Career Mobility

[ 30 ]

Career mobility in organizations: implications forcareer development – Part I

Thomas N. Garavan Lecturer in Human Resource Development, University ofLimerick, Ireland and Michael Coolahan Electricity Supply Board, Limerick,Ireland

Journal of European IndustrialTraining20/4 [1996] 30–40

© MCB University Press [ISSN 0309-0590]

Reviews the literature oncareer mobility and considersits implications for careerdevelopment practices withinorganizations. Focuses onindividualistic and organiza-tional perspectives and iden-tifies a range of factors whichfacilitate or inhibit the mobil-ity process. Identifies a rangeof career development impli-cations including changingnotions about what consti-tutes a career, the need totake into account businessissues and the move towardsjoint career planning.

Introduction

Strategic approaches to training and careerdevelopment are now discussed with consid-erable regularity in the HRD literature. Thischange of emphasis has brought with it arealization that the effective management ofan individual’s career within the organiza-tion can make an important contribution toan organization achieving competitive advan-tage from within.

Garavan[1] refers to the growing body ofliterature on the relationship between organi-zational commitment and career issues andthe need to manage the career of an employeein a strategic fashion. There is, however,considerable confusion about what consti-tutes career mobility and development inpractice.

This confusion stems in part from the factthat career theorists have to date tended tofocus their attention on either:• the individualistic approach to careers

which generally takes the view that careeradvancement is a function of background,education, ability, job experience, ambition,timing, etc.; or

• the organizational approach which viewscareers as a structural issue. Slocum[2]contends that individual careers in organi-zations are determined by, for example,internal labour market structures, vacancychains, and organizational politics.

The individualistic perspective tends toassume that employees assess their careerprospects accurately, make optimum humancapital investments and have a good under-standing of the factors that affect their futuremobility. This view of careers is, however,somewhat simplistic, specifically on the issueof career decision making. Phillips et al.[3]have identified three such styles:1 rational: where the advantages and disad-

vantages of various options are consideredlogically and systematically;

2 intuitive: where various options are consid-ered and the decision is made on gut feeling;

3 dependent: where the individual essentiallydenies responsibility for decision makingand waits for other people or situations todictate what they should do.

A rational, individualistic perspectiveignores the fact that human resource policiesare sometimes ambiguous or misleadingabout the ways in which promotional oppor-tunities are determined. It downplays con-straints on career paths because of the desirenot to dampen employee motivation levels[4].Organizational approaches are also limited inthat they are not easily related to individualcharacteristics and experience or their actualcareer paths within the organization[5].

Given the complexity of internal labourmarket structures and the emergence of mul-tiple job ladders in many modern organiza-tions, it can be safely posited that the HoratioAlger idealized career pattern of office boy topresident will not be easily realized in thefuture because access to higher-level posi-tions has become increasingly closed to thosewho start at the bottom rung of the job ladder.Moreover, the emergence of job laddersdivides the labour force because the relativelyprivileged position of those within the lad-ders gives them an incentive to exclude oth-ers. A system of “haves” and “have nots” iscreated and tends to perpetuate itself[6,7].

A further feature of the modern organiza-tion which directly affects career prospects isthe adoption of new technology. Educationalcriteria and demands for technical knowl-edge lead to the segregation of higher skilledfrom lower skilled jobs and the virtual elimi-nation of the bridge between both, i.e. thedead-end job has become the rule rather thanthe exception.

Cassell[8] argues that the emergence ofspecialized education has led to the horizon-tal stratification of organizations, limitedupward mobility and the creation of barrierswhich impede mobility within the organiza-tion’s divisions and departments. He con-tends that this has two consequences:1 limited career prospects and variety of

experience which inhibits an employee’spsychological and intellectual growth;

2 lack of experience and, specifically experi-ence at the shopfloor level has reduced thesupply of people with the overall under-standing of the organization needed to beeffective leaders.

[ 31 ]

Moreover, “stratification by credentials” hasled to the development of a managementcadre that has achieved its position in theabsence of experience at the bottom rungs ofthe ladder, and a followership that has grass-roots experience but no opportunity for verti-cal movement.

While it is accepted that organizationscannot fulfil every employee’s promotionalexpectations, many barriers exist whichimpede intra-organizational career mobility.There is support in the literature for the viewthat such barriers result from a failure on thepart of human resource practitioners to inte-grate individual and organizational perspec-tives within career development practices orwhat is termed by Garavan[1] as “careerplanning” which focuses on the individualand “career management” which focusesmore on the plans and activities of the organi-zation.

It is also accepted that barriers to careermobility create dysfunctional outcomes forboth the organization and its employees. Theformer suffers from an inability to optimizeits return on its human resource investmentbecause of failure to identify its best talentand the evolution of internal labour marketstructures which creates bureaucratic barri-ers prohibiting staff redeployment, particu-larly where trade unions are involved.

Barriers impact on the latter categorybecause internal job mobility is seen as animportant component of career advancementand failure to fulfil psychological needsresults in decreased motivation and commit-ment to organizational goals.

In this paper the authors will concentratemainly on barriers that affect intra-organiza-tional career mobility as opposed to inter-organizational mobility. This approach hasmore validity since the organization repre-sents the most pertinent status hierarchy formany. Furthermore, it is more sensible tostudy career attainment within occupationsor organizational hierarchies because this iswhere most of the advancement occurs, notbetween occupations[9]. It is accepted, how-ever, that careers can and do exist outside theorganizational setting and that vertical move-ment is not necessary for an individual’sability to form a meaningful career, viz: doc-tors, dentists, artists, etc.

In the first part of this paper the authorswill look at some definitional issues relatingto careers and mobility, review the literatureon career mobility from both individual andorganizational perspectives and considersome of the development implications aris-ing. Part II considers these issues in the con-text of a specific organizational setting.

