Career self-management: A framework for guidance of employed adults

This article was downloaded by: [Nipissing University] On: 08 October 2014, At: 03:07 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK British Journal of Guidance & Counselling Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbjg20 Career self-management: A framework for guidance of employed adults Zella King a a The Management Centre , King's College , London, 150 Stamford Street, London, SE1 9NN, UK Published online: 17 Jun 2010. To cite this article: Zella King (2001) Career self-management: A framework for guidance of employed adults, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 29:1, 65-78, DOI: 10.1080/03069880020019365 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069880020019365 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbjg20 http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03069880020019365 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03069880020019365 forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions D ow nl oa de d by [ N ip is si ng U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 3: 07 0 8 O ct ob er 2 01 4 http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions ISSN 0306–9885/print/ISSN 1469–3534/online/01/010065–14 ’ 2001 Careers Research and Advisory Centre DOI: 10.1080/03069880020019365 British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol. 29, No. 1, 2001 Career self-management: a framework for guidance of employed adults ZELLA KING The Management Centre, King’s College, London, 150 Stamford Street, London SE1 9NN, UK ABSTRACT It has been suggested that the aims of career counselling should be extended to include helping adults learn how to ‘self-manage’ their careers throughout the course of their working lives. This paper proposes a prescriptive framework upon which such guidance about career self-management could be based, which takes into account important aspects of the client’s immediate social context, and the political nature of decisions about careers. It is argued that career self-management should be a recursive and dynamic process, consisting of charting the political landscape of the organisation, identifying key decision-makers with influence over career outcomes, selecting strategies with which to influence those decision-makers, and evaluating outcomes. By helping clients focus on the various elements within this process, career counsellors can help people negotiate the political and economic realities of the contexts in which they work. Introduction In recent research and analysis it has been suggested that careers will consist of a greater number of transitions as a result of the changing nature of work organisations (Jackson et al., 1996). One implication of this change is that careers guidance will be needed at a greater number of points during the course of an adult career as people encounter more frequent employer and job changes (Kidd & Killeen, 1992; Watts, 1996). It is also suggested that, since employers will increasingly withdraw structured career management programmes, people need to be more reliant on their own career self-management (Wijers & Meijers, 1996). At the same time, since conventional career paths and fixed occupational structures are supposedly in decline, people may be less aware of how to go about achieving their career goals (Halford & Savage, 1995; Wijers & Meijers, 1996). Thus it is argued that counselling practices should shift toward a greater focus on helping people deal with the current economic and political instabilities which affect their work (Chen, 1998; Krumboltz, 1998; McAuley, 1998). D ow nl oa de d by [ N ip is si ng U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 3: 07 0 8 O ct ob er 2 01 4 66 Zella King The models which have traditionally informed careers guidance are now suggested to be inadequate in this less static economic environment (Arnold 1997a; Collin, 1997; Kidd, 1998; Nicholson, 1996). Watts (1996) argued that career counselling needs a broader and more dynamic theoretical base if it is to help people respond to the changing social, political and economic context of their work. However, little advice is available to help counsellors give guidance about career self- management to the majority of adults who are employed. Much of the available advice resides in the popular, rather than professional, domain, and even that originating from academics tends to lack theoretical underpinning or substantive empirical support (Cohen & Mallon, 1999). Much of the academic work (e.g. Gould & Penley, 1984; Judge & Bretz, 1994; Murrell et al., 1996) conceptualises success in terms of rapid promotion, salary progression and status increases, and focuses on a narrow range of behaviour intended to secure those outcomes (King, 2000). However, although it is recognised that not everyone aspires to such objective measures of success (Sturges, 1999), it is not clear how those who prioritise other aspects of career such as security, balance or entrepreneurship (c.f. Derr, 1986; Schein, 1993) should manage their careers. The purpose of this paper is draw on a range of literature on individual behaviour in organisations to propose a framework that can assist in the provision of guidance about career self-management to employed adults. The framework is applicable to those in employment situations of relative stability, as well as those experiencing or contemplating transition, and those who may not want or expect to have a ‘traditional’ career path. It is potentially relevant to all types of employees and workers in different organisational contexts to whom the idea of having a ‘career’ is salient. The strengths of this framework are that it takes into account the political and social context of careers (c.f. Watts, 1996), that it does not make assumptions about what people’s career aspirations might be, and that it incorporates a wide range of strategies that might be used to achieve