12020913473624548

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

1/24

CAREERS WITHIN CAREERS:RECONCEPTUALIZING THE NATURE OFCAREER ANCHORSAND THEIR CONSEQUENCES

Daniel C. FeldmanMark C. Bolino

University of South Carolina

Scheins semina l work on car eer an chors su ggests th at in dividua ls developcar eers with in car eers after th eir tru e abilities, needs, an d values becomecrystallized th rough a var iety of rea l-world work experiences. Moreover,once form ed, th ese st able car eer iden tit ies (or career an chors) ha ve signifi-cant consequen ces for individuals car eer sa tisfaction an d job st ability. De-spite t he cont ribut ion of Scheins ideas, his model of career an chors is un-ders pecified th eoret ically an d empir ical test s ha ve been far from conclusive.In th is ar ticle, we reconceptualize th e na tu re of car eer a nchors, r econsiderScheins origina l t ypology of career an chors, a nd pr esent a series of proposi-tions about the factors which moderate the relationships between careeranchors and career outcomes. In addition, we suggest alternative meth-odologies for measuring and analyzing career anchor data and explore theimplications of career anchor research for managing careers in organiza-tions.

In a ser ies of pu blicat ions dur ing th e 1970s an d 198Os, Edga r Schein pr oposeda construct called career anchors (Schein, 1975, 1978, 1987). Schein sug-gested that through successive trials and challenges experienced in their firstfew years out of school, young adults gain a more accurate and more stablecareer self-concept. He labelled this stable career concept career anchor andproposed that it had three components: (1) self-perceived talents and abilities(based on actual successes in a variety of real-world work settings); (2) self-perceived motives a nd n eeds (based on actu al exper iences with a var iety of jobassignments); and (3) self-perceived attitudes and values (based on reactions

Direc t a l l co r r esponden ce to : Daniel C. Feldman, University of South Car olina, College of Business Adminis-tra tion, Depart ment of Mana gement, Columbia, SC 29208.H u m a n R e s ou r c e M a n a g e m e n t R e v i ew , Copyright 0 1996Volum e 6, Nu mber 2, 1996, pages 89-112 by JAI Pr ess I nc.All rights of repr oduction in any form reserved. ISSN:1053-4822

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

2/24

90 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2. IS96

to a variety of norms and values encountered in different work groups andorganizations).

At a th eoret ical level, Scheins work h as m ade a ma jor cont ribu tion to howcareers scholars conceptualize the development of a stable career identity anddistin guish th at pr ocess from init ial vocat iona l choice. Scheins work on t hesecareers within careers makes salient four points, in particular, about thefo~a tion of st able career iden tit ies (1978, pp. 125-128,164).

Firs t, Scheins work highlights th e import an t distinctions between th e pro-cesses of initial occupational choice and subsequent career identity formation(Nord vik 1991). Most of th e work on occupa tiona l choice (cf. Hollan d 1973)suggests t ha t wheth er a youn g a dult chooses the occupa tion of accoun ta nt orengineer, for example, is based largely on what he or she likes to do. In con-trast, Schein asserts that a stable career identity is formed only through theint egra tion of an individua ls int erest s with h is/her abilities an d values. More-over, th e liter at ur e on occup at iona l choice suggests t ha t youn g a du lts lar gelyuse assumptions about careers in choosing vocations (e.g., if I like math andphysics in school, engineering would be a good occupation for me to enter). Incontrast, Schein asserts that a stable career identity emerges only throughconcrete experiences with rea l ta sks a nd r eal cowork ers in rea l work organiza-tions.

Second, the literature on vocational choice has taken as its endpoint crite-rion t he selection of an occup at ion (e.g., medicine, law, or a cting). In cont ra st,Scheins work highlight s th e var iety of car eer pa th s zuithin an occupation andthe important consequences of these more subtle career path distinctions.Thus, an individual entering the field of marketing could pursue a technicalcareer t ra ck in marketing r esearch, a mana gerial career t ra ck in bran d ma n-agement, an entrepreneurial career track in new product development, anau tonomy career t ra ck as a ma rket ing consu ltan t, or a secur ity car eer tr ack asa marketing professor.

Third, the differences in career tracks among groups of employees in thesame vocation can be as great as the differences in career tracks among indi-viduals in different occupations. In fact, the career experiences of entrepre-neur s in ma rk eting m ay be more similar to th ose of entr epreneur s in engineer-ing than they are to those of marketing professors or marketing researchspecialists.

Fourt h, Scheins work on career a nchors suggests t ha t t hese const ellat ionsof int erest s, a bilities, an d values st abilize individua ls car eer choices in pr e-dicta ble ways. The met ap hor of an chor is very ap t here. As a n individu al ha sto ma ke d ecisions about which jobs to pursue an d how to balance per sona l a ndwork lives, the career anchor functions as a constraining force. If the personsenses t he job or job situa tion will not be consisten t with h is/her ta lents, needs,an d values, he or she will be pulled back into an en vironment more con~uen twith th e sta ble self-image. On th e oth er ha nd, th e idea of an an chor does notimply zero growth or change. Instead, it implies some movement, but move-ment that occurs within some circumscribed area and is not random. Career

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

3/24

CAREERS WITHIN CAREERS: RECONCEPTUALIZING 91

anchors can be pulled up and changed, but dramatic changes require greatereffort and are not likely to occur as frequently (Schein, 1975,1978).

Despite th e theoret ical cont ribu tion of Scheins origina l conceptu alization,th ere ha s been little subsequent refinement or refra ming of th e car eer a nchorconstr uct. Moreover, th e few sma ll scale stu dies which h ave been condu cted byScheins stu den ts (e.g., AIbert ini 1982; Ander son & Somm er 1980) ha ve yieldedinconsistent data on how many career anchor types exist and the amount ofimpact career anchors have on career effectiveness. The present article, then,has four goals.

F irst , we re-exam ine Scheins original t ypology a nd m odel of car eer an chors,propose alternative classification schemes, suggest different assumptionsabout the nature and number of career anchors individuals might hold, andidentify additional career-relevant outcomes which career anchors might im-pact. Second, we present a series of propositions about how the dimensions ofcareer anchors identified above influence outcome variables and how situation-al factors might moderate the relationships between career anchors and careeroutcomes. Third, drawing upon related research in the area of vocationalchoice, we examine the ways career anchors can be better operationalized andpotential alternative databases for empirical research. Finally, in light of thepreceding discussion, we examine the practical implications of career anchortheory for both individual and institutional career planning.

SCHEINS MODEL OF CAREER ANCHORSBefore presen tin g modificat ions to Schein s model, it is import an t to un der-sta nd its basic elemen ts . In Scheins ear ly work on car eer a nchors (Schein1975, 1978), he posits the existence of five career anchors: (1) techni-cal/fun ctional competen ce; (2) ma na gerial competen ce; (3) securit y an d st abil-ity; (4) autonomy and independence; and (5) entrepreneurial creativity. In hislater work on career anchors, Schein (1987, 1990) proposes there are threeadditional career anchors: (6) service and dedication to a cause; (7) pure chal-lenge; and (8) lifestyle. A brief description of each of these career anchor typesappears in Table 1.

