Advances in Career Theory and Research A Critical Review and Agenda For Future Exploration

Journal of Management
35(6) 1542–1571
Advances in Career Theory and © 2009 Southern Management
Association
Research: A Critical Review and DOI: 10.1177/0149206309350082
http://jom.sagepub.com
Agenda for Future Exploration
Sherry E. Sullivan1 and Yehuda Baruch2
Abstract
In this review the authors critically examine the nature of contemporary careers and the direction
in which careers research has developed over the past decade. Specifically, career concepts
that emerged in the 1990s, including the protean and boundaryless career frameworks, as well
as the next generation of career concepts, including integrative frameworks, hybrid careers,
and the kaleidoscope career model, are discussed. The authors examine conceptualizations
and measures of these models as well as related research. This review aims to improve our
understanding of careers in today’s dynamic work environment, provide a comprehensive
discussion of current discourse, and offer major directions for future research.
Keywords
career, protean, boundaryless, postcorporate, kaleidoscope
Traditionally, careers were typically defined in terms of an individual’s relationship to an employ-

ing organization. These linear careers were described as taking place within the context of stable,
organizational structures (e.g., Levinson, 1978; Super, 1957), with individuals progressing up the
firm’s hierarchy seeking to obtain greater extrinsic rewards (Rosenbaum, 1979). These models,
popularized during the 1950s and 1960s, were supported by economic and workplace environ-
ments characterized by the introduction and growth of new technologies as well as social norms
and structures that tended to support the male-as-breadwinner family structure (Sullivan & Crocitto,
2007). The employer-employee relationship was characterized by an exchange of worker loyalty
for the firm’s implicit promise of job security (Rousseau, 1989).
Environmental changes, such as increased globalization, rapid technological advance-
ments, increased workforce diversity, and the expanding use of outsourcing and part-time and
temporary employees, have altered traditional organizational structures, employer-employee
relationships, and the work context, creating changes in how individuals enact their career.
For example, The New York Times reported that recent mass layoffs have resulted in the rise of
“forced entrepreneurship” (Richtel & Wortham, 2009). Many individuals are now creating
1
Bowling Green, OH, USA
2
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UNITED KINGDOM
Corresponding Author:
Yehuda Baruch, Norwich Business School, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UNITED KINGDOM
Email: y.baruch@uea.ac.uk
Sullivan and Baruch 1543
work for themselves, using the Internet as an inexpensive tool to find business partners, market
their products, and connect with suppliers (Carraher, 2005). Similarly, the credit crunch has
forced some older workers to reconsider their career paths (Browning & Silver, 2008). Many of
these older workers have been laid off or shifted around within their firms in response to
changes in organizational strategies (Blenkinsopp, Baruch, & Winden, in press), while others
have postponed their retirement plans or returned to the workforce after a period of retirement
due to financial problems (Johnson, Soto, & Zedlewski, 2008; Wang, Adams, Beehr, & Shultz,
2009).
In addition to environmental changes, individuals are also changing their career attitudes
and behaviors in response to many factors, including increasing life spans and hence work
lives; changing family structures, including the increasing number of dual-career couples,
single working parents, and employees with eldercare responsibilities; and the growing number
of individuals seeking to fulfill needs for personal learning, development, and growth (Hall,
2004; Sullivan, in press). For example, some men and women are taking a hiatus from the
workforce to become the primary caregiver for children or elderly relatives. These individuals
are purposely using this time away from the workforce to increase their education or gain valu-
able skills through volunteer work in order to build their resume and ease their reentry into the
workforce (Belkin, 2008).
Others are making dramatic career changes in response to individual reflection and reevalu-
ation (Ibarra, 2003) as well as in response to changing needs at midlife (Power, 2009). Some
have become more self-directed in their careers, self-initiating international careers (Tharenou,
2009) or choosing lateral, or even downward, job moves to fulfill personal needs (Hall, Gard-
ner, & Baugh, 2008). Increasingly, individuals are driven more by their own desires than by
organizational career management practices. Thus, while organizational leaders are struggling
to identify positive strategies and practices to tackle the changing work environment and work-
force (Feldman & Leana, 2000; Inkson & Baruch, 2008; Luthans & Youssef, 2007), individuals
are adapting to a more transactional employer-employee relationship and taking more respon-
sibility for their own career development and employability (Hall, 2004; Rousseau, 1989).
While in the past careers were usually defined in terms of the employer-employee relation-
ship, contemporary scholars tend to define careers much more broadly (e.g., Arthur et al., 1989;
Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Baruch & Resenstein, 1992; Hall, 1996b, 2002). There is, however,
no agreement among scholars on a common definition of career (see Greenhaus, Callanan, &
DiRenzo, 2008). Based on our review of the literature, we define a career as an individual’s
work-related and other relevant experiences, both inside and outside of organizations, that form
a unique pattern over the individual’s life span. This definition recognizes both physical move-
ments, such as between levels, jobs, employers, occupations, and industries, as well as the
interpretation of the individual, including his or her perceptions of career events (e.g., viewing
job loss as failure vs. as an opportunity for a new beginning), career alternatives (e.g., viewing
limited vs. unlimited options), and outcomes (e.g., how one defines career success). Moreover,
careers do not occur in a vacuum. An individual’s career is influenced by many contextual fac-
tors, such as national culture, the economy, and the political environment, as well as by personal
factors, such as relationships with others (e.g., dual-career marriages).
Sullivan’s 1999 Journal of Management review of careers captured this transition from tra-
ditional, linear career paths to nonlinear, discontinuous career paths. Sullivan detailed the
conceptual development of the boundaryless career model, which along with the protean career
concept, influences much of today’s careers literature. She noted the paucity of empirical
1544 Journal of Management 35(6)
research on nontraditional careers and called for the increased conceptualization of these con-
structs as well as the development of measures to better empirically test these ideas. She also
noted that relatively little careers research had been completed in non–Western countries and
little research had examined the careers of certain segments of the workforce (e.g., blue-collar
workers, the disabled, minorities, the working poor). In the present review, we sought to deter-
mine whether the great technological, global, and social changes that have impacted the work
environment and individuals’ careers have been accurately captured by the reconceptualiza-
tions of established constructs, the development of new models, and the research that has been
completed since 1999.
To determine what changes had occurred in the literature, we conducted a systematic review
using the keyword career in the Business Source Complete and PsycINFO databases. As we
read the results of the database searches, we expanded our search by including materials refer-
enced in these articles. While assembling and organizing the materials for this review of
contemporary careers, it soon became clear that with the growth of publishing outlets and the
increased availability of research from scholars around the globe, there were many concepts,
studies, and directions for future research that page limitations would prevent us from fully
exploring. Moreover, some of these topics, including work/family research (e.g., Allen, Herst,
Bruck, & Sutton, 2000; Cook, 2009; Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005;
Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000), gender and work (Powell & Graves, 2003), executive coaching
(Feldman & Lankau, 2005), telecommuting (Gajendran & Harrison, 2007), social capital (Van
Wijk, Jansen, & Lyles, 2008), developmental networks (Molloy, 2006), global careers (Baruch,
Budhwar, & Khatri, 2007; Dickmann & Baruch, in press), and career success (Ng, Eby,
Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005), had already been the subject of reviews. Thus, we chose to focus
on the theories, concepts, and models of careers and the empirical research related to these
ideas that have developed in the past decade and that we think will offer the most fruitful oppor-
tunities for research directions in the coming decades.
In sum, the purpose of this article is to provide a critical analysis of major career concepts
and models as well as key studies that have been completed on these specific topics. We begin
this examination by focusing on the protean and boundaryless career, two concepts that have
had an important impact on theory development and research over the past decade. Criticisms
of these concepts and advances in their reconceptualizations, measurement, and testing are
discussed. Subsequently, we examine the next generation of career concepts, including inte-
grative frameworks (e.g., career profiles, postcorporate careers), hybrid careers, and the
kaleidoscope career model, and the related empirical research. (See Table 1 for a summary of
the concepts and models of the past decade.) Based on this review and analysis, we propose an
agenda for future research in the hope that this review encourages further reconceptualizations
and model building as well as the increased study of contemporary, dynamic career processes.
The Protean Career Orientation

Although Hall first wrote about the idea of the protean career in 1976, it was not until the pub-
lication of his book, The Career Is Dead—Long Live the Career, in 1996 that the concept
gained widespread popularity. Using the metaphor of the Greek god Proteus, who could change
his shape at will, Hall described the protean careerist as able to repackage his or her knowledge,
skills, and abilities to fit the changing work environment in order to remain marketable. Protean
careerists are flexible, value freedom, believe in continuous learning, and seek intrinsic rewards
Table 1. Summary of Major Career Concepts, Models, and Ideas
Concept or
model Authors/date Definition Measure
Protean career Hall (1996b) Based on the metaphor of the Greek god Baruch (2008) developed a seven- item scale to measure the
Proteus, who could change his shape at will, protean career. Sample items include “If I have to find a new
the protean careerist is able to rearrange and job outside the organization, it would be easy” and “For
repackage his or her knowledge, skills, and me, career success means having high level of freedom and
abilities to meet the demands of a changing autonomy.” The scale uses a 7-point Likert scale ranging from
workplace as well as his or her need for strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Hall (1996b) offered
self-fulfillment. The individual, not the no measure.
organization, is in control of his or her career
management and development.
Reconceptualized Briscoe and Revised by defining two dimensions (values Briscoe and Hall (2005) developed a 14-item assessment
protean Hall (2006) driven and self-directed career management) to measure the two dimensions of the protean career
orientation of the protean orientation. orientation. Sample items from the values driven scale
include: “I navigate my own career, based on my personal
priorities, as opposed to my employer’s priorities” and “It
doesn’t matter much to me how other people evaluate
the choices I make in my career.” Sample items from the
self-directed career management scale include: “When
developmental opportunities have not been offered by
my company, I’ve sought them out on my own” and “I am
responsible for my success or failure in my career.” Both
scales use a 5-point Likert scale ranging from to little or no
extent (1) to to a great extent (5).
Boundaryless Arthur and Defined as career opportunities beyond the Arthur and Rousseau (1996) offered no measure.
career Rousseau boundary of a single employer. An individual
(1996) is independent rather than dependent on a
traditional organizational career arrangement.
Six different meanings of boundaryless
careers were offered.
Reconceptualized Sullivan and Revised by defining varying levels of physical Briscoe and Hall (2005) developed a 13-item scale to measure
boundaryless Arthur and psychological career mobility between the two dimensions of the boundaryless career. Sample
1545
career (2006) successive employment situations. items from the boundaryless mindset scale include “I seek
(continued)
Table 1. (continued)
1546
Concept or
Illustrated by a 2 × 2 model with physical job assignments that allow me to learn something new” and
movement along the horizontal continuum “I would enjoy working on projects with people across many
and psychological movement along the organizations.” Sample items from the organizational mobility
vertical continuum, suggesting the concept preferences scale include “I prefer to stay in a company I am
be viewed and measured by the degree of familiar with rather than look for employment elsewhere”
boundarylessness displayed by the career and “I would feel very lost if I couldn’t work for my current
actor. organization” (both items are reverse scored). Both scales use a
5-point Likert scale ranging from to little or no extent (1) to to a
great extent (5). Sullivan and Arthur (2006) offered no measure.
No distinction Granrose and Protean and boundaryless careers are Traditional job security importance was measured with 3
between Baccili (2006) reflections of the new, more ambiguous items: “long-term job security,” “reasonable job security,”
protean and employer-employee relationship. and “attractive retirement benefits.” Traditional mobility
boundaryless importance was assessed with 7 items, including:
career “opportunities to advance and grow” and “company
concepts guidelines and resources for employees who would like to
develop their careers.” Boundaryless training importance
was measured with 7 items, including: “time and opportunity
to learn new skills” and “opportunity to attend training and
development programs (internal or external).” Protean
well-being importance was measured with 5 items, including:
“an open, honest, trusting, and respectful work atmosphere”
and “concerns about the well-being of employees.” The
following instructions were given to determine importance:
“Please tell us how important these things are regardless of
whether you actually receive them.” The scale not important
(1) to extremely important (10) was used.
Postcorporate Peiperl and Refers to careers that take place outside large The authors state that no set of items exists to measure this
career Baruch organizations, whereby individuals enact concept at the individual level because of the fluid nature of
(1997) a multitude of alternative career options, the phenomenon and that it is not a specific career attitude
including employment with smaller, more but rather that it relates to a wider industrial and societal
agile firms; self-employment; working in small level.
(continued)
Concept or
project teams; or other ad hoc arrangements.

