The meaning of career successAvoiding reification through a closerinspection of historical, cultural,

and ideological contexts

Nicky DriesFaculty of Business and Economics, Research Centre for Organisation Studies,

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which the concept of career successhas been subject to reification, and identify potential implications for individuals, organizations, andsocieties.

Design/methodology/approach The current paper offers an in-depth analysis of the differentcontextual forces contributing to the reification of careers (i.e. history, culture and ideology), and howthese have impacted on the social reality of career and the definitions of career success held bydifferent relevant actors.

Findings In total, eight research propositions are identified that need to be addressed in futureresearch in order to advance knowledge and understanding of career success in context.

Social implications One manifest outcome of career reification is the establishment of collectivenorms prescribing what a normal, successful career is and what is not. Consequently, all careersnot conforming to these norms are devaluated, which is inappropriate given the present-day climate ofworkplace diversity.

Originality/value Career theory, in general, has been criticized for overemphasizing individualagency while neglecting contextual issues. Furthermore, more conceptual development is necessary inrelation to the career success construct. The current paper aims to address both of these gaps bypresenting in-depth analyses of the historical, cultural, and ideological contexts impacting on themeaning of career and career success.

Keywords Career success, Subjective career, Career reification, Boundaryless career, Career theory,National cultures, Globalization

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionA definition of career success commonly referred to in the contemporary literature isthe experience of achieving goals that are personally meaningful to the individual,rather than those set by parents, peers, an organization, or society (Mirvis and Hall,1994, p. 366). According to this definition, workers of all types have careers, each ofwhich can be viewed as successful in one way or another. But if this is true, then why doso many people feel unsuccessful? Research into the career experiences of blue-collar

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm

The author started work on this paper while she was still affiliated with the Department of Workand Organizational Psychology at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. The work enjoyed thefinancial support of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO TM490). The author would liketo thank Robert Giacalone and Hugh Gunz for their helpful feedback on an earlier version of themanuscript.

CDI16,4

364

Received 7 December 2010Revised 5 January 2011Accepted 6 January 2011

Career Development InternationalVol. 16 No. 4, 2011pp. 364-384q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1362-0436DOI 10.1108/13620431111158788

workers, for instance, revealed that they often feel they do not even have a career,let alone a successful one (Guest and Sturges, 2007; Hennequin, 2007).

It appears that the career success construct, somehow, evokes an objectified imageof career in people an image with which they may or may not identify. The centralargument in this paper is that careers are often subject to reification, i.e. the tendency tosee social constructs as real and fixed, rather than as complex, dynamic social realitiesthat can be (re)interpreted and (re)shaped in different ways. Despite the fact thatcareers are not real, however, they are reality-defining for a large part of theworkforce (Evetts, 1992).

Career theory, in general, has been criticized for overemphasizing individual agencywhile neglecting contextual issues (Brown, 2002; Evetts, 1992). This paper aims toaddress this gap by presenting a detailed examination of how the different contextualforces contributing to the reification of careers (i.e. history, culture and ideology) haveimpacted on the social reality of career and the definitions of career success held bydifferent relevant actors. It then goes on to identify several research questions thatneed to be tackled in future research in order to advance our knowledge andunderstanding of career success in context. The paper concludes with specificimplications for careers research and practice.

Career success across historical contextsThe shift to a post-industrial economyThe evolution of the global economy (although not taking place at the same pace inevery part of the world), from an agricultural over an industrial to a post-industrialsociety, has without a doubt strongly contributed to the current-day image of whatcareer and career success mean.

Around the onset of the nineteenth century, the industrial revolution marked the endof the agricultural economy in most Western countries, in which the dominant socialinstitution had been the family and young people simply inherited their careers fromtheir parents. Career success, in those days, was determined by physical survival andsecurity and the development of character (i.e. compliance to the norm of hard work andethical behavior) (Savickas, 2000). The dawning of the industrial economy wascharacterized by the appearance of large, bureaucratic organizations offering careers forlife. Since the typical organizational structure was hierarchical, career implied verticalmovement through a succession of related jobs, arranged in a hierarchy of prestige(Wilensky, 1961, p. 523). Career success, accordingly, was measured by verifiableattainments (e.g. income, position, and status) relating to upward advancement on thecorporate ladder (Heslin, 2005; Savickas, 2000). In the second half of the twentiethcentury, Western society was transformed through globalization as well as scientificand technical evolutions. In the current post-industrial economy, characterized bywidespread organizational restructuring and economic uncertainty, the hallmarks of thetraditional-organizational career are said to be disappearing (Savickas, 2000).

Careers have now become a more or less unpredictable series of experiences lived byindividuals continuously negotiating work and non-work aspects of their livesthroughout different career and life stages (Arthur et al., 2005). Consequently, thedefinition of career success in the literature has been expanded to include goals muchbroader (and more personal) than upward advancement alone (Mirvis and Hall, 1994).As a result, there is no longer a clear and consensual understanding of what

The meaningof career success

365

career means, both for individuals and organizations (Dries et al., 2008). However, thenotion of hierarchical advancement within an organization remains associated withcareer success to date although the institutional arrangements at the origin of thisassociation have changed considerably (Heslin, 2005). According to Burns (2009, p. 25),career may have become:

[. . .] a quasi-official truth [. . .] lagging behind the reality of changes occurring in employmentpatterns. Getting ahead or succeeding may not figure at all, or may be only one imperative inpersonal life paths, and not necessarily as central as some career trajectories imply.

Although the historical trends outlined above are well-documented within themanagement literature, only in a few instances have they been linked to the meaning ofcareer success (Savickas, 2000). Content analyses of historical documents, such as novels,newspapers, plays, or other media referring to the meanings attributed to career andcareer success might prove particularly useful for addressing this first research question:

RQ1a. How has the shift to a post-industrial economy influenced peoplesdefinitions of career success throughout history?

The shift to post-materialist valuesIn parallel with the emergence of the post-industrial economy, a shift topost-materialism has been observed (Inglehart, 2008). The World Values Survey,which studied over 250,000 people worldwide across five waves from 1981 to 2007,uncovered that in nearly all industrial societies, worldviews have shifted fromtraditional to secular-rational values. Furthermore, the study found that the transitionfrom industrial to knowledge society is characterized by an emphasis on self-expressionvalues (as opposed to survival values), which implies an increased focus on subjectivewell-being, self-expression, and individual spirituality (Pettersson, 2003). Inglehart(1997) argues that the process of intergenerational population replacement andglobalization will cause self-expression values to become even more widespread in thefuture in industrialized societies, at least. Considering the world as a whole, however,the ratio between materialists and post-materialists varies from society to societydepending on their level of economic development. Low-income countries and countriesin crisis still show an overwhelming dominance of materialists, while prosperous andsecure ones exhibit a majority of post-materialists (Inglehart, 2008).