The m ain at tr ibut e of car eer a nchors which d rives Scheins model is congr u-ence. He argues, and presents some supporting empirical evidence, that whenindividuals achieve congruence between their career anchor and their workenvironment they are more likely to achieve positive career outcomes. Thecareer out comes which Schein (1987,lWO) explicitly discusses ar e work effec-tiveness, specific job sa tisfactions (na mely, sat isfaction with t he t ype of work ,pay an d benefits, promotion system, and a dvancement opport un ities), an d jobst ability. Figure 1 cap tu res th ese main elemen ts of Scheins model.

The chief ass um ption u nder lying Scheins model is th at each individual ha sonly one true car eer an chor. Schein a rgues th at individua ls simply can not h avetwo or more car eer a nchors; if no one a nchor em erges clear ly, it is becau se th e

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

4/24

92 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 6 , NUMBER 2, 1996

Table 1Scheins Typology of Career Anchors

1. Technical/Functional Competence: Primarily excited by the content of the work itself;prefers advancement only in his/her technical or functional area of competence: generallydisdains and fears general management as too political.2. Managerial Competence: Primarily excited by the opportunity to analyze and solveproblems under conditions of incomplete information and uncertainty; likes harnessingpeople together to achieve common goals: stimulated (rather than exhausted) by crisissituations.3. Security and Stability: Primarily motivated by job security and long-term attachment toone organization; willing to conform and to be fully socialized into an organizations valuesand norms; tends to dislike travel and relocation.4. Entrepreneurial Creativity: Primarily motivated by the need to build or create somethingthat is entirely their own project; easily bored and likes to move from project to project;more interested in initiating new enterprises than in managing established ones.5. Autonomy and Independence: Primarily motivated to seek work situations which aremaximally free of organizational constraints; wants to set own schedule and own pace ofwork; is willing to trade off opportunities for promotion to have more freedom.6. Service and Dedication to a Cause: Primarily motivated to improve the world in somefashion; wants to align work activities with personal values about helping society; moreconcerned with finding jobs which meet their values than their skills.7. Pure Challenge: Primarily motivated to overcome major obstacles, solve almost unsolv-able problems, or win out over extremely tough opponents; define their careers in terms ofdaily combat or competition in which winning is everything; very single-minded and intol-erant of those without comparable aspirations.8. Lifestyle: Primarily motivated to balance career with lifestyle; highly concerned with suchissues as paternity/maternity leaves, day-care options, etc.; looks for organizations thathave strong pro-family values and programs.Source: Schein, E. H. 1990. Career Anchors: Discovering Your Real Values. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer &Company.

person h as n ot h ad enough life experience t o develop priorities tha t d eterm inehow to ma ke th ose choices (1990, p. 34). Even more str ongly in his la ter work s(1987,199O) than in his earlier ones, Schein defines career anchor as that oneelement in our self-concept that we will not give up, even in forced to make adifficult choice (Schein 1987, p. 158).Schein also argues that career anchors essentially do not change. Whileacknowledging that the empirical evidence is inconclusive, he notes that theweight of the evidence is on the side of stability (Schein 1990, p. 34). Scheindoes acknowledge, h owever, th at becau se people can not always find jobs whichmatch their career anchors the relationships between career anchors and ca-reer outcomes ar e not perfect. People may be able to perform adequa tely an dadapt to their circumstances, but do not feel their real selves are engaged.

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

5/24

CnunoC

Ocom

wthWokEronmn

.ThcFo

comen

lMngacomen

lSuyansaby

lErepenuacevy

lAomannpnn

Gvcanddcooacue

lPechen

lLfeye

Ocom

.Wokeevn

lSsaowh

lWoksef

.Pyanbns

lPomo

lToreoo

loSaby

MdaoVabe

Aabyo

aenvo

Fge1SnsMo

oCeA

s

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

6/24

94 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REYIEW VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2,1996

Thus, th e availability of reasonable altern at ive jobs m odera tes th e relationshipbetween car eer anchor cond ense an d car eer outcomes (cf. Figur e 11 Tha t is,the relationship between congruence of career anchors and career outcomeswill be stronger when the availability of alternative jobs is high.

PROPOSED REVISED MODEL OF CAREER ANCHORSThe th eoret ical revisions to Scheins model proposed her e focus on t he set ofoutcomes influenced by career anchors, the dimensions of career anchors, thenumber of career anchors a person can hold, and situational factors whichmoderate the relationship between career anchors and career outcomes. Thekey elements of this revised model appear in Figure 2.

Outcome VariablesThe pr oposed revision of Scheins model su ggests t her e a re s ix car eer-rele-

vant outcomes which may be associated with the dimensions and numbers ofcareer anchors individuals hold (cf. Figure 2). These outcomes are briefly dis-cussed below.

Along with Schein, we agree that career anchors should be significantlyrela ted to work effectiveness (var iously defined across jobs, bu t genera lly re-lat ed to quan tity an d qua lity of work ), job sat isfaction, an d job st ability. Indi-viduals who achieve a high degree of fit between their career anchors and theirwork enviro~ent s sh ould be more likely to be effective at work , sa tisfied withth eir job situa tions, an d sta ble in th eir present positions (Argyris 1964; Caplan1983).Int o th is list we would a lso include t hr ee add itiona l out come var iables: workrole adjustment, outside role conflict, and overall psychological well-being.Work role adjust ment refers t o th e extent to which individu~s ar e able tojuggle th e var ious role dema nds placed upon t hem on th e job, while out side roleconflict refers to th e exten t t o which individua ls ar e able to balan ce th eir workrole demands and personal life role demands (Katz & Kahn 1978). If careeran chor t heory is corr ect, th en individua ls whose career an chors a re congru entwith t heir cur rent job situa tions would be more likely to achieve a reasonableaccomm odat ion am ong t he r ole deman ds placed upon th em on th e job an dshould experience less role con&t between work dema nd s an d pers ona l lifedemands.Along similar lines, we would expect overall psychological well-being to be arelevant outcome variable here, too. Psychological well-being is an overall as-sessment of the amount of emotional distress and related physiological dis-tress (psychosomatic or psychogenic illnesses) a person experiences in his/herlife (Goldber g 1972). If an individu a l is able to find a job s itu a tion wh ich is well-suited to his/her ta lents, needs, and at titu des, th en t he a mount of psychologi-cal and physiological distress he/she experiences should be low as well.

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

7/24


8/2/2019 12020913473624548

8/24

96 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2,19%X

P r o p o s i t i o n l a . Congruence between career anchors and work environ-men ts will be positively r elat ed t o: (a) work effectiven ess, (b) job sa t isfac-tion, (c)job st abilit y, (d) work r ole adjus tment , an d (e) overa ll psychologicalwell-being.P r o p o s i t i o n l b . Congruence between career anchors and work environ-ments will be negatively related to the amount of outside role conflict.

Dimensions of Career AnchorsWhile certainly the congruence of career anchors with work environments isan important dimension along which individuals can be arrayed, we suggest

here that there are three other important dimensions of career anchors whichdetermine their impact on career success and career effectiveness.Talent-Based, Need-Based, or Value-Based. The first of these dimensionsta ps wheth er a n individua ls car eer anchor is prima rily ta lent-based, n eed-based, or value-bas ed. Wh en we exam ine Schein s typology m ore closely, we seeimportant distinctions which need to be made among these eight career an-chors on this dimension.

