3.楊育儀老師_CareerManagement

Career Management Practices: An Empirical Survey and Implications • 347

CAREER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: AN EMPIRICALSURVEY AND IMPLICATIONS1

Human Resource Management, Winter 2000, Vol. 39, No. 4, Pp. 347–366© 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Yehuda Baruch and Maury Peiperl2

A key ingredient in the knowledge economy is the development of people’s careers. Companiesapproach career development in a variety of ways. To better understand how these approaches fittogether and how they are used to address different situations, the authors surveyed 194 UnitedKingdom companies and identified five groups of practices. These groups were associated withcertain organizational characteristics. Drawing on concepts from the careers literature, the au-thors suggest a two-dimensional model to explore how these groups of practices can be systemati-cally understood and applied. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Introduction

The study of careers in organizational con-texts—the way in which careers shape and areshaped by organizations—is short of theoreti-cal and systematic approaches. Arthur, Hall,and Lawrence (1989) have indicated that theconcept of a career is not the property of anyone theoretical or disciplinary view. They pre-sented eight viewpoints from the social sci-ences on the career concept (psychology,social psychology, sociology, anthropology, eco-nomics, political science, history, and geogra-phy), none of which concentrated specificallyon its organizational aspects. This kind ofbreadth, while making important links amongdisciplines, leaves the study of careers in or-ganizations without a clear focus. This makesit difficult to generate a comprehensive theoryand subsequently leads to a problem of howto design empirical studies to examine suchan unfocused concept. Careers are something

of a late entrant in management theory:Boerlijst (1984) claimed that the career as awhole began to receive real attention only inthe 70’s. More systematic study of careers hasarisen since; yet the organizational aspect incareer theory still lacks a comprehensiveframework. It seems that, apart from norma-tive designs for career systems, there is notyet an accepted theoretical model of careerprocesses—let alone any empirical tests ofsuch a model.

Meanwhile, the bulk of research in thecareers area has moved beyond organizationsto focus on more flexible, individual modelssuch as the “Boundaryless Career” (Arthur &Rousseau, 1996), “Protean Career” (Hall,1976, 1996), and “Post-Corporate Career”(Peiperl & Baruch, 1997). Clearly the wave ofthe future for many people, such careers none-theless still involve links between organizationsand individuals, although in a less structuredor permanent way (Brousseau, Driver,

The study ofcareers inorganizationalcontexts—the wayin which careersshape and areshaped byorganizations—isshort oftheoretical andsystematicapproaches.

348 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Winter 2000

Eneroth, & Larsson, 1996). Despite theunfashionability of organizational careers, itis, therefore, still important to take the orga-nizational viewpoint into account in under-standing career practices in order to put thenewer, more individual views into context.

In this paper, we present the findings ofan empirical survey of career practices in or-ganizations and examine how these are ap-plied. Our purpose is to create a model toprovide scholars and practitioners with a gen-eral framework in which the various practiceswill be related to one another and to the char-acteristics of organizations applying them. Theresult may also suggest which kind of careermanagement practices could fit different or-ganizations and how a system built out of suchpractices could be based on theoretical think-ing and empirical evidence.

The possible contribution of such studieswas demonstrated by Robertson & Makin’s(1986) work on the use of selection practicesin 108 organizations. Their study was repli-cated by Shackelton & Newell (1991) andfindings from both show how personnel prac-tices can fit together to create good HumanResource Management (HRM) practice in theselection area. The present study explores thearea of career management systems and pro-vides a model for the way in which organiza-tional career systems are put into operation.“Career” is here taken to mean a process ofdevelopment of the employee along a path ofexperience and jobs that may be in one or moreorganizations (Baruch & Rosenstein, 1992).

HRM in organizations includes manypractices that are concerned with the man-agement of careers. Strategic HRM emergedin the 1980s as an attempt to associate HRMwith the strategy and direction of organiza-tions (Fombrun, Tichy, & Devanna, 1984;more recent efforts include those of Ghoshal& Bartlett, 1997, & Gratton, 2000). Closelyfollowing came theoretical works relating tocareers as a system within the organization,and relating them to strategy and HR prac-tice, including those by Von Glinow, Driver,Brousseau, & Prince (1983); and Sonnenfeld& Peiperl (1988). Little research, however, hasexamined the actual process of career man-agement within organizations. (Notable excep-tions include Howard & Bray ’s (1988)

longitudinal study of managers in the BellSystem and Lindsey, Holmes, & McCall’s(1987) study of high potential managers’growth; both of these, however, primarily fo-cussed on the individual rather than the or-ganization.) Nonetheless, writers haveemphasized the importance of career prac-tices and activities and the increasing effortsexerted by top management in many organi-zations (Hall, 1986). Organizations have as-sumed more responsibility within this area,even if not always by means of traditional,long-term approaches and the career man-agement practices they employ need to bebetter understood.

Very few theoretical career models exist,and most relate to the individual perspective(Arthur, Inkson, & Pringle, 1999; Dalton,Thompson, & Price, 1977; Driver, 1979;Greenhaus, 1987; Hall, 1976, 1996; Schein,1978). The theoretical base of organizationalcareer management is quite thin (Arthur, Hall,& Lawrence, 1989; Gunz & Jalland, 1996) andshows little convergence (Peiperl & Arthur,2000; Sullivan, 1999). Schein’s cone modelof career development is perhaps the onlyprominent example that reflects both indi-vidual developmental paths and organizationalsystems (yet even this is clearly outdated, basedon its static, single-firm perspective). For thefew models that do reflect the organizationalaspect, empirical validations are rare. Severalworks explore the existence of career manage-ment practices (see below), but these were notdirected to test theory or build it further. Thereis a need, therefore, to consider the currentstate of career management practice in orga-nizations, to look for patterns, and to associ-ate these with a wider framework.

To investigate and model career manage-ment practices require a comprehensive viewof what those practices are. We began with thebroader category of HRM practices and exam-ined existing research. Tsui & Gomez-Mejia(1988) suggested a list of activities, programs,and methods with which the organization canhandle HRM processes. Gutteridge & Otte(1983) also presented a catalogue of organiza-tional HRM practices (see also Dalton & Th-ompson, 1986; Flippo, 1984; Hall, 1986;Torrington, MacKay, & Hall, 1985; Tyson &Fell, 1986). Among these practices were those

In this paper, wepresent thefindings of anempirical surveyof careerpractices inorganizations andexamine howthese are applied.


that had a close relationship with organizationalcareer planning and its management. “Organi-zational Career Management” (OCM), as wecall it, is concerned with the organization car-rying out activities relevant to the career devel-opment of its employees. (This is distinct fromcareer management as practiced by individu-als, consultants, or job centres, for example,although it is not mutually exclusive with, butrather may complement them.) The importanceand prominence of OCM has been recognizedby many scholars (Gutteridge, 1986; Hall,1986; Leach, 1977; Mayo ,1991; Schein, 1978;Van Maanen & Schein, 1977).

We also looked at several sources whichsuggested lists of OCM practices specifically(see for example Baruch 1996; Bowen & Hall1977; London & Stumpf, 1982; Louchheim& Lord, 1988). An earlier survey by Walker& Gutteridge (1979) identified 10 OCM ac-tivities, although some of these were closerto other aspects of HRM than to OCM (e.g.recruitment, work-family interface). Some as-pects of OCM practices and activities hadbeen discussed by Gutteridge and Otte(1983), but their discussion was limited to10 practices and an evaluation of only threeof them. Perhaps the widest list was that pro-vided by Gutteridge, Leibowitz, & Shore(1993) in their study of OCM in the UnitedStates. Their study, however, concentrated onlarge American business organizations only(the top 1,000 United States corporations)and might thus have been unrepresentativeof broader practice.

