CAREER STAGES AND ANCHORS

The theory’s central management insight is that career choice should be seen as an ongoing
journey of exploration and self-construction rather than a one-off decision.

Careers are a central construct in the management field, as they reside at the crossroads of
individual and organization, of psychology and strategy. In the mid-1950s, at a time when
career development theory was dominated by differential psychology and trait-and-factor
theory, two important advances were made that would fundamentally change the face of
career theory. Career stage theories started to emerge (most notably, Donald Super’s Career
Development theory, which laid the foundations for his Life-Span, Life-Space theory later
on), as well as theories that went beyond career counseling’s traditional focus on person-job
fit to look at what people actually want from their careers (most notably, Edgar Schein’s
Career Anchors theory). Up to that point, the careers literature had been concerned mostly
with the prediction of occupational choice and success based on ability and interest tests.
Vocational counseling was portrayed as a rather static process that matched people to the
‘right’ occupation. Taken together, career stage and career anchors theory contributed to the
understanding of careers by introducing a focus on the dynamics underlying the formation of
people’s vocational self-concept over time. In what follows, we will first offer a bit more
background on career stage and career anchors theory, highlighting central concepts and
assumptions in both theories. We then discuss how they have impacted on career research
and practice over the years. At the end of this entry, we list some recommendations for
further reading.

FUNDAMENTALS

Career stages

Although Super acknowledged the merits of trait-and-factor theory and the matching model
to vocational guidance, he felt that they were too static to capture the complex dynamics of
adult career development over time. In view of that, he developed a theory of career that
conceptualized career development as a lifelong process, rather than a once-in-a-lifetime
decision. He identified five consecutive developmental stages, each characterized by its own
career concerns:

(1) Growth (age 4 to 13). In the Growth stage, a child develops its capacities, attitudes and
interests. As it grows older, it is confronted with the following career development tasks:
becoming concerned about the future; increasing personal control over one’s own life;
convincing oneself to achieve in school and at work; and acquiring competent work habits
and attitudes.

(2) Exploration (age 14 to 24). The Exploration stage demarcates the transition into young
adulthood, in which self-reflection and pursuing (higher) education are central features.
Crystallization, specification, and implementation of career preferences are developmental
tasks that are typically tackled at this point.
(3) Establishment (age 24 to 44). In the Establishment stage, the young adult enters his or her
first job and slowly but surely establishes his or her place in the world of work. Career
development tasks in this stage involve stabilizing or securing a place in an organization;
consolidating one’s position; and advancing up the career ladder.

(4) Maintenance (age 45 to 65). The Maintenance stage is characterized by the aging
worker’s tendency to hold on to his or her current position, whilst simultaneously updating
work-related skills so as to stay abreast of developments in the field. Career development
tasks include holding on what has been achieved; updating competencies; and finding
innovative ways of performing one’s job.

(5) Disengagement (over 65). Around the age of 65, the Disengagement stage sets in. In this
stage, most people make active plans to retire. A first developmental task they go through is
deceleration (in terms of workload and career centrality in life), followed by retirement
planning and finally, retirement living.

Traditional linear career stage models, such as the above, make sense mostly within
traditional career contexts, such as large bureaucratic organizations. In spite of the fact that
many organizations worldwide are abandoning this type of structure, however – combined
with the fact that an increasing number of individuals is enacting their careers across
organizational boundaries – this type of stage theories has continued to dominate the
literature on careers. Nonetheless, there have been a few recent developments that have taken
changes in the career environment into account more explicitly. Tim Hall and Philip Mirvis’
model of contemporary career development, for instance, centers around mini-stages of two
or three years containing exploration, trial, mastery, and exit attitudes and behaviors, which
individual ‘recycle’ through across functional, organizational, and other boundaries. Lisa
Mainiero and Sherry Sullivan, from their side, developed a ‘kaleidoscope’ model of career
development, which talks about facets of career that are continually adjusted to best match a
person’s life situation at any given time, independently of definitions of career success
dictated by society.

Career anchors

Edgar Schein’s Career Anchors theory supplements Super’s Career Development theory in
the sense that it focuses on the dynamics of people’s internal career throughout their adult
lives. Schein defined career anchors as patterns of self-perceived competence, motivators,
and values that guide and constrain career choice:

(1) Autonomy/Independence. Flexibility in terms of when and how to work is seen as of

central importance. Organizational rules and restrictions are perceived as bothersome, to the
extent that promotion opportunities might be turned down so as to preserve total
independence.

(2) Security/Stability. Employment and financial security are main concerns. The focus is less
on job content and reaching a high position. Achieving some sort of job tenure is the ultimate
goal; compliance an often-used strategy to achieve it.

(3) Technical/Functional Competence. The highest value is placed on the opportunity to

apply one’s skills and develop them to an ever-higher level. A sense of identity is derived
from one’s expertise, and being challenged in that area leads to profound satisfaction.
Managing others is not seen as inherently interesting, unless it involves project management
in the area of expertise.

(4) General Managerial Competence. Opportunities to climb the ladder to a position of

power are sought after. There is a strong desire to be held accountable for organizational
outcomes, and generalist jobs are preferred.

(5) Entrepreneurial Creativity. An important goal is to found one’s own company or

enterprise whilst taking risks and overcoming challenges and obstacles. Demonstrating one’s
abilities (e.g. through financial success), and being recognized for what one has achieved
single-handedly are critical motivators.