A second avenue for future research is to examine exactly how the shift topost-materialist values has affected the subjective meanings attributed to career andcareer success by diverse research populations:

RQ1b. How has the shift to post-materialist values influenced peoples definitions ofcareer success throughout history?

Intergenerational research designs are ideally suited for studying evolutions within thepopulation alive today; for studying trends over a longer timespan (e.g. hundreds ofyears), comparative historical analyses are recommended.

Career success across cultural contextsThe effects of national cultureThe careers literature (and many other streams of literature at that) has,generally speaking, seriously underestimated the weight of cross-cultural differences

CDI16,4

366

in describing and explaining career phenomena (Chudzikowski et al., 2009). As a result,there is an overemphasis in the literature on Western career concepts and measures,and especially on concepts and measures developed in the USA (Stead, 2004). Theprojection of US values onto career actors from other parts of the world, without takinginto account possible differences in their definitions of career and career success, maybe problematic (Kats et al., 2010; Schwartz, 2006).

From Hofstedes seminal work on cultural differences we can draw some preliminaryinferences about how people from different countries will, generally speaking, defineand evaluate career success. Table I provides an overview of some of the averageemployee value scores Hofstede uncovered in his 1967-1973 study spanning 53 countriesand regions (Hofstede, 2001). The table compares US and UK scores to the world andEuropean average for each employee value the USA and the UK being the countriesthat produce the largest proportion of the careers literature (Chudzikowski et al., 2009).It clearly illustrates that specific aspects of the US and UK contexts should not begeneralized to other countries without critical reflection about possible culturaldifferences (Stead, 2004).

Although, in general, cultural differences tend to be underestimated, they are alsocommonly overestimated. The overestimation of cultural differences is generally causedby stereotyping, and in turn causes further stereotyping (Niles, 1999). For instance,a typical stereotype for portraying Asian people is the Buddhist monk who renouncesmaterial success and personal gain (Figure 1). Furnham (2010, p. 134) describes how themisconception that the great Oriental religions do not offer an encouraging culturalframework for the rational pursuit of economic gain has led to the stereotypicalbelief that Asian belief systems (somehow considered to be other-worldly) do not

Cultural dimensions

Power distanceaUncertaintyavoidanceb Individualismc Masculinityd

Long-termorientatione

Index (rank) Index (rank) Index (rank) Index (rank) Index (rank)

World average 55 64 43 50 45European average 45 74 61 59 n.a.USA 40 (38) 46 (43) 91 (1) 62 (15) 29 (27)UK 35 (42-44) 35 (47-48) 89 (3) 66 (9-10) 25 (28-29)

Notes: The employee values measured were: apower distance the extent to which the less powerfulmembers of organizations and institutions accept and expect that power is distributed unequally;buncertainty avoidance the extent to which a culture programs its members to feel uncomfortable inunstructured situations; cindividualism the extent to which the ties between individuals are looseand everyone is expected to look after him or herself and his or her immediate family; dmasculinity the extent to which dominant values are related to assertiveness, money, material possessions andwell-defined gender roles; elong-term orientation the extent to which values such as frugality andperseverance are dominant; index scores are average employee value scores per country; rank scoresare based on a comparison of the index score of the focal country to the index scores of the 52 othercountries in the Hofstede sample; the long-term orientation dimension was added to the researchframework at a later point than the other dimensions; for this dimension, Hofstede only collected datain 23 countriesSource: Adapted from Hofstede (2001)

Table I.Hofstede employee value

scores: world average,European average,

US scores, and UK scores

The meaningof career success

367

promote commitment to a strong work ethic, and that the motivational patternsof Asian employees lack need for achievement (Niles, 1999). The fact that India andChina are among the fastest developing economies in the world seems to proveotherwise, however (Furnham, 2010).

Cross-cultural studies are needed to examine this third, important, research question:

RQ2a. How do elements of national culture influence the definitions of careersuccess of people around the world?

The effects of globalizationAn important point of critique on the cross-cultural psychology literature is thatculture is generally described and studied as if it concerns a stable feature of societies(Khapova and Korotov, 2007). However, as soon as social, political, and economicfactors change, people will adapt to their new environment by assuming more relevantbehaviors. Subsequently, these new behaviors can accumulate and begin to define newcultural assumptions (Hofstede, 2001), as is demonstrated by research in rapidlydeveloping economies. For instance, Khapova and Korotov (2007) found clear shifts inRussian career values when comparing their findings to Hofstedes original scores.Chudzikowski et al. (2009), from their side, found that the younger respondents in theirChinese sample reported career values more similar to those of Western respondentsthan to those of older Chinese. Nuance must be applied, however. Data from the World

Figure 1.Western scholars andpractitioners tend tosimultaneouslyunderestimate andoverestimate culturaldifferences with regardto peoples definitionsof career success

Source: Cartoon courtesy of The Rut, http://bigeyedeer. wordpress.com.au

CDI16,4

368

Values Survey found little to no value convergence between 20 different countries overa period of 26 years (Inglehart, 1997). Overall, the available empirical evidence seems toimply that both universalistic tendencies across-cultural contexts and culture-specifictendencies play a role in the enactment of careers (Chudzikowski et al., 2009). Theliterature on globalization argues that rather than juxtaposing different cultural beliefsregarding career and career success, researchers should aim to understand how thesebeliefs were shaped, and why they persist (Kats et al., 2010; Khapova and Korotov,2007). Large-scale cross-cultural studies (of which the World Values Survey is anideal-typical example) are needed in order to examine exactly how globalization hasaffected the meanings attributed to career success by people around the world:

RQ2b. How does globalization influence the definitions of career success of peoplearound the world?

The effects of religion and spiritualityRelated to the question of how cultural values influence peoples definitions of careersuccess is the question of how religion and spirituality do so. One interesting stream ofliterature that (indirectly) addresses the impact of religion and spirituality on themeanings attributed to career success is that on the protestant work ethic (PWE). Theearly literature on PWE (mainly that by Weber; see Hill and Smith, 2010) suggestedthat Calvinist Protestants are more likely than other religious groups (especiallyCatholics) to view work as a calling. The centrality of the ascetic lifestyle (characterizedby hard work and frugality) in the PWE and the need to glorify God throughout alldaily activities lie at the heart of this (biased) thesis. More recently, Davidson andCaddell (1994) published a piece stating that people with less developed religiousself-concepts, or who are religiously less active, are likely to have more secular views ofwork, thinking of it either as a career or a job, but rarely a calling. According toWrzesniewski et al. (1997), a job is associated with being interested principally in thematerial benefits from work, and with expressing interests and ambitions mainlyduring leisure activities; a career is associated with a deeper personal investment inwork aimed at advancement in one way or another; and a calling is associated withmorally and socially significant work that brings personal fulfillment to the individual.

