A USEFUL FRAMEWORK

FOR FEDERAL MANAGERS

Career Anchor
Theory
THOMAS J. BARTH

he growing concern with recruiting and retaining the &dquo;best

’ and the brightest&dquo; in the government has led to a wealth

T
t of recent surveys and articles analyzing employee reten-
tion and turnover in the federal civil service. For example,
the Merit Systems Protection Board has issued a series of
reports examining both SES and other white collar employees’ reasons
for leaving the federal government (Daley, 1991); Newcomer, et al.
(1989) have reported on a survey of the Presidential Management
Intern (PMI) program, which includes questions on factors which lead
PMIs to stay or leave the federal government, and the General Ac-
counting Office (1992) has released a study of how federal employees
view the government as a place to work.
Despite the growing concern These specific studies on federal agen-
over recruiting and retaining the
cies, as well as other recent general
"best and the brightest" in retention and turnover literature, tend to
government, the evidence come to similar conclusions: although
suggests there is very little
structured career management
compensation is clearly important in the
decision to stay or leave an organization,
activity at either the individual the degree of importance of relative
or agency level in the federal

government. This article earnings varies (Lewis, 1990; Althaus,

suggests that one of the reasons 1989) and there are other very important
for this is a lack of accepted nonmonetary factors that strongly affect
conceptual frameworks for job satisfaction (Steel and Wamer, 1990;
understandingcareermotiva- Dougherty, 1990; Lawson, 1991; Panos,
tion. Schein’s classic career 1989). These nonmonetary factors, such
anchor theory is examined as a as recognition, challenge, and the
potential source of such a opportunity to develop skills, are not
framework, and implications for only important in their own right but,
a career management strategy unlike compensation, are factors over
in the federal government
which public managers have some
are discussed.

27
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 27, 2015
control. As Romzek (1990: 374) notes, &dquo;the more managers know
about cultivating these psychological ties, the better the employers’
chances of retaining high quality employees.&dquo;
In addition to the much discussed recruitment and retention
&dquo;crisis&dquo; in the federal government (Lane and Wolf, 1990; Lewis, 1991;
National Commission on the Public Service, 1989), understanding
nonmonetary career motivators is more important than ever given the
demographics of the general workforce. The overall aging of the
workforce translates to fewer opportunities to advance along tradi-
tional lines in organizations, more &dquo;plateaued&dquo; employees, and a
smaller labor pool of young workers from which to recruit (Matzer,
1988). Yet, as will be discussed later in this article, federal agencies
have typically paid little systematic attention to the career management
of their employees.
*Career anchors: providing a framework. The recent plethora of
surveys of the federal workforce provides a unique opportunity to
address this career management gap by examining the data collected
in light of various theories of career motivation. This article suggests
that a useful place to start is with an examination of a now classic
framework for understanding the nonmonetary or psychological
factors that influence career decisions: the career anchor theory devel-
oped by Edgar Schein (1978) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy.
Schein’s theory holds that individuals possess a dominant career
anchor, or a concern or value that they will not give up if a choice has
to be made. An individual can only discover his or her career anchor

through actual work experience, where self-perceived talents, motives

and values are tested or verified. Schein identifies five career anchors
through a longitudinal study of MIT graduates: technical/functional
competence, managerial competence, creativity, autonomy/indepen-
dence and security.
This article addresses the extent to which these career anchors are
applicable to the federal workforce based on existing survey data and
the implications for a career management strategy for the federal
government. The argument is comprised of three parts: first, why a
framework such as the theory of career anchors needs to be empha-
sized at the federal level; second, how recent public sector retention,
turnover and job satisfaction data supports, undermines or extends
career anchor theory; and third, implications for public managers and
future research on employee retention.

The value of career anchor theory

Before defining Schein’s career anchors in more detail, it is first impor-
tant to make the argument as to why a framework for understanding

28
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 27, 2015
careers is important at this time in the federal government specifi-
so
and in the
cally, public service generally.
.Managers understand career dynamics poorly. What does a
public manager do when faced with the loss of a quality employee?
The evidence suggests that she or he does very little. In a 1990 study
on why employees are leaving the federal government, the MSPB

reports the following finding:

Although 61 percent of the survey participants had &dquo;outstand-
or &dquo;exceeds fully successful&dquo; performance ratings, over three-
ing&dquo;
quarters (78 percent) of the survey participants indicated that
management had not tried to keep them from leaving (p. viii).

