Comparing apples to apples

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm

Comparing apples to apples

Comparing apples to apples

A qualitative investigation of career mobility patterns across four generations Sean T. Lyons

333

Department of Business, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada

Linda Schweitzer Sprott School of Business, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Eddy S.W. Ng

Received 5 January 2012 Revised 5 June 2012 6 June 2012 Accepted 7 June 2012

School of Business Administration, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada, and

Lisa K.J. Kuron School of Business & Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada Abstract Purpose – This study aims to compare the career patterns of Matures, Baby Boomers, Generation Xers and Millennials over the various stages of their careers to determine whether there have been notable shifts away from the “traditional” career model characterized by long-term linear, upward career movement, toward a “modern” career model characterized by increased job mobility, organizational mobility and multi-directional career movement. Design/methodology/approach – The retrospective career accounts of 105 Canadians were gathered through review of re´sume´ information and semi-structured interviews. The job changes and organizational changes experienced by each respondent in each five-year career period (e.g. age 20-24, 25-29) and the direction of job changes (i.e. upward, downward, lateral or change of career track) were recorded. The generations were compared statistically on each of these measures through analysis of variance (ANOVA). Findings – Significant inter-generational differences were observed on all variables of interest, but the differences were largely restricted to the age 20-24 and 30-34 career stages. Research limitations/implications – The study relied on a small sample because of the qualitative nature of the data collection. The sample was also exclusively Canadian. The results should therefore be interpreted with care and the research should be replicated with different types of respondents and in different cultural contexts. Practical implications – The research demonstrates to employers that the younger generations change jobs and employers at a greater rate than previous generations and that they are more willing to accept non-upward career moves. Recruiting and retaining young employees will therefore require a different approach than was used for previous generations. Originality/value – The use of retrospective accounts allowed for the comparison of generations within various career stages. This overcomes a significant limitation of cross-sectional studies of generational phenomena by simultaneously considering life-cycle and generational cohort effects. Keywords Generations, Career patterns, Career stages, New careers, Career development, Age groups, Canada Paper type Research paper

This study was made possible by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada.

Career Development International Vol. 17 No. 4, 2012 pp. 333-357 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1362-0436 DOI 10.1108/13620431211255824

CDI 17,4

334

Introduction Does today’s generation of young workers have a career pattern that is fundamentally different from that of previous generations? Have careers really shifted away from the “traditional” model of the industrial era? Career researchers have largely accepted this to be a truism (Baruch, 2004; DeFillippi and Arthur, 1996). The “new careers” literature argues that the modern economy offers fewer opportunities for long-term upwardly mobile careers within single organizations, forcing many people to take ownership of their own career growth and development (Baruch, 2004; Baruch and Bozionelos, 2010; Hall and Mirvis, 1995). The modern career, it is argued, requires people to change employers and even occupations frequently over the course of their careers (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996; Sullivan, 1999) and to make downward and lateral career moves in addition to upward moves (Baruch, 2004). But is this shift toward a high-mobility, multi-directional career path a reality? Unfortunately, there has been little empirical research to determine the degree to which such shifts in career experiences have occurred since the mid-twentieth century. One way to examine such shifts over time is to compare the experiences of different generational cohorts. The theory of generations states that individuals born and reared in the same historical era are shaped by common formative experiences and therefore develop a unique identity (Mannheim, 1952), and have similar values and personality traits, which differ from those of previous generations (Twenge and Campbell, 2008). Much has been written to document the emergence of a four-generation workplace (i.e. Matures, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Millennials) and the challenges that it presents to managers (e.g. Crumpacker and Crumpacker, 2007; Kupperschmidt, 2000; Twenge and Campbell, 2008). However, no previous study has examined how career patterns have changed, if at all, from generation to generation. This paper makes two important contributions to the literature concerning career mobility in “new careers.” First, we examine the changing nature of careers through the lens of generational differences. Although previous research has assessed changes in average job tenure using economic data from different years and decades (e.g. Rodrigues and Guest, 2010), no study has looked at the actual careers of individuals from different generations to assess whether career patterns themselves are shifting. In other words, our analysis allows us to examine how the careers of different cohorts have unfolded over time, without averaging across cohorts. This gives us a unique historical perspective on how careers have changed from generation to generation. Second, this study addresses the chief limitation of cross-sectional research on generational differences in career variables. Cross-sectional data captures different generational cohorts at different life-cycle stages, making it impossible to disentangle the generational effect from the life-cycle effect (Parry and Urwin, 2011). We use retrospective accounts to compare the career trajectories of four generational cohorts at each stage of their careers to determine the degree to which career patterns have shifted over time, both in terms of the frequency of career mobility (i.e. job changes and changes of employer) and the pattern of mobility (i.e. upward, downward, lateral, or change of career track). The comparison of generations within each career-stage allows us to compare “apples to apples,” providing a clearer picture of how careers are evolving over time and to determine whether there is evidence of the purported shift away from traditional careers toward modern careers.

Traditional careers versus modern careers The traditional view of careers, which predominated throughout much of the twentieth century, is predicated on a view of the ideal career pattern as a primarily linear upward sequence of jobs within a single employing organization (Baruch, 2004; Baruch and Bozionelos, 2010; Hall and Mirvis, 1995). In the traditional career pattern, the individual would choose a career path early in his or her career, would ideally work on a long-term basis within one or two organizations, career changes would be incremental in scope, career advancement was commensurate with age, experience and tenure, and job changes would normally be linear and upward (Baruch, 2004; Hall and Mirvis, 1995; Sullivan, 1999; Sullivan and Baruch, 2009). The traditional career is exemplified by the “age and stage” theory of career development proposed by preeminent career scholar Donald Super (1957). Super’s developmental theory posits that individuals progress through a series of life stages that are coupled with specific age-related milestones. The exploration stage is primarily focused on development of self-awareness and the exploration of career options through trial-and-error reality testing (typically between ages 15-24). In the establishment stage, the individual seeks employment, settles into a career pattern that will carry him/her throughout the remainder of his/her career, and learns to integrate the roles of worker, spouse and parent (typically between ages 25 to 44). The maintenance stage is focused on upgrading one’s skills, holding on to one’s position amid challenges from younger colleagues and lifestyle issues, including physical and mental health, homes, family, and leisure interests (typically between ages 45 to 64). Finally, the decline or disengagement phase represents the transition away from full-time employment into retirement (typically at the age of 65 and over) (Super, 1957). Thus, career moves were more highly concentrated in the earlier career stages, followed by a “settling down” period in the later stages of their careers. In recent decades, a host of career researchers have echoed the notion that broad environmental changes such as globalization, technological advances, increased workforce diversity, the increased prevalence of knowledge-based work (Burke and Ng, 2006), and trends toward outsourcing and the use of contingent workers have created conditions that rendered the traditional career pattern outmoded (Baruch and Bozionelos, 2010; Briscoe and Finkelstein, 2009; Capelli, 1999; Hall and Mirvis, 1995; Sullivan and Baruch, 2009). As organizations have flattened their hierarchies and opened their traditional boundaries to maintain flexibility in response to the challenges of the new economy, there has been less opportunity for individuals to engage in long-term upwardly mobile careers within single organizations. Accordingly, the psychological contract has changed from one that is based on long-term employment to one that is based on employability (Benson and Brown, 2011; Capelli, 1999; Moses, 1997; Sullivan, 1999). The discussion of modern or “new” career patterns within the careers research has been dominated by two metaphors: the boundaryless career and the protean career (Sullivan and Baruch, 2009). Both of these metaphors were proposed as antitheses to the notion of the traditional, linear organizational career path (Inkson, 2006). The concept of the protean career was first proposed by Hall (1976), who predicted that linear organizational careers would give way to self-directed careers focused on psychological satisfaction. In contrast to the age-based developmental model that was linked to traditional careers, protean careers proposed multiple iterative micro-cycles of exploration, trial, establishment and mastery as the individual acquires new skills