Similar ideas are found in the literature on Buddhism and work, even though theteachings of Buddhism are generally very different to those of PWE. The essence oflife, according to Buddhists, lies in the purification of human character, a goal that ispartly achieved through work. Buddhism demarcates at least three functions of work(Schumacher, 2003): first of all, to give people a chance to utilize and develop theircapabilities; second, to overcome ego-centeredness by working towards a common goaltogether with others; and third, to generate the goods and services necessary for abecoming existence. An important guideline for Buddhists in choosing a career is theNoble Eightfold Path (Inoue, 1997). The path of right livelihood, in particular, specifiesthat people should avoid occupations that, directly or indirectly, result in harm forother living beings. As a consequence, it has far-stretching implications for the wayBuddhists choose and evaluate careers.

I have briefly discussed PWE and Buddhism here as textbook examples of howreligion might impact on the social construction of career success. Of course, many otherexamples exist (Hill and Smith, 2010) but going into each of them would take us too farhere. Either way, considering the growth in religious diversity in workplaces worldwide,

The meaningof career success

369

one recommendation is that cross-cultural research into the meanings of career successshould not only take into account national culture and/or ethnic background, but alsoelements of religion and spirituality:

RQ2c.How do elements of religion and spirituality, inherent to peoples (sub)culturalenvironment, influence the definitions of career success of people around theworld?

Career success across ideological contextsWhere culture more generally provides a set of attitudes, beliefs, and values aboutsocial reality that affects its members decision making (Schwartz, 2006), ideologyinvolves evaluative judgment (Lucas et al., 2006). It causes people to conform to acertain standard of what is right versus what is wrong; what is normal, or good;and what is possible and changeable. Ideology, which is typically disseminatedthrough discourse, can be seen as a structuring principle of society (Ogbor, 2000).

Ideology in societiesFor Western cultures, the dominant ideological framework impacting on careers iscapitalism. The most typical and well-known example of capitalist career discourseis probably the American Dream. The American Dream promotes career values such asmeritocracy (i.e. the belief that individual talent and competence must be rewarded),hierarchy (i.e. the belief that unlimited status is something to strive for) and materialism(i.e. the belief that success should be measured primarily by income) (Lucas et al., 2006).Another ideological framework shaping career, originating from a very different part ofthe world, is communism. Underlying Maoist discourse, for instance, were the values ofequality (i.e. the belief that all people are equal, regardless of their position in society),devotion (i.e. the belief that a certain sacrifice of personal needs is necessary to serve thegreater good) and nobility (i.e. the belief that working for the sake of individualfinancial gain or social promotion is shameful) (Lucas et al., 2006).

Although capitalism and communism are commonly depicted as extreme oppositesin terms of ideology, according to Lucas et al. (2006), they serve a remarkably similarideological purpose. That is, they both promote a conceptualization of career and careersuccess that benefits the dominant socio-political system at the potential detriment ofindividual career actors (Van Buren, 2003). The American Dream encourages people topursue the type of career success that is most likely to sustain the capitalist system andfoster nationwide economic growth. Failure is attributed to a person not being goodenough or not wanting it enough, so that it is never the fault of the system, andalways the responsibility of the individual. Communist discourse in the PeoplesRepublic of China during Maos era suspended the Chinese peoples critical thinking,restricted their career choices, and obscured the fact that their society, in fact,did consist of different interest groups who were not all equal in power, and that therewas still a divide between good jobs and bad jobs. Complaining was unheard of,however, as that would go against the value of nobility (Lucas et al., 2006).

In general, the career ideology a person is most exposed to depends on his or herposition in society. People from upper- and middle-class environments are encouraged tobelieve they are working for a common good, that their work has meaning, and that theirrole in life is to help other people; they are rewarded socially, economically, and politicallyfor enacting these beliefs. Lower-status employees, however, are not encouraged to

CDI16,4

370

think of their work in such noble terms and are not rewarded as highly. They are trainedto see work as just a job and look for self-actualization resources in other life domains(Davidson and Caddell, 1994). Furthermore, career ideologies tend to convey a messagethat people want to hear and believe (e.g. you can achieve anything you want if you trulymake an effort), highlighting exceptions rather than cases more representative of reality(Lucas et al., 2006). They are often also slightly ambiguous, so that multipleinterpretations of the same message are possible. If the definition of what success meansis kept vague, then there are no limits to the contribution or sacrifice individuals feelcompelled to make (Van Buren, 2003). Our sixth suggestion for a research question thatneeds to be addressed in future research is the following:

RQ3a. How does societal ideology influence the definitions of career success held bythe people in those societies?

Cross-cultural (historical) research, aimed at regimes and ideologies rather thancountries, might help us formulate answers to this particular research question.

Ideology in organizationsJust as societal career discourse structures peoples daily lives, so do the careerstructures and career development practices present in their employing organizations.By establishing an internal labor market with more or less standardized career tracks,organizations implicitly define success and failure within their structures(Buzzanell and Goldzwig, 1991). Organizational career ideology commonly departsfrom spatiotemporal evaluations of success, i.e. up is good, action is positive, andquick movement should be the goal (Altman, 1997). Corporate career discourse is lessharmless as it may seem. First of all, through socialization processes and developmentprograms, organizations cultivate desired norms and values in their members, tyingthem to so-called appropriate identities (Ogbor, 2000; Pfeffer, 2010). In early career,peoples definitions of career and career success are confronted with those of theirorganizations, often causing a reassessment of their personal belief systems and goals(Duxbury et al., 1999). Second, corporate career discourse contributes to the devaluationand obstruction of alternative models of career notable examples being the mommytrack, the expert track, and the stationary track (Buzzanell and Goldzwig, 1991).

