Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/235271067
CITATIONS READS
65 1,502
1 author:
Nicky Dries
KU Leuven
115 PUBLICATIONS 2,297 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Nicky Dries on 03 June 2014.
CDI
16,4 The meaning of career success
Avoiding reification through a closer
inspection of historical, cultural,
364 and ideological contexts
Nicky Dries
Received 7 December 2010 Faculty of Business and Economics, Research Centre for Organisation Studies,
Revised 5 January 2011
Accepted 6 January 2011 Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which the concept of career success
has been subject to reification, and identify potential implications for individuals, organizations, and
societies.
Design/methodology/approach – The current paper offers an in-depth analysis of the different
contextual forces contributing to the reification of careers (i.e. history, culture and ideology), and how
these have impacted on the social reality of career and the definitions of career success held by
different relevant actors.
Findings – In total, eight research propositions are identified that need to be addressed in future
research in order to advance knowledge and understanding of career success in context.
Social implications – One manifest outcome of career reification is the establishment of collective
norms prescribing what a “normal”, “successful” career is – and what is not. Consequently, all careers
not conforming to these norms are devaluated, which is inappropriate given the present-day climate of
workplace diversity.
Originality/value – Career theory, in general, has been criticized for overemphasizing individual
agency while neglecting contextual issues. Furthermore, more conceptual development is necessary in
relation to the career success construct. The current paper aims to address both of these gaps by
presenting in-depth analyses of the historical, cultural, and ideological contexts impacting on the
meaning of career and career success.
Keywords Career success, Subjective career, Career reification, Boundaryless career, Career theory,
National cultures, Globalization
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
A definition of career success commonly referred to in the contemporary literature is
“the experience of achieving goals that are personally meaningful to the individual,
rather than those set by parents, peers, an organization, or society” (Mirvis and Hall,
1994, p. 366). According to this definition, workers of all types have careers, each of
which can be viewed as successful in one way or another. But if this is true, then why do
so many people feel unsuccessful? Research into the career experiences of blue-collar
The author started work on this paper while she was still affiliated with the Department of Work
Career Development International
Vol. 16 No. 4, 2011 and Organizational Psychology at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. The work enjoyed the
pp. 364-384 financial support of the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO TM490). The author would like
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1362-0436
to thank Robert Giacalone and Hugh Gunz for their helpful feedback on an earlier version of the
DOI 10.1108/13620431111158788 manuscript.
workers, for instance, revealed that they often feel they do not even have a career, The meaning
let alone a successful one (Guest and Sturges, 2007; Hennequin, 2007). of career success
It appears that the career success construct, somehow, evokes an objectified image
of career in people – an image with which they may or may not identify. The central
argument in this paper is that careers are often subject to reification, i.e. the tendency to
see social constructs as real and fixed, rather than as complex, dynamic social realities
that can be (re)interpreted and (re)shaped in different ways. Despite the fact that 365
careers are not “real”, however, they are reality-defining for a large part of the
workforce (Evetts, 1992).
Career theory, in general, has been criticized for overemphasizing individual agency
while neglecting contextual issues (Brown, 2002; Evetts, 1992). This paper aims to
address this gap by presenting a detailed examination of how the different contextual
forces contributing to the reification of careers (i.e. history, culture and ideology) have
impacted on the social reality of career and the definitions of career success held by
different relevant actors. It then goes on to identify several research questions that
need to be tackled in future research in order to advance our knowledge and
understanding of career success in context. The paper concludes with specific
implications for careers research and practice.
Cultural dimensions
Uncertainty Long-term
Power distancea avoidanceb Individualismc Masculinityd orientatione
Index (rank) Index (rank) Index (rank) Index (rank) Index (rank)
World average 55 64 43 50 45
European average 45 74 61 59 n.a.