Comparing apples to apples

335

CDI 17,4

336

and competencies across the life span (Hall, 1996; Hall and Mirvis, 1995). Boundaryless careers are literally defined in opposition to traditional careers that are bounded to one’s vertical progression through the hierarchy of large organizations. Arthur and Rousseau (1996) argued that the “boundarylessness” may reflect a variety of different meanings, including movement between different employers, drawing career validation from outside one’s employing organization (as in the case of academics), reliance on resources external to one’s organization in order to do one’s job, or focusing one’s career goals toward one’s family life rather than organizational goals. The common theme in all of these meanings is a divorce of the career priorities and goals of the individual from those of any specific organization. Although modern careers continue to unfold within organizations, the employing organization now serves as the vehicle for career development, rather than the driver. The boundaryless and protean career concepts, along with similar concepts such as the portfolio career (Cawsey et al., 1995), the post-corporate career (Peiperl and Baruch, 1997), and the kaleidoscope career (Sullivan et al., 2009), all share commonalities that might be summarized broadly as a modern career archetype. In contrast to the traditional career, the modern career has been described as much more dynamic, flexible and fluid, with a greater number of paths to career success (Baruch, 2004; Hall, 1996). Baruch (2004) used the term “multi-directional career path” to characterize this modern career pattern. Job mobility researchers have classified career changes on the basis of three dimensions: status (i.e. upward, lateral, downward), function (i.e. same track or change of track), and employer (i.e. same employer or change of employer) (Nicholson and West, 1988; Ng et al., 2007). Using these terms, the new career is posited to involve more lateral and downward status mobility, more changes of track and more changes of employer. A casual reading of the new careers literature would seem to indicate that the traditional career is dead, having been replaced by new, flexible and adaptable forms of non-linear career. There are, however, a number of dissenting voices who contend that the traditional career pattern remains alive and well. For instance, in their large-sample study of career patterns (n . 3; 000), Mainiero and Sullivan (2005) found that flexible and non-traditional career patterns were evident in women’s careers as they worked to integrate the relational needs of family into their careers, but men tended to enact fairly traditional linear career patterns. The same pattern was observed in McDonald et al.’s (2005) study of Australian public-sector managers. Jacoby (1999) analyzed a variety of economic data and concluded that, despite a shift toward increased individual responsibility for career management and individual assumption of risk, the traditional employer-employee relationship remains the norm. Similarly, Rodrigues and Guest (2010) examined economic data from several countries and concluded that there were minimal changes in job tenure throughout the 1990s and 2000s, suggesting that the boundaryless career is not an emergent trend. Other researchers have argued that the distinction between traditional and modern careers relies on overly simplistic archetypal caricatures of career types that may never have been representative of career norms (Inkson, 2006; Rodrigues and Guest, 2010). Examining the various evidence, Baruch and Bozionelos (2010) concluded that the traditional career is not dead – it remains present in the modern economy – but modern career patterns (i.e. boundaryless, protean and post-corporate careers) also exist. Recognizing that both traditional and modern career patterns co-exist in the current environment, it appears that the actual prevalence of the modern career pattern is still

an open question (Sullivan and Baruch, 2009). Although previous research in various contexts has shown that the traditional career pattern still predominates, these studies seldom examine the heterogeneity of career patterns across age groups. Because career patterns unfold over long periods of time, cross-sectional studies of careers may be capturing evidence of entrenched career patterns of older generations and under-emphasizing new career patterns that are just beginning to emerge among younger generations. To truly examine shifts in the nature of career, it is essential to compare the career patterns of the various generational cohorts to determine whether they are unfolding differently. In the next section we turn our attention to the concept of generational cohorts as a lens through which to study shifting career patterns. Generational career shifts Career theories such as Mitchell and Krumboltz’s (1996) social learning theory of career decision making, Gottfredson’s (2002) theory of circumscription and compromise and Lent et al.’s (1994) social cognitive career theory, all explicitly acknowledge the role of one’s environment as a formative influence on career interests, expectations and goals. Furthermore, Ng et al.’s (2007) theory of job mobility posits that economic, social, and individual factors all predict job mobility in individuals. These theories suggest that historical shifts in the social and economic conditions and in the nature of individuals will be reflected in changes in the nature of careers. Shifting social patterns are commonly studied by investigating differences in the experiences and perceptions of successive generational cohorts (Glenn, 1977; Howe and Strauss, 2007). The shared formative experience of a cohort of people born and raised in the same historical era thus becomes the basis for shared values and personality traits (Twenge, 2006). Although the amount of academic and practitioner writing on the topic of generations has increased steadily over the past decade, there remains a lack of consensus regarding the names that should be ascribed to the various generations and the birth years that are used to define each cohort. For instance, in their review of the generational literature, Parry and Urwin (2011) noted that researchers have defined the baby boom generation as starting anywhere between 1943 and 1946 and ending anywhere between 1960 and 1964. It appears that these categorizations vary by the country in which the research was conducted, which makes sense, since social and demographic phenomena shaping the cohorts are likely to vary among countries (Foot, 1998). For the purposes of this study, which was conducted in Canada, we define the cohorts as follows, using birth-year boundaries that are reflective of Canadian research: . Matures were born prior to 1945 (Adams, 1998; Foot, 1998); . Baby Boomers were born between 1945 and 1964 (Adams, 1998; Barnard et al., 1998; Statistics Canada, 2006); . Generation Xers were born between 1965 and 1979; and . Millennials were born in 1980 or later (Foot, 1998; Lancaster and Stillman, 2002; Zemke et al. 2000). Past research has identified a number of inter-generational differences in career-related constructs, including work-family conflict and synergy (Beutell and Wittig-Berman, 2008), work environment fit (Westerman and Yamamura, 2007), psychological contract obligations (Hess and Jepsen, 2009), job satisfaction (Benson and Brown, 2011;

Comparing apples to apples

337

CDI 17,4

338

Westerman and Yamamura, 2007) and willingness to quit (Benson and Brown, 2011). A number of studies have identified inter-generational differences in work-related values. For instance, Smola and Sutton (2002) found inter-generational differences in three of 20 work value items: Generation Xers were more likely to agree that working hard makes one a better person; Baby Boomers were more likely to agree that work should be one of the most important aspects of a person’s life; and Generation Xers placed more importance on being promoted rapidly. Wong et al. (2008) found that Generation X and Millennials were significantly more motivated by progression than Baby Boomers, Millennials more motivated by an affiliative workplace than Baby Boomers, and less motivated by power than Generation Xers, who were less motivated by power than Baby Boomers. In a study of workers from New Zealand, Cennamo and Gardner (2008) found that Generation Xers and Millennials placed more importance on status-related work values than Baby Boomers did, and Millennials placed more importance on freedom than Generation Xers and Baby Boomers did. They found no differences among the generations in the importance of intrinsic, extrinsic, altruism or social values. Sullivan et al. (2009) compared Generation Xers and Baby Boomers on their preferences for authenticity, balance, and challenge and found that Generation Xers had a greater need for authenticity and balance, but there was no difference related to challenge. Other studies have found no significant inter-generational differences at all (e.g. Appelbaum et al., 2005; Jurkiewicz, 2000). Unfortunately, the studies that have been published to date vary greatly in their operationalization of work values and in their inclusion of various generational cohorts, making it a challenge to compare studies. Furthermore, the reliance of most studies on cross-sectional designs makes it impossible to disentangle the effects of generation, life-cycle development and periodic events (Parry and Urwin, 2011). Although there is no direct empirical evidence to date to suggest that there are indeed generational differences in career mobility patterns, authors have argued that the various generational cohorts in North America have been influenced by very different economic and social conditions (Howe and Strauss, 2007), which should be manifested in the changing career patterns of each successive generational cohort. Ng et al. (2007) posited that job mobility is predicted by three sets of factors: (1) structural factors, including economic conditions, societal conditions, industry differences and organizational staffing policies; (2) individual differences, including personality, career interests, values and attachment styles; and (3) decisional factors, including subjective norms, desirability of mobility, and readiness for change. The literature concerning generations suggests that several of these factors have changed significantly over the career spans of successive generations. The Matures, who entered the workforce in the post-war era, benefited from an era of prolonged economic growth. Because they were members of a relatively small birth cohort in a time of economic expansion, the opportunities for promotion within organizations were abundant (Foot, 1998). Matures typically worked to accrue tenure in their organizations as they strived to build legacies for themselves (Lancaster and Stillman, 2002). We would therefore expect that the career patterns of this cohort would exemplify the traditional career pattern.

