CAREERS WITHIN CAREERS: RECONCEPTUALIZING THE NATURE OF CAREER ANCHORS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES

Daniel C. Feldman Mark C. Bolino

University of South Carolina

Scheins seminal work on career anchors suggests that individuals develop careers within careers after their true abilities, needs, and values become crystallized through a variety of real-world work experiences. Moreover, once formed, these stable career identities (or career anchors) have significant consequences for individuals career satisfaction and job stability. Despite the contribution of Scheins ideas, his model of career anchors is underspecified theoretically and empirical tests have been far from conclusive. In this article, we reconceptualize the nature of career anchors, reconsider Scheins original typology of career anchors, and present a series of propositions about the factors which moderate the relationships between career anchors and career outcomes. In addition, we suggest alternative methodologies for measuring and analyzing career anchor data and explore the implications of career anchor research for managing careers in organizations.

In a series of publications during the 1970s and 198Os, Edgar Schein proposed a construct called career anchors (Schein, 1975, 1978, 1987). Schein suggested that through successive trials and challenges experienced in their first few years out of school, young adults gain a more accurate and more stable career self-concept. He labelled this stable career concept career anchor and proposed that it had three components: (1) self-perceived talents and abilities (based on actual successes in a variety of real-world work settings); (2) selfperceived motives and needs (based on actual experiences with a variety of job assignments); and (3) self-perceived attitudes and values (based on reactions

Direct all correspondence to: Daniel C. Feldman, University of South Carolina, College of Business Administration, Department of Management, Columbia, SC 29208. Human Resource Management Review, Volume 6, Number 2, 1996, pages 89-112 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. Copyright 0 1996 by JAI Press Inc. ISSN:1053-4822

90

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

6, NUMBER

2. IS96

to a variety of norms and values encountered in different work groups and organizations). At a theoretical level, Scheins work has made a major contribution to how careers scholars conceptualize the development of a stable career identity and distinguish that process from initial vocational choice. Scheins work on these careers within careers makes salient four points, in particular, about the fo~ation of stable career identities (1978, pp. 125-128,164). First, Scheins work highlights the important distinctions between the processes of initial occupational choice and subsequent career identity formation (Nordvik 1991). Most of the work on occupational choice (cf. Holland 1973) suggests that whether a young adult chooses the occupation of accountant or engineer, for example, is based largely on what he or she likes to do. In contrast, Schein asserts that a stable career identity is formed only through the integration of an individuals interests with his/her abilities and values. Moreover, the literature on occupational choice suggests that young adults largely use assumptions about careers in choosing vocations (e.g., if I like math and physics in school, engineering would be a good occupation for me to enter). In contrast, Schein asserts that a stable career identity emerges only through concrete experiences with real tasks and real coworkers in real work organizations. Second, the literature on vocational choice has taken as its endpoint criterion the selection of an occupation (e.g., medicine, law, or acting). In contrast, Scheins work highlights the variety of career paths zuithin an occupation and the important consequences of these more subtle career path distinctions. Thus, an individual entering the field of marketing could pursue a technical career track in marketing research, a managerial career track in brand management, an entrepreneurial career track in new product development, an autonomy career track as a marketing consultant, or a security career track as a marketing professor. Third, the differences in career tracks among groups of employees in the same vocation can be as great as the differences in career tracks among individuals in different occupations. In fact, the career experiences of entrepreneurs in marketing may be more similar to those of entrepreneurs in engineering than they are to those of marketing professors or marketing research specialists. Fourth, Scheins work on career anchors suggests that these constellations of interests, abilities, and values stabilize individuals career choices in predictable ways. The metaphor of anchor is very apt here. As an individual has to make decisions about which jobs to pursue and how to balance personal and work lives, the career anchor functions as a constraining force. If the person senses the job or job situation will not be consistent with his/her talents, needs, and values, he or she will be pulled back into an environment more con~uent with the stable self-image. On the other hand, the idea of an anchor does not imply zero growth or change. Instead, it implies some movement, but movement that occurs within some circumscribed area and is not random. Career

CAREERS WITHIN CAREERS: RECONCEPTUALIZING

91

anchors can be pulled up and changed, but dramatic changes require greater effort and are not likely to occur as frequently (Schein, 1975,1978). Despite the theoretical contribution of Scheins original conceptualization, there has been little subsequent refinement or reframing of the career anchor construct. Moreover, the few small scale studies which have been conducted by Scheins students (e.g., AIbertini 1982; Anderson & Sommer 1980) have yielded inconsistent data on how many career anchor types exist and the amount of impact career anchors have on career effectiveness. The present article, then, has four goals. First, we re-examine Scheins original typology and model of career anchors, propose alternative classification schemes, suggest different assumptions about the nature and number of career anchors individuals might hold, and identify additional career-relevant outcomes which career anchors might impact. Second, we present a series of propositions about how the dimensions of career anchors identified above influence outcome variables and how situational factors might moderate the relationships between career anchors and career outcomes. Third, drawing upon related research in the area of vocational choice, we examine the ways career anchors can be better operationalized and potential alternative databases for empirical research. Finally, in light of the preceding discussion, we examine the practical implications of career anchor theory for both individual and institutional career planning.

