and the individual (in seeking learning
opportunities) collaborate to maximize positive outcomes for both parties (Van der Sluis & Poell,
2003). While this limited body of research shows how organizational initiatives may influence
individual career development, it does not really address why an organization would still want to
remain involved in an environment that is also characterized by a decrease in employee loyalty.
Some new career theorists suggest that organizations are, or should be, withdrawing from active career
management. The focus is primarily on structure and bureaucracy getting out of the way so that employees
can get on with accomplishing their personal career goals, which will in turn provide the organization with
the flexibility and know-how it requires (Arthur et al., 1999). However, it is not clear how removal of
traditional career management practices, in itself, creates this desired organizational outcome.
New career theorists seem to agree that career management and development is no longer a
straightforward human resources (HR) function (Parker & Inkson, 1999). However, it is also argued
that we still need to obtain significantly more insight into the mechanisms through which career
concerns are integrated into organizational management (Gunz, 2000). Baruch and Peiperl (2000)
found little evidence of organizations adapting their management practices to the new career era. On
the basis of their research they suggest we need to understand the impact on career of a larger range of
organizational variables, such as organizational climate. Similarly, Larsson, Driver, Helmqvist, and
Sweet (2003) argue that career is influenced by a range of organizational variables and we need to pay
more attention to the fit between organizational strategy and career concepts, motives, and competencies.
DOI: 10.1002/job
In summary, new career theorists provide two future scenarios. One is that the organization
withdraws from career management and development, and that both individual and organizational
needs are met as individuals take over this responsibility. The other is that while career management
and development may no longer be a straightforward function of HR, the organization still remains
involved in career management. In the next section we focus on careers within the context of
organizational change in order to understand why organizations would, or would not, want to take
responsibility for career management and development.
Careers in the Context of Organizational Change
An enduring finding in the change management research is that most organizations do not manage
change well (Nilakant & Ramnarayan, 2006). A primary concern is how to overcome employee
resistance to change. In this section we explore the possible contribution career theory can make to
overcome resistance to change. The strengths of career theory are several. Career links the aspirations
of the individual to the organization in both subjective and objective ways (Barley, 1989), thus
capturing the effect of change on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. This is important, as in order to
understand resistance to change we need to pay closer attention to the intrinsic values of the people
involved in organizational change (Doorewaard & Benschop, 2003). Furthermore, career highlights a
series of relationships and interactions between the person and the workplace, and between economic
trends and workplace attitudes (Ornstein & Isabella, 1993). It therefore also captures the effect of
alterations in the relationship between the individual and the organization during times of change.
The impact of organizational change on careers
The new career is driven (at least partially) by changing organizational contexts such as flatter
organizations. A summary of change management theory shows that ‘change occurs at the individual
level but is significantly influenced by organizational norms and culture’, and that at the same time ‘the
literature has not fully identified how the individual change process occurs’ (Whelan-Berry, Gordon, &
Hinings, 2003, p. 190). Career provides one lens to study the effect of changes on individual behavior
and attitudes. However, there are few studies of the new career in the context of the organizational
changes that drive it.
The few studies that have linked career to change show that, on the whole, organizational changes are
perceived to be threatening to career progress (Kelly et al., 2003) and career security (Ogbonna &
Wilkinson, 2003). Organizational change disrupts the organizing principles around which individuals
structure both their public and private lives (upward movement, tenure-related increase in income,
status, and power), and often changes take away secure, predictable, and rewarding career paths from
many, causing mental anxiety (Wajcman & Martin, 2001). Career concerns may therefore be one factor
explaining why change resistance occurs at an individual level. The new career literature, as well as the
organizational change literature, indicates shifts in organizational structure from hierarchical to flat
organizations (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Nilakant & Ramnarayan, 2006). At the organizational level
of analysis, career refers to the flow of people through organizations (Gunz, 2000); thus a change in
structure is likely to lead to a change in flow. Structure provides us with a sense of security (Giddens,
1984), including career path security. Fear of the unknown is a primary factor in individual change
resistance (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). Therefore, unknown career futures as a result of structural changes
are likely to cause resistance. Limited research available on changing structures of career (Cascio,
DOI: 10.1002/job
1993) has shown that delayering reduced the career horizons of many managers, which resulted in
limited career prospects, substantial risk of retrenchment, disillusionment, and low morale.
Successful change involves altering mental models (Lewin, 1948). Career paths can be
conceptualized as a mental model. For example, moving up a vertical ladder is one mental model
of career success (Gunz, 2000). Successful buy-in to organizational change is likely to necessitate
individuals adjusting their mental models of what may constitute a successful, secure, or fulfilling
career. At the same time, it is likely to necessitate organizational awareness and management of
individual career needs during a time of change. King and Inkson (2001) argue that in the new career
literature we need to acknowledge that there may be differences of interest between employers or
managers and employees. There are compelling arguments to understand the nature of these
differences and how they are addressed in the context of organizational change.
Research Background, Method and Process
Organizational Context
Social and Economic Context

New Zealand underwent deregulation of the economy between 1985 and 1995, with major
restructuring and a significant proportion of employment contracts shifting from collective
agreements to individual contracts. The individualistic climate and major redundancies resulting
from these changes led to rejuvenated career guidance and the flourishing of boundaryless career
research within New Zealand (Inkson, Furbish, & Parker, 2002). An extensive study (Arthur et al.,
1999) found that non-linear careers were indeed a reality in New Zealand. Findings of this study and
other new career concepts were widely promoted to professional career advisory and HR bodies,
which caused awareness of the new career paradigm. Unemployment figures at the time of research
were the lowest of all OECD countries, and an extensive recent survey (Haynes & Boxall, 2003)
shows that 62.3% of all New Zealanders report that they are in secure jobs.
The Organization
The research site is a medium size (2400 employees) public organization in New Zealand and has a
demographically and occupationally diverse workforce. We will call it ‘Metro’. Metro was selected
for study not only because it is representative of many of the changes documented in the new career
literature, but also because it has been going through an ongoing incremental change process in
which it desires to obtain staff buy-in. The objective of the change was to create a ‘more effective,
creative, responsive, and change adaptive organization’ (Strategic Plan, 1999) through creating a
more adaptive culture. Gunz (2000) argues that culture is central to any model linking career
aspirations to organizational outcomes and we therefore also anticipate that the particular nature of
the change will highlight issues of career responsibility during a change process.
Metro restructured and went from five to four levels in late 1995, taking out one level of middle
managers (30 middle managers in total, of which 13 were redeployed in other roles). At the same
time, the hierarchical and functional structure of the organization was decentralized into a
team-based design.
In order to achieve strategic objectives of creating a more flexible and adaptive culture, it was
communicated to employees that non-hierarchical reward systems would become more prevalent
DOI: 10.1002/job
and that employees were expected to take more responsibility for their own career development.
Automatic tenure-based pay increase and promotion were curbed where possible in the context of
collective employment contracts to ‘meet organizational and individual needs for flexibility’
(Strategic Plan, 1999). While prior to 1995 almost all employees were on collective and permanent
contracts, at the time of study 75.5% of staff were on collective contracts, with new employees at all
levels showing more interest in, and being more actively encouraged to, enter individual contracts.
Impact of Changes on Career