The earliest of the Baby Boomers entered the full-time adult labor force in the mid-1960s, when unemployment rates hovered around 5 percent (Gower, 1992). With these opportunities available to them, Baby Boomers worked intently toward the goal of building “stellar careers” that capitalized on the economic expansion and low unemployment rates that characterized their early-career phase (Lancaster and Stillman, 2002). However, the Baby Boomers’ later career stages were more chaotic. Although they may have anticipated the type of linear upward career pattern that was characteristic of previous generations (Moses, 1997), many had to change jobs, organizations, locations and even career tracks as they dealt with economic uncertainty (Capelli, 1999; Lancaster and Stillman, 2002). We would therefore expect that the career patterns of Baby Boomers would be more diverse than those of their predecessors, demonstrating more lateral and downward career moves and more changes of career track, but still displaying an overall pattern of upward movement in terms of status and responsibility. By the early 1980s, when the first of the Generation Xers entered the labor force, they faced the dual challenges of weak job prospects as the result of economic trends toward outsourcing and limited job growth, and increasing credentialism as the rate of post-secondary education continues to rise (Howe and Strauss, 2007; Lancaster and Stillman, 2002; Moses, 1997). This generation has garnered a reputation as “job-hoppers” who change jobs and employers frequently in order to gain new skills to pursue opportunities, even if they are lateral moves (Lancaster and Stillman, 2002; Zemke et al., 2000). One would therefore expect this generational cohort to have more career movement than previous generations, particularly at a younger age, to have greater diversity in the direction of their career movements than previous generations, and to exemplify the inter-organizational mobility that is characteristic of the modern career. The millennial generation, which began entering the labor force in the late-1990s and the 2000s, has faced unemployment rates lower than 8 percent, the most favorable labor market since the late-1970s (CEIS, 2010). Although the millennial generation is relatively new to the labor market, commentators have begun to surmise what their career paths will be like. Early reports depict the Millennials as highly mobile and expecting great change and variety in their job assignments (Berenguer et al., 2009; Lancaster and Stillman, 2002), they are impatient in terms of their rate of advancement (Ng et al., 2010), they are willing to change employers frequently to advance their careers (Corporate Leadership Council, 2005), they place great emphasis on work-life balance, and they are willing to make career decisions that limit career in favor of lifestyle (Lancaster and Stillman, 2002). In light of this characterization of Millennials, one would expect them to have greater inter-job and inter-organizational mobility than any of the other generations and to have greater diversity in their career paths, with more lateral movement and changes of career track than previous generational cohorts. Unfortunately, as noted above, there is limited empirical evidence to date concerning the career mobility experiences of different generational cohorts. One exception is the study by Dries et al. (2008), which investigated inter-generational differences in career types in a sample of Belgian university students and employees. The researchers proposed six types of careers: (1) bounded careers, which follow the traditional upward linear career path; (2) staying careers, which involve multiple job and organization changes, although the individual longs for security and stability with their current employer;

Comparing apples to apples

339

CDI 17,4

340

(3) homeless careers involve a history of mobility with a desire for stability, but a perceived inability to attain it; (4) trapped careers involve a desire to change employers and occupation, but lack the perceived ability to do so; (5) released careers involve a desire to be more mobile and boundaryless in one’s career and an expectation that this will occur in the future; and (6) boundaryless careers, which are characterized by multiple career moves in different directions across organizational and occupational boundaries. Although they did detect generational trends in their analysis, their results were inconclusive, as their sample of 380 did not support a chi-square test with four generations and the six career types in which the majority of respondents in three of the generations had a bounded career type. Nevertheless, it was apparent from their results that Generation Xers and Millennials were less likely than Millennials and Baby Boomers to have stable “bounded” careers and were more likely to have “homeless” and “staying” careers. To summarize, although the careers of the Matures likely exemplify the traditional career, the careers of each subsequent generational cohort would be expected to reflect more of the modern career and less of the traditional career, particularly in terms of the number of jobs they have held (i.e. job mobility), the number of organizations for which they have worked (i.e. organizational mobility), the upward direction of their career moves (i.e. upward mobility), and the linearity of their career paths. As such, we hypothesized the following: H1. Members of each generational cohort will have greater job mobility (i.e. more job moves) in each of their career stages than the generations that preceded them did during the same career stages. H2. Members of each generational cohort will have greater organizational mobility (i.e. more organizational moves) in each of their career stages than the generations that preceded them did during the same career stages. H3. Members of each generational cohort will have will less upward mobility (i.e. fewer upward moves) in their career paths throughout their career stages than the generations that preceded them did during the same career stages. Furthermore, in keeping with Baruch’s (2004) notion of the multi-directional career path and the tenets of the boundaryless career literature, we hypothesize that the more recent generations will have more non-upward career moves within their career histories. We therefore hypothesize: H4a. Members of each generational cohort will have more downward career moves throughout their career stages than the generations that preceded them did during the same career stages. H4b. Members of each generational cohort will have more lateral career moves throughout their career stages than the generations that preceded them did during the same career stages.

H4c. Members of each generational cohort will have more changes of career track throughout their career stages than the generations that preceded them did during the same career stages. Methods Participants Participants in this study (n ¼ 105) were identified through snowball sampling. The researchers recruited a small pre-test sample of professional workers from the extended networks of friends, family, acquaintances and colleagues. Members of the pre-test sample were asked to provide the names of individuals in their own extended networks who might be interested in participating in the study. The researchers continued sampling in this fashion until a minimum of ten participants was obtained for each of the four generational cohorts. The sample was expanded as we began to analyze the data in order to ensure that we had sufficient data to reach a point of saturation (Glaser and Strauss, 1967), where we uncovered no unique career patterns with additional members of a cohort. To ensure that we had sufficient sample size to capture the complexity of the modern career, we sampled more heavily in the younger cohorts. Furthermore, because the career patterns of the Generation Xers were more diverse than those of the Millennials, whose careers were less heterogeneous at their current career stage, we sampled Generation Xers more heavily than Millennials. The final sample was comprised of: . 11 Matures (born prior to 1946); . 22 Baby Boomers (born between 1945 and 1964); . 40 Generation Xers (born between 1965 and 1979); and . 32 Millennials (born in 1980 or later). The sample consisted of 55 women (52.4 percent) and 50 men. The participants worked in a variety of occupations: . eight were retired (7.6 percent); . 11 worked in administrative or clerical positions (10.5 percent); . 13 worked in front-line or production jobs (12.4 percent); . 26 worked in supervisory or middle management positions (24.8 percent); . 26 worked in professional, technical or specialist positions (24.8 percent); and . 21 were in senior management or executive positions (20 percent). Of respondents, 80 percent were born in Canada. Analytic procedure Career experiences were examined through in-depth interviews with respondents. When interviews were scheduled with respondents, they were asked to complete a pre-interview questionnaire containing various demographic questions and a summary of the respondents’ educational and work history. Specifically, respondents were asked to provide details of all job and organizational changes they had encountered thus far over the course of their careers, beginning with the job that they considered to be their first “real career job.” This phrasing was specifically