Practices Considered

A set of OCM practices to be used in the sur-vey was identified from the sources citedabove. These are listed in Table I. While al-ternatives might be argued, we assumed forthe purpose of this study that this list coveredthe whole range of OCM practices. (This wasalso supported by a pilot study; see below.)The first six items were varieties of appraisal(direct and indirect) while the rest compriseda broader mix. A comparison with the list pro-vided by Gutteridge, Leibowitz, & Shore(1993) shows a substantial, but not a com-plete, overlap (see Table II). Some of the tech-niques in that list were not specific to career

management at the organizational level butrather fit into the broader category of humanresource management (e.g. interview process,employee orientation programs). On the otherhand, the list did not include certain relevantpractices such as common career paths, for-mal education, and performance appraisal asit links to career planning.

Missing from both lists is any consider-ation of processes reaching beyond the orga-nization, such as outplacement consulting orthe facilitation of external networking for lateremployment. The argument could easily bemade that such processes should be included;however, it was not clear what a comprehen-sive list of such “post-corporate” processeswould look like, since many of them are cur-rently being developed (Peiperl and Baruch,1997; Peiperl, Arthur, Goffee, & Morris,2000). Therefore we included several blanklines at the end of the list and encouragedsubjects to add to it (see below) in anticipa-tion of finding such new practices.

Also missing from the list are full multi-source 360-degree assessments, as well as jobassignments that are purely developmental.Both have been linked to successful careermanagement (Tornow, London, & Associates,1998, pp. 63–66; London & Stumpf, 1986, p.35). Although these general categories are notincluded, items 3 and 4 (peer and subordi-nate appraisal) are specific elements of thefirst practice, while item 17 (lateral moves tocreate cross-functional experience) is a spe-cific element of the second.

Organizational Characteristics

Beyond building a framework for OCM sys-tems, we also wished to connect them withother features of organizations. Many organi-zational studies have used demographic datain addition to the main items under study inorder to see where and how their findings weremost generalizable. We were particularly in-terested in the basic demographic features ofage, size, and industry sector, as well as in in-ternal characteristics such as career systemsstrategies—in particular the use of internalversus external labor markets (the extent towhich firms hire from outside at other thanentry level—see Osterman, 1984) and the bases

Beyond buildinga framework forOCM systems, wealso wished toconnect themwith otherfeatures oforganizations.


for developmental decisions (Sonnenfeld andPeiperl, 1988). We thought it would be likely,for example, that older organizations might bemore apt to use certain practices (such as re-tirement planning) than would younger ones,and that larger organizations would be likelyto use more formal and highly structured OCMpractices than would smaller ones. If patternsof OCM practice emerged from the study, wewanted to see whether these features were as-sociated with them.

Another potentially important element wasthe presence of unions, which seemed likelyto affect career practices inasmuch as indus-trial relations have a bearing on HRM (Guest,1995; Heckscher, 1988; Kochan, Katz, &McKersie, 1986). Past works indicated howdifferent types of organizations tend to havedifferent levels of unionization, and it was ofinterest to examine possible associations be-tween unionization and the type of career man-agement practiced in organizations.

Third and most complex was organizationalclimate. Scholars have been inclined to associ-ate climate with managerial practice and struc-tures, whereas culture is more closely associatedwith underlying values and beliefs (Child, 1984;Denison, 1996; Pettigrew, 1979). Both havebeen used in building conceptual frameworksabout organizations (Gunz, 1989; Patterson,Payne, & West, 1996). Schein (1985) provided

such a framework based on his definition of or-ganizational culture (“basic assumptions andbeliefs that are shared by members of an orga-nization”, p. 8). Building on this, Derr & Laurent(1989) examined internal and external careersystems to suggest that organizational culturesplay a crucial role in determining career aspira-tions of people within organizations.

For this study, we chose a simple set offour dimensions of organizational climate:dynamism, group orientation, openness, andproactiveness. These measures were adoptedfrom Baruch & Lessem (1994). Although theyreflect only a subset of the many possible di-mensions of climate, we felt these measuresmight be particularly relevant to the case ofcareer systems.

Propositions

We expected that the 17 OCM practices wouldcluster together in groups, each with an un-derlying characteristic or theme. We also be-lieved that differences in the application ofthe techniques in each cluster would occurdepending upon various organizational char-acteristics including size, age, industry sec-tor, climate, and reliance on internal labormarkets. These propositions are as follows:

P1: The wide range of career managementpractices will naturally cluster into groups

1. Performance appraisal as a basis for career planning 2. Assessment centers 3. Peer appraisal 4. Upward (subordinate) appraisal 5. Career counselling by direct supervisor 6. Career counselling by HR Department 7. Formal mentoring 8. Career workshops 9. Common career paths10. Dual ladder (parallel hierarchy for professional staff)11. Written personal career planning (as done by the organization or jointly)12. Retirement preparation programs13. Succession planning14. Books and/or pamphlets on career issues15. Postings regarding internal job openings16. Formal education as part of career development17. Lateral moves to create cross-functional experience

Organizational Career Management Practices Used in This Research.TABLE I

Scholars havebeen inclined toassociate climatewith managerialpractice andstructures,whereas cultureis more closelyassociated withunderlyingvalues andbeliefs…


according to their common use andintercorrelations among the practices.

P2: The groups of practices will be associ-ated with certain characteristics of organi-zations such as size, age, unionization, cli-mate and reliance on internal labor markets.

If such clusters were to be found, theycould be expected to reflect specific sets of or-ganizational characteristics. For example, webelieved that practices such as career counsel-ling or career planning would be associated withopen and dynamic climates and that 360-de-gree feedback would not be common in union-ized firms. Without having identified theclusters of practices, however, it was impossibleto develop specific hypotheses about the asso-ciations each cluster would evidence. We thusapproached the question purely inductively.

Method

We set out to document the use of the OCMpractices in Table I in a broad sample of orga-nizations. Data were obtained from a postal

survey of career development practices formanagers in United Kingdom organizations.Each organization was asked the followingquestion, referring to the set of practices inTable I:

Personnel/Human Resource Managementdepartments practice a variety of activities,tools, or techniques for handling employees’career planning and management. Below isa list of such activities, tools, or techniques.For each item on the list, please indicateto what extent the activity, tool, or practiceis applied in your organization for manage-rial staff.

The scale was from 1 (not applied at all)to 7 (applied extensively). As a check on thelist, participants were also asked to indicatewhether they applied any additional activities,tools, or practices. This was done to determineboth whether any essential practice was miss-ing from the list and whether respondents hadcorrectly interpreted the items (i.e., Did theylist one of the same practices using differentterms?). No attempt was made to measure the

Organizational potential assessment process:promotability forecastspsychological testingassessment centersinterview processjob assignment

Individual counselling or career discussion with:supervisor or line managersenior career adviserpersonnel staffspecialised counsellor: internal/external

Job matching systems:informal canvassingjob postingskills inventories or skills auditreplacement or succession planningstaffing committeeinternal placement system

Developmental programs:job enrichment or job designjob rotationin-house training and development programsexternal seminars or workshopstuition reimbursementsupervisor training in career discussiondual-career couple programsmentoring systememployee orientation program

Employment self-assessment tools:career planning workshopscareer workshops (stand alone)pre-retirement workshopscomputer software

Internal labor market Active Management:career information handbookscareer ladders or dual-career laddercareer resource centerother career information format or system

TABLE II The List Developed by Gutteridge, Leibowitz, & Shore (1993).


effectiveness of any practice, as to do this ac-curately would have been a far more complexundertaking (requiring, for example, multiplerespondents from each subject organization).We assumed that the application of a practiceimplied, if not its effectiveness, then at leastits (perceived) usefulness to the organization.

