Journal of European Industrial Training

Career mobility in organizations: implications for career development - Part I

Thomas N. Garavan Michael Coolahan

Article information:
To cite this document:
Thomas N. Garavan Michael Coolahan, (1996),"Career mobility in organizations: implications for career development - Part
I", Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 20 Iss 4 pp. 30 - 40
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090599610117063
Downloaded on: 15 June 2016, At: 21:06 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 63 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2956 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

Downloaded by KIIT University At 21:06 15 June 2016 (PT)

(2007),"The impact of organisational support for career development on career satisfaction", Career Development
International, Vol. 12 Iss 7 pp. 617-636 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620430710834396
(2005),"Mentoring and career development", Career Development International, Vol. 10 Iss 6/7 pp. 425-428 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620430510620520
(1996),"Career mobility within organizations: implications for career development - part 2 - a case study", Journal of
European Industrial Training, Vol. 20 Iss 5 pp. 31-39 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090599610119700

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:531489 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Career mobility in organizations: implications for

career development Part I

Downloaded by KIIT University At 21:06 15 June 2016 (PT)

Thomas N. Garavan Lecturer in Human Resource Development, University of

Limerick, Ireland and Michael Coolahan Electricity Supply Board, Limerick,
Ireland

Reviews the literature on

career mobility and considers
its implications for career
development practices within
organizations. Focuses on
individualistic and organizational perspectives and identifies a range of factors which
facilitate or inhibit the mobility process. Identifies a range
of career development implications including changing
notions about what constitutes a career, the need to
take into account business
issues and the move towards
joint career planning.

Journal of European Industrial

Training
20/4 [1996] 3040
MCB University Press
[ISSN 0309-0590]

[ 30 ]

Introduction
Strategic approaches to training and career
development are now discussed with considerable regularity in the HRD literature. This
change of emphasis has brought with it a
realization that the effective management of
an individuals career within the organization can make an important contribution to
an organization achieving competitive advantage from within.
Garavan[1] refers to the growing body of
literature on the relationship between organizational commitment and career issues and
the need to manage the career of an employee
in a strategic fashion. There is, however,
considerable confusion about what constitutes career mobility and development in
practice.
This confusion stems in part from the fact
that career theorists have to date tended to
focus their attention on either:
the individualistic approach to careers
which generally takes the view that career
advancement is a function of background,
education, ability, job experience, ambition,
timing, etc.; or
the organizational approach which views
careers as a structural issue. Slocum[2]
contends that individual careers in organizations are determined by, for example,
internal labour market structures, vacancy
chains, and organizational politics.
The individualistic perspective tends to
assume that employees assess their career
prospects accurately, make optimum human
capital investments and have a good understanding of the factors that affect their future
mobility. This view of careers is, however,
somewhat simplistic, specifically on the issue
of career decision making. Phillips et al.[3]
have identified three such styles:
1 rational: where the advantages and disadvantages of various options are considered
logically and systematically;
2 intuitive: where various options are considered and the decision is made on gut feeling;
3 dependent: where the individual essentially
denies responsibility for decision making
and waits for other people or situations to
dictate what they should do.

A rational, individualistic perspective

ignores the fact that human resource policies
are sometimes ambiguous or misleading
about the ways in which promotional opportunities are determined. It downplays constraints on career paths because of the desire
not to dampen employee motivation levels[4].
Organizational approaches are also limited in
that they are not easily related to individual
characteristics and experience or their actual
career paths within the organization[5].
Given the complexity of internal labour
market structures and the emergence of multiple job ladders in many modern organizations, it can be safely posited that the Horatio
Alger idealized career pattern of office boy to
president will not be easily realized in the
future because access to higher-level positions has become increasingly closed to those
who start at the bottom rung of the job ladder.
Moreover, the emergence of job ladders
divides the labour force because the relatively
privileged position of those within the ladders gives them an incentive to exclude others. A system of haves and have nots is
created and tends to perpetuate itself[6,7].
A further feature of the modern organization which directly affects career prospects is
the adoption of new technology. Educational
criteria and demands for technical knowledge lead to the segregation of higher skilled
from lower skilled jobs and the virtual elimination of the bridge between both, i.e. the
dead-end job has become the rule rather than
the exception.
Cassell[8] argues that the emergence of
specialized education has led to the horizontal stratification of organizations, limited
upward mobility and the creation of barriers
which impede mobility within the organizations divisions and departments. He contends that this has two consequences:
1 limited career prospects and variety of
experience which inhibits an employees
psychological and intellectual growth;
2 lack of experience and, specifically experience at the shopfloor level has reduced the
supply of people with the overall understanding of the organization needed to be
effective leaders.

Thomas N. Garavan and

Michael Coolahan
Career mobility in organizations: implications for career
development Part I

Downloaded by KIIT University At 21:06 15 June 2016 (PT)

Journal of European Industrial

Training
20/4 [1996] 3040

Moreover, stratification by credentials has

led to the development of a management
cadre that has achieved its position in the
absence of experience at the bottom rungs of
the ladder, and a followership that has grassroots experience but no opportunity for vertical movement.
While it is accepted that organizations
cannot fulfil every employees promotional
expectations, many barriers exist which
impede intra-organizational career mobility.
There is support in the literature for the view
that such barriers result from a failure on the
part of human resource practitioners to integrate individual and organizational perspectives within career development practices or
what is termed by Garavan[1] as career
planning which focuses on the individual
and career management which focuses
more on the plans and activities of the organization.
It is also accepted that barriers to career
mobility create dysfunctional outcomes for
both the organization and its employees. The
former suffers from an inability to optimize
its return on its human resource investment
because of failure to identify its best talent
and the evolution of internal labour market
structures which creates bureaucratic barriers prohibiting staff redeployment, particularly where trade unions are involved.
Barriers impact on the latter category
because internal job mobility is seen as an
important component of career advancement
and failure to fulfil psychological needs
results in decreased motivation and commitment to organizational goals.
In this paper the authors will concentrate
mainly on barriers that affect intra-organizational career mobility as opposed to interorganizational mobility. This approach has
more validity since the organization represents the most pertinent status hierarchy for
many. Furthermore, it is more sensible to
study career attainment within occupations
or organizational hierarchies because this is
where most of the advancement occurs, not
between occupations[9]. It is accepted, however, that careers can and do exist outside the
organizational setting and that vertical movement is not necessary for an individuals
ability to form a meaningful career, viz: doctors, dentists, artists, etc.
In the first part of this paper the authors
will look at some definitional issues relating
to careers and mobility, review the literature
on career mobility from both individual and
organizational perspectives and consider
some of the development implications arising. Part II considers these issues in the context of a specific organizational setting.