those aspirations. A framework for guidance about career self-management The framework proposed here assumes that employing organisations are essentially political in nature, that resources are inevitably limited, and that employees compete for their allocation (Pfeffer, 1981, 1989; Porter et al., 1981). It acknowledges that, because decisions about human resources are made in this political context, they are not necessarily made on purely rational grounds. Decision-makers may be influenced by their own personal agendas and by competing interests of others in the immediate context (Ferris & Judge, 1991; Kacmar & Baron, 1999; Northcraft et al., 1988; Pfeffer, 1989). It is therefore important to take into account the ‘objective’ boundaries placed upon career mobility in the minds of selectors for opportunities (Gunz et al., 2000). Figure 1 depicts a cyclical model of career self-management, which suggests how people can navigate their way through this political context, and formulate their behaviour accordingly. Career self-management is suggested to consist of four steps: charting the institutional landscape, identifying gatekeepers, implementing career D ow nl oa de d by [ N ip is si ng U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 3: 07 0 8 O ct ob er 2 01 4 Career self-management 67 strategies and evaluating the effectiveness of those strategies. Career self-manage- ment is a recursive process in that the perceived effectiveness of a particular strategy influences the decision to deploy that strategy in the future. It is also a dynamic process, not consisting simply of a one-off execution of a discrete behaviour, but rather of continuing execution of a set of co-occurring behaviours. Strategies may be used continuously or sporadically, and in conjunction with one another or independently. Each step is discussed in turn below. Charting the institutional landscape The first step involves charting the landscape of the institution or institutions of which the person forms a part. Arthur et al. (1999) have observed that careers are influenced by a number of different institutions: company, occupation, industry and wider society. Charting the landscape involves understanding the political make-up, culture, context and strategy of one’s institutions. The individual’s career orientations or ‘anchors’ (Derr, 1986; Schein, 1993) need to be taken into account in determining which institutions are of interest, since they delimit ‘subjective’ boundaries on career mobility (Gunz et al., 2000). Someone with a managerial orientation might focus on the current employing organisation, while someone with a technical or professional orientation, such as a computer programmer, might focus on the wider industry. Thus prospective employers, other participants in the labour market or industry sector, or professional bodies or occupational groups may also be relevant. Charting the institutional landscape is essentially a process of intelligence- gathering whereby people acquire understanding of two aspects: opportunity structures and decision-maker profiles. Opportunity awareness is ‘understanding of the world of work, the opportunities it offers, the demands those opportunities make, and the rewards and satisfactions they offer’ (Watts, 1996, p. 47). Opportunities are a function of the structure of the institution and its labour market practices, the ladder or paths leading to particular positions and different kinds of expertise required (Baron et al., 1986; Gunz, 1989). Thus, drawing on Sonnenfeld and Peiperl’s (1988) typology, people need to develop awareness of both the ‘supply flow’ (the extent to which the employer relies on internal or external labour markets to fill vacancies) and the ‘assignment’ flow (which attributes, credentials, skills and aspects FIG. 1. A cyclical model of career self-management in organisations. D ow nl oa de d by [ N ip is si ng U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 3: 07 0 8 O ct ob er 2 01 4 68 Zella King of performance provide access to those opportunities). This information may be gleaned from observations of the kind of jobs advertised, from questioning others, from business plans and corporate documentation, and from organisational provision for career planning, such as career resource centres and workshops (Jackson et al., 1996). Individuals also extract information from a wealth of other cues in their immediate context, such as observing the characteristics and behaviour of others who are successful, attending to organisational ‘myths’ or hearsay, or observing who is included in particular meetings or gatherings (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Individual mobility within an organisation depends not only on the opportun- ities available, but also on the information available to and criteria used by those who decide who is eligible for those opportunities (Markham et al., 1987; Northcraft et al., 1988; Rosenbaum & Miller, 1996). Charting the landscape therefore also involves identifying those who make the decisions which affect careers in the organisation or institution concerned. Career outcomes may be affected by a diversity of decisions about hiring, promotion and transfer, budget allocation, work allocation, compensation, objective-setting or restructuring. The processes underlying these decisions may be considerably influenced by organisational politics (Gandz & Murray, 1980; Kacmar & Baron, 1999; Madison et al., 1980). The individuals who make them (such as senior managers, or human resources professionals) draw on their own set of personal heuristics in order to do so (Ferris & Judge, 1991; Northcraft et al., 1988). They may be influenced, in turn, by other individuals within the core of the institution’s ‘dominant coalition’ (Brass, 1984). Thus people need to be aware of who the key decision-makers are within their organisation or institution, and who those individuals are connected to and influenced by. It is easier to acquire such