Comparing apples to apples

341

CDI 17,4

342

designed to leave to the respondent’s discretion which job they considered to be the first job in their professional career. The pre-testing of other phrasing options such as “your first job after graduation,” or “your first adult job” resulted in some confusion and a number of questions among respondents as to how the researchers would define such jobs (e.g. do part-time jobs or co-op jobs count?). We found that this phrasing resulted in the most consistent interpretation among respondents of the starting point of the career. The details that were elicited in the interviews included the dates of job and employer changes, industry of employment, as well as whether each career move was upward (i.e. involving an increase in pay, status or responsibility), downward (i.e. involving a decrease in pay, status or responsibility), lateral (i.e. involving a change of job or organization without a change in pay, status or responsibility), or a change of track (i.e. involving a significant change in the nature of the work, profession, or required knowledge, skills and abilities). Interviewers reviewed the pre-questionnaire responses prior to the interviews and used the interview to seek clarification on work history and to probe for missing information. During the interview, respondents were asked to “tell the story” of their careers, with prompts from the interviewers as needed to expand or clarify on information. The data used in the present study were the career histories that were obtained in the pre-interview questionnaires and validated in the interviews. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for later analysis. The interviews lasted about 45 minutes on average, though the duration varied with the length of the respondents’ careers. The researchers coded the content of the validated career histories to document the career patterns of each respondent in five-year age bands. The eleven age categories match the five-year age categories employed in Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey and correspond roughly with the career stages proposed by Super (1957). For example, we were able to document the career moves that each respondent made between the ages of 20 and 24, 25 and 29, etc. In order to make accurate comparisons, we coded data for only those age categories that an individual had completed and not their current age category. For instance, for a 27 year-old respondent, we coded their career moves for the age 20-24 category, but not the age 25-29 age category, which was incomplete at the time of the interview. This allowed us to compare the members of each generational cohort at each career stage to determine whether their career experiences differed across generations within a given career stage. In instances where the direction of a respondent’s career move was unclear, the researchers reviewed the transcript and discussed the nature of the career move within the context of the respondent’s whole career history to come to a consensus. In some instances respondents were contacted post-interview for clarification. Although we collected data on complete career histories, we could only compare generational cohorts on the career stages that they had completed at the time of the study. Thus, we compared the early career stages of all four generations (i.e. age 29 and younger), we compared Generation Xers, Boomers and Matures on the career stages up to and including age 44, and we compared the Boomers and Matures on all career stages up to and including age 59. Inter-generational differences were assessed through ANOVAs with the mean number of job changes as the dependent variable and generational cohort as the independent variable. We also used ad hoc pairwise t-tests with Bonferonni

adjustments for multiple tests. The ANOVA results must be interpreted cautiously, as the small sample size in this in-depth study resulted in low statistical power, reducing potentially significant differences. Results We first examined intergenerational differences in job mobility throughout the various career stages (H1). The results in Table I show that Millennials had the highest average number of job changes of all four generations in each of the three career stages that they have so far encountered. Generation Xers had slightly fewer job changes throughout their 20s than the Boomers did during the same career stages, but had more job changes in their 30s and early 40s than Boomers did at the same ages. The Matures had the fewest job changes on average in most career stages, although they were comparable to the Boomers in the early 40s and early 50s career stages. H1 was partially supported, as the differences in mean job changes among the generations were only large enough to be statistically significant (p , 0:05) during the 20-24, 30-24 and 55-59 career stages. Specifically, Millennials averaged 2.59 job changes when they were between the ages of 20 and 24, which was significantly greater than the 1.28 job changes for Xers, 1.39 changes for Boomers and 0.60 job changes for Matures at the same age. The differences among the Generation Xers, Boomers and Matures were not significant at that age. Generation Xers made an average of 2.19 changes of employer between the ages of 30 and 34, which was significantly higher than the 1.0 employer change averaged by the Boomers, and 0.4 averaged by the Matures. The difference between the Boomers and the Matures was not significantly different at that career stage. Also, because none of the Matures in our sample made job changes between the ages of 55 and 59, there were significant differences between Boomers and Matures at that stage of their careers. For H2, regarding the intergenerational differences in organizational mobility, the results in Table II show a nearly identical pattern to that which was found with respect to job mobility. More specifically, Millennials averaged more changes of organization than all other generations in each of the first three career stages. Generation Xers had fewer employer changes than Boomers did during the age 20-24 and 25-29 career stages, but more than the Boomers throughout their 30s and early 40s. The Matures had fewer organizational changes than all three other generations in all comparable career stages except in the age 25-29 stage, when they averaged as many changes of employer as the Millennials and more than the other two generations, and in the age 40-44 stage, when they averaged more organization changes than the Boomers. Again, H2 was only partially supported, as the differences in mean organizational changes among the generations were only large enough to be statistically significant ( p , 0.05) during the 20-24, 30-24 and 55-59 career stages. Specifically, Generation Xers averaged significantly fewer changes of employer between ages 20 and 24 (mean ¼ 0.68) than Millennials (mean ¼ 1.59), but none of the other pairwise generational differences in that career stage were significant. Generation Xers made significantly more changes of employer (mean ¼ 1.19) between the ages of 30 and 34 than did Boomers (mean ¼ 0.39) or Matures (mean ¼ 0.30). The difference between the Boomers and Matures was not significant. Also, because none of the Matures in our sample made changes of employer between the ages of 55 and 59, there were significant differences between Boomers and Matures at that stage of their careers.

Comparing apples to apples

343

3.44

2.60

3.00a 1.22

100.0

13.6

5.73

2.05a 2.15a 1.54a 1.50a

3.43

1.47 1.59 1.27 0.71

0.43a 1.03 1.23b 1.23

100.0

35.8 25.3 8.7 1.3

7.4 21.4 1.11 1.00 1.21 0.90

7.70

4.50

1.00b 1.34 0.81a 1.38 0.35b 0.83

1.35a 1.00b 1.00a 0.78a

0.44a 0.84 1.22b 1.31

100.0

13.0 7.3 4.5

17.5 13.0 13.0 10.2

5.7 15.8

Boomers (n ¼ 23) Percent of Mean SD total

0.40b 0.70a 0.00b 0.10 0.30 4.80

1.30a 0.40b 0.40a 0.70a

0.97 1.06 0.00 0.32 0.67 3.82

1.16 0.97 0.52 0.95

0.30a 0.67 0.50b 0.71

8.3 14.6 0.0 2.1 6.3 100.0

27.1 8.3 8.3 14.6

6.3 10.4

Matures (n ¼ 10) Percent of Mean SD total

0.027 0.001 0.063 0.526 1.676 0.205 0.049 0.828 1.718 0.200 – – – –

3.226 8.560 2.946 0.656

1.132 0.340 8.099 0.000

ANOVA F Sig.