The use of an internal labor market wasmeasured by two questions on the number ofvacancies at middle and senior managementlevels filled internally. These were rated on ascale from 1 (none) to 7 (all).

In addition, we asked a series of ques-tions about the demographics of the firm(age, number of employees, unionization,industry sector, etc.) and also four items onorganizational climate:

• stable-dynamic• individually-group-oriented• closed/bureaucratic-open/interactive• reactive-proactive

addressing the elements mentioned above onLikert-type scales of 1 to 7.

Participants and Data Sources

The research unit of analysis was the organiza-tion. The population consisted of a randomsample of 524 organizations created using ThePersonnel Managers Yearbook (1995). This bookcontained a list of all 8,500 United Kingdomorganizations employing more than 150 people.We did not include smaller organizations (fewerthan 150 persons) as in most small organiza-tions there is no HRM/Personnel unit as such,let alone any organizational career manage-ment. The requirements of HRM are differentand are usually taken care of by the owner/man-agers directly, often on an ad-hoc basis.

We used a two-layered random sample:The first layer included 150 organizationsthat employed up to 500 people and the sec-ond, 374 organizations employing more than500. (A purely random sample would haveincluded small organizations for more thanhalf its cases, as the yearbook contained ahigh representation of small organizations.)The anticipated source of information wasthe HRM/Personnel Manager; thus the ques-tionnaire was sent to the person in charge of

HRM/Personnel in each organization. Al-though using a single source of informationfor each firm left some risk of bias, there wasno clear method available for obtaining com-parable second sources from the sample offirms. While HR managers might be expectedto be knowledgeable about career manage-ment practices (at least formal ones), no othergroup of respondents could be guaranteed tohave a similar knowledge base.

The questionnaire was pre-tested on asub-sample of 20 HR directors. No signifi-cant additions or changes were necessaryin the list of practices as a result, and thespread of responses on all items was satis-factory. From the subsequent mailing, 194questionnaires were returned (37%), a con-siderable rate when compared to other sur-veys conducted at the organizational level(e.g. Huselid, 1995—28%; Park, Ofori-Dankwan & Bishop, 1994—20%). The maincharacteristics of participating organiza-tions responding (i.e. size, age, sector ofactivity, unionization, and location) are pre-sented in Table III. The picture derivedfrom the table is a reasonably broad sampleof United Kingdom organizations stratifiedas shown.

Analytical Approach

We first produced a frequency distribution ofOCM practices to determine which were usedmost and least frequently and whether addi-tional practices should have been included. Wethen used a factor analysis (varimax rotation)to see whether and how the OCM practicesclustered together, per Proposition 1. Thismethod was applied successfully in formerstudies (see Tsui & Milkovich, 1987, for theuse of factor analysis to look for groupings ofpersonnel activities). Finally, we ran a corre-lation analysis of the resulting factors with theorganizational characteristics to determinewhether there were any strong links betweenthese characteristics and OCM practice.

Results

Table IV presents the distribution of the 17 prac-tices as spread across the 194 organizations.The order is from most frequent to least fre-


quent use. It was notable that some of the mosteffective techniques, at least as shown by em-pirical studies, failed to appear near the top ofthe table. These included succession planning,assessment centers, and peer and upward ap-praisals. Succession planning (Miner andMiner, 1979) appeared near the middle, ratherthan the top of the table, possibly because ofthe increased difficulty of planning effectivelyfor succession in continuously changing busi-nesses—by the time a succession plan is cre-ated, it may already be obsolete. Assessmentcenters, which have long been seen as effec-tive (Bray, 1985; Tziner, Ronen, & Hacohen,1993) are expensive to run and, despite theireffectiveness, tend to be found only in very largeorganizations which were a minority of thepresent sample. Peer and upward appraisals,which can be extremely accurate measures ofperformance (Tornow, 1993), are still notwidely used for applications such as careermanagement and in particular have taken offmore slowly outside the United States. We

would expect these two practices to appearhigher on the list in future surveys.

Twenty-one companies indicated the use ofanother OCM practice that was not in the abovelist, and seven indicated the use of two suchpractices (total 35 indications). Of these prac-tices, 11 were individual development items(with no clear organizational component), andfive were “secondments”, meaning temporary as-signment to another area. Of the others, somewere informal (informal mentoring, for example),some were slogans for programs with no spe-cific practices discernible, and several were are-phrasing of one of the 17. These results indi-cated that the suggested list was comprehen-sive, covering the range of possible OCMpractices. It also suggested that there was a good(if not perfect) understanding of the 17 prac-tices among the subjects in the sample, althoughthis was not conclusively proven. Finally, the lackof boundary-spanning activities such asoutsourcing and external networking meant thateither the subject firms were not engaged in

Size (number ofemployees)

Age (years ofexistence)

Sector

Ownership

Unionization

Location

Nation

up to 50054 (28%)

up to 527 (14%)

manufacturing74 (39%)

private76 (39.5%)

most unionized89 (46%)

London36 (19%)

United Kingdom131 (68%)

501 to 1,00042 (22%)

6 to 2546 (24%)

services33 (17%)

public41 (21%)

minority unionized59 (30.5%)

other large cities15 (8%)

MNC United Kingdombase30 (16%)

1,001 to 5,00071 (37%)

26 to 10084 (45%)

public sector84 (44%)

government66 (34%)

non-unionized43 (22.5%)

other141 (73%)

MNC non UnitedKingdom30 (16%)

> 5,00025 (13%)

> 10031 (17%)

other*10 (5.5%)

The Main Characteristics of the Participating Organizations.TABLE III

MNC=Multinational Corporation* such as a combination of these three or employee-ownedN.B. Responses do not all total 194 as several respondents skipped certain questions.

Peer and upwardappraisals,which can beextremelyaccuratemeasures ofperformance arestill not widelyused forapplications suchas careermanagement andin particularhave taken offmore slowlyoutside theUnited States.


such activities, or they did not associate themwith organizational career management.

A Typology of Organizational CareerManagement

Table V presents the results of the factor analy-sis. We have labelled each of the five resulting

factors creating a typology which indicates thenature of each group of practices:

Basic. Job posting, formal education as partof career development, pre-retirement pro-grams, and lateral moves to create cross-func-tional experience appeared in this category.These may be seen as elementary OCM prac-tices which most organizations with HRM sys-

No. and Title

15. Job Postings

16. Formal education

1. P.A. for career planning

5. Counselling by manager

17. Lateral moves

6. Counselling by HR

12. Retirement Preparation

13. Succession planning

7. Formal mentoring

9. Common career paths

10. Dual ladder

14. Books/pamphlets

11. Written career plans

2. Assessment centers

3. Peer appraisal

8. Career workshops

4. Upward appraisal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 mean sd N

7 10 7 11 29 54 74 5.62 1.65 191

5 7 20 21 50 61 28 5.08 1.48 191

11 10 19 21 63 39 28 4.80 1.63 190

13 10 27 30 55 40 17 4.52 1.62 191

7 24 33 26 52 37 13 4.33 1.60 191

26 15 19 34 46 42 9 4.16 1.78 190

38 20 15 17 38 33 31 4.15 2.15 191

29 30 35 33 29 29 6 3.60 1.75 190

56 43 21 23 29 16 4 2.95 1.79 191

82 16 18 25 34 12 - 2.73 1.80 186

100 17 14 24 21 11 2 2.42 1.77 188

80 39 24 21 16 10 1 2.41 1.60 190

98 30 18 10 15 17 4 2.38 1.82 191

101 27 15 15 18 9 6 2.34 1.79 190

107 18 24 15 13 11 4 2.26 1.73 191

102 32 20 15 11 7 4 2.15 1.60 190

122 20 11 12 10 11 4 2.04 1.70 189

Appliedextensively

*listed from most frequent to least frequent use

Not appliedat all

Count of responses by category:

The Use of the 17 Career Practices.TABLE IV

Career Practices*


tems need to apply. In fact, Table IV (pg. 354)indicates that they were applied in most of thesubject organizations. The first two were alsothe most frequent in use.

