As a society, we have a pervasive ambivalence toward organizations. It is not a love-hate relationship. The emotions expressed about organizations tend to be on the dark side: deep suspicion, fear, anger, and even hatred. The other side of the ambivalence is shown, not in the emotions we express about organizations, but in the fact that we seem irresistibly drawn to form, utilize, and join organizations. Along with science and technology, modern organizations have been the most powerful force for change in this century. We feed, clothe, govern, and transport ourselves through organizations.

We have also been moving into organizations in increasing numbers. The first half of this century largely saw the completion of a mass migration of men from individual family farms into complex organizations. The last half of this century has brought a large proportion of adult women into the organizational work place as well as an increasing proportion of what were once considered independent professionals: physicians and lawyers.

The increasing part of our lives that is spent in organizations has raised the question: What happens to us in organizations? Attempts to answer that question have brought with them the increasing use of the term “career” to describe the individual's sequence of experiences, roles, and relationships in work-related organizations. The history of this word in the English language brings with it an interesting connotation. The word came to us from the French word carriere, meaning a road or racecourse. Thus the original use of the term in English was to designate a racing course.

How do organizations affect careers? And how do careers affect organizations? This integrating chapter begins to answer these questions by setting forth 155 propositions. We extracted or refined these propositions by thoroughly searching the chapters in Parts I and II of this handbook.

Given the editors' laudable aim to focus this handbook on theory rather than on measurement issues or practical applications, this chapter engages in theory building. Theories evolve as scholars develop propositions. Preferably, these propositions will specify sequential or determinant laws of interactions between continuous variables rather than merely delineating categories (Dubin, 1978).

The hundreds of variables mentioned in the previous chapters emanate from a diverse array of theories rooted in different academic disciplines. Authors address divergent issues, they use partially incompatible terminologies, and they anchor their endeavors in partially inharmonious values and beliefs. In the past, career theory has been fractionated (Schein, 1986; Sonnenfeld and Kotter, 1982), with scholars in each academic discipline tending to ignore ideas about careers developed by scholars in other disciplines. This chapter seeks integration between disciplines that contribute to our understanding of careers. To foster this integration, our chapter articulates propositions and arrays them in ways that we think will enable readers to form their own cross-disciplinary insights. We hope that this chapter will serve as a useful reference source for doctoral students and faculty who conduct research about careers.

PROPOSITIONS

Tables 24.1–24.4 contain propositions that treat organizational attributes as the independent variables or determinants and treat career attributes as the dependent variables or outcomes.

Our Preface offers some general comments about the way career theory has evolved. Now it is time to get down to specifics and consider the various theoretical approaches to careers extant in the literature today. In Part I we review the current “state of the art” of career theory, based upon the major lines of inquiry that have thus far emerged. Underlying all Part I chapters is a belief that before we can add to the theoretical landscape about careers, we must first have a good sense for its present contours.

To set the scene for the review that follows, a preliminary chapter by Arthur, Hall, and Lawrence explores how the diversity of theoretical perspectives that share the career concept can be brought together to promote cross-fertilization and new career theory development. First, the authors discuss definitions of career and career theory, the range of social science perspectives relevant to career studies, and the characteristics that guide career theory to highlight how career theory can serve as a nexus for transdisciplinary study. They then move on to consider how new career theory develops, by describing a cycle of new theory generation and mapping out the mix of philosophies of knowledge that career theory reflects. The authors conclude, and extend the thesis of the handbook, by claiming that debate at both these levels of analysis can promote “transformational” career theory that gains new relevance in a changing world.

Each subsequent chapter takes responsibility for an established perspective in career theory and covers both the historical emergence and the current relevance of that particular stream of thought.

The study of careers is an important component of microeconomic theory. Careers, after all, are closely linked to the structure and function of labor markets, and labor markets constitute a major factor of production considered in virtually all microeconomic theories of the firm (Bain, 1956; Chamberlin, 1933; Hirschleifer, 1980). Although considerable economic research focuses on careers, relatively little of this work provides insights for individual employees. When an employee wishes to be successful by organizational criteria, what should he or she do? This chapter develops a model of individual career strategy based on modern microeconomic theory, discusses the individual and organizational implications of this model, and proposes research questions for further study.