What constitutes a career and career mobility? Some definitionalissues

What constitutes a career?An immediate problem facing the researcherin the area of careers is the fact that the liter-ature is extant but fragmented. This charac-teristic can be observed in the many compet-ing definitions of “career” put forward.

For example, Wilensky[10] writing from asociological perspective defined a career instructural terms as a:

succession of related jobs arranged in ahierarchy of prestige, through which per-sons moved in an ordered (more or lesspredictable) sequence.

Hall’s[11] more psychologically-orienteddefinition defines it as:

a perceived sequence of attitudes and behav-iours associated with work related experi-ences and activities over the span of a per-son’s life.

Both definitions reinforce the common per-ception of a career to be a series of jobs whichare played out over time in a hierarchicallyorganized setting. However, Wilensky’s defin-ition is inherently restrictive in its emphasison vertical mobility. The common perceptionof a successful career involves successivelinear movement up the functional-line orga-nizational career ladder, gaining along theway additional increments in formal author-ity, intrinsic/extrinsic rewards, etc. However,this ignores the fact that in many organiza-tions, horizontal or lateral movement (at thesame level in the hierarchy) is encouragedand very often necessary as a means ofacquiring the necessary broad experiencebefore moving from a specialist to a moregeneralist management position.

Preoccupation with vertical mobility failsto recognize that for “early” managers in fastgrowing high-technology[12] the very notionof “career” as a sequence of moves may havelittle meaning; instead, managers can experi-ence career growth “inplace” (without mov-ing) as their function or department expandsbeneath them.

Garavan[1] points to research showing thatindividuals and organizations view careersdifferently. Such research shows that whileemployees are more interested in opportuni-ties for advancement, obsolescence of techni-cal skills, ageing, impact of a decline in com-pany performance, etc., employers are moreconcerned with ensuring that managerialsuccession is orderly and efficient. He furtheremphasizes that organizations desire theiremployees to pursue career developmentwhich is relevant to organizational goals and

Thomas N. Garavan andMichael CoolahanCareer mobility in organiza-tions: implications for careerdevelopment – Part I


[ 32 ]

are essentially interested in making sure thatthere is a good match between the person andthe job.

Essentially a career is something that anindividual experiences but is not solely ofhis/her own making. The way in which orga-nizations are organized and the way in whichthe employment relationship is organizeddefines the type and scope of career anemployee may have. Moreover, once recruitedto an organization, an individual’s chances ofmobility are better if the organization oper-ates a policy of promotion from within.Equally, employees’ mobility prospectsdepend not only on their ability and motiva-tion but also on the position of their specificjob within the organization’s internal labourmarket[13]. For the purposes of this paper acareer will be defined as a pattern of work-related experiences that span the course of anindividual’s life. This definition allows for theincorporation of objective as well as subjec-tive notions of career, and does not confine acareer to professional and managerial occu-pations or conventional career paths involv-ing increased seniority within a single occu-pation and/or organization[14].

The latter point is important within thecontext of a multi-disciplinary organizationsuch as will be discussed in Part II of thepaper, where the degree to which an internallabour market exists and its complexitiessignificantly defines the scope of an individ-ual’s organizational career, and career devel-opment ultimately determines whether anemployee gets “stuck” in the hierarchy.

How is career mobility defined? Whatobjective measures may be used to definecareer success?Gattiker and Larwood[15] suggest that thefrequency of promotion within an organiza-tion is a valuable indicator of career successand mobility, since it is important for anindividual’s climb up the corporate hierarchy.Kotter[16] found that those headed for the tophad usually been promoted out of their posi-tions within 2.4 years. In similar studies,Heuseman and Hatfield[17] and Birch andMcMillan[18] found that a manager changeshis job within a company on average 2.9 timesduring his/her career.

Schein[19] suggests three dimensions ofcareer mobility within a firm: increasingcentrality and acceptance to the core organi-zational membership; lateral movementacross functions; and hierarchical ascension,through promotions.

Creedy and Whitfield[20] argue that inter-nal mobility has not been comprehensivelyresearched and is difficult to measure. Theypoint to the difficulty in measuring those

kinds of mobility which result from the grad-ual accumulation of small changes in jobduties with increased responsibility, andthose which do not. This distinction is impor-tant because employees may experience theillusion of mobility when in fact their careeris “blocked”.

Even the most cursory review of the careersliterature reinforces the view that in order tofully understand the dynamics of careermobility it is necessary to distinguishbetween organizational and individual levelsof analysis. At the organizational level theemphasis is on creating a suitable careersystem which co-ordinates staffing activitiesinto a process that helps the firm adapt to itsenvironment[21]. At the individual level theemphasis is on how people make sense oftheir own individual careers and where theyfit into this organizational process.

When careers are examined from the indi-vidual’s perspective it is important to recog-nize the distinction between theinternal/subjective and external/objectivemeanings of a career. This distinction hasimportant implications for individual careeroutcomes and career development.

Schein and Van Maanen[22] postulate thatan individual’s definition of a career, or theinternal career, is a person’s own subjectiveidea about work life and his/her role withinit. For example, an individual who is consid-ered to have achieved hierarchical successmay not be satisfied with his/her level ofadvancement, or an individual may not con-sider a move to a higher level position if thatposition is perceived (by him/her) to be a stepbackwards in the prestige stakes. Put anotherway psychological success (i.e. success inrelation to one’s own goal and values) is amajor career motivator for most people.

An objective career on the other hand isdefined by title, rank, salary level, formalstatus, etc., all of which are visible anddefined externally to the employee[23].