SCHEINS MODEL OF CAREER ANCHORS Before presenting modifications to Scheins model, it is important to understand its basic elements. In Scheins early work on career anchors (Schein 1975, 1978), he posits the existence of five career anchors: (1) technical/functional competence; (2) managerial competence; (3) security and stability; (4) autonomy and independence; and (5) entrepreneurial creativity. In his later work on career anchors, Schein (1987, 1990) proposes there are three additional career anchors: (6) service and dedication to a cause; (7) pure challenge; and (8) lifestyle. A brief description of each of these career anchor types appears in Table 1. The main attribute of career anchors which drives Scheins model is congruence. He argues, and presents some supporting empirical evidence, that when individuals achieve congruence between their career anchor and their work environment they are more likely to achieve positive career outcomes. The career outcomes which Schein (1987,lWO) explicitly discusses are work effectiveness, specific job satisfactions (namely, satisfaction with the type of work, pay and benefits, promotion system, and advancement opportunities), and job stability. Figure 1 captures these main elements of Scheins model. The chief assumption underlying Scheins model is that each individual has only one true career anchor. Schein argues that individuals simply cannot have two or more career anchors; if no one anchor emerges clearly, it is because the

92

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

6, NUMBER

2, 1996

Table 1 Scheins Typology of Career Anchors 1. Technical/Functional Competence: Primarily excited by the content of the work itself; prefers advancement only in his/her technical or functional area of competence: generally disdains and fears general management as too political. 2. Managerial Competence: Primarily excited by the opportunity to analyze and solve problems under conditions of incomplete information and uncertainty; likes harnessing people together to achieve common goals: stimulated (rather than exhausted) by crisis situations. 3. Security and Stability: Primarily motivated by job security and long-term attachment to one organization; willing to conform and to be fully socialized into an organizations values and norms; tends to dislike travel and relocation. 4. Entrepreneurial Creativity: Primarily motivated by the need to build or create something that is entirely their own project; easily bored and likes to move from project to project; more interested in initiating new enterprises than in managing established ones. 5. Autonomy and Independence: Primarily motivated to seek work situations which are maximally free of organizational constraints; wants to set own schedule and own pace of work; is willing to trade off opportunities for promotion to have more freedom. 6. Service and Dedication to a Cause: Primarily motivated to improve the world in some fashion; wants to align work activities with personal values about helping society; more concerned with finding jobs which meet their values than their skills. 7. Pure Challenge: Primarily motivated to overcome major obstacles, solve almost unsolvable problems, or win out over extremely tough opponents; define their careers in terms of daily combat or competition in which winning is everything; very single-minded and intolerant of those without comparable aspirations. 8. Lifestyle: Primarily motivated to balance career with lifestyle; highly concerned with such issues as paternity/maternity leaves, day-care options, etc.; looks for organizations that have strong pro-family values and programs.
Source: Schein, E. H. 1990. Career Anchors: Discovering Your Real Values. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer &

Company.

person has not had enough life experience to develop priorities that determine how to make those choices (1990, p. 34). Even more strongly in his later works (1987,199O) than in his earlier ones, Schein defines career anchor as that one element in our self-concept that we will not give up, even in forced to make a difficult choice (Schein 1987, p. 158). Schein also argues that career anchors essentially do not change. While acknowledging that the empirical evidence is inconclusive, he notes that the weight of the evidence is on the side of stability (Schein 1990, p. 34). Schein does acknowledge, however, that because people cannot always find jobs which match their career anchors the relationships between career anchors and career outcomes are not perfect. People may be able to perform adequately and adapt to their circumstances, but do not feel their real selves are engaged.

Congruence of Career Outcomes with Work Environment Outcomes

.
l

Work effectiveness Satisfaction with : Work itself .Pay and benefits Promotions Type of recognition Job Stability

.Technical/Functional competence Managerial competence Security and stability Entrepreneurial creativity Autonomy and independence Gervice and dedication to a cause Pure challenge Lifestyle

Moderator Variable
Availability of alternative jobs
Figure 1. Scheins Model of Career Anchors

94

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REYIEW

VOLUME

6, NUMBER

2,1996

Thus, the availability of reasonable alternative jobs moderates the relationship between career anchor condense and career outcomes (cf. Figure 11 That is, the relationship between congruence of career anchors and career outcomes will be stronger when the availability of alternative jobs is high.

PROPOSED REVISED MODEL OF CAREER ANCHORS The theoretical revisions to Scheins model proposed here focus on the set of outcomes influenced by career anchors, the dimensions of career anchors, the number of career anchors a person can hold, and situational factors which moderate the relationship between career anchors and career outcomes. The key elements of this revised model appear in Figure 2.

Outcome Variables The proposed revision of Scheins model suggests there are six career-relevant outcomes which may be associated with the dimensions and numbers of career anchors individuals hold (cf. Figure 2). These outcomes are briefly discussed below. Along with Schein, we agree that career anchors should be significantly related to work effectiveness (variously defined across jobs, but generally related to quantity and quality of work), job satisfaction, and job stability. Individuals who achieve a high degree of fit between their career anchors and their work enviro~ents should be more likely to be effective at work, satisfied with their job situations, and stable in their present positions (Argyris 1964; Caplan 1983). Into this list we would also include three additional outcome variables: work role adjustment, outside role conflict, and overall psychological well-being. Work role adjustment refers to the extent to which individu~s are able to juggle the various role demands placed upon them on the job, while outside role conflict refers to the extent to which individuals are able to balance their work role demands and personal life role demands (Katz & Kahn 1978). If career anchor theory is correct, then individuals whose career anchors are congruent with their current job situations would be more likely to achieve a reasonable accommodation among the role demands placed upon them on the job and should experience less role con&t between work demands and personal life demands. Along similar lines, we would expect overall psychological well-being to be a relevant outcome variable here, too. Psychological well-being is an overall assessment of the amount of emotional distress and related physiological distress (psychosomatic or psychogenic illnesses) a person experiences in his/her life (Goldberg 1972). If an individual is able to find a job situation which is wellsuited to his/her talents, needs, and attitudes, then the amount of psychological and physiological distress he/she experiences should be low as well.

CAREERS WITHIN CAREERS: RECONCEPTUALIZING

95

96

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

6, NUMBER

2,19%X

Proposition la. Congruence between career anchors and work environments will be positively related to: (a) work effectiveness, (b) job satisfaction, (c)job stability, (d) work role adjustment, and (e) overall psychological well-being. Proposition lb. Congruence between career anchors and work environments will be negatively related to the amount of outside role conflict.