USA 40 (38) 46 (43) 91 (1) 62 (15) 29 (27)
UK 35 (42-44) 35 (47-48) 89 (3) 66 (9-10) 25 (28-29)
Notes: The employee values measured were: apower distance – the extent to which the less powerful
members of organizations and institutions accept and expect that power is distributed unequally;
b
uncertainty avoidance – the extent to which a culture programs its members to feel uncomfortable in
unstructured situations; cindividualism – the extent to which the ties between individuals are loose
and everyone is expected to look after him or herself and his or her immediate family; dmasculinity –
the extent to which dominant values are related to assertiveness, money, material possessions and
well-defined gender roles; elong-term orientation – the extent to which values such as frugality and
perseverance are dominant; index scores are average employee value scores per country; rank scores
are based on a comparison of the index score of the focal country to the index scores of the 52 other Table I.
countries in the Hofstede sample; the “long-term orientation” dimension was added to the research Hofstede employee value
framework at a later point than the other dimensions; for this dimension, Hofstede only collected data scores: world average,
in 23 countries European average,
Source: Adapted from Hofstede (2001) US scores, and UK scores
CDI
16,4
368
Figure 1.
Western scholars and
practitioners tend to
simultaneously
underestimate and
overestimate cultural
differences with regard
to people’s definitions
of career success
Source: Cartoon courtesy of The Rut, http://bigeyedeer. wordpress.com.au
promote commitment to a strong work ethic, and that the motivational patterns
of Asian employees lack need for achievement (Niles, 1999). The fact that India and
China are among the fastest developing economies in the world seems to prove
otherwise, however (Furnham, 2010).
Cross-cultural studies are needed to examine this third, important, research question:
RQ2a. How do elements of national culture influence the definitions of career
success of people around the world?
Ideology in societies
For Western cultures, the dominant ideological framework impacting on careers is
capitalism. The most typical and well-known example of capitalist career discourse
is probably the American Dream. The American Dream promotes career values such as
meritocracy (i.e. the belief that individual talent and competence must be rewarded),
hierarchy (i.e. the belief that unlimited status is something to strive for) and materialism
(i.e. the belief that success should be measured primarily by income) (Lucas et al., 2006).
Another ideological framework shaping career, originating from a very different part of
the world, is communism. Underlying Maoist discourse, for instance, were the values of
equality (i.e. the belief that all people are equal, regardless of their position in society),
devotion (i.e. the belief that a certain sacrifice of personal needs is necessary to serve the
greater good) and nobility (i.e. the belief that working for the sake of individual
financial gain or social promotion is shameful) (Lucas et al., 2006).
Although capitalism and communism are commonly depicted as extreme opposites
in terms of ideology, according to Lucas et al. (2006), they serve a remarkably similar
ideological purpose. That is, they both promote a conceptualization of career and career
success that benefits the dominant socio-political system at the potential detriment of
individual career actors (Van Buren, 2003). The American Dream encourages people to
pursue the type of career success that is most likely to sustain the capitalist system and
foster nationwide economic growth. Failure is attributed to a person not being “good
enough” or not “wanting it enough”, so that it is never the fault of the system, and
always the responsibility of the individual. Communist discourse in the People’s
Republic of China during Mao’s era suspended the Chinese people’s critical thinking,
restricted their career choices, and obscured the fact that their society, in fact,
did consist of different interest groups who were not all equal in power, and that there
was still a divide between good jobs and bad jobs. Complaining was unheard of,
however, as that would go against the value of nobility (Lucas et al., 2006).