The logic and strength of the case study is configurational, meaning that different parts of the whole
are understood in relation to one another and in terms of the total picture that they form (Öz, 2004;
Ragin, 2000). In order to harness this strength we introduce two sets of data. One set of data is
introduced below in this contextual side bar section. It should not be treated as the findings of our
paper. It has the function of building a rich case description so that we can more accurately interpret
our findings against the background of this particular organization. Here we draw on descriptive
statistics gathered by ourselves as well as some descriptive statistics that have been part of the
bi-annual climate surveys of the organization. The second set of data consists of our in-depth
interviews. It is this set of data that is presented in the findings section of this paper.
The organization holds bi-annual climate surveys. The survey, which has an average response rate
of 55%, measures whether career practices are fair and whether individuals see clear career paths for
themselves in the organization. The 1999 mean score was 4.1 out of 7 and was the lowest score out
of all items comprising the individuals’ work satisfaction. This score decreased gradually from 5.3
in 1995 (the start of the changes) to 4.1 in 1999. It had stabilized by 2001 (the last date we had access
to the climate survey). One objective was to establish a culture in which individuals were made more
aware of the value they added to internal and external customers and would increase their personal
contribution at work by giving value. In return the organization would ensure that the individual
would be valued for their contribution. In order to establish this culture, HR from 1995 onwards
repeatedly, and in a variety of ways, communicated that the individual should take more
responsibility for his or her career. When employees were asked how they knew that they were
valued, 70% of employees indicated practices/incentives/feedback that directly related to career
development.
Career Adaptability
We could not exclude the possibility that some of the career concerns made visible through the
climate survey arose because individuals in this type of organization are not adaptable and will resist
change regardless of the effects on their careers. In order to test this we applied the adaptability scale
from the work of Morrison (1995) in the United States Navy. The adaptability instrument assesses
two aspects of the person’s orientation toward change: motivation to change and perceived
competence in dealing with change. We also applied the Protean career attitude scale developed by
Briscoe and Hall (2003). The Protean career attitude measures self-direction (being in charge of
one’s career), and being value-driven (making career choices based on personal values as opposed to
external influences).
On the one hand, we found a relatively high level of adaptability in our research participants.
Their responses on the adaptability scale were skewed toward the high end of the scale, with a mean
score of 30.91. In contrast, in a study of 179 American MBA and executive MBA students, using the
same measure, the mean adaptability score was 28.51. The mean adaptability score in the current
organization was significantly higher than the comparison group (t ¼ 3.83, p < 0.01). On the other
hand, participants in this study scored toward the low end of the Protean scale. Whereas the overall
mean of our international comparison sample (professionals, executives, and MBA and under-
DOI: 10.1002/job
graduate students, both in the U.S. and in New Zealand) was 90.31, the mean for the sample in this
organization was 81.49, which was significantly lower ( p < 0.01). This meant that our participants
had less of a sense of being in charge of their own careers than the comparison sample. There was no
correlation between Protean score and age or gender. How do we account for this finding, that
people who are quite adaptable are not inclined toward the flexible, adaptable Protean career?
The Protean attitude scale measures attitudes towards career moves within the organization
(internal labor market), as well as across organizations (external labor market). One explanation
may be that, although these people have the adaptive capacity to be Protean, they may prefer to enact
their careers in this organization for a variety of reasons. The specialists expressed the view that this
organization does the best work in the world in their occupational field (in fact, the organization has
won international prizes for being the best in its field). Those who combine other life roles with paid
work may enjoy flexible working hours while maintaining security at the same time. Those who are
interested in lifestyle advantages (for which the locality of our organization is well known) may not
want to relocate. It could also be that our definition of Protean, that is that flexibility and adaptability
express themselves in intra-organizational job changes, is too narrow a definition. Perhaps these
individuals are hoping to be Protean within one organization that offers the benefits of autonomy
and growth together with the security benefits of long-term employment.
Method overview
We took an in-depth, qualitative, instrumental case study approach. We use the term case study not as a
methodological choice, but as the object to be studied to provide insight into an issue and refinement of
theory (Stake, 1998). Yin (1994) suggests that case study research is best suited to the examination of
why and how contemporary, real-life (organizational) phenomena occur. We focus on the
contemporary phenomenon of the new career in the context of real-life change. The research site
(a) experienced the type of organizational change described by new career theorists, (b) experienced
the mixed reactions to the impact of change on career described by organizational change theorists, and
(c) went through a lengthy strategic process (7 years) of attempting to align career needs with the
desired cultural and strategic change outcomes of the organization.
To capture the emerging new career identities, behaviors, and rules it is suggested we require
perspectives that pay attention to careers simultaneously from an individual and organizational point of
view (Paradeise, 2003). To capture both points of view, we spoke to a representative sample of
employees, team-leaders (representing middle management), and various members of the Human
Resource Management group including its director. The primary data collection took place within 6
months; subsequent data gathering and a final meeting discussing the relevance and accuracy of our
findings with research participants took place within 18 months of our collection of the quantitative
data on Protean Career and Career Adaptability.
The research and the organizational journey
Our research journey was partly planned and partly opportunistic. The organization was first
approached in 1999 when the first author heard about the changes in this organization and the messages
given to individuals within it to take more responsibility for their own career development. Through a
series of meetings, we came to an understanding of the research objective, the second author joined the
research team, ethical approval was obtained, and data collection was started in 2001, with final
feedback given to the organization in October 2003.
DOI: 10.1002/job
In the first 4 years since the introduction of the change initiatives (1995–1999) these were not
matched by increased attention to career development. However, when we started our data gathering in
2001 some changes were taking place. In the words of the HR director:
When the restructuring started in 1995, we addressed career reality obliquely by asking how people
needed to be different and act differently to meet the expectations of our new cultural values
statement. Our emphasis was on self-management. Although we have always invested significantly
in training, we did not have such a thing as career support in any formal sense of the word until 2000
when we started to offer formal development. At every opportunity we promote the value of
individual stocktaking and we now show a connection between our annual planning and budgeting
processes and individual job descriptions and performance plans. We have become aware we still
need to be involved in career development of employees.
Thus, when we started gathering our data in March 2001, the organization was still focused on
employees taking on more responsibility for career development and management. The primary
objective of training and development was to increase ‘self-awareness’ and ‘self-management,’
balanced with ‘social awareness’ and ‘social skill’ (HR Director Presentation, 2001). Our initial
research question—to confirm whether or not individuals were taking on more career development
responsibility—was therefore still relevant. However, it was now also becoming apparent that an
increased focus on the individual did not automatically mean that the organization would take a
hands-off approach. Given this new information, we added our second research objective. Our research
was done at a time of transition in which some individuals across our sample groups had already been
affected by increased career support and others had not.
Data collection process
Sampling
We did semi-structured interviews with members of a wide range of occupational groups including
specialist and generalists, skilled and unskilled individuals (determined by years of training required for the
job), individuals at different levels in the hierarchy, and individuals at different career stages (determined by
age). Regular climate surveys indicated that, between 1995 and 2001, change had affected career aspirations
in some work units more positively than in others, and that across occupational groups career support was
received in different measures. We decided to interview individuals from eight work units: four that
averaged relatively high scores on career satisfaction (>5.5 out of 7), and four work units that scored
relatively low (<4 out of 7). Within each occupational group, we took a representative sample of the total
number of employees per unit, as well as the age and gender diversity within it. We interviewed 50
individuals in total. See Table 1 for a list of demographics of participants.
Data collection
We did four orientation interviews with representatives of the HRM department, including the HR
director, and studied background strategic documents to understand the extent and purpose of the
organizational change and HRM’s role in the change process. As we obtained data from the employees,
Table 1. Demographics of participants