Within the corporate context, atypical career types like the above are considered lesssuccessful at best, unsuccessful at worst (Evetts, 1992). Worse still, once bookmarked asa loser, there seems to be little to no chance of getting back on track. It rarely happensthat late bloomers or people that have taken time off work catch up to colleagues with arecord of continuous service (Buzzanell and Goldzwig, 1991). Although people tend tobelieve that organizational assessments of advancement potential are grounded in moreor less objective performance data, the rules of the career game are in fact a preciouscommodity, unevenly distributed among different groups in the organization (Buzzanelland Goldzwig, 1991). The groups with the most power will likely integrate their personalinterests into the very structure of the organization, thereby influencing the publicopinion of what a successful career should look like, and marginalizing all those who donot fit the mold (Pfeffer, 2010). It is clear that the reification of careers implies much morethan ideological discourse in fact, it lies at the heart of glass ceiling effects and otherdiscriminatory processes taking place in organizations worldwide (Ogbor, 2000).Multilevel studies, examining the relationships between organizational and individual

The meaningof career success

371

conceptions of career success, are best suited for empirically testing the followingimportant research question:

RQ3b. How does organizational ideology influence the definitions of career successheld by the people in those organizations?

While cross-sectional multilevel studies could focus on the differences betweenorganizations with different cultures, longitudinal multilevel studies could examine therelationships between organizational- and individual-level career variables before andafter important socialization periods.

Ideology in researchSeveral career scholars have posited that, since the assumptions of career are becomingincreasingly ambiguous, individuals personal sense-making processes should move tothe forefront (Young and Collin, 2004). Indeed, a shift can be observed in the recentcareers literature away from reductionist methods and toward qualitative in-depthresearch (Gibson, 2004). In recent years, a growing number of careers researchers areturning their attention to constructivism and social constructionism (Arnoldand Cohen, 2008). Constructivism focuses on individual meaning making and theconstruction of social and psychological worlds though cognitive processes; socialconstructionism studies how these social and psychological worlds are made real(i.e. reified) through social processes and interaction (Young and Collin, 2004).

There seems to be somewhat of a divide, however, between the theoretical careersliterature and the operationalization and measurement of career and career success inresearch papers. The majority of empirical studies on career success still use salary,promotion and functional-level data as proxies of career success, without muchreflection about construct validity (Dries et al., 2008).

One especially popular concept in contemporary career discourse is the boundarylesscareer. Rather than representing one specific type of career, the boundaryless careerencompasses all possible career forms that defy the traditional assumptions of career,i.e. continuous service with one employer, a focus on upward mobility, and a strongseparation between work and personal life (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996). The commonfactor among the different meanings of the boundaryless career is that they all implyweakened ties between employees and their organizations (Arnold and Cohen, 2008).However, mainstream the notion of the boundaryless career may have become in thecareers literature, signs are that this new theoretical approach to career is also notcompletely attuned to the actual experiences career actors are (still) having (Briscoe andFinkelstein, 2009).

First, although the literature implies that boundaryless career types are becomingmore and more prevalent in the field, serious questions have been raised about thetransferability of the concept beyond the USA, the cultural importance people attach tojob security and the influence of employee unions in the national labor market being atthe heart of the discussion (Sullivan, 1999). Second, although the careers literature tendsto promote the benefits of boundaryless careers, its discourse has also been said to servethe needs of the current-day ruthless economy in that it enables organizations to be ridmore elegantly of as many permanent workers (and their associated costs) as needed(Van Buren, 2003). For organizations as well, there may be downsides to theboundaryless career. Fournier (1998), for example, states that it encourages

CDI16,4

372

a consumerist career mentality, reducing organizations to tools merely there to helpequip employees with the resources they need to develop their personal projects. Third,it has been said that the boundaryless career concept is only advantageous for thoseemployees who were formerly also privileged in traditional career settings (i.e. highlymotivated, highly skilled white-collar employees) (Buzzanell and Goldzwig, 1991;Van Buren, 2003). It appears that while the original goal of boundaryless careerdiscourse was to free career actors from the dogmas of the traditional-organizationalcareer, it has created new ideological dogmas instead. In general, the literature on theboundaryless career tends to neglect the needs and contributions of unskilled people;also, it focuses primarily on agency determinants of career. It would be highlyinformative to examine to which extent normative beliefs about career success resonatethroughout the academic literature. Critical literature reviews, meta-analyses, andsurvey studies aimed specifically at the population of careers researchers might provideanswers to the following research question:

RQ3c. How does researcher ideology influence the definitions of career successpropagated in the academic literature?

Implications for researchHaving outlined the major historical, cultural and contextual forces contributing to thereification of career success, this paper will now move on to identify some promisingavenues for avoiding career reification in research and practice in the future.

Challenge the increasing range of construct operationalizations and measuresIn recent years, career success has often been accused of being a poorly definedconstruct (Heslin, 2005). In the careers literature, the current consensus seems to be thatcareer refers to everything a person has done over the course of his or her working life(Gunz and Mayrhofer, 2010). Although such a broad definition of career allows formultiple interpretations of career success which is generally considered a positiveevolution it also lies at the heart of a certain vagueness in the careers literature,evoking questions in some about the legitimacy of career studies as a stand-alonediscipline (Gunz and Mayrhofer, 2010).

In the careers literature, we can identify three main dichotomies characterizing thedifferent criteria that can be used to operationalize and measure career success(Table II): objective versus subjective, self-referent versus other-referent, and factualversus self-report. Objective career success criteria refer to criteria that are tangible,observable, and quantifiable, such as pay, promotions and functional level (Nicholson,2000); subjective measures are concerned with a persons idiosyncratic perceptions ofhis or her career and the resulting feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction(Greenhaus et al., 1990). Self-referent criteria reflect an individuals personal standards

Objective Subjective

Self-referent Factual Self-report Self-reportOther-referent Factual Self-report Self-report

Note: As it is highly unlikely that factual data can be collected about subjective criteria foroperationalizing and measuring career success, this combination was left blank

Table II.Typology of the differentcriteria that can be used

to operationalize andmeasure career success

The meaningof career success

373

and aspirations; other-referent criteria involve comparisons with others, e.g. with theindustry average, with peers or with colleagues in comparable positions (Heslin, 2005).Finally, the factual versus self-report dichotomy is determined by the type of data thatare collected. Factual data are generally collected from archives or personnel records;self-report data are proxies for factual data collected from the focal person him orherself (Dries et al., 2009). As Table II illustrates, based on these three dichotomies,at least six different ways of operationalizing and measuring career success areconceivable. It is important that careers researchers thoroughly reflect on the type ofoperationalizations or measures to use in their research endeavors, as meta-analyseshave demonstrated large differences in effect sizes when using different measures ofcareer success (Arthur et al., 2005; Judge et al., 1995). Clearly, in order to advanceresearch into subjective career success, much more work needs to be done in terms ofthe operationalization and measurement of the construct.