Individuals have voluntarily or involuntarily
left large organizations because they are
unable or unwilling to pursue corporate
careers due to the uncertainty that is
inherent in them. Postcorporate careerists
have a permanent career rather than a
permanent job.
Boundaryless Greenhaus, The three components of a boundaryless While Greenhaus and associates offer no measures of the
perspective on Callanan, perspective are: (a) multidirectional mobility boundaryless perspective, the protean orientation, for
careers and DiRenzo patterns, (b) career competencies, and (c) example, could be measured by Briscoe and Hall’s (2006)
(2008) protean orientation. Economic factors, scales of self-directed career management and values driven
organizational conditions, and personal and attitudes.
family characteristics are antecedents of
the boundaryless perspective. Both positive
and negative individual and organizational
outcomes are possible.
Career profiles Briscoe and The combination of the two dimensions Profiles determined by use of the values driven attitude,
Hall (2006) of boundaryless career (psychological self-directed career management attitude, boundaryless
and physical mobility) along with the two mindset, and organizational mobility preference scales
dimensions of protean career (values driven (Briscoe & Hall, 2005).
and self-directed career management
attitudes) yields 16 potential career profiles.
Traditional career Originally Originally characterized by linear, upward Age, tenure in workforce, or organizational tenure often
redux detailed by progression across one or two firms with a used as a proxy for career stage. Psychological measures of
scholars such focus on extrinsic rewards and organizational career stages, such as Super’s copyrighted career concerns
as Super career management. Today’s traditional inventory or career scenarios describing different career
(1957) careerists typically exhibit more mobility stages, also have been used.
between organizations.
(continued)
1547
1548
Concept or
Hybrid careers Emergent Careers that contain aspects of both the Scales used to measure traditional, protean, and boundaryless
concept not traditional and protean or boundaryless career concepts could be employed to measure hybrid
specifically career concepts. careers.
associated
with any one
scholar
Kaleidoscope Mainiero and Using the metaphor of a kaleidoscope, the Sulllivan, Forret, Carraher, and Mainiero (2009) developed
career model Sullivan KCM describes how individuals focus on a 15-item measure to assess the three parameters of the
(KCM) (2005) three career parameters when making KCM. Sample items to measure authenticity include “I hope
decisions, thus creating the kaleidoscope to find a greater purpose to my life that suits who I am” and
pattern of their career. These parameters “I want to have an impact and leave my signature on what I
are: (a) authenticity, defined as being true to accomplish in life.” Sample items to measure balance include
oneself; (b) balance, defined as the equilibrium “I constantly arrange my work around my family needs”
between work and nonwork demands; and and “My work is meaningless if I can’t take the time to be
(c) challenge, defined as stimulating work and with my family.” Sample items to measure challenge include
career advancement. “I continually look for new challenges in everything I do”
and “I view setbacks not as ‘problems’ to be overcome but
as ‘challenges’ that require solutions.” A 5-point response
scale ranging from this does not describe me at all (1) to this
describes me very well (5) is used. Sullivan and associates’
(2009) measure was based on an earlier instrument
developed by Mainiero and Sullivan (2005, 2006).
from work (Hall, 1996a, 1996b). Recognizing the decreased stability and increased uncertainty
in the work environment as well as changes in employment relationships, including reduced job
security, protean careerists have taken responsibility for managing their own career (Hall, 2002;
Hall & Moss, 1998; Mirvis & Hall, 1996).
Briscoe and Hall (2006: 8) elucidated the protean career concept by defining its two
dimensions:
(1) values driven in the sense that the person’s internal values provide the guidance and
measure of success for the individual’s career; and (2) self-directed in personal career
management—having the ability to be adaptive in terms of performance and learning
demands.
Based on different combinations of these two dimensions, they suggested four primary career
categories: dependent (low values driven, low self-direction), rigid (high values driven, low
self-direction), reactive (low values driven, high self-direction), and protean or transformational
(high values driven, high self-direction). To empirically examine this clarification and the four
primary career categories, Hall and his colleagues developed (Briscoe & Hall, 2005) and
validated (Briscoe, Hall, & DeMuth, 2006) a 14-item scale to measure the protean career
orientation.1
Research on the protean career orientation has supported most of the basic tenets of the
concept (e.g., Sargent & Domberger, 2007). For instance, Briscoe et al. (2006), using multiple
samples of undergraduate and MBA students (total n = 493), found protean attitudes were posi-
tively correlated with proactive personality, career authenticity (e.g., feeling true to oneself in
one’s career role), openness to experience, and mastery goal orientation (e.g., emphasizing
learning and embracing challenge). There was no significant relationship between the self-
directed dimension and job changes, but there was a significant negative relationship between
the values driven dimension and job changes, suggesting individuals may have a more protean
career orientation without exhibiting high physical mobility. Briscoe and Finkelstein (2009),
testing the assumption that protean careerists will be less committed to their employing organi-
zation, found that self-directed career management and values driven attitudes have no
significant relationship to affective, continuance, or normative commitment.
Research has also examined whether there are gender differences in the protean career ori-
entation. While some studies (Agarwala, 2008; Briscoe et al., 2006; Vigoda-Gadot & Grimland,
2008) have found no gender differences in protean orientations, others have found some differ-
ences (Ng, Burke, & Fiksenbaum, 2008). For instance, Segers, Inceoglu, Vloeberghs, Bartram,
and Henderickx (2008) reported no gender differences in self-directedness, but did find that
women scored higher on the values driven dimension than men.
Relatively little research has been conducted on the protean career orientation and cultural
differences (Agarwala, 2008; Baruch & Altman, 2008). In a fascinating example of multina-
tional research, Segers et al. (2008) reported that individuals living in low masculine cultures
(e.g., higher focus on relationships and quality of life over extrinsic rewards and competition)
were more values driven. They also found that those in low power distance cultures were more
self-directed in their own personal career management. Because individuals living in low power
distance cultures are typically expected to find their own path and are less influenced by author-
ity, these individuals are more likely prefer to control their own career management rather
than rely on their employers’ career management systems. The findings of Segers and associates’
study illustrate the importance of considering contextual factors, like culture, when studying
career orientations.
Likewise, relatively little research has examined the potential negative aspects that may be
associated with protean and other nontraditional careers (see Vardi & Kim, 2007, for an excep-
tion). Writing on the protean career has tended to emphasize the “winners” in today’s changing
workplace (Baruch & Quick, 2007; Hall, 1996a), such as individuals who find their true calling
(i.e., the work they are destined to do; Hall & Chandler, 2005) or form a new working identity
(Ibarra, 2003). Few studies have focused on those who have not found success in this nontradi-
tional, global, technology-driven working environment (Baruch, 2004a).
Instead of enjoying increased job success and satisfaction, some workers have found them-
selves lost, shaken by the changing rules of the workplace, and unable to regain their footing
(Peiperl & Baruch, 1997; Power, 2006). Expecting to enact a more traditional career, individu-
als may be reluctant to embrace new career attitudes and behaviors (Baruch, 2004a) or may be
cynical about organizations in general (Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1998; Wanous, Reichers,
& Austin, 2000). Instead of technology reducing work/family conflict, the use of technology
may have increased an individual’s stress as the boundaries between work and nonwork become
more blurred. People may feel like they are always “on call,” even during vacations, holidays,
and weekends (Boswell & Olson-Buchanan, 2007).
Individuals may not possess the necessary transferable knowledge to be hired by different
employers or may be unable to swiftly grasp the essentials of their new work setting (e.g., orga-
nizational culture, norms) in order to effectively perform (Blenkinsopp & Zdunczyk, 2005;
van Emmerik & Euwema, 2007). It may be difficult for individuals to allocate sufficient
time and energy to cope with the demands imposed by increased learning or increased mobility
(Sommerlund & Bautaiba, 2007). For example, Mallon and Walton’s (2005) exploratory inves-
tigation of the development of individuals both in and outside of organizations found that less
learning was occurring than expected and certainly less than is anticipated in nontraditional
career models. The professionals studied agreed in principle that workers are responsible for
their own career management; they intended to engage in learning activities, but were unsure
of how to accomplish such learning. Furthermore, those inside of organizations were passive
about their own career development, while those outside of organizations reported they lacked
the time needed for such learning activities. Much additional research is needed on the potential
negatives of protean and nontraditional careers.2
In sum, Hall has written extensively about the protean career for academic audiences as well
as detailing the practical implications of the concept and how it can be applied to help managers
and organizations navigate the changing context of the contemporary workplace (see e.g.,
Baruch & Hall, 2004; Hall & Moss, 1998; Lips-Wiersma & Hall, 2007; O’Connell, McNeely,
& Hall, 2008). It is clear that the protean concept has had a major impact on the careers field.
We expect the concept will continue to greatly influence careers research, especially now that
the major criticism of the concept, the lack of a protean career measure, has been addressed
(Baruch, 2008; Briscoe et al., 2006; Briscoe & Hall, 2005). In the next section, we examine the
boundaryless career concept.
The Boundaryless Career Concept