information relating to one’s current employing organisation than to a prospective employer, although it is often possible to gather intelligence about the decision-making hierarchy in a prospective employing organisation from the trade press, personal contacts or organisational documentation. Identifying ‘gatekeepers’ Within this broad set of institutional decision-makers is a subset of individuals who hold a controlling interest over one’s personal career outcomes. These particular individuals will be termed ‘gatekeepers’ (Tolbert, 1996). The concept of ‘gatekeepers’ described here is informed by work on managerial effectiveness and leadership, derived from role theory (Tsui, 1984; Tsui & Ashford, 1994). Managers are said to operate in a social structure consisting of multiple constituents (superiors, customers, peers and subordinates), and how managers are perceived and evaluated by each is said to be important for their success (Tsui & Ashford, 1994). Such individuals have been described as having ‘fate control’ over a person’s initiatives at work (Podolny & Baron, 1997). Arguably, non-managers can also be said to be answerable to one or more constituents (typically supervisors or line managers) who effectively have control over their career outcomes. The second step involves identifying those gatekeepers who are responsible for the decisions that affect one’s career outcomes. This second step turns the general D ow nl oa de d by [ N ip is si ng U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 3: 07 0 8 O ct ob er 2 01 4 Career self-management 69 intelligence acquired in the first step into information that is pertinent to the individual’s career. Some of the key decision-makers identified in the first step will be more relevant than others, depending on what the individual wants to achieve. In this step, awareness of one’s chosen occupational identity and preferences is again important. For example, a software programmer might want to move regularly between employers on fixed-term contracts, in which case the decisions made by her agent and by prospective purchasers of her services might be more important than those of her current line manager. Alternatively, if she wants to diversify her expertise and learn a new programming language, she would need to convince her current boss or project manager to invest in her training. Identifying gatekeepers involves locating those individuals who have a control- ling influence over one’s current and future career steps. In the conventional internal labour market model, gatekeepers are likely to include one’s line manager or other superiors, or others whose ‘buy-in’ is essential if one is to perform one’s job effectively. Where a role spans boundaries, gatekeepers may be more dispersed and might include multiple project leaders, customers or other stakeholders, each of whom might have quite different and inconsistent expectations (Tsui & Ashford, 1994). If a change of function, department or group is desired, a manager in the target group may be more important than a manager in one’s current situation. Gatekeepers may also be external to the employing organisation, such as prospective employers or other professional or occupational contacts. Where possible, people need to identify the criteria used by gatekeepers to make decisions about hiring, promotion, work allocation or whatever other outcomes are personally important. This process requires intelligence-gathering, as described above, to decipher the credentials or characteristics gatekeepers base their decisions on. Cases of selection and promotion based on social similarity have been widely documented in earlier literature on organisational careers (e.g. Kanter, 1977; Whyte, 1956). In such cases, mobility prospects may be limited if individuals are dissimilar to such decision-makers on the basis of their identity or organisational group membership (Ibarra, 1993). In other cases, decisions may be made on ostensibly objective criteria, such as performance record, or relevant experience. Here, again, it is helpful to understand how the ‘assignment flow’ works, such as whether people are chosen for assignments on the basis of individual productivity or team contribution: ‘While some career systems favour the star performer, others prefer the solid contributor’ (Sonnenfeld & Peiperl, 1988, p. 590). In some instances individuals may not know exactly what the criteria on which they are judged will be. For example, if a person plans to leave an organisation, he or she may have little certainty about who prospective gatekeepers are, or what skills or experience they will be looking for. Even if they are unaware of gatekeepers’ identity, people nonetheless attempt to make their CV as attractive as possible by estimating the criteria prospective gatekeepers will use to make decisions. Also important in this step is understanding the value of one’s current human and social capital (Barney & Lawrence, 1989; Burt, 1997; Raider & Burt, 1996), and the degree to which it fits with gatekeepers’ criteria. This may also require understanding what other potential competitors have to offer. If one has ability, qualifications or D ow nl oa de d by [ N ip is si ng U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 3: 07 0 8 O ct ob er 2 01 4 70 Zella King experience which are common to many in the same situation, this may be of reduced strategic value compared with a more unique or differentiating human capital (Barney & Lawrence, 1989). Human capital may need to complemented by social capital if it is to be effective (Ferris & Judge, 1991). Social capital refers to the actual or potential resources individuals obtain from knowing others, being part of a social network or by virtue of their reputation (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Through this process of identifying gatekeepers, and using the intelligence gathered in the first step, people should come to a better understanding of the human capital