Notes: Values in the same row not sharing the same superscript are significantly different at p , 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column means. Tests are adjusted for all pairwise comparisons within a row using the Bonferroni correction

Maintenance 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 þ Total

Establishment 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44

22.7 63.6

0.78a 1.04 2.59a 1.80

Exploration Under 20 20 to 24

Table I. Mean job changes for each generation in five-year career stages

Career stage (ages)

Gen X (n ¼ 40) Percent of Mean SD total

344

Millennials (n ¼ 32) Percent of Mean SD total

CDI 17,4

2.22

2.09

1.20a 1.79

100.0

8.5

3.13

0.98a 1.19a 0.69a 1.00a

2.61

1.05 1.14 0.95 1.41

100.0

31.2 25.6 7.2 1.6

12.8 21.6

0.40a 1.03 0.68b 0.97

31.0 60.6

0.69a 1.18 1.59a 1.53

3.54

1.06 1.38 1.14

0.71a 0.81a 0.80a 5.39

1.07 0.50 0.98 0.66

1.04a 0.39b 0.65a 0.39a

0.39a 0.78 0.96a,b 1.36

Mean

100.0

12.1 10.5 6.5

19.4 7.3 12.1 7.3

7.3 17.7

Boomers (n ¼ 23) Percent of SD total

0.20a 0.50a 0.00b 0.10 0.00 4.10

1.20a 0.30b 0.40a 0.70a

0.63 0.97 0.00 0.32 0.00 2.60

1.23 0.67 0.52 0.95

0.30a 0.67 0.40a,b 0.70

Mean

0.145 6.582 0.356 0.952

2.007 0.167 0.390 0.538 4.966 0.039 – – – –

29.3 7.3 9.8 17.1 4.9 12.2 0.0 2.4 0 100.0

0.933 0.003 0.702 0.397

0.705 0.551 3.856 0.012

ANOVA F Sig.

7.3 9.8

Matures (n ¼ 10) Percent of SD total

Notes: Values in the same row not sharing the same superscript are significantly different at p , 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column means. Tests are adjusted for all pairwise comparisons within a row using the Bonferroni correction

Maintenance 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 þ Total

Establishment 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 44

Exploration Under 20 20 to 24

Career stage (ages)

Gen X (n ¼ 40) Percent of Mean SD total

Millennials (n ¼ 32) Percent of Mean SD total

Comparing apples to apples

345

Table II. Organizational changes for each generation in five-year career stages

CDI 17,4

346

H3 stated that each successively younger generation would have fewer upward career moves than the generations that preceded them. To test this hypothesis we calculated, for each career stage, the cohorts’ mean number of upward career moves and the mean percentage of their total career moves that were upward in direction (see Table III). This hypothesis was not supported. Focusing on the first three career stages, on which all four generations can be compared, we see that each successively younger generation actually had more upward moves than the generations that preceded them, but none of the differences were statistically significant. There were significant differences among the generations in terms of their average number of upward moves in the 30-34, and 35-39 and 40-44career stages. Pairwise comparisons revealed only two significant inter-generational differences in thee career stages. First, between the ages of 30 and 34, Generation Xers had significantly more upward career moves (mean ¼ 1.30) than the Matures (mean ¼ 0.20). Second, between the ages of 40 and 44, Generation Xers had significantly more upward career moves (mean ¼ 1.50) than both the Boomers (mean ¼ 0.39) and the Matures (mean ¼ 0.30). There were no significant differences in the upward career moves of the Boomers and Matures throughout the 45-49, 50-54 or 55-59 career stages. We examined inter-generational patterns in career moves by calculating, for each career stage, the cohorts’ mean number of downward career moves (H4a), lateral career moves (H4b) and changes of track (H4c) as well as the percentage of each cohort’s career moves that were downward, lateral and changes of track. H4a, H4b and H4c were partially supported. The ANOVA results in Table III show that significant inter-generational differences in non-upward career moves were observed in only the age 20-24 and 25-29 career stages. In the 20-24 career stage, the Millennials (mean ¼ 0.63) had significantly more lateral career moves than the Generation Xers (mean ¼ 0.15) and significantly more changes of career track (mean ¼ 0.63) than the Generation Xers (mean ¼ 0.15) and the Baby Boomers (mean ¼ 0.09). In the 25-29 career stage the Matures had a significantly larger number of changes of career track (mean ¼ 0.70) than the Boomers (mean ¼ 0.09), Generation Xers (mean ¼ 0.18) and the Millennials (mean ¼ 0). There were no significant differences in the career moves of the Generation Xers, Boomers and Matures were compared in their 30-34, 35-39, and 40-44 career stages, nor in between the Boomers and Matures throughout the 45-49, 50-54 or 55-59 career stages. Discussion This study adopted a unique approach to examining the changing nature of careers among recent generations. Our analysis of retrospective biographical data in 5-year career stages allowed us to compare the members of the four generations within specific life-cycle stages, thus remedying a notable confound in cross-sectional studies of inter-generational differences. In other words, our analysis allowed us to “compare apples with apples,” rather than comparing cohorts at different life-cycle stages. Overall, our results reveal that, although there are a number of differences in the career paths that the various generations have taken, these differences may not be as widespread as the “new careers” literature would suggest. Our findings therefore provide some support for the notion that traditional career patterns still predominate ( Jacoby, 1999; Mainiero and Sullivan, 2005; McDonald et al., 2005; Rodrigues and Guest, 2010). However, unlike other research, such as that of Jacoby (1999) and

Exploration Under 20 Upward Downward Lateral Change of track 20-24 Upward Downward Lateral Change of track Establishment 25-29 Upward Downward Lateral Change of track 30-34 Upward Downward Lateral Change of track 35-39 Upward Downward Lateral Change of track 40-44 Upward Downward Lateral Change of track

1.60a 0.20a 1.20a 0.00a,b

1.15a 0.19a 0.63a 0.63a

0.34a 0.00a 0.22a 0.22a

Mean

44.8 6.4 26.3 22.6 55.3 6.7 38 0

n¼5 0.89 0.45 0.84 0

40.0 0.0 33.3 26.7

%

n ¼ 32 0.7 0 0.49 0.66 n ¼ 27 1.23 0.48 0.97 1.04

Millennials SD

1.50a 0.00a 0.00a 0.00a

0.85a 0.15a 0.46a 0.08a

1.30a 0.22a 0.30a 0.33a

1.33a 0.20a 0.35a 0.18a

0.88a 0.05a 0.15b 0.15b

0.23a 0.00a 0.10a 0.10a

Mean

n ¼ 40 1.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 n ¼ 27 1.1 0.5 0.8 0.7 n ¼ 13 0.8 0.4 1 0.3 n¼2 0.7 0 0 0

n ¼ 40 0.6 0 0.3 0.5 n ¼ 40 1 0.2 0.4 0.4

Xers SD

100.0 0 0 0

64.8 7.4 24.1 3.7

64.1 8.7 9.7 17.5

63.1 10.5 17.4 9.0a

73.7 3.0 12.3 11.0

64.3 0 21.4 14.3

%

0.39b 0.09a 0.17a 0.13a

0.43a 0.09a 0.35a 0.13a

0.78a,b 0.09a 0.00a 0.13a

0.83a 0.00a 0.43a 0.09a

0.83a 0.13a 0.17a,b 0.09b

0.22a 0.09a 0.00a 0.13a

Mean

n ¼ 23 1.2 0 0.8 0.4 n ¼ 23 0.9 0.3 0 0.5 n ¼ 23 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.5 n ¼ 23 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5

n ¼ 23 0.5 0.3 0 0.3 n ¼ 23 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.3