Career mobility: the individualcontext

The individual perspective on careers hasgenerally been the domain of psychologists.The focus is generally on independent vari-ables that predict career mobility. Issuesresearched included education, social class,gender and family influences.

Social class determinantsIronically the very first wave of careerresearch (almost 50 years ago) focused onoccupational mobility, specifically the relationship between social class and



[ 33 ]

intergenerational changes in occupationstatus[24].

Of most relevance to this paper, however, isthe work of Blau and Meyer[25] whosuggested that social structure influencedcareer in two ways:1 It shaped the social development of the

individual and thus his/her career orienta-tion, self concept, values, interest.

2 It affected the occupational opportunitiesavailable to the individual.

The effects of family background on careerattainment was initially studied by Millerand Form[26], and replicated by other sociolo-gists. While there is some disagreementamong sociologists about the strength of thisrelationship, Roberts[27] points out:

the assertion of the social class approachthat job opportunities partly depend onposition in the social structure cannot bedenied.

A more recent study by Hout[28] on socialmobility in Ireland proves statistically thatthe advantage of upper middle class originsin relation to career attainment is significant.Hout demonstrates that:

in numerical terms, upper professionals’sons have a chance of landing a good job thatis six times higher than the chance of pro-prietors’ sons and twenty four times higherthan the chance of semi-skilled workers’sons.

A plausible explanation for these statisticscan be observed from research by Blau andDuncan[29]. They suggest that the most influ-ential forces on career attainment come fromthe individual’s social class background,specifically the father’s occupation andfather’s education. These two forces werefound to be strong predictors of a person’seducation and their first job. This in turncould predict their current job.

Education and professional trainingIn developing a theory of career mobility,Sicherman and Galor[30] analysed theoreti-cally and empirically the role and signifi-cance of occupational mobility (mobility withthe context of moving up the hierarchy) in thelabour market focusing on an individual’scareer and taking into account investment inhuman capital (education and professionaltraining). They propose that inter-firm careermobility (“promotion”) is uncertain andsubject to employer decision-makingprocesses; the probability of promotion is afunction of schooling, ability and job experi-ence.

The theory predicts that, given an occupa-tion of origin, education and trainingincreased the likelihood of occupational

upgrading. It also predicts two opposingeffects in relation to career mobility. On theone hand, since well-educated and trainedworkers can start their working careers at ahigher-level occupation, their careers arelikely to involve fewer distinct occupationsthan less educated workers. In addition, high-skill careers might involve fewer changes intasks over time (fewer hierarchical move-ments are open to highly skilled specialists)and fewer changes of firm. On the other hand,more educated and trained workers, havingstarted their career at a higher level, facelonger career ladders and greater opportuni-ties for hierarchical advancement.

Access to education is differentiatedaccording to social class; Breen et al.[31] intheir study of participation levels in the Irisheducational system found that:

pupils from an upper non-manual back-ground (i.e. whose father is an executive,manager or professional) were at least sixtimes more likely to sit the Leaving Certifi-cate Examination and thirteen times morelikely to enter third level education thanboys from an unskilled or semi-skilledlabouring family background.

Internal career self-conceptsAttention has already been drawn to the needto differentiate between the internal meaninggiven to a career by the individual and theobjective or external perception of a career asin formal position, status, hierarchy, titles,etc.

An individual’s internal or career self-concept is developed as a result of earlysocialization and experiences in the work-place where employees learn what they aregood at and what motivates them. The valuesof the particular society also contribute tothis process.

Schein[32] formulated a conceptual modelwhich articulates that different career orien-tations develop. He described these orienta-tions as “career anchors”. Schein[33] concep-tualized careers as a process of finding acareer anchor which becomes a guiding focusin an employee’s life, giving him/her a self-image built around needs, motives, talent andvalues. Schein argues that the career anchoris an:

overriding concern or need that operates asa genuine constraint on career decisions.The anchor is the thing the person wouldnot give up if he or she had the choice.

He identified five career anchors: technical-functional; managerial competence; creativ-ity; security and stability; autonomy andindependence. The significance for individu-als and organizations of employees having a



[ 34 ]

particular “career anchor” or what could alsobe called “mindset” can be observed as fol-lows.

First, career anchors can create barriers tocareer mobility for individuals. For example,an individual with a “security anchor” maybe content to work hard enough to maintainjob security and a reasonable income, butmay be unwilling to challenge for a higherposition. An employee with a “technicalcareer anchor” such as an engineer may beunwilling to forgo his/her main competenceto move up to a general management positionwhere this expertise will not be required. Asimilar argument can be made for a craftperson moving into a supervisory position.

Second, most organizational culturesrestrict esteem to those who climb the hierar-chical ladder. Therefore, in order to advancecareer-wise, individuals with a strong techni-cal competence career anchor may moveupwards hierarchically to management orsupervisory positions with disastrous conse-quences for both self and organization as aresult of the misfit[34].

The latter example is analogous to the para-dox outlined by Gattiker and Larwood[15] tothe effect that the individual could achieve“objective” career success, but because oftheir internal perspective, experience poorcareer satisfaction.

Driver[35] in a similar vein developed aconceptual model of internal career maps. Hedescribed four “career self concepts” thatunderpin a person’s thinking about his/hercareer and also seem to be built into certainoccupations or organizations, i.e. transitory,steady state, linear and spiral. Given the ageprofile of many organizations, individualswho subscribe to a linear concept will havedifficulties with their career. Arnold et al.[36]argue that the fast pace of societal and tech-nological change generally favours the spiraland transitory career concepts, but thesehave not historically been perceived as nor-mal or legitimate patterns in many organiza-tions.