Dimensions of Career Anchors While certainly the congruence of career anchors with work environments is an important dimension along which individuals can be arrayed, we suggest here that there are three other important dimensions of career anchors which determine their impact on career success and career effectiveness. Talent-Based, Need-Based, or Value-Based. The first of these dimensions taps whether an individuals career anchor is primarily talent-based, needbased, or value-based. When we examine Scheins typology more closely, we see important distinctions which need to be made among these eight career anchors on this dimension. Schein (1987) proposes that, in the context of careers, an individuals selfconcept is defined by three categories of questions. The first questions are related to the persons talents and abilities. In other words, individuals ask themselves: What are my talents and skills, my strengths, and my weaknesses? What am I good at? The second questions are connected with discovering ones needs and motives; these questions ask: What are my main motives or drives? What is it that I am after in life? The final set of questions are associated with an individuals values. Examples of such questions are: How good do I feel about my work or about what I am doing? What values do I use to judge my actions? Three of the eight career anchors- technical/functional competence, managerial competence, and entrepreneurial creativity-are grounded in a persons work talelzts; these anchors focus on the type of work individuals do day in and day out. Three of the anchors-security and stability, autonomy and independence, and lifestyle-are grounded in an individuals motives and needs; these anchors focus on how individuals want to structure their work roles consistent with their basic personal desires and their personal lives. Two of the career anchors-dedication to a cause and pure challenge-are grounded in a persons attitudes and u&es; these anchors focus on individuals identification with their occupations and the cultures of their organizations. Thus, while Schein argues that career anchors represent the integration of individuals talents, needs, and values, we suggest here that career anchors can be highly differentiated in terms of the centrality of these three different components. Indeed, in discussing these career anchors, Schein implicitly acknowledges some of these distinctions. For example, in writing about individuals with a technical/functional competence career anchor, Schein (1990, p. 20) notes that what really turns them on is the exercise of their talents. In contrast, in writing about individuals with an autonomy career anchor, he writes that everyone has needs for certain levels of autonomy . . . for some

CAREERS WITHIN CAREERS: RECONCEPTUALIZING

97

people, however, such needs come to be overarching (1990, p. 27). Similarly, in trying to describe individuals with a dedication to a cause career anchor, Schein writes that some people enter occupations because of central values that they want to embody in their work . . . they are oriented more toward these values than toward the actual talents or areas of competence involved (1990, p. 30). In the next three propositions, then, we hypothesize that whether individuals primary career anchor is talent-based, need-based, or value-based will have consequences for which career-relevant outcomes are affected. For individuals whose career anchor is talent-based, the impact of congruence between career anchor and work environment should be greatest on work effectiveness and job stability (Proposition 2a). For these individuals for whom the work itself is so central, a poor fit would lead to less effective job performance and a more intensive search for alternative job situations. In contrast, the talent component of career anchors should be less closely related to outside-work issues or job attitudes. Proposition 2a. For individualswith talent-basedcareer anchors,the impact of congruencebetweencareer anchors and work environmentswill be greatest on work effectivenessand job stability. On the other hand, for individuals whose career anchor is need-based, the impact of congruence between career anchor and work environment should be greatest on work role adjustment and outside role conflict (Proposition 2b). For these individuals for whom the structure and constraints of the work situation are so central, the inability to find work environments supportive of their concerns would lead to lower work role adjustment and greater outside role conflict. However, what their technical specialty is should have little impact on these role variables. Proposition 2b. For individualswith need-basedcareer anchors, the impact of congruencebetweencareer anchorsand work environmentswill be greatest on work role adjustmentand outsiderole conflict. Finally, for individuals whose career anchor is value-based, the impact of congruence between career anchor and work environment should be greatest on job satisfaction and psychological well-being (Proposition 2~). For these individuals for whom living their values at work is so central, a poor fit would lead to daily frustration and poorer job attitudes. Again, we would expect individuals values to have a greater impact on their job attitudes than their talent-based concerns would have. Proposition 2c. For individualswith value-basedcareer anchors,the impact of congruencebetweencareer anchors and work environmentswill be greateston job satisfactionand overallpsychologicalwell-being.
Durability of Career Anchors.

As Schein (1975,1978) notes, individuals develop career anchors through a series of encounters with a variety of job assignments, work organizations, and coworkers. However, not all career anchors are

98

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

6, NUMBER

2,1996

equally stable and durable. Particularly in todays economy, many young adults do not have opportunities early in their careers to have multiple challenging jobs in multiple organizations. Moreover, with the increased career disorderliness (Kilty & Behling 1985) which workers exhibit in terms of exits and re-entries into the labor market, people will vary significantly in the age and in the length of time in the workforce at which career anchors are likely to stabilize. In Proposition 3a, then, we hypothesize that the workers age, length of time in the workforce, number of job assignments held, and number of work organizations where employed will be positively associated with durability of the career anchor. If Schein is correct that it is only through infracting with a variety of tasks, coworkers, and organizational cultures that an individual develops a stable career anchor, then individuals will vary in the stability of those career anchors depending upon their age and job histories. Proposition 3a. Age, length of time in the workforce, number of jobs held, and number of organizations where employed will be positively associated with durability of the career anchor. Furthermore, Proposition 3b suggests there is an interaction effect between durability and congruence on career outcomes. The strongest positive impact on career outcomes should occur when career anchors are deeply held and stable and individuals find work environments consistent with their career anchors. Under these conditions, individuals should be most able to con& dently and accurately sort themselves into work environments which are wellsuited to their talents, needs, and values.
Proposition 3b. Durability of career anchor and congruence of career anchor will interact such that the most positive career outcomes will be achieved by those individuals who are high on both durability and congruence of the career anchor.