These basic OCM practices, although cur-rently widespread, may best fit the older, bu-reaucratic organization model rather than the

emerging organization where, for example, pre-retirement programs are not needed becausemost members are not expected to stay for longyears of employment. Some of these organiza-tions also change so rapidly that job postingsbecome obsolete soon after they appear. Manynew organizations are also reluctant to invest

15. Job postings

16. Formal education

12. Retirement preparation

17. Lateral moves

1. P.A. for career planning

5. Counselling by manager

6. Counselling by HR

13. Succession planning

2. Assessment centers

7. Formal mentoring

8. Career workshops

14. Books/pamphlets

10. Dual ladder

11. Written career plans

9. Common career paths

3. Peer appraisal

4. Upward appraisal

.79 -.04 .03 -.05 .09

.70 .14 -.01 .26 -.01

.51 .26 -.10 .38 -.18

.56 .25 .34 -.05 .09

.04 .85 .01 .12 .12

.12 .73 .14 .16 -.04

.28 .49 .43 .13 .09

.24 .54 .24 -.14 .42

.00 .13 .75 .04 .16

.11 .20 .63 .35 -.04

-.01 -.07 .58 .47 .05

.22 .05 .19 .69 .02

.06 .08 .07 .64 .36

.00 .29 .31 .51 .16

-.07 .10 .25 .42 .51

-.01 .01 -.08 .23 .75

.07 .10 .14 -.01 .72

Multi-Directional

Statistics:Factor Eigenvalue CUM % Cronbach � Designation1 4.46 26.2 .60 Basic2 1.78 36.7 .70 Active Planning3 1.36 44.7 .61 Active Management4 1.21 51.8 .68 Formal (� including item 9)5 .94 57.3 .57 Multi-Directional (� no item 9)

Program ActivePlanning

ActiveManagement

FormalBasic

Factor Analysis Results.TABLE V


in education for their members, preferring to“buy-in” fully qualified talent, for reasons ofcost, high labor turnover (loss of investment),and fluctuating skill requirements that makelong-term planning impossible.

Active Planning. Four practices appearedin this category: Performance appraisal as abasis for career planning, career counsellingby the direct supervisor, career counselling bythe HR department, and succession planning.These practices share both an active involve-ment on the part of the organization in thecareers of individuals and a planning elementthat considers the individual’s developmentover time, as well as the organization’s needto fill jobs in the future. Companies usingOCM processes in this category show an in-dication of a forward-looking HRM systemthat takes the initiative.

Active Management. Assessment centers,formal mentoring, and career workshops arethe three practices in this group. They clearlyall have an informational element, which char-acterizes either the process of informationgathering for the organization or the use ofinformation for developing individuals. The bi-directional nature of this information trans-fer is characteristic of organizations that takethe time to put these elements in place.

Formal. Written personal career planningfor employees, dual career ladder, and booksand/or pamphlets on career issues are thethree practices in this group. These representelements of career management whereby theorganization provides the employees with aformal system of information and presenta-tion of opportunities. It is a different kind ofinformation transfer, this time in a downwarddirection rather than being bi-directional.

Multi-Directional. Peer appraisal, upward(subordinate) appraisal, and common careerpaths factored into this category. Commoncareer paths, however, were logically moreassociated with formal career structures, andbecause the item also had a substantial weight-ing on the formal factor, we decided to add itto that group instead. The remaining two prac-tices could be characterized as increasing op-tions by expanding the directions throughwhich people can receive feedback and de-velop within the organization. To some extent,they transcend the traditional vertical struc-

tures, which characterize bureaucratic orga-nizations. We see these as “cutting edge” prac-tices, those which many future organizationswill need, though they are not necessarily newin historical terms. (They had arisen alreadyby the 1970s but in limited numbers.)

To test the proposition of possible asso-ciations between the OCM characteristics andother features of organizations, we combinedthe components of each group into one scalemeasure and tested its reliability. TheCronbach alphas, indicating scale reliabilityfor each of the five groups, are given at thebottom of Table V. The results broadly sup-port proposition 1. Thus the typology, whosevalue must of course be judged eventually byits applicability, could claim an empirical un-derpinning for its elements.

Intercorrelations and Association with OtherOrganizational Characteristics

Table VI contains the intercorrelations amongthe aggregate measures for each scale, as wellas correlations between these measures andcertain organizational characteristics.

Most of the practice groups were significantlyintercorrelated, signalling that the factors werenot orthogonal. Because all of the practices wereto some extent related, being elements of organi-zational career management, this was not sur-prising. Their distinctiveness stemmed not fromtheir orthogonality but from the closely relatedcharacteristics or practices within each group (de-scribed above).

As proposed, there were moderate asso-ciations between the types and certain char-acteristics of organizations. Most notable werethose related to the climate characteristics ofthe organizations; also significant were size,unionization, and reliance on internal labormarkets. Age did not show any significant re-lationship (see note at the bottom of Table VI).

Each of the five types of OCM evidencedcertain relationships:

1. Basic activities were positively associ-ated with dynamic, group-oriented, and pro-active climates. These activities, some of themost frequent in practice, were embedded inthe workings of those organizations that felta responsibility to facilitate the careerprogress of all employees at some fundamen-


tal level. A group orientation, coupled withan action bias, would facilitate this. None ofthe demographic factors evidenced any rela-tionship with this cluster, perhaps an indica-tor that these activities really were basic—inthe sense of being widespread.

2. Active Planning activities were stronglyassociated with dynamic, open, and proactiveclimates. A certain level of openness was nec-essary to the counselling activities containedin this cluster. Again, a bias toward taking ac-tion, in combination with an open climate,

could lead to the use of these techniques.Reliance on internal labor markets wasstrongly associated with this cluster, a rela-tionship that reflects the use of career andsuccession planning within the organization.