Number of research participants 50
Percent male 39.68
Average age 41.78
Average number of job changes 2.69
Average number of employers 2.14
DOI: 10.1002/job
we sought further feedback from the HR director on the workings of specific initiatives that were
relevant to our research. Finally, we presented our findings and discussions to the HR team and all
research participants and gained further feedback on the authenticity, accuracy, and relevance of our
findings. This feedback is also incorporated in the paper.
The interviews lasted 60–90 minutes and utilized a combination of existing questions from the
climate survey mentioned above and additional questions to obtain an in-depth picture of why events
occurred as they did and how people felt about them. So where, for example, in a climate survey there
was an item on career development, such as ‘I am encouraged to put new learning into practice’, we
would ask what putting new learning into practice entailed or what had aided or inhibited a person from
doing so, to obtain information on opportunities and barriers to career development within a flatter
organization. This process enabled us to access a range of career-related information that went beyond
narrow categories of career development and career management. It also ensured our findings made
sense to the organization. This was important for the continuing collaboration required, and to justify
the significant amount of time and energy given by the organization to our research project.
Data analysis, quality verification, and presentation of findings

We used ‘template analysis’ to analyze our data. This process occupies a position between content analysis,
where codes are all predetermined, and grounded theory, where there is no a priori definition of codes
(King, 1998). A priori codes we identified were ‘individual responsibility’ and ‘organizational respon-
sibility’. Codes that emerged from the data were the range of organizational practices in which career
management was embedded. Nud.ist software was used to organize the data (not to analyze them) and to
compile a list of all codes. An analytical template was developed based on pre-defined codes and emerging
codes, and a final template decided upon after the text had been read three times by both researchers. In
addition, five randomly chosen interviews were analyzed by twelve postgraduate students enrolled in a
qualitative methods course, to ensure our template was sufficiently comprehensive.
Lincoln and Guba (1985) have furnished a set of criteria that provide a rigorous test for determining
the trustworthiness of qualitative data. Their criteria of credibility were met in this study through
prolonged engagement in the field, feedback by research participants on the final results, and ongoing
peer debriefing. Their criterion of transferability was met by a detailed (thick) description of the
organizational context. Their criteria of dependability were met by protecting participants’
confidentiality and drawing on a soundly justified and significant (for qualitative research) sample.
Their criteria of confirmability were met by using the well-established method of template analysis,
meticulous data management through use of Nud.ist, the use of ‘outsiders’ to confirm our template, and
transparent presentation of the data in the final published paper.
The findings are presented in a series of Tables. The heading of each table indicates the core management
practices in which career responsibilities are integrated. On the left of each table we describe the themes that
arose in relation to individual responsibility, on the right the themes that arose in relation to organizational
responsibility. The text-bubbles show how these themes are embedded in the data.
Findings
In summary, we did indeed find evidence that individuals are taking more responsibility for their own
career development. At the same time, our case study organization did not take a ‘hands-off’ approach
but clearly took responsibility for various aspects of career management. We found that this new career
management is not a straightforward HRM function, but that it is integrated in a range of five core
management practices. These are: ‘Developing Capacity and Employability’, ‘Strategic and Structural
DOI: 10.1002/job
Integration’, ‘Cultural Integration’, ‘Diversity Management’, and ‘Communication’. We consider each

in turn.
Individual and organizational responsibility

for career management and development
Developing capacity and employability

We found that the specific categories of career planning and career management were blurred, and
merged these into one category called ‘Developing Capacity and Employability’. Within this category,
we found that both the organization and the individual employee were taking significant responsibility.
We found repeated reference to individual employees shifting mental models. For example, ‘You need
to create your own path—career opportunities are there but you have to find them.’ Individuals were
actively engaged in setting their own career goals and sought career enhancement opportunities such as
secondments and projects. They were proactive in seeking transferable skills and were becoming aware
of the implications of generalist versus specialized careers for career success and employability. The
organization, through its HR department, increasingly took responsibility for providing training
opportunities in which employees could obtain transferable skills and many showed considerable
satisfaction with this. HR also took responsibility for initiating and supporting projects and
secondments that provided opportunities for career development. Funding was available where these
boundary-crossing initiatives fitted the strategic direction of the organization. In subsequent
discussions of our findings HR felt it also had a responsibility in assisting individuals in clarifying
consequences of career moves during change, while also stating they could not be ‘crystal ball gazers’
(Table 2).
Strategic and structural integration