and social capital they need to achieve their career goals, and whether further effort is needed to acquire this. In the process of undertaking this second step it may become clear that achieving one’s ‘ideal’ career goal is unachievable, and that some degree of goal mediation or adjustment is appropriate (Chen, 1998). Equally, however, people can be encouraged to address mental barriers or ‘subjective’ boundaries they place around the pursuit of certain opportunities, and it is in this process that the counsellor can have an important role to play, as will be discussed below. Implementing career strategies The third step assumes that gatekeepers who wield a controlling influence over the achievement of desired career outcomes have been identified. This step involves the implementation of strategies which are intended to sway those gatekeepers’ decisions in one’s favour. Career strategies can be divided into two broad types: influence and positioning strategies. Positioning strategies are concerned with optimising one’s contacts, skills and experience in order to maximise one’s chances of achieving desired career outcomes. Influence strategies are concerned with actively attempting to influence the decisions of gatekeepers who have a controlling those desired outcomes. Table 1 summarises behaviours that are suggested to characterise each type. It also indicates instances in which deployment of each type might be appropriate. Self-promotion involves influencing gatekeepers’ perceptions of one’s competence or merit for a particular outcome (Ferris & Judge, 1991; Judge & Bretz, 1994; Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Wayne & Liden, 1995). This might be done by extended work involvement, by claiming entitlement for positive outcomes, by publicising one’s strengths or achievements, or by manipulating one’s appearance to be successful (Ferris & Judge, 1991; Gould & Penley, 1984; Jones & Pittman, 1982). Ingratiation is behaviour intended to make a person more attractive to another, through opinion conformity, favour-doing, or flattery, which may in turn increase perceptions of similarity (Wayne & Ferris, 1990; Wayne & Liden, 1995; Wortman & Linsenmeier, 1977). Gatekeepers’ decisions may also be swayed by the use of upward influence tactics, such as using persuasion, bargaining, negotiation or assertiveness (Farmer et al., 1997; Jones & Pittman, 1982; Kipnis et al., 1980; Porter et al., 1980). Of the positioning strategies, active network development involves structuring one’s social network to maximise possible benefits (Ibarra, 1993). Network contacts may provide benefits in the form of access to information, task advice, buy-in, provision of opportunities to facilitate career advancement, or social support (Podolny & Baron, 1997). Such benefits may accrue from direct connection to gatekeepers, and D ow nl oa de d by [ N ip is si ng U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 3: 07 0 8 O ct ob er 2 01 4 Career self-management 71 from contacts with other individuals who may provide an indirect link or ‘weak tie’ to gatekeepers (Granovetter, 1973). Strategic choice of job move involves making changes of function, status or employer that are perceived to be of strategic value because they offer the opportunity to acquire new credentials or experience, or to leverage and exploit existing skills. It may also enable a person to gain access to gatekeepers or TABLE 1. Types of career strategies, and appropriate instances for their implementation Strategy Description Appropriate instances for implementation Influence strategies Self-promotion Manipulating gatekeepers’ perceptions of one’s competence or merit Where gatekeeper is known to individual, but has limited access to information that could repudiate claims (e.g. selection) Ingratiation Increasing gatekeepers’ liking or perception of similarity Where gatekeeper is known to individual, and belongs to similar organisational group; where power differential between individual and gatekeeper is high Upward influence tactics Convincing gatekeeper to grant a particular outcome using persuasion, bargaining or assertiveness or by invoking sense of dependency or obligation Where power differential between individual and gatekeeper is low, or where individual has strong bargaining power relative to employer Positioning strategies Active network development Developing contacts with individuals in positions of power or influence, or with access to information or opportunities Where direct contact with gatekeepers is facilitated; where gatekeepers are distant. Indirect contact via influential others may be useful for acquiring information about gatekeepers’ decision-making criteria and for communicating one’s reputation Strategic choice of job move Choosing job moves which develop strategically valued skills or experience, or leverage existing credentials Where gatekeepers’ identity is not known to individual, or in anticipation of future opportunities Strategic investment in human capital Acquiring strategically valued training or education (as a result of own or employers’ investment) Where gatekeepers’ identity is not known to individual; where investment differentiates one from others in similar situation Job content innovation Extending one’s task environment or volunteering for extra responsibilities in order to acquire additional skills or be in contact with influential people Where gatekeepers’ identity is not known to individual; where gatekeepers are otherwise distant or dissimilar to individual D ow nl oa de d by [ N ip is si ng U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 3: 07 0 8 O ct ob er 2 01 4 72 Zella King other influential people. Strategic investment in human capital involves making investments in training or educational qualifications which are perceived to be valued by gatekeepers, and which are readily observable by them (Barney & Lawrence, 1989). Such investments may be made by an individual, or by an employer; the