Schein (1987) proposes tha t, in th e context of career s, an in dividu als self-concept is defined by three categories of questions. The first questions arerelat ed to the persons talent s a nd abilities. In oth er words, individua ls askthemselves: What are my talents and skills, my strengths, and my weak-nes ses? What am I good a t? The second quest ions ar e conn ected with d iscover-ing ones needs an d motives; th ese ques tions a sk: Wha t ar e my ma in motivesor drives? What is it that I am after in life? The final set of questions areas sociat ed with an in dividu als va lues. Exa mp les of su ch qu estions ar e: Howgood do I feel about my work or about wha t I am doing? Wha t values do I use tojudge my actions?

Three of th e eight car eer a nchors- technical/functional competence, mana-gerial competen ce, an d ent repr eneu ria l crea tivity-ar e grounded in a pers onswork t alelzts; th ese a nchors focus on t he type of work individuals do day in a ndday out. Three of th e an chors-secur ity an d sta bility, au tonomy and indepen-dence, an d lifestyle-ar e grounded in an individua ls motives and needs; thesean chors focus on how individua ls want to stru ctu re th eir work roles consisten twith their basic personal desires and their personal lives. Two of the careeran chors-dedicat ion to a cau se an d pur e cha llenge-ar e groun ded in a per-sons attitudes and u&es; th ese an chors focus on ind ividua ls iden tifica tionwith their occupations and the cultures of their organizations.

Thus, while Schein argues that career anchors represent the integration ofindividuals ta lents, needs, an d values, we suggest h ere th at career an chorscan be highly differentiated in terms of the centrality of these three differentcomponents. Indeed, in discussing these career anchors, Schein implicitly ac-kn owledges some of th ese dist inctions . For examp le, in writ ing a bout individu -als with a t echn ical/fun ctional comp eten ce car eer a nchor, Schein (1990, p. 20)notes that what really turns them on is the exercise of their talents. Incontrast, in writing about individuals with an autonomy career anchor, hewrites that everyone has needs for certain levels of autonomy . . . for some

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

9/24


people, however, such needs come to be overarching (1990, p. 27). Similarly, intrying to describe individuals with a dedication to a cause career anchor,Schein writes that some people enter occupations because of central valuesthat they want to embody in their work . . . they are oriented more towardthese values than toward the actual talents or areas of competence involved(1990, p. 30). In th e next th ree pr opositions , th en, we hypothesize th at whet herindividua ls pr ima ry car eer an chor is ta lent-based, need-based, or value-basedwill have consequences for which career-relevant outcomes are affected.

For individua ls whose car eer a nchor is ta lent-based, th e impa ct of congr u-ence between car eer a nchor an d work environm ent should be great est on workeffectiveness an d job sta bility (Pr oposition 2a). For thes e ind ividu als for wh omthe work itself is so central, a poor fit would lead to less effective job perfor-mance and a more intensive search for alternative job situations. In contrast,the talent component of career anchors should be less closely related to out-side-work issues or job at tit ud es.

P roposition 2a. F or individua lswith ta lent-based ar eer an chors, he im-pa ct of congru encebetween car eer an chors and work environm entswill begrea test on work effectiveness nd job st ability.On the other hand, for individuals whose career anchor is need-based, the

impact of congruence between career anchor and work environment should begrea test on work role ad just men t an d out side role conflict (Pr oposition 2b). Forth ese individua ls for whom th e stru ctu re a nd const ra ints of th e work situa tionare so central, the inability to find work environments supportive of theirconcerns would lead to lower work role adjustment and greater outside roleconflict. However, what their technical specialty is should have little impacton these role variables.

Pr oposition 2b. For individua lswith need-basedcar eer anchors, th e im-pa ct of congru encebetween car eer an chors an d work environm entswill begreat est on work role adjustm entan d outside role conflict.Fin ally, for individua ls wh ose career a nchor is value-based, th e impa ct of

congruence between career anchor and work environment should be greateston job sa t isfaction an d psychological well-being (Proposit ion 2~). For th eseindividuals for wh om living th eir values at work is so cent ra l, a poor fit wouldlead to daily frustration and poorer job attitudes. Again, we would expectindividuals values to have a great er imp act on their job a tt itudes t ha n th eirtalent-based concerns would have.

Pr oposition 2c. For individua lswith value-basedcar eer an chors, he im-pa ct of congru encebetween car eer an chors and work environm entswill begrea test on job sat isfactionan d overa ll psychologicalwell-being.

Durability of Career Anchors. As Schein (1975,1978) notes, ind ividua ls devel-op car eer an chors th rough a series of encoun ter s with a var iety of job ass ign-ments, work organizations, and coworkers. However, not all career anchors are

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

10/24

98 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2,1996

equa lly st able an d du ra ble. Pa rt icula rly in todays economy, ma ny youngadults do not have opportunities early in their careers to have multiple chal-lenging jobs in multiple organizations. Moreover, with the increased careerdisorderlin ess (Kilty & Behling 1985) which work ers exhibit in t erm s of exitsand re-entries into the labor market, people will vary significantly in the agean d in th e length of time in t he workforce at which career an chors ar e likely tostabilize.

In Pr oposition 3a, th en, we hypothesize t ha t th e work ers age, length of tim ein the workforce, nu mber of job as signmen ts h eld, an d num ber of work organ i-zations where employed will be positively associated with durability of thecar eer a nchor. If Schein is corr ect th at it is only th rough infra cting with avariety of tasks, coworkers, and organizational cultures that an individualdevelops a stable career anchor, then individuals will vary in the stability ofth ose career an chors depending upon th eir age an d job h istories.

Proposition 3a . Age, length of time in the workforce, number of jobs held,and number of organizations where employed will be positively associatedwith durability of the career anchor.

Fu rt her more, Pr oposition 3b suggests ther e is an intera ction effect betweendurability and congruence on career outcomes. The strongest positive impacton career outcomes should occur when career anchors are deeply held andstable and individuals find work environments consistent with their careeranchors. Under these conditions, individuals should be most able to con&dently an d accur at ely s ort th emselves int o work environm ents which ar e well-suited to their talents, needs, and values.

P r o p o s i t i o n 3 b . Durability of career anchor and congruence of career an-chor will interact such that the most positive career outcomes will beachieved by those individuals who are high on both durability and congru-ence of the career anchor.

Salience of Career Anchors. The potential impact of career anchors is alsohighly reliant on the salience of these self-perceived career identities whenindividuals are making career decisions. Salience refers to how self-awareindividuals are of their career anchors and how important career anchors arein guiding their career decisions. Salience, then, consists of both self-insightan d centr ality of work in a n ind ividu als overa ll life (Pr oposition 4a).

In London an d Bra ys (1984) work on s elf-insight , for inst an ce, t hey n otethat for individuals to discover and be guided by their career anchors, theyneed to have the cognitive complexity, the analytic skill, and the emotionalsta mina to be int rospective about their st rength s an d weakn esses. If th e car eeranchor has not been thoughtfully considered and consciously integrated intodecision-ma king pr ocesses, its impa ct on career -relevan t outcomes will be con-siderably lower.