This finding is particularly disturbing given the results of another

MSPB survey (1990b) of almost 16,000 federal employees, where for all
categories of jobs the quality of applicants was seen by supervisors as
having worsened over the previous four years. These findings would
suggest that retaining quality employees is more critical than ever.
One plausible explanation for this finding is that managers
simply are at a loss as to what to offer good employees who indicate
they are leaving. Outside of pay or promotion, they may not know
how to discuss their employees’ career goals or how to enhance
satisfaction in their present position. Given the well documented
paucity of management training in the federal government by the
National Commission on the Public Service (1989), such a lack of
knowledge by federal managers would not be surprising; in fact it
should be expected.
.Career management systems lacking in most agencies. Fur-
thermore, there is very little organized institutional attention paid to
career management or development at the federal level. Commenting
on the traditional approach to career planning in the federal system,

Lane and Wolf (1990: 47) paint a disturbing picture:

The influence of the overall federal career system orientation has

caused many public employees to believe that careers are automatic
devices which simply happen to individuals within organizations.
Managers within public organizations also tend to be somewhat
...

passive about career patterns, leaving them to the vagaries of

individual initiative and organizational inertia.
In periods of human resource shortage, passivity regarding
career patterns shifts from a posture of benign neutrality to one of

negative effect.... Today, doubtful career prospects and frustrated

career ambitions can result in a range of dysfunctions including

burn-out, loss of needed talent, cynicism, professional withdrawal,

and a growing tendency toward an unproductive civil service.

Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 27, 2015 29
 This conclusion is supported by a report of the Office of Person-
nel Management Task Force on Executive and Management Develop-
ment (1991: 5), which notes that &dquo;most Federal agencies lack well-
defined career path development ... People can apply for jobs that
attract them, but often cannot develop themselves or qualify for new
positions that would broaden their experience.&dquo;
recruit and Forget&dquo; strategy is costing the government. The
contemporary importance of exploring the possible utility of career
anchor theory is also indicated because Schein’s argument stresses the
fact that individuals discover career anchors through actual work
experience. Schein maintains that as employees progress through their
careers they are engaged in a process of self-discovery that reveals
career anchors of which they were not initially aware. If this discovery
leads to the conclusion that they are not in the right job or career path,
employees have three principal options: (1) the employee leaves; (2) the
employee stays and represses the career anchor; or (3) the employee
and the organization restructure the job or provide other opportunities
within the organization to tap the employee’s career anchor.
The approach (or lack thereof) to career management in the
federal government described earlier in this article suggests that there
may be little institutional support for the third option, i.e., efforts to
better match individual and organizational needs. The prevailing
attitude is to focus on recruiting the best person possible, and the rest is
up to the individual. Unfortunately, there are potential costs to
government organizations with employees who are left primarily with
one of the first two options i.e., leave or stay on with resentment
-

due to repression of their career anchor.

In his study of turnover in the federal civil service between 1973
and 1989, Lewis (1991 : 153) found that although overall quit rates were
remarkably stable, increased rates were concentrated among employ-
ees with 10 to 20 years of federal service, or &dquo;people in the prime of
their careers.&dquo; The survey of PMIs indicates that 22 percent of the
respondents left federal service after they completed the program.
Even more disturbing is the following finding:

The respondents still in the federal government seemed unwill-

ing to make a long-term commitment to the federal service. When
asked how long they plan to stay in the federal government, only 11I
percent responded that they plan to do so until retirement. Forty
percent were unsure about their future plans, and 34 percent
planned to stay only one to four years (Newcomer et al.,1989: 377).
These are not the types of individuals an organization can afford to
lose at increasing rates without seriously affecting productivity.
The option of staying but repressing the career anchor may or