What constitutes a career and

career mobility? Some definitional
issues
What constitutes a career?
An immediate problem facing the researcher
in the area of careers is the fact that the literature is extant but fragmented. This characteristic can be observed in the many competing definitions of career put forward.
For example, Wilensky[10] writing from a
sociological perspective defined a career in
structural terms as a:
succession of related jobs arranged in a
hierarchy of prestige, through which persons moved in an ordered (more or less
predictable) sequence.

Halls[11] more psychologically-oriented

definition defines it as:
a perceived sequence of attitudes and behaviours associated with work related experiences and activities over the span of a persons life.

Both definitions reinforce the common perception of a career to be a series of jobs which
are played out over time in a hierarchically
organized setting. However, Wilenskys definition is inherently restrictive in its emphasis
on vertical mobility. The common perception
of a successful career involves successive
linear movement up the functional-line organizational career ladder, gaining along the
way additional increments in formal authority, intrinsic/extrinsic rewards, etc. However,
this ignores the fact that in many organizations, horizontal or lateral movement (at the
same level in the hierarchy) is encouraged
and very often necessary as a means of
acquiring the necessary broad experience
before moving from a specialist to a more
generalist management position.
Preoccupation with vertical mobility fails
to recognize that for early managers in fast
growing high-technology[12] the very notion
of career as a sequence of moves may have
little meaning; instead, managers can experience career growth inplace (without moving) as their function or department expands
beneath them.
Garavan[1] points to research showing that
individuals and organizations view careers
differently. Such research shows that while
employees are more interested in opportunities for advancement, obsolescence of technical skills, ageing, impact of a decline in company performance, etc., employers are more
concerned with ensuring that managerial
succession is orderly and efficient. He further
emphasizes that organizations desire their
employees to pursue career development
which is relevant to organizational goals and

[ 31 ]

Thomas N. Garavan and

Michael Coolahan
Career mobility in organizations: implications for career
development Part I

Downloaded by KIIT University At 21:06 15 June 2016 (PT)

Journal of European Industrial

Training
20/4 [1996] 3040

are essentially interested in making sure that

there is a good match between the person and
the job.
Essentially a career is something that an
individual experiences but is not solely of
his/her own making. The way in which organizations are organized and the way in which
the employment relationship is organized
defines the type and scope of career an
employee may have. Moreover, once recruited
to an organization, an individuals chances of
mobility are better if the organization operates a policy of promotion from within.
Equally, employees mobility prospects
depend not only on their ability and motivation but also on the position of their specific
job within the organizations internal labour
market[13]. For the purposes of this paper a
career will be defined as a pattern of workrelated experiences that span the course of an
individuals life. This definition allows for the
incorporation of objective as well as subjective notions of career, and does not confine a
career to professional and managerial occupations or conventional career paths involving increased seniority within a single occupation and/or organization[14].
The latter point is important within the
context of a multi-disciplinary organization
such as will be discussed in Part II of the
paper, where the degree to which an internal
labour market exists and its complexities
significantly defines the scope of an individuals organizational career, and career development ultimately determines whether an
employee gets stuck in the hierarchy.

How is career mobility defined? What

objective measures may be used to define
career success?
Gattiker and Larwood[15] suggest that the
frequency of promotion within an organization is a valuable indicator of career success
and mobility, since it is important for an
individuals climb up the corporate hierarchy.
Kotter[16] found that those headed for the top
had usually been promoted out of their positions within 2.4 years. In similar studies,
Heuseman and Hatfield[17] and Birch and
McMillan[18] found that a manager changes
his job within a company on average 2.9 times
during his/her career.
Schein[19] suggests three dimensions of
career mobility within a firm: increasing
centrality and acceptance to the core organizational membership; lateral movement
across functions; and hierarchical ascension,
through promotions.
Creedy and Whitfield[20] argue that internal mobility has not been comprehensively
researched and is difficult to measure. They
point to the difficulty in measuring those

[ 32 ]

kinds of mobility which result from the gradual accumulation of small changes in job
duties with increased responsibility, and
those which do not. This distinction is important because employees may experience the
illusion of mobility when in fact their career
is blocked.
Even the most cursory review of the careers
literature reinforces the view that in order to
fully understand the dynamics of career
mobility it is necessary to distinguish
between organizational and individual levels
of analysis. At the organizational level the
emphasis is on creating a suitable career
system which co-ordinates staffing activities
into a process that helps the firm adapt to its
environment[21]. At the individual level the
emphasis is on how people make sense of
their own individual careers and where they
fit into this organizational process.
When careers are examined from the individuals perspective it is important to recognize the distinction between the
internal/subjective and external/objective
meanings of a career. This distinction has
important implications for individual career
outcomes and career development.
Schein and Van Maanen[22] postulate that
an individuals definition of a career, or the
internal career, is a persons own subjective
idea about work life and his/her role within
it. For example, an individual who is considered to have achieved hierarchical success
may not be satisfied with his/her level of
advancement, or an individual may not consider a move to a higher level position if that
position is perceived (by him/her) to be a step
backwards in the prestige stakes. Put another
way psychological success (i.e. success in
relation to ones own goal and values) is a
major career motivator for most people.
An objective career on the other hand is
defined by title, rank, salary level, formal
status, etc., all of which are visible and
defined externally to the employee[23].