In response to the “boundaryless organization” theme of the 1993 Academy of Management con-
ference, the term boundaryless career was coined to offer a new perspective on contemporary
careers (Arthur, 2008). The concept was subsequently popularized by Arthur and Rousseau’s
(1996: 6) book, The Boundaryless Career, which offered the following definition of the term:
“one of independence from, rather than dependence on, traditional organizational career
arrangements” involving “opportunities that go beyond any single employer” (DeFillippi &
Arthur, 1996: 116). In addition, Arthur and Rousseau (1996) offered six different meanings,
discussing boundaryless careers like: (a) the stereotypical Silicon Valley career, in which indi-
viduals move across the boundaries of separate employers; (b) those of academics or carpenters,
that draw validation and marketability from outside the present employer; (c) those of real
estate agents, sustained by external networks or information; (d) those that break traditional
organizational assumptions about hierarchy and career advancement; (e) those in which the indi-
vidual rejects existing career opportunities for personal or family reasons; and (f) those based
on the interpretation of the career actor, who may perceive a boundaryless future regardless of
structural constraints.
Although initial research based on the boundaryless career concept tended to focus on physi-
cal movement, many of these studies failed to distinguish among different types of physical
mobility and did not specify the cause (voluntary or involuntary), origin (company or self-directed),
direction (up, down, lateral), and, if appropriate, duration of movement in and out of the work-
force (Feldman & Ng, 2007; Ng et al. 2007). Distinguishing among different types of physical
mobility is important because these differences may explain conflicting research findings. For
instance, the literature on expatriate careers offers insights into differences in outcomes related
to origin (company vs. self-initiated) of the transition (see Baruch & Altman, 2002, Bozionelos,
2009). Recent research has found that individuals who self-initiate an expatriate career transi-
tion tend to move to roles that pay less and are less challenging than their previous role.
Similarly, when self-initiated expatriates return to their home country, that transition is usually
to a position with less pay and challenge. In contrast, company expatriates tend to move to roles
with more responsibility than their previous role. When the company expatriates return home,
that transition is usually to a position at a comparable level of responsibility and salary (see
Tharenou, 2009, for a review).
Most of the research on physical mobility continues to focus primarily on upward movement
(Ng et al., 2007). Few studies have been conducted on the less prevalent types of mobility, such
as downward movements, as well as why certain types of mobility occur more often than others,
factors that may constrain mobility, and why individuals may choose not to engage in physical
movement (Ng et al., 2007; Sargent, 2003). Relatively little research has been conducted on
changes in psychological boundaries (Arthur, Khapova, & Wilderom, 2005), defined as “the
capacity to move as seen through the mind of the career actor” (Sullivan & Arthur, 2006: 21).
Research has probably focused on physical over psychological mobility for two major reasons.
First, physical movement is easier to measure (e.g., count the number of job changes, count the
number of national borders crossed) than psychological changes. Second, until recently, there
was no measure of psychological mobility available to researchers (Briscoe et al., 2006).
Some scholars, however, have answered the repeated calls for more research on the bound-
aryless career concept (e.g., Baruch, 2004b, 2006; Sullivan, 1999) by studying the interplay
between physical movement and psychological changes (e.g., Marler, Barringer, & Milkovich,
2002; Peiperl, Arthur, Goffee, & Morris, 2000; Valcour & Tolber, 2003). For example, Kirchmeyer
(2002) reported that women experienced more career interruptions (i.e., physical mobility) due
to family demands (i.e., rejecting career opportunities for personal or family reasons) than men;
men’s career interruptions were more likely due to job loss. Similarly, Ibarra (2003) provided
detailed case studies of how individuals changed their identity by using trial and error and self-
reflection, with some making often dramatic physical movements across the boundaries
between occupations (e.g., from psychiatrist to Buddhist monk).
A growing number of studies on the boundaryless career have been conducted outside of the
United States and United Kingdom (e.g., Bagdadli, Solari, Usai, & Grandori, 2003; Dany, 2003;
Power, 2007; Segers et al., 2008). Haunschild (2003) explored the interorganizational, contin-
gency employment system in a German not-for-profit repertory theater. He described how the
great mobility within the project-based theater system was reinforced by standardized basic
qualifications and the ease of evaluating actors’ qualifications, social networks based on loyalty
to the profession rather than a specific organization, and the segmentation of the workforce
between ensemble employees with longer term contracts (i.e., 3 years) and freelancers con-
tracted for single plays or seasonal engagements. He also detailed the impact of labor market
characteristics on interorganizational mobility, as in the case when a theater manager moves to
another theater. When the manager moves, typically about one-third of the actors in the ensem-
ble move with him or her, one-third of the actors remain with the ensemble, and one-third don’t
have their contracts renewed. Another example is Yamshita and Uenoyma’s (2006) study of two
segments of employees within Japan’s hotel industries. One segment was composed of those
who wished to develop organizational knowledge and become managers but were hindered by
human resource policies that limited within-firm advancement. The other segment was com-
posed of those who focused on transferable skills and moving across the boundaries of different
hotels, thus building relatively little firm-specific knowledge and reducing the likelihood of
advancement from within one firm.
The boundaryless career concept has also had an important impact on how scholars have
reconceptualized some well-established career topics, including retirement (Wang et al., 2009),
plateauing (Bown-Wilson & Parry, 2009), learning and development (Gentry, Griggs, Deal, &
Mondore, 2009), work/nonwork conflict (Greenhaus & Powell, 2003, 2006), career renewal
(Baruch & Quick, 2007; Power, 2009), and expatriate assignments (Mezias & Scandura, 2005;
Richardson & Mallon, 2005; Sanchez, 2000; Tharenou, 2009), in light of the increased perme-
ability between boundaries. An excellent example of how the boundaryless career perspective
influenced a reconsideration of a long-studied area can be readily seen in the evolution of men-
toring research. Initially, mentoring was conceptualized as a one-on-one, intense relationship
between an experienced employee (i.e., the mentor) and a newer, usually younger employee
(i.e., the protégé) within the context of one organization (Kram, 1985; Levinson, 1978). Recogniz-
ing the increasing mobility of workers, especially among firms, as well as growing performance
pressures, scholars suggested that a single mentor relationship was no longer sufficient to meet
the increasing needs of many protégés (Baugh & Fagenson-Eland, 2005; Baugh & Scandura,
1999; Baugh & Sullivan, 2005; de Janasz & Sullivan, 2004; Higgins, 2000, 2005b). In addition
to dyadic, within-firm mentoring relationships, scholars began to study sequential and simulta-
neous multiple mentoring relationships that could occur across many boundaries (Baugh &
Sullivan, 2009). In today’s more boundaryless career environment, individuals are seeking
other forms of guidance and support from developmental relationships in addition to mentoring
(Higgins & Kram, 2001; Molloy, 2006), including networking both in and outside their organi-
zation (Arthur, Claman, & Defillippi, 1995; Forret & Dougherty, 2004; McCallum & Forret,
2009; Wolff & Moser, 2009).
Although the boundaryless career concept has influenced thinking on many topics and is
very popular, it is not without its critics (e.g., Pringle & Mallon, 2003). There are two major
criticisms of the concept that deserve further examination. First, scholars have called for the
further clarification and conceptualization of the construct (Eby et al., 2005; Greenhaus et al.,
2008; Inkson, 2006; Pringle & Mallon, 2003; Sullivan, 1999). Second, questions have been
raised about how to measure the concept (Briscoe et al., 2006; Sullivan, 1999). The next two
sections examine how these criticisms have been addressed.
Clarification of the Concept

To clarify the concept, Sullivan and Arthur (2006) suggested that a boundaryless career be
defined by varying levels of physical and psychological career passages between successive
employment situations. They offered a 2 × 2 model with physical movement along the horizontal
continuum and psychological movement along the vertical continuum. Thus, in contrast to some
previous studies that characterized boundarylessness as an either/or proposition, this refinement
recommends the concept be viewed and measured by the degree of boundarylessness displayed
by the career actor, along both physical and psychological dimensions. Although Sullivan and
Arthur recommended that both physical and psychological passages, as well as the interplay
between them, should be recognized and measured, they offered no such measurement.
Sullivan and Arthur (2006) did, however, extend the concept by detailing a number of pos-
sible “boundaries” or obstacles to a boundaryless career (e.g., gender discrimination, cultural
differences, individual competencies), further emphasizing that while boundaries in general
have become permeable, the ease of passage between boundaries is not the same for all indi-
viduals. They suggested that in general, women would have higher psychological mobility,
perhaps because they are more likely to have discontinuous careers and are better able to see
multiple career paths than men. In contrast, men would have higher physical mobility because
they face less job discrimination. Segers et al. (2008) provided empirical support for these pro-
posed gender differences in mobility as well as for physical, but not psychological, mobility
differences due to age (i.e., lower physical mobility with increased age).
Other scholars (Gunz, Peiperl, & Tzabbar, 2007) have also discussed potential obstacles to
a boundaryless career, including learning how to work in new teams and with new coworkers
each time an individual makes a career transition (van Emmerik & Euwema, 2007); the lack of
sponsors who offer access to opportunities (Judge, Kammeyer-Mueller, & Bretz, 2004; Skilton
& Bravo, 2008); perceptual boundaries, such as those that have been found to prevent women
from engaging in entrepreneurship (Malach-Pines & Schwartz, 2007); and structural factors,
such as economic, societal, and cultural factors as well as industry and firm staffing policies
(Ng et al., 2007; Pang, 2003). For instance, Dany (2003) detailed how a number of factors,
including the importance of academic qualifications in the French labor system, employees’
preference for high salaries and job security, and focus on vertical professional advancement,
limit the occurrence of boundaryless careers among French workers. Likewise, Bagdadli and
colleagues (2003) found that top managers in Italy encountered two major obstacles to a more
boundaryless career: competency based (e.g., lack of industry knowledge) and relation-based
(e.g., lack of professional networks with former coworkers and business partners).
Measurement Issues
Questions about how to measure the boundaryless career concept were addressed by Briscoe and
Hall’s (2005) development of a 13-item scale of boundaryless career attitudes. The instrument is
composed of two subscales. One subscale measures the boundaryless mindset (8 items), or
“one’s general attitude to working across organizational boundaries.” The other scale measures
organizational mobility preferences (5 items), or “the strength of interest in remaining with a
single (or multiple) employer(s)” (see Table 1).
Based on the results of a multisample, three-study validation project, Briscoe et al. (2006)
found no relationship between actual mobility and the boundaryless mindset (Study 3), sug-
gesting that physical mobility should not be used as a proxy measure for boundaryless career
attitudes. They also reported that the boundaryless mindset and mobility preferences were sig-
nificantly and positively correlated with proactive personality, career authenticity, openness to
experience, and mastery goal orientation. The validation and use of this measure by Briscoe and
associates (2006) is a major advancement in the study of boundaryless careers because it offers
researchers a consistent way to measure the concept so that findings across studies can be more
easily compared and used to inform practice.
In sum, we have witnessed a dramatic increase in research on boundaryless careers (see
e.g., Valcour, Bailyn, & Quijada, 2007) as well as research on how we may study many well-
established career topics (e.g., mentoring; e.g., Lentz & Allen, 2009) within a boundaryless
context. The boundaryless career concept offers a foundation for exploring how careers are
evolving in today’s complex work environment. For instance, increased globalization has not
only brought a flow of people, knowledge, information, ideas, and products across national
borders, but it has also influenced how individuals perceive and enact their career (Tams &
Arthur, 2007). For many individuals, enacting a global, boundaryless career reflects physically
crossing national borders while simultaneously crossing cultural and psychological borders.
For others, enacting a global career may require no physical crossing of national borders, but
may instead require a psychological reorientation to how they perceive their career. These indi-
viduals may find themselves learning how to work more effectively using technology to connect
with individuals from various nations and cultures as well as recognizing that they may be
competing for jobs with workers from different parts of the globe.
While the boundaryless and protean concepts have dominated much of the research on
careers over the past 10 years, the past decade has also witnessed the rise of the next generation
of career concepts. These newer conceptualizations of careers are discussed in the next section
and are summarized in Table 1.
The Next Generation of Career Concepts