We begin by briefly reviewing neoclassical labor market theory. The perfectly competitive labor markets suggested by this theory offer employees little control over their career destiny. However, many economists recognize that labor markets rarely meet the conditions of perfect competition, and we next discuss several models that relax some of the restrictive conditions of perfect markets. These theories do not focus on prescription, but they do provide clues that point toward career strategies. Further, they cover many topics examined in noneconomic career research, including the processes by which employees search for and choose jobs, the ways in which employment relationships are managed, the personal and organizational investments that employees and firms make in careers, and the broader meaning of careers for society and the economy. Finally, building on the ideas provided by these economic theories, we propose a tentative model of individual career strategy, and discuss the implications of this model for individuals, organizations, and future career research.

STRESS IN A CAREERS CONTEXT

The purpose of this chapter is to apply key stress models and concepts to building career theory. There are several reasons why the time is particularly ripe for researchers to consider stress in a careers context: Over time, job stress aggregates to career stress, career events are key sources of stress, and career researchers have not generally tapped the voluminous stress literature in formulating models and empirical research.

First, within stress research, job stress in organizations has emerged as a central focus (Beehr and Bhagat, 1985; Matteson and Ivancevich, 1987; Murphy and Schoenborn, 1987; Sethi and Schuler, 1983; Spector, Dwyer, and Jex, 1988). There are considerable human and organizational costs associated with job stress, including depression and burnout, ulcers, low job satisfaction, absenteeism and turnover, decreased productivity, lawsuits, and health care costs. It has been estimated that job stress costs American industry $150 billion annually in diminished productivity, absenteeism, and medical costs (Landers, 1987). In addition, 15% of worker's compensation claims are now stress related (Dentzer, McCormick, and Tsuruoka, 1986). Job stress as a management problem continues to capture major media attention, as evidenced by a Wall Street Journal special report section on medicine and health with a lead article entitled “Is your job making you sick?” (Bennett, 1988). A recent cover story by Newsweek (Miller, 1988) headlined stress on the job. Jobs are the building blocks of careers. Therefore, over time, stressful job experiences aggregate to yield stressful careers.

Should we bother with blue-collar careers?

Answer 1: No. Blue-collar workers don't have careers, they have jobs. Jobs involve limited tasks and responsibilities. Jobs tend not to be connected to an ascending staircase (i.e., as in the normative model). At best, they make sense as “work histories,” not as careers like professionals or managers have.

Answer 2: Yes. But toss out the normative, achievement-oriented model of careers. Develop instead an inclusive perspective that transcends the color of the collar and, in the process, seeks similarity in work experience over time while helping to explain differences. Insert an objective definition or a set of dimensions that allow for horizontal as well as vertical mobility, that contrast externally defined tasks or responsibilities with internally generated rationales for a history of jobs, and that introduce parallel sequences, like adult development, life cycles, or family stages.

It is tempting to go with the first answer and be done with the topic. After all, despite the persistent theme of human resource development in the management literature, few organizations subscribe in practice to the idea that low-level, nonsupervisory employees have or even want careers. Certainly most organizations provide reasonably clear steps or gradations in jobs that can be construed as paths of upward mobility. But quite often the training necessary for climbing the organizational staircase is inadequate or inaccessible, external credentialing is required, or some other obstacle (e.g., family, ability, individual preference) intervenes to make the staircase look like a series of cliffs each separated by a deep crevasse.

Specialization rarely proceeds by simply redistributing tasks. Instead, most specialties evolve gradually by pruning back an initially broader set of interests. By sloughing off the fuzzier elements of earlier thought in favor of more developed concepts, nascent specialties ostensibly select more precise tools for roughing out a cumulative line of inquiry. In the process, however, fruitful but less articulate ideas may fall through the discipline's cracks. Consequently, when specialists stop to take stock of their progress, as is the partial function of a handbook such as this, they should not only seek to consolidate their hard-won treasures but also attempt to uncover long-neglected paths once blazed by their forebears. By so doing, specialists may reclaim realms of inquiry that might now be more profitably explored. Thus, it is with an eye to enriching career theory that this essay deals in what may seem the all-too-distant past.