latter is suggested to have a greater influence on career outcomes (Rosenbaum, 1989). Job content innovation is the enlargement of one’s current task environment, as a means to develop human capital or facilitate network development (Feij et al., 1995; Kanter, 1977; Schein, 1971). Positioning and influence strategies are closely linked and mutually reinforcing. For example, if someone is known personally to a gatekeeper (as a result of active network development), he or she is arguably better positioned to benefit from liking or perceived competence, making influence strategies more likely to be effective. As Table 1 indicates, in selecting which strategies to implement, people need to make a number of judgements about the gatekeepers concerned, and their own relative position. For example, where the power differential between individual and gatekeeper is low, upward influence strategies may be more effective (Schlenker, 1980). Thus employees may have more success in negotiations of psychological contracts where they have strong bargaining power relative to their employer, perhaps because of highly valued skills or knowledge (Herriot & Pemberton, 1996). Where gatekeepers have limited access to information that might repudiate self-enhancing claims, such as in recruitment situations, self-promotion may be more effective (cf. Fletcher, 1989; Rosenfeld et al., 1995). These and other considerations, such as the individual’s degree of similarity to each gatekeeper, need to be taken into account in the implementation of strategies. Another consideration in this step is the nature of the organisation’s career system, since some strategies may be more effective than others. By distinguishing between different approaches to supply flow and assignment flow, and building on Miles and Snow’s (1978) four strategic types of firms, Sonnenfeld and Peiperl (1988) identified four types of career system. Baseball team career systems are open to external labour markets, and assign and promote on the basis of individual merit. Here, self-promotion to manipulate gatekeepers’ perceptions of one’s merit, particularly relative to external candidates, and job content innovation to demon- strate creativity may be the most effective career strategies. Academies also reward individual performance, but are closed to external labour markets. In academies, developing contacts with influential gatekeepers and using upward influence tactics to supplement self-promotion may be most useful. By contrast, clubs value loyalty proven by seniority and job tenure. In a club situation, emphasising similarity with gatekeepers through impression management and demonstrating status attainment by investment in human capital (by, for example, gaining an MBA from a prestigious institution) may be the most fruitful strategies. Finally, an organisation with a fortress career system is described as an ‘institution under siege’ (Sonnenfeld & Peiperl, 1998, p. 590) emphasising institutional survival at the expense of individual members. Here, the most appropriate career strategies would be to develop a network of contacts external to the organisation and choose job moves strategically to maximise opportunities for employment elsewhere. D ow nl oa de d by [ N ip is si ng U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 3: 07 0 8 O ct ob er 2 01 4 Career self-management 73 Evaluating effectiveness of strategies The final step involves reflection on past experience to establish the effectiveness of prior strategies. This process in turn informs the selection of strategies in the future. There are a number of possible sources of feedback about strategy effectiveness, including the achievement or otherwise of desired career outcomes, verbal or non- verbal cues provided by gatekeepers and information sought from others who have observed one’s behaviour, or undergone similar experiences themselves (Bozeman & Kacmar, 1997; Ilgen et al., 1979; Vredenburgh & Maurer, 1984). Social comparison with others who are perceived to be similar (Festinger, 1954) may also be a source of information about strategy effectiveness. Although information derived from feedback-seeking may be available from any of these sources, drawing conclusions from that information is not necessarily straightforward. It is not always obvious which of any number of executed strategies was effective in securing a desired career outcome. Promotion decisions, for example, may be made infrequently by a group of gatekeepers, each of whom draws on their own perceptions of merit (cf. Tsui, 1984). There is usually a time lag between strategy implementation and career outcomes. This introduces an element of uncertainty into the selection of strategies (Barney & Lawrence, 1989), and may confound the individual’s recall of which strategies were deployed, and ability to judge how effective they were. In evaluating whether past behaviour was successful, two judgements are needed. The first is whether the strategies used were deployed effectively. The second is whether the strategies used actually constituted an effective route to achieving the desired ends. Thus judgements must made by an individual about his or her competence in deploying strategies and the contingency, or means–ends relations, of those strategies (Skinner, 1996). Achievement of desired outcomes implies that both competence and contingency were present. Unsuccessful outcomes may be interpreted either in terms of a lack of competence or in terms of a lack of connection between strategies and outcomes. In the former case, it may be appropriate to re- initiate similar strategies, ideally after taking steps to increase competence. The latter case might result from inaccurate identification of gatekeepers, or from inappropriate selection of strategies, in which case more careful deliberation about the political landscape and decision-maker profiles and gatekeepers’ decision-making criteria may be needed. Counsellor involvement in career