Boomers SD

56.9 8.3 18.1 16.7

50.8 9.1 31.1 9.1

79.8 6.0 0.0 14.3

53.1 0.0 40.6 6.3

65.0 6.7 18.3 10.0

44.4 16.7 0.0 38.9

%

0.30b 0.00a 0.20a 0.20a

0.20a 0.10a 0.00a 0.10a

0.20b 0.00a 0.00a 0.20a

0.30a 0.00a 0.30a 0.70b

0.20a 0.00a 0.10a,b 0.20a,b

0.00a 0.00a 0.00a 0.30a

Mean

n ¼ 10 0.48 0 0.67 1.06 n ¼ 10 0.42 0 0 0.63 n ¼ 10 0.42 0.32 0 0.32 n ¼ 10 0.48 0 0.42 0.63

n ¼ 10 0 0 0 0.67 n ¼ 10 0.42 0 0.32 0.42

Matures SD

1.950 1.061 4.098 4.029 2.596 2.042 2.218 3.429 5.475 1.478 2.108 0.740 3.243 0.186 1.357 0.083

4.938 0.014 0.522 0.598 0.155 0.857 0.150 0.861 (continued)

37.5 0.0 25.0 37.5 33.3 0.0 19.0 47.6 66.7 0.0 0.0 33.3 50.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 0.0 25.0 25.0

0.049 0.831 0.268 0.921

0.007 0.237 0.131 0.482

0.059 0.115 0.093 0.021

0.127 0.369 0.009 0.010

0.929 2.504 2.369 0.532

0.430 0.063 0.075 0.662

ANOVA F Sig.

0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

%

Comparing apples to apples

347

Table III. Comparison of generations’ mean career changes in each five-year career stage

Table III. %

Mean

Xers SD %

0.30a 0.30a

0.20a

0.19a 0.13a 0.37a 0.13a

0.43a 0.001 0.19a 0.48a

Mean

0.7 1

n ¼ 21 0.7 0 0.5 0.9 n ¼ 16 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.3 n ¼ 10 0.6

Boomers SD

50.0 25.0

25.0

31.4 7.6 32.4 28.6

45.0 0.0 14.2 40.8

%

0 0 0 0.1

0.00a 0 0.00a 0.00a

0.20a 0.10a 0.20a 0.20a

0.20a 0 0.10a 0.10a

Mean

n ¼ 10 0.63 0 0.32 0.32 n ¼ 10 0.42 0.32 0.42 0.42 n ¼ 10 0 0 0 0 n ¼ 10 0 0 0 0.32

Matures SD

0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20.8 8.3 37.5 33.3

33.3 0.0 50.0 16.7

%

– – – –

1.000 – 1.976 1.000

0.006 0.035 0.339 0.248

0.805 – 0.262 1.723

– – – –

0.331 – 0.177 0.331

0.940 0.854 0.566 0.623

0.377 – 0.613 0.200

ANOVA F Sig.

Notes: Values in the same row not sharing the same superscript are significantly different at p , 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column means. Tests are adjusted for all pairwise comparisons within a row using the Bonferroni correction

Millennials SD

348

Maintenance 45-49 Upward Downward Lateral Change of track 50-54 Upward Downward Lateral Change of track 55-59 Upward Downward Lateral Change of track 60-64 Upward Downward Lateral Change of track

Mean

CDI 17,4

Rodrigues and Guest (2010), which focused on average job tenure, our analyses allowed us to dig deeper into the career trajectories of the various generations. The fact that the traditional career pattern is evident even in the youngest generation suggests that it will continue to be the norm for years to come. When we compared the four generations within the various career stages, we observed significant inter-generational differences in both the number of job changes and changes of employer. However, these differences were mostly evident in the age 20-24 and 30-34 life-cycle stages. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the Millennials changed jobs and employers at a much higher rate than the other generations did in their early

Comparing apples to apples

349

Figure 1. Inter-generational comparison of average number of job changes across career stages

Figure 2. Inter-generational comparison of average number of organization changes across career stages

CDI 17,4

350

careers. We also see that the Generation Xers changed jobs and employers significantly more in their early-30s than did the two older generations, both of which showed a decline in mobility during that career stage. These findings suggest that there have been significant changes in the nature of the exploration and establishment career stages since the time that Super (1957) formulated his career stage model. The job mobility theory of Ng et al. (2007) offers a number of possible explanations for the increase in career mobility among the younger generations. First, it may be that economic conditions made it difficult for the younger generations to get established in their early careers, forcing them to make significant career changes later in life than previous generations would have (Kupperschmidt, 2000; Lancaster and Stillman, 2002). Second, it may be that changes in personality traits from generation to generation have made younger generations more susceptible to job mobility. Twenge and Campbell (2008) review evidence suggesting that the younger generations are more individualistic, have lower need for social approval, are more extroverted and have higher self-esteem than previous generations. It may be that these changes have resulted in less attachment to jobs and organizations and a greater willingness to change jobs and employers to pursue personal career goals. Finally, Ng et al.’s (2007) theory states that subjective norms play a part in job mobility. If indeed the psychological contract has shifted away from one of long-term employment to one of employability (Baruch, 2004; Moses, 1997), and if it is true that younger generations are unwilling to stay put and “pay their dues” (Crumpacker and Crumpacker, 2007; Lancaster and Stillman, 2002), then frequent mobility in the early career may have become the new norm for careers. These changes may also coincide with the advent of the phenomenon that Arnett (2006) has termed “emerging adulthood,” which is a trend toward delayed entry into the roles and responsibilities of adulthood until close to age 30. It may be that we have entered an era of prolonged career exploration and establishment, as young workers take a longer period of time to complete their education, explore job opportunities and settle down in their careers. It is notable that, although the Boomers and Matures showed a pattern of decreasing job changes in the later stages of their careers (ages 45-65), they showed increases in their number of changes of employer over that same period, which is particularly evident among the Baby Boomers. This suggests that a greater proportion of the job changes in their later careers coincided with changes of employer than might be expected given the “settling down” period predicted by Super’s (1957) career development theory. This may be evidence of a shift away from the maintenance and decline stages toward a “second career” as Baby Boomers seek to re-invent themselves late in their working lives (Kupperschmidt, 2000). As Baruch and Bozionelos (2010) noted, the knowledge-based nature of many modern jobs means that it is no longer assumed that decline is normal career stage. Many workers may continue to contribute and develop in their careers even into advanced life-cycle stages. There is some evidence to suggest that the Millennials have had more diverse career patterns in their early career stages than earlier generations did, but our results do not show a decisive shift away from linear upward careers toward multi-dimensional careers, characterized by decreases in upward changes and increases in lateral, downward and career track changes. Overall, our findings seem to suggest that the traditional linear upward career path was not common even among Matures, and that the multidimensionality that is ascribed to modern careers