My intent, however, is neither to write a history of career theory nor to lead modern scholars on a pilgrimage to their roots. Though such a trek might prove enlightening, it begs for a focus broader than my own.

INTRODUCTION

The title of this chapter includes several terms central to this chapter. First, we are interested in how career processes produce both individual and organizational outcomes. Second, we subscribe to developmental views of both the individual and the organization, paying separate attention to each party. Third, we are concerned with how work arrangements transmit influence from individual to organization, and vice versa. Fourth, we explore the notion of reciprocity, that is, what individuals and organizations give back in return for what they draw from one another.

Our overall purpose is to examine how patterns of individual-organization interaction support or hinder individual and organizational developmental outcomes as a basis for further theory building and research. Our examination will incorporate recent ideas on developmental stages, transitions, and strategic choice and political behavior as they apply to both individuals and organizations. A central question is, how can reciprocity between the two parties contribute to the future possibilities for individuals – and so their careers – and organizations – and so their further evolution?

Our definition of the career is that adopted for this volume, namely, the evolving sequence of a person's work experiences over time. This incorporates all organizational members and offers a “moving perspective” (Hughes, 1958) of how work unfolds. However, our ideas about development are more particular and heavily influenced by recent views of “developmentally normal” patterns of adult development (Kram, 1985; Levinson et al., 1978; Levinson, 1984)1 and comparable views on organizational development (Greiner, 1972; Quinn and Cameron, 1983; Wholey and Brittain, 1986).

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter I take a feminist perspective on career theory. There is no one feminism; rather this umbrella label covers many diverse perspectives held together by several broad uniting themes. Feminists tend to share a belief that women are oppressed in a society dominated by men (patriarchy) and concerns to change this situation and to honor and voice women's experiences and meanings. Beyond this there is considerable variety. Neither is feminism static: It is lived, in the sense that it arises from and informs being and doing and is continually evolving and changing. I cannot therefore speak for other women, although I draw on and value their work and experiences. This chapter is my current personal perspective, one story from a range of possibilities.

The chapter is in two main parts: The first offers some core strands in feminist thinking, which are then woven together in the second part, which explores their relevance to career theory. The first part is a brief tour of a vast and complex area. It starts with a selective history of the development of feminism. A historical perspective is necessary in order to understand the social context within which theory about women is developing. There have been major changes since 1960 in women's roles in society and in their attitudes toward employment. Feminism's potential contribution to career theory is shaped by these changes.

Within feminism, writers have offered a wide range of approaches to understanding women's experiences and their traditionally subordinate social position; these explanations range from the psychological to the structural, from the biological to the social and so on.

On a street near my house, a car is parked with a provocative pro-peace bumper sticker: “One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole career.”

Arresting as that sentiment is, it does point to a neglected issue in most writing about careers – the relationship between careers, a phenomenon conceptualized at the individual and occasionally the organizational level, and major events or consequences at the societal level.

Of course, it is hard to deny that cataclysmic or history-shaping events have important consequences for employment and thus for careers – war, famine, drought, international monetary crises, scientific discoveries that launch new professions, technological breakthroughs such as the invention of the telephone or microprocessor, civil rights movements, labor battles, or even a wave of corporate takeovers. But it is harder to find, in the literature about careers, the more subtle connections between careers and economic, social, or political issues within that society. And practically non-existent is any attention to the ways in which the structure of careers in a society, via the organizations that help form them, might play a role in outcomes for whole societies – for example, in aggregate health of the population or in the productivity or job creation capacity of the economy.