A number of new concepts and models have recently been offered to explain the variety of
career patterns that are being enacted in today’s dynamic work environment. Some of these
newer conceptualizations, which we call “integrative frameworks,” represent attempts to com-
bine various ideas from the protean and boundaryless concepts. Some of these newer concepts
emerged based on the interpretations of research findings (e.g., hybrid careers). Other models
(e.g., kaleidoscope) offer conceptualizations that are not an extension of either the protean or
boundaryless concept, but instead offer an alternative lens by which careers can be examined.
Integrative Frameworks
Despite the research on the protean and boundaryless careers, there continues to be questions
as to the relationship between the two concepts. Granrose and Baccili (2006), for example, did
not distinguish between protean and boundaryless careers. Instead, they suggested that the two
concepts are a reflection of the new, more ambiguous employer-employee relationship. Green-
haus and associates (2008: 285) noted the lack of consensus in a definition of the boundaryless
career, suggesting it is difficult to “determine where boundarylessness ends and protean begins.”
While some argue that the two concepts are complementary (e.g., Inkson, 2006) or are distinct
but overlapping (Briscoe & Hall, 2006), others have called for the integration of the protean
orientation and the boundaryless career into a more comprehensive model of careers (e.g.,
Peiperl & Baruch, 1997). In response to this debate, three major integrative frameworks have
been offered to clarify the relationship between the protean and boundaryless career concepts.
First, Peiperl and Baruch (1997) offered the postcorporate career concept as a means of
integrating ideas from the protean and boundaryless concepts. They suggested that postcorpo-
rate careerists are self-directed, take responsibility for their own career management, perceive
a variety of career options, and are willing to cross multiple boundaries to fulfill their needs for
intrinsic job satisfaction as well as financial rewards. Postcorporate careerists tend to be those
individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave large organizations to work in a variety of
alternative employment arrangements, including working as independent contractors and tem-
porary workers, or working for a small firm that provides professional services to large
organizations. The idea of the postcorporate career has been applied in a number of research
settings (Kelly, Brannick, Hulpke, Levine, & To, 2003; Mihail, 2008; Özbilgin & Healy, 2004).
Second, Greenhaus et al. (2008) offered the boundaryless perspective, which integrates the
major themes of the boundaryless and protean career literatures. This framework has three major
components. The first component is mobility patterns, which differs from the traditional career
in that they are multidirectional (Baruch, 2004b; e.g., between firms, between employment
forms, i.e., from full-time to part-time work). Greenhaus and associates noted that mobility pat-
terns also include the rarely discussed idea of job crafting, defined as the actions taken by an
individual to change and redefine his or her job. Job crafting can occur by physically changing
the job (e.g., nature and number of tasks), psychologically changing the way the job is perceived,
and/or changing whom one interacts with on the job. The second component is career competen-
cies. Career competencies are manifested in people’s beliefs and identities (knowing why),
knowledge and skills (knowing how), and network or relationships (knowing whom; DeFillippi
& Arthur, 1996). The third component is the protean orientation (e.g., self-directed career man-
agement and values driven attitudes; Briscoe & Hall, 2006). This framework also delineates the
antecedents (e.g., economic factors, organizational conditions, personal characteristics) and pos-
sible individual and organizational outcomes of the boundaryless perspective.
Third, Briscoe and Hall (2006) combined elements of the protean orientation with the
boundaryless career to produce 16 different career profiles. Each profile is based on the two
protean dimensions (self-directed career management and values driven attitudes) and two
boundaryless career dimensions (psychological and physical mobility), and each profile is
described as being high or low in each of these four dimensions. For example, Briscoe and Hall
defined the solid citizen profile as having low physical mobility but high psychological mobil-
ity as well as high self-directed career management and values driven attitudes. In contrast, the
fortressed profile is defined as having a high values driven attitude but low self-directed career
management as well as low physical and psychological mobility.
To empirically test these 16 combinations, Segers et al. (2008) examined the career profiles
of 13,000 individuals from nine European countries. They identified 3 of the 16 profiles pro-
posed by Briscoe and Hall (2006) as well as 1 profile, the curious/wanderer, which combined
aspects from 2 of the profiles. Segers and associates found that 30% of the respondents were
protean career architects (i.e., they are values driven, self-directed in their career management,
and psychologically and physically mobile); 22% were trapped/lost (i.e., they don’t emphasize
inner values and don’t see possible alternative career options); 21% were hired gun/hired hand
(i.e., they are physically mobile and adaptive but aren’t good at defining and acting upon their
own values); and 27% were curious/wanderer (i.e., they are physically and psychologically
mobile but not values driven or self-directed). Interestingly, Segers et al. found contextual
factors influenced the presence of these career profiles. Specifically, the protean career archi-
tect profile was overrepresented in the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, while the
hired gun/hired hand was underrepresented in both. Italy had a higher proportion of individuals
with hired gun/hired hand profiles, whereas Belgium had a higher proportion with the curious/
wanderer profile. Likewise, the protean career architect profile was more likely to be found in
the industrial sectors of health and social work, counseling, science and research, marketing,
and government. The hired gun/hired hand profile was found predominantly in sales. The curi-
ous/wanderer profile was more likely to be found in the education, health, and sales sectors.
The trapped/lost profile was evident in industries including construction, manufacturing, trans-
portation and logistic, and Internet/new technologies.
Traditional Careers Redux

For many years, scholars emphasized careers within the confines of traditional organizational
structures. Beginning in the mid-1990s, an increasing focus was placed on careers outside of
organizations. Career scholars, however, may be guilty of shifting from one extreme to another.
Numerous studies have reported that individuals in their samples exhibited a more traditional
career path (e.g., Cabrera, 2009; Mainiero & Sullivan, 2006; Sargent & Domberger, 2007;
Smith-Ruig, 2009).
For example, P. McDonald, Brown, and Bradley (2005) found that while most employees,
especially women, were following nontraditional career paths, some still had traditional careers
(e.g., predictable organizational advancement). The individuals following traditional career
paths had infrequent job or firm changes and most had worked for their organization for 10 or
more years. The organization had some policies that supported a traditional career path, includ-
ing mechanisms for rewarding long tenure (e.g., 3 months of paid leave after 10 years of
continuous service). Likewise, O’Neil, Bilimoria, and Saatciogle (2004) also found that while
most of the women in their sample exhibited nontraditional career paths, 38% had externally
directed careers with linear, ladder-like advancement patterns. Skilton and Bravo (2008) also
found that while many individuals in the film industry had short tenures (i.e., 61% of the per-
sonal assistants left the industry in the 3-year study period), some individuals followed a more
traditional career path from personal assistant directly to producer, with few roles in between.
These individuals often remained with the same production company even when they were
producers themselves and could have established their own firm.
Hybrid Careers
Emerging from the findings from several studies is the idea that some individuals enact “hybrid”
careers that are characterized by elements of both traditional and nontraditional career concepts.
For example, Granrose and Baccili (2006) found that most workers in their sample desired the
traditional career outcomes of job security and upward mobility but also wanted nontraditional
outcomes such as “boundaryless training” (i.e., training that could be used both in and outside
the firm) and “protean well-being” (i.e., an open, trusting, and respectful work atmosphere).
O’Neil et al. (2004) found that 34% of the women in their sample had an orderly career and
were focused on upward advancement, but were also self-directed in their career management.
Moreover, Skilton and Bravo (2008) reported that some film industry employees followed an
“up the ladder” path that had elements of both a traditional and nontraditional career. These
individuals assumed multiple roles while advancing up the hierarchy, but also moved back and
forth between projects in which they had different levels of control (e.g., some they produced,
others they directed).
The Kaleidoscope Career Model

One of the next generation of career concepts, the kaleidoscope career model (KCM), was
developed independently from the protean or boundaryless concepts. Instead, the KCM is
based on the results of five different studies (interviews, focus groups, and three surveys) of
more than 3,000 U.S. professional workers (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2006). Like a kaleidoscope
that produces changing patterns when the tube is rotated and its glass chips fall into new
arrangements, the KCM describes how individuals change the pattern of their career by rotating
the varied aspects of their lives to arrange their relationships and roles in new ways. These
changes may occur in response to internal changes, such as those due to maturation, or environ-
mental changes, such as being laid off. Individuals evaluate the choices and options available
to determine the best fit among work demands, constraints, and opportunities as well as rela-
tionships and personal values and interests. As one decision is made, it affects the outcome of
the kaleidoscope career pattern.
Just as a kaleidoscope uses three mirrors to create infinite patterns, individuals focus on
three career parameters when making decisions, thus creating the kaleidoscope pattern of their
career. These parameters or motivators are: (a) authenticity, in which the individual makes
choices that permit him or her to be true to himself or herself; (b) balance, whereby the indi-
vidual strives to reach an equilibrium between work and nonwork (e.g., family, friends, elderly
relatives, personal interests) demands; and (c) challenge, which is an individual’s need for
stimulating work (e.g., responsibility, autonomy) as well as career advancement. These three
parameters are simultaneously active over the life span, with the strength of a parameter to
shape a career decision or transition dependent on what is going on in that individual’s life at
that particular time. Over the course of the life span, as a person searches for the best fit that
matches the character and context of his or her life, the kaleidoscope’s parameters shift in
response, with one parameter moving to the foreground and intensifying as that parameter takes
priority at that time. The other two parameters lessen in intensity and recede to the background,
but are still present and active, as all aspects are necessary to create the current pattern of an
individual’s life/career.
Research has supported the basic tenets of the KCM (Godshalk, Noble, & Line, 2007;
Smith-Ruig, 2009). For example, Cabrera’s (2007) study of 497 professional women found
evidence of the existence of the three career parameters of authenticity, balance, and challenge.
She found that these three parameters did indeed influence career decision making. Also, as
suggested by the KCM, 62% of her sample reported that their career focus changed over time.
Research on the KCM has found gender differences in career enactment. Sullivan and Mainiero
(2007a, b) found most men (84%) followed an alpha kaleidoscope career path (focus on chal-
lenge from early to midcareer, then authenticity, and then balance later in the career) while most
women (83%) followed a beta pattern (challenge early in the career, then balance, and finally
authenticity). There were, however, some men who exhibited a beta career pattern. The men
following a beta pattern tended to be younger and expressed a desire for greater work-life bal-
ance. Cabrera (2009) also found support for the beta career pattern among women based on
in-depth interviews with 25 participants.
In addition to gender differences, research has noted generational differences in the need for
authenticity, balance, and challenge. For instance, Sullivan, Forret, Carraher, and Mainiero
(2009) found that members of Generation X (born 1965-1983) had significantly higher needs
for authenticity and balance than Baby Boomers (born 1946-1964), with no significant differ-
ence in the need for challenge between the two generations. The KCM has also been used to
help explain the careers of women entrepreneurs in Japan (Futagami & Helms, 2009) and the
work-life integration experiences of midcareer professionals in Ireland (Grady & McCarthy,
2008). The KCM has been applied to a number of different topics, including human resource
development programs, work stress, family-friendly organizational programs, and career coun-
seling (Sullivan, in press; Sullivan & Mainiero, 2007a, 2007b, 2008).
In sum, the KCM highlights the importance of potential gender differences in career paths,
suggesting that other nontraditional models should consider whether men and women enact
careers differently (e.g., Segers et al., 2008). Like the protean and boundaryless concepts, the
KCM also highlights the importance of relationships on career decision making as well as
the effect of contextual factors on careers (Sullivan, in press). As scholars have investigated the
potential linkages between the protean and boundaryless careers (Briscoe et al., 2006; Segers
et al., 2008), future research may also find such linkages between the protean and boundaryless
concepts and aspects of the KCM. Much more research is needed, however, to test this model.
Recent refinements to a measure of the three parameters of the KCM (Sullivan et al., 2009),
however, should help to increase the research being conducted on this model (Table 1).
In this review, we have examined the continued evolution of two predominant career con-
cepts, the protean career orientation and the boundaryless career, which have had an important
and lasting impact on the careers literature. We have discussed the next generation of career
conceptualizations, including the integration of the protean and boundaryless concepts as well
as hybrid careers and the KCM. Table 1 provides a summary of these major concepts, frame-
works, and ideas.
These newer conceptualizations suggest many intriguing avenues for further study. Based
on this review and critical analysis, in the next section of this article, we set an agenda for future
research on careers.
Agenda for Future Research