Salience of Career Anchors. The potential impact of career anchors is also highly reliant on the salience of these self-perceived career identities when individuals are making career decisions. Salience refers to how self-aware individuals are of their career anchors and how important career anchors are in guiding their career decisions. Salience, then, consists of both self-insight and centrality of work in an individuals overall life (Proposition 4a). In London and Brays (1984) work on self-insight, for instance, they note that for individuals to discover and be guided by their career anchors, they need to have the cognitive complexity, the analytic skill, and the emotional stamina to be introspective about their strengths and weaknesses. If the career anchor has not been thoughtfully considered and consciously integrated into decision-making processes, its impact on career-relevant outcomes will be considerably lower. The centrality of work in an individuals overall life is the second component of the salience dimension. For example, for individuals with the challenge

CAREERS WITHIN CAREERS: RECONCEPTUALIZING

99

career anchor, self-identity is very much tied to work. For these individuals, then, work is a major component of their lives and the career anchor can be expected to be an important factor in making career decisions. In contrast, for individuals with a lifestyle career anchor, self-identity is not nearly so tied to work concerns. For these individuals for whom work is a relatively minor segment of their lives, the career anchor will play a smaller role in making important decisions.
Proposition 4a. Self-insightand centralityof work in an individualslife will be positivelyassociatedwith salienceof the career anchor.

Furthermore, in Proposition 4b, we suggest that there will be an interaction effect between salience and congruence on career-relevant outcomes. The strongest positive outcomes should occur when individuals are highly aware of their career anchor and use that insight to find jobs which are congruent with their talents, needs, and values. In contrast, career outcomes will be lowest when career anchors are not salient to individuals and they choose work situations which do not fit their talents, needs, and values.
Proposition 4b. Salience of the career anchor and congruenceof the ca-

reer anchorwill interactsuch that the most positivecareeroutcomeswill be achievedby those individualswho are high on both salienceand congruence of the career anchor.

Number of Career Anchors While it is true that the majority of individuals hold only one career anchor, we propose here that it is possible for individuals to have both primary and secondary career anchors. Ironically, despite Scheins insistence that individuals have only one true career anchor, his own empirical evidence shows otherwise. For example, in his 1978 empirical study of 44 MIT Sloan Fellows, 10 out of the 44 respondents (or 23%) responded they held two career anchors equally strongly while 4 out of 44 (or 9%) held three career anchors equally strongly. Thus, approximately one-third of the respondents in Scheins own research self-report they have multiple career anchors. People may have multiple career anchors for at least two reasons. First, because career anchors can be talent-based, need-based, or value-based as noted above, individuals could hold one career anchor that is primarily talentbased and one that is primarily need-based or value-based. In short, individuals may have multiple career anchors because Scheins typology includes career anchors which do not solely address career issues. For example, an individual could have a technical/functional competence career anchor as well as a security and stability career anchor. Second, individuals may have high levels of personal ambivalence, both because they are torn between two equally attractive goals or because no one career path seems any more desirable to them than any other (Bloom 1987). Thus, many adults may be trying to meld multi-

100

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

6, NUMBER

2, 1996

ple career goals and personal interests into some type of viable career track, and as a result, hold multiple career anchors. As a consequence of multiple important career and life goals or simply high levels of personal ambivalence, then, individuals may have more than one career anchor. We suggest here that the presence of multiple career anchors will influence the impact of career anchors on career outcomes. In Proposition 5, we hypothesize that individuals with multiple career anchors will have poorer career outcomes than individuals with just one primary career anchor (cf. Figure 2). Because individuals with multiple career anchors are trying to juggle two (or more) important goals, they are more likely to make some compromises to find career options that satisfice rather than maximize their outcomes (Simon 1976). Moreover, individuals trying to juggle multiple career anchors may have more trouble keeping a stable equilibrium among role demands over an extended period of time and, as a result, experience poorer role adjustment, lower job satisfaction, and lower job stability. Proposition 5. Relativeto individualswith one careeranchor,individuals with multiplecareer anchorswill have poorer career outcomes. Complementa@ of Multiple Career Anchors. For those individuals with multiple career anchors, another important factor to consider is whether those career anchors are complementary or mutually inconsistent. For example, it is quite possible that a career anchor of technical/functional competence could be easily complemented by a security and stability career anchor; both types of career anchors are characterized by the absence of desire for changes in the kind of work performed, employer organizations, and geographical locations. On the other hand, it is much more difficult to conceive how an entrepreneurial career anchor could readily coexist with a security and stability career anchor within the same individual. For this individual, job changes made to increase entrepreneurial opportunities would simultaneously increase risk and move him/her further away from the achievement of a secure and stable work environment. The extent to which multiple career anchors are internally consistent, then, should also influence the impact of career anchors on career-relevant outcomes. As Proposition 6 suggests, individuals with complementary career anchors will have higher career outcomes than individuals with mutually inconsistent career anchors. Proposition 6. Individualswith complementary career anchorswill have higher career outcomesthan individualswith mutuallyinconsistentcareer anchors.

Moderator Variables

The proposed revised model of career anchors suggests there are four variables which moderate the relationships between career anchors and career

CAREERS WITHIN CAREERS: RECONCEPTUALIZING

101

outcomes. These moderators appear in Figure 2 and are described, in turn, below. The original conceptualization of career anchor theory is grounded in the assumption that individuals consciously consider career options available to them and make choices based on career identity considerations. However, following the long tradition of research on the relationships between attitudes and behaviors (cf. Locke 19761,here we suggest that individuals will not be free to act in ways consistent with their preferences when there are strong external situational constraints. As Schein has noted, individuals cannot make career decisions which are congruent with their career preferences when there are no reasonable alternative jobs available. Under these conditions, the relationships between congruence of career anchors and career outcomes will be attenuated (Proposition 7a). Proposition 7a. The relationships between congruence of career anchor
and career outcomes will be moderated by availability of alternative jobs; the relationships will be stronger when availability of reasonable alternative jobs is high.

Just as the availability of alternative jobs serves as a moderator, so, too, should external personal life constraints. For example, an individual may have an entrepreneurial creativity career anchor, but have substantial family commitments which make changes in business or risky financial investments infeasible. Similarly, an individual may have a security and stability career anchor, but the sudden transfer of a spouse may make pursuing that career path untenable. Thus, as Proposition 7b suggests, the relationships between congruence of career anchor and career outcomes should also be stronger for those individuals for whom there are few personal life constraints. Proposition 7b. The relationships between congruence of career anchor
and career outcomes will be moderated by personal life constraints; the relationships will be stronger when external personal life constraints are low.