(6) Sense of Service/Dedication to a Cause. Important values center around doing work that
makes the world a better place (e.g. solving environmental problems, helping people in need,
curing disease). Job offers that do not fulfill this type of values are usually rejected.

(7) Pure Challenge. Solving seemingly impossible problems, succeeding over opponents, and
beating the odds are important drivers. Novelty, variety, and difficulty (be it in the field of
technology, strategy, or people management) are ends in itself; work situations that lack these
features are perceived as mind-numbing.

(8) Lifestyle. Achieving balance between work and personal life is a principal objective.
Integration between personal needs, family needs, and career requirements is aspired. The
main determinant of identity is the person’s life as a whole, rather than his or her career.
Career opportunities (e.g. international assignments) are gladly declined in exchange for
more work-life balance.

Schein was adamant about two points. First, that every person, in essence, has only one
career anchor – which lies as the heart of all career decisions they will make throughout their
adult lives. Second, that career anchors are shaped by early career experiences, and that
therefore people who have not had much work experience (i.e. young graduates) do not (yet)
have a career anchor. Schein argued that career anchors are formed when a person’s self-
image prior to entering the job market (i.e. in the Growth stage) is confronted with real-life
working experiences (i.e. in the Exploration stage), causing crystallization of the vocational
self-concept. Once formed, however (i.e. from the Establishment stage onwards), Schein
believed that a person’s career anchor would remain stable throughout the further course of
their life, save in cases where a person’s self-image is altered radically by the encounter of
unexpected life events or career traumas.

IMPORTANCE

Research

Both career stages and career anchors theory have been the subject of dozens of empirical
studies across the globe. Although, generally speaking, their main assumptions have held
over the years, some gaps remain. As for career stage theory, the idea of ‘recycling’ through
career stages, however interesting, has rarely been the object of empirical research. In
addition, most studies that have aimed to test the assumptions of Super’s Career Development
theory have relied mostly on chronological age and organization, career, or position tenure as
indicators of career stage, which goes directly against the idea of career stages being
characterized by the level of Exploration, Establishment, Maintenance, and Disengagement
concerns. Combined with the observation that nearly all career stage studies have been cross-
sectional, one might conclude that this this type of approach is measuring types rather than
stages. Although recoding continuous data about career concerns into stages may be useful in
a counselling setting where an individual’s scores are explored in-depth and synergistically,
in a research context this approach is likely to result in oversimplification and loss of data
richness. Following Super’s notion of mini-cycles and Hall and Mirvis’ idea of overlapping
career learning cycles, it may make more sense to study respondents’ career concerns using
continuous and non-disjoint data formats, whilst controlling for age and tenure indicators.
Career anchors theory was practically unchallenged for 25 years when Daniel Feldman and
Mark Bolino published their critique in 1996. Criticism of the career anchors concept has
been concerned mostly with its factor structure, as well as with the assumptions of each
person having one key career anchor, and its stability over time. Most empirical studies
testing the alternative assumptions suggested by Feldman and Bolino, however, have found
that Schein’s factor structure, although not always optimal, remains the best fit. Evidence was
found for some individuals having multiple career anchors. As for the assumption of stability
over time, there is a significant need and opportunity for further research adopting
longitudinal designs.

Practice

Although the career stage and anchors literatures have primarily spelled out implications for
individuals – focusing on individual-level outcomes such as effective career decision making,
career satisfaction, and self-esteem – without a doubt, their impact on management practice
has been pervasive. The career anchors literature has taught managers around the world that
people with different career anchors desire different kinds of work settings, are motivated by
different kinds of incentives and rewards, and are vulnerable to different kinds of career
mismanagement. In doing so, it has directly contributed to the rise of realistic job previews
(RJP) as a contemporary selection paradigm replacing methods that were focused mainly on
‘seducing’ employees to accept job offers. In the later part of his career, Edgar Schein
commercialized his knowledge about career anchors in a number of best-selling tools and
inventories. The career stage literature, and especially the contributions made by Donald
Super, has drastically changed the paradigms used in career counseling practice. Rather than
seeing career choice as a one-off decision, it is now perceived as an ongoing journey of
exploration and self-construction. ‘Newer’ career development theories such as those devised
by Hall and Mirvis, and Mainiero and Sullivan encourage putting less pressure on early-
career individuals to make permanent career decisions and avoid early career mistakes at all
costs, thus reducing stress and encouraging lifelong learning and experimentation.

-- Nicky Dries

See also:

Career Development Theory; Individual Values; Protean (Boundaryless) Careers; Self-

Concept and Theory of Self; Social Identity Theory

Further Readings:
1. Feldman, D.C. & Bolino, M.C. (1996). Careers within careers: Reconceptualizing the
nature of career anchors and their consequences. Human Resource Management Review,
6 (2), 89-112.
2. Hall, D.T. & Mirvis, P.H. (1996). The new protean career: Psychological success and the
path with a heart. In D.T. Hall (Ed.), The career is dead – Long live the career (pp. 15-
45). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
3. Mainiero, L.A. & Sullivan, S.E. (2005). Kaleidoscope careers: An alternative explanation
for the opt-out revolution. Academy of Management Executive, 19 (1), 106-123.
4. Schein, E.H. (1996). Career anchors revisited: Implications for career development in the
21st century. Academy Of Management Executive, 10 (4), 80-88.
5. Super, D.E. (1951). Vocational adjustment: Implementing a self-concept. Occupations,
30, 88-92.