Adopt a dual viewpoint of careerOne clear recommendation from the recent careers literature is that careers scholarsshould adopt a dual viewpoint of career through the incorporation of both objectiveand subjective conceptualizations and measures of success in their research (Hall andChandler, 2005). By comparing both types of data across multiple samples, careersresearchers (and practitioners alike) may come to a better understanding of the careerexperiences people have on a daily basis, and of the tensions experienced betweenobjective career achievements and subjective career perceptions. Past studiesincorporating both objective and subjective measures of career success have foundthat they are only moderately related constructs (Ballout, 2009; Stumpf, 2010) andconsequently, that traditional positivistic research focused mainly on objective aspectsof career may not (or no longer) be appropriate to grasp the complex and dynamicrealities of postmodern-day careers (Savickas, 2000).

Some careers researchers have even come to the conclusion that the complexitiesthat occur within and between career actors traits and environments are simply toocomplicated to capture in theoretical models and that therefore, we should stop tryingto do so, and look at careers at the subjective level alone (Brown, 2002).A disproportionate amount of research in the career field (around 75 percent) hasbeen dedicated to the objective career, in particular to sex differences and their causes(Arthur and Rousseau, 1996), while the subjective career has been gravelyunderresearched (Heslin, 2005). There have been a few studies, however, that havespecifically explored and measured the subjective meanings individuals from diversebackground attribute to the term career success. An overview of the most cited studiesis provided in Table III. Inspecting the subjective career success themes that emergedfrom the different studies, we see that there is considerable overlap between them across time, culture, and research populations. However, more studies are needed inorder to fully capture the diversity of perspectives that exist in the workforce today(Dries et al., 2008).

Helpful theoretical frameworks for researchers looking to engage in researchprojects on the subjective career are found in the literature on the protean career(Briscoe and Hall, 2006; Sargent and Domberger, 2007), professional identity (Ibarra,1999), authenticity (e.g. the Kaleidoscope Career Model; Sullivan et al., 2009), andcalling (Dik and Duffy, 2009).

CDI16,4

374

Meaning of career successReference Data type Research population n Factors/themes

1. Gattiker andLarwood (1986)

Quantitative Successful managers andsuccessful support personnel

221 1. Job success2. Interpersonal success3. Financial success4. Hierarchical success5. Life success

2. Greenhaus et al.(1990)

Quantitative Black and white managers 1,628 1. Career satisfaction

3. Chusmir andParker (1992)

Quantitative Employees in general 756 1. Status/wealth2. Social contribution3. Family relationships4. Personal fulfillment5. Professional fulfillment6. Security

4. Sturges (1999) Qualitative Male and female managers 36 1. Accomplishment2. Achievement3. Enjoyment4. Integrity5. Balance6. Personal recognition7. Influence8. Position9. Reward

5. Nabi (2001) Quantitative Administrative personnel 439 1. Intrinsic job success2. Extrinisic job success

6. Dyke andMurphy (2006)

Qualitative Successful male and femalemanagers

40 1. Balance2. Relationships3. Recognition4. Material success5. Contribution6. Freedom

7. Lee et al. (2006) Qualitative Part-time professionals 87 1. Peer respect2. Upward mobility3. Appreciation/

recognition4. Having a life outside

work5. Learning, growing and

being challenged6. Fun and enjoyment/

doing interesting work7. Performing well8. Having an impact/

making a contribution

8. Hennequin (2007) Qualitative Blue-collar workers 25 1. Monetary rewards2. Fringe benefits3. Hierarchical position4. Number of promotions5. Career satisfaction6. Job success

(continued )

Table III.Overview of studies

addressing the subjectivemeaning of career success

The meaningof career success

375

Focus on processes, rather than outcomesThe literature generally assumes that objective achievements lead to subjectivefeelings of success and that the subjective meanings attributed to career success set thestage for objective goal-setting. However, in both cases, a reverse causalityargumentation is also possible (Dries et al., 2008). As for the former case, it is notquite clear to what extent subjective feelings of success, through the resultantheightening of motivation, affect objective career success (initiating a so-calledpsychological success cycle; Hall and Chandler, 2005). Furthermore, Nicholson andde Waal-Andrews (2005) have argued that when subjective outcomes do not correlatewith objective success or failure, individuals will conduct ex-post rationalizations thathelp them maintain mood and equilibrium. Similar ideas are found in the literature oncognitive dissonance reduction (Festinger, 1957).

As for the latter case, an alternative theory is that peoples definitions of careersuccess are shaped continuously throughout their lives, changing whenever changes intheir personal lives affect their priorities (Dany, 2003). Becoming a parent, for instance,has been repeatedly demonstrated to result in a decrease of the centrality of the workrole, if only for a limited period of time (Sturges, 1999). Another example would be therelatively unambitious student who discovers a hidden talent, causing him or her to feelexcited about work for the first time in life. In both examples, an objective(i.e. tangible, observable) career situation or event occurs, causing the subjectivedefinition of career success to change, or at least evolve rather than the other wayaround. In order to get a clearer picture of the causal effects playing a role in theconstruction of career success, much more research is needed on the processes by whichpeople construct the meanings of career (Dries et al., 2008).

Focus on structure as well as agencyAs mentioned earlier, the careers literature is widely criticized for overemphasizingpersonal agency determinants of career (i.e. freedom of choice), at the detriment ofstructural variables (i.e. constraining or enabling social structures) (Brown, 2002;Lucas et al., 2006). The current paper clearly demonstrates that researchers need to bemore mindful of the contextual forces shaping careers.

Meaning of career successReference Data type Research population n Factors/themes

7. Interpersonal success8. Life balance9. Social status10. Recognition11. Reputation

9. Dries et al. (2008) Qualitative Managers 22 1. Performance2. Advancement3. Self-development4. Creativity5. Security6. Satisfaction7. Recognition8. Cooperation9. ContributionTable III.

CDI16,4

376

Historical, cultural, and ideological contexts impact significantly on peoplessubjective definitions of career success, which in turn affects their career behaviors anddecisions. All three contextual factors might generate barriers and opportunities tothe construction of meaning in careers (Blustein et al., 2004). A historical barrier might bethe emergence of a global financial crisis, for instance limiting the opportunities peoplehave to express their personal values through career and make conscious choices(Valcour, 2010) while an example of a historical opportunity is the rise of postmodernistthought, advocating that no single truth exists, and that people should ground theirdecisions in their own personal worldview (Savickas, 2000). Culture has a large influenceon the distribution of career opportunities across different groups: some cultures, forinstance, do not allow women to work outside of the home; some cultures are characterizedby caste systems; others by egalitarianism. It is well documented that different culturespromote different meanings of career (Hofstede, 2001). Ideologies like the AmericanDream might create opportunities in that they encourage and inspire people to follow theirdreams. They can also pose barriers, however, as they hinder the development of, anddevaluate the enactment of, alternative career trajectories (Lucas et al., 2006).