In general, the career ideology a person is most exposed to depends on his or her
position in society. People from upper- and middle-class environments are encouraged to
believe they are working for a common good, that their work has meaning, and that their
role in life is to help other people; they are rewarded socially, economically, and politically
for enacting these beliefs. Lower-status employees, however, are not encouraged to
think of their work in such noble terms and are not rewarded as highly. They are trained The meaning
to see work as “just a job” and look for self-actualization resources in other life domains of career success
(Davidson and Caddell, 1994). Furthermore, career ideologies tend to convey a message
that people want to hear and believe (e.g. “you can achieve anything you want if you truly
make an effort”), highlighting exceptions rather than cases more representative of reality
(Lucas et al., 2006). They are often also slightly ambiguous, so that multiple
interpretations of the same message are possible. If the definition of what success means 371
is kept vague, then there are no limits to the contribution or sacrifice individuals feel
compelled to make (Van Buren, 2003). Our sixth suggestion for a research question that
needs to be addressed in future research is the following:
RQ3a. How does societal ideology influence the definitions of career success held by
the people in those societies?
Cross-cultural (historical) research, aimed at regimes and ideologies rather than
countries, might help us formulate answers to this particular research question.
Ideology in organizations
Just as societal career discourse structures people’s daily lives, so do the career
structures and career development practices present in their employing organizations.
By establishing an internal labor market with more or less standardized career tracks,
organizations implicitly define success and failure within their structures
(Buzzanell and Goldzwig, 1991). Organizational career ideology commonly departs
from spatiotemporal evaluations of success, i.e. “up” is good, “action” is positive, and
“quick movement” should be the goal (Altman, 1997). Corporate career discourse is less
harmless as it may seem. First of all, through socialization processes and development
programs, organizations cultivate desired norms and values in their members, tying
them to so-called appropriate identities (Ogbor, 2000; Pfeffer, 2010). In early career,
people’s definitions of career and career success are confronted with those of their
organizations, often causing a reassessment of their personal belief systems and goals
(Duxbury et al., 1999). Second, corporate career discourse contributes to the devaluation
and obstruction of alternative models of career – notable examples being the mommy
track, the expert track, and the stationary track (Buzzanell and Goldzwig, 1991).
Within the corporate context, atypical career types like the above are considered less
successful at best, unsuccessful at worst (Evetts, 1992). Worse still, once bookmarked as
a “loser”, there seems to be little to no chance of getting back on track. It rarely happens
that late bloomers or people that have taken time off work catch up to colleagues with a
record of continuous service (Buzzanell and Goldzwig, 1991). Although people tend to
believe that organizational assessments of advancement potential are grounded in more
or less objective performance data, the rules of the career game are in fact a precious
commodity, unevenly distributed among different groups in the organization (Buzzanell
and Goldzwig, 1991). The groups with the most power will likely integrate their personal
interests into the very structure of the organization, thereby influencing the public
opinion of what a successful career should look like, and marginalizing all those who do
not fit the mold (Pfeffer, 2010). It is clear that the reification of careers implies much more
than ideological discourse – in fact, it lies at the heart of glass ceiling effects and other
discriminatory processes taking place in organizations worldwide (Ogbor, 2000).
Multilevel studies, examining the relationships between organizational and individual
CDI conceptions of career success, are best suited for empirically testing the following
16,4 important research question:
RQ3b. How does organizational ideology influence the definitions of career success
held by the people in those organizations?
While cross-sectional multilevel studies could focus on the differences between
372 organizations with different cultures, longitudinal multilevel studies could examine the
relationships between organizational- and individual-level career variables before and
after important socialization periods.
Ideology in research
Several career scholars have posited that, since the assumptions of career are becoming
increasingly ambiguous, individuals’ personal sense-making processes should move to
the forefront (Young and Collin, 2004). Indeed, a shift can be observed in the recent
careers literature away from reductionist methods and toward qualitative in-depth
research (Gibson, 2004). In recent years, a growing number of careers researchers are
turning their attention to constructivism and social constructionism (Arnold
and Cohen, 2008). Constructivism focuses on individual meaning making and the
construction of social and psychological worlds though cognitive processes; social
constructionism studies how these social and psychological worlds are made “real”
(i.e. reified) through social processes and interaction (Young and Collin, 2004).