3. Active Management was not signifi-cantly correlated with any climate measure,but was near-significantly correlated with pro-active climate. Once again there is the ten-dency for doing something rather than nothingthat links (albeit tenuously) these activitiestogether. As two of the three elements in this

Correlations between the Five Types of OCM and Organizational Characteristics.TABLE VI

Cluster/ Factor

Basic

Active Planning

Active Management

Formal

Multi-Directional

Climate:Stable-Dynamic

Climate:Individual-Group

Climate:Closed-Open

Climate:Reactive-Proactive

Age+

Size (employees)

Unionization

Internal Labor Market

Basic

.43**

.22**

.26**

.06

.18*

.21**

.15

.21**

.02

.05

-.14

.10

Active Planning

.39**

.42**

.26**

.28**

.07

.27**

.27**

-.13

.10

.09

.37**

ActiveManagement

.51**

.23**

.03

.03

.06

.13

.02

.15*

-.04

.18*

Formal

.38**

.12

.08

.01

.08

-.04

.22**

.03

.23**

Multi-Directional

.14

.08

.19**

.10

-.01

.09

-.19*

.20**

* = p < .05; ** = p < .01+Age was problematic: First, the sample contained a very wide spread, with a few organizations over 200 years old; second,some organizations had been re-established recently out of previously existing organizations (e.g. National Health Servicetrust hospitals); thus their actual age (years of continuous operation) was much higher than the stated age of, say, two tofour years.


cluster were well down the usage list (TableIV), stronger correlations would have been un-likely. Size and internal labor markets werecorrelated with this cluster, indicating in par-ticular the kind of environment necessary forthe creation and success of assessment cen-ters, the first element of the cluster.

4. Formal activities were not correlatedwith any climate measure. This was not sur-prising, since given their less active nature,these elements appeared to have little to linkthem to climate. These activities were alsorelatively little used. Similarly to the activemanagement cluster, size and internal labormarkets showed an effect, even more stronglyin this case. As larger organizations are oftenmore formal than smaller ones, and as threeof the activities in this cluster were focussedon career paths for present employees withinthe firm, this was not surprising.

5. Multi-Directional activities were corre-lated with open climates. These kinds of envi-ronments are fundamental to the success ofsuch activities as peer and upward appraisalbecause of the high requirement for regular,candid giving and receiving of feedback (Lon-don, 1995; Peiperl, forthcoming). This clus-ter was negatively associated with unionizationand positively associated with internal labormarkets. This made sense since unions are nottypically associated with open climates or withinnovative appraisal methods, whereas inter-nal labor markets are more associated withtrusting the capabilities and opinions of em-ployees over long periods.

The correlations provided moderate sup-port for Proposition 2. This was in line withour expectations, as the measurement of or-ganizational climate is by nature a complexprocess, and a few self-reported data pointscould not be expected to adequately charac-terize an entire organization. Still, climateand internal labor market indicators evi-denced more and stronger relationships withthe OCM groupings than did the three moretraditional demographic measures of age,size, and unionization.

Implications of these findings are dis-cussed further below, including how organi-zations might better understand and developtheir career systems in accordance with theirexisting cultures. It may also be the case that

other characteristics not tested in our surveymay prove to correlate with some or all of theclusters. This would take additional researchto test.

Groups of Organizational Career Practices:An Emergent Model

There are clearly limitations to the use of sta-tistical tools in trying to discern the meaningof field data. Substance is more important thansignificance, and since no grounded theory ofOCM practices yet existed, we set ourselves thetask of establishing one, going beyond the sta-tistical results but nonetheless building on thedata analysis. Having interpreted likely mean-ings for the individual clusters of OCM activi-ties, we then sought a logic that might discerna pattern of relationships among them. We firsttried to construct an hierarchical model thatmight suggest which practices were used in akind of sequence of sophistication from leastto most advanced. In considering the practicesand the intercorrelations among them (TableVI), however, we soon became convinced thatno such linear hierarchy existed. Rather, out ofthis information we developed the descriptivemodel shown in Figure 1.

The model comprises two dimensions: thelevel of sophistication of the OCM practices andthe level of involvement on the part of the orga-nization necessary to put them into use. Alongthe vertical axis (increasing sophistication), thebasic cluster appears at the bottom as the com-mon denominator among OCM practices. Itselements were the most frequently reported inthe survey (Table IV). The Multi-Directionalcluster appears at the top. Its elements werethe least frequently used in the survey, andin our opinion, some of the most advanced.(These two clusters also evidenced the low-est intercorrelation; see Table VI.)

The horizontal axis (increasing involve-ment) separates the middle three clusters,which are not easily sorted by sophistication.Although there was no index of involvement inour survey, upon examining the elements ineach of the clusters resulting from the analysiswe were struck by the differences in the degreeof involvement necessary on the part of theorganization and its managers to carry out thevarious practices. Of the three middle clusters,

… climate andinternal labormarket indicatorsevidenced moreand strongerrelationshipswith the OCMgroupings thandid the threemore traditionaldemographicmeasures of age,size, andunionization.


FIGURE 1. Two dimensional model of career management practices.

Multi-directionalPeer appraisalUpward appraisal

FormalWritten personal careerplanningDual career ladderCareer books and/orpampheltsCommon career paths

Active ManagementAssessment centersFormal mentoringCareer workshops

Active PlanningPerformance appraisal as abasis for career planningCareer counseling(1) by the direct supervisor(2) by the HR departmentSuccession planning

BasicJob postingsFormal educationPre-retirementLateral moves

High

Low

Low

High

Level ofSophistication Formal Active

Management

Multi-directional

ActivePlanning

Basic

Level of Involvement


the Formal group appeared to require the leastinvolvement, the Active Management a moder-ate amount, and the Active Planning group themost organizational involvement of the set. (Anexamination of the intercorrelations in TableVI will reveal that this is a reasonable group-ing, as all three of these clusters were signifi-cantly correlated.)

The Basic and Multi-Directional clustershave been left in the middle on the horizontaldimension, although it might be argued thatthe Basic activities require slightly less, andthe Multi-Directional activities slightly more,involvement on the part of the firm. In orderto evaluate the model and settle these place-ments empirically, it would be necessary todevelop an actual measure of organizationalinvolvement in OCM activities and apply it tothe clusters developed here.

Implications for Management

In designing a career system, HR managersare typically faced with a plethora of choicesaround which elements to incorporate. Thisstudy has shown how these elements clustertogether, and how these clusters correlate inpractice, both with one another and with cer-tain organizational characteristics. This in-formation may prove useful to HR managersin setting up their OCM programs. In par-ticular, HR managers and others charged withmanaging careers in organizations should de-velop career systems as actual systems; thatis, as sets of practices which naturally fit to-gether and are appropriate to theorganization’s stage of development, form,and/or industry.

For example, established companies thatseek to provide the basic elements of a ca-reer system should consider first the ele-ments of the basic cluster. Because most ofthe companies in the random sample re-ported the use of these practices, employ-ees (particularly new ones hired from othercompanies) would likely expect these sup-port mechanisms to be in place, and theiromission could constitute a disadvantage.Job postings and lateral moves might be seenas fundamentals of an open system, whileformal education and pre-retirement plan-ning might be seen as basic benefits; they

thus belong in any organization with suffi-cient infrastructure to carry them out.

Companies looking to sustain stable in-ternal labor markets and offer longer-termcareers may find the elements of the formalcluster appropriate. Dual ladders in particu-lar developed in large firms such as IBM inthe 1960s and 70s in order to allow scien-tists and other non-managers to continue toadvance their careers without having to en-ter the management ranks, therefore makinglong-term career development possible forsuch people. Often the presence of commoncareer paths, written career plans, and booksor pamphlets explaining the career systemcan add stability and promote a long-termview. Although many organizations have hadto move away from such a focus, many (par-ticularly in the public sector) still retain theelements of the “Club” (Sonnenfeld, Peiperl,& Kotter, 1988) in which long membershipand contribution to the group lead to steadycareer advancement.