We found clear evidence that employees were ‘street smart’ and took responsibility for enhancing their
career opportunities (in whichever way they defined this) by weaving in their own career aspirations
with the strategic direction of the organization. At the same time, the organization started to take
responsibility by being more explicit about how the new career rules linked to capacity building and
other desired change outcomes. Employees were aware (and increasingly seemed to accept) that the
shape of career had changed but they were still interested in career paths providing direction and as a
way of thinking about their future. They also wanted assistance in aligning their personal aspirations
with the strategic direction of the organization. HR was clearly relinquishing some of its responsibility
and was actively trying to discourage its bureaucratizing role. However, these responsibilities did not
disappear but had moved down the organizational structure. Subsequently, individuals were more
reliant on their team-leaders for career support but, unfortunately, the immediate superior did not
always have the skills to provide such support. As a result the employee sometimes struggled to locate
assistance in the flattened structure (Table 3).
Cultural integration
Individual employees took responsibility for considering whether the (changing) culture was fitting
their career direction. HR started taking responsibility to ensure that individual career aspirations were
(where possible) linked to the desired organizational culture. The overall strategic aim of this particular
organization was to create a collaborative organizational culture. This meant it had to take
responsibility for putting some boundaries around overly individualistic approaches to career
development to minimize potential conflict between ‘taking responsibility for your own career’ and
‘strongly subscribing to the organizational culture’ (Table 4).
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 2. Employee and employer responsibility in developing capacity and employability
Jude, mid-forties: “I love being

qualified X (professional).
27 I love
every aspect of it, it really suits
me. However in my current job I
can’t use my skills. In taking on
this job I thought that I would b
rotated in my preferred position
however I’m not rotating
anywhere fast and I miss the
challenge, I don’t feel valued
Developing and I start to feel insecure and
Ruth, early forties: “You unhappy and somewhat bitter.”
need to create your own Individual capacity and Organizational
path. Career opportunities Responsibility employability Responsibility
are there but you have to
go and find them.” HR rep: “We ask employees to
• Develop a proactive • Consistently clarify
identify what they think needs to
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

attitude. consequences of career be done in the org. and to submit
Garry, late twenties: “I’m • Set personal long- and moves, where known or project proposals. Unfortunately
well aware that I need to short- term goals. anticipated. we do not always have the
keep up with the industry. To • Seek skill enhancement • Provide opportunities to resources to support these.”
do this I need to keep my opportunities, such as learn new skills: such as
knowledge current – my
study current – new secondments and project secondments and project
Rodger, late fifties: “We have been
technology. I need to plan so management. management.
on lots of courses. Some good, some
I do not get stale.” • Volunteer for training • Offer training that provides not so good. But we’ve done
opportunities that result in employees with transferable everything from conflict resolution
transferable skills. skills. to computer courses to how to deal
Hans, mid-twenties: “I was with the public.”
seconded to another team for • Assess consequences of • Provide training/job
one day a week. I’m specialized vs. generalized opportunities that create
maintaining their computer career. networks which support Rob, mid-forties. “The
system. It’s been great.” employee and organiza- networking is absolutely vital
tional knowledge. to my position and I’m
Joe, mid-forties: • Reassess the balance constantly learning, it’s
John, mid-thirties: “I put my name “I will probably never get a full- between providing clarity ongoing, I tap into knowledge
down for a variety of things that time job again elsewhere, because I of people in other areas. This
interest me. I’ve been to several
on career rules and overly is encouraged in my team.”
never gained that breadth of
courses related to the job. Learning bureaucratizing.
experience that I should have
about the industry gave me confidence pursued. You have to be a big
in my ability. But I’ve also volunteered organization to afford specialists
for courses relating to the HRM side like me.”
of things, which gave me insight into
my own behavior and abilities. It was
MANAGING THE NEW CAREER DURING CHANGE
great.”
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 771–792 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
781
782
Table 2. (Continued)
Carl, mid-fifties: “Two years

ago we were amalgamated
28 with
another unit. Many of my tasks
were taken off me – tasks that
Walter, late forties: “I am not were really about the job and
specifically looking for gave me much more job
opportunities to grow. At my satisfaction. Now I’m stuck in
age (late forties) I think I’ve this minor planning role which
pretty well reached the end of Individual Responsibility Developing Organizational Responsibility doesn’t use the skills that I was
the line career-wise and I’m using before. The qualifications
quite happy to trundle along at
potential and
for my type of job have changed
this level. However I don’t employability and I do not have the
think my job is safe and that • Realistically assess the • Consider the impact of qualifications to compete
eats away at me. I made impact of current career organizational change on the elsewhere.”
M. LIPS-WIERSMA AND D. T. HALL
career choices where probably

choices, e.g., specialist C employability of all employees:
15 years ago I had the
opportunity to go into private career, need for security, O does the change enhance or
enterprise, I chose security. future employability, and take L inhibit skills development for
Things have turned back on some responsibility for past L the individual employee?
me so I almost feel a little bit career choices. • Ensure employees remain
cheated in that respect.”
A Rachel, early fifties: “As a result
B employable by continuing to of the amalgamation I had to
O update their skills. increase my knowledge of the
• Realistically assess who is other areas. I also had to learn
R to manage a larger team and
• Consider early on in the career benefiting from the new career
A increase my budgeting skills, as
not only the skills but also the rules, the individual and/or the
T the budget we now manage is
attitudes that are needed to organization. much larger.”
remain employable. I
O
N
Sam, early forties:

“I was made redundant
previously from another large
organization and this was the
best thing that ever happened to
me. Before I took the job here, I HR rep: “I think that a boundaryless career and
had a series of short jobs which flexibility are employer concepts. I think the vast
gave me lots of confidence. I majority of people do prefer boundaries, certainty,
know I will always find a job.” security – these are fundamental needs, after all, on
which most of us build our families and lives.”
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 771–792 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 3. Employee and employer responsibility in developing strategic integration
Suzan, late fifties: “I am not HR rep: “In our preoccupation

afraid to speak out. I give voice with change it is tempting
29 to
to the negative effects of the concentrate on what we might see
latest changes. I learn how to as barriers to progress, e.g.,
voice objections in a way that automatic promotion/pay increase.
they are heard. I am not However it is hard to obtain buy-
resistant to change, I am in into the change if we cannot
resistant to the direction it is Individual responsibility Strategic Organizational replace these with attractive
taking. I have no desire to be Integration Responsibility alternatives.”
promoted upward. I couldn’t • Realistically assess career • Replace the old
because I don’t agree with the consequences of adapting contract with a new
direction they are going.
to versus resisting change. C contract. HR rep: “An organization like
However I do look at other ways
ours that has restructured but also
to participate and I’ve just put • Discover how your work O • Clarify how new
does ‘much business as usual’
my name forward for an and career goals can L career rules link to needs its soldiers and followers,
additional role that would support the strategic plan capacity building.
L and needs to keep them both
extend on my skills and
energized and motivated. But it

of the organization and A • Ensure all employees
interests”. also needs to find a way of
communicate this when B receive strategic
encouraging and celebrating the
going for resources or education so they
O tall poppy, the risk taker… That is
upward/sideway job understand how their the art of management.”
HR advocate: “We have changes.
R
career plans are or are
personal value plans that aid A
employees in assessing their • Assess whether your not aligned with the
career aspirations can be T strategic direction of
values and career goals. The Sue, late twenties: “I’m still learning
best possible scenario for the supported by available I the organization. on the job, my team leader is very
organization and their career is resources. O • Decide on desired supportive, she says don’t be afraid
if they consider the match N to ask if I need training.”
between their goals and those of
impact of previous
the organization. Here is also a strategic decisions on
Ross, late twenties: “I don’t know
role for team-leaders to help current career
how I do, no-one tells me, so I don’t
identify how skills or climate. know where I’m heading.”
qualifications support both
parties.” Tony, mid-thirties: “I think career
opportunities are fair within the HR rep: “I would hope that through
circumstances. We have some middle- the personal values plan that if
aged guys occupying the spots and they people had their own career path,
Russel, early thirties: “The people
might not move until they retire. So they’d follow that up and that any
support is there for many of the
opportunities are created where possible team-leader would support them.
ideas that I have, we have to save
but if I was better than one of these guys Once again I don’t know whether
10 million dollars that might come
they would not be likely to ask him to this is the case across the
out of the budget of our unit. This
move over. This might not seem fair to organization.”
affects my career opportunities
greatly as I have plans for a me, but to the guy who played by the
rules of the past to get there I’m sure it’s HR rep: “Career support is
project that costs 5 million dollars
perfectly fair.” dependent on unit and team leader,
and in the current climate they are
this is likely to be a mixed bag at
not going to be too happy about

present”.
this so there is definitely a limit
there.”
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 771–792 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
783
784
Table 4. Employee and employer responsibility in developing cultural integration
HR rep: “I sometimes think

we are sending mixed
messages. We tell people to
take responsibility for their
own career, but we also want
HR rep: “Where individuals
Individual Cultural Organizational Responsibility them to strongly subscribe to
can show how their
Responsibility Integration the org. culture and do what is
plans/ideas support the
best for the org. rather than
desired organizational • Ensure that career behavior be individualistic.”
culture, they are more likely fits in with the desired culture.
• Decide whether
to receive attention or
resources. Directly or the culture is
indirectly this can only be suitable to your • Build a culture in which Tina, early thirties: “No-one
questioned what I was doing; I
good for their career.” career aspirations employees are given have this incredible feeling
and how to make responsibility and control to that I’m being totally trusted,
the culture work

build career efficacy. this gave me confidence in my
for you. career.”
• Take opportunities • Build a culture of
to test tradition by collaboration rather than
volunteering for competition between different Bill, early fifties: “Where I am
jobs “outside the teams/business units. there is emphasis on moving
square”. around the different units, so
Allan, mid-thirties: there is support for that.”
“I got support from the • Create a culture in which
team-leader in my unit individuals are not
who felt I could do this
unnecessarily constrained by
job in another unit, even
though I did not have the professional
qualifications that they tradition/specialization. Paul, mid-forties: “If we were regularly
were looking at for this moved around, our skills would be
position. The job was formed and we would know
advertised internally and opportunities elsewhere. Now we are in
I put my hand up, as they little pigeonholes, they call it silos. The
thought that I could do organization supported me in doing a
it.” postgraduate qualification in an area
where I’d like to expand. But over there
is real inertia, a real fear of bringing in
someone who hasn’t got the exact
experience they want. I get pigeonholed.
I think this has to do with the profession
as much as with the organization. They
don’t see that you can contribute an
important perspective if you’ve taken a
different professional route.”
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 771–792 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
Diversity management
Individuals took responsibility for finding a balance between work and other roles and for accurately
assessing the personal costs and benefits of moving up the hierarchy. The organization took
responsibility for providing flexible working hours and took some responsibility for creating flexible
structures and a culture in which it was becoming acceptable for individuals to move up, down, or
sideways (Table 5).
Communication
Individuals took responsibility for communicating their career aspirations and this was enhanced by
discussing their personal development plans with their unit-managers or team-leaders. Employees built
relationships with trusted others to sustain their career and communicate across networks to enhance it.
The organization was starting to take responsibility for clearly and realistically communicating the
meaning, implications and opportunities of the new career reality (Table 6).
Locating career management and development