Our review indicates that scholars have made great strides in better understanding nontradi-
tional, nonlinear career concepts since the publication of Sullivan’s (1999) review. Particularly
notable is the introduction of measures (e.g., Baruch, 2008; Briscoe et al., 2006; Sullivan et al.,
2009) so that the protean, boundaryless, and kaleidoscope career concepts can be subject to
even greater empirical examination. In addition to the development of measures of these
concepts, we also note the increase in career research in a number of areas that Sullivan recom-
mended. There has been clarification and further conceptualization of the protean orientation
and the boundaryless career and greater attention paid to gender differences in careers. There
has also been an increased recognition of the influence of contextual factors on careers, includ-
ing the effect of cultural and national differences on career enactment.
Although there has been increased research in a number of areas as recommended by Sulli-
van (1999), our current review of the literature suggests additional areas for future research.
First, the further development of the protean career concept as well as the creation and valida-
tion of related measurement scales should better enable scholars to empirically examine some
unresolved and underexplored issues. For instance, there are conflicting results as to whether
there are gender differences in the protean career orientation (e.g., Agarwala, 2008; Ng et al.,
2008) and little research has been completed on potential cultural or national differences in
protean orientations (Segers et al., 2008). Not only can more empirical studies be completed,
but the adoption of common measurement scales should facilitate the use of meta-analysis
techniques in future reviews of the protean career literature.
Second, there is still concern that the writings and research on the protean, boundaryless, and
other nontraditional career concepts have tended to emphasize the positive aspects with little
mention of potential negative outcomes (Currie, Tempest, & Starkey, 2006; Sullivan, 1999; Van
Buren, 2003; Vardi & Kim, 2007). Continued research on the potential negatives of newer career
forms is needed at the individual, organizational, and national levels of analysis. At the individ-
ual level, personality traits, for example, may be an obstacle to an individual’s ability to
reenvision career options or may influence a successful transition from a traditional, linear career
to a nontraditional career orientation. For example, Eby, Butts, and Lockwood (2003) reported
that individuals who are proactive, flexible, open to new experiences, and acknowledge personal
strengths and weaknesses tend to manage better in today’s workplace than those who do not pos-
sess these personal characteristics. Similarly, Forret and Dougherty (2001) found that individuals
who were higher in extraversion and self-esteem were more likely to engage in networking
behaviors, which should help them better navigate nontraditional careers.
Although some individuals may find themselves outside of the permanent, full-time work-
force through job loss, others may proactively choose to engage in alternative, short- term job
assignments or project work. In either case, individuals may move more freely across many
organizational boundaries, but may also find themselves stigmatized by the temporary worker
label (Boyce, Ryan, Imus, & Morgeson, 2007). These temporary and project workers may be
more likely to experience negative work outcomes such as sexual harassment and discrimina-
tion (Goldman, Gutek, Stein, & Lewis, 2006; Sullivan, 1999) or abusive supervision (Tepper,
2007; Wu & Hu, 2009). Organizations may not consider it worth the time and money to inves-
tigate complaints from workers who will be employed by the firm for a relatively short time
period. Temporary and project workers, fearful that filing a complaint will earn them a negative
reputation, may fail to report problems that may not only impact their current level of perfor-
mance, but may also influence their long-term employability.
At the organizational level, the shift from the long-term–based employer-employee rela-
tionships into more transactional, short-term–based employer-employee relationships (e.g.,
Rousseau, 1989) can create increased ambiguity and uncertainty for managers and those design-
ing and implementing human resource management polices (Baruch, 2004a, 2004b). Under the
more traditional, long-term–based relationship, the vast majority of recruitment, socialization,
and training processes were focused on the lower ranks, with employees rising through the
hierarchy due to internal opportunities and a combination of talent and tenure. Under the newer,
more transactional employer-employee relationship, employees enter and leave organizations
at different career stages and different levels within the organization, making the recruitment,
socialization, training, succession planning, and other processes more varied and complex
(Baruch, 2004a, 2004b). In addition, increased globalization makes the development and
implementation of policies more complicated, especially in the case of multinational firms with
workforces located in different countries throughout the world (Becker & Haunschild, 2007;
Dickmann & Baruch, in press).
As boundaries between countries become more permeable, laws regarding employment
relationships, including discrimination and business conduct (e.g., what is and is not bribery),
may become increasingly difficult to apply and enforce (see the special issue of Human
Resource Management edited by Baruch, Altman, & Adler, 2009, for a more detailed discus-
sion). Technology has increased the permeability of country borders, but many organizations
lack sufficient knowledge to effectively manage workers from different cultures who may have
widely different career needs and may be motivated by many different career factors (e.g.,
Segers et al., 2008). While a number of articles have offered suggestions to organizations
on how to manage expatriation and repatriation (Baruch & Altman, 2008; Baruch, Steele, &
Quantrill, 2002; Benson & Pattie, 2008; Bossard & Peterson, 2005; Dickmann & Harris, 2005;
Doherty & Dickmann, 2009), relatively little research has offered suggestions on how to help
employees from different locations across various country borders effectively work with each
other via technology.
At the national level, the shift from long-term–based to short-term–based employment rela-
tionships impacts educational processes, labor market systems, and government policies and
programs (Baruch, 2004a, 2004b). For example, universities that prepared their students for life-
time linear employment within one or two firms need to consider strategies to prepare students
for alternative, multidirectional career paths. Vested pension systems and similar programs may
need to be reevaluated and changed to more transferable and fluid systems. As organizations
outsource work across country boundaries, the reduction of within-country job opportunities may
decrease the power of organized labor and influence trade agreements and safety standards
between countries. Politicians and government leaders may find themselves under increasing
pressure to enact laws to protect the jobs and products of their constituents.
New technologies that have eliminated the need for some jobs and professions may increase
budgetary pressures on government social programs, including efforts to retrain displaced
workers. While technology has aided in the increased globalization of the workforce and the
increased creation of new virtual careers (e.g., Internet reporters, Web designers, virtual coaches),
the opportunities for the misuse of technology have increased. As has been the case with Inter-
net (e.g., legalities of employers monitoring employees’ e-mail and computer files), Web-based
businesses (e.g., exploitation of children by adult pornography sites), and cyber crime (Benjamin,
Gladman, & Rundell, 1998; Chen, Chung, Xu, Wang, Qin, & Chau, 2004), governments may
need to increasingly intervene and enforce penalties for the misuse of technological advances.
In sum, greater research into the potential negative aspects associated with nontraditional
careers at the individual, organizational, and national levels is needed.
Third, the further clarification of the boundaryless career concept (Sullivan & Arthur, 2006)
and the introduction of the boundaryless mindset and the organizational mobility preference
scales (Briscoe et al., 2006) should encourage greater study of underresearched topics, including
the potential gender and country differences in the enactment of a boundaryless career. Some
studies, for example, have indicated the importance of national culture on boundaryless careers,
suggesting that certain economic and cultural elements may act as boundaries or obstacles to the
boundaryless career and may instead reinforce more traditional career models (Bagdadli et al.,
2003; Dany, 2003). Additional research on potential obstacles to a boundaryless career is needed.
Furthermore, the recent reconceptualization of the boundaryless career concept (Sullivan &
Arthur, 2006) as encompassing both physical and psychological mobility opens new avenues of
research, while also suggesting the greater need for the clarification of what exactly is being
measured and studied. In terms of physical mobility, scholars need to identify the specific type
of mobility being examined by specifying direction (e.g., up, down, lateral), cause (i.e., volun-
tary or involuntary), origin (i.e., self or company initiated), and whether multiple boundaries are
being crossed during the same transition (e.g., firm, occupation, country). Obstacles to physical
mobility (e.g., geographical immobility due to being a member of a dual-career couple or elder-
care responsibilities) as well as the influence of individual (e.g., personality, values, past positive
and negative mobility experiences) and structural (economic, societal, industry, and organiza-
tional) factors on mobility decisions need to also be considered (Ng et al., 2007). Past research
has found that some women (Cabrera, 2007; Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005) and older workers
(Wang et al., 2009) move in and out of the workforce numerous times over their careers. Career
patterns characterized by voluntary and involuntary multiple movements cycling in and out of
the workforce are worthy of further examination. At the level of the organization, the effect of
increased mobility on the transference of organizational culture and knowledge from one firm to
another (see Higgins, 2005a) as well as the loss of organizational memory when employees
retire or otherwise leave their organizations warrants additional study.
In terms of psychological mobility, more research attention needs to be paid to how individuals
may change psychological perspectives and attitudes about a work situation. Such psychological
changes are clearly more difficult to study than physical transitions. Whereas actual physical
passages between jobs and organizations can be readily identified and enumerated, changes in
how an individual perceives his or her career would ideally involve longitudinal research with
data collected at multiple intervals. Relatively little research attention has been devoted to psy-
chological mobility, especially when individuals’ career perceptions are altered but no associated
physical movement has occurred. There are numerous situations, such as periods of personal
crisis (e.g., heart attack, loss of loved one) or assuming primary care for a child or elderly rela-
tive, in which perceptions of a boundaryless future and alternative career options may be
impacted. For instance, while an individual who has a heart attack may return to the same job at
the same firm, that individual’s job perceptions and career aspirations as well as his or her rela-
tionship with work associates and number of hours devoted to work may dramatically change.
In addition to the use of recent measurement advances, career scholars may benefit from applying
models and theories from related fields (e.g., Salancik & Pfeffer’s [1978] social information
perspective) to better understand the processes underlying psychological mobility.3 Changes in
physical and psychological mobility, however, should not be studied independently of each
other. We join Arthur and associates (2005) in recommending that additional research be
completed on the complex interplay between physical and psychological passages.
Fourth, despite the popularity of the protean and boundaryless career concepts, it is impor-
tant that scholars recognize that the traditional linear career is still being enacted by some
workers and is more prevalent in some organizations, industries, and countries than in others.
Because studies have found many different types of careers, including traditional, hybrid, and
kaleidoscope careers, we recommend that scholars first identify the career orientation of the
individual being studied and then consider the individual’s attitudes and behaviors within that
career context. Just as past research tended to assume that individuals were enacting traditional
careers, scholars should take care not to assume that all study participants are enacting similar,
nontraditional career patterns. Along the same line of thought, the further study of how organi-
zational policies and firm culture influence career paths should not be overlooked (P. McDonald
et al., 2005). Some firms, for example, may encourage more traditional career attitudes, behav-
iors, and expectations through such policies as reliance on promotion from within and benefits
associated with increased seniority or firm-specific training. The effectiveness of different
organizational strategic human resource management decisions, policies, and programs on the
attitudes and behaviors of employees enacting different types of careers (e.g., hybrid as com-
pared to protean or more traditional career) should be investigated.
Fifth, several authors have offered conceptualizations that integrate the protean and bound-
aryless career concepts (e.g., Peiperl & Baruch, 1997) with the career profiles combination
(Briscoe & Hall, 2006) already being tested by other scholars (Segers et al., 2008). These inte-
grative models provide not only insights into how the protean and boundaryless concepts may
be related or combined, but they also offer guidance on what contextual variables should be
considered when conducting empirical studies of these ideas. For example, Segers and associ-
ates’ (2008) study illustrated the importance of gender, industry, culture, and nation, while
Greenhaus et al.’s (2008) conceptual integration highlighted the effect of economic, personal,
and family factors on careers. Potential integrations of the protean and boundaryless career
concepts with newer career models (e.g., KCM) have yet to be tested.
Sixth, although the developers of the kaleidoscope career model have completed a number
of studies on the model and have used relatively large sample sizes (e.g., Mainiero & Sullivan,
2006, n > 3,000; Sullivan et al., 2009, n = 908) as well as a variety of methods (e.g., surveys,
interviews), further research from independent scholars must be completed. The KCM and
related research suggests that there may be important gender as well as generational differences
in career attitudes and behaviors that merit future research. The increased study of generational
differences in career perspectives may be especially important given the declining number of
members from the Greatest Generation (born prior to 1946) in the workforce and the grow-