Organizations trying to maximize knowl-edge about individuals’ potential, both forthe individual and the organization, shouldconsider using the somewhat resource-in-tensive practices of the Active Managementcluster. Assessment centers, formalmentoring relationships, and career work-shops all focus on knowing as much as pos-sible about the individual and his/herprospects, as well as how the firm’s careersystem works. This cluster is also closelyrelated to the Active Planning cluster, whoseelements should be used by firms attempt-ing to translate information into action bymaking specific career plans for individualsand succession plans for the firm.

At the other end of the spectrum, HRmanagers concerned with being cutting edgeshould consider the use of Multi-Directionalpractices but should be aware that these aremore common in larger organizations with lowunionization and high openness. Peer andupward appraisals, although rapidly gainingcurrency, are not easy to do well and usuallyrequire significant support (Tornow, 1993;London & Smither, 1995; Peiperl, forthcom-ing). To attempt to introduce such practicesin small, unionized, or “closed-culture” orga-nizations might be difficult.

This informationmay prove usefulto HR managersin setting uptheir OCMprograms.


Furthermore, the emergent model sug-gests that when deciding on OCM practicesgenerally, organizations would be wise to con-sider the level of involvement necessary fromHR and line managers in order to make suchpractices work. Introducing highly demand-ing practices such as those in the Active Plan-ning cluster may be inappropriate in situationswhere managers are not likely to be able tosustain the necessary effort to make themwork; they may do more harm than good ifthey are seen by employees to be introducedonly to be left unsupported.

Managers also need to consider the possibleimplications of the relationships between theOCM clusters and other factors, in particularclimate. The results from our climate measureshave pointed out the importance of applyingOCM in accordance with the environmentwithin the organization. It is important for man-agers to consider not only what is desirable butalso what is possible, given the firm’s currentclimate, and not to set unrealistic goals. Althoughour four climate measures are somewhat sim-plistic, we believe that most organizations willbe able to place themselves within each dimen-sion. The following considerations, of necessitysomewhat speculative, may be helpful:

More stable (less dynamic), and similarlymore closed (less open) organizations may bebest served by the Basic and Formal OCMclusters. These contain activities which fit es-tablished processes rather than demand con-tinual energy and change. By contrast, moredynamic (less stable), and similarly moreopen (less closed) organizations, althoughthey may use these clusters, are more likelyto benefit from the Active Planning andMulti-Directional activities, which involvetaking a direct hand in employees’ careermanagement on a regular basis.

Individualistic organizations should con-centrate on the Active Planning and ActiveManagement clusters, in which the level ofinformation about individuals, and the amountof attention paid to their careers, are maxi-mized. Conversely, group-focused organiza-tions may find the Multi-Directional cluster,which maximizes group-level performance in-puts, and the Basic cluster, which containssome family-type elements (education, retire-ment planning), fit best.

Reactive organizations, in which there istime for few initiatives, may find the activitiesof the Formal cluster the only set they are ableto maintain. By contrast, proactive climateswould be well-placed to benefit from the Ba-sic activities to begin with, and from the Ac-tive Planning and Active Management clustersat a further level of involvement.

OCM in Practice

How well does the model hold up in practice?We found numerous examples of companieswhose activities centered around one or twoof the OCM clusters:

HSBC is one of the world’s largest bankswith a substantial share of the retail bankingmarket in several countries including theUnited Kingdom. The firm has long reliedon the Basic and Active Planning clusters ofOCM practices. Jobs (except at the highestlevels) are typically posted and people encour-aged to apply; formal training is offered bothinternally and externally at all levels, and pre-retirement counselling is provided. The un-derlying philosophy has been to buildgeneralist bankers, and lateral moves acrossareas are encouraged. Hierarchical perfor-mance appraisals are tied in directly withcareer planning, which is done in conjunc-tion with one’s manager. In addition, eachbusiness area has in place a succession planwhich is updated annually.

Interestingly, few if any of the activities inthe Active Management, Formal, or Multi-Di-rectional clusters are used at HSBC. Theremay be something of a shift going on at thebank, however, exemplified by its elite cadreof 400 “permanent expatriates”. These peopleare seen as the leading edge in the company,and here there is evidence of the Active Man-agement cluster of activities, in particular as-sessment centers, both for selection and forlater assignment and promotion. Thus, thebank may be moving toward a more innova-tive approach to OCM.

Consumer products giant Unilever haslong been known for its excellent managementdevelopment. This appears to center aroundthe Active Planning and Formal clusters. Per-formance appraisal feeds directly into careerplanning through a process known as Perfor-

Reactiveorganizations, inwhich there istime for fewinitiatives, mayfind the activitiesof the Formalcluster the onlyset they are ableto maintain.


mance Development Planning (PDP), a glo-bally integrated approach to appraisal, reward,and career management. It includes careercounselling by managers as well as writtencareer plans, which while not cast in stoneare indicators of both what the individualemployee wants and what the company feelsit can deliver. Particularly in the first five toseven years of employment, common careerpaths exist with different templates in differ-ent functional areas. Although dual ladders donot formally exist, it is not uncommon withinUnilever to see functional experts promotedup a narrow ladder with management titlesbut with little line responsibility, which appearsto accomplish the same dual-ladder purpose.Succession planning also takes place annu-ally throughout Unilever’s 12 business unitsfor all senior management roles.

Elements of the Basic cluster also exist atUnilever, in particular formal education, whichis provided mainly internally. This education,however, as well as any lateral moves, are re-served primarily for the early identified, care-fully tracked high-potential group (10-15% ofmanagers globally). There is little evidence ofthe Active Management activities, even for thiscohort, but there are a few parts of the com-pany in which Multi-Directional activities arebeginning, on a voluntary basis. The companyexpects this to increase in future.

At Electronic Data Systems (EDS), oneof the world’s largest IT firms, careers havelong been the province of individuals. “You’rein charge of your own career management”has been the firm’s philosophy for many yearsand given the firm’s long-standing high-growth record, there is rarely any shortage ofopportunities for people to move laterally orupward. As a result, very few OCM practicesare in evidence. Interestingly, however, inrecent years the firm launched a 360-degreefeedback system in order to ensure the con-tinued development of employees’ capabili-ties and skills, key attributes which wouldprovide them with opportunities. The com-pany thereby began its OCM with the Multi-Directional cluster, the most advanced in ourmodel. At the time of this writing, EDS wasalso developing a succession planning system(Active Planning cluster) in order to ensureat least some stability in a firm whose sheersize has begun to put a strain on its tradi-tionally fluid career systems.

Conclusions and Future Research

There has been a good deal of research pub-lished in the careers area in recent years.Much of it has been theoretical but not wellconnected to empirical work. Although a num-ber of models of career theory and practice

Basic• Offer basic career system elements• Satisfy employees’ expectations• Requires infrastructure

Formal• Support internal labor market• Provide stability• Clarify options for career developmentwithin firm

Active Management• Maximize firm knowledge of employees• Maximize employee knowledge of firm and options

within it

Active Planning• Make performance-career links explicit• Offer personal and emotional support• Provide for succession

Multi-Directional• Maximize performance feedback• Promote open culture• Risks in small or “closed” organizations

HRStrategicGoals

Implications for HR Practice: Summary of Key Goals Appropriate to Each OCM Cluster.TABLE VII


exist (DeFillippi & Arthur, (1996), Greenhaus,(1987), Gutteridge & Otte, (1983), Hall,(1986), London & Stumpf, (1982), Schein,(1978), and much empirical work has beenconducted, connections between the empiri-cal and theoretical studies has not been asstrong as one might expect.