The enormous complexities hindering accurate long-term predictions of importantcareer outcomes are increasingly being acknowledged in the literature. As a response,several researchers have endeavored to apply much more complex prediction paradigmsto careers the most notable examples being the systems theory framework of careerdevelopment (Patton and McMahon, 1999), the Chaos theory of careers (Pryor andBright, 2007), planned happenstance theory (Mitchell et al., 1999), and the contextualaction theory of career (Young and Valach, 2000).

Practice more self-reflection as researchersA fifth and final suggestion for researchers, and one that is related to the previouspoint, is that researchers in the fields of career ought to practice more self-reflectionand more explicitly declare their interests and agendas. All too often, researcherspersonal visions, and the interests they aim to promote, are hidden, mystified orburied in analysis which pretends to be neutral (Ogbor, 2000, p. 628).

It is highly likely that most, if not all, careers researchers project their personaldefinitions of career success onto their academic work, at least to some extent.An interesting paper by Baruch and Hall (2004) describes how the academic career isan ideal-typical example of a boundaryless career: it is enacted in a field made upentirely out of knowledge workers; it thrives on cross-boundary collaborations; it ischaracterized by quasi-effortless international mobility; and the majority of thoseworking in academia are on fixed-term contracts. Careers researchers personalexperiences with boundaryless career forms might cause them to overestimate theprevalence of the phenomenon in the general population.

Earlier in this paper, we already addressed the impact national culture may have onpeoples definitions of career success. The scores presented in Table I (adapted fromHofstede, 2001) reveal some large differences between several of the US and UK scoresand the world and European average, especially for the values uncertainty avoidanceand individualism which may, in part, explain the ongoing discussion betweenUS and European researchers about the prevalence and appeal of boundaryless careers.US and UK researchers, in general, are more enthusiastic about the boundaryless

The meaningof career success

377

and protean career concepts than European researchers (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996;Guest and Mackenzie Davey, 1996; Van Buren, 2003).

The recommendation here is not that all careers researchers should declare theiragendas explicitly in all of their papers. We should, however, self-reflect on our personalmotives when interpreting our findings and never lose sight of alternative truths(Ogbor, 2000). Also, we must ask ourselves what our role as researchers is, or can be,in dealing with the issue of career reification. Are we describing what careers actuallylook like? Or are we prescribing what they should look like, and how individual careeractors, career counselors, and organizations should act in order to achieve desired goals?Neither one of these approaches is better or more valid than the other; however, we mustbe aware of the fact that they result in very different types of research.

Implications for practiceIs career reification a mere philosophical issue?Although the phenomenological meaning of career and career success may be regardedas a mere philosophical issue by some, the constant and ongoing reification of bothconstructs has important implications for individuals, organizations, and societies(Lucas et al., 2006). What the current paper offers might not be especially new orshocking. The main point of this paper, however, is that although we may know thathistory, culture, and ideology shape personal and social perceptions of career success,employees, employers and researchers do not necessarily take this knowledge intoaccount when managing or describing careers.

One manifest outcome of career reification is the establishment of collective normsprescribing what a normal, successful career should look like. The normal career,apparently, is one involving continuous service and steady, regular promotions tohigher levels in a corporate hierarchy. Considering the fact that less than 1 percent ofemployees worldwide actually reach the highest levels of their organizations (Buzzanelland Goldzwig, 1991), and that many people are forced, at some point in their careers, totake a step back in their careers because of (unexpected) personal events (i.e. parenthood,dismissal, burn-out) (Bright et al., 2009), it would follow that most people haveunsuccessful careers. Furthermore, as the relative impact of certain (gendered, racial,social class) barriers on peoples career achievements is commonly underestimated,it also follows that people tend to be held personally responsible when they fail in theircareers (Brown, 2002; Lucas et al., 2006).

It is clear that the devaluation and inadequate rewarding of all careers diverging fromthe norm weakens the general satisfaction, motivation, and well-being of the people inthese careers, which might eventually lead to negative organizational and economicoutcomes (Van Buren, 2003) (Figure 2). Current demographic and psychological contracttrends are adding to these dynamics, as talent, in the traditional sense, is becomingincreasingly scarce. In the near future organizations will need to foster the talentthat is available within the labor market, rather than select for fit with their specificcareer ideology (Van Buren, 2003).

Implications for the different parties involvedAs organizations are increasingly expecting (highly skilled) employees to take theircareers into their own hands (Verbruggen et al., 2007), it is in any employees bestinterest to purposively establish a dynamic framework of what success means to him

CDI16,4

378

or her personally (Dries et al., 2008). Awareness of the different possible meanings ofsuccess might help individual career actors in their careers, if only by instilling in themthe relative value of the term. The literature on the protean career, for instance,advocates that people in values-driven and self-directed careers are more likely toachieve their personal career goals (Sargent and Domberger, 2007). Some caution mustbe exercised, however, as not all responsibility for career management should beplaced in the hands of individual career actors. Career self-management can never trulyreplace organizational career management rather, both forms of career managementreinforce each other. Furthermore, research by Verbruggen et al. (2007) has revealedthat the more satisfied employees are with their career, the fewer initiatives they taketo enhance their external employability and the less interest they show in externalcareer counseling. Individual career actors need to be realistic, however, aboutthe career promises organizations today are willing and able to make considering thecurrent economic climate (Granrose and Baccili, 2006). As organizations can no longerguarantee lifelong careers, developing and maintaining personal employability is anindispensable asset in the labor market (Van Buren, 2003).

Career counselors should assume their responsibility, as well, and encourageemployees to incorporate idiosyncratic meaning-making into their career decisions andtransitions (McMahon, 2006; Schultze and Miller, 2004). Career counseling hastraditionally focused on problem solving, in the sense that its goal was to matchknowledge about the self with knowledge about the world of work. However, suchoversimplified models of career do not capture, or even approximate, how careerchoices are actually made (Mitchell et al., 1999). Career counselors today need to beco-participants or co-constructors of their clients life stories and encourage them to telltheir untold stories stories from the non-work domain that are indicative of vocation(in other words, they should not take but I dont have a career for an answer). Theseuntold stories might then generate valuable entry points into the clients idiosyncraticdefinition of career success (Blustein et al., 2004; McMahon, 2006).