self-management This fourth step is the point at which career counsellors can most usefully be involved. By helping clients to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of career strategies they have used in the past, counsellors can point to ways in which prior behaviour has impacted on current career outcomes. By discussing with clients the identity of key individuals who have had an impact on those outcomes (or gatekeepers), counsellors can help clients to think about criteria used for decision- making, and work out how those decisions were or could have been influenced. D ow nl oa de d by [ N ip is si ng U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 3: 07 0 8 O ct ob er 2 01 4 74 Zella King Understanding the type of career system in place within the organisation can assist in this process as clients decide whether the strategies they engaged in were likely to be effective in influencing gatekeepers’ decisions. By focusing attention on the position of identified gatekeepers within the broader political landscape of their organisation, counsellors can help clients work out whether they have in fact targeted the most appropriate set of gatekeepers, or whether they need to consider ways of influencing other focal individuals. Through these means, counsellors can work with clients to decipher whether failure to achieve desired career outcomes was attributable to competence or contingency issues. If strategies were correctly construed, but poorly executed, counsellors may be able to provide coaching to increase competence. If strategies chosen were in fact inappropriate, counsellors may be able to help clients identify alternative means of having an impact on gatekeepers’ decisions, and to consider whether their accrued human and social capital is ultimately consistent with the decision-making criteria used. Through this process, clients may be encouraged to engage in goal mediation or adjustment (cf. Chen, 1998) and to reconsider the subjective boundaries they place on career mobility (cf. Gunz et al., 2000). By helping clients acknowledge the contingent and political nature of their employment contexts, counsellors can encourage them to make external attributions where these are due. Where situational constraints appear immutable, this may be the most adaptive way to deal with failure to achieve desired career outcomes. Thereby counsellors can help people negotiate the economic and political realities of the contexts in which they work [1] and take ownership of their career experience (Chen, 1998; McAuley, 1998; Watts, 1996). Conclusion Byster (1998) noted that, in the US, many career consultants teach ‘career self- reliance’ in the belief that this is the surest way to provide career security in a more uncertain and dynamic organisational environment. Byster (1998) and Sonnenberg (1997) have criticised the career self-reliance model for locating responsibility for outcomes solely with the individual, and failing to help clients understand their particular circumstances in a larger social, economic and psychological context. By contrast, the approach to career self-management proposed here aims to promote awareness of the wider political and economic context. The framework is based on the idea that career outcomes are, to some degree, outside an individual’s direct control. Decisions which affect people’s careers lie in the hands of a number of key individuals who have been termed ‘gatekeepers’. By selecting and implementing career strategies intended to influence gatekeepers’ decisions, people can increase their sense of control over their careers (Barney & Lawrence, 1989; Bell & Staw, 1989). Much recent comment about career self-management tends to imply that any desired outcome is achievable given appropriate human and social capital; thus, as Hirsch and Shanley observed, the rhetoric of the ‘boundaryless’ career has ‘euphorically predicted a better world for all’ (1996, p. 231). By contrast, this approach acknowledges that, for individuals in stable employment situations as well D ow nl oa de d by [ N ip is si ng U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 3: 07 0 8 O ct ob er 2 01 4 Career self-management 75 as those experiencing transition, structural constraints and barriers to opportunity exist. Conceptualising career self-management in this way enables individuals to acknowledge the contingent nature of their situations, and attribute failure to external causes where this is appropriate. Being able to adopt such a perspective is arguably highly cognitively demanding (Arnold, 1997b), and such abilities may take considerable time and effort to develop (Gratton & Hope-Hailey, 1999). However, this framework offers a first step by providing a means for career counsellors to help clients acknowledge and respond to the instabilities and contingencies inherent in their employment contexts. Note [1] It should be noted that this framework assumes that the counsellor is neutral and impartial relative to the employing organisation, although in many instances this may of course not be the case. The organisation may have a vested interest in the outcomes of any career counselling provided to adults in employment situations, which can make it difficult to provide counselling that is genuinely impartial (Watts, 1996). References ARN OLD, J. (1997a). The psychology of careers in organizations. In C.L. COO PER & I.T. ROB ERT SO N (Eds), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1–37). Chichester: Wiley. ARN OLD, J. (1997b). Nineteen propositions concerning the nature of effective thinking for career management in a turbulent world. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 25(4), 447–462. ARTH UR, M.B., INKSO N, K. & PRINGLE, J.K. (1999). The New Careers: Individual Action and Economic Change. London: Sage. ASH FORD, S.J. & CUM MIN GS, L.L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370–398. BARN EY, J.B. & LAW REN CE, B.S. (1989). Pin strips, power ties and personal relationships: the economics of career strategy. In M.B. ARTHUR, D.T. HALL & B.S. LAW REN CE (Eds), Handbook of Career Theory (pp. 417–436). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BARON , J.M., DAVIS-BLAKE, A. & BIELBY, W.T. (1986). The structure of opportunity: how promotion ladders vary within and among organisations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 248–273. BELL, N.E. & STAW, B.M. (1989). People as sculptors vs. sculpture: the role of personality and personal control in organizations. In M.B. ARTHUR, D.T. HALL & B.S. LAW REN CE (Eds), Handbook of Career Theory (pp. 232–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BO ZEM AN, D.P. & KACM AR, K.M. (1997). A cybernetic model of impression management processes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 9–30. BRASS, D.J. (1984). Being in the right place: a structural analysis of individual influence in an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 518–539. BURT, R.S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 339–365. BYSTER, D. (1998). A critique of career self-reliance. Career Planning and Adult Development Journal, 14, 17–28. CHEN, C.P. (1998). A holistic approach to worklife dynamics: Morita philosphy-based career counselling. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 11, 239–256. COH EN , L. & MALLO N, M. (1999). The transition from organisational employment to portfolio working: perceptions of ‘boundarylessness’. Work, Employment and Society, 13(2), 329–352. COLLIN , A. (1997). Career in context. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 25, 435–446. D ow nl oa de d by [ N ip is si ng U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 3: 07 0 8 O ct ob er 2 01 4 76 Zella King DERR, C.B. (1986). Managing the New Careerists. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass. FARM ER, S.M., MASLYN , J.H., FED OR, D.B. & GOO DM AN, J.S. (1997). Putting upward influence strategies in context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 17–42. FEIJ, J.A., WHITELY, W.T., PEIRÓ, J.M. & TARIS, T.W. (1995). The development of career-enhancing strategies and content innovation: a longitudinal study of new workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 231–256. FERRIS , G.R. & JUD GE, T.A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: a political perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447–488. FESTINGER, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140. FLETCHER, C. (1989). Impression management in the selection interview. In R.A. GIAC ALON E & P. RO SENFELD (Eds), Impression Management in the Organization (pp. 269–282). Hillsdale: Erlbaum. GAN DZ, J. & MURRAY, V.V. (1980). The experience of workplace politics. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 237–251. GO ULD, S. & PENLEY, L.E., (1984). Career strategies and salary progression: a study of their relationship in a municipal bureaucracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 244–65. GRAN OVETTER, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 6, 1360–1380. GRAT TON , L. & HOPE-HAILEY, V. (1999). The rhetoric and reality of ‘new careers’. In L. GRAT TON, V. HO PE-HAILEY, P. STILES & C. TRUSS (Eds), Strategic Human Resource Management (pp. 79–100). Oxford: Oxford University Press. GUN Z, H. (1989). The dual meaning of managerial careers: organizational and individual levels of analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 26, 225–250. GUN Z, H., EVANS, M. & JALLAN D, M. (2000). Career boundaries in a ‘boundaryless’ world. In M. PEIPERL , M. ARTH UR, R. GOFFEE & T. MORRIS (Eds), Career Frontiers: New Conceptions of Working Lives (pp. 24–53). Oxford: Oxford University Press. HALFO RD, S. & SAVAG E, M. (1995). The bureaucratic career: demise or adaptation. In T. BUTLER & M. SAVAG E (Eds), Social Change and the Middle Classes. London: UCL Press. HERRIOT, P. & PEMBERT ON , C. (1996). Contracting careers. Human Relations, 49(6), 757–790. HIRSCH , P.M. & SH ANLEY, M. (1996). The rhetoric of boundaryless – or, how the newly empowered managerial class bought into its own marginalization. In M.B. ART HUR & D.M. RO USSEAU (Eds), The Boundaryless Career: a New Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era (pp. 218–233). New York: Oxford University Press. IBARRA , H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: a conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18, 56–87. ILGEN, D.R., FISH ER, C.D. & TAYLO R, M.S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349–371. JACK SO N, C., ARNO LD, J., NIC HO LSO N, N. & WATTS, A.G. (1996). Managing Careers in 2000 and Beyond. Brighton: IES/CRAC. JO NES, E.E. & PITTM AN, T.S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. SULS (Ed.), Psychological Perspectives on the Self (pp. 231–262). Hillsdale: Erlbaum. JUD GE, T.A. & BRET Z, R.D. (1994). Political influence behavior and career success. Journal of Management, 20, 43–65. KACM AR, K.M. & BARO N, R.A. (1999). Organizational politics: the state of the field, links to related processes and an agenda for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (pp. 1–39). Greenwich: JAI Press. KAN TER, R.M. (1977). Men and Women of the Corporation. New York: Basic Books. KIDD, J.M. (1998). Emotion: an absent presence in career theory. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 275–288. KIDD, J.M. & KILLEEN , J. (1992). Are the effects of careers guidance worth having? Changes in practice and outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 219–234. KING, Z. (2000). The development and initial test of a theory of career self-management. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of London. KIPNIS, D., SCHM IDT, S.M. & WILKINSON, I. (1980). Intraorganizational influence tactics: explorations in getting one’s way. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 440–452. D ow nl oa de d by [ N ip is si ng U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 3: 07 0 8 O ct ob er 2 01 4 Career self-management 77 KRUM BO LTZ, J.D. (1998). Counsellor actions for the new career perspective. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 26(4), 559–564. MADISO N, D.L., ALLEN , R.W., PO RTER, L.W., RENWIC K, P.A. & MAYES , B.T. (1980). Organizational politics: an exploration of managers’ perceptions. Human Relations, 33, 79–100. MARKHAM , W.T., HARLAN , S.L. & HACK ET T, E.J. (1987). Promotion opportunity in organizations: causes and consequences. In K.M. ROW LAN D & G.R. FERRIS (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (pp. 223–287). Greenwich: JAI Press. MCAULEY, C. (1998). Impact of political and economic realities on career counselling practices: are current models sufficiently meeting adult needs in an unstable job market? Guidance and Counselling, 13, 3–12. MILES , R.E. & SNOW, C.C. (1978). Organizational structure, strategy and process. New York: McGraw– Hill. MURRELL , A.J., FRIEZE , I.H. & OLSON , J.E. (1996). Mobility strategies and career outcomes: a longitudinal study of MBAs. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 324–335. NAHAPIE T, J. & GH OSH AL, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242–266. NICH OLSON , N. (1996). The new context for careers. In P. WARR (Ed), The Psychology of Work (4th ed.) (pp. 161–187). Harmondsworth: Penguin. NORTH CRAF T, G.B., NEALE , M.A. & HUBER, V.L. (1988). The effects of cognitive bias and social influence on human resources management decisions. In G.R. FERRIS & K.M. ROWLAN D (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (pp. 157–189). Greenwich: JAI Press. PFEFFER, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Marshfield: Pitman. PFEFFER, J. (1989). The politics of careers: interests, networks and environments. In M.B. ARTHUR, D.T. HALL & B.S. LAW RENCE (Eds), Handbook of Career Theory (pp. 380–396). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. PO DO LNY, J.M. & BARON , J.N. (1997). Relationships and resources: social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62, 673–693. PO RTER, L., ALLEN , R. & AN GLE, H. (1981). The politics of upward influence in organizations. In L.L CUMM INGS & B.M. STAW (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp. 109–149). Greenwich: JAI Press. RAID ER, H.J. & BURT, R.S. (1996). Boundaryless careers and social capital. In M.B. ARTH UR & D.M. RO USSEAU (Eds), The Boundaryless Career: a New Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era (pp. 198–200). New York: Oxford University Press. RO SENBAU M , J.E. (1989). Organization career systems and employee misperceptions. In M.B. ARTH UR, D.T. HALL & B.S. LAW RENCE (Eds), Handbook of Career Theory (pp. 329–354). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. RO SENBAU M , J.E. & MILLER , S.F. (1996). Moving in, up or out: tournaments and other institutional signals of career attainments. In M.B. ARTH UR & D.M. RO USSEAU (Eds), The Boundaryless Career: a New Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era (pp. 350–369). New York: Oxford University Press. RO SENFELD, P., GIACALO NE, R.A. & RIORDAN , C.A. (1995). Impression Management in Organizations. London: Routledge. SCHEIN , E.H. (1971). Occupational socialization in the professions: the case of the role innovator. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 8, 521–530. SCHEIN , E.H. (1993). Career Anchors: Discovering Your Real Values. London: Pfeiffer & Co. SCHLEN KER, B.R. (1980). Impression Management: the Self-concept, Social Identity and Interpersonal Relations. Monterey: Brooks/Cole. SKINN ER, E.A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 549–570. SON NENBERG , D. (1997). The ‘new career’ changes: understanding and managing anxiety. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 25, 463–472. SON NENFELD, J.A. & PEIPERL, M.A. (1988). Staffing policy as a strategic response: a typology of career systems. Academy of Managment Review, 13, 588–600. D ow nl oa de d by [ N ip is si ng U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 3: 07 0 8 O ct ob er 2 01 4 78 Zella King STURGES, J. (1999). What it means to succeed: personal conceptions of career success held by male and female managers at different ages. British Journal of Management, 19, 239–252. TO LBERT, P.S. (1996). Occupations, organizations and boundaryless careers. In M.B. ARTH UR & D.M. RO USSEAU (Eds), The Boundaryless Career: a New Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era (pp. 331–349). New York: Oxford University Press. TSUI, A.S. (1984). A role set analysis of managerial reputation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 36, 64–96. TSUI, A.S. & ASHFO RD, S.J. (1994). Adaptive self-regulation: a process view of managerial effectiveness. Journal of Management, 20, 93–121. VREDENBURGH , D.J. & MAU RER, J.G. (1984). A process framework of organizational politics. Human Relations, 37, 47–66. WAT TS, A.G. (1996). Toward a policy for lifelong career development: a transatlantic perspective. Career Development Quarterly, 45, 41–53. WAYN E, S.J. & FERRIS, G.R. (1990). Influence tactics, affect and exchange quality in supervisor– subordinate interactions: a laboratory experiment and field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 487–499. WAYN E, S.J. & LIDEN, R.C. (1995). Effects of impression management on performance ratings: a longitudinal study. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 232–260. WH YTE, W.H. (1956). The Organization Man. Harmondsworth: Penguin. WIJERS, G.A. & MEIJERS, F. (1996). Careers guidance in the knowledge society. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 24(2), 185–198. WO RTM AN, C.B. & LINSENM EIER , J.A.W. (1977). Interpersonal attraction and techniques of ingratiation on organizational settings. In B.M. STAW & D.R. SALAN CIK (Eds), New Directions in Organizational Behavior (pp. 133–178). Chicago: St. Clair Press. (Accepted 17 October 2000) D ow nl oa de d by [ N ip is si ng U ni ve rs ity ] at 0 3: 07 0 8 O ct ob er 2 01 4