Career mobility: the individual

context
The individual perspective on careers has
generally been the domain of psychologists.
The focus is generally on independent variables that predict career mobility. Issues
researched included education, social class,
gender and family influences.

Social class determinants

Ironically the very first wave of career
research (almost 50 years ago) focused on
occupational mobility, specifically the
relationship between social class and

Thomas N. Garavan and

Michael Coolahan
Career mobility in organizations: implications for career
development Part I
Journal of European Industrial
Training
20/4 [1996] 3040

intergenerational changes in occupation

status[24].
Of most relevance to this paper, however, is
the work of Blau and Meyer[25] who
suggested that social structure influenced
career in two ways:
1 It shaped the social development of the
individual and thus his/her career orientation, self concept, values, interest.
2 It affected the occupational opportunities
available to the individual.

Downloaded by KIIT University At 21:06 15 June 2016 (PT)

The effects of family background on career

attainment was initially studied by Miller
and Form[26], and replicated by other sociologists. While there is some disagreement
among sociologists about the strength of this
relationship, Roberts[27] points out:
the assertion of the social class approach
that job opportunities partly depend on
position in the social structure cannot be
denied.

A more recent study by Hout[28] on social

mobility in Ireland proves statistically that
the advantage of upper middle class origins
in relation to career attainment is significant.
Hout demonstrates that:
in numerical terms, upper professionals
sons have a chance of landing a good job that
is six times higher than the chance of proprietors sons and twenty four times higher
than the chance of semi-skilled workers
sons.

A plausible explanation for these statistics

can be observed from research by Blau and
Duncan[29]. They suggest that the most influential forces on career attainment come from
the individuals social class background,
specifically the fathers occupation and
fathers education. These two forces were
found to be strong predictors of a persons
education and their first job. This in turn
could predict their current job.

Education and professional training

In developing a theory of career mobility,
Sicherman and Galor[30] analysed theoretically and empirically the role and significance of occupational mobility (mobility with
the context of moving up the hierarchy) in the
labour market focusing on an individuals
career and taking into account investment in
human capital (education and professional
training). They propose that inter-firm career
mobility (promotion) is uncertain and
subject to employer decision-making
processes; the probability of promotion is a
function of schooling, ability and job experience.
The theory predicts that, given an occupation of origin, education and training
increased the likelihood of occupational

upgrading. It also predicts two opposing

effects in relation to career mobility. On the
one hand, since well-educated and trained
workers can start their working careers at a
higher-level occupation, their careers are
likely to involve fewer distinct occupations
than less educated workers. In addition, highskill careers might involve fewer changes in
tasks over time (fewer hierarchical movements are open to highly skilled specialists)
and fewer changes of firm. On the other hand,
more educated and trained workers, having
started their career at a higher level, face
longer career ladders and greater opportunities for hierarchical advancement.
Access to education is differentiated
according to social class; Breen et al.[31] in
their study of participation levels in the Irish
educational system found that:
pupils from an upper non-manual background (i.e. whose father is an executive,
manager or professional) were at least six
times more likely to sit the Leaving Certificate Examination and thirteen times more
likely to enter third level education than
boys from an unskilled or semi-skilled
labouring family background.

Internal career self-concepts

Attention has already been drawn to the need
to differentiate between the internal meaning
given to a career by the individual and the
objective or external perception of a career as
in formal position, status, hierarchy, titles,
etc.
An individuals internal or career selfconcept is developed as a result of early
socialization and experiences in the workplace where employees learn what they are
good at and what motivates them. The values
of the particular society also contribute to
this process.
Schein[32] formulated a conceptual model
which articulates that different career orientations develop. He described these orientations as career anchors. Schein[33] conceptualized careers as a process of finding a
career anchor which becomes a guiding focus
in an employees life, giving him/her a selfimage built around needs, motives, talent and
values. Schein argues that the career anchor
is an:
overriding concern or need that operates as
a genuine constraint on career decisions.
The anchor is the thing the person would
not give up if he or she had the choice.

He identified five career anchors: technicalfunctional; managerial competence; creativity; security and stability; autonomy and
independence. The significance for individuals and organizations of employees having a

[ 33 ]

Thomas N. Garavan and

Michael Coolahan
Career mobility in organizations: implications for career
development Part I

Downloaded by KIIT University At 21:06 15 June 2016 (PT)

Journal of European Industrial

Training
20/4 [1996] 3040

particular career anchor or what could also

be called mindset can be observed as follows.
First, career anchors can create barriers to
career mobility for individuals. For example,
an individual with a security anchor may
be content to work hard enough to maintain
job security and a reasonable income, but
may be unwilling to challenge for a higher
position. An employee with a technical
career anchor such as an engineer may be
unwilling to forgo his/her main competence
to move up to a general management position
where this expertise will not be required. A
similar argument can be made for a craft
person moving into a supervisory position.
Second, most organizational cultures
restrict esteem to those who climb the hierarchical ladder. Therefore, in order to advance
career-wise, individuals with a strong technical competence career anchor may move
upwards hierarchically to management or
supervisory positions with disastrous consequences for both self and organization as a
result of the misfit[34].
The latter example is analogous to the paradox outlined by Gattiker and Larwood[15] to
the effect that the individual could achieve
objective career success, but because of
their internal perspective, experience poor
career satisfaction.
Driver[35] in a similar vein developed a
conceptual model of internal career maps. He
described four career self concepts that
underpin a persons thinking about his/her
career and also seem to be built into certain
occupations or organizations, i.e. transitory,
steady state, linear and spiral. Given the age
profile of many organizations, individuals
who subscribe to a linear concept will have
difficulties with their career. Arnold et al.[36]
argue that the fast pace of societal and technological change generally favours the spiral
and transitory career concepts, but these
have not historically been perceived as normal or legitimate patterns in many organizations.

Career choice
One of the most influential theories of career
choice is Hollands[37]. Basically it suggests
that people with particular personality traits
will choose predictable types of occupational
environments. He identified a range of personality types which are compatible with
particular occupational environments. Hollands hypothesis is based on the notion of
congruence, i.e. people will have a more successful career when there is a good match
between the individuals personality (orientation) and the occupation they have chosen.