Career choiceOne of the most influential theories of careerchoice is Holland’s[37]. Basically it suggeststhat people with particular personality traitswill choose predictable types of occupationalenvironments. He identified a range of per-sonality types which are compatible withparticular occupational environments. Hol-land’s hypothesis is based on the notion ofcongruence, i.e. people will have a more suc-cessful career when there is a good matchbetween the individual’s personality (orienta-tion) and the occupation they have chosen.

However, Holland’s theory does not explainthe process by which effective career deci-sions are made[36], or the process of personal-ity development and its role in vocationalselection[38]. Arnold et al.[36] refer to evi-dence which suggests, for example, that peo-ple with high self-esteem make better careerdecisions than people with low self-esteem.

Osipow[38] refers to the problem of notbeing able to start a career in the “primary”area of interest and suggests that “chance”can play a significant role in career choice.He adds that education plays an importantrole since it commits a person to a certaincourse of action and eliminates others.

Low growth needAlthough a person may have the ability toperform at a higher level in the organizationhe/she may not value highly enough therewards increased responsibility may bring.

Self-imposed constraintDalton et al.[39] suggest that some employeesmay not understand the consequences ofpassing up promotional opportunities intheir early careers. The opportunity cost ofnot developing the necessary social and tech-nical skills at an early stage may lead to pre-mature career plateauing.

Familial influences – dual career familiesResearch shows that community ties, such asrelatives and friends living in the same geo-graphical area, have a negative impact onemployee mobility[40-42]. Forster[40] refers tostudies on managerial attitudes to relocating.Sixty per cent of the managers surveyed bythe Institute of Manpower Studies (IMS) in1987 had at some time refused a job because offamily commitments. Two-thirds of a group ofmanagers surveyed in 1986 over the age of 35would not accept a job move, or accept it onlywith reluctance. The principal non-workreason given by employees for refusing jobmoves is the potentially disruptive effect onspouses and other family dependants.

Another influence affecting employee atti-tudes towards promotion is the growing num-ber of dual-earner or dual-career couples inthe labour market. Research by Hall andHall[43], on the effects of dual careers onmobility, found that transfer and relocationswere the main problems for both two-careercouples and for companies. Hall andIsabella[44] found that the financial indepen-dence of the dual-earners lessened the moti-vation to relocate, particularly if the spousehad to forgo his/her career to accommodatethe move.



[ 35 ]

AgeThe negative correlation between increasingbiological age and career mobility is widelyaccepted. However, the strength of this rela-tionship may vary depending on the organi-zation and it is difficult to measure. Othervariables such as education, experience, skill,etc. may be more significant in inter-organi-zational promotion contests[45].

Rosenbaum[46] suggests that organizationshave occupational age norms that indicatecareer progression norms. In many organiza-tions, if by the age of 40 a person has not beenpromoted to a managerial position, he/she isseen as behind schedule and may never attainthat position.

Ornstein et al.[47], provides further infor-mation on the effect of age on career mobility:• the mid-life transition period (age 40-45),

associated with Levinson’s model of Lifedevelopment, was consistent with a reluc-tance (if a promotion required a move) torelocate in order to avoid family disrup-tion;.

• the decline stage, associated with Super’scareer development model, was consistentwith withdrawing from the job/career, andindividuals at this stage were least likely torelocate if requested to do so[48].

Gender/raceThere is a considerable body of research andliterature explaining how racial and sexualdiscrimination and the treatment of ethnicminorities may influence career dynamics.

Despite increasing participation rates inthe labour force worldwide, very few womenhave risen to positions of leadership andauthority. Martin et al.[49] analysed the mainbarriers to career mobility faced by women inhierarchical bureaucratic organizations, viz:• Societal stereotypes which sees women as

“properly in the home” rather than theworkplace depict women as less committedthan men to jobs and careers. Such claimsare used as justification to deny womenaccess to job ladders leading to the top.

• The tendency to locate low-skilled assemblytype operations, mainly staffed by women,in periphery functions removed from thecore firm, limits career opportunity forwomen.

• The educational system prepares womenfor female-dominated jobs usually involv-ing short career ladders.

• Women lose out because of the politicalnature of the internal promotion system inhierarchical organizations.

• Primary responsibility for home and chil-dren affects the ability of women to relocate.The lack of child-care facilities provided bywork organizations is also a problem.

Other studies have shown that women havedifficulty in acquiring a mentor in male dom-inated jobs[50,51]. In mobile dual career fami-lies the dominant “bread winner” is usuallythe male[41].

Career mobility: the organizationalcontext

It is clear that a considerable number of indi-vidual factors influence an individual’scareer success. However, careers are usuallymade within organizations and thereforecareer dynamics are influenced to a consider-able degree by matters organizational. Thecomplexity of the internal labour market(ILM) structure, the type of career system,size, structure, technology, organizational lifecycle, etc. shape mobility patterns, careerdevelopment opportunities and the kinds ofcareer an individual can have. These vari-ables can be best described as moderating ininfluence.

Internal labour market Once inside an organization, an individual’scareer mobility prospects are dependent onthe extent to which “promotion from within”policies exist, and whether one’s job is in ajob ladder or not.

Internal Labour Markets (ILMs) are charac-terized by recruitment at specific “points ofentry”, formally defined job ladders thatprovide individuals with promotional oppor-tunities, and centralized pay systems. ILMsoffer advantages to both employee andemployer: the former enjoys security ofemployment and privileged access to promo-tion while the latter benefits by retention offirm-specific skills transferred to employeesthrough on-the-job training, and the facilityto screen workers of differing ability throughobserving job performance. Organizationsalso benefit because the promise of a promo-tion at some time in the future elicits compli-ance and provides incentives for employees toretain organizational membership.