The cent ra lity of work in an in dividu als overa ll life is the second componentof the salience dimension. For example, for individuals with the challenge

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

11/24

CAREERS WITHIN CAREERS: RECONCEPTUALIZING 99car eer an chor, self-ident ity is very m uch t ied to work . For th ese ind ividu als,then, work is a major component of their lives and the career anchor can beexpected to be an important factor in making career decisions. In contrast, forindividua ls with a lifestyle car eer a nchor, self-ident ity is not nea rly so tied towork concerns. For these individuals for whom work is a relatively minorsegment of their lives, the career anchor will play a smaller role in makingimportant decisions.

P r o p o s i t i o n 4 a . Self-insightand centra lityof work in a n ind ividua ls ifewill be positivelyassociatedwith sa lienceof th e career an chor.Fu rt herm ore, in Proposition 4b, we suggest th at th ere will be an intera ction

effect between salience and congruence on career-relevant outcomes. Thestrongest positive outcomes should occur when individuals are highly aware ofth eir car eer a nchor an d use tha t insight t o find jobs which ar e congru ent withtheir talents, needs, and values. In contrast, career outcomes will be lowestwhen car eer a nchors ar e not sa lient t o individuals an d they choose work situ a-tions which do not fit their talents, needs, and values.

P r o p o s i t i o n 4 b . Salience of t he car eer an chor and congr uen ce of t he ca-reer an chor will intera ctsuch tha t t he m ost positivecareer outcomeswill beachievedby th ose individua lswho ar e high on both sa liencean d congr uen ceof the career anchor.

Number of Career AnchorsWhile it is tru e th at t he m ajority of individuals hold only one career an chor,

we propose here that it is possible for individuals to have both primary andsecond ar y car eer a nchors. Ironically, despit e Scheins ins isten ce th at in dividu-als have only one true career anchor, his own empirical evidence shows other-wise. For example, in his 1978 empirical study of 44 MIT Sloan Fellows, 10 outof th e 44 resp ondent s (or 23%) resp ond ed t hey held two car eer a nchors equa llystrongly while 4 out of 44 (or 9%) held three career anchors equally strongly.Thu s, app roxima tely one-th ird of th e resp ondent s in Scheins own resea rchself-report they have multiple career anchors.

People may have multiple career anchors for at least two reasons. First,because career anchors can be talent-based, need-based, or value-based asnoted above, individuals could hold one car eer a nchor th at is prima rily ta lent-based an d one th at is prima rily need-based or value-based. In short, individu-als may h ave mu ltiple career an chors becau se Scheins typology includes ca-reer an chors which do not solely addr ess career issues. For example, a n indi-vidu al could ha ve a techn ical/fun ctional competen ce car eer an chor a s well as asecurity and stability career anchor. Second, individuals may have high levelsof personal ambivalence, both because they are torn between two equally at-tr active goals or becau se no one career pat h seems an y more desira ble to themtha n any other (Bloom 1987). Thus, m an y ad ults m ay be tr ying to meld m ulti-

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

12/24

100 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 6 , NUMBER 2, 1996

ple career goals and personal interests into some type of viable career track,and as a result, hold multiple career anchors.

As a consequ ence of mu ltiple import an t car eer a nd life goals or simp ly highlevels of personal ambivalence, then, individuals may have more than onecareer anchor. We suggest here that the presence of multiple career anchorswill influence the impact of career anchors on career outcomes.

In Proposition 5, we hypothesize that individuals with multiple career an-chors will ha ve poorer car eer outcomes t ha n individuals with just one pr imar ycareer anchor (cf. Figure 2). Because individuals with multiple career anchorsar e trying to juggle two (or more) imp orta nt goals, th ey ar e more likely to ma kesome compromises to find career options that satisfice rather than maximizeth eir out comes (Simon 1976). Moreover, individuals tr ying t o juggle mu ltiplecar eer a nchors ma y ha ve more trouble keeping a sta ble equilibrium am ong r oledemands over an extended period of time and, as a result, experience poorerrole adjust men t, lower job sa tisfaction, an d lower job sta bility.

Pr oposition 5. Relat ive o individualswith one car eer an chor, ndividua lswith mu ltiplecar eer a nchors will have poorer car eer outcomes.Complem enta @ of Multiple Car eer Anc hors. For th ose individuals with mu l-tiple career anchors, another important factor to consider is whether thosecar eer a nchors ar e complement ar y or mut ua lly inconsisten t. For example, it isquite possible th at a car eer an chor of techn ical/fun ctional comp eten ce could beeasily complemented by a security and stability career anchor; both types ofcareer anchors are characterized by the absence of desire for changes in thekind of work performed, employer organizations, and geographical locations.On th e other ha nd, it is much more difficult t o conceive h ow an entr epreneur ialcareer anchor could readily coexist with a security and stability career anchorwith in th e sam e individual. For th is individua l, job cha nges m ade t o increaseentrepreneurial opportunities would simultaneously increase risk and movehim/her fur th er away from th e achievement of a secur e an d st able work envi-ronment.

The extent to which m ultiple car eer an chors ar e intern ally consisten t, t hen,should also influence the impact of career anchors on career-relevant out-comes. As Proposition 6 suggests, individuals with complementary career an-chors will ha ve higher car eer outcomes t ha n individuals with mu tu ally incon-sistent career anchors.

Proposition 6. Individualswith complement ar y a reer a nchors will ha vehigher car eer out comes ha n individua lswith mu tu ally nconsisten t a reeranchors.

Moderator VariablesThe proposed revised model of career anchors suggests there are four vari-

ables which moderate the relationships between career anchors and career

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

13/24

CAREERS WITHIN CAREERS: RECONCEPTUALIZING 1 0 1

outcomes. These moderators appear in Figure 2 and are described, in turn,below.

The origina l conceptu alization of car eer a nchor th eory is grounded in th eassumption that individuals consciously consider career options available tothem and make choices based on career identity considerations. However, fol-lowing the long tradition of research on the relationships between attitudesan d beh aviors (cf. Locke 19761, her e we su ggest t ha t individua ls will not be freeto act in ways consisten t with th eir preferences when t here ar e str ong externa lsituational constraints. As Schein has noted, individuals cannot make careerdecisions which ar e congru ent with t heir career preferences when th ere ar e noreasonable alternative jobs available. Under these conditions, the relation-ships between congruence of career anchors and career outcomes will be atten-uated (Proposition 7a).

Proposition 7a. The relationships between congruence of career anchorand career outcomes will be moderated by availability of alternative jobs;the relationships will be stronger when availability of reasonable alterna-tive jobs is high.

Just as the availability of alternative jobs serves as a moderator, so, too,should extern al personal life const ra ints. For example, an individua l ma y havean entrepreneurial creativity career anchor, but have substantial family com-mitments which make changes in business or risky financial investments in-feasible. Similarly, an individual may have a security and stability careeranchor, but the sudden transfer of a spouse may make pursuing that careerpath untenable. Thus, as Proposition 7b suggests, the relationships betweencongruence of career anchor and career outcomes should also be stronger forthose individuals for whom there are few personal life constraints.

Proposition 7b. The relationships between congruence of career anchorand career outcomes will be moderated by personal life constraints; therelationships will be stronger when external personal life constraints arelow.