(Baruch, 2004) has actually been a feature of careers over the past four generations of workers. Furthermore, our findings suggest that, contrary to the tenets of career development theory, there is no evidence of a decisive “settling” down period in the later career stages. Although the Matures and Boomers tended to change jobs and employers more frequently during their 20s and 30s, we observed a steady number of career changes taking place in the later career stages of both generations. In addition, this suggests that the increased job mobility and organizational mobility observed in the younger generations is not merely a product of their youth. If the patterns that have been established by the Matures and Baby Boomers continue, we are likely to see increased job mobility and organizational mobility across the career span of the subsequent generations. Theoretical and practical implications Career researchers should note that the oft-cited truisms about the modern career appear to be exaggerated. Although a shift away from traditional careers linear careers is evident between the Matures and the Baby Boomers, there is limited evidence to support the idea that careers are becoming less traditional with each successive generation. In particular, it is notable that, despite a great deal more job mobility and organizational mobility in the younger generations, it appears that the upward linear path is still prevalent. Future research should continue to follow the Generation Xers and Millennials to the ends of their careers to determine if this pattern continues. It is possible that the mobility seen in younger generations is not the result of self-directed career choice, but reflects the dynamic and temporary nature of the modern economy. It may be that younger people desire to stay and advance within a small number of organizations, but are thwarted by limited opportunities for upward promotion that are the consequence of flatter, “lean” organizations. It is also possible that if developmental opportunities are not perceived by Millennials to be forthcoming, they may seek out such opportunities and advancement externally by changing employers (external-upward mobility, to use Ng et al.’s, (2007) term). Our results also have implications for employers seeking to attract and retain younger workers. In light of our findings regarding younger workers’ high levels of job mobility and organizational mobility, employers should reevaluate their existing recruitment and retention programs. Highly mobile individuals are more likely to be attracted to organizations and jobs that provide short-term advantages and benefits, rather than long term opportunities. Retention rates are likely to differ across generations, requiring different approaches for different generations. Retention of younger employees in a job is much less likely than it was in the past, so employers should consider programs that recognize the inherent mobility of the younger generations, such as increased job rotation opportunities, rehiring of former employees, and partnerships with other organizations to allow for temporary secondments. Our findings suggest that employees between the ages of 20 and 24 and 30 and 34 are particularly important periods for employee retention efforts. Rather than assuming that workers in these age groups are seeking long-term developmental opportunities within an organization, employers should view these ages as “high risk.” Programs aimed at engaging and satisfying workers in those age groups may go a long way toward mitigating preventable turnover and ensuring maximum productivity during younger workers’ tenure.

Comparing apples to apples

351

CDI 17,4

352

Limitations and directions for future research Despite rich data and a variety of measures, our study had some limitations that could be addressed in future research. First, the use of a small convenience sample, although suited to a qualitative investigation of the career patterns of various generations, decreased the statistical power of the hypothesis tests and limits the generalizability of the results. This research should be replicated with different groups of respondents, in different national contexts (particularly outside of North America, where much of the generational research has been centered) and in specific industries to determine whether the patterns we have observed are representative. As Parry and Urwin (2011) noted, cross-sectional generational research poses a number of methodological challenges as it is impossible to disentangle generational cohort effects from life-cycle or career-cycle stage differences and to eliminate the possibility of a period effect related to the point in history in which the study was conducted. Only longitudinal research with multiple generational cohorts will allow us to know for certain whether the career patterns of different generations vary significantly. The present study has addressed this issue by using retrospective accounts of people’s career histories. Although our respondents sometimes had difficulty remembering all of their career details in the online pre-survey, we found that their recall improved when they were prompted during the in-depth interviews to give specific details of the various jobs that they had held. We cannot know for certain how accurate the recall of participants was ultimately, but we are confident that the combination of surveys and in-depth interviews was an effective means of gathering longitudinal data retrospectively. Future research should strive to track multiple generations longitudinally over time to see how their careers evolve. Future studies should also focus on the degree to which men’s and women’s careers are changing from generation to generation, as it is very likely that the shifts that are occurring for women are different from those experienced by men. Research evidence suggests that women are more likely to take a more relational approach to career enactment, taking on career roles at different life-cycle stages that allow them integrate career and family demands, while men continue to be more focused on advancement and achievement (Mainiero and Sullivan, 2005; McDonald Sullivan et al., 2009). What remains to be seen is whether the gender-related differences in career patterns are changing over time. Research indicates that younger generations tend to have more egalitarian views than previous generations (Ng and Wiesner, 2007). This shift, coupled with increasing opportunities for younger generations of women may create a shift in the gendered nature of career patterns. Our study relied on retrospective accounts of biographical information on careers and career moves. Our in-depth interviews showed us that respondents occasionally have a difficult time recounting the details of their career history, particularly as they get older and have more to recount over a greater span of time. The interviews did, however, allow us to validate the career history and pose follow-up questions to fill in gaps. Future studies should include a mixture of methods to improve data quality. Longitudinal research would also provide a more definitive answer to the question of shifting careers. However, longitudinal research is expensive and time consuming with long payoff times. Finally, careers are complex and multifaceted. There are many dimensions of careers that we have not examined in the present research. For instance, it would be

useful to analyze shifts that have occurred within the changing parameters of specific occupations, industries and professions. It may be that there is much more of a shift toward modern careers in some fields rather than others. Additionally, there are career moves other than those we focused on here. For instance, people sometimes have extended periods of absence from work, have time off for maternity leave, work multiple simultaneous jobs and other such circumstances which were not captured in the questions we asked for the study reported here. Furthermore, it is possible to generate a more comprehensive list of career moves by treating job moves as multidimensional. For instance, job move can be internal or external to the organization, can be upward, downward or lateral in direction, and can be a continuation of the same occupation or a venture into a new occupation (Nicholson and West, 1988; Ng et al., 2007). Combining these dimensions would allow us to distinguish among a wide variety of career moves that are not considered here. Finally, a growing body of research is investigating career transitions across countries (e.g. Al Ariss, 2010; Dickmann and Baruch, 2011; Tharmaseelan et al., 2009). Future research should investigate whether this type of career change is more prevalent in recent generations than in the past. In closing, we have investigated how career patterns are evolving over time by examining and comparing the four generational cohorts at each stage of their careers, enabling us to disentangle the generational effect from the life-cycle effect, compare “apples to apples,” and project how the career patterns of the younger generations may unfold. We found that the traditional career, characterized by linear upward movement, followed by a settling down late career, was not typical, even among Matures. Rather, the diverse modern career, characterized by lateral, downward and track changes is evident across all four generations of workers. The younger generations do, however, exhibit greatly increased mobility. This, in combination with the lack of settling down of the older generations, suggests that this pattern of movement will continue across the career span of the subsequent generations. Given that increased mobility is the new reality in careers, researchers, organizations and human resource professionals should adapt their approaches to capitalize on the advantages and opportunities in a mobile and experientially diverse workforce, rather than just trying to “stem the flow.” We concur with Dries et al. (2008) that there is great potential for the use of generations as a lens through which shifts in career patterns can be examined. Our examination of career mobility patterns is an important first step in this regard. Clearly there is great opportunity for further investigation of this important phenomenon. References Adams, M. (1998), Sex in the Snow: Canadian Social Values at the End of the Millennium, Penguin, Toronto. Al Ariss, A. (2010), “Modes of engagement: migration, self-initiated expatriation, and career development”, Career Development International, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 338-58. Appelbaum, S.H., Serena, M. and Shapiro, B.T. (2005), “Generation ‘X’ and the Boomers: an analysis of realities and myths”, Management Research News, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-33. Arnett, J.J. (2006), “Emerging adulthood: understanding the new way of coming of age”, in Arnett, J.J. and Tanner, J.L. (Eds), Emerging Adulthood in America: Coming of Age in the 21st Century, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 3-20.