Another problem for analysts of ILMs high-lighted in research by Baron et al.[52] (corrob-orating earlier work by Pfeffer andCohen[53]), is that organizations of the samesize and operating within the same basicindustry ranged from having no formal pro-motion system to extensive ILMs coveringmost workers with many variants betweenthese extremes.

This article will confine itself to thoseaspects of ILM arrangements which facilitateand/or constrain career mobility and careerdevelopment opportunities. Despite Baron etal.’s [52] research, there is support for the



[ 36 ]

view that formal ILMs are synonymous withlarge hierarchical type organizations andconsistent with bureaucratic functional-linecareer ladders. Osterman[7] noted that therecan be more than one ILM in an organization.He explains how craft, industrial (firm spe-cific), and secondary employment systemscan exist in the same organization operatingunder different industrial relations rules,providing different career opportunities fordiverse groups of workers.

Job laddersThe notion that job ladders develop aroundwork roles, having common technical skillsor customs, is a recurring theme in the litera-ture. However, there is support for the viewthat many vertical and horizontal distinc-tions among jobs reflect custom and statusissues and not simply distinctions in skill andknowledge requirements.

Some ladders reach the top of the organiza-tion, others have ceilings at fairly low levels.Distribution of grades by job ladder can makeadvancement difficult if there is a concentra-tion of lower level grades at the bottom, i.e.mini-pyramid.

Job ladders can be differentiated both verti-cally and horizontally with limited lateralmovement. Kanter[54] identified three majorsources of blocked mobility associated withILMs:1 dead-end jobs with short ladders and lim-

ited opportunities for horizontal move-ment;

2 wrong route to a high-mobility job: inexpe-rience inhibits further moves;

3 the “Pyramid Squeeze”, smaller number ofjobs at the top.

Another problem highlighted by Osterman[7]is that rules and procedures within ILMsconsiderably limit management discretionconcerning deployment of the labour force.This may be especially so where trade unionsare recognized. This rigidity preventsemployees from gaining experience throughcross-functional lateral moves, thereby limit-ing their upward potential. Kanter[54] alsoidentified sources of career blockages in high-tech firms, viz: functional overspecializa-tion/high-level dead end jobs, high statusearly in the career and nowhere to go after-wards. DiPrete[55] found that employees onthe same job ladder and in the same divisionas the vacancy were more likely than othersto get the job, even when the position wasopen to other ladders. Baron and Bielby[56]argue that large organizations are morelikely to proliferate job titles, fostering bothvertical and horizontal distinctions withinsimilar occupations. They concluded that the

division of labour leads to a political contestin organizations with different groups suchas occupational groups, trade unions, person-nel specialists, striving to shape jobs to fur-ther their own interests.

Despite the importance of career systemsfor the individual and the organization, verylittle is known about the dynamics of employ-ment conditions within which firms defineopportunities and equip people for jobchanges[21]. For example, the allocation ofcross-functional assignments to prepareindividuals for upward mobility may owemore to political favouritism than anyobjective assessment of an individual’spotential[57].

Equally other HRM policies in areas likepromotion, training, recruitment and thereward systems can have an impact on anindividual’s career attainment.

PromotionsAt the very basic level, an employee’s chanceof competing for a vacancy in a promotionalhierarchy is primarily dependent on thatindividual being aware than an opportunityexists, which is in turn somewhat dependenton the existence or otherwise of company-wide job posting arrangements.

Lee[58,59] argues that the formality of thepromotion process creates problems for bothpromoter and promotee, i.e. difficulty in mea-suring a person’s attributes; job characteris-tics are likewise hard to measure.Rosenbaum[46] found that managers haveinsufficient information about employees’abilities and relied on certain “structuralindicators” to signal ability such as:• educational credentials are thought to con-

note ability;• supervisors’ ratings are unreliable because

competing candidates are often in compara-ble jobs;

• individuals’ past education and job attain-ments are equated with ability;

• employees are viewed as being more capa-ble if they have “rapidly advancing careers”or if they are “younger” than their peers intheir status level.

Research by Fagenson[60] showed that theinability to secure a “mentor” can adverselyaffect a person’s career chances. Lee andPiper[50] refer to the process of “labelling”,where, within a short time of entering anorganization, an individual is attributed withqualities, abilities and attitudes based onlimited, irrelevant and subjective evidence.Such labelling, they argue, determineswhether an employee becomes a “high flyer”,“steady climber” or “slow mover”.



[ 37 ]

Training and developmentOver time, the unavailability of training, orthe refusal by the individual to undertaketraining and development, can impede anemployee’s progress up or across jobladders[42]. Inglos[61] found that “the selec-tion for and participation in training anddevelopment activities carries powerful sym-bolic messages within an organization.”Equally, non-selection implies/signals a“dead end” career. Guntz[62] argues that anexcess of training or over-specialization inone area may make it difficult for an individ-ual to change job ladders.

Selection criteria and methodsAn employee’s mobility within an organiza-tion may be restricted if there is a mismatchbetween the abilities and attributes of theindividual and the requirements of the job.Over-reliance on typically unreliable selec-tion devices like interviews and some person-ality tests can facilitate this mismatch.

Arnold et al.[36] point out that the highexpectation of advancement of new recruitscan lead to disillusionment, loss of motiva-tion and intention to leave the organization.He advocates realistic job previews todescribe jobs “warts and all” to overcome thisproblem.

Extrinsic rewardsSome employees may have the skills andabilities to perform at a higher level but donot value the reward highly enough. Thisphenomenon creates a blocked career pathfor those coming up behind in the hierarchy.

Internal competitionA tournament model was proposed by Rosen-baum[4,5] to explain individual career mobil-ity in “pyramid” shaped organizations. Themodel suggests a dynamic series of contestsgenerated by organizational events. Heargues that each competition differentiates agroup of employees, defining future opportu-nities.