30 Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 27, 2015
may not be problematic for the individual or organization. It is not
uncommon for employees to find expression of their career anchor
outside of the workplace and do a very satisfactory job for the organi-
zation. This may very well comprise a large percentage of the &dquo;solid
citizens&dquo; that are the backbone of any organization (Harvey and
Schultz, 1988: 83). In other words, such employees do not expect or
need to have their career anchor satisfied by their job.
However, it is also probable that a significant number of employ-
ees who repress their career anchor on the job will become dissatisfied.
A survey of overall job satisfaction by the MSPB (1990b) reveals some
interesting findings. Although 70 percent of the respondents indicated
they are satisfied with their job, only about half (49 percent) of the
respondents say they would recommend the federal government as a
place to work. Furthermore, this figure declines as the white-collar
grade level increases. For example, 55 percent of the GS 5-8 respon-
dents indicated they would recommend the federal government as a
place to work, while for GS 9-12, GM 13-15, and the SES the figures are
44, 36 and 27 percent, respectively. These are very disturbing figures,
and again indicate that as federal employees gain more experience in
their careers they are less and less enamored with government service.
These findings lend support to an explanation that significant
numbers of federal employees, although initially satisfied and staying
in government, are discovering that their career anchors are not being
met. They are expressing their unhappiness either by leaving or by
staying as dissatisfied workers. The framework provided by Schein’s
career anchor theory, assuming it continues to reflect reality, gives a

manager a way of understanding career development and structuring

constructive discussions with valuable employees who might be
dissatisfied. The typical recommendations in employee retention and
turnover studies -

use more sabbaticals, institute rotation and career

development programs, etc. are not very helpful or convincing
-

solutions to managers who do not understand (or buy into) the

employee needs these programs are supposed to address. These
measures are also very costly; adequate justification for such human
resource investments should require greater empirical evidence of a

positive return than currently is available in public personnel adminis-

tration literature.

Survey support for career anchors

Although the Schein’s career anchor theory makes a great deal of sense
intuitively, and while it is cited widely in personnel/human resources
management texts (Shafritz, Hyde and Rosenbloom, 1981; Leibowitz,
Farren and Kaye, 1986; Dessler, 1991), the theory is not based on the
direct experiences of public sector employees. However, since Schein

Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 27, 2015 31
(1978: 128) argues that the career anchor can be viewed as &dquo;that
concern or value which the person will not give up, if a choice has to be
made,&dquo; it is reasonable to expect that the same five career anchors
should be evident in studies of why employees remain in or decide to
leave public sector employment. Similarly, these same factors ought to
be evident in research on factors contributing to job satisfaction or
dissatisfaction in the public service.
To determine the plausibility of these expectations the following
studies were examined:

1. MSPB, 1989: Who is Leaving the Federal Government? An Analysis

of Employee Turnover.

2. MSPB, 1989: The Senior Executive Service. Views of Former Federal

Executives.

3. MSPB, 1990: Why are Employees Leaving the Federal Government?

Results of an Exit Survey.
4. MSPB, 1990: Working for America: A Federal Employee Survey.

5. GAO, 1992: Federal Employment: How Federal Employees View the

Government as a Place to Work.

6. Newcomer, et al. 1989: &dquo;The Presidential Management Intern

ship Program: Looking Backward and Moving Forward.&dquo;
The remainder of this section defines each of Schein’s career
anchors in more depth, and then discusses the extent to which the
existence of each of these anchors is suggested by the findings reported
in these studies.

*Technical/functional anchor
[Individuals] anchored in technical/functional competence have
oriented their careers around the [sic] areas of competence and have
explicitly avoided situations which would remove them from those
areas or push them into general management .... Success for people
in this group is determined more by feedback that they are expert in
their areas and by increasingly challenging work in those areas
rather than promotion or monetary rewards per se ... (Schein, 1978:
134).

Several survey findings directly support the presence of the

technical/functional anchor among federal employees:

The MSPB survey of why federal employees resigned (1990a)

indicates that 55 percent of the respondents indicated that &dquo;poor use

32 Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 27, 2015
 of my skills&dquo; was an important factor in their decision to resign.’
In the PMI survey (1989), with respect to reasons given for
leaving the federal government, 75 percent responded &dquo;to develop
more marketable skills&dquo; and 66 percent indicated the &dquo;challenge of

learning a new job&dquo; as major factors in their decision.’ Similarly, the

MSPB survey of former members of the SES (1989b) indicate that 42
percent reported that one factor in their decision to leave was that their
knowledge and skills were not being used appropriately.’ In addition,
the GAO survey (1992) of federal employees indicates that 62 percent
and 58 percent, respectively, responded that the opportunity to apply
abilities and the opportunity to work on challenging assignments were
4
important reasons for staying in the federal service.4
These survey findings from disparate studies indicate that
Schein’s concept of skill and competence is a career motivator for
federal employees that is distinct from money or promotion. Although
the GAO study is encouraging in that a high percentage of employees
chose to stay in government because of the opportunity to apply their
skills and work on challenging assignments, the findings also suggest
that the absence of such an opportunity can constitute an important
reason for leaving federal government employment. This finding is
even more disturbing given that it was an important reason for both

high potential employees questioned early in their careers (PMIs) and

some of the highest achievers at what should be the peak of their
careers (SESers).