[ 34 ]

However, Hollands theory does not explain

the process by which effective career decisions are made[36], or the process of personality development and its role in vocational
selection[38]. Arnold et al.[36] refer to evidence which suggests, for example, that people with high self-esteem make better career
decisions than people with low self-esteem.
Osipow[38] refers to the problem of not
being able to start a career in the primary
area of interest and suggests that chance
can play a significant role in career choice.
He adds that education plays an important
role since it commits a person to a certain
course of action and eliminates others.

Low growth need

Although a person may have the ability to
perform at a higher level in the organization
he/she may not value highly enough the
rewards increased responsibility may bring.

Self-imposed constraint
Dalton et al.[39] suggest that some employees
may not understand the consequences of
passing up promotional opportunities in
their early careers. The opportunity cost of
not developing the necessary social and technical skills at an early stage may lead to premature career plateauing.

Familial influences dual career families

Research shows that community ties, such as
relatives and friends living in the same geographical area, have a negative impact on
employee mobility[40-42]. Forster[40] refers to
studies on managerial attitudes to relocating.
Sixty per cent of the managers surveyed by
the Institute of Manpower Studies (IMS) in
1987 had at some time refused a job because of
family commitments. Two-thirds of a group of
managers surveyed in 1986 over the age of 35
would not accept a job move, or accept it only
with reluctance. The principal non-work
reason given by employees for refusing job
moves is the potentially disruptive effect on
spouses and other family dependants.
Another influence affecting employee attitudes towards promotion is the growing number of dual-earner or dual-career couples in
the labour market. Research by Hall and
Hall[43], on the effects of dual careers on
mobility, found that transfer and relocations
were the main problems for both two-career
couples and for companies. Hall and
Isabella[44] found that the financial independence of the dual-earners lessened the motivation to relocate, particularly if the spouse
had to forgo his/her career to accommodate
the move.

Thomas N. Garavan and

Michael Coolahan
Career mobility in organizations: implications for career
development Part I

Downloaded by KIIT University At 21:06 15 June 2016 (PT)

Journal of European Industrial

Training
20/4 [1996] 3040

Age
The negative correlation between increasing
biological age and career mobility is widely
accepted. However, the strength of this relationship may vary depending on the organization and it is difficult to measure. Other
variables such as education, experience, skill,
etc. may be more significant in inter-organizational promotion contests[45].
Rosenbaum[46] suggests that organizations
have occupational age norms that indicate
career progression norms. In many organizations, if by the age of 40 a person has not been
promoted to a managerial position, he/she is
seen as behind schedule and may never attain
that position.
Ornstein et al.[47], provides further information on the effect of age on career mobility:
the mid-life transition period (age 40-45),
associated with Levinsons model of Life
development, was consistent with a reluctance (if a promotion required a move) to
relocate in order to avoid family disruption;.
the decline stage, associated with Supers
career development model, was consistent
with withdrawing from the job/career, and
individuals at this stage were least likely to
relocate if requested to do so[48].

Gender/race
There is a considerable body of research and
literature explaining how racial and sexual
discrimination and the treatment of ethnic
minorities may influence career dynamics.
Despite increasing participation rates in
the labour force worldwide, very few women
have risen to positions of leadership and
authority. Martin et al.[49] analysed the main
barriers to career mobility faced by women in
hierarchical bureaucratic organizations, viz:
Societal stereotypes which sees women as
properly in the home rather than the
workplace depict women as less committed
than men to jobs and careers. Such claims
are used as justification to deny women
access to job ladders leading to the top.
The tendency to locate low-skilled assembly
type operations, mainly staffed by women,
in periphery functions removed from the
core firm, limits career opportunity for
women.
The educational system prepares women
for female-dominated jobs usually involving short career ladders.
Women lose out because of the political
nature of the internal promotion system in
hierarchical organizations.
Primary responsibility for home and children affects the ability of women to relocate.
The lack of child-care facilities provided by
work organizations is also a problem.

Other studies have shown that women have

difficulty in acquiring a mentor in male dominated jobs[50,51]. In mobile dual career families the dominant bread winner is usually
the male[41].

Career mobility: the organizational

context
It is clear that a considerable number of individual factors influence an individuals
career success. However, careers are usually
made within organizations and therefore
career dynamics are influenced to a considerable degree by matters organizational. The
complexity of the internal labour market
(ILM) structure, the type of career system,
size, structure, technology, organizational life
cycle, etc. shape mobility patterns, career
development opportunities and the kinds of
career an individual can have. These variables can be best described as moderating in
influence.

Internal labour market

Once inside an organization, an individuals
career mobility prospects are dependent on
the extent to which promotion from within
policies exist, and whether ones job is in a
job ladder or not.
Internal Labour Markets (ILMs) are characterized by recruitment at specific points of
entry, formally defined job ladders that
provide individuals with promotional opportunities, and centralized pay systems. ILMs
offer advantages to both employee and
employer: the former enjoys security of
employment and privileged access to promotion while the latter benefits by retention of
firm-specific skills transferred to employees
through on-the-job training, and the facility
to screen workers of differing ability through
observing job performance. Organizations
also benefit because the promise of a promotion at some time in the future elicits compliance and provides incentives for employees to
retain organizational membership.
Another problem for analysts of ILMs highlighted in research by Baron et al.[52] (corroborating earlier work by Pfeffer and
Cohen[53]), is that organizations of the same
size and operating within the same basic
industry ranged from having no formal promotion system to extensive ILMs covering
most workers with many variants between
these extremes.
This article will confine itself to those
aspects of ILM arrangements which facilitate
and/or constrain career mobility and career
development opportunities. Despite Baron et
al.s [52] research, there is support for the

[ 35 ]

Thomas N. Garavan and

Michael Coolahan
Career mobility in organizations: implications for career
development Part I
Journal of European Industrial
Training
20/4 [1996] 3040

view that formal ILMs are synonymous with

large hierarchical type organizations and
consistent with bureaucratic functional-line
career ladders. Osterman[7] noted that there
can be more than one ILM in an organization.
He explains how craft, industrial (firm specific), and secondary employment systems
can exist in the same organization operating
under different industrial relations rules,
providing different career opportunities for
diverse groups of workers.