Early winners are seen as “high potential”people who can do no wrong and receive chal-lenging assignments which prepares them forfuture success. Early losers on the other handreceive a “custodial socialization process”and their subsequent performance is largelyirrelevant and goes unnoticed. They maycompete, however, in subsequent secondarytournaments. The costs of losing a contest is“instant death” and this often discouragesrisk taking and innovation on the part ofemployees.

Weaknesses in the organization’s careerdevelopment systemNicholson and Arnold[63] identified fourtypical shortcomings of organizational careerdevelopment systems:1 Restricted career development: No organi-

zation can provide unlimited opportunitiesfor staff mobility due to the pyramidalnature of the organization. However, orga-nizations create unnecessary restrictionsby not making cross-functional promotions.

2 Political career development: Organiza-tional politics can promote or impede anemployee’s career, independent of perfor-mance levels.

3 Mechanistic career development: Bureau-cratic rules and procedures can lead to aloss of motivation when the criteria forcareer advancement are adhered to rigidly.

4 Neglected career development: Individualsare left to take charge of their own develop-ment; career paths are not identified andadvancement is ad hoc.

Organizational technologyThe type of organizational technology andthe technological environment can signifi-cantly influence an individual’s career oppor-tunities. Fast-moving high-technology orga-nizations may have no option but to “buy in”expertise. Such industries are typified byshort career ladders with limited opportunityfor hierarchical advancement. Kanter[12]found that high-technology companies pro-vided “dual ladders”; technical employeesadvanced along a track supposedly in parallelwith a managerial track.

Another problem is the obsolescence oftechnical professions. Employees who havefailed to make it into general managementmay become surplus to requirement in theevent of technological change. Guntz[62]makes the point that the lateral moves arepossible when the technology is simple butdifficult when the technology is complex. Inthis case vertical moves predominate.

Poor human resource planningInaccurate human resource forecasting canresult in overstaffing. In this situation thenormal pyramid restrictions on upwardmobility are exacerbated. External businessconditions resulting in slow organizationalgrowth can limit the number of opportunitiesfor increased responsibilities, and mobilityprospects for staff are further limited if theorganization has to downsize in order tosurvive. Slocum[2] found that there weresignificantly fewer career opportunities in“defender” strategy companies than in“analyser” strategy companies. Opportuni-ties for career advancement are also directly



[ 38 ]

related to and reflect a firm’s size and organi-zation’s life cycle position, i.e. growth, main-tenance, decline and turnaround.

Organizational restructuringRecent trends, such as restructuring or ratio-nalization of companies, have constrained jobmobility and career opportunities. Thedecentralization of production, and themigration of work towards periphery firmswhere inferior labour markets exist, havesegmented the labour forces. This segmenta-tion has precipitated a situation where“worker mobility between tiers is increas-ingly constrained by a widening skill gap andgeographic separation”[8].

Cassell[8] comments that the outcome ofthis type of restructuring and the breakingup of organizational job ladders will be fewerjobs at the higher end of the ladder and adecline in opportunities for future genera-tions of workers.

Multi-taskingApart from reducing the size of the labourforce, multi-tasking has two opposing effectson career mobility. On the one hand, itincreased opportunities for inter-firm careermobility by reducing demarcation barriers.However, the increased firm specificity andthe abandonment of external accreditation ofskills will lead to reduced opportunities forinter-firm mobility.

Growth in servicesOne of the most significant structuralchanges to affect career opportunity for work-ers is the decline in manufacturing and thegrowth in services industries. Service indus-tries are typified by short career ladders andare used to buffer core organizations, provid-ing a flexible workforce which can be dis-pensed with in times of recession.

Key lessons for career development

This paper has reviewed some of the litera-ture on career mobility and proposes thatcareer progression within organizations isconstrained by a combination of individualand organizational factors. A number ofimportant issues emerge which have implica-tions for career development practices:• Organizations intentionally or otherwise

build-in barriers to career mobility. Thesebarriers may take many forms and mayarise from major organizational changesand/or the types of human resource man-agement and development practices preva-lent within the organization.

• Individual variables are important but donot fully explain the level of career mobilitywhich a particular individual may achieve.Organizational characteristics act as mod-erators of the relationship between individ-ual characteristics and mobility patterns.

• Careers tend to be perceived in traditionalterms in many organizations. However,many of the organizational factorsreviewed indicate a need to embrace othernotions of a career. This shift in emphasiswill have significant implications for suc-cessor planning and career managementsystems.

The implications for career development aremany; however, four particular implicationsare highlighted here:1 Career development and succession plan-

ning cycles will need to relate more closelyto the changing business strategies anddevelopments in the structure of the organi-zation than heretofore.

2 Planning career development must becomemore of a joint process involving both theindividual and the organizational perspec-tive. The notion of a job/career for life orguaranteed promotion will have to bespecifically addressed with a greateremphasis on widening the individual’sperception of what constitutes a career.This will require some education type ini-tiatives.

3 Later job opportunities will becomeincreasingly relevant especially for olderage groups, when there is often an assump-tion that development stops. New forms ofwork organization may facilitate this latermovement.

4 The focus of training and individual devel-opment will most likely be the job itself.Such training and development is likely tooccur early in the individual’s career and itwill help to ensure that the necessary com-petences have been achieved early in thecareer and allow for greater flexibility interms of career management and develop-ment processes. It will also provide theorganization with greater flexibility whenplanning lateral moves and upward mobil-ity (if and when available).

Some of these issues will be addressed in partII of this paper which reports a case study oncareer mobility and development in a multi-disciplinary organization.

References1 Garavan, T.N., “Promoting strategic career

development activities: some Irish experi-ence”, Industrial and Commercial Training,Vol. 22 No. 6, 1990, pp. 22-30.