ing number of the younger workers (born after 1965), who are much more technically savvy
and may be motivated by different factors than previous generations of workers (Callanan &
Greenhaus, 2008; K. S. McDonald & Hite, 2008).
Seventh, we repeat Sullivan’s (1999) call for greater research on potential differences in
career enactment due cultural and national differences. Studies of workers in non–Western
countries that recognize the economic and societal influences on careers are especially impor-
tant because most of what we know about careers is based on studies conducted in the United
States, United Kingdom, and Australia, making Western models the de facto “standard” against
which careers in other countries are compared. In-depth analyses within understudied national
contexts, such as Pang’s (2003) compelling analysis of first- and second-generation Chinese
workers in Hong Kong and Great Britain, Zhao and Zhou’s (2008) examination of careers in
Taiwan, and Khapova and Korotov’s (2007) study of career attitudes in Russia, should be con-
tinued. Although it may be difficult to gather data from multiple countries, especially from
countries under strict government control (e.g., China), research that spans different nations
provides much needed insights into the application of career theories and models developed in
Western countries in non–Western contexts. Segers and associates’ (2008) use of a large database
drawn from nine European countries as well as the organization of consortia of scholars who
work together to study common variables across multiple countries (Malach-Pines, Ozbilgin,
& Burke, 2008) are two strategies that could be emulated to obtain samples across multiple
nations.
Conclusion
To paraphrase a Chinese proverb, we live in interesting times, times in which established ideas
about work and careers are continually being challenged. Traditional theories of careers (e.g.,
Super, 1957) were based on a system of clear, hierarchical organizational structures and a grow-
ing economy. The blurring of organizational, industry, and occupational boundaries; the
escalation of technological developments; and rapid globalization have all contributed to a new
work context, requiring fresh and innovative ways of examining careers. As predictability and
stability diminished, scholars realized that long-held theories of the traditional, linear career no
longer adequately explained the realities of many individuals and new, more dynamic concepts
arose. These concepts reflected the change from individuals relying on organizations for career
development to individuals assuming responsibility for their own career management and
employability. Individual competencies, resiliency, and adaptability became more important
than organizational commitment as job security decreased.
Sullivan’s (1999) review captured the transition from traditional thinking to the growing
interest in the nonlinear, discontinuous careers. In this review, we have examined the further
development and clarification of established concepts as well as newer concepts and models that
have developed over the past decade. While the previous review found relatively little research
on the boundaryless career concept and little research in non–Western countries, we found a
growth in research on boundaryless, protean, and other nontraditional career concepts as well as
an increase of research in non–Western countries. The previous review called for the greater
conceptualization of nontraditional career concepts as well as the development of measures that
capture these concepts. This review reported on the evolution of concepts, the development of
new ideas, and the creation of instruments to measure these attitudes and highlighted the impor-
tance of studying the various types of careers (e.g., protean, hybrid) in today’s complex
workplace. Scholars should be cautious, however, and not overestimate the extent to which indi-
viduals are enacting nontraditional careers. Due to many factors, including gender and contextual
variables (e.g., nation, culture), some individuals are still enacting more traditional paths. Com-
paring our review to Sullivan’s (1999) review, we note that a number of topics still remain
underresearched. More research is still needed on underrepresented populations, such as blue-
collar workers, immigrant workers, the disabled, and minorities, as well as on those making
major transitions (e.g., midlife career changes, moving from the military to civilian life). Addi-
tional investigation of how nonpaid work (i.e., volunteerism) contributes to people’s careers is
also needed.
In this review, we have examined the progress and trends of the past decade as well as
detailed directions for future research. We hope this review offers greater insights into the
careers literature and encourages further research on the changing nature of careers.
Acknowledgments
We thank Mike Arthur, Shawn Carraher, Madeline Crocitto, Tim Hall, Matt Quigely, Howard Tu, and
Hetty van Emmerik for their useful comments on early conceptualizations or drafts of this article. We
appreciate the helpful suggestions of JOM Action Editor Mark Griffin and two anonymous reviewers. We
especially wish to thank Gayle Baugh and Monica Forret for providing insightful comments and construc-
tive feedback on numerous versions of this article. This article is dedicated to the memory of our colleague
and great friend, Howard Tu.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
Notes
1. Baruch (2008) also developed a seven-item scale to measure the original conceptualization of the
protean career (see Table 1). The Baruch scale has been employed in a number of studies and has dem-
onstrated strong validity and reliability in the United States, United Kingdom, and Vietnam (Baruch,
2008; Baruch, Bell, & Gray, 2005; Baruch & Quick, 2007; Pham, Baruch, & He, 2009).
2. Initial conceptualizations and research on the boundaryless career concept also has focused on positive
career outcomes with little recognition of potential negative outcomes.
3. Thanks to an anonymous Journal of Management reviewer for suggesting the application of the social
information perspective to study psychological mobility.
References
Agarwala, T. 2008. Factors influencing career choice of management students in India. Career Develop-
ment International, 13: 362-376.
Allen, T., Herst, D. E., Bruck, C. S., & Sutton, M. 2000. Consequences associated with work-to-family con-
flict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5: 278-308.
Arthur, M. B. 2008. The Hughes Award—Examining contemporary careers: A call for interdisciplinary
inquiry. Human Relations, 61: 163-186.
Arthur, M. B., Claman, P. H., & DeFillippi R. 1995. Intelligent enterprise, intelligent careers. Academy of
Management Executive, 9: 7-22.
Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T., & Lawrence, B. S. 1989. Generating new directions in career theory: The case
for a transdisciplinary approach. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of
career theory: 7-25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arthur, M. B., Khapova, S. N., & Wilderom, C. P. M. 2005. Career success in a boundaryless career world.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26: 177-202.
Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. 1996. The boundaryless career as a new employment principle.
In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career: 3-20. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bagdadli, S., Solari, L., Usai, A., & Grandori, A. 2003. Emergence of career boundaries in unbounded
industries: Career odysseys in the Italian new economy. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 14: 788-808.
Baruch, Y. 2004a. Managing careers: Theory and practice. Harlow, UK: FT-Prentice Hall/Pearson.
Baruch, Y. 2004b. Transforming careers: From linear to multidirectional career paths. Career Development
International, 9: 58-73.
Career development in organizations and beyond: Balancing Traditional and Contemporary Viewpoint.
Human Resource Management Review, 16:125-138.
Baruch, Y. 2008. Development and validation of a measure for protean career. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.
Baruch, Y., & Altman, Y. 2002. Expatriation and repatriation in MNC: A taxonomy. Human Resource
Baruch Y., & Altman, Y. 2008. Global protean careers: A new era in expatriation & repatriation.
Ljubljana, Slovenia: European Academy of Management.
Baruch, Y., Altman, Y., & Adler, N. J. 2009. Global careers and international assignments: The current
discourse. Human Resource Management, 48: 1-4.
Baruch, Y., Bell, M., & Gray, D. 2005. Generalist and specialist graduate business degrees: Tangible and
intangible value. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67: 51-68.
Baruch, Y., Budhwar, P., & Khatri, N. 2007. Brain drain: Inclination to stay abroad after studies. Journal
of World Business, 42: 99-112.
Baruch, Y., & Hall, D. T. 2004. The academic career: A model for future careers in other sectors? Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 64: 241-262.
Baruch, Y., & Quick J. C. 2007. Understanding second careers: Lessons from a study of U.S. Navy admi-
rals. Human Resource Management, 46: 471-491.
Baruch, Y., & Rosenstein, E. 1992. Career planning and managing in high tech organizations. Interna-
tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 3: 477-496.
Baruch, Y., Steele, D., & Quantrill, J. 2002. Management of expatriation and repatriation for novice global
player. International Journal of Manpower, 23: 659-671.
Baugh, S. G., & Fagenson-Eland, E. A. 2005. Boundaryless mentoring: An exploratory study of the func-
tions provided by internal versus external organizational mentors. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 35: 939-955.
Baugh, S. G., & Scandura, T. A. 1999. The effect of multiple mentors on protégé attitudes toward the work
setting. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 14: 503-522.
Baugh, S. G., & Sullivan, S. E. 2005. Mentoring and career development. Career Development Interna-
tional, 10: 425-428.
Baugh, S. G., & Sullivan, S. E. 2009. Developmental relationships and the new workplace realities: A life
span perspective on career development through mentoring. In S. G. Baugh & S. E. Sullivan (Eds.),
Maintaining energy, focus and options over the career: Research in careers: Volume 1: 27-50. Charlotte,
NC: Information Age.
Becker, K. H., & Haunschild, A. 2007. The impact of boundaryless careers on organizational decision
making: An analysis from the perspective of Luhmann’s theory of social systems. International Jour-
nal of Human Resource Management, 14: 713-727.
Belkin, L. 2008. Why dad’s resume lists car pool. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com (retrieved
6/04/09).
Benjamin, R., Gladman, B., & Rundell, B. 1998. Protecting IT systems from cyber crime. Computer
Journal, 41: 429-443.
Benson, G. S., & Pattie, M. 2008. Is expatriation good for my career? The impact of expatriate assign-
ments on perceived and actual career outcomes. International Journal of Human Resource Manage-
ment, 19: 1636-1653.
Blenkinsopp, J., Baruch, Y., & Winden, R. in press. Managing your leadership career in hard times.
In M. Rothstein & R. Burke (Eds.), Self-management and leadership development. Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar.
Blenkinsopp, J., & Zdunczyk, K. 2005. Making sense of mistakes in managerial careers. Career Develop-
ment International, 10: 359-374.
Bossard, A. B., & Peterson, R. B. 2005. The repatriate experience as seen by American expatriates. Jour-
nal of World Business, 40: 9-28.
Boswell, W. R., & Olson-Buchanan, J. B. 2007. The use of communication technologies after hours: The
role of work attitudes and work-life conflict. Journal of Management, 33: 592-610.
Bown-Wilson, D., & Parry, E. 2009. Career plateauing in older workers: Contextual and psychological
drivers. In S. G. Baugh & S. E. Sullivan (Eds.), Maintaining energy, focus and options over the career:
Research in careers: Volume 1: 75-105. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Boyce, A. S., Ryan, A. M., Imus, A. L, & Morgeson, F. P. 2007. Temporary worker, permanent loser? A
model of the stigmatization of temporary workers. Journal of Management, 33: 5-29.
Bozionelos, N. 2009. Expatriation outside the boundaries of the multinational corporation: A study with
expatriate nurses in Saudi Arabia. Human Resource Management, 48: 111-134.
Briscoe, J. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. 2009. The new career and organizational commitment: Do boundary-
less and protean attitudes make a difference? Career Development International, 14: 242-260.
Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. 2006. The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers: Combinations and
implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69: 4-18.
Briscoe, J. P., Hall, D. T., & Frautschy DeMuth, R. L. 2006. Protean and boundaryless careers: An empiri-
cal exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69: 30-47.
Browning, E. S., & Silver, S. 2008. Credit crunch: New hurdles to borrowing. Wall Street Journal. Janu-
ary 22.
Cabrera, E. F. 2007. Opting out and opting in: Understanding the complexities of women’s career transi-
tions. Career Development International, 12: 218-237.
Cabrera, E. F. 2009. Protean organizations: Reshaping work and careers to retain female talent. Career
Development International, 14: 186-201.
Callanan, G. A., & Greenhaus, J. H. 2008. The baby boom generation and career management: A call to
action. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10: 70-85.
Carraher, S. 2005. An examination of entrepreneurial orientation: A validation study in 66 countries in
Africa, Asia, Europe, and North America. International Journal of Family Business, 2: 95-100.
Chen, H., Chung, W., Xu, J., Wang, G., Qin, Y., & Chau, M. 2004. Crime data mining: A general frame-
work and some examples. IEEE Computer Society, 37: 50-56.
Cook, A. 2009. Connecting work-family policies to supportive work environments. Group & Organization
Currie, G., Tempest, S. & Starkey, K. 2006. New careers for old? Organizational and individual responses
to changing boundaries. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17: 755-74
Dany, F. 2003. ‘Free actors’ and organizations: critical remarks about the new career literature, based on
French insights. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14: 821-838.
de Janasz, S. C., & Sullivan, S. E. 2004. Multiple mentoring in academe: Developing the professorial
network. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64: 263-283.
DeFillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. 1996. Boundaryless contexts and careers: A competency-based perspec-
tive. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career: 116-131. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Dickmann, M., & Baruch, Y. in press. Global careers. New York: Routledge.
Dickmann, M., & Harris, H. 2005. Developing career capital for global careers: The role of international
assignments. Journal of World Business, 40: 399-408.
Doherty, N., & Dickmann, M. 2009. Exposing the symbolic capital of international assignments. Interna-
tional Journal of Human Resource Management, 20: 301-320.
Eby, L. T., Butts, M., & Lockwood, A. 2003. Predictors of success in the era of the boundaryless career.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 689-708.
Eby, L. T., Casper, W. J., Lockwood, A., Bordeaux, C., & Brinley, A. 2005. Work and family research in IO/OB:
Content analysis and review of the literature (1980-2002). Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66: 124-197.