If an observer were looking on the surface at this organization, she might be hard-pressed to find
evidence of organizational career development programs or practices. There are no ‘career
development managers’ or ‘career resource specialists’, or anyone else with the word ‘career’ in their
titles, for that matter. We found that career management and development processes have been woven
into the core practices of the organization as it has changed over the last 10 years. This new form of
organizational career development goes back to basics. What we see are the simple organizational
processes for integrating employees into the organization, by integrating career development and
management with capacity building, by integrating career and diversity management, by aligning
career concerns with the desired culture, by aligning individual career paths and strategic directions,
and by communicating this direction and employer expectations so individuals know what to do to have
a successful career in this organization.
Discussion: Mutual Responsibility in the Context of Change
Our findings confirmed a central tenet of new career theory—that individuals are indeed taking more
responsibility for their own career development (Arthur et al., 1999; Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Hall,
1996). Research participants showed significant willingness to change mental models (Gunz, 2000)
and, on the whole, talked about ‘taking responsibility’ as a positive development and an empowering
process that did indeed enable them to take charge of their own careers. Our research adds several
insights to extant new career theory.
During the change process, our case organization first withdrew from active career management
altogether (Arthur et al., 1999). However, it found that this did not provide the desired employee and
organizational outcome because individuals perceived the lack of structure and guidance to be negative
(Mills & Ungson, 2003). The organization also found it needed to be directive in order to develop the
right capabilities for the desired organizational change outcomes (Nilakant & Ramnarayan, 2006).
Thus when the organization merely withdrew from its commitments to employees (in terms of actual or
psychological contracts such as training opportunities, collective employment contracts, tenure-related
superannuation, and upward career opportunities) and tried to sell this as a ‘new career opportunity’,
DOI: 10.1002/job
786
Table 5. Employee and employer responsibility in managing diversity
Joan, early forties: “As a

result of the restructuring I
got a great job which I am
now ready for. I did not
actively seek the opportunity
to move up earlier and I did Individual Responsibility Diversity Organizational
not apply elsewhere because Management Responsibility
this organization provided Make conscious career • Recognize that
me with the flexibility to work decisions in relation to: integration of career in
part-time and the security I
organizational change is HR : “We do not have a lot of
needed as a single mum when

the kids were young.” likely to be more women in upper management.
• Balancing paid work successful if diversity is This may be related to
promotion practices or to life-
with other life roles taken into account. role balance. We have EEO
• Provide flexible policy and things like that, but
structures for individuals that does perhaps not stop
to move up/down/ shoulder-tapping of those
traditionally sought for the
sideways.
roles. Yet we need the diversity
in Maori/Pakeha and a male ad
female balance to relate to the
Sarah, late fifties: “I’m a product Career stage
• clients we are working with.”
of fair promotion, traditionally
my role would have been male. I
am studying for a degree and my
work and study complement each • Dual career Wilma, mid-fifties: “I’m currently in
other. There is room to move but
a middle management role, but my
I get involved in a number of
goal is to work part-time. I’m a bit
projects and am happy in my
wary as to whether they’d have me in
middle management role. I feel
a non-management role but I want to
content, I enjoy the mentoring
Joe, mid-forties: “I would prefer not step down gradually to retirement
and coaching and watching
to leave this organization. It worries and hope to move laterally. I want to
others achieve, and my aim is to
me a bit because my wife is work less and grandmother more.”
improve the quality of life of our
completing her postgraduate
customers.”
qualifications and might want to seek
opportunties elsewhere.”
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 771–792 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 6. Employee and employer responsibility in developing communication
Peter, early thirties: “I interviewed

for an internal position but did not
get it, I got a lot of feedback from the HR rep: “From the outset we sought
three senior people on the panel. input in all other objectives of
This was very helpful and made me change but we did not ask
feel valued even though I did not get Individual Responsibility Commu- Organizational individuals what they needed to
the job.” increase self-management and
nication/ Responsibility
independence.”
• Initiate feedback. • Seek input on what

• Communicate career individuals need to
Tina, early thirties: “I have a
great team leader with whom I aspirations openly if manage their own careers.
possible. Wendy, mid-twenties: “My team-
can communicate my career • Open communication, and
leader actually suggested me to
aspirations openly, and know awareness of career