This study investigated a comprehensiveset of OCM practices through a random-sample postal survey and established the ex-istence of five clusters of practices. It linkedthose clusters together in an emergent modeland considered their relationships with otherorganizational characteristics, particularlyclimate-related. In so doing, it has built uponstudies that have taken a similar approachspecifically to examine recruitment and se-lection processes (Robertson & Makin, 1986;Shackelton & Newell, 1991). Since the roleof most HR and line managers includes notonly bringing people into organizations butalso developing their potential, this studyadds to the existing research in providing abasis of comparison for organizations in theOCM area.

Additionally, the study adds a layer to thedevelopment of a theoretical framework forthe area of careers. As suggested in the intro-duction, career management lacks such aframework which should be based at least inpart on empirical evidence. The proposedmodel provides one such beginning uponwhich future theoretical and empirical workmay draw.

There was little evidence in this study,however, in the area of boundary-spanningactivities and careers transcending organiza-tions. In light of the present debate on theend of organizational careers, it is importantto acknowledge that such developments aretaking place. For many firms, they lead to acrossroads where the organization will needto decide how far it will be involved in thecareer planning of its managers and employ-ees and how much will be left for the indi-vidual to manage.

The post-corporate career (Peiperl &Baruch, 1997) may represent a paradigm forthe near future, but the organizations in thisstudy either did not recognize it or, more likely,considered it a separate sphere of activity totheir own career management practices. Such

a view may be short-sighted: The more indi-viduals leave the organizational career frameof reference, the harder it will be for organi-zations to make it work. On the other hand,we would not expect organizational careers todisappear, and in turbulent environments it isall the more important for the managementof those careers to be undertaken with a goodunderstanding of the available tools and prac-tices. In the best case, organizations and indi-viduals will both play a role in careermanagement and will share important infor-mation about opportunities and links to bepursued for the benefit of both.

What also has not been examined here inany detail, and should be the subject of fur-ther research, is the question of which orga-nizational characteristics are most importantto the success of OCM practices. More spe-cific data on organizational structures andprocesses, including other variables such asturnover rates, economic performance of thefirm, and performance evaluative style of man-agers would provide an important complementto the broad-brush elements (age, unioniza-tion, climate) considered here.

To evaluate the model, a set of mea-sures for sophistication of OCM practiceand level of involvement would need to bedeveloped. In addition, a data set includ-ing organizations from several countrieswould provide more robust evidence andwould allow comparisons across nationalcultures and legal systems. HR practices aremore heavily legislated in some countriesthan they are in the United Kingdom, fromwhich this sample was drawn; however,United Kingdom labor markets and busi-ness practices are not dissimilar to thosein the United States. Still, because theUnited States has been the source of themajority of HR and careers research, thedata set should be extended to includeUnited States firms as well.

Of course, we recognize that even with itssolid grounding in the existing literature, our listof OCM practices would elicit some disagree-ment. We can only respond that such disagree-ments are healthy and invite the undertaking ofsimilar research on different sets of practices,the results of which might then be comparedwith, and build upon, the present study.

In the best case,organizationsand individualswill both play arole in careermanagement andwill shareimportantinformationaboutopportunitiesand links to bepursued for thebenefit of both.


Finally, these are an analysis and amodel built on current practices in organi-zations. They are not, therefore, a descrip-tion of either best practice, or moreimportantly, best possible (future) practice.It may well be that new career managementtechniques are currently being developed

YEHUDA BARUCH is a Reader in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Manage-ment at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom, and formerly VisitingResearch Fellow at London Business School. He holds a B.Sc. in Electronic Engineer-ing (Ben Gurion, Israel), and a M.Sc. and D.Sc. in Management and Behavioural Sci-ences (The Technion, Israel). After working as a project manager in high-technologyindustry, he embarked on a career in academia. His research interests are in the area ofHuman Resource Management—mainly career management systems, 360-degree per-formance appraisal, tele-working, and organizational culture.

MAURY PEIPERL is Assistant Professor of Organizational Behavior and Director of theCareers Research Initiative in the Center for Organizational Research at London Busi-ness School. He received his BSE in computer engineering from Princeton Universityand his MBA, AM in psychology, and Ph.D. in organizational behavior from HarvardUniversity. His work has been published in Academy of Management Review, HumanResource Management, Harvard Business Review (forthcoming), and Organizational Dy-namics, among others. He teaches and consults in the areas of performance manage-ment, 360-degree feedback, careers, strategic HR, and change management.

Arthur, M. B., Hall, D.T., & Lawrence, B.S. (1989).Generating new directions in career theory: Thecase for a transdisciplinary approach. In M. B.Arthur, D. T. Hall, and B. S. Lawrence, (Eds.),Handbook of career theory, (p. 7–25). Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Arthur, M.B., Inkson, K., & Pringle, J.K. (1999). Thenew careers: Individual action and economicchange. London: Sage.

Arthur, M.B., & Rousseau, D.M. (Eds.) (1996). Theboundaryless career. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Baruch, Y. (1996). Career planning and managingtechniques in use. International Journal of Ca-reer Management, 8(1).

Baruch, Y., and Rosenstein, E. (1992). Career plan-ning and managing in high- tech organizations.International Journal of Human Resource Man-agement, 3(3), 477–496.

Baruch, Y., & Lessem, R. (1994). Applications forthe use of the spectral management type inven-tory. Paper presented at the British Academy ofManagement Conference, Lancaster.

Boerlijst, J.G. (1984). Career development and ca-reer guidance. In P.J. Drenth, H. Thierry, P.J.

Willems, & C. J. Wolff, (Eds.), Handbook of Workand Organizational Psychology. John Wiley andSons.

Bowen, D., & Hall, D.T. (1977). Career planningfor employee development: a primer for manag-ers. California Management Review, 20(2), 33–35.

Bray, D.W. (1985). Fifty years of assessment cen-ters: A retrospective and perspective view. Jour-nal of Management Development, 4(4), 4–12.

Brousseau, K.R., Driver, M.J., Eneroth, K., & Larsson,R. (1996). Career pandemonium: Realigningorganizations and individuals. Academy of Man-agement Executive, 10(4), 52–66.

Child, J. (1984). Organization. London: Harperand Row.

Dalton, G.W., and Thompson, P.H. (1986).Novations: Strategies for career management.NY: Scott Foresman.

Dalton, G.W., Thompson, P.H., & Price, R.L. (1977).Four stages of professional careers—A new lookat performance by professionals. OrganizationalDynamics, Summer, 19–42.

DeFillippi, R.J., & Arthur, M.B. (1996). Boundarylesscontexts and careers: A competency-based per-

REFERENCES

that will make obsolete some of the itemson the list from which the clusters weredrawn. If so, a similar survey at some futuretime would undoubtedly yield a differentpattern of OCM activity, allowing research-ers to update the clusters and the model pre-sented to reflect the new realities.


spective. In Arthur, M.B., and Rousseau, D.M.(Eds.), The boundaryless career. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Denison, D.R. (1996). What is the difference be-tween organizational culture and organizationalclimate? A native’s point of view on a decade ofparadigm wars. Academy of Management Re-view, 21(3), 619–654.

Derr, C.B., & Laurent A. (1989). The internal andexternal career. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall, & B.S. Lawrence, (Eds.), Handbook of career theory.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 454–471.

Driver, M.J. (1979). Career concepts and careermanagement in organizations. In C.L. Cooper(Ed), Behavioral problems in organizations, 79–139. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Flippo, E.B. (1984). Personnel management, 6thEd, 224–269. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fombrun, C.J., Tichy, N.M., & Devanna, M.A. (1984).Strategic human resource management, 19–31.New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C.A. (1997). The individu-alized corporation: A fundamentally new ap-proach to management. London: Heinemann.