*Managerial competence anchor

...the person who wants to rise to higher levels of management
and be given higher levels of responsibility must be simultaneously
good at analyzing problems, handling people, and handling his or her own
emotions in order to withstand the pressures of the &dquo;executive suite.&dquo;
This kind of person &dquo;needs&dquo; to be in an organization and to rise to
a level within that organization where these various competencies
can be exercised. He or she will seek opportunities to express the
combination of analytical, interpersonal and emotional competen-
cies (Schein, 1978: 138)

Over 58% of the PMIs responded that the opportunity &dquo;to

manage people/resources&dquo; important reason for remaining in
was an

government. This is not surprising given that preparation for manage-

ment careers is one of the explicit goals of the program. Another
indirect indication of the management competence anchor is that over
63 percent responded that the opportunity &dquo;to influence decisions on
public policy&dquo; was an important reason for remaining in government.
For evidence from the other studies, some broad interpretations

Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 27, 2015
33
are necessary. The MSPB (1990a) study of resignations, for example,
shows that 65 percent indicated &dquo;few advancement opportunities&dquo; and
69 percent &dquo;improve career opportunities&dquo; as important reasons for
resigning from the federal government. This type of response could
represent a mix of several factors, including desire for better pay.
However, it is reasonable to assume that when employees indicate they
want to advance, they are in part implying factors associated with the
managerial competence anchor: more formal authority, power, influ-
ence, etc., particularly since other choices on the survey referenced pay.
This assumption is supported by a content analysis of a sampling of
those respondents to the MSPB survey who provided additional
narrative explaining what they mean by a lack of advancement oppor-
tunities ; themes of more responsibility and a higher position in the
agency were consistently cited, either independently or in combination
with pay.’
Nonetheless, given the importance of career advancement and
opportunity in these findings, more analysis and research is required to
better articulate what could be a number of related sub-elements, as
suggested by Schein. The SES survey did not focus on the managerial
or advancement issue, probably because it was assumed irrelevant in

light of the fact that they are already at the top of the administrative
ladder.
The importance of the career advancement factor in employees’
decisions to stay or leave is going to be a major issue for federal
managers because of the aging of the baby boom cohort. With middle-
aged workers comprising a growing percentage of the workforce,
&dquo;more and more people are chasing fewer and fewer management
jobs.&dquo; (Zemke, 1988: 25) This basic demographic fact also will continue
to exacerbate the well documented &dquo;glass ceiling&dquo; problem for up-
wardly mobile women and minorities.
*Creativity anchor
These people seemed to have an overarching need to build or to
create something that was entirely their own product. It was self-
extension through the creation of a product or process that bears
--

their name, a company of their own, a personal fortune that reflects

their accomplishments (Schein, 1978: 149)
...

Again, some degree of interpretation is necessary to find evi-

dence supporting the creativity anchor. According to Schein, at issue
here is producing or accomplishing something you can call your own --
the classic &dquo;entrepreneur&dquo; comes to mind here. Evidence of such a
creativity anchor is possible in several areas of the survey results. For
example, one MSPB survey (1990a) shows &dquo;more meaningful work&dquo; as
a prime reason for resigning; the PMI survey indicates the opportunity

34 Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 27, 2015
&dquo;to make a contribution&dquo; an important reason for remaining in govern-
ment ; and the SES survey reveals that lack of enjoyment of work and a
more interesting outside job as important reasons for leaving. These

responses are too general to be interpreted unequivocally, but the

creativity anchor is certainly a plausible ingredient. Again more
analysis and research into what respondents mean by these vague
reasons for career change choices is necessary.
One other potentially related factor is that the urge to create
something will be stifled by a lack of recognition if, as Schein suggests,
an important motive for creativity is pride in ownership. The MSPB

