What are some of the different approaches applied to the study of careers? Where do these approaches come from, and why might they be more or less useful?
The study of careers has been approached through several theoretical lenses, each rooted in distinct academic disciplines and holding unique implications for professional development and learning. One such approach is the trait-factor theory, originating from the field of psychology (Rounds & Su, 2014). This theory highlights the importance of individual traits and skills in determining career success. It suggests that by identifying one’s inherent abilities and interests, one can choose a career best suited to their traits. However, this approach has been criticised for being overly deterministic, failing to account for the influence of external factors such as economic conditions or organisational culture (Bright & Pryor, 2011).
Another approach to studying careers is the sociological perspective, specifically the Social Structure and Personality (SSP) approach (DiPrete & Eirich, 2006). This approach focuses on the impact of social structures and institutions on career paths. While this perspective offers a comprehensive understanding of the systemic and societal influences on careers, it may downplay the role of individual agency and personal career strategies.
Contemporary career studies also draw upon organisational theory, emphasising the role of the workplace environment in shaping career development (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002). This perspective suggests that organisational structures, cultures, and policies can significantly influence career progression. However, it may overlook the broader societal and economic context in which organisations operate.
While these approaches provide valuable insights, their utility depends on the specific career questions being addressed. For instance, a psychological approach may be more helpful when exploring personal career choices or career counselling. Conversely, a sociological lens may prove more insightful when examining systemic career inequalities.
References
- Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (2002). Identity regulation as organisational control: Producing the appropriate individual. Journal of Management Studies, 39(5), 619—644. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00305
- Bright, J.E.H., & Pryor, R.G.L. (2011). The chaos theory of careers. Journal of Employment Counselling, 48(4), 163—166. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2011.tb01104.x
- DiPrete, T.A., & Eirich, G.M. (2006). Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual Review of Sociology, 32(1), 271—297. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.32.061604.123127
- Rounds, J., & Su, R. (2014). The nature and power of interests. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(2), 98—103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721414522812
How might you compare and contrast ‘traditional’ notions of progressive careers and emerging understandings of ‘portfolio’ or ‘boundaryless’ careers?
Traditional notions of progressive careers are typically characterised by a linear progression within a single organisation, often in a specific field, with the expectation of increased responsibilities, prestige, and financial rewards over time (Sullivan & Baruch, 2009). This approach is often associated with job security, a clear pathway for growth, and a hierarchical structure. However, it may also limit flexibility, personal growth, and work-life balance, as it often demands long-term commitment and loyalty to a single organisation.
Conversely, the concept of ‘portfolio’ or ‘boundaryless’ careers has emerged with the evolving nature of work, enabled by technological advancements and shifts in societal values. This approach emphasises flexibility, autonomy, and diversity of experiences. Individuals with portfolio careers often work in multiple roles or fields simultaneously (Hall, 2004), while those with boundaryless careers might change roles, fields, or organisations more frequently than their traditional counterparts (Briscoe et al., 2012). This career model can result in a broad skillset, increased innovation, and better work-life balance, but it may also present job security and stability challenges (Inkson et al., 2012).
These two career models reflect different attitudes towards work and career development. Traditional career notions are rooted in an industrial-age mindset, where stability and long-term commitment are highly valued (Sullivan & Baruch, 2009). In contrast, portfolio and boundaryless careers reflect a more contemporary perspective, prioritising adaptability, continuous learning, and personal fulfilment (Hall, 2004).
In reflecting on these career models, it is apparent that neither is inherently superior—the best choice depends on individual preferences, circumstances, and values. As the world of work continues to evolve, portfolio and boundaryless career models will likely continue to gain popularity, challenging organisations to adapt their practices to accommodate these shifts (Sullivan & Baruch, 2009).
References
- Briscoe, J.P., Henagan, S.C., Burton, J.P., & Murphy, W.M. (2012). Coping with an insecure employment environment: The differing roles of protean and boundaryless career orientations. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 80(2), 308—316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.12.008
- Hall, D.T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 65(1), 1—13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.006
- Inkson, K., Gunz, H., Ganesh, S., & Roper, J. (2012). Boundaryless careers: Bringing back boundaries. Organisation Studies, 33(3), 323—340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840611435600
- Sullivan, S.E., & Baruch, Y. (2009). Advances in career theory and research: A critical review and agenda for future exploration. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1542—1571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309350082