Gratton, L. (2000). Living strategy: Putting peopleat the heart of corporate purpose. London:Pearson.

Greenhaus, J. H. (1987). Career management. ForthWorth: The Dryden Press.

Guest, D.E. (1995). Human resource management,trade unions and industrial relations. In J. Storey(Ed), Human resource management, A criticaltext, 110–141. London: Routledge.

Gunz, H. (1989). Careers and corporate cultures.Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Gunz, H., and Jalland, M. (1996). Managerial ca-reers and business strategies. Academy of Man-agement Review, 21(3).

Gutteridge, T.G. (1986). Organizational career de-velopment systems: The state of the practice. InD.T. Hall, Career development in organizations,50–94. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pub..

Gutteridge, T.G., Leibowitz, Z.B., & Shore, J.E.(1993). Organizational career development. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Pub.

Gutteridge, T.G., & Otte, F.L. (1983). Organizationalcareer development: What’s going on out there?Training and Development Journal, 37(2), 22–26.

Hall, D.T. (1976). Careers in organizations. PacificPalisades, CA: Goodyear.

Hall, D.T. (1986). Career development in organiza-tions, 50-94. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pub.

Hall, D.T. (1996). The career is dead: Long live thecareer. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pub.

Heckscher, C.C. (1988). The new unionism. NewYork: Basic Books.

Howard, A., & Bray, D.W. (1988). Managerial lives

in transition: Advancing age and changing times.New York: Guildford Press.

Huselid, M. (1995). The impact of human resourcemanagement practices on turnover, productivity,and corporate financial performance. Academyof Management Journal, 3, 635–672.

Kochan, T., Katz, H., and McKersie, R. (1986). Thetransformation of American industrial relations.NY: Basic Books.

Leach, J. (1977). The notion and nature of careers.The Personnel Administrator, 22(7), 53–63.

Lindsey, E.H., Holmes, V., & McCall, M.W. Jr. (1987).Key events in executives’ lives. Greensboro, N.C.:Center for Creative Leadership.

London, M. (1995). Self and interpersonal insight:How people gain understanding of themselvesand others in organizations. New York: Oxford.

London, M., & Smither, J.W. (1995). Can multi-source feedback change perceptions of goal ac-complishment, self-evaluations, andperformance-related outcomes? Theory-basedapplications and directions for research. Person-nel Psychology, 48, 803–839.

London, M., & Stumpf, S.A. (1982). Managing ca-reers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub.

London, M., & Stumpf, S.A. (1986). Individual andorganizational career development in changingtimes. In Hall, D.T., Ed., Career developmentin organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Louchheim, F., & Lord, V. (1988). Who is takingcare of your career? Personnel Administrator,33(4), 46–51.

Mayo, A. (1991). Managing careers. London: IPM.Miner, J.B., & Miner, M.G. (1979). Personnel and

industrial relations: A managerial approach. NewYork: MacMillan, 208–231.

Osterman, P. (1984). The nature and importance ofinternal labor markets. In P. Osterman (Ed),Internal labor markets, 1-22. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Park, H.Y., Ofori-Dankwan, J., & Bishop D.R. (1994).Organizational and environmental determinantsof functional and dysfunctional turnover: Prac-tical and research implications. Human Rela-tions, 3(47), 353–366.

Patterson, M., Payne, R., & West, M. (1996) Collec-tive climates: A test of their sociopsychologicalsignificance. Academy of Management Journal,39(6), 1675–1691.

Peiperl, M.A., & Arthur, M.B. (2000). Topics forconversation: career themes old and new. Chap-ter 1 in Peiperl, M.A., Arthur, M.B., Goffee, R.,and Morris, T. (Eds.), Career frontiers: new con-ceptions of working lives. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 1–19.

Peiperl, M.A. (forthcoming). Getting 360º feed backright. Harvard Business Review, January 2001.

Peiperl, M.A., Arthur, M.B., Goffee, R., & Morris, T.(Eds.) (2000). Career frontiers: New conceptions


of working lives. New York: Oxford University Press.Peiperl, M.A., & Baruch, Y. (1997). Back to square

zero: The post-corporate career. OrganizationalDynamics, 25(4), 7–22.

The Personnel Manager’s Yearbook. (1995). Lon-don, UK: Institute for Personnel Management.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1979). On studying organizationalculture. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,570–581.

Robertson, I.T., & Makin, P.J. (1986). Managementselection in Britain: A survey and critique. Jour-nal of Occupational Psychology, 59(1), 45–57.

Schein, E.H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matchingindividual and organizational needs. Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational culture and lead-ership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Shackelton, V., & Newell, S. (1991). Managementselection: A comparative survey of methods usedin top British and French companies. Journal ofOccupational Psychology, 64(1), 23–36.

Sonnenfeld, J.A., & Peiperl, M.A. (1988). Staffingpolicy as a strategic response: A typology of ca-reer systems. Academy of Management Review,13(4), 568–600.

Sonnenfeld, J.A., Peiperl, M.A., and Kotter, J.P.(1988). Strategic determinants of manageriallabor markets: A career systems view. HumanResource Management, 27(4), 369–388.

Sullivan, S. (1999). The changing nature of work: Areview and research agenda. Journal of Man-agement, 25, 457–484.

Tornow, W.W. (1993) Perceptions or reality: Is multi-source feedback a means or an end? Human

Resource Management, 32, 221–229.Tornow, W.W., & London, M. (1998). Maximizing

the value of 360-degree feedback: A process forsuccessful individual and organizational devel-opment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Torrington, D., MacKay, L., & Hall, L. (1985). Thechanging nature of personnel management.Employee Relations, 7(5), 10–16.

Tsui, A.S., & Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (1988). Evaluatinghuman resource effectiveness. In L. Dyer (Ed.),Human Resource Management: Evolving Rolesand Responsibilities, series 1. Washington D.C.ASPA/BNA, 187–227.

Tsui, A.S., & Milkovich, G.T. (1987). Personnel de-partment activities: constituency perceptive andpreferences. Personnel Psychology, 40, 519–537.

Tyson, S., & Fell, A. (1986). Evaluating the Person-nel Function. London: Hutchinson Pub.

Tziner, A., Ronen, S., & Hacochen, D. (1993). Afour-year validation study of an assessment cen-ter in a financial corporation. Journal of Orga-nizational Behavior, 14(3), 225–237.

Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E.H. (1977). Career de-velopment. In J.R. Hackman and J.L. Suttle,(Eds.), Improving life at work: Behavioral scienceapproaches to organizational change, 30–95.Santa Monica CA: Goodyear.

Von Glinow, M.A., Driver, M.J., Brousseau, K., andPrince, J.B. (1983). The design of a career-ori-ented human resource system. Academy of Man-agement Review, 8(1), 23–32.

Walker, J.W., & Gutteridge, J.G. (1979). Career plan-ning practices: An AMA survey report. N.Y.AMACOM.

ENDNOTES

1. An earlier version of this paper won the Best Paper in HRM award at the British Academy of ManagementConference in September, 1997, and was reproduced in the Proceedings.

2. The authors are grateful to Profs. Nigel Nicholson, Chris Earley, and Tim Morris, Dr. Jennifer Georgia,Brittany Jones, and to the Editor of HRMJ and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments onearlier drafts of this paper.

3.楊育儀老師_CareerManagement

Documents

Transcript of 3.楊育儀老師_CareerManagement