(1990a) survey indicates that 51 percent of resignees responded that

&dquo;too little recognition of work&dquo; was an important factor in their
decision. The GAO survey (1992) of federal employees views on
fairness indicates that 27 percent of the respondents &dquo;never or almost
never&dquo; are treated fairly with regards to nonmonetary awards and
recognition. This sense of unfairness in recognition of accomplish-
ments wasthe single greatest source of feelings of unfairness, even
higher than injustices in monetary awards and bonuses. If the federal
government wants to retain the creative employees it is losing it may
need to work harder on finding meaningful ways of recognizing
employee accomplishments.
*Autonomy and independence anchor
...the primary need of autonomy seekers is to be on their own,
setting their own pace, schedules, lifestyles and work habits...all
have a sense of their own professional identity and can link the
results of their work with their own efforts, a perception they share
with the creativity group (Schein, 1978: 157)
The most direct support for this anchor comes from the GAO
survey (1990) that indicates 65 percent of the respondents view the
&dquo;opportunity to work freely on your own&dquo; as an important reason for
staying in federal service.
As with creativity, other evidence of this anchor must be inferred
from the data since it is not explicitly listed among the choices in the
other surveys. For example, in the public sector setting, this career
anchor would likely be reflected in the degree to which employees feel
there is political interference in their job, that they must deal with too
much bureaucratic red tape, or that their work is subject to excessive
micromanagement.
In the MSPB survey of resignees (1990a), 49 percent indicated that
&dquo;too much red tape&dquo; and 41 percent reported the overly political
nature of their organization were important reasons for their resigna-
tion. Interestingly, 60% indicated &dquo;poor cooperation between manag-
ers/employees.&dquo; It is plausible to suggest that a by-product of poor

Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 27, 2015 35
cooperation with a manager may involve the loss of employee au-
tonomy and independence.
The PMI survey revealed that over half of the interns (54 percent)
experienced &dquo;disenchantment with federal bureaucracy,&dquo; and that this
was an important reason for leaving behind the option of career
service. Again, although this feeling could arise from many sources,
the negative use of the word bureaucracy is typically associated with
too many layers of management, endless rules and regulations and
similar aspects of large organizations which impinge on the ability of
employees to exercise discretion and get things done.
The SES survey is noteworthy on this point in that 46% indicated
&dquo;politicalization of organization&dquo; was an important reason for leaving.
Given that this sample was comprised of SESers who left during the
Reagan Administration, this finding is not particularly surprising.
Nonetheless, it points to the relevance of the autonomy/independence
anchor when political appointees exert larger degrees of influence over
career SESers.
As with the creativity anchor, the absence of autonomy or
independence as one of the choices for respondents in most of the
surveys may indicate a biased assumption regarding the type of
individuals who pursue government work. This bias could be costly,
again given the increasing domination of the workforce by the baby-
boomers with values that tend to be more consistent with a more open,
innovative and experimental workplace (Coates, Jarratt and Mahaffie,
1990).

*Security anchor
[Individuals who] tied their careers to organizations provid-
...

ing long-run careerstability, good program of benefits, and basic

a

job security...the underlying concern, driving force or set of con-

straints operating in these people is career stability and security
(Schein, 1978: 147)

The GAO survey (1992) of federal employees revealed that 71

percent of the federal employees felt that job security was an important
reason for staying in the federal government. This is certainly consis-
tent with conventional wisdom regarding the cardinal importance of
security to federal employees. The PMIs rated security fairly low as a
retention factor, which is not surprising given their relative youth and
typically high levels of confidence in their abilities and in their future
prospects. Schein also suggests that respondents may understate the
importance of security because it is associated with a lack of ambition
or dedication to the mission of the organization in which they are

employed.
In general, of course, one would not expect security to be an

36 Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 27, 2015
important reason for leaving government simply because federal jobs
are normally very stable. The GAO survey indicates this might change

if federal employment became more turbulent, however.

