Stead et al. (2006, p. 13) state that “career theories should be clear about the terms, constructs, and theoretical frameworks they describe. Brown (1984) maintains that a promise of a good theory is that it assists us to understand not only what happens, but also why it happens. Brown (1994) further adds that career theories provide researchers with directions that are helpful in exploring career development.
2.2.1 Boundaryless career theory.
It is apparent that perspectives on careers have changed. The traditional organisational career, once seen as the norm, is now regarded by many as more relevant to the last century (Baruch, 2004; Inkson & Arthur, 2001; Kuijpers &
Scheerens, 2006). Models such as the boundaryless career (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996), protean career (Hall, 1996), intelligent career (DeFillipi & Arthur, 1994), and the post-corporate career (Peiperl & Baruch, 1997) are characterised by flexible employment contracts, multiple employers, lateral job moves and multiple career changes.
DeFillipi and Arthur (1994) initiated the concept of the “boundaryless career”. A boundaryless career refers to a “career that transcends boundaries” (Verbruggen, 2012, p. 289). According to Chudzikowski (2012), the boundaryless career is associated with high career mobility, which in turn is associated with the career success of individuals. According to Arthur and Rousseau (1996, p. 6), the boundaryless career is characterised by “independence from, rather than dependence on, traditional organisational career arrangements”. The latter authors (Arthur &
Rousseau, 1996) advocate six different meanings of boundaryless careers listed below:
1. Where individuals move across boundaries of separate employers to work on various projects.
2. Where individuals gain marketability external to their current employer.
3. Where individuals rely on external networks for career advancement.
4. Individuals break through traditional organisational assumptions regarding hierarchy and advancement.
5. Individuals turn down career opportunities for personal or family reasons.
6. Based on interpretations by individuals who may perceive their careers as boundaryless, irrespective of structural complaints.
Arthur and Rousseau (1996) point out that the above six meanings include both physical mobility (e.g., lateral movements within an organisation or moving across separate organisations), as well as psychological mobility (e.g., perceptions held by individuals regarding alternate career options).
According to Sullivan and Arthur (2006, p. 21) there has recently been increased focus on boundarylessness in terms of both “physical mobility” or “actual movement between jobs, firms, occupations and countries”, and “psychological mobility”, or
“the capacity to move as seen through the mind of the career actor”. The latter authors suggest that psychological boundarylessness may manifest itself as a belief that it would be relatively easy to move across organisations, or that extra-organisational networks have created working relationships that support current or future employment.
According to Briscoe, Hall and Frautschy DeMuth (2006) the incorporation of psychological boundarylessness takes cognisance of the fact that an individual could embrace a boundaryless mind-set, yet rely on a single organisation to develop their career. This means that employees may physically remain with one organisation, but perceive their career as boundaryless, provided that there are many career opportunities that could still possibly be explored.
Boundaryless career theory takes a behaviouralist/competency-based approach, characterised by a focus on developing multiple skills. Integral aspects of the boundaryless career include developing networks, portable skills, and the ability to effectively handle change (DeFillipi & Arthur, 1994). In pursuing a boundaryless career, the focus shifts from climbing the corporate ladder to a career that is enacted via a series of lateral, vertical and spiral moves (Currie, Tempest, & Starkey, 2006).
This notion is a new type of employability, which is a short-term transactional contract, in which the individual takes active responsibility for managing her/his career rather than leaving this to the organisation. The “locus of responsibility” is transferred from the organisation to the “career actor” (Arthur, 1994, p. 304). In this approach, individuals work for more companies on a wider range of projects. The boundaryless career has been referred to as one in which the individual moves from job to job, or from organisation to organisation, thus transcending organisational boundaries (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; DeFillipi & Arthur, 1996).
The following table summarises the differences between the traditional career model and the boundaryless career concept.
Table 2.1
Comparison of Traditional and Boundaryless Careers
Traditional Boundaryless
Employment relationship: Job security for loyalty Employability for performance and flexibility
Boundaries: One or two firms Multiple firms
Skills: Firm specific Transferable
Success measured by: Pay, promotion, status Psychologically meaningful work Responsibility for career
management:
Organisation Individual
Training: Formal programs On-the-job
Milestones: Age-related Learning-related
Sullivan (1999)
In the following section, the notion of the protean career is elucidated.
2.2.2 Protean career theory.
The “protean career” named after the Greek God “Proteus”, is one in which individuals are willing and able to rapidly re-shape and reform themselves in response to changing environmental circumstances (Inkson, 2006). The protean career is viewed as being driven by the individual and not the organisation, based on personally established goals, which include the entire life domain, and are being driven by psychological success, rather than objective success, such as pay or position (Hall, 1996). The notion of the protean career is an individual-focused approach with the individual as the one in control (Hall, 1996) driving his/her own success in multi-organisational settings. While the traditional career takes place within multi-organisational boundaries, the protean career takes place across multiple boundaries. It is characterised by “a values-driven attitude” (individual values rather than organisational values), and “a self-directed attitude towards career management”
(Briscoe & Hall, 2006, p. 31).
According to Hall and Mirvis (1995), under the protean perspective, careers are fluid and flexible, whereby the individual engages in continuous learning. The contract is
with the individual and her/his work, rather than with the organisation. These authors suggest that an individual who adopts a protean career orientation, welcomes the opportunity to explore new options, and seeks psychological success through lateral or spiral career moves. Hall (2004, p. 6) claims that two meta-competencies have been identified as underpinning a successful protean career: “adaptability” and “identity”
(self-awareness). The afore-mentioned author maintains that a true protean careerist will develop both these meta-competencies which will facilitate self-evaluation followed by adaptive responses. Moreover, this adaptability helps individuals to survive in difficult work environments, while still maintaining their personal values.
The boundaryless career has the shortcoming of not making reference to the self-directed nature of careers, such as suggested by the protean career. The definition of the boundaryless career presented above seems to make specific reference to
“boundarylessness” in the context of moving across organisational boundaries (i.e.
from one organisation to another). However an alternative view on
“boundarylessness” can also refer to movement across functional boundaries within a single organisation. Both the boundaryless career and protean career theory should be combined to better understand careers. It is therefore advisable that individuals should apply self-directed behaviour (i.e. taking responsibility for their own careers) by being open to shape their careers either within a single organisation, but across functions, or across organisational boundaries.
2.2.3 Intelligent career theory.
DeFillipi and Arthur (1994) introduced the concept of the “intelligent career”, a different behavioural view which emphasises self-knowledge or self-awareness. This career concept involves three “ways of knowing”: knowing-why, knowing-how, and knowing-whom. “Knowing why” alludes to the individual’s work motivation and identification with the employing company culture. “Knowing-how” refers to career relevant competencies which support individual behaviours in their current role.
“Knowing-whom” has to do with interpersonal relationships and networks able to support career opportunities.
2.2.4 Post-corporate career theory.
Peiperl and Baruch (1997) refer to the notion of the “post-corporate career” as a behavioural view which emphasises vision and self-identity. This concept suggests that career paths evolve horizontally and not vertically in the post-corporate world.
According to Peiperl and Baruch (1997), employees will have more opportunities in current and future careers as horizontal career development transcends vertical paths.
In the following section, the objective career success perspective will be defined. This will be followed by a definition of the subjective career perspective.