INTRODUCTION: FAMILY IMPACT UPON WORK

For some time now, researchers have been taking a holistic approach to examining the career development of individuals, recognizing the fact that the work and nonwork lives of people are inexorably intertwined (see, e.g., Evans and Bartolome, 1984). The work-family linkages are so strong and pervasive that focusing on career development without simultaneously taking into consideration the family's developmental needs will produce an incomplete understanding of career dynamics. For instance, Bailyn (1978) pointed out the necessity for the accommodation of work to family concerns, and Kanter (1977) proposed a critical review and agenda for research and policy regarding work and family. Schein (1978) discussed the work–family–self interactions in exploring career dynamics, while Rapoport and Rapoport (1980) discussed the dynamics of work, family, and leisure. More recently, researchers have started to investigate the implications of dualcareer families for social policy (Walker, Rozee-Koher, and Wallston, 1987) and explored the dilemmas experienced by couples during career transitions (O'Neil, Fishman, and Kinsella-Shaw, 1987). Further, Hall and Hall (1979), Mathews (1984), Stringer–Moore (1981), Betz and Fitzgerald (1987), Hertz (1986), Grant (1988), and Sekaran (1986), among others, have proposed action steps for organizations to make the work–nonwork transitions smoother for dual–career couples.

In this chapter we employ a developmental perspective and explore the dynamics of the relationships between individual, the family, and the career. Only then can we begin to understand the life stages in which the spouses have a relatively easy time establishing the work–family–self linkages and the specific stages where they experience problems.

This chapter is concerned with understanding how race and race relations influence career dynamics. Statistics on the occupational status of racial minority groups suggest that race is a strong predictor of position in the labor market and career patterns. According to U.S. 1983 Census Bureau statistics, blacks made up 4.7% of U.S. executives, administrators and managers, and Hispanics constituted 2.8% of this group. The majority of people from both ethnic groups in this job category are located in the public sector. In 1980, the unemployment rate for racial minorities was twice that of whites. The median family income of blacks in 1980 was 57% that of whites. Studies of upward mobility show that white males in low-paying positions are significantly more likely than minority males to advance to positions that pay a middle-class wage (Pomer, 1986). According to a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report (1980), Asian Americans are underrepresented in managerial and administrative occupations, while they are represented in professional positions at a higher rate than in the population at large.

Since the passage of the U.S. Civil Rights Act in 1964, behavioral science has looked at the relationships between race and work through a number of disciplinary lenses, especially those of economics, sociology and psychology. Economics has focused on issues of pay and labor market activity and sociology on the related issues of status attainment and stratification. These literatures constitute a significant and well-developed body of theory about discrimination (Almquist, 1979; Lester, 1980; Lundahl and Wadensjo, 1984; Pascal, 1972).

INTRODUCTION

While psychologists say that “people make careers,” sociologists claim that “careers make people” and the career literature shows a dearth of cross-referencing between these two frames of reference (Van Maanen, 1977:8).

Indeed, theory and research on careers have developed along two dominant, independent and sometimes conflicting streams of thought over the last fifty years. As discussed by Gysbers (1984), these may be characterized as (1) primarily psychological in nature (e.g., self-development within a career, career motivation, career orientation) and (2) primarily sociological in nature (e.g., career paths and occupational streams, career stages within organizations, the nature of various occupations in society).

It has also been observed that traditional epistemologies that place stock in observable, structural, and measurable social facts are increasingly set in contrast to cognitive (often phenomenological) views that, focusing on language, sense making and symbolic processes, proceed from a premise that reality is largely socially constructed (Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Pfeffer, 1981:1–52). Examining the social reality of careers may in fact provide an opportunity to achieve some degree of integration between these contrasting perspectives.

As articulated in this volume by Barley (Chapter 3) on the Chicago School of Sociology, careers link individuals to the social structure by fusing the objective and the subjective, the observable facts and the individuals' interpretation of their experience. The dialectical nature of career dynamics calls for an epistemological framework that can address this ontological duality in a comprehensive manner. It is suggested here that the concept of culture may actually provide such a framework.