Schein (1978,1987) correctly suggests th at individu als can pu rsu e a var ietyof careers within careers; within any occupation like accounting, one couldpursue a technical, managerial, security and stability, or entrepreneurial ca-reer path. However, different occupations may be more readily conducive topur suing certa in t ypes of car eer a nchors t ha n oth ers. For insta nce, it ma y beeasier t o pur sue a career an chor of dedicat ion to a cau se in social work t ha n inaccounting; it may be easier to pursue a career anchor of entrepreneurialcreativity in marketing than in philosophy. Consequently, the consistency be-tween an individua ls career an chor a nd th e domin an t profile in th e occupa tionshould moderate the relationship between career anchors and career out-comes. As we hypothesize in Proposition 8, the relationships between congru-ence of career anchor and career outcomes should be stronger for those individ-

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

14/24

102 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2.1996ua ls whose personal career an chors a re consisten t with t he domina nt profile inthe occupation.

P r o p o s i t i o n 8 . The relationships between congruence of career anchorsan d car eer outcomes will be modera ted by the consist ency of th e individualscareer anchor with the dominant profile in the occupation. Th e relation-ships will be stronger for those individuals whose career anchors are consis-tent with the dominant profile in the occupation.

Along th e sa me lines, th e cons isten cy between an individua ls own car eeran chor a nd th e domina nt cultu re of his/her organ izat ion should also serve as amoderator variable. While it may be theoretically possible to pursue theseeight car eer a nchors in any organ izat ion, it ma y be less fru str at ing to pur sue asecurity and stability career anchor in a government civil service organizationth an in a high-tech semicond uctor firm . In cont ra st, it ma y be more difficult topursue an autonomy and independence career anchor in a brand managementcompany than at a university. Thus, the relationships between congruence ofcareer anchor and career outcomes should be stronger for those individualswhose personal career anchors are consistent with their dominant organiza-tional, cult ur e (Proposition 9).

P r o p o s i t i o n 9 . The relationships between congruence of career anchorsand career outcomes will be moderated by the consistency between an indi-viduals career an chor an d th e domina nt organizational cultu re. The rela-tionships will be stronger for those individuals whose career anchors areconsistent with the dominant organizational culture.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUESIn this section, we examin e th e met hodolo~cal considera tions relevan t t o con-ducting empirical resear ch on car eer an chors, part icular ly th e mea sur ement ofcareer anchors, the sorting of individuals into career anchor types, and sam-pling. Before proceeding, though, it is important to briefly describe the meth-odology, categorization procedures, and sampling of Schein and his students.Scheins Procedures

In research studies conducted by Schein and his students, career anchorsha ve been mea sur ed qu alitat ively or by a combina tion of qua lita tive an d quan-titative methodologies.

The qualitative measurement consists largely of in-depth interviews withres~nden ts about a ctu al car eer choices th ey ha ve ma de and the reasons forcha nges in jobs or orga nizat ions (Schein 1990). The ma in p ort ion of th e inter -view consists of the following (repeated) series of questions: (1 ) What was yournext ma jor cha nge in job or organ izat ion? (2) How did th is come about ? Wha tmotivat ed th e chan ge? (31 How did you feel about th e cha nge? How did it relat e

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

15/24


to your goals? The interview also contains some questions about overall careergoa ls a nd life plans. Repr esen ta tive of t h is type of quest ion ar e: (1) As you lookover your car eer an d life so far , can you describe some tim es t ha t you especiallyenjoyed (did not enjoy) and what made them enjoyable (not enjoyable)? (2) Asyou look ahead in your career, what things do you look forward to (want toavoid)? (3) As you think over the answers you have given, what patterns orth emes do you see? Man y of th e st ud ies cond ucted by Schein s st ud ent s (e.g.,Albertini 1982; Applin 1982) have used this methodology to identify careeranchor types.

Alternatively, career anchor types have been measured by a combination ofinterviews and survey questionnaires. When this methodology is used (cf.Schein 1990), participants are first interviewed along the lines above. Then,pa rt icipan ts complete Scheins Car eer Or ienta tion Su rvey. Fin ally, int er-viewers discuss th e results of th e par ticipant s questionn aire responses t o helpindividuals determine their primary career anchor.

Scheins Car eer Orient at ions Sur vey- conta ins 40 item s (5 each for t he 8car eer a nchor t ypes). Responden ts ar e asked to ra te how tr ue each st at ement isfor t hem, from 1 (never t ru e) to 6 (a lways t ru e). One sa mp le item for ea chcareer anchor type appears in Table 2.

After th e individual ha s answered th e fort y questions, h e or she is ask ed toadd four points each to the three items that seem most true for the individual.

Table 2Sample Items from Scheins Career Orientation Inventory

7. Technical/Functional Competence: I will feel successful in my career only if I can devel-op my technical or functional skills to a very high level of competence.2. Managerial Competence: I dream of being in charge of a complex organization andmaking decisions that affect many people.3. Security and Stability: I am most fulfilled in my work when I feel that I have completefinancial and employment security.4. Entrepreneurial Creativity: I am always on the lookout for ideas that would permit me tostart my own enterprise.5. Autonomy and Independence: I dream of having a career that will allow me the freedomto do a job my own way and on my own schedule.6. Service and Dedication to a Cause: I will feel successful in my career only if I have afeeling of having made a real contribution to the welfare of society.7. Pure Challenge: I have been most fulfilled in my career when I have solved seeminglyunsolvable problems or won out over seemingly impossible odds.8. Lifestyle: I feel successful in life only if I have been able to balance my personal, family,and career requirements.Source: Schein, E. H. 1990. Career Anchors: Discovering Your Real Values. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer &Company.

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

16/24

104 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW W)LUME 6, NUMBER 2, 1996

Then, the respondent computes an average for the five items in each of theeight career anchor scales. The scale which yields the highest score is consid-ered th e individuals car eer a nchor. Again, in the case of ties, responden ts ar easked to imagine future job situations that would force them to give up one orthe other of their goals and determine what they think they would do.

Most of the research conducted on career anchors has been done by Scheinand his students. The original study (which generated the first five careeran chor t ypes) consisted of 44 male pa rt icipan ts in MITs Sloan Fellows Pr o-gram, an executive development program for managers who already have lo-12 years of significant work experience (Schein 1978). Subsequently, fourteenma st ers theses s up ervised by Schein us ed his genera l fra mework (e.g., And er-son & Somm er 1980; Grzywacs 1982); th ese th eses gener ally relied exclus ivelyon interview data.The largest of these fourteen studies contained 40 subjects; the averagesample size was 23 (Schein 1987). In these subsequent studies, more womenwere included, and it was largely from examining their responses that thelifestyle and service career anchor types, in particular, emerged. All the partic-ipants in these studies have been managers, although they varied in howmainstream they were in the field of management (for example, 14 subjectswere physicians who ha d left t ra ditiona l medicine t o go into health car e ma n-agement).

The largest scale study on career anchors conducted by researchers notaffiliated with MIT was performed by Hilmar Nordvik at the University ofTrondh eim (1991). The m ain focus of Nord viks work wa s to compa re Schein sta xonomy of career anchors t o Hollan ds (1973) typology of vocat ional orient a-tions. His sample consisted of 725 Norwegian adults and was heterogeneousboth in terms of occupations and in terms of gender (52% male, 48% female).