[ 39 ]

2 Slocum, W.L., “Occupational careers in organi-sations: a sociological perspective”, Personnel& Guidance Journal, Vol. 43, 1968, pp. 858-66.

3 Phillips, D.S., Pazienza, N.J. and Walsh, D.J.,“Decision-making styles and progress in occu-pational decision making”, Journal of Voca-tional Behaviour, Vol. 25, 1984, pp. 96-105.

4 Rosenbaum, J.E., “Organization career sys-tems and employee misperceptions”, inArthur, M.B., Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B.S.(Eds), Handbook of Career Theory, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1989, pp. 329-53.

5 Rosenbaum, J.E. (1986), “Institutional careerstructures and the social contribution of abil-ity” in Richardson, J.E. (Ed.), Handbook ofTheory and Research for the Sociology of Educa-tion, Greenwood, New York, NY, 1986, pp. 139-72.

6 Doeringer, P. and Piore, M., InternationalLabour Markets & Manpower Analysis, HeathLexington Books, Lexington, MA, 1971.

7 Osterman, P., “Introduction: the nature andimportance of internal labour markets”, inOsterman, P. (Ed.), Internal Labour Markets,MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1984, pp. 163-90.

8 Cassell, F.H., “Changing industrial structureand job/career opportunity”, InternationalJournal of Manpower, Vol. 11 No. 1, 1990, pp. 26-37.

9 Spilerman, S., “Careers, labour market struc-ture and socio-economic achievement”,American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 83, 1977,pp. 551-93.

10 Wilensky, H.L., “Varieties of work experience”,in Borow, H. (Ed.), Man in a World at Work,Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, 1964.

11 Hall, D.T., “Pressures from work, self & homein the life stages of married women”, Journalof Vocational Behaviour, Vol. 6, 1975, pp. 121-32.

12 Kanter, J., “Variations in managerial careerstructures in high technology firms; theimpact of organizational characteristics oninternal labour market patterns” in Osterman,P. (Ed.), Internal Labour Markets, MIT Press,Cambridge, MA, 1984, pp. 109-32.

13 Pfeffer, J., “A political perspective on careers:interests, networks and environments”, inArthur, M.B., Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B.S.(Eds), Handbook of Career Theory, CambridgeUniversity Press, UK, 1989, pp. 380-96.

14 Carroll, G.R. and Mayer, K.U., “Job shift pat-terns in the Federal Republic of Germany: theeffects of social class, industry sector andorganizational size”, American SociologicalReview, Vol. 51, 1986, pp. 323-41.

15 Gattiker, U.L. and Larwood, L., “Predicatorsfor manager’s career mobility, success andsatisfaction”, Human Relations, Vol. 41 No. 8,1988, pp. 569-91.

16 Kotter, J.P., cited in Gattiker, U.E. and Larwood,L., “Predictors for manager’s career mobility,success and satisfaction”, Human Relations,Vol. 41 No. 8, 1988, pp. 569-91.

17 Heuseman, R.C. and Hatfield, J.D., “Equitytheory and the managerial matrix”, Trainingand Development Journal, April 1990, pp. 98-102.

18 Birch, S. and Macmillan, B., “Managers on themove: a study of British managerial mobility”,Management Survey Report No. 7, BritishInstitute of Management, 1971.

19 Schein, E., Career Dynamics, Addison Wesley,Reading, MA, 1978.

20 Creedy, J. and Whitfield, K., “Earnings and jobmobility over the life cycle: internal and exter-nal processes”, International Journal of Man-power, Vol. 9 No. 2, 1988, p. 16-18.

21 Sonnenfeld, J.A., “Career system profiles andstrategic staffing”, in Arthur, M.B., Hall, D.T.and Lawrence, B.S. (Eds), Handbook of CareerTheory, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1989, pp. 202-24.

22 Schein, E.H. and Van Maanen, J., “Careerdevelopment”, in Hackman, J.R. and Sutte, J.L.(Eds), Improving Life at Work, Goodyear, SantaMonica, CA, 1977.

23 Leibowitz, F., Kaye, C. and Ferren, D., “Careergridlock”, Training and Development Journal,April 1990, pp. 29-35.

24 Sonnenfeld, J. and Kotter, J.P., “The matura-tion of career theory”, Human Relations, Vol.35 No. 1, 1982, pp. 19-46.

25 Blau, P.M. and Meyer, M.W., Bureaucracy inModern Society, Random House, New York, NY,1971.

26 Miller, D. and Form, A., cited in Sonnenfeld, J.and Kotter, J.P., “The maturation of careertheory”, Human Relations, Vol. 35 No. 1, 1982,pp. 19-46.

27 Roberts, O.K., “The sociology of work entryand occupational choice”, in Wall, A.G., Super,D.E. and Kidd, J.M. (Eds), Career Developmentin Britain, Hobson’s Press, Cambridge, 1981.

28 Hout, M., Following in Father’s Footsteps:Social Mobility in Ireland, Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge, MA, 1989.

29 Blau, P.M. and Duncan, O.D., The AmericanOccupational Structure, Wiley, New York, NY,1967.

30 Sicherman, N. and Galor, O., “A theory ofcareer mobility”, Journal of Political Economy,Vol. 98 No. 11, 1987, pp. 15-23.

31 Breen, R., Hannon, D.F., Rottman, D.B. andWhelan, C.W., Understanding ContemporaryIreland: State, Class and Development in theRepublic of Ireland, Gill and MacMillan,Dublin, 1990.