*Summary of data and future research needs. It is very difficult
to generalize in any conclusive way about why individuals remain in
or leave the federal government, or why they are satisfied or dissatis-
fied. The surveys indicate that typically more than one factor is
important, and that several reasons can be closely interrelated. As
discussed above, all survey data are also somewhat biased by the
nature of the questions that are asked and the range of choices pro-
vided (or not provided).
Nonetheless, the recent extensive survey data do provide some
strong indications of the career anchors defined by Schein and some
implications for management practices that merit further investigation.
For example, the relatively high percentages of employees who
responded &dquo;improve career opportunities,&dquo; &dquo;few advancement
opportunities,&dquo; &dquo;more meaningful work,&dquo; &dquo;different work&dquo; and &dquo;poor
morale in the office&dquo; were important reasons for resigning indicates the
need to further analyze what respondents mean by these vague terms.
Despite the lack of clarity in some of the responses given, they do
suggest that nonmonetary factors do influence decisions to stay or
leave. Analysis of the narrative comments from respondents elaborat-
ing on these factors in the MSPB surveys, for example, could shed
further light on the utility of the creativity and autonomy/indepen-
dence anchors, as well as what employees specifically want from a
promotion. In an analysis of a sample of young professionals’ re-
sponses to the MSPB (1990a) survey, Naff and van Rijn (1990: 41)
suggest that &dquo;...young professionals apparently have more than just
promotions in mind when they consider career opportunities as 82
percent of those who cited this as their main reason for leaving had
been promoted within the last two years!&dquo;
Viewing the data from the perspective of career anchors also
points to important questions to pursue in future surveys of why
employees leave government. The absence of any choices relating
directly to creativity and autonomy/independence in the MSPB
(1990a) survey was a missed opportunity to determine how hospitable
the government environment is to employees possessing these impor-
tant career motivators. This is at once a timely and central personnel
issue, given the emphasis in the contemporary management literature
on the need to build organizational cultures that foster creativity and
innovation to address increasingly complex problems amidst ongoing
resource constraints.

Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 27, 2015
37
Implications for policymakers and managers
Using the framework of Schein’s career anchor model provides several
insights for officials concerned with improving the federal govern-
ment’s approach to career management.
*The importance of effective delegation. The high percentage of
employees citing the inability to apply skills as an important reason for
resigning reinforces the author’s experiences in management develop-
ment at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); micro-
management is a problem that needs much greater attention at every
level of government. In a study of the effectiveness of federal first-line
supervisors, the MSPB (1992: 27) noted the frustration many supervi-
sors feel as a result of their supervisors &dquo;watching over them&dquo; too

closely, and &dquo;making decisions that the first-line supervisors them-

selves should be making.&dquo; The report presents the following quote
from a survey respondent:

No matter how qualified, prepared, willing, knowledgeable and

capable, you do not contribute much in a micromanaged environ-
ment. (MSPB, 1992: 27)

The message for federal managers and policymakers is that

before agencies begin to pump resources into training needs assess-
ments or programs to improve skills, consider whether the real issue is
the failure of the organization to fully utilize the considerable skills and
talents that already exist. It is interesting (and disturbing) that despite
the importance of delegation skills, this was not highly rated as one of
the most important tasks for a first-line supervisor’s job in the MSPB
study of supervisors’ effectiveness.
*Distinction between technical and management careers. The
career anchor theory’s distinction between individuals interested in
technical versus management careers reinforces an important theme
emphasized by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Task Force
on Executive and Management Development (1990). This report
discusses the importance of providing alternate technical career paths
for those who do not want to be forced into management to obtain
salary increases or greater status in the organization. This dual career
ladder concept has a double benefit; it taps the career anchors of the
technically-oriented individual and avoids the need to deal with an
unhappy, unmotivated manager. Otherwise, a tremendous amount of
resources can be wasted attempting to train and develop managers
who basically do not value or identify with management as a profes-
sion entailing distinct skills that must be developed.
othe need to share power and influence. The potential impor-
tance of the managerial competence anchor in an aging workforce
where fewer managerial vacancies will be available suggests the need

38 Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 27, 2015
for federal agencies to be optimally creative in redesigning jobs and
organizational structures to address extensive career plateauing. A
new vision of career advancement must be propogated that challenges
the traditional concept of vertical advancement as the only measure of
career success. The
increasing pressure to advance women and
minorities into limited management slots only emphasizes the urgency
of this dilemma.
Although job enrichment is an old human resources concept, it
takes on added significance in an environment where truly outstand-