• Communicate across another team, as he knew I couldn’t
she’ll support me and look out networks. opportunities, in different grow here and an opportunity came
for opportunities whether I want
• Build relationships with units of the organization. up with them.”
to stay here or move up or
across into another team.” trusted others that • Honest communication
sustain you in your and realistic
career. communication of the new John, early fifties:
Eric, mid-thirties: “In career reality and “In this new environment we need to
volunteering for this responsibilities that the learn to be prepared to do anything,
committee I get to know organization can and up to half a dozen career changes,
people in other units and changing your life. But they don’t
cannot meet. tell you, you’re on your own, buddy.
they get to know me. That
might be good if I want • Provide extensive When you are made redundant, you
to move one day.” information about might get redundancy payment, if
opportunities (e.g., growth they haven’t abolished that either
areas, secondments, and you’ve got to go and retrain
yourself, but you ask, whose
Melissa, mid-twenties: “I vacancies) throughout the interests are being served by this?”
get on really well with my organization, to all
whole team, they are mates members of the
and help me. I have learned
organization.
heaps from them and feel
supported.” Anne, early forties:
“Career opportunities are
not obvious, we do not
have a lot of information
about the opportunities in
the organization as a
whole.”
J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 771–792 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/job
787
individuals did not buy into this. However, when the organization decided that it still needed to remain
actively involved in career development, individuals could see the benefits of the new career and
became more positive about the changes. We therefore suggest that careers provide an important lens
through which to study how change occurs at an individual level (Whelan-Berry et al., 2003) and in
understanding resistance to change (Nilakant & Ramnarayan, 2006). In this case, we saw that career
concerns are central to planned organizational change, as they account for a gap in the change literature
asking how individuals change. Introducing desired change outcomes into the research mix also
accounts for a gap in ‘new career’ theory which does not adequately explain the conditions under which
organizations would still want to remain involved in career development and support. The organization
takes responsibility for career development because it is in the best interest of the organization to obtain
buy-in and direct some of this development towards desirable change outcomes, even though it might
expect less loyalty of employees as a result of encouraging more flexible careers. Individuals take on
more responsibility not only to meet organizational change needs, but also to follow their own career
aspirations, and are therefore only likely to buy into the change to the extent that they see these aligned.
Organizational investment into developing capacity and employability makes the individual feel
valued, and produces a higher level of motivation and commitment on his or her part. Thus, during the
change process, if the right conditions are created, individuals adapt mental models where they see
these aligned with their own goals (Larsson et al., 2003). At the same time, when given the opportunity,
they provide feedback to the organization on what they require from the organization to realize these
goals, thus integrating career concerns into organizational management (Gunz, 2000). At that point our
organization responded by providing the necessary support, training, and opportunities that enabled
individuals to realize their career goals, and the organization to align these goals with desired flexibility
and know-how (Arthur et al., 1999). This involvement enabled individuals to more proactively plan
their careers, align their careers with the strategic direction of the organization, obtain transferable
skills, and have more flexibility in moving upwards or downwards.
We found that, contrary to prior questioning, the organizational career is not dead. However, we also
found that career management is no longer a straightforward HR function (Parker & Inkson, 1999).
Instead, it has a new and subtler identity, masquerading as the functioning of a well-integrated
organizational management system. The new process is not as one-sided as the old form of
organizational career management, in which responsibility resided primarily with the organization. At
the same time, it is more demanding of the organization, as it requires a systemic approach where the
whole system is able to respond competently and flexibly to the career aspirations of the individual
while also integrating these with the strategic direction of the organization. Our organization
recognized that ‘bureaucracy needed to get out of the way’ to provide flexible career opportunities and
achieve a flexible organizational climate. One way in which it attempted to do this was by putting
responsibility for career planning and feedback further down the organizational structure. We saw that
this had variable results, as some team-leaders took on this role whereas others did not. This example of
‘bureaucracy getting out of the way’ shows that career development still requires careful planning so
that not only responsibility, but also accountability is systematically integrated.
Our research participants embraced new career realities while at the same time choosing to be loyal to
one organization. However, their choice to stay with this organization, even through confusing times, was
likely to be influenced by their trust in this particular organization. This organization continued to take
responsibility to provide a certain level of security and benefits (Humphries & Dyer, 2001; Meyer, 1996;
Perrow, 1996) and clearly still invested heavily in training in transferable skills (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996).
While the majority of employees were indeed positive about taking on more responsibility for their own
career development, we also found evidence of pluralism as suggested by King and Inkson (2001). As we
saw, the HR director recognized that often ‘the new career’ and ‘flexibility’ are employer concepts and that
employees also preferred boundaries, certainty, and security to build their families and lives upon. Some
DOI: 10.1002/job
employees did indeed argue that the advantages were greater for the employer than the employee. On the
whole, however, mutuality was intrinsic within each of the organizational variables impacting on career.
Thus, in this one organization at least, it does appear that the ethical employer takes responsibility for
providing ongoing skills development, as advocated by Van Buren (2003). It takes responsibility not only
out of moral considerations, but also out of utilitarian considerations, in that it finds that the desired
strategic direction and culture cannot be obtained without buy-in to change and developing capacity to
sustain change.
Practical Implications, Limitations, and Future Directions
The findings show that there is significant merit in conceptualizing and researching the new career
forms, such as Protean career, within an organizational context. Our research shows that career
management and development has a significant role to play in achieving mutuality of organizational
and individual interests. Organizations that want to obtain buy-in to the change process we therefore
argue, need to proactively and systemically create mechanisms through which career concerns are
integrated into organizational management.
Our findings should be considered in the light of several limitations. While our case study
methodology provided rich data, its findings should be generalized with caution. The public service
setting may have influenced the loyalty of employees and their desire to work with the organization to
make the changes work for both themselves and their organization. It would be useful to do
comparative case studies (Miles & Huberman, 1995) to better understand the conditions under which
employees are or are not prepared to work with the organization to integrate individual career needs and
desired organizational change outcomes. Our organization went through incremental change that
required very few lay-offs. Further study that distinguishes between the impacts of extreme versus
gradual change on the new career would add to its explanatory potential. Our organization obtained
buy-in because, on the whole, its intentions were trusted by employees. Our organization was aiming to
establish a culture in which individuals felt valued. The impact of trust and other cultural variables on
individual readiness or reluctance to adopt new career mental models also requires further study.
In spite of its limitations, we hope to have confirmed that a study that seeks career convergence, even
though it is complex and the amount of data is at times overwhelming, provides useful insights and
avenues for future study.
Conclusion: The New ‘Career Dance’ in Organizations
In this study we have identified five career development practices that collectively represent a ‘career
dance’ between the two ‘partners’—the employee and the organization. The steps of this dance are the
mutual effects between organizational change and employee career development that are played out on
the foundation, or ‘ballroom floor’, of the five career practices that we have identified: Developing
Capacity and Employability, Strategic Integration, Cultural Integration, Managing Diversity,
and Communication. Our hope is that the identification of these practices encourages organiza-
tions to take a more active and caring role during change management processes and find their
own ways to share responsibility for careers with their employees. We also hope it will encourage