There seems to be somewhat of a divide, however, between the theoretical careers
literature and the operationalization and measurement of career and career success in
research papers. The majority of empirical studies on career success still use salary,
promotion and functional-level data as proxies of career success, without much
reflection about construct validity (Dries et al., 2008).
One especially popular concept in contemporary career discourse is the boundaryless
career. Rather than representing one specific type of career, the boundaryless career
encompasses all possible career forms that defy the “traditional” assumptions of career,
i.e. continuous service with one employer, a focus on upward mobility, and a strong
separation between work and personal life (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996). The common
factor among the different meanings of the boundaryless career is that they all imply
weakened ties between employees and their organizations (Arnold and Cohen, 2008).
However, mainstream the notion of the boundaryless career may have become in the
careers literature, signs are that this new theoretical approach to career is also not
completely attuned to the actual experiences career actors are (still) having (Briscoe and
Finkelstein, 2009).
First, although the literature implies that boundaryless career types are becoming
more and more prevalent in the field, serious questions have been raised about the
transferability of the concept beyond the USA, the cultural importance people attach to
job security and the influence of employee unions in the national labor market being at
the heart of the discussion (Sullivan, 1999). Second, although the careers literature tends
to promote the benefits of boundaryless careers, its discourse has also been said to serve
the needs of the current-day “ruthless economy” in that it enables organizations to be rid
more elegantly of as many permanent workers (and their associated costs) as needed
(Van Buren, 2003). For organizations as well, there may be downsides to the
boundaryless career. Fournier (1998), for example, states that it encourages
a consumerist career mentality, reducing organizations to tools merely there to help The meaning
equip employees with the resources they need to develop their personal projects. Third,
it has been said that the boundaryless career concept is only advantageous for those
of career success
employees who were formerly also privileged in traditional career settings (i.e. highly
motivated, highly skilled white-collar employees) (Buzzanell and Goldzwig, 1991;
Van Buren, 2003). It appears that while the original goal of boundaryless career
discourse was to free career actors from the dogmas of the traditional-organizational 373
career, it has created new ideological dogmas instead. In general, the literature on the
boundaryless career tends to neglect the needs and contributions of unskilled people;
also, it focuses primarily on agency determinants of career. It would be highly
informative to examine to which extent normative beliefs about career success resonate
throughout the academic literature. Critical literature reviews, meta-analyses, and
survey studies aimed specifically at the population of careers researchers might provide
answers to the following research question:
RQ3c. How does researcher ideology influence the definitions of career success
propagated in the academic literature?
Objective Subjective
7. Interpersonal success
8. Life balance
9. Social status
376 10. Recognition
11. Reputation
9. Dries et al. (2008) Qualitative Managers 22 1. Performance
2. Advancement
3. Self-development
4. Creativity
5. Security
6. Satisfaction
7. Recognition
8. Cooperation
Table III. 9. Contribution
Societies
Organizations
Figure 2.
The social construction of
Satisfaction,
Appreciation “career success” has
motivation,
tangible implications for
wellbeing
individuals, organizations
Individuals and societies
CDI as the satisfaction of multiple life roles – feelings of authenticity will be enhanced.
16,4 In doing so, employees will feel supported in bringing their whole self to work, which
will ultimately feed back into the organizations by enhancing employees’ satisfaction,
motivation and well-being (Sullivan and Mainiero, 2008). It will also support diversity
at work, which will be necessary in light of the ongoing war for talent fuelled by current
demographic and psychological contract trends (Van Buren, 2003).
380 At the societal level, Blustein et al. (2004) as well as Buzzanell and Goldzwig (1991)
have suggested that oppressive power structures affecting the enactment of careers
can be countered, albeit very gradually, by establishing alternative career discourses
between people in everyday life and in the various media (e.g. by propagating different
types of “hero stories”). It appears that there is a significant need and opportunity
for career scholars to lead the way.
References
Altman, Y. (1997), “The high-potential fast-flying achiever: themes from the English literature
1976-1995”, Career Development International, Vol. 2 No. 7, pp. 324-30.