However, Nordvik did not us e Scheins Career Orient at ion Sur vey describedabove. Inst ead, Nordviks scale was ipsa tive; th at is, all item s given su bjectswere forced choice s o th at a high s core on one an chor could be obtained only atth e cost of a low score on a noth er an chor (Nordvik 1991, p. 168). Thu s, su bjectswould be asked to choose between having freedom to make my own decisionsabout my work and belonging to my local comm un ity an d not being forced t omove.

Suggested RefinementsOn t he p ositive s ide, Scheins initia l meth odology of usin g int erviews in

conjunction with questionnaires may be very appropriate in helping respon-dents introspect and recall decisions as they were made. In addition, thesetypes of empathic interviews may help individuals respond more accuratelyabout events which may not put them in a socially desirable light (Alderfer1968). On t he oth er ha nd, exclus ive relian ce on one in ter viewers coding ishighly problematic and creates significant problems for assessing the re-liability and validity of the data collected. Consequently, research on careeranchors should utilize some type of survey along with interview ratings.

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

17/24


Severa l modificat ions need to be made in th e sur vey questionn aire (both asused by Schein and as modified by Nordvik). The key problem with theseappr oaches, as they stan d now, is th e strong assu mpt ion th at individuals ha veonly one primary career anchor and that the survey questionnaire yield onlyone car eer a nchor resu lt. On a purely sta tistical level, arbitra rily adding extrapoints to higher ranking items (as Schein does) forces a distinction which doesnot exist in the raw data; correlational analyses of ipsative scales (which Nor-dvik uses) can lead t o fallacious conclusions becau se high corr elat ions betweensome ipsat ive scales force other correlat ions to be corr espondingly lower (Hicks1970).

Perhaps more importantly, on theoretical and practical grounds, forcing allrespondents to categorize themselves in terms of only one career anchor candistort the psychological reality respondents are trying to convey. As we notedearlier, approximately one-third of respondents report multiple career an-chors-and th e dua lity of resp ond ent s car eer goals ha s import an t implica-tions for h ow th ey mak e car eer decisions , perform at work, adjust to th eir r oles,an d derive sa tisfaction from th eir jobs. If resea rcher s ar bitr ar ily force respon-dent s int o one career an chor or an oth er, they tra de off ha rd dat a which wouldbe us eful in predictin g r esponden ts actions for inflat ed er ror var iance. More-over, in terms of counselling and placing employees, it is critical to knowwheth er individuals car eer a nchors ar e stable an d dura ble or wheth er consid-erable ambivalence or conflicting feelings still influence their decision makingprocesses. In future research, then, four key improvements in methodologyneed to be made.

1. Factor an alyses of S cheins Career Orienta tion In ventory to determ ine th efactor stru cture un derlyin g th e career an chor typology. At this point, there isnot definitive evidence on how many independent career anchor types existan d how independent th ese eight types a re. For insta nce, it is not clear wheth -er the emergence of the three later career anchors (challenge, service, andlifestyle) a re du e to art ifacts of sam pling; in th e fifteen st ud ies on which Scheinreports empirical data, the challenge and service anchors emerge in only two(Schein 1987, p. 161). Moreover, when Nordvik factor a na lyzed his dat a, h eobta ined only a four -factor solut ion: (1) high on Mana gerial Comp eten ce an dChallenge, low on Security, Service, and Lifestyle; (2) high on Technical Com-petence, low on Lifestyle and Managerial Competence; (3) high on Autonomyan d Lifestyle, low on Secur ity; and (4) high on Ent repr eneu ria l Crea tivity, lowon Service.

Thus, factor an alyses a re needed to determ ine th e independence an d un der-lying patterns of career anchor types. One possible scenario for results fromsuch a factor an alysis a ppea rs in Figure 3. Modelled after Hollan ds (1973)hexagonal typology of vocational preferences, the octagonal model in Figure 3suggests some car eer orient at ions ar e fairly similar to each oth er while oth ersare quite orthogonal.Based on both th e theoret ical definit ions of Scheins car eer a nchor t ypes an dNordviks initia l resu lts, then , we might expect th at s ecur ity, service, an dlifestyle would cluster together, that entrepreneurial creativity would be or-

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

18/24

M

a

Thc

Cmen

Suya Sa

yCen

Cmen

Sca

DdcoFge3

Leye

PbeFoSuueU

ynCeA

s

Erpnua

Cvy

Aom

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

19/24


thogonal to security, and that challenge would be orthogonal to lifestyle. Note,too, th at such an un derlying factor st ru ctu re would help us un dersta nd wheth-er ind ividu als car eer an chors a re complemen ta ry (e.g., techn ical comp eten ceand challenge) or mutually inconsistent (e.g., security and entrepreneurialcreativity) and to what extent that complementarity has a positive impact oncareer outcomes (cf. Propositions 5 and 6).

2. Develop a categorizat ion scheme w hich allows for m ul tiple career anchors.As noted above, the manipulation of the questionnaire raw data to yield onlyone career anchor presents significant problems for future theory develop-ment, valid measurement of career anchor types, and honest career counsell-ing and planning. A possible alternative categorization scheme can be mod-elled after Hollan ds per sonal preferen ce orient at ion scales (1973).

Hollan ds model suggests th ere ar e six pers ona l preferen ce orien ta tions inregard to vocational choice: conventional, enterprising, realistic, artistic, in-vestigative, and social. Unlike Schein, however, Holland suggests that all indi-viduals be given a t hr ee-letter code. For examp le, a CER type (convent iona l,enterprising, realistic) might be expected to gravitate into public accounting,while an ECS type (enterprising, conventional, social) might be expected togravitate int o sales ma na gement or depar tm ent store ma na gement. Giventhat career anchors are more stable than initial vocational choices, it is notunreasonable to expect career anchor classifications to need only two-lettercodings. Nonetheless, we can envision there being meaningful differences be-tween a techn ical/cha llenge (TC) type an d a techn ical/secur ity (TS) type. Theformer would be more comfortable in a private sector research and develop-ment lab; the latter would be more comfortable as a staff researcher in agovernment facility. Adding a double-letter coding scheme, along with drop-ping S cheins extr a point s algorit hm to brea k t ies, would yield both morevalid and more useful data.

3. Use of behavioral as well as attit ud ina l dependent variables. WhileScheins work u sing a tt itu dina l outcome va ria bles is cert ain ly su pportive of histheory, over-reliance on correlations between self-report independent and de-pendent variables still remains a major concern. On the independent variableside (th at is, th e measur ement of th e car eer an chors th emselves), th ere ar e notma ny ea sily implementa ble solutions t o th e self-report dat a issue, except per-haps to look at the agreement between interviewer ratings and self-reportra tin gs. On the depen dent var iable side, however, mu ch grea ter use of non-self-report dat a can be used. F or example, a rchival da ta can be u sed to assess jobst ability an d job per form an ce. Specifically, resea rcher s could exam ine suchindices as number of occupational and organizational changes, number of do-mestic and international job changes, number of promotions, etc.