DOI: 10.1002/job
researchers to continue to pay attention to the functioning of organizational contexts in which careers
are enacted.
Author biographies
Dr. Marjo Lips-Wiersma is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Management at the University of
Canterbury, New Zealand. Her research focuses on the new career, organizational purpose, critical
management, and existential questions underpinning organizational behavior.
Douglas T. (Tim) Hall is the Morton H. and Charlotte Friedman Professor of Management in the
School of Management at Boston University. He has held faculty positions at Yale, York, Michigan
State and Northwestern Universities, as well as visiting positions at Columbia, Minnesota, Boston
College, and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Tim is the author of Careers In and Out of
Organizations (Sage, 2002). He is the co-author, with Brad Harrington, of Career Management and
Work-Life Integration (Sage, 2007), The Career is Dead—Long Live the Career, as well as other books
and articles on careers and management. He is a recipient of the American Psychological Association’s
Ghiselli Award for research design, the ASTD’s Walter Storey Professional Practice Award, and the
Academy of Management’s Everett C. Hughes Award for Career Research. He is currently the H. Smith
Richardson, Jr., Visiting Fellow at the Center for Creative Leadership.
References
Arthur, M. B., Inkson, K., & Pringle, J. K. (1999). The new careers: Individual action and economic change.
London: Sage Publications.
Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (Eds.), (1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new
organizational era. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barley, S. R. (1989). Careers, identities and institutions: The legacy of the Chicago School of Sociology. In
M. Arthur, D. Hall, & B. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 41–65). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Baruch, Y., & Peiperl, M. (2000). Career management practices: An empirical survey and implications. Human
Resource Management, 39, 347–366.
Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (2003). Being and becoming Protean: Individual and experiential factors in adapting to
the new career. Technical Report. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University.
Brousseau, K. R., Driver, M. J., Eneroth, K., & Larsson, R. (1996). Career pandemonium: Realigning organizations
and individuals. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 52–64.
Cascio, W. F. (1993). Downsizing: What do we know? What have we learned? Academy of Management Executive,
7, 95–104.
Dabos, G. E., & Rousseau, D. M. (2004). Mutuality and reciprocity in the psychological contracts of employees
and employers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 52–72.
DeFillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A competency-based perspective. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 15, 307–325.
Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging ‘‘resistance to change’’. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 35, 25–42.
Doorewaard, H., & Benschop, Y. (2003). HRM and organizational change: An emotional endeavor. Journal of
Organizational Change Management, 16, 272–286.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Greenhaus, J. H., Callanan, G. A., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Career management. Orlando, FL: The Dryden Press.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Guest, D., Conway, N., & Davey, L. (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.
Gunz, H. (2000). Organizational culture and careers. In N. M. Askanasy, C. P. M. Wilderdom, & M. F. Peterson
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational culture and climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hall, D. T. (2002). Career in and out of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hall, D. T. (Ed.). (1996). The career is dead, long live the career: A relational approach to careers. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Hall, D. T., Zhu, G., & Yan, A. (2002). Creativity as Protean identity transformation. In M. Peiperl, M. B. Arthur, & N.
Anand (Eds.), Career frontiers: New conceptions of working (pp. 159–179). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Haynes, P., & Boxall, P. (2003). New Zealander’s influence at work: Report on the New Zealand worker
representation and participation survey. Auckland, NZ: University of Auckland.
Humphries, M. T., & Dyer, S. (2001). Changing the nature and conditions of employment: Stimulating critical
reflection. Journal of Management Education, 25, 325–340.
Inkson, K., Furbish, D., & Parker, H. P. (2002). Fast forward: Careers research in New Zealand. Australian Journal
of Career Development, 11, 36–45.
Kelly, A., Brannick, T., Hulpke, J., Levine, J., & To, M. (2003). Linking organizational training and development
practices within new forms of career structure: A cross-national exploration. Journal of European Industrial
Training, 27, 160–168.
King, N. (1998). Template analysis. In G. Symon, & C. Cassell (Eds.), Qualitative methods and analysis in
organizational research: A practical guide (pp.118–134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
King, Z., & Inkson, K. (2001). Contested terrain and career capital: Towards pluralism in career management,
Paper presented at the British Academy of Management.
Larsson, R., Driver, M., Helmqvist, M., & Sweet, P. (2003). Career disintegration and reintegration in mergers and
acquisitions: Managing competence and motivational intangibles. European Management Journal, 19, 609–618.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Meyer, G. J. (1996). Executive blues: Down and out in corporate America. New York: Franklin Square Press.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1995). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mills, P. K., & Ungson, G. R. (2003). Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment: Organizational
constitution and trust as controls. Academy of Management Review, 28, 143–153.
Mirvis, P. H., & Hall, D. T. (1996). Psychological success and the boundaryless career. In M. B. Arthur, & D. M.
Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era (pp. 237–
255). New York: Oxford University Press.
Morrison, R. F. (1995). What enhances/inhibits learning work roles and jobs? Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (May, 1995), Orlando, FL.
Nilakant, V., & Ramnarayan, S. (2006). Change management: Altering mindsets in a global context. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Ogbonna, E., & Wilkinson, B. (2003). The false promises of organizational culture change: A case study of middle
managers in grocery retailing. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1151–1167.
Ornstein, S., & Isabella, L. (1993). Making sense of career: A review 1989–1992. Journal of Management, 19,
243–267.
Öz, Ö. (2004). Using Boolean- and fuzzy-logic-based methods to analyze multiple case study evidence in
management research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 13, 166–179.
Paradeise, C. (2003). French sociology of work and labor: From shop floor to labor markets to network careers.
Organizational Studies, 24, 633–653.
Parker, H. P., & Inkson, K. (1999). New forms of career: The challenge to human resource management. Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 37, 76–85.
Peiperl, M. A., & Arthur, M. B. (2000). Topics for conversation: Career themes old and new. In M. A. Peiperl, M. B.
Arthur, R. Goffee, & T. Morris (Eds.), Career frontiers: New conceptions of working lives (pp. 1–19). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Peiperl, M. A., & Baruch, Y. (1997). Back to square zero: The post-corporate career. Organizational Dynamics, 25,
7–22.
Perrow, C. (1996). The bounded career and the demise of civil society. In M. B. Arthur, & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.),
The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era (pp. 297–313). New York:
Oxford University Press.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Pringle, J. K., & Mallon, M. (2003). Challenges for the boundaryless career odyssey. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 14, 839–853.
Ragin, C. C. (2000). Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Savickas, M. L., & Lent, R. W. E. (1994). Convergence in career development theories: Implications for science
and practice. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Stake, R. E. (1998). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp.
236–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Van Buren, J. (2003). Boundaryless careers and employment obligations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 131–149.
Van der Sluis, L. E. C., & Poell, R. F. (2003). The impact on career development of learning opportunities and
learning behavior at work. Human Resource Development, 14, 159–179.
Viney, C., Adamson, S. J., & Doherty, N. (1995). Organizations’ expectations and career management of fast track
recruits, Paper presented to the New Deal in Employment Conference. City University Business School, London,
UK.
Wajcman, J., & Martin, B. (2001). My company or my career: Managerial achievement and loyalty. British Journal
of Sociology, 52, 559–578.
Whelan-Berry, K. S., Gordon, J. R., & Hinings, C. R. (2003). Strengthening organizational change processes.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39, 186–207.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
DOI: 10.1002/job

Organizational Career Development Is Not Dead - Case Study Method PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Organizational Career Development Is Not Dead - Case Study Method PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Journal of Organizational Behavior

J. Organiz. Behav. 28, 771–792 (2007)