INTRODUCTION

The point of departure for this chapter is provided by Weigert (1983:316), who, when discussing biographies and careers, comments that

Our choice of these comments has been influenced by their direct reference to the construction of meaning in social contexts, which clearly reflects an emerging stance toward the study of careers (Arthur and Lawrence 1984; Collin and Young 1986; Van Maanen 1977). However, as indicated by the opening quotation, we find it fruitful to modify the suggestion that a given social structure in some way determines the form and meaning of careers. Instead, we argue that the rhetorical construction of careers is not only determined by our social environments, but also creates and legitimates them.

INTRODUCTION

A career does not exist in a social vacuum but is in many ways directed by the employer's staffing priorities. Over a quarter of the U.S. work force is thought to hold continuing employment with the same employer for over 20 years (Hall, 1982). Given this pattern of long service with a single employer, it seems logical that emphasis should be placed upon the notion of career systems, paths through which employees progress during their term of employment within an organization. Despite the importance of career systems for the individual and the organization, however, we know very little about the dynamics of employment conditions within which firms define opportunities and equip people for changing assignments. In particular, we often fail to explain the wide variation in career system practices across employers. Differences in human resource management approaches, from firm entry to exit, are not arbitrary company features but rather reflect strategic staffing choices.

In order to more clearly understand these variations in policy, we might find it useful to propose a framework for interpreting the HRM policies of different companies. Such a framework would define the factors that influence career paths and show how they interact to produce a coherent HRM strategy and set of policies (Walton and Lawrence, 1985). These factors include the way in which employees enter and exit a firm as well as the process of development they undergo in the course of their term of employment.

This chapter examines contemporary adult development theory, particularly as it relates to the theory of careers. It presents a case that to more fully understand the processes of career development, one must attend to the dynamics of life course development and adjustment. Thus, we intend to show the benefit of adding the adult development approach to career theory to help reconcile otherwise contradictory findings in the career literature. To illustrate this point, we start with a comprehensive model of career adjustment that integrates adult development concepts with career dynamics. We then move to a review and critical analysis of the current adult development literature.

A MODEL OF CAREER ADJUSTMENT

In a previous paper, Crites (1976) formulated a comprehensive model of career adjustment in which the dynamics of how workers cope with frustrating conditions on the job were delineated. Briefly, Crites viewed the process of career adjustment as one that includes (1) work motives, (2) conflict and frustration, (3) adjustment mechanisms, and (4) job satisfaction and success. Career adjustment was described against a contextual background of such factors as the general cultural and society milieu, organizational climate, psychological dispositions and characteristics, and personal and demographic attributes. Crites assumed that the career adjustment process is developmental but did not articulate how it is projected over time. He developed the model only for early adulthood and did not consider middle and later life stages in the work life. Moreover, a fundamental problem concerning the outcomes of the career adjustment process was not examined: Why is it that two of the most critical and apparently complementary components of career adjustment process is developmental but did not articulate how it is projected over time.

Now the basic groundwork has been done. Whereas Part I captures the field as we know it and Part II offers some new perspectives, Part III presents some samples of what might be made of the interplay among the ideas so far presented.

Three major scholars, each sympathetic to our endeavors to advance career theory, were asked to take the material in the first two parts and let their own thinking take its own creative course. There was a basic agreement that each writer would take primary responsibility for, but not be restricted by, a single level of analysis: the individual (Bailyn), the organization (Nystrom, joined by Me Arthur), and the society (Kanter). In the spirit of the exercise to allow the ideas to develop freely, no further guidelines were given. The result is three quite different chapters. What is common, however, is that each chapter offers a powerful demonstration of what can be made of the “land and materials*” from Parts I and II.

In Chapter 23, Bailyn looks principally at the individual's experience of career processes and develops implications for career practice as well as theory. Bailyn stresses two complications in the study of careers: that the career is an interstitial concept and that career theory needs also to serve as a guide for applying the knowledge it conveys. From these she develops an argument that the immediate context of work, the acknowledgement of discontinuity, and the character of subjective experience are major issues for future career studies.