ing employees may not be able to advance up the management chain

as they expected. This is a different challenge from the traditional

concept of career plateauing, where the issue was how to challenge and
motivate employees who had topped out because of a lack of ability or
drive.
For these types of success-oriented employees, providing sabbati-
cals, job rotations, &dquo;hot&dquo; projects and other such traditional measures
likely will not suffice. A serious job restructuring will be necessary,
where real power and decision-making authority is shared by existing
managers or where needless hierarchical structures are broken down.
The Total Quality Management (TQM) movement has a potentially
important role to play here because it focuses on the need to empower
employees, institute self-managed teams, and provide opportunities
for employees to be more involved in decisionmaking. These aspects
of TQM may also tap latent creativity and autonomy/independence
anchors in some employees.
The potential for mounting frustration over lack of advancement
opportunities also points to a major challenge for the traditional federal
personnel job classification system. Naff and van Rijn (1990: 41)
appropriately point out that the importance of greater career mobility
&dquo;... may require significant changes in current classification and
qualification requirements which may restrict this mobility by pigeon-
holing people into narrow occupational structures.&dquo; Federal person-
nelists must begin to test the underlying premises for these rigid
systems in the face of changing organizational needs.
*A sixth career anchor for the public sector? A final important
point is that the survey data point to an additional career anchor that
Schein’s private sector-based model does not capture: a &dquo;public service
motive.&dquo; Perry and Wise (1990) suggest public service motives may be
rational (e.g., participation in the process of policy formulation), norm-
based (e.g., a desire to serve the public interest), or affective (e.g.,
commitment to a program from a genuine conviction about its social
importance).
Such an anchor is suggested in the PMI survey results, as four of
the top five reasons PMIs remain in government are to &dquo;accomplish
something worthwhile,&dquo; &dquo;to make a contribution,&dquo; &dquo;commitment to

39
Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 27, 2015
agency’s mission,&dquo; and &dquo;to influence decisions on public policy.&dquo; The
fact that 60 percent of the respondents in the MSPB (1990a) survey of
resignees indicated &dquo;more meaningful work&dquo; was an important reason
for leaving government also suggests the possibility that a public
service anchor was involved. Although examination of the respon-
dents’ narrative pertaining to this response was inconclusive, phrases
like &dquo;could not see how what I did affected the big picture,&dquo; &dquo;I believe
in public service but agency is wasteful and abusive of responsibili-
ties,&dquo; and &dquo;wanted to pursue a career in social services and work with
problem children and teens&dquo; were evident.
Finally, the SES survey indicated one of the important reasons for
leaving was &dquo;criticism of Federal workers.&dquo; One of the reasons this
criticism may be so devastating to civil servants is because one of the
primary reasons they are in government is the belief they are &dquo;doing
good&dquo; and making a difference. Severe public criticism undercuts this
belief. In a separate GAO (1992) survey of the SES, 77 percent of the
noncareer SES respondents believed that career executives viewed
their jobs as &dquo;opportunities to make positive, long-term government
improvements.&dquo;
At a minimum, these data suggest that agency managers should
be sensitive to the need to continually reinforce the connection between
the work of individuals or teams and the mission of the agency. This
fundamental point is forgotten all too often in daily agency discourse,
particularly with what Frederickson and Hart note as the current
&dquo;excessive and uncritical reliance upon the values of business adminis-
tration.&dquo; (Perry and Wise, 1990: 368)
*Promoting constructive career conversations. In conclusion,
although survey findings on federal employees suggest that compensa-
tion is the most common factor in their decisions to remain in or leave
government service, they also indicate that a host of other nonmon-
etary factors can be very important as well. Furthermore, since these
nonmonetary factors are quite amenable to control by policymakers
and managers, they merit serious attention if the federal government is
committed to reducing the exodus of quality employees.
This article suggests that Schein’s career anchor theory provides a
useful and relevant framework for understanding this array of career
motivators, and its use can promote constructive conversations around
careers between employees and managers that is sorely lacking in the
federal government today. Frameworks such as the career anchor
theory can also be the basis for more structured efforts at the agency
level to institute career management systems which will ensure that the
career issues of high performing employees are addressed before they
decide that the only option is jumping ship to more rewarding oppor-
tunities outside of government service.

40 Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 27, 2015
Notes
Two thousand, seven hundred and seventy-eight employees who left
1
the federal government during April, May and June of 1989 were surveyed.
Some 1,510 (54 percent) came from employees who had resigned. These
results are based on respondents’ indication of how important each of 46
listed reasons was in their decision to leave. The figures represent the
percentage responding "extremely important" or "somewhat important."
This study comprised a random sample of 865 PMIs selected between
2
1978 and 1984, with a response rate of 53 percent. These figures represent the
percentage responding 4 or 5 on a 1 to 5 scale where 5 indicates "extremely
important" and 1 indicates "of no importance."
All 2,121 senior executives who left the Service between January 1,
3
1984 and June 30, 1988 were surveyed, with a 53 percent response rate.
Figures represent percentage responding that "Knowledge and skills were not
being used appropriately," as "very important" (22%) or "somewhat impor-
tant" (20%) as one of nineteen listed reasons for leaving the Service.
Four thousand, seven hundred and forty-nine federal employees were
4
surveyed from a random sample in the spring and summer of 1991, with a
response rae of 85 percent or 4,000 employees. The figures cited represent the
percentages of respondents who indicated which of 38 listed choices were
"very important" or "somewhat important" reasons to stay in the federal
government.
Many thanks to Paul
5 van Rijn of the MSPB who provided copies of the
narrative statements.