Arnold, J. and Cohen, L. (2008), “The psychology of careers in industrial-organizational
settings: a critical but appreciative analysis”, in Hodgkinson, G.P. and Ford, J.K. (Eds),
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 23, Wiley,
Chichester, pp. 1-44.
Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. (1996), The Boundaryless Career: A New Employment Principle
for a New Organizational Era, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Arthur, M.B., Khapova, S.N. and Wilderom, C.P.M. (2005), “Career success in a boundaryless
career world”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 177-202.
Ballout, H.I. (2009), “Career commitment and career success: moderating role of self-efficacy”,
Career Development International, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 655-70.
Baruch, Y. and Hall, D.T. (2004), “The academic career: a model for future careers in other
sectors”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 241-62.
Blustein, D.L., Palladino-Schultheiss, D.E. and Flum, H. (2004), “Toward a relational perspective
of the psychology of careers and working: a social constructionist analysis”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 423-40.
Bright, J.E.H., Pryor, R.G.L., Chan, E.W.M. and Rijanto, J. (2009), “Chance events in career
development: influence, control and multiplicity”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 75
No. 1, pp. 14-25.
Briscoe, J.P. and Finkelstein, L.M. (2009), “The ‘new career’ and organizational commitment: do
boundaryless and protean attitudes make a difference?”, Career Development
International, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 242-60.
Briscoe, J.P. and Hall, D.T. (2006), “The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers:
combinations and implications”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 4-18.
Brown, D. (2002), Career Choice and Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Burns, E. (2009), “How time-flow shapes three meanings of midcareer”, Australian Journal of
Career Development, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 24-32.
Buzzanell, P.M. and Goldzwig, S.R. (1991), “Linear and nonlinear career models: metaphors,
paradigms, and ideologies”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 466-505.
Chudzikowski, K., Demel, B., Mayrhofer, W., Briscoe, J.P., Unite, J., Milikić, B.B., Hall, D.T., The meaning
Shen, Y. and Zikic, J. (2009), “Career transitions and their causes: a country-comparative
perspective”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 4,
of career success
pp. 825-49.
Chusmir, L.H. and Parker, B. (1992), “Success strivings and their relationship to affective work
behaviors: gender differences”, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 132 No. 1, pp. 87-99.
Dany, F. (2003), “‘Free actors’ and organizations: critical remarks about the new career literature, 381
based on French insights”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14
No. 5, pp. 821-38.
Davidson, J.C. and Caddell, D.P. (1994), “Religion and the meaning of work”, Journal of the
Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 135-47.
Dik, B.J. and Duffy, R.D. (2009), “Calling and vocation at work: definitions and prospects for
research and practice”, The Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 424-50.
Dries, N., Pepermans, R. and Carlier, O. (2008), “Career success: constructing a multidimensional
model”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 254-67.
Dries, N., Pepermans, R., Hofmans, J. and Rypens, L. (2009), “Development and validation of an
objective intra-organizational career success measure for managers”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 543-60.
Duxbury, L., Dyke, L. and Lam, N. (1999), Career Development in the Federal Public Service:
Building a World-class Workforce, Treasury Board of Canada, Ottawa.
Dyke, L.S. and Murphy, S.A. (2006), “How we define success: a qualitative study of what matters
most to women and men”, Sex Roles, Vol. 55 Nos 5/6, pp. 357-71.
Evetts, J. (1992), “Dimensions of career: avoiding reification in the analysis of change”, Sociology,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Fournier, V. (1998), “Stories of development and exploitation: militant voices in an enterprise
organization”, Organization, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 55-80.
Furnham, A. (2010), “Ethics at work: money, spirituality and happiness”, in Giacalone, R.A. and
Jurkiewicz, C.L. (Eds), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational
Performance, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 197-215.