Schein (1978,1987) correctly suggests that individuals can pursue a variety of careers within careers; within any occupation like accounting, one could pursue a technical, managerial, security and stability, or entrepreneurial career path. However, different occupations may be more readily conducive to pursuing certain types of career anchors than others. For instance, it may be easier to pursue a career anchor of dedication to a cause in social work than in accounting; it may be easier to pursue a career anchor of entrepreneurial creativity in marketing than in philosophy. Consequently, the consistency between an individuals career anchor and the dominant profile in the occupation should moderate the relationship between career anchors and career outcomes. As we hypothesize in Proposition 8, the relationships between congruence of career anchor and career outcomes should be stronger for those individ-

102

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

6, NUMBER

2.1996

uals whose personal career anchors are consistent with the dominant profile in the occupation.
Proposition 8. The relationships between congruence of career anchors and career outcomes will be moderated by the consistency of the individuals career anchor with the dominant profile in the occupation. The relationships will be stronger for those individuals whose career anchors are consistent with the dominant profile in the occupation.

Along the same lines, the consistency between an individuals own career anchor and the dominant culture of his/her organization should also serve as a moderator variable. While it may be theoretically possible to pursue these eight career anchors in any organization, it may be less frustrating to pursue a security and stability career anchor in a government civil service organization than in a high-tech semiconductor firm. In contrast, it may be more difficult to pursue an autonomy and independence career anchor in a brand management company than at a university. Thus, the relationships between congruence of career anchor and career outcomes should be stronger for those individuals whose personal career anchors are consistent with their dominant organizational, culture (Proposition 9).
Proposition 9. The relationships between congruence of career anchors and career outcomes will be moderated by the consistency between an individuals career anchor and the dominant organizational culture. The relationships will be stronger for those individuals whose career anchors are consistent with the dominant organizational culture.

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES In this section, we examine the methodolo~cal considerations relevant to conducting empirical research on career anchors, particularly the measurement of career anchors, the sorting of individuals into career anchor types, and sampling. Before proceeding, though, it is important to briefly describe the methodology, categorization procedures, and sampling of Schein and his students. Scheins Procedures In research studies conducted by Schein and his students, career anchors have been measured qualitatively or by a combination of qualitative and quantitative methodologies. The qualitative measurement consists largely of in-depth interviews with res~ndents about actual career choices they have made and the reasons for changes in jobs or organizations (Schein 1990). The main portion of the interview consists of the following (repeated) series of questions: (1) What was your next major change in job or organization? (2) How did this come about? What motivated the change? (31 How did you feel about the change? How did it relate

CAREERS WITHIN CAREERS: RECONCEPTUALIZING

103

to your goals? The interview also contains some questions about overall career goals and life plans. Representative of this type of question are: (1) As you look over your career and life so far, can you describe some times that you especially enjoyed (did not enjoy) and what made them enjoyable (not enjoyable)? (2) As you look ahead in your career, what things do you look forward to (want to avoid)? (3) As you think over the answers you have given, what patterns or themes do you see? Many of the studies conducted by Scheins students (e.g., Albertini 1982; Applin 1982) have used this methodology to identify career anchor types. Alternatively, career anchor types have been measured by a combination of interviews and survey questionnaires. When this methodology is used (cf. Schein 1990), participants are first interviewed along the lines above. Then, participants complete Scheins Career Orientation Survey. Finally, interviewers discuss the results of the participants questionnaire responses to help individuals determine their primary career anchor. Scheins Career Orientations Survey- contains 40 items (5 each for the 8 career anchor types). Respondents are asked to rate how true each statement is for them, from 1 (never true) to 6 (always true). One sample item for each career anchor type appears in Table 2. After the individual has answered the forty questions, he or she is asked to add four points each to the three items that seem most true for the individual.

Table 2 Sample Items from Scheins Career Orientation

Inventory

7. Technical/Functional Competence: I will feel successful in my career only if I can develop my technical or functional skills to a very high level of competence. 2. Managerial Competence: I dream of being in charge of a complex making decisions that affect many people. organization and

3. Security and Stability: I am most fulfilled in my work when I feel that I have complete financial and employment security. 4. Entrepreneurial Creativity: I am always on the lookout for ideas that would permit me to start my own enterprise. 5. Autonomy and Independence: I dream of having a career that will allow me the freedom to do a job my own way and on my own schedule. 6. Service and Dedication to a Cause: I will feel successful in my career only if I have a feeling of having made a real contribution to the welfare of society. 7. Pure Challenge: I have been most fulfilled in my career when I have solved seemingly unsolvable problems or won out over seemingly impossible odds. 8. Lifestyle: I feel successful and career requirements. in life only if I have been able to balance my personal, family,

Source: Schein, E. H. 1990. Career Anchors: Discovering Company.