Employers, from their side, need to implement career management programsthat assist employees in developing a broader definition of success. On a yearly basis,less than 1 percent of an organizations employees actually reach the highest levels.This means that failure, in terms of not reaching the highest levels of the organization,is quasi-unavoidable (Buzzanell and Goldzwig, 1991). By encouraging employees to seethe meaning of career success as much broader than linear progression and rather,

Figure 2.The social construction of

career success hastangible implications for

individuals, organizationsand societies

Societies

Economic outcomes Collective norms

Organizations

Appreciation Satisfaction,motivation,wellbeing

Individuals

The meaningof career success

379

as the satisfaction of multiple life roles feelings of authenticity will be enhanced.In doing so, employees will feel supported in bringing their whole self to work, whichwill ultimately feed back into the organizations by enhancing employees satisfaction,motivation and well-being (Sullivan and Mainiero, 2008). It will also support diversityat work, which will be necessary in light of the ongoing war for talent fuelled by currentdemographic and psychological contract trends (Van Buren, 2003).

At the societal level, Blustein et al. (2004) as well as Buzzanell and Goldzwig (1991)have suggested that oppressive power structures affecting the enactment of careerscan be countered, albeit very gradually, by establishing alternative career discoursesbetween people in everyday life and in the various media (e.g. by propagating differenttypes of hero stories). It appears that there is a significant need and opportunityfor career scholars to lead the way.

References

Altman, Y. (1997), The high-potential fast-flying achiever: themes from the English literature1976-1995, Career Development International, Vol. 2 No. 7, pp. 324-30.

Arnold, J. and Cohen, L. (2008), The psychology of careers in industrial-organizationalsettings: a critical but appreciative analysis, in Hodgkinson, G.P. and Ford, J.K. (Eds),International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 23, Wiley,Chichester, pp. 1-44.

Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. (1996), The Boundaryless Career: A New Employment Principlefor a New Organizational Era, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Arthur, M.B., Khapova, S.N. and Wilderom, C.P.M. (2005), Career success in a boundarylesscareer world, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 177-202.

Ballout, H.I. (2009), Career commitment and career success: moderating role of self-efficacy,Career Development International, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 655-70.

Baruch, Y. and Hall, D.T. (2004), The academic career: a model for future careers in othersectors, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 241-62.

Blustein, D.L., Palladino-Schultheiss, D.E. and Flum, H. (2004), Toward a relational perspectiveof the psychology of careers and working: a social constructionist analysis, Journal ofVocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 423-40.

Bright, J.E.H., Pryor, R.G.L., Chan, E.W.M. and Rijanto, J. (2009), Chance events in careerdevelopment: influence, control and multiplicity, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 75No. 1, pp. 14-25.

Briscoe, J.P. and Finkelstein, L.M. (2009), The new career and organizational commitment: doboundaryless and protean attitudes make a difference?, Career DevelopmentInternational, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 242-60.

Briscoe, J.P. and Hall, D.T. (2006), The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers:combinations and implications, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 4-18.

Brown, D. (2002), Career Choice and Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Burns, E. (2009), How time-flow shapes three meanings of midcareer, Australian Journal ofCareer Development, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 24-32.

Buzzanell, P.M. and Goldzwig, S.R. (1991), Linear and nonlinear career models: metaphors,paradigms, and ideologies, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 4,pp. 466-505.

CDI16,4

380

Chudzikowski, K., Demel, B., Mayrhofer, W., Briscoe, J.P., Unite, J., Milikic, B.B., Hall, D.T.,Shen, Y. and Zikic, J. (2009), Career transitions and their causes: a country-comparativeperspective, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 4,pp. 825-49.

Chusmir, L.H. and Parker, B. (1992), Success strivings and their relationship to affective workbehaviors: gender differences, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 132 No. 1, pp. 87-99.

Dany, F. (2003), Free actors and organizations: critical remarks about the new career literature,based on French insights, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14No. 5, pp. 821-38.

Davidson, J.C. and Caddell, D.P. (1994), Religion and the meaning of work, Journal of theScientific Study of Religion, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 135-47.

Dik, B.J. and Duffy, R.D. (2009), Calling and vocation at work: definitions and prospects forresearch and practice, The Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 424-50.

Dries, N., Pepermans, R. and Carlier, O. (2008), Career success: constructing a multidimensionalmodel, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 254-67.

Dries, N., Pepermans, R., Hofmans, J. and Rypens, L. (2009), Development and validation of anobjective intra-organizational career success measure for managers, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 543-60.

Duxbury, L., Dyke, L. and Lam, N. (1999), Career Development in the Federal Public Service:Building a World-class Workforce, Treasury Board of Canada, Ottawa.

Dyke, L.S. and Murphy, S.A. (2006), How we define success: a qualitative study of what mattersmost to women and men, Sex Roles, Vol. 55 Nos 5/6, pp. 357-71.

Evetts, J. (1992), Dimensions of career: avoiding reification in the analysis of change, Sociology,Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-21.

Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Fournier, V. (1998), Stories of development and exploitation: militant voices in an enterpriseorganization, Organization, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 55-80.

Furnham, A. (2010), Ethics at work: money, spirituality and happiness, in Giacalone, R.A. andJurkiewicz, C.L. (Eds), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and OrganizationalPerformance, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 197-215.

Gattiker, U.E. and Larwood, L. (1986), Subjective career success: a study of managers andsupport personnel, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 78-94.

Gibson, P. (2004), Where to from here? A narrative approach to career counseling,Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 176-89.

Granrose, C.S. and Baccili, P.A. (2006), Do psychological contracts include boundaryless orprotean careers?, Career Development International, Vol. 11, pp. 163-82.

Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S. and Wormley, W.M. (1990), Effects of race on organizationalexperiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 64-86.

Guest, D. and Mackenzie Davey, K. (1996), Dont write off the traditional career,People Management, February, pp. 22-5.

Guest, D. and Sturges, J. (2007), Living to work working to live: conceptualizations of careersamong contemporary workers, in Gunz, H. and Peiperl, M. (Eds), Handbook of CareerStudies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 310-26.

The meaningof career success

381

Gunz, H. and Mayrhofer, W. (2010), Social chronology theorizing as an organizing frameworkfor career studies, paper presented at the 3rd International Conference New Work,New Employment, New Careers, Bordeaux, France, May 21.

Hall, D.T. and Chandler, D.E. (2005), Psychological success: when the career is a calling,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 155-76.

Hennequin, E. (2007), What career success means to blue-collar workers, Career DevelopmentInternational, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 565-81.

Heslin, P.A. (2005), Conceptualizing and evaluating career success, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 113-36.

Hill, P.C. and Smith, G.S. (2010), Coming to terms with spirituality and religion in theworkplace, in Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L. (Eds), Handbook of WorkplaceSpirituality and Organizational Performance, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 171-84.

Hofstede, G. (2001), Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions,and Organizations Across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Ibarra, H. (1999), Provisional selves: experimenting with image and identity in professionaladaptation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 764-91.