Gattiker, U.E. and Larwood, L. (1986), “Subjective career success: a study of managers and
support personnel”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 78-94.
Gibson, P. (2004), “Where to from here? A narrative approach to career counseling”,
Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 176-89.
Granrose, C.S. and Baccili, P.A. (2006), “Do psychological contracts include boundaryless or
protean careers?”, Career Development International, Vol. 11, pp. 163-82.
Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S. and Wormley, W.M. (1990), “Effects of race on organizational
experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 64-86.
Guest, D. and Mackenzie Davey, K. (1996), “Don’t write off the traditional career”,
People Management, February, pp. 22-5.
Guest, D. and Sturges, J. (2007), “Living to work – working to live: conceptualizations of careers
among contemporary workers”, in Gunz, H. and Peiperl, M. (Eds), Handbook of Career
Studies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 310-26.
CDI Gunz, H. and Mayrhofer, W. (2010), “Social chronology theorizing as an organizing framework
for career studies”, paper presented at the 3rd International Conference “New Work,
16,4 New Employment, New Careers”, Bordeaux, France, May 21.
Hall, D.T. and Chandler, D.E. (2005), “Psychological success: when the career is a calling”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 155-76.
Hennequin, E. (2007), “What ‘career success’ means to blue-collar workers”, Career Development
382 International, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 565-81.
Heslin, P.A. (2005), “Conceptualizing and evaluating career success”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 113-36.
Hill, P.C. and Smith, G.S. (2010), “Coming to terms with spirituality and religion in the
workplace”, in Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L. (Eds), Handbook of Workplace
Spirituality and Organizational Performance, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 171-84.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions,
and Organizations Across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ibarra, H. (1999), “Provisional selves: experimenting with image and identity in professional
adaptation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 764-91.
Inglehart, R.F. (1997), Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political
Change in 43 Societies, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Inglehart, R.F. (2008), “Changing values among Western publics from 1970 to 2006”,
West European Politics, Vol. 31 Nos 1/2, pp. 130-46.
Inoue, S. (1997), Putting Buddhism to Work: A New Approach to Management and Business,
Kodansha International Ltd, Tokyo.
Judge, T.A., Cable, D.M., Boudreau, J.W. and Bretz, R.D. (1995), “An empirical investigation of the
predictors of executive career success”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 485-519.
Kats, M.M.S., Van Emmerik, H.I.J., Blenkinsopp, J. and Khapova, S.N. (2010), “Exploring the
associations of culture with careers and the mediating role of HR practices”, Career
Development International, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 401-18.
Khapova, S.N. and Korotov, K. (2007), “Dynamics of Western career attributes in the Russian
context”, Career Development International, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 68-85.
Lee, M.D., Lirio, P., Karakas, F., MacDermid, S.M., Buck, M.L. and Kossek, E.E. (2006),
“Exploring career and personal outcomes and the meaning of career success among
part-time professionals in organizations”, in Burke, R.J. (Ed.), Research Companion to
Working Time and Work Addiction, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 284-309.
Lucas, K., Liu, M. and Buzzanell, P.M. (2006), “No limits careers: a critical examination of career
discourse in the US and China”, in Orbe, M., Allen, B.J. and Flores, L.A. (Eds), International
and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 28, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 217-42.
McMahon, M. (2006), “Working with storytellers: a metaphor for career counseling”, in
McMahon, M. and Patton, W. (Eds), Career Counselling: Constructivist Approaches,
Routledge, London, pp. 16-29.
Mirvis, H.P. and Hall, D.T. (1994), “Psychological success and the boundaryless career”,
in Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds), The Boundaryless Career, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY, pp. 237-55.
Mitchell, K.E., Levin, A.S. and Krumboltz, J.D. (1999), “Planned happenstance: constructing
unexpected career opportunities”, Journal of Counseling & Development, Vol. 77 No. 2,
pp. 115-24.
Nabi, G.R. (2001), “The relationship between HRM, social support and subjective career success
among men and women”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 457-74.