Your Real Values. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer &

104

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

W)LUME

6, NUMBER

2, 1996

Then, the respondent computes an average for the five items in each of the eight career anchor scales. The scale which yields the highest score is considered the individuals career anchor. Again, in the case of ties, respondents are asked to imagine future job situations that would force them to give up one or the other of their goals and determine what they think they would do. Most of the research conducted on career anchors has been done by Schein and his students. The original study (which generated the first five career anchor types) consisted of 44 male participants in MITs Sloan Fellows Program, an executive development program for managers who already have lo12 years of significant work experience (Schein 1978). Subsequently, fourteen masters theses supervised by Schein used his general framework (e.g., Anderson & Sommer 1980; Grzywacs 1982); these theses generally relied exclusively on interview data. The largest of these fourteen studies contained 40 subjects; the average sample size was 23 (Schein 1987). In these subsequent studies, more women were included, and it was largely from examining their responses that the lifestyle and service career anchor types, in particular, emerged. All the participants in these studies have been managers, although they varied in how mainstream they were in the field of management (for example, 14 subjects were physicians who had left traditional medicine to go into health care management). The largest scale study on career anchors conducted by researchers not affiliated with MIT was performed by Hilmar Nordvik at the University of Trondheim (1991). The main focus of Nordviks work was to compare Scheins taxonomy of career anchors to Hollands (1973) typology of vocational orientations. His sample consisted of 725 Norwegian adults and was heterogeneous both in terms of occupations and in terms of gender (52% male, 48% female). However, Nordvik did not use Scheins Career Orientation Survey described above. Instead, Nordviks scale was ipsative; that is, all items given subjects were forced choice so that a high score on one anchor could be obtained only at the cost of a low score on another anchor (Nordvik 1991, p. 168). Thus, subjects would be asked to choose between having freedom to make my own decisions about my work and belonging to my local community and not being forced to move. Suggested Refinements On the positive side, Scheins initial methodology of using interviews in conjunction with questionnaires may be very appropriate in helping respondents introspect and recall decisions as they were made. In addition, these types of empathic interviews may help individuals respond more accurately about events which may not put them in a socially desirable light (Alderfer 1968). On the other hand, exclusive reliance on one interviewers coding is highly problematic and creates significant problems for assessing the reliability and validity of the data collected. Consequently, research on career anchors should utilize some type of survey along with interview ratings.

CAREERS WITHIN CAREERS: RECONCEPTUALIZING

105

Several modifications need to be made in the survey questionnaire (both as used by Schein and as modified by Nordvik). The key problem with these approaches, as they stand now, is the strong assumption that individuals have only one primary career anchor and that the survey questionnaire yield only one career anchor result. On a purely statistical level, arbitrarily adding extra points to higher ranking items (as Schein does) forces a distinction which does not exist in the raw data; correlational analyses of ipsative scales (which Nordvik uses) can lead to fallacious conclusions because high correlations between some ipsative scales force other correlations to be correspondingly lower (Hicks 1970). Perhaps more importantly, on theoretical and practical grounds, forcing all respondents to categorize themselves in terms of only one career anchor can distort the psychological reality respondents are trying to convey. As we noted earlier, approximately one-third of respondents report multiple career anchors-and the duality of respondents career goals has important implications for how they make career decisions, perform at work, adjust to their roles, and derive satisfaction from their jobs. If researchers arbitrarily force respondents into one career anchor or another, they trade off hard data which would be useful in predicting respondents actions for inflated error variance. Moreover, in terms of counselling and placing employees, it is critical to know whether individuals career anchors are stable and durable or whether considerable ambivalence or conflicting feelings still influence their decision making processes. In future research, then, four key improvements in methodology need to be made.
1. Factor analyses of Scheins Career Orientation Inventory to determine the factor structure underlying the career anchor typology. At this point, there is

not definitive evidence on how many independent career anchor types exist and how independent these eight types are. For instance, it is not clear whether the emergence of the three later career anchors (challenge, service, and lifestyle) are due to artifacts of sampling; in the fifteen studies on which Schein reports empirical data, the challenge and service anchors emerge in only two (Schein 1987, p. 161). Moreover, when Nordvik factor analyzed his data, he obtained only a four-factor solution: (1) high on Managerial Competence and Challenge, low on Security, Service, and Lifestyle; (2) high on Technical Competence, low on Lifestyle and Managerial Competence; (3) high on Autonomy and Lifestyle, low on Security; and (4) high on Entrepreneurial Creativity, low on Service. Thus, factor analyses are needed to determine the independence and underlying patterns of career anchor types. One possible scenario for results from such a factor analysis appears in Figure 3. Modelled after Hollands (1973) hexagonal typology of vocational preferences, the octagonal model in Figure 3 suggests some career orientations are fairly similar to each other while others are quite orthogonal. Based on both the theoretical definitions of Scheins career anchor types and Nordviks initial results, then, we might expect that security, service, and lifestyle would cluster together, that entrepreneurial creativity would be or-

Challenge

Managerial Competence

Technical Competence

Entrepreneurial Creativity

Security and Stability

Autonomy

Service and Dedication

Lifestyle
Underlying Career Anchors

Figure 3. Possible Factor Structure

CAREERS WITHIN CAREERS: RECONCEPTUALIZING

107

thogonal to security, and that challenge would be orthogonal to lifestyle. Note, too, that such an underlying factor structure would help us understand whether individuals career anchors are complementary (e.g., technical competence and challenge) or mutually inconsistent (e.g., security and entrepreneurial creativity) and to what extent that complementarity has a positive impact on career outcomes (cf. Propositions 5 and 6).
2. Develop a categorization scheme which allows for multiple career anchors.

As noted above, the manipulation of the questionnaire raw data to yield only one career anchor presents significant problems for future theory development, valid measurement of career anchor types, and honest career counselling and planning. A possible alternative categorization scheme can be modelled after Hollands personal preference orientation scales (1973). Hollands model suggests there are six personal preference orientations in regard to vocational choice: conventional, enterprising, realistic, artistic, investigative, and social. Unlike Schein, however, Holland suggests that all individuals be given a three-letter code. For example, a CER type (conventional, enterprising, realistic) might be expected to gravitate into public accounting, while an ECS type (enterprising, conventional, social) might be expected to gravitate into sales management or department store management. Given that career anchors are more stable than initial vocational choices, it is not unreasonable to expect career anchor classifications to need only two-letter codings. Nonetheless, we can envision there being meaningful differences between a technical/challenge (TC) type and a technical/security (TS) type. The former would be more comfortable in a private sector research and development lab; the latter would be more comfortable as a staff researcher in a government facility. Adding a double-letter coding scheme, along with dropping Scheins extra points algorithm to break ties, would yield both more valid and more useful data. 3. Use of behavioral as well as attitudinal dependent variables. While Scheins work using attitudinal outcome variables is certainly supportive of his theory, over-reliance on correlations between self-report independent and dependent variables still remains a major concern. On the independent variable side (that is, the measurement of the career anchors themselves), there are not many easily implementable solutions to the self-report data issue, except perhaps to look at the agreement between interviewer ratings and self-report ratings. On the dependent variable side, however, much greater use of non-selfreport data can be used. For example, archival data can be used to assess job stability and job performance. Specifically, researchers could examine such indices as number of occupational and organizational changes, number of domestic and international job changes, number of promotions, etc. Another possibility for dependent variable measurement comes from Hollands theory of vocational choice. Holland has an a priori list of job titles into which each three-letter vocational preference type is likely to gravitate. This categorization scheme thus allows researchers to assess to what extent individuals gravitate into jobs which are theory-consistent or theory-inconsistent and to examine the consequences of the lack of tit. For example, if 75% of those