Inglehart, R.F. (1997), Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and PoliticalChange in 43 Societies, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Inglehart, R.F. (2008), Changing values among Western publics from 1970 to 2006,West European Politics, Vol. 31 Nos 1/2, pp. 130-46.

Inoue, S. (1997), Putting Buddhism to Work: A New Approach to Management and Business,Kodansha International Ltd, Tokyo.

Judge, T.A., Cable, D.M., Boudreau, J.W. and Bretz, R.D. (1995), An empirical investigation of thepredictors of executive career success, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 485-519.

Kats, M.M.S., Van Emmerik, H.I.J., Blenkinsopp, J. and Khapova, S.N. (2010), Exploring theassociations of culture with careers and the mediating role of HR practices, CareerDevelopment International, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 401-18.

Khapova, S.N. and Korotov, K. (2007), Dynamics of Western career attributes in the Russiancontext, Career Development International, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 68-85.

Lee, M.D., Lirio, P., Karakas, F., MacDermid, S.M., Buck, M.L. and Kossek, E.E. (2006),Exploring career and personal outcomes and the meaning of career success amongpart-time professionals in organizations, in Burke, R.J. (Ed.), Research Companion toWorking Time and Work Addiction, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 284-309.

Lucas, K., Liu, M. and Buzzanell, P.M. (2006), No limits careers: a critical examination of careerdiscourse in the US and China, in Orbe, M., Allen, B.J. and Flores, L.A. (Eds), Internationaland Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 28, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 217-42.

McMahon, M. (2006), Working with storytellers: a metaphor for career counseling, inMcMahon, M. and Patton, W. (Eds), Career Counselling: Constructivist Approaches,Routledge, London, pp. 16-29.

Mirvis, H.P. and Hall, D.T. (1994), Psychological success and the boundaryless career,in Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds), The Boundaryless Career, Oxford UniversityPress, New York, NY, pp. 237-55.

Mitchell, K.E., Levin, A.S. and Krumboltz, J.D. (1999), Planned happenstance: constructingunexpected career opportunities, Journal of Counseling & Development, Vol. 77 No. 2,pp. 115-24.

Nabi, G.R. (2001), The relationship between HRM, social support and subjective career successamong men and women, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 457-74.

CDI16,4

382

Nicholson, N. (2000), Motivation-selection-connection: an evolutionary model of careerdevelopment, in Peiperl, M., Arthur, M.B., Goffee, R. and Morris, T. (Eds), CareerFrontiers: New Conceptions of Working Lives, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 54-75.

Nicholson, N. and de Waal-Andrews, W. (2005), Playing to win: biological imperatives,self-regulation, and trade-offs in the game of career success, Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 137-54.

Niles, E.S. (1999), Towards a cross-cultural understanding of work-related beliefs,Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 855-67.

Ogbor, J.O. (2000), Mythicizing and reification in entrepreneurial discourse: ideology-critique ofentrepreneurial studies, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 606-35.

Patton, W. and McMahon, M. (1999), Career Development and Systems Theory:A New Relationship, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.

Pettersson, T. (2003), The relations between religion and politics in the contemporary Westernworld: the impact of secularization, postmodernization and peoples basic valueorientations, available at: www.worldvaluessurvey.org

Pfeffer, J. (2010), Management practices that sustain values, in Giacalone, R.A. andJurkiewicz, C.L. (Eds), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and OrganizationalPerformance, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 27-43.

Pryor, R.G.L. and Bright, J.E.H. (2007), Applying chaos theory to careers: attraction andattractors, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 375-400.

Sargent, L.D. and Domberger, S.R. (2007), Exploring the development of a protean careerorientation: values and image violations, Career Development International, Vol. 12 No. 6,pp. 545-64.

Savickas, M.L. (2000), Renovating the psychology of careers for the twenty-first century,in Collin, A. and Young, R. (Eds), The Future of Career, Cambridge University Press,New York, NY, pp. 53-68.

Schultze, G. and Miller, C. (2004), The search for meaning and career development,Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 142-52.

Schumacher, E.F. (2003), Buddhist economics, Parabola, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 63-9.

Schwartz, S.H. (2006), A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications,Comparative Sociology, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 137-82.

Stead, G.B. (2004), Culture and career psychology: a social constructionist perspective, Journalof Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 389-406.

Stumpf, S.A. (2010), Stakeholder competency assessments as predictors of career success,Career Development International, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 459-78.

Sturges, J. (1999), What it means to succeed: personal conceptions of career success held by maleand female managers at different ages, British Journal of Management, Vol. 10 No. 3,pp. 239-52.

Sullivan, S.E. (1999), The changing nature of careers: a review and research agenda,Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 457-84.

Sullivan, S.E. and Mainiero, L. (2008), Using the kaleidoscope career model to understand thechanging patterns of womens careers: designing HRD programs that attract and retainwomen, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 32-49.

Sullivan, S.E., Forret, M.L., Carraher, S.M. and Mainiero, L.A. (2009), Using the kaleidoscopecareer model to examine generational differences in work attitudes, Career DevelopmentInternational, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 284-302.

The meaningof career success

383

Valcour, M. (2010), Career success in times of economic crisis, paper presented at the3rd International Conference New Work, New Employment, New Careers, Bordeaux,France, May 21.

Van Buren, H.J. (2003), Boundaryless careers and employability obligations, Business EthicsQuarterly, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 131-49.

Verbruggen, M., Sels, L. and Forrier, A. (2007), Unraveling the relationship betweenorganizational career management and the need for career counseling, Journal ofVocational Behavior, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 69-83.

Wilensky, H.L. (1961), Careers, lifestyles, and social integration, International Social ScienceJournal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 553-8.

Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P. and Schwartz, C. (1997), Jobs, careers and callings:peoples relations to their work, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 21-33.

Young, R.A. and Collin, A. (2004), Introduction: constructivism and social constructionism in thecareer field, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 373-88.

Young, R.A. and Valach, L. (2000), Reconceptualizing career psychology: an action theoreticalperspective, in Collin, A. and Young, R.A. (Eds), The Future of Career, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, pp. 181-96.

About the authorNicky Dries is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Research Centre for Organisation Studies ofthe Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium). She conducted her doctoral research at theVrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium), during which time she was also a Visiting Scholar at theVrije Universiteit Amsterdam (The Netherlands). Currently, Nicky is developing and expandinga model of subjective career success that will take into account important personal andsocial-contextual variables impacting on individuals personal definitions of success. She is alsoworking on a theoretical framework for the popular, but ill-defined concept of talentmanagement. Nicky Dries can be contacted at: nicky.dries@econ.kuleuven.be

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.comOr visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

CDI16,4

384