Job ladders

Downloaded by KIIT University At 21:06 15 June 2016 (PT)

The notion that job ladders develop around

work roles, having common technical skills
or customs, is a recurring theme in the literature. However, there is support for the view
that many vertical and horizontal distinctions among jobs reflect custom and status
issues and not simply distinctions in skill and
knowledge requirements.
Some ladders reach the top of the organization, others have ceilings at fairly low levels.
Distribution of grades by job ladder can make
advancement difficult if there is a concentration of lower level grades at the bottom, i.e.
mini-pyramid.
Job ladders can be differentiated both vertically and horizontally with limited lateral
movement. Kanter[54] identified three major
sources of blocked mobility associated with
ILMs:
1 dead-end jobs with short ladders and limited opportunities for horizontal movement;
2 wrong route to a high-mobility job: inexperience inhibits further moves;
3 the Pyramid Squeeze, smaller number of
jobs at the top.
Another problem highlighted by Osterman[7]
is that rules and procedures within ILMs
considerably limit management discretion
concerning deployment of the labour force.
This may be especially so where trade unions
are recognized. This rigidity prevents
employees from gaining experience through
cross-functional lateral moves, thereby limiting their upward potential. Kanter[54] also
identified sources of career blockages in hightech firms, viz: functional overspecialization/high-level dead end jobs, high status
early in the career and nowhere to go afterwards. DiPrete[55] found that employees on
the same job ladder and in the same division
as the vacancy were more likely than others
to get the job, even when the position was
open to other ladders. Baron and Bielby[56]
argue that large organizations are more
likely to proliferate job titles, fostering both
vertical and horizontal distinctions within
similar occupations. They concluded that the

[ 36 ]

division of labour leads to a political contest

in organizations with different groups such
as occupational groups, trade unions, personnel specialists, striving to shape jobs to further their own interests.
Despite the importance of career systems
for the individual and the organization, very
little is known about the dynamics of employment conditions within which firms define
opportunities and equip people for job
changes[21]. For example, the allocation of
cross-functional assignments to prepare
individuals for upward mobility may owe
more to political favouritism than any
objective assessment of an individuals
potential[57].
Equally other HRM policies in areas like
promotion, training, recruitment and the
reward systems can have an impact on an
individuals career attainment.

Promotions
At the very basic level, an employees chance
of competing for a vacancy in a promotional
hierarchy is primarily dependent on that
individual being aware than an opportunity
exists, which is in turn somewhat dependent
on the existence or otherwise of companywide job posting arrangements.
Lee[58,59] argues that the formality of the
promotion process creates problems for both
promoter and promotee, i.e. difficulty in measuring a persons attributes; job characteristics are likewise hard to measure.
Rosenbaum[46] found that managers have
insufficient information about employees
abilities and relied on certain structural
indicators to signal ability such as:
educational credentials are thought to connote ability;
supervisors ratings are unreliable because
competing candidates are often in comparable jobs;
individuals past education and job attainments are equated with ability;
employees are viewed as being more capable if they have rapidly advancing careers
or if they are younger than their peers in
their status level.
Research by Fagenson[60] showed that the
inability to secure a mentor can adversely
affect a persons career chances. Lee and
Piper[50] refer to the process of labelling,
where, within a short time of entering an
organization, an individual is attributed with
qualities, abilities and attitudes based on
limited, irrelevant and subjective evidence.
Such labelling, they argue, determines
whether an employee becomes a high flyer,
steady climber or slow mover.

Thomas N. Garavan and

Michael Coolahan
Career mobility in organizations: implications for career
development Part I
Journal of European Industrial
Training
20/4 [1996] 3040

Training and development

Over time, the unavailability of training, or
the refusal by the individual to undertake
training and development, can impede an
employees progress up or across job
ladders[42]. Inglos[61] found that the selection for and participation in training and
development activities carries powerful symbolic messages within an organization.
Equally, non-selection implies/signals a
dead end career. Guntz[62] argues that an
excess of training or over-specialization in
one area may make it difficult for an individual to change job ladders.

Downloaded by KIIT University At 21:06 15 June 2016 (PT)

Selection criteria and methods

An employees mobility within an organization may be restricted if there is a mismatch
between the abilities and attributes of the
individual and the requirements of the job.
Over-reliance on typically unreliable selection devices like interviews and some personality tests can facilitate this mismatch.
Arnold et al.[36] point out that the high
expectation of advancement of new recruits
can lead to disillusionment, loss of motivation and intention to leave the organization.
He advocates realistic job previews to
describe jobs warts and all to overcome this
problem.

Extrinsic rewards
Some employees may have the skills and
abilities to perform at a higher level but do
not value the reward highly enough. This
phenomenon creates a blocked career path
for those coming up behind in the hierarchy.

Internal competition
A tournament model was proposed by Rosenbaum[4,5] to explain individual career mobility in pyramid shaped organizations. The
model suggests a dynamic series of contests
generated by organizational events. He
argues that each competition differentiates a
group of employees, defining future opportunities.
Early winners are seen as high potential
people who can do no wrong and receive challenging assignments which prepares them for
future success. Early losers on the other hand
receive a custodial socialization process
and their subsequent performance is largely
irrelevant and goes unnoticed. They may
compete, however, in subsequent secondary
tournaments. The costs of losing a contest is
instant death and this often discourages
risk taking and innovation on the part of
employees.