108

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME 6. NUMBER 2.1996

individuals who self-report themselves as entrepreneurial are self-employed or work for start-up ventures, we could have greater confidence in the career anchor model. The closest research has come to this model is a study of career anchors among aerospace managers, in which Scheins students demonstrated that entrepreneurial types were most effective and satisfied in the design phase of the project while security-anchored types were most effective and satisfied in the production phase (Schein 1987). 4. Use of more heterogeneous samples and databases. Because all the empirical research studies on career anchors except one have used current managers or aspiring managers as samples, it is hard to determine at this point whether Scheins typology models career anchors for individuals just in management (broadly defined) or career anchors for individuals across many occupations. The widely divergent distributions of career anchors across studies, depending on the gender and occupational composition of the samples, makes this concern over sampling non-trivial. Consequently, future research will require much larger samples (certainly larger than N=44) and more heterogeneous samples in terms of occupations. Such samples are particularly critical for understanding underlying factors structures among career anchor types and for conducting empirical research on moderator and outcome variables. Equally important, larger samples are needed to confirm (or discard) the notion there are additional career anchor types in the workforce. For example, Schein (1990) suggests that there may be additional career anchor types centered around power, variety, pure creativity, and organizational identity. However, previous research studies have had such small samples that only one or two of these types emerge in any given study, thereby making the definition of additional stable career anchor types impossible.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS In this final section, we consider the implications of career anchor theory for managing careers in organizations. We consider, in particular, the implications for individuals self-assessment of career goals, organizations career pathing practices, and the role of college and university placement centers in providing career counselling. Individual Self-Assessment Probably the most popular approach to career planning for individuals today is self-assessment (cf. Belles 1996). While the self-assessment methodologies may vary across individuals and settings, most ask individuals to address five sets of questions: (1) What are my skill-based strengths and weaknesses as a job candidate? What do I like and dislike? (2) What goals do I want to achieve? Which goals do I need to start work on now? (3) What are my potential opportunities? What constraints do I have on my options? (4) What reasonable

CAREERS WITHIN CAREERS: RECONCEPTUALIZING

109

alternatives do I have in the short run? How would I rank them? (5) What do I need to do to reach my goals? What kind of help do I need from others? The Career Orientation Inventory developed by Schein focuses, in particular, on questions 1, 2, and 4: strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, and ranking of goals and alternatives (Schein 1992). The research suggests that there are several positive outcomes from using self-assessment exercises as Scheins in career planning. Self-assessment helps individuals take a longer-term perspective on their careers; it prods individuals to take personal responsibility for managing their own careers; it forces individuals to examine the flaws in their past career decisions; it leads individuals to consider more carefully the potential consequences of future career decisions (Feldman 1988). However, self-assessment alone does not always produce perfectly accurate self-portraits (Janis & Mann 1977; Janis & Wheeler 1978). Individuals are less accurate in diagnosing their weaknesses than their strengths; they tend to overestimate their opportunities and underestimate their obstacles; they are more likely to assume uncertain events will turn out in their favor than against them. Thus, as useful as self-assessment of career anchors can be, career decisions based on these self-assessments can only be as good as the data on which they are developed. For these reasons, then, it may be critical for the self-assessment of career anchors to be accompanied by feedback from objective bystanders such as close friends or mentors (Janis & Mann 1977). These counsellors or bystanders can help individuals discover some of the rationalizations they are using, some of the ambivalence they are experiencing, some of the false assumptions they are making about themselves or their different career options, and some of the hidden fears and desires they are reluctant to face (Janis & Wheeler 1978). Without such accompanying feedback, the potential utility of the self-assessment data may be significantly lessened. Organizational Career Planning While organizations continue to become more flexible in how they manage employees careers, the dominant model of career management in business today is still based on advancement up and through a pyramid-shaped organization. The linear career path based on successive increments of promotion, rank, and income (Driver 1979) is still more common than a steady state career path in which individuals are allowed to stay indefinitely on assignments they enjoy and find challenging. The two most prominent exceptions to this model have been the development of dual ladder career tracks (which allow employees in technically-based firms to pursue either a senior scientist or administrative career path) and the increased popularity of entrepreneurial careers in small, start-up ventures. To the extent that organizations plan logical career paths for employees today, they tend to focus on giving job assignments that build functional skills (moving an employee from production to sales), management skills (moving an