Nicholson, N. (2000), “Motivation-selection-connection: an evolutionary model of career The meaning
development”, in Peiperl, M., Arthur, M.B., Goffee, R. and Morris, T. (Eds), Career
Frontiers: New Conceptions of Working Lives, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 54-75. of career success
Nicholson, N. and de Waal-Andrews, W. (2005), “Playing to win: biological imperatives,
self-regulation, and trade-offs in the game of career success”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 137-54.
Niles, E.S. (1999), “Towards a cross-cultural understanding of work-related beliefs”, 383
Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 855-67.
Ogbor, J.O. (2000), “Mythicizing and reification in entrepreneurial discourse: ideology-critique of
entrepreneurial studies”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 606-35.
Patton, W. and McMahon, M. (1999), Career Development and Systems Theory:
A New Relationship, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.
Pettersson, T. (2003), “The relations between religion and politics in the contemporary Western
world: the impact of secularization, postmodernization and peoples’ basic value
orientations”, available at: www.worldvaluessurvey.org
Pfeffer, J. (2010), “Management practices that sustain values”, in Giacalone, R.A. and
Jurkiewicz, C.L. (Eds), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational
Performance, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 27-43.
Pryor, R.G.L. and Bright, J.E.H. (2007), “Applying chaos theory to careers: attraction and
attractors”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 375-400.
Sargent, L.D. and Domberger, S.R. (2007), “Exploring the development of a protean career
orientation: values and image violations”, Career Development International, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 545-64.
Savickas, M.L. (2000), “Renovating the psychology of careers for the twenty-first century”,
in Collin, A. and Young, R. (Eds), The Future of Career, Cambridge University Press,
New York, NY, pp. 53-68.
Schultze, G. and Miller, C. (2004), “The search for meaning and career development”,
Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 142-52.
Schumacher, E.F. (2003), “Buddhist economics”, Parabola, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 63-9.
Schwartz, S.H. (2006), “A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications”,
Comparative Sociology, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 137-82.
Stead, G.B. (2004), “Culture and career psychology: a social constructionist perspective”, Journal
of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 389-406.
Stumpf, S.A. (2010), “Stakeholder competency assessments as predictors of career success”,
Career Development International, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 459-78.
Sturges, J. (1999), “What it means to succeed: personal conceptions of career success held by male
and female managers at different ages”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 239-52.
Sullivan, S.E. (1999), “The changing nature of careers: a review and research agenda”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 457-84.
Sullivan, S.E. and Mainiero, L. (2008), “Using the kaleidoscope career model to understand the
changing patterns of women’s careers: designing HRD programs that attract and retain
women”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 32-49.
Sullivan, S.E., Forret, M.L., Carraher, S.M. and Mainiero, L.A. (2009), “Using the kaleidoscope
career model to examine generational differences in work attitudes”, Career Development
International, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 284-302.
CDI Valcour, M. (2010), “Career success in times of economic crisis”, paper presented at the
3rd International Conference “New Work, New Employment, New Careers”, Bordeaux,
16,4 France, May 21.
Van Buren, H.J. (2003), “Boundaryless careers and employability obligations”, Business Ethics
Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 131-49.
Verbruggen, M., Sels, L. and Forrier, A. (2007), “Unraveling the relationship between
384 organizational career management and the need for career counseling”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 69-83.
Wilensky, H.L. (1961), “Careers, lifestyles, and social integration”, International Social Science
Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 553-8.
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P. and Schwartz, C. (1997), “Jobs, careers and callings:
people’s relations to their work”, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 21-33.
Young, R.A. and Collin, A. (2004), “Introduction: constructivism and social constructionism in the
career field”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 373-88.
Young, R.A. and Valach, L. (2000), “Reconceptualizing career psychology: an action theoretical
perspective”, in Collin, A. and Young, R.A. (Eds), The Future of Career, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 181-96.