Weaknesses in the organizations career

development system
Nicholson and Arnold[63] identified four
typical shortcomings of organizational career
development systems:
1 Restricted career development: No organization can provide unlimited opportunities
for staff mobility due to the pyramidal
nature of the organization. However, organizations create unnecessary restrictions
by not making cross-functional promotions.
2 Political career development: Organizational politics can promote or impede an
employees career, independent of performance levels.
3 Mechanistic career development: Bureaucratic rules and procedures can lead to a
loss of motivation when the criteria for
career advancement are adhered to rigidly.
4 Neglected career development: Individuals
are left to take charge of their own development; career paths are not identified and
advancement is ad hoc.

Organizational technology
The type of organizational technology and
the technological environment can significantly influence an individuals career opportunities. Fast-moving high-technology organizations may have no option but to buy in
expertise. Such industries are typified by
short career ladders with limited opportunity
for hierarchical advancement. Kanter[12]
found that high-technology companies provided dual ladders; technical employees
advanced along a track supposedly in parallel
with a managerial track.
Another problem is the obsolescence of
technical professions. Employees who have
failed to make it into general management
may become surplus to requirement in the
event of technological change. Guntz[62]
makes the point that the lateral moves are
possible when the technology is simple but
difficult when the technology is complex. In
this case vertical moves predominate.

Poor human resource planning

Inaccurate human resource forecasting can
result in overstaffing. In this situation the
normal pyramid restrictions on upward
mobility are exacerbated. External business
conditions resulting in slow organizational
growth can limit the number of opportunities
for increased responsibilities, and mobility
prospects for staff are further limited if the
organization has to downsize in order to
survive. Slocum[2] found that there were
significantly fewer career opportunities in
defender strategy companies than in
analyser strategy companies. Opportunities for career advancement are also directly

[ 37 ]

related to and reflect a firms size and organizations life cycle position, i.e. growth, maintenance, decline and turnaround.

Journal of European Industrial

Training
20/4 [1996] 3040

Recent trends, such as restructuring or rationalization of companies, have constrained job

mobility and career opportunities. The
decentralization of production, and the
migration of work towards periphery firms
where inferior labour markets exist, have
segmented the labour forces. This segmentation has precipitated a situation where
worker mobility between tiers is increasingly constrained by a widening skill gap and
geographic separation[8].
Cassell[8] comments that the outcome of
this type of restructuring and the breaking
up of organizational job ladders will be fewer
jobs at the higher end of the ladder and a
decline in opportunities for future generations of workers.

Downloaded by KIIT University At 21:06 15 June 2016 (PT)

Thomas N. Garavan and

Michael Coolahan
Career mobility in organizations: implications for career
development Part I

Organizational restructuring

Multi-tasking
Apart from reducing the size of the labour
force, multi-tasking has two opposing effects
on career mobility. On the one hand, it
increased opportunities for inter-firm career
mobility by reducing demarcation barriers.
However, the increased firm specificity and
the abandonment of external accreditation of
skills will lead to reduced opportunities for
inter-firm mobility.

Growth in services
One of the most significant structural
changes to affect career opportunity for workers is the decline in manufacturing and the
growth in services industries. Service industries are typified by short career ladders and
are used to buffer core organizations, providing a flexible workforce which can be dispensed with in times of recession.

Key lessons for career

development
This paper has reviewed some of the literature on career mobility and proposes that
career progression within organizations is
constrained by a combination of individual
and organizational factors. A number of
important issues emerge which have implications for career development practices:
Organizations intentionally or otherwise
build-in barriers to career mobility. These
barriers may take many forms and may
arise from major organizational changes
and/or the types of human resource management and development practices prevalent within the organization.

[ 38 ]

Individual variables are important but do

not fully explain the level of career mobility
which a particular individual may achieve.
Organizational characteristics act as moderators of the relationship between individual characteristics and mobility patterns.
Careers tend to be perceived in traditional
terms in many organizations. However,
many of the organizational factors
reviewed indicate a need to embrace other
notions of a career. This shift in emphasis
will have significant implications for successor planning and career management
systems.
The implications for career development are
many; however, four particular implications
are highlighted here:
1 Career development and succession planning cycles will need to relate more closely
to the changing business strategies and
developments in the structure of the organization than heretofore.
2 Planning career development must become
more of a joint process involving both the
individual and the organizational perspective. The notion of a job/career for life or
guaranteed promotion will have to be
specifically addressed with a greater
emphasis on widening the individuals
perception of what constitutes a career.
This will require some education type initiatives.
3 Later job opportunities will become
increasingly relevant especially for older
age groups, when there is often an assumption that development stops. New forms of
work organization may facilitate this later
movement.
4 The focus of training and individual development will most likely be the job itself.
Such training and development is likely to
occur early in the individuals career and it
will help to ensure that the necessary competences have been achieved early in the
career and allow for greater flexibility in
terms of career management and development processes. It will also provide the
organization with greater flexibility when
planning lateral moves and upward mobility (if and when available).
Some of these issues will be addressed in part
II of this paper which reports a case study on
career mobility and development in a multidisciplinary organization.

References
1 Garavan, T.N., Promoting strategic career
development activities: some Irish experience, Industrial and Commercial Training,
Vol. 22 No. 6, 1990, pp. 22-30.

Thomas N. Garavan and

Michael Coolahan
Career mobility in organizations: implications for career
development Part I

Downloaded by KIIT University At 21:06 15 June 2016 (PT)