Feldman, D. C., & Lankau, M. J. 2005. Executive coaching: A review and agenda for future research.
Journal of Management, 31: 829-848.
Feldman, D. C., & Leana, C. R. 2000. A study of reemployment challenges after downsizing. Organiza-
tional Dynamics, 29: 64-75.
Feldman, D. C., & Ng, T. 2007. Careers: Mobility, embeddedness, and success. Journal of Management,
33: 350-377.
Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. 2001. Correlates of networking behavior for managerial and profes-
sional employees. Group & Organization Management, 26: 283-311.
Forret, M. L., & Dougherty, T. W. 2004. Networking behaviors and career outcomes: Differences for men
and women? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 1-19.
Friedman, S. D., & Greenhaus, J. H. 2000. Work and family—Allies or enemies? What happens when busi-
ness professionals confront life choices. New York: Oxford University Press.
Futagami, S., & Helms, M. 2009. Emerging female entrepreneurship in Japan: A case study of the Digi-
mon workers. Thunderbird International Business Review, 51: 71-85.
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. 2007. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting:
Meta-analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 92: 1524-1541.
Gentry, W. A., Griggs, T. L., Deal, J. J., & Mondore, S. P. 2009. Generational differences in attitudes,
beliefs, and preferences about development and learning at work. In S. G. Baugh & S. E. Sullivan
(Eds.), Maintaining energy, focus and options over the career: Research in careers: Volume 1: 51-73.
Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Godshalk, V. M., Noble, A. M., & Line, C. 2007. High achieving women: An exploratory study of the dif-
ferences between kaleidoscope career types. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting,
Philadelphia, PA.
Goldman, B., Gutek, B., Stein, J., & Lewis, K. 2006. Employment discrimination in organizations: Ante-
cedents and consequences. Journal of Management, 32: 786-830.
Grady, G., & McCarthy, A. M. 2008. Work-life integration: Experiences of mid-career professional work-
ing mothers. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23: 599-622.
Granrose, C. S., & Baccili, P. A. 2006. Do psychological contracts include boundaryless or protean
careers? Career Development International, 11: 163-182.
Greenhaus, J. H., Callanan, G. A., & DiRenzo, M. 2008. A boundaryless perspective on careers.
In J. Barling (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior: 277-299. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. 2003. When work and family collide: Deciding between competing role
demands. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90: 291-303
Greenhaus, J. H., & Powell, G. N. 2006. When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family
enrichment. Academy of Management Journal, 31: 72-92.
Gunz, H. P., Peiperl, M. A., & Tzabbar, D. 2007. Boundaries in the study of career. In H. P. Gunz &
M. A. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of career studies: 471-494. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hall, D. T. 1976. Careers in organizations. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear.
Hall, D. T. 1996a. Long live the career. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), The career is dead—Long live the career: 1-12.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hall, D. T. 1996b. Protean careers of the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 10: 8-16.
Hall, D. T. 2002. Careers in and out organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hall, D. T. 2004. The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65: 1-13.
Hall, D. T., & Chandler, D. E. 2005. Psychological success: When the career is a calling. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26: 155-176.
Hall, D. T., Gardner, W., & Baugh, S. G. 2008. The questions we ask about authenticity and attainability:
How do values and beliefs influence our career decisions? Careers division theme session panel dis-
cussion presented at the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.
Hall, D. T., & Moss, J. E. 1998. The new protean career contract: Helping organizations and employees
adapt. Organizational Dynamics, 26: 22-37.
Haunschild, A. 2003. Managing employment relationships in flexible labour markets: The case of German
repertory theatres, Human Relations, 56: 899-929.
Higgins, M. 2000. The more, the merrier? Multiple developmental relationships and work satisfaction.
Journal of Management Development, 19: 277-296.
Higgins, M. 2005a. Career imprints: Creating leaders across an industry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Higgins, M. 2005b. Developmental networks in action. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Acad-
emy of Management, Honolulu, HI.
Higgins, M., & Kram, K. E. 2001. Reconceptualizing mentoring at work: A developmental network per-
spective. Academy of Management Review, 26: 264-288.
Ibarra, H. 2003. Working identity: Unconventional strategies for reinventing your career. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Inkson, K. 2006. Protean and boundaryless careers as metaphors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69:
48-63.
Inkson, K., & Baruch, Y. 2008. Organizational careers. In S. Clegg & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of
macro-organizational behaviour: 209-223. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Johnson, R. W., Soto, M., & Zedlewski, S. R. 2008. How is the economic turmoil affecting older Ameri-
cans? (Retirement Project Fact Sheet). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Judge, T. A., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Bretz, R. D. 2004. A longitudinal model of sponsorship and career
success: A study of industrial-organizational psychologists. Personnel Psychology, 57: 271-303.
Khapova, S. N., & Korotov, K. 2007. Dynamics of Western career attributes in the Russian context.
Career Development International, 12: 68-85.
Kirchmeyer, C. 2002. Gender differences in managerial careers: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal
of Business Ethics, 37: 5-24.
Kram, K. E. 1985. Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman.
Lentz, E., & Allen, T. D. 2009. The role of mentoring others in the career plateauing phenomenon. Group
& Organization Management, 34: 358-384.
Levinson, D. J. 1978. The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Knopf.
Lips-Wiersma, M., & Hall, D. T. 2007. Organizational career development is not dead: A case study on man-
aging the new career during organizational change. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 771-792.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. 2007. Emerging positive organizational behavior. Journal of Management,
33: 321-349.
Mainiero, L. A., & Sullivan, S. E. 2005. Kaleidoscope careers: An alternative explanation for the “opt-out
generation.” Academy of Management Executive, 19: 106-123.
Mainiero, L. A., & Sullivan, S. E. 2006. The opt-out revolt: How people are creating kaleidoscope careers
outside of companies. New York: Davies-Black.
Malach-Pines, A., Ozbilgin, M. F., & Burke, R. 2008. Choosing a career in management: An interdisci-
plinary multicultural perspective. Career Development International, 13: 285-290.
Malach-Pines, A., & Schwartz, D. 2007. Now you see them, now you don’t: Gender differences in entre-
preneurship. Journal of Management Psychology, 23: 811-832.
Mallon, M., & Walton, S. 2005. Career and learning: The ins and the outs of it. Career Development
Marler, J. H., Barringer, M. W., & Milkovich, G. T. 2002. Boundaryless and traditional contingent employ-
ees: Worlds apart. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23: 425-453.
McCallum, S. Y., & Forret, M. L. 2009. The relationship of networking behaviors to job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Chicago.
McDonald, K. S., & Hite, L. M. 2008. The next generation of career success: Implications for HRD.
Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10: 86-103.
McDonald, P., Brown, K., & Bradley, L. 2005. Have traditional career paths given way to protean ones?
Evidence from senior managers in the Australian public sector. Career Development International,
10: 109-129.
Mezias, J. M., & Scandura, T. A. 2005. A needs-driven approach to expatriate adjustment and career devel-
opment: A multiple mentoring perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 36: 519-538.
Mihail, D. M. 2008. Graduates’ career orientation and strategies in corporate Greece. Personnel Review,
37: 393-411.
Mirvis, P. H., & Hall, D. T. 1996. Psychological success and the boundaryless career. In M. B. Arthur
& D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career: 237-255. New York: Oxford University Press.
Molloy, J. C. 2006. Developmental networks: Literature review and future research. Career Development
Ng, E. S. W., Burke, R. J., & Fiksenbaum, L. 2008. Career choice in management: Findings from US
MBA students. Career Development International, 13: 346-361.
Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. 2005. Predictors of objective and subjective
career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58: 367-408.
Ng, T. W. H., Sorensen, K. L., Eby, L. T., & Feldman, D. C. 2007. Determinants of job mobility: A theoret-
ical integration and extension. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80: 363-386.
O’Connell, D. J, McNeely, E., & Hall, D. T. 2008. Unpacking personal adaptability at work. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 14: 248-259.
O’Neil, D., Bilimoria, D., & Saatciogle, A. 2004. Women’s career types: Attributions of satisfaction with
career success. Career Development International, 9: 478-500.
Özbilgin, M. F., & Healy, G. 2004. The gendered nature of career development of university professors:
The case of Turkey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64: 358-371.
Pang, M. 2003. Boundaryless careers? The (in-)voluntary (re-)actions of some Chinese in Hong Kong and
Britain. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14: 809-820.
Peiperl, M. A., Arthur, M. B., Goffee, R., & Morris, T. 2000. Career frontiers: New conceptions of work-
ing lives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Peiperl, M. A., & Baruch, Y. 1997. Back to square zero: The post-corporate career. Organizational Dynamics,
25(4): 7-22.
Pham, H. Q., Baruch, Y., & He, H-W. 2009. An examination of multiple-commitment and three-component
commitment theory on careers in Vietnam. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting,
Chicago.
Powell, G. N., & Graves, L. M. 2003. Women and men in management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Power, S. J. 2006. The midcareer success guide: Planning the second half of your working life. Westport,
CT: Greenwood.
Power, S. J. 2007. Studies of the boundaryless career across cultures: An analysis and ideas for future
study. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
Power, S. J. 2009. Midcareer renewal: A research agenda for the twenty-first century. In S. G. Baugh
& S. E. Sullivan (Eds.), Maintaining energy, focus and options over the career: Research in careers:
Volume 1: 107-133. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Pringle, J. K., & Mallon, M. 2003. Challenges for the boundaryless career odyssey. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 14: 839-853.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Austin, J. T. 1998. Understanding and managing cynicism about organi-
zational change. Academy of Management Executive, 11: 48-59.
Richardson, J., & Mallon, M. 2005. Career interrupted? The case of the self-directed expatriate. Journal
of World Business, 40: 409-420.
Richtel, M., & Wortham, J. 2009, March 14. Weary of looking for work, some create their own. The New York
Times. http://www.nytimes.com (retrieved 6/04/09).
Rosenbaum, J. 1979. Tournament mobility: Career patterns in a corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly,
24: 220-241.
Rousseau, D. M. 1989. Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities
and Rights Journal, 2: 121-139.
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. 1978. A social information processing approach to job attitudes and job
design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 224-254.
Sanchez, J. 2000. Adapting to a boundaryless world: A developmental expatriate model. Academy of
Management Executive, 14: 96-107.
Sargent, L. D. 2003. Effects of downward status transition on perceptions of career success, role perfor-
mance and job identification. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55: 114-120.
Sargent, L. D., & Domberger, S. R. 2007. Exploring the development of a protean career orientation:
Values and image violations. Career Development International, 12: 545-564.
Segers, J., Inceoglu, I., Vloeberghs, D., Bartram, D., & Henderickx, E. 2008. Protean and boundaryless
careers: A study on potential motivators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73: 212-230.
Skilton, P. F., & Bravo, J. 2008. Do social capital and project type vary across career paths in project-based
work? The case of Hollywood personal assistants. Career Development International, 13: 381-401.
Smith-Ruig, T. 2008. Making sense of careers through the lens of path metaphor. Career Development
Sommerlund, J., & Boutaiba, S. 2007. Borders of “the boundaryless career”. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 20: 525-538.
Stahl, G. K., & Cerdin, J.-L. 2004. Global careers in French and German multinational corporations.
Journal of Management Development, 23: 885–902.
Smith-Ruig, T. 2009. Mapping the career journey of accountants in Australia. In S. G. Baugh & S. E. Sullivan
(Eds.), Maintaining energy, focus and options over the career: Research in careers: Volume 1: 163-
196. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Sullivan, S. E. 1999. The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of Manage-
ment, 25: 457-484.
Sullivan, S. E. (in press) Self-direction in the boundaryless career era. In P. Hartung & L. Subich (Eds.),
Construction of self in career: Theory and practice. New York: APA Books.
Sullivan, S. E., & Arthur, M. B. 2006. The evolution of the boundaryless career concept: Examining
physical and psychological mobility. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69: 19-29.
Sullivan, S. E., & Crocitto, M. 2007. Developmental career theories. In H. P Gunz & M. A. Peiperl (Eds.),
Handbook of career studies: 283-309. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sullivan, S. E., Forret, M., Carraher, S. C., & Mainiero, L. 2009. Using the kaleidoscope career model to
examine generational differences in work attitudes. Career Development International, 14: 284-302.
Sullivan, S. E., & Mainiero, L. 2007a. Kaleidoscope careers: Benchmarking ideas for fostering family-
friendly workplaces. Organizational Dynamics, 36: 45-62.
Sullivan, S. E., & Mainiero, L. 2007b. Women’s kaleidoscope careers: A new framework for examining
women’s stress across the lifespan. In P. L. Perrew & D. C. Ganster (Ed.), Exploring the work and non-
work interface, research in occupational stress: Volume 6: 205-238. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Sullivan, S. E., & Mainiero, L.A. 2008. Using the kaleidoscope career model to understand the changing
patterns of women’s careers: Designing human resource development programs that attract and retain
women. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10: 32-49.
Super, D. 1957. Psychology of careers. New York: Harper & Brothers.