References
Althaus, S. L. (1989). "Beyond the Paycheck." Personnel Administrator 34
(August): 119-120.
Coates, J. H., J. Jarratt and J. B. Mahaffie (1990). Future Work. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Daley, D. (1991). "Merit Systems Protection Board: A Report to the President
and Congress." Public Administration Review 51 (July/August): 372-375.
Dessler, G. (1991). Personnel/Human Resources Management. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Dougherty, E. (1990). "Career Satisfaction: Would You Do It Again?" R & D
32 (July): 40-50.
Harvey, E. K. and J. R. Schultz.(1988). "Responses to the Career Plateau," in J.
Matzer (ed.) Personnel Practices for the ’90s. Washington, D.C.: Inter-
national City Management Association.
Lane, L. M. and J. F. Wolf (1990). The Human Resource Crisis in the Public
Sector. New York: Quorum Books.
Lawson, K. E. (1991). "Practical, Low-Cost Strategies for Retaining Top
Talent." Bottomline 8 (March/April): 33-36.
Leibowitz, Z. B., C. Farren and B. L. Kaye (1986). Designing Career Develop-
ment Systems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lewis, G. B. (1991). "Turnover and the Quiet Crisis in the Federal Civil
Service." Public Administration Review 51 (March/April): 145-155.
------(1991). "Pay and Job Satisfaction in the Federal Civil Service." Review of
Public Personnel Administration 11 (Summer): 17-31.
Matzer, J. Jr. (Ed.) (1988). Personnel Practices for the ’90s. Washington, D.C.:

Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 27, 2015 41
 International City Management Association.
Naff, K. C. and Paul van Rijn. (1990). "The Next Generation: Why Are They
Leaving?" The Bureaucrat 19 (Summer): 39-43.
National Commission on the Public Service (1989). Leadership for America:
Rebuilding the Public Service. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Newcomer, K. E.; G. Johnson, T. Naccarato and S. Collie. (1989). "The
Presidential Management Internship Program: Looking Backward and
Moving Forward." Public Administration Review 49 (July/August): 372-386.
Panos, J. E. (1989). "Matching Manager Wants With Company Needs."
Personnel Journal 68 (February): 105-107.
Perry, J. L. and L. R. Wise (1990). "The Motivational Bases of Public Service."
Public Administration Review 50 (May/June): 367-373.
Romzek, B.S. (1990). "Employee Investment and Commitment: The Ties That
Bind." Public Administration Review 50 (May/June): 374-382.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career Dynamics: Matching Individual and Organizational
Needs. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Shafritz, J. M., A. C. Hyde, and D. H. Rosenbloom (1981). Personnel
Management in Government. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Steel, B. S. and R. L. Warner (1990). "Job Satisfaction Among Early Labor
Force Participants: Unexpected Outcomes in Public and Private Sector
Comparisons." Review of Public Personnel Administration 10 (Summer): 4-
22.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1992). How Federal Employees View the
Government as a Place to Work (GAO/GGD-92-91). Washington, D.C.:
General Accounting Office.
U.S. General Accounting Office (1992). Senior Executive Service: Opinions
About the Federal Work Environment, (GAO/GGD-92-63). Washington,
D.C.: General Accounting Office.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1989a). Who is Leaving the Federal
Government? An Analysis of Employee Turnover. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1989b). The Senior Executive Service.
Views of Former Federal Executives. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board.(1990a). Why Are Employees Leaving the
Federal Government? Results of an Exit Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1990b). Working for America: A Federal
Employee Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1992). Federal First-Line Supervisors:
How Good Are They? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management (199)1. Report of Task Force on Executive
and Management Development. Washington, D.C.: Office of Personnel
Management.
Zemke, R. (1988). "Training in the ’90s," in J. Matzer (ed.) Personnel Practices
for the ’90s. Washington, D.C.: International City Management Association.

42 Downloaded from rop.sagepub.com at UNIV CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA on June 27, 2015