Another possibility for dependent variable measurement comes from Hol-lan ds t heory of vocat iona l choice. H ollan d ha s a n a pr iori list of job tit les int owhich each three-letter vocational preference type is likely to gravitate. Thiscategorization scheme thus allows researchers to assess to what extent indi-viduals gra vita te int o jobs which ar e th eory-cons isten t or th eory-incons isten tan d t o exam ine th e consequ ences of th e lack of tit . For exam ple, if 75% of th ose

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

20/24

108 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 6. NUMBER 2.1996

individuals who self-report th emselves as ent repr eneu rial ar e self-employed orwork for start-up ventures, we could have greater confidence in the careeranchor model. The closest research has come to this model is a study of careeran chors am ong a erospace ma na gers, in which Scheins stu dent s demonstr at edthat entrepreneurial types were most effective and satisfied in the designphase of the project while security-anchored types were most effective andsatisfied in the production phase (Schein 1987).

4. Use of more heterogeneous samples and databases. Becau se a ll th e empiri-cal research stu dies on car eer a nchors except one ha ve used curr ent ma na gersor a spiring ma nagers as sa mples, it is har d t o determine a t t his point whetherScheins typology m odels car eer a nchors for individua ls jus t in man agem ent(broadly defined) or career anchors for individuals across many occupations.The widely divergent distributions of career anchors across studies, dependingon the gender an d occup at iona l comp osition of th e sam ples, mak es th is concernover sampling non-trivial.

Consequently, future research will require much larger samples (certainlylarger th an N=44) an d more heterogeneous sam ples in term s of occupa tions.Such sam ples are part icular ly critical for un dersta nding un derlying factorsstructures among career anchor types and for conducting empirical researchon moderator and outcome variables. Equally important, larger samples areneeded to confirm (or discard) the notion there are additional career anchortypes in the workforce. For example, Schein (1990) suggests that there may beadditional career anchor types centered around power, variety, pure cre-ativity, and organizational identity. However, previous research studies haveha d su ch sma ll sam ples tha t only one or two of th ese types emerge in any givenstudy, thereby making the definition of additional stable career anchor typesimpossible.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONSIn this final section, we consider the implications of career anchor theory forma na ging car eers in organ izat ions. We consider, in par ticular , th e implicat ionsfor individu als self-as sessm ent of car eer goals, orga nizat ions career pat hin gpractices, and the role of college and university placement centers in providingcareer counselling.

Ind ividua l Self-Assessm entProbably the most popular approach to career planning for individuals to-

day is self-as sessm ent (cf. Belles 1996). While t he self-assessm ent met hodolo-gies may vary across individua ls an d settings, most ask individuals to addr essfive set s of quest ions : (1) Wha t ar e my sk ill-bas ed str engt hs an d weakn esses asa job can didat e? Wha t do I like an d dislike? (2) Wha t goals do I wan t t oachieve? Which goals do I need t o st ar t work on now? (3) Wha t ar e my poten tia lopportunities? What constraints do I have on my options? (4) What reasonable

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

21/24


altern at ives do I ha ve in th e short r un ? How would I ran k t hem ? (5) What do Ineed to do to reach my goals? What kind of help do I need from others? TheCareer Orientation Inventory developed by Schein focuses, in particular, onquestions 1, 2, and 4: strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, and rank-ing of goals and alternatives (Schein 1992).

The research suggests that there are several positive outcomes from usingself-as sessm ent exercises a s Scheins in car eer plann ing. Self-as sessm enthelps individuals take a longer-term perspective on their careers; it prodsindividuals to take personal responsibility for managing their own careers; itforces individuals to examine the flaws in their past career decisions; it leadsindividuals to consider more carefully the potential consequences of futurecareer decisions (Feldman 1988).

However, self-assessment alone does not always produce perfectly accurateself-portr ait s (J an is & Man n 1977; J an is & Wheeler 1978). Ind ividu als ar e lessaccurate in diagnosing their weaknesses than their strengths; they tend tooverestimate their opportunities and underestimate their obstacles; they aremore likely to assume uncertain events will turn out in their favor thanagainst them. Thus, as useful as self-assessment of career anchors can be,career decisions based on these self-assessments can only be as good as thedata on which they are developed.

For these reasons, then, it may be critical for the self-assessment of careeranchors to be accompanied by feedback from objective bystanders such asclose frien ds or men tors (J an is & Man n 1977). These coun sellors or bysta nd erscan help individuals discover some of the rationalizations they are using, someof the ambivalence they are experiencing, some of the false assumptions theyar e mak ing about t hem selves or their different car eer options, a nd some of th ehidden fears an d desires th ey are relucta nt to face (J an is & Wheeler 1978).Without such accompanying feedback, the potential utility of the self-assess-ment data may be significantly lessened.

Organizational Career PlanningWhile organizations continue to become more flexible in how they manageemployees car eers, th e domina nt model of car eer m an agement in business

today is still based on advancement up an d th rough a pyram id-sha ped organi-zation. The linear career path based on successive increments of promotion,rank, and income (Driver 1979) is still more common than a steady statecareer path in which individuals are allowed to stay indefinitely on assign-ments they enjoy and find challenging. The two most prominent exceptions tothis model have been the development of dual ladder career tracks (whichallow employees in technically-based firms to pursue either a senior scientistor administr at ive car eer path ) an d the increased popularity of entr epreneur ialcareers in small, start-up ventures.To th e exten t th at organ izations plan logical car eer pa th s for employeestoday, they tend to focus on giving job assignments that build functional skills(moving an emp loyee from pr odu ction to sa les), ma na gement sk ills (moving an

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

22/24

1 1 0 HUMAN RESOURCEMANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 6, NUMBER 2,1996

employee from technical work to managerial work), or cross-cultural skills(moving employees from one region of the country to another or interna-tionally). In contrast, what career anchor theory suggests is that having pre-set standardized career ladders and job rotation sequences for all employeesma y lead t o poor sta ffing decisions , lowered job perform an ce, an d increa sedtu rn over. For exam ple, for an em ployee with a techn ical/fun ctional car eer an -chor in production, a forced move int o sa les or m~a gement is un likely to be asatisfying one, and the probabilities increase that the employee will fail in thenew assignment or leave in frustration.

Thus, organizations need to be more collaborative and flexible in their ca-reer plan ning for individ~~s an d not assu me that organ izat iona l a ssessmen tsof what is best for employees are always correct. In many ways, career anchorth eory su ggests t ha t th e less obvious , m ore hidden as pects of employees ca-reers-their values about work, th e place of work in th eir lives, th eir endu ringpers ona l desires-ma y be more crit ical to good st ailing decisions th an th emore visible badges of functional area, rank, and geographical location.