Tams, S., & Arthur, M. B. 2007. Studying careers across cultures: Distinguishing international, cross-
cultural, and globalization perspectives. Career Development International, 12: 86-98.
Tepper, B. J. 2007. Abusive supervision in work organizations: Synthesis and research agenda. Journal of
Tharenou, P. 2009. Self-initiated international careers: Gender difference and career outcomes. In S. G. Baugh
& S. E. Sullivan (Eds.), Maintaining energy, focus and options over the career: Research in careers:
Volume 1: 197-226. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Valcour, M., Bailyn, L., & Quijada, M. 2007. Customized careers. In M. A. Peiperl & H. P. Gunz (Eds.),
Handbook of career studies: 188-210. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Valcour, P. M., & Tolbert, P. S. 2003. Gender, family and career in the era of boundarylessness: Determi-
nants and effects of intra- and inter-organizational mobility. International Journal of Human Resource
van Buren, H. J. 2003. Boundaryless careers and employability obligations. Business Ethics Quarterly,
13: 131-149.
van Emmerik, I. J. H., & Euwema, M. C. 2007. The aftermath of organizational restructuring: Destruction
of old and development of new social capital. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23: 833-849.
van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J. P., & Lyles, M. A. 2008. Inter- and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: A
meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management
Studies, 45: 830-853.
Vardi, Y., & Kim, S. H. 2007. Considering the darker side of careers: Toward a more balanced perspective.
In H. P. Gunz & M. A. Peiperl (Eds.), Handbook of career studies: 502-510. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Grimland, S. 2008. Values and career choice at the beginning of the MBA educa-
tional process. Career Development International, 13: 333-345.
Yamshita, M. & Uenoyma, T. 2006. Bourndaryless career and adaptive HR practices in Japan’s hotel
industry. Career Development International, 11: 230-242.
Wang, M., Adams, G. A., Beehr, T. A., & Shultz, K. S. 2009. Bridge employment and retirement: Issues
and opportunities during the latter part of one’s career. In S. G. Baugh & S. E. Sullivan (Eds.), Main-
taining energy, focus and options over the career: Research in careers: Volume 1: 135-162. Charlotte,
NC: Information Age.
Wanous, J., Reichers, A., & Austin, J. 2000. Cynicism about organizational change. Group & Organiza-
tional Management, 25: 132-153.
Wolff, H. G., & Moser, K. 2009. Effects of networking on career success: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94: 196-206.
Wu, T-Y., & Hu, C. 2009. Abusive supervision and employee emotional exhaustion: Dispositional ante-
cedents and boundaries. Group & Organization Management, 34: 143-169.
Zhao, W., & Zhou, X. 2008. Intraorganizational career advancement and voluntary turnover in a multina-
tional bank in Taiwan. Career Development International, 13: 402-424.

Advances in Career Theory and Research A Critical Review and Agenda For Future Exploration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Advances in Career Theory and Research A Critical Review and Agenda For Future Exploration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management

Sherry E. Sullivan1 and Yehuda Baruch2

Traditionally, careers were typically defined in terms of an individual’s relationship to an employ-

The Protean Career Orientation

project teams; or other ad hoc arrangements.

The Boundaryless Career Concept

Clarification of the Concept

The Next Generation of Career Concepts

Traditional Careers Redux

The Kaleidoscope Career Model

Agenda for Future Research

Super, D. 1957. Psychology of careers. New York: Harper & Brothers.

You might also like