Journal of European Industrial

Training
20/4 [1996] 3040

2 Slocum, W.L., Occupational careers in organisations: a sociological perspective, Personnel

& Guidance Journal, Vol. 43, 1968, pp. 858-66.
3 Phillips, D.S., Pazienza, N.J. and Walsh, D.J.,
Decision-making styles and progress in occupational decision making, Journal of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 25, 1984, pp. 96-105.
4 Rosenbaum, J.E., Organization career systems and employee misperceptions, in
Arthur, M.B., Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B.S.
(Eds), Handbook of Career Theory, Cambridge
University Press, 1989, pp. 329-53.
5 Rosenbaum, J.E. (1986), Institutional career
structures and the social contribution of ability in Richardson, J.E. (Ed.), Handbook of
Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, Greenwood, New York, NY, 1986, pp. 13972.
6 Doeringer, P. and Piore, M., International
Labour Markets & Manpower Analysis, Heath
Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1971.
7 Osterman, P., Introduction: the nature and
importance of internal labour markets, in
Osterman, P. (Ed.), Internal Labour Markets,
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1984, pp. 163-90.
8 Cassell, F.H., Changing industrial structure
and job/career opportunity, International
Journal of Manpower, Vol. 11 No. 1, 1990,
pp. 26-37.
9 Spilerman, S., Careers, labour market structure and socio-economic achievement,
American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, 1977,
pp. 551-93.
10 Wilensky, H.L., Varieties of work experience,
in Borow, H. (Ed.), Man in a World at Work,
Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, 1964.
11 Hall, D.T., Pressures from work, self & home
in the life stages of married women, Journal
of Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 6, 1975, pp. 121-32.
12 Kanter, J., Variations in managerial career
structures in high technology firms; the
impact of organizational characteristics on
internal labour market patterns in Osterman,
P. (Ed.), Internal Labour Markets, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1984, pp. 109-32.
13 Pfeffer, J., A political perspective on careers:
interests, networks and environments, in
Arthur, M.B., Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B.S.
(Eds), Handbook of Career Theory, Cambridge
University Press, UK, 1989, pp. 380-96.
14 Carroll, G.R. and Mayer, K.U., Job shift patterns in the Federal Republic of Germany: the
effects of social class, industry sector and
organizational size, American Sociological
Review, Vol. 51, 1986, pp. 323-41.
15 Gattiker, U.L. and Larwood, L., Predicators
for managers career mobility, success and
satisfaction, Human Relations, Vol. 41 No. 8,
1988, pp. 569-91.
16 Kotter, J.P., cited in Gattiker, U.E. and Larwood,
L., Predictors for managers career mobility,
success and satisfaction, Human Relations,
Vol. 41 No. 8, 1988, pp. 569-91.

17 Heuseman, R.C. and Hatfield, J.D., Equity

theory and the managerial matrix, Training
and Development Journal, April 1990, pp. 98102.
18 Birch, S. and Macmillan, B., Managers on the
move: a study of British managerial mobility,
Management Survey Report No. 7, British
Institute of Management, 1971.
19 Schein, E., Career Dynamics, Addison Wesley,
Reading, MA, 1978.
20 Creedy, J. and Whitfield, K., Earnings and job
mobility over the life cycle: internal and external processes, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 9 No. 2, 1988, p. 16-18.
21 Sonnenfeld, J.A., Career system profiles and
strategic staffing, in Arthur, M.B., Hall, D.T.
and Lawrence, B.S. (Eds), Handbook of Career
Theory, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1989,
pp. 202-24.
22 Schein, E.H. and Van Maanen, J., Career
development, in Hackman, J.R. and Sutte, J.L.
(Eds), Improving Life at Work, Goodyear, Santa
Monica, CA, 1977.
23 Leibowitz, F., Kaye, C. and Ferren, D., Career
gridlock, Training and Development Journal,
April 1990, pp. 29-35.
24 Sonnenfeld, J. and Kotter, J.P., The maturation of career theory, Human Relations, Vol.
35 No. 1, 1982, pp. 19-46.
25 Blau, P.M. and Meyer, M.W., Bureaucracy in
Modern Society, Random House, New York, NY,
1971.
26 Miller, D. and Form, A., cited in Sonnenfeld, J.
and Kotter, J.P., The maturation of career
theory, Human Relations, Vol. 35 No. 1, 1982,
pp. 19-46.
27 Roberts, O.K., The sociology of work entry
and occupational choice, in Wall, A.G., Super,
D.E. and Kidd, J.M. (Eds), Career Development
in Britain, Hobsons Press, Cambridge, 1981.
28 Hout, M., Following in Fathers Footsteps:
Social Mobility in Ireland, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989.
29 Blau, P.M. and Duncan, O.D., The American
Occupational Structure, Wiley, New York, NY,
1967.
30 Sicherman, N. and Galor, O., A theory of
career mobility, Journal of Political Economy,
Vol. 98 No. 11, 1987, pp. 15-23.
31 Breen, R., Hannon, D.F., Rottman, D.B. and
Whelan, C.W., Understanding Contemporary
Ireland: State, Class and Development in the
Republic of Ireland, Gill and MacMillan,
Dublin, 1990.
32 Schein, E., Individuals and careers, Technical Report 19, Office of Naval Research, Washington, DC, 1982.
33 Schein, E., Organisational Culture & Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1986.
34 Derr Brooklyn, C. and Laurent, A., The internal and external career: a theoretical and
cross-cultural perspective, in Arthur, M.B.,
Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B.S. (Eds), Handbook
of Career Theory, Cambridge University Press,
UK, 1989, pp. 454-71.

[ 39 ]

Thomas N. Garavan and

Michael Coolahan
Career mobility in organizations: implications for career
development Part I

Downloaded by KIIT University At 21:06 15 June 2016 (PT)

Journal of European Industrial

Training
20/4 [1996] 3040

[ 40 ]