Career anchor theory also has some implications for selection. Certainly,skill-based selection should be the primary way new employees are chosen forjobs, a nd ill-inform ed, persona lity-based selection decisions ar e all too open tobias and prejudice. Nonetheless, car eer a nchor t heory su ggests th at some orga-nizations will be more comfortable homes for employees than others and thatignoring employees car eer an chors in selection decisions can lead t o poor h ir-ing decisions (Schein 1992).For instance, employees with security and stability anchors are going tohave an easier time meeting their needs in regional utility companies than inintern at iona l sales firms; employees with dedicat ion to a cau se car eer an chorsare going to have an easier time adjusting to a social service agency than to aCPA firm . While certa inly car eer a nchors sh ould n ot be used as selectioncriteria, discussions with potential employees about not only the job require-ments but also the values of the organization, the typical work situations inwhich t hey will labor, an d th e dema nd s (or lack th ereof) for tr avel and r eloca-tion m ay lead to longer-term work effectiveness, role ad just men t, an d a tt ach-ment to the firm.Along similar lines, career anchor theory has some implications for howorganizations design reward systems. As Schein (1987) notes, individuals withdifferent career anchors have widely different preferences for the kinds of pay,benefits, and recognition they want. For example, we would expect entrepre-neurs to value large rewards for creativity and risk-taking and to care lessabout longevity-based fringe benefits; in contrast, we would expect securitytypes to value predictable incremental salary increases, pensions, and othertenu re-based fringe benefits. To th e extent th at compa nies can design organi-zation-wide benefit systems to meet the needs of the dominant profile of theiremployees (or allow for cafeteria-style benefit plans to achieve flexibility fordiversity across types), they will be better able to motivate the kinds of workeffectiveness, role performance, and longevity they desire from employees.

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

23/24

CAREERS WITHIN CAREERS: RECONCEPTUALIZING 1 1 1

University Placement CentersBecau se career an chor t heory ha s focused ma inly on a dults in their 30s an d

4Os, its implicat ions for u niversity placemen t cent ers h ave been lar gely ig-nored. H owever, car eer a nchor t heory can be of use in th e car eer coun selling ofolder students who have returned to school after being in the workforce, con-tinuing education students, and graduate students with significant previouswork experience.In general, university placement activities have either stressed self-assess-ment exercises (like those discussed above) or the identification of functionalar eas in which st ud ent s sh ould focus t heir job hu nt (e.g., fina nce, ma rk etin g, oroperat ions). What car eer a nchor th eory suggests is th at inst ead of concentra t-ing on t he differen ces in fun ctiolta l a rea s older stu den ts should focus on differ-ences in career paths within careers which are best suited to them. In otherwords, a key task for m ore m at ur e st uden ts is not simply choosing a ma jor an da functional area to list on a resume, but rather choosing a career track,potent ially implementa ble in a var iety of fun ctiona l ar eas, which meets th eirneeds.

In Th e Closing of th e Am erican Min d, Bloom (1987) writes that universitiesar e no longer str uctur ed to help st uden ts trying t o discover their t ru e calling(p. 339):

The real problem (for universities) is those students who come hoping tofind out what career they want to have. . . . There are plenty of things forth em to do-cour ses an d disciplines enough to spen d ma ny a lifetime on-but how to choose among them?. . . . Most professors are specialists, con-cerned only with their own fields, interested in the advancement of thosefields. So the student must navigate among a collection of carnival barkers,each trying t o lure him int o a par ticular sideshow. The un decided st udent isan embarrassment to most universities, because he seems to be saying . .help m e develop m y rea l potent ial, an d he is th e one to whom th ey havenothing to say.

Career an chor t heory suggests, th en, th at car eer advising an d counsellingshould be done not to slot stu dent s into easily identifiable car eer path s butra th er t o help student s discover for th emselves what car eer options would mostclosely meet th eir needs. Moreover, an d par ticularly for older student s, th echoice is not simply a mong functional ar eas but also am ong career s withincareers.

REFERENCESAlbertini, W. 0. 1982. Organizat ion Mana gers: A Car eer S tu dy. Mast ers th esis, MIT

Sloan School of Man agem ent , Cam bridge, MA.Alderfer, C. P. 1968. Compa rison of Questionna ire Responses With a nd Without Pr e-

ceding Interviews. J ournal of Applied Psychology 52: 335-340.

8/2/2019 12020913473624548

24/24

112 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 6. NUMBER 2, 1996

Anderson, M. E. an d F. F. Sommer . 1980. Car eer Evolut ion of Sloan Fellows. Master sthesis, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.

Applin, M. R. 1982. A Study of th e Career s of Man agemen t Consu lta nt s. Ma ster sthesis, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA.

Argyris, C. 1964. Integrating the Individ ual and the Organization. N ew York: Wiley.Bloom, A. 1987. Th e Closing of the Am erican Mind . N ew York: Simon and Schuster.Bolles, R. N. 1996. Wha t Color is Y our Parachu te? Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.Capla n, R. D. 1983. Per son-En vironmen t Fit: Pa st, Pr esent , and Fut ur e. Pp. 35-77 in

S tress Research: Issu es for the Eigh ties, edited by C. L. Cooper. Ann Arbor, MI:Institute for Social Research.

Driver, M. 1979. Car eer Concepts a nd Car eer Man agemen t in Orga nizat ions. P p. 79-139 in Behavioral Problem s in Organizations, edited by C. L. Cooper. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Feldm an , D. C. 1988.Man aging Careers in Organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott F oresma n.Goldberg, P. 1972. T he Detection of Psychiat ric Illn ess by Questionn aire. London: OxfordUniversity Press.

Grzywacs, J . W. 1982. Car eer Anchors of Sloan Alumn ae. Mast ers t hesis, MIT SloanSchool of Management, Cambridge, MA.

Hicks, L. E. 1970. Some Properties of Ipsative, Normative, and Forced-Choice Norma-tive Measur es. Psychological Bu lletin 74: 167-184.

Holland, J. L. 1973. Mak ing Vocational Choices: A Th eory of Careers. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Janis, I. L. and L. Mann. 1977. Decision Making. New York: Free Press.J an is, I. L. an d D. Wheeler. 1978. Think ing Clearly a bout Car eer Ch oices. Psychology

Today (May): 66-76,121-122.Katz, D. and R. L. Kahn. 1978. T he S ocial Psych ology of Organiza tions, (2nd ed.). NewYork: Wiley.

Kilty, K. M. and J. H. Behling. 1985. Predicting the Retirement Intentions and Atti-tudes of Professional Workers. J ournal of Geront ology 40: 219-227.

Locke, E. A. 1976. The N at ur e a nd Ca uses of J ob Sat isfaction. Pp. 1297-1349 inHand book of Indu strial and Organizational Psychology, edited by M. D. Dunn et-te. Chicago: Rand McNally.

London, M. a nd D. W. Bra y. 1984. Measu ring an d Developing Youn g Mana gers Car eerMotivation. J ournal of Ma nagem ent Developm ent 3: 3-25.

Nordvik, H. 1991. Work Activity an d Car eer Goals in H ollands an d Scheins Theoriesof Vocational Personalities and Career Anchors. J ournal of Vocational Behavior38: 165-178.

Schein, E. H. 1975. How Career Anchors Hold Executives to Their Career Paths.Personn el 52: 11-24.. 1978. Career Dynam ics: Matching Individu al and Organizational Needs. Read-ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.

-. 1987. Ind ividua ls an d Career s. Pp. 155-171 in Han dbook of Organiza tionalBehavior, edited by J. Lorsch. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.. 1990. Career An chors: Discovering Y our R eal Valu es. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer &Company.

-. 1992. Career Anchors and Job/Role Planning: The Links between Career Plan-ning an d Car eer Development . Pp. 207-217 in Career Developm ent: T heory andPractice, edited by D. H. Montross and C. J. Shinkman. Springfield, IL: CharlesC. Thomas.

Simon, H. A. 1976. Administrative Behavior, (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.

12020913473624548

Documents

Transcript of 12020913473624548