110

HUMAN RESOURCEMANAGEMENT REVIEW

VOLUME

6, NUMBER

2,1996

employee from technical work to managerial work), or cross-cultural skills (moving employees from one region of the country to another or internationally). In contrast, what career anchor theory suggests is that having preset standardized career ladders and job rotation sequences for all employees may lead to poor staffing decisions, lowered job performance, and increased turnover. For example, for an employee with a technical/functional career anchor in production, a forced move into sales or m~agement is unlikely to be a satisfying one, and the probabilities increase that the employee will fail in the new assignment or leave in frustration. Thus, organizations need to be more collaborative and flexible in their career planning for individ~~s and not assume that organizational assessments of what is best for employees are always correct. In many ways, career anchor theory suggests that the less obvious, more hidden aspects of employees careers-their values about work, the place of work in their lives, their enduring personal desires-may be more critical to good stailing decisions than the more visible badges of functional area, rank, and geographical location. Career anchor theory also has some implications for selection. Certainly, skill-based selection should be the primary way new employees are chosen for jobs, and ill-informed, personality-based selection decisions are all too open to bias and prejudice. Nonetheless, career anchor theory suggests that some organizations will be more comfortable homes for employees than others and that ignoring employees career anchors in selection decisions can lead to poor hiring decisions (Schein 1992). For instance, employees with security and stability anchors are going to have an easier time meeting their needs in regional utility companies than in international sales firms; employees with dedication to a cause career anchors are going to have an easier time adjusting to a social service agency than to a CPA firm. While certainly career anchors should not be used as selection criteria, discussions with potential employees about not only the job requirements but also the values of the organization, the typical work situations in which they will labor, and the demands (or lack thereof) for travel and relocation may lead to longer-term work effectiveness, role adjustment, and attachment to the firm. Along similar lines, career anchor theory has some implications for how organizations design reward systems. As Schein (1987) notes, individuals with different career anchors have widely different preferences for the kinds of pay, benefits, and recognition they want. For example, we would expect entrepreneurs to value large rewards for creativity and risk-taking and to care less about longevity-based fringe benefits; in contrast, we would expect security types to value predictable incremental salary increases, pensions, and other tenure-based fringe benefits. To the extent that companies can design organization-wide benefit systems to meet the needs of the dominant profile of their employees (or allow for cafeteria-style benefit plans to achieve flexibility for diversity across types), they will be better able to motivate the kinds of work effectiveness, role performance, and longevity they desire from employees.

CAREERS WITHIN CAREERS: RECONCEPTUALIZING

111

University Placement Centers Because career anchor theory has focused mainly on adults in their 30s and 4Os, its implications for university placement centers have been largely ignored. However, career anchor theory can be of use in the career counselling of older students who have returned to school after being in the workforce, continuing education students, and graduate students with significant previous work experience. In general, university placement activities have either stressed self-assessment exercises (like those discussed above) or the identification of functional areas in which students should focus their job hunt (e.g., finance, marketing, or operations). What career anchor theory suggests is that instead of concentrating on the differences in functioltal areas older students should focus on differences in career paths within careers which are best suited to them. In other words, a key task for more mature students is not simply choosing a major and a functional area to list on a resume, but rather choosing a career track, potentially implementable in a variety of functional areas, which meets their needs. In The Closing of the American Mind, Bloom (1987) writes that universities are no longer structured to help students trying to discover their true calling (p. 339):
The real problem (for universities) is those students who come hoping to find out what career they want to have. . . . There are plenty of things for them to do-courses and disciplines enough to spend many a lifetime onbut how to choose among them?. . . . Most professors are specialists, concerned only with their own fields, interested in the advancement of those fields. So the student must navigate among a collection of carnival barkers, each trying to lure him into a particular sideshow. The undecided student is an embarrassment to most universities, because he seems to be saying . . help me develop my real potential, and he is the one to whom they have nothing to say. Career anchor theory suggests, then, that career advising and counselling should be done not to slot students into easily identifiable career paths but rather to help students discover for themselves what career options would most closely meet their needs. Moreover, and particularly for older students, the choice is not simply among functional areas but also among careers within careers.

REFERENCES
Albertini, W. 0. 1982. Organization Managers: A Career Study. Masters thesis, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA. Alderfer, C. P. 1968. Comparison of Questionnaire Responses With and Without Preceding Interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology 52: 335-340.

112

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

REVIEW

VOLUME

6. NUMBER

2, 1996

Anderson, M. E. and F. F. Sommer. 1980. Career Evolution of Sloan Fellows. Masters thesis, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA. Applin, M. R. 1982. A Study of the Careers of Management Consultants. Masters thesis, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA. Argyris, C. 1964. Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: Wiley. Bloom, A. 1987. The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster. Bolles, R. N. 1996. What Color is Your Parachute? Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press. Caplan, R. D. 1983. Person-Environment Fit: Past, Present, and Future. Pp. 35-77 in Stress Research: Issues for the Eighties, edited by C. L. Cooper. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. Driver, M. 1979. Career Concepts and Career Management in Organizations. Pp. 79139 in Behavioral Problems in Organizations, edited by C. L. Cooper. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Feldman, D. C. 1988. Managing Careers in Organizations. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Goldberg, P. 1972. The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Questionnaire. London: Oxford University Press. Grzywacs, J. W. 1982. Career Anchors of Sloan Alumnae. Masters thesis, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA. Hicks, L. E. 1970. Some Properties of Ipsative, Normative, and Forced-Choice Normative Measures. Psychological Bulletin 74: 167-184. Holland, J. L. 1973. Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Janis, I. L. and L. Mann. 1977. Decision Making. New York: Free Press. Janis, I. L. and D. Wheeler. 1978. Thinking Clearly about Career Choices. Psychology Today (May): 66-76,121-122. Katz, D. and R. L. Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations, (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. Kilty, K. M. and J. H. Behling. 1985. Predicting the Retirement Intentions and Attitudes of Professional Workers. Journal of Gerontology 40: 219-227. Locke, E. A. 1976. The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction. Pp. 1297-1349 in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by M. D. Dunnette. Chicago: Rand McNally. London, M. and D. W. Bray. 1984. Measuring and Developing Young Managers Career Motivation. Journal of Management Development 3: 3-25. Nordvik, H. 1991. Work Activity and Career Goals in Hollands and Scheins Theories of Vocational Personalities and Career Anchors. Journal of Vocational Behavior
38: 165-178.

Schein, E. H. 1975. How Career Anchors Hold Executives to Their Career Paths.
Needs. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 1987. Individuals and Careers. Pp. 155-171 in Handbook of Organizational -. Behavior, edited by J. Lorsch. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. . 1990. Career Anchors: Discovering Your Real Values. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Company. 1992. Career Anchors and Job/Role Planning: The Links between Career Plan-. ning and Career Development. Pp. 207-217 in Career Development: Theory and Practice, edited by D. H. Montross and C. J. Shinkman. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Simon, H. A. 1976. Administrative Behavior, (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Personnel 52: 11-24. . 1978. Career Dynamics: Matching Individual and Organizational