32 Schein, E., “Individuals and careers”, Techni-cal Report 19, Office of Naval Research, Wash-ington, DC, 1982.

33 Schein, E., Organisational Culture & Leader-ship, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 1986.

34 Derr Brooklyn, C. and Laurent, A., “The inter-nal and external career: a theoretical andcross-cultural perspective”, in Arthur, M.B.,Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B.S. (Eds), Handbookof Career Theory, Cambridge University Press,UK, 1989, pp. 454-71.



[ 40 ]

35 Driver, M.J., “Career concepts – a newapproach to career research”, in Katz, M.R.(Ed.), Career Issues in Human Resource Man-agement, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,1982.

36 Arnold, J., Robertson, I.T. and Cooper, C.L.,Work Psychology: Understanding HumanBehaviour in the Workplace, Pitman, London,1995, pp. 265-80.

37 Holland, J.L., The Psychology of VocationalChoice, Blasdell, Waltham, MA, 1966.

38 Osipow, S.H., Theories of Career Development,3rd ed., Prentice Hall, New York, NY, 1983.

39 Dalton, G.W. and Thompson, P.H., Novations:Strategies for Career Management, Scott Fore-seman, Glenview, IL,1986.

40 Forster, N.S., “Employee job mobility andrelocation”, Personnel Review, Vol. 19 No. 6,1990, pp. 18-24.

41 Forster, N.S., “A practical guide to the manage-ment of job changes and relations”, PersonnelReview, Vol. 19 No. 4, 1990.

42 Feldman, D.C. and Weitz, B.A., “Careerplateaux reconsidered”, Journal of Manage-ment, Vol. 45 No. 1, 1988, pp. 69-80.

43 Hall, D.T. and Hall, S.H., cited in Garavan, T.N.,“Promoting strategic career developmentactivities: some Irish experience”, Industrialand Commercial Training, Vol. 22 No. 6, 1990, pp. 27-30.

44 Hall, D.T. and Isabella, L.A., “Downwardcareer movement and career development”,Organizational Dynamics, Summer 1987, pp. 5-22.

45 Sekeran, U. and Hall, D.T., “Asynchronism indual career and family linkages”, in Arthur,M.B., Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B.S. (Eds),Handbook of Career Theory, Cambridge Uni-versity Press, UK, 1989, pp. 159-80.

46 Rosenbaum, J.E., Career Mobility in a Corpo-rate Hierarchy, Academic Press, New York, NY,1987.

47 Ornstein, S., Cron, W.L. and Slocum, J.W. Jr, “Acomparative test of the theories of Levinsonand Super”, Journal of Organizational Behav-iour, Vol. 10 No. 2, April 1989, pp. 117-33.

48 Gallos, J.V., “Exploring women’s development:implications for theory, practice andresearch”, in Arthur, M.B., Hall, D.T. andLawrence, B.S. (Eds), Handbook of CareerTheory, Cambridge University Press, UK, 1989, pp. 110-32.

49 Martin, P.Y., Harrison, D. and Dinnitto, D.,“Advancement for women in hierarchicalorganizations: a multilevel analysis of prob-lems and prospects”, The Journal of AppliedBehavioural Science, Vol. 19 No. 1, 1983, pp. 19-33.

50 Lee, R.A. and Piper, J., “The graduate promo-tion process: understanding the soft side”,Personnel Review, Vol. 18 No. 3, 1989, pp. 36-46.

51 Shapior, E.C., Haseltine, F.P. and Rowe, M.P.,“Moving up: role models, mentors and thepatron system”, Sloan Management Review,Vol. 19 No. 3, 1978, pp. 51-8.

52 Baron, J.N., Davis-Blake, A. and Bielby, W.T.,“The structure of opportunity: how promotionladders vary within and amongorganizations”, Administration Science Quar-terly, Vol. 231, 1986, pp. 248-73.

53 Pfeffer, J. and Cohen, Y., “Determinants ofinternal labour markets in organizations”,Administration Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, 1984,pp. 550-72.

54 Kanter, R.M., “Careers and the wealth ofnation, a macro-perspective on the structureand implications of career forms”, in Arthur,M.B., Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B.S. (Eds),Career Theory, Cambridge University Press,UK, 1989, pp. 506-28.

55 DiPrete, T.A.,“Horizontal and vertical mobilityin organizations”, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 32, September 1987, pp. 422-44.

56 Baron, J.N. and Bielby, W.T., “The proliferationof job titles in organizations”, AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 31, 1986, pp. 561-86.

57 Argyris, C., cited in Arthur, M.B. and Dram,K.E., “Reciprocity at work”, in Arthur, M.B.,Hall, D.T. and Lawrence, B.S. (Eds), Handbookof Career Theory, Cambridge University Press,UK, 1989, pp. 292-312.

58 Lee, R., “The theory and practice of promotionprocesses: part one”, Leadership & Organiza-tion Development Journal, Vol. 6 No. 2, 1985, pp. 3-6.

59 Lee, R., “The theory and practice of promotionprocesses: part two”, Leadership & Organiza-tion Development Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, 1985, pp.17-21.

60 Fagenson, E.A., “The mentor advantage: per-ceived career/job experiences of protégésversus non-protégés”, Journal of Organiza-tional Behaviour, Vol. 10, 1989, pp. 309-20.

61 Inglos, C.A., “Management education: articu-lating the unspoken, riding the bend: wastingmoney & preparing for tomorrow?”, in May, L.,Zamitt, S. and Moore, C.A. (Eds), EvaluatingBusiness & Industry Training, Kluwer, Nor-wall, MA,1987.

62 Guntz, H., “Careers and the corporate climb-ing frame”, Leadership & OrganizationalDevelopment Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, 1990, pp. 17-24.

63 Nicholson, N. and Arnold, J., “Graduate earlyin a multi-national corporation”, PersonnelReview, Vol. 18 No. 4, 1989, pp. 3-14.



Documents

Career Mobility