35 Driver, M.J., Career concepts a new

approach to career research, in Katz, M.R.
(Ed.), Career Issues in Human Resource Management, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
1982.
36 Arnold, J., Robertson, I.T. and Cooper, C.L.,
Work Psychology: Understanding Human
Behaviour in the Workplace, Pitman, London,
1995, pp. 265-80.
37 Holland, J.L., The Psychology of Vocational
Choice, Blasdell, Waltham, MA, 1966.
38 Osipow, S.H., Theories of Career Development,
3rd ed., Prentice Hall, New York, NY, 1983.
39 Dalton, G.W. and Thompson, P.H., Novations:
Strategies for Career Management, Scott Foreseman, Glenview, IL,1986.
40 Forster, N.S., Employee job mobility and
relocation, Personnel Review, Vol. 19 No. 6,
1990, pp. 18-24.
41 Forster, N.S., A practical guide to the management of job changes and relations, Personnel
Review, Vol. 19 No. 4, 1990.
42 Feldman, D.C. and Weitz, B.A., Career
plateaux reconsidered, Journal of Management, Vol. 45 No. 1, 1988, pp. 69-80.
43 Hall, D.T. and Hall, S.H., cited in Garavan, T.N.,
Promoting strategic career development
activities: some Irish experience, Industrial
and Commercial Training, Vol. 22 No. 6, 1990,
pp. 27-30.
44 Hall, D.T. and Isabella, L.A., Downward
career movement and career development,
Organizational Dynamics, Summer 1987,
pp. 5-22.
45 Sekeran, U. and Hall, D.T., Asynchronism in
dual career and family linkages, in Arthur,
M.B., Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B.S. (Eds),
Handbook of Career Theory, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1989, pp. 159-80.
46 Rosenbaum, J.E., Career Mobility in a Corporate Hierarchy, Academic Press, New York, NY,
1987.
47 Ornstein, S., Cron, W.L. and Slocum, J.W. Jr, A
comparative test of the theories of Levinson
and Super, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 10 No. 2, April 1989, pp. 117-33.
48 Gallos, J.V., Exploring womens development:
implications for theory, practice and
research, in Arthur, M.B., Hall, D.T. and
Lawrence, B.S. (Eds), Handbook of Career
Theory, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1989,
pp. 110-32.
49 Martin, P.Y., Harrison, D. and Dinnitto, D.,
Advancement for women in hierarchical
organizations: a multilevel analysis of problems and prospects, The Journal of Applied
Behavioural Science, Vol. 19 No. 1, 1983,
pp. 19-33.

50 Lee, R.A. and Piper, J., The graduate promotion process: understanding the soft side,
Personnel Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, 1989, pp. 36-46.
51 Shapior, E.C., Haseltine, F.P. and Rowe, M.P.,
Moving up: role models, mentors and the
patron system, Sloan Management Review,
Vol. 19 No. 3, 1978, pp. 51-8.
52 Baron, J.N., Davis-Blake, A. and Bielby, W.T.,
The structure of opportunity: how promotion
ladders vary within and among
organizations, Administration Science Quarterly, Vol. 231, 1986, pp. 248-73.
53 Pfeffer, J. and Cohen, Y., Determinants of
internal labour markets in organizations,
Administration Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, 1984,
pp. 550-72.
54 Kanter, R.M., Careers and the wealth of
nation, a macro-perspective on the structure
and implications of career forms, in Arthur,
M.B., Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B.S. (Eds),
Career Theory, Cambridge University Press,
UK, 1989, pp. 506-28.
55 DiPrete, T.A.,Horizontal and vertical mobility
in organizations, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 32, September 1987, pp. 422-44.
56 Baron, J.N. and Bielby, W.T., The proliferation
of job titles in organizations, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 31, 1986, pp. 561-86.
57 Argyris, C., cited in Arthur, M.B. and Dram,
K.E., Reciprocity at work, in Arthur, M.B.,
Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B.S. (Eds), Handbook
of Career Theory, Cambridge University Press,
UK, 1989, pp. 292-312.
58 Lee, R., The theory and practice of promotion
processes: part one, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, 1985,
pp. 3-6.
59 Lee, R., The theory and practice of promotion
processes: part two, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, 1985, pp.
17-21.
60 Fagenson, E.A., The mentor advantage: perceived career/job experiences of protgs
versus non-protgs, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 10, 1989, pp. 309-20.
61 Inglos, C.A., Management education: articulating the unspoken, riding the bend: wasting
money & preparing for tomorrow?, in May, L.,
Zamitt, S. and Moore, C.A. (Eds), Evaluating
Business & Industry Training, Kluwer, Norwall, MA,1987.
62 Guntz, H., Careers and the corporate climbing frame, Leadership & Organizational
Development Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, 1990,
pp. 17-24.
63 Nicholson, N. and Arnold, J., Graduate early
in a multi-national corporation, Personnel
Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, 1989, pp. 3-14.

Downloaded by KIIT University At 21:06 15 June 2016 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Narelle Hess, Denise M. Jepsen, Nicky Dries. 2012. Career and employer change in the age of the boundaryless career.
Journal of Vocational Behavior 81:2, 280-288. [CrossRef]
2. Nicky Dries, Roland Pepermans. 2012. How to identify leadership potential: Development and testing of a consensus model.
Human Resource Management 51:3, 361-385. [CrossRef]
3. Arthur Morgan, Steve Rayner. 2011. Human resource development of non-commissioned officers in the army; a cognitive
style perspective?. Human Resource Development International 14:3, 305-320. [CrossRef]
4. Christina Yu-Ping Wang, Bih-Shiaw Jaw, Chester Hsieh-Che Tsai, Mu-Hua Chen. 2010. The causal effects of organizational
internal labor market on firm-specific learning the mediating effect of willingness to internal transfer. The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 21:7, 1015-1034. [CrossRef]
5. Marilyn ClarkeUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia. 2008. Understanding and managing employability
in changing career contexts. Journal of European Industrial Training 32:4, 258-284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Marilyn ClarkeSchool of Management, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia Margaret PatricksonInternational
Graduate School of Business, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia. 2008. The new covenant of employability.
Employee Relations 30:2, 121-141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Ans De VosVlerick Leuven Gent Management School, Gent, Belgium Koen DewettinckVlerick Leuven Gent Management
School, Gent, Belgium Dirk BuyensVlerick Leuven Gent Management School & Faculty of Economics and Business
Administration, Ghent University, Gent, Belgium. 2008. To move or not to move?. Employee Relations 30:2, 156-175.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Danil VloeberghsUniversiteit Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium Roland PepermansVrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
Kathleen ThielemansVrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium. 2005. Highpotential development policies: an empirical
study among Belgian companies. Journal of Management Development 24:6, 546-558. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Louise Lemire, Christian Rouillard. 2003. Le plafonnement de carrire. Relations industrielles 58:2, 287. [CrossRef]