Comparing apples to apples

353

CDI 17,4

354

Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. (1996), “The boundaryless career as a new employment principle”, in Arthur, M.G. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds), The Boundaryless Career, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 3-20. Barnard, R., Cosgrove, D. and Welsh, J. (1998), Chips and Pop: Decoding the Nexus Generation, Malcolm Lester, Toronto. Baruch, Y. (2004), “Transforming careers: from linear to multidimensional career paths”, Career Development International, Vol. 9, pp. 58-73. Baruch, Y. and Bozionelos, N. (2010), “Career issues”, in Zedeck, S. (Ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Volume 2, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 67-113. Benson, J. and Brown, M. (2011), “Generations at work: are there differences and do they matter?”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 9, pp. 1843-65. Berenguer, C., Delano, J. and Stawarky, K. (2009), “Catalyst for change: the impact of Millennials on organization culture and policy”, available at: www.monitor.com/Portals/0/ MonitorContent/imported/MonitorUnitedStates/Articles/PDFs/Catalysts_for_Change_ Millennials.pdf (accessed June 6, 2012). Beutell, N.J. and Wittig-Berman, U. (2008), “Work-family conflict and work-family synergy for generation X, baby boomers, and matures: generational differences, predictors, and satisfaction outcomes”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 507-23. Briscoe, J.P. and Finkelstein, L.M. (2009), “The ‘new career’ and organizational commitment: do boundaryless and protean attitudes make a difference?”, Career Development International, Vol. 14, pp. 242-60. Burke, R. and Ng, E. (2006), “The changing nature of work and organizations: implications for human resource management”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 86-94. Canada Employment Insurance Commission (CEIS) (2010), Monitoring and Assessment Report, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, Ottawa. Capelli, P. (1999), “Career jobs are dead”, California Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 146-67. Cawsey, T., Deszca, G. and Mazerolle, M. (1995), “The portfolio career as a response to a changing job market”, Journal of Career Planning and Employment, Fall, pp. 41-7. Cennamo, L. and Gardner, D. (2008), “Generational differences in work values, outcomes and person-organisation values fit”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 891-906. Corporate Leadership Council (2005), HR Considerations for Engaging Generation Y employees, Corporate Executive Board, Washington, DC. Crumpacker, M. and Crumpacker, J.M. (2007), “Succession planning and generational stereotypes: should HR consider age-based values and attitudes a relevant factor or passing fad?”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 349-69. DeFillippi, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1996), “Boundaryless contexts and careers: a competency-based perspective”, in Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds), The Boundaryless Career, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 116-31. Dickmann, M. and Baruch, Y. (2011), Global Careers, Routledge, London. Dries, N., Pepermans, R. and De Kerpel, E. (2008), “Exploring four generations’ beliefs about career: is ‘satisfied’ the new ‘successful’?”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 907-28. Foot, D.K. (1998), Boom, Bust, and Echo 2000, MW and R, Toronto.

Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing Company, New York, NY. Glenn, N.D. (1977), Cohort Analysis, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. Gottfredson, L.S. (2002), “Gottfredson’s theory of conscription, compromise and self-creation”, in Brown, D., Brooks, L. and Associates (Eds), Career Choice and Development, 4th ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 85-148. Gower, D. (1992), “A note on Canadian unemployment since 1921”, Perspectives on Labour and Income, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 1-5. Hall, D.T. (1976), Careers in Organizations, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL. Hall, D.T. (1996), “Protean careers of the 21st century”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 10, pp. 8-16. Hall, D.T. and Mirvis, P.H. (1995), “The new career contract: developing the whole person at midlife and beyond”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 47, pp. 269-89. Hess, N. and Jepsen, D.M. (2009), “Career stage and generational differences in psychological contracts”, Career Development International, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 261-83. Howe, N. and Strauss, W. (2007), “The next 20 years: how customer and workforce attitudes will evolve”, Harvard Business Review, July-August, pp. 41-52. Inkson, K. (2006), “Protean and boundaryless careers as metaphors”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 60, pp. 48-63. Jacoby, S.M. (1999), “Are career jobs headed for extinction?”, California Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 123-45. Jurkiewicz, C.L. (2000), “Generation X and the public employee”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 55-74. Kupperschmidt, B. (2000), “Multigenerational employees: strategies for effective management”, Health Care Manager, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 65-76. Lancaster, L.C. and Stillman, D. (2002), When Generations Collide: Who They Are. Why They Clash. How to Solve the Generational Puzzle at Work, Harper Collins, New York, NY. Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D. and Hackett, G. (1996), “Career development from a social cognitive perspective”, in Brown, D., Brooks, L. and Associates (Eds), Career Choice and Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 373-421. McDonald, P., Brown, K. and Bradley, L. (2005), “Have traditional career paths given way to protean ones? Evidence from senior managers in the Australian public sector”, Career Development International, Vol. 10, pp. 109-29. Mainiero, L.A. and Sullivan, S.E. (2005), “Kaleidoscope careers: an alternative explanation for the opt-out generation”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 106-23. Mannheim, K. (1952), Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge, Routeledge and Kegan Paul, London, (originally published in 1928). Mitchell, L.K. and Krumboltz, J.D. (1996), “Krumboltz’s theory of career choice and counseling”, in Brown, D. and Associates (Eds), Career Choice and Development, 3rd ed., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 233-80. Moses, B. (1997), Career Intelligence: Mastering the New Work and Personal Realities, Stoddard, Toronto. Ng, E.S. and Wiesner, W.H. (2007), “Are men always picked over women? The effects of employment equity directives on selection decisions”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 177-87.

Comparing apples to apples

355

CDI 17,4

356

Ng, E.S.W., Schweitzer, L. and Lyons, S.T. (2010), “New generation, great expectations: a field study of the Millennial generation”, Journal of Business Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 281-92. Ng, T.W.H., Sorensen, K.L., Eby, L.T. and Feldman, D.C. (2007), “Determinants of job mobility: a theoretical integration and extension”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 363-86. Nicholson, N. and West, M. (1988), Managerial Job Change: Men and Women in Transition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Parry, E. and Urwin, P. (2011), “Generational differences in work values: a review of theory and evidence”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 79-96. Peiperl, M. and Baruch, Y. (1997), “Back to square zero: the post-corporate career”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 25, pp. 6-22. Rodrigues, R.A. and Guest, D. (2010), “Have careers become boundaryless?”, Human Relations, Vol. 63 No. 8, pp. 1157-75. Smola, K.W. and Sutton, C.D. (2002), “Generational differences: revisiting generational work values for the new millennium”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 363-82. Statistics Canada (2006), New Frontiers of Research on Retirement, Minister of Industry, Ottawa. Sullivan, S.E. (1999), “The changing nature of careers: a review and research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25, pp. 457-84. Sullivan, S. and Baruch, Y. (2009), “Advances in career theory and research: a critical review and agenda for future exploration”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35, pp. 1542-71. Sullivan, S.E., Forret, M.L., Carraher, S.M. and Mainiero, L.A. (2009), “Using the kaleidoscope career model to examine generational differences in work attitudes”, Career Development International, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 284-302. Super, D. (1957), Psychology of Careers, Harper and Brothers, New York, NY. Tharmaseelan, N., Inkson, K. and Carr, S.C. (2009), “Migration and career success: testing a time-sequenced model”, Career Development International, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 218-38. Twenge, J.M. (2006), Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled and More Miserable than Ever Before, Free Press, New York, NY. Twenge, J.M. and Campbell, S.M. (2008), “Generational differences in psychological traits and their impact on the workplace”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 862-77. Westerman, J.W. and Yamamura, J.H. (2007), “Generational preferences for work environment fit: effects and employee outcomes”, Career Development International, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 150-61. Wong, M., Gardiner, E., Lang, W. and Coulon, L. (2008), “Generational differences in personality and motivation: do they exist and what are the implications for the workplace?”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 878-90. Zemke, R., Raines, C. and Filipczak, B. (2000), Generations at Work: Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace, Amacom, Toronto. About the authors Sean T. Lyons is an Associate Professor at the University of Guelph (Canada). His research focuses on inter-generational differences in career expectations, career outcomes and work values. His work has appeared in journals such as the Journal of Organizational Behaviour, the Journal of Business and Psychology, Sex Roles and Advances in Developing Human Resources. Sean T. Lyons is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Linda Schweitzer is an Assistant Professor at Carleton University. Her research, in the areas of women in business and society, and generations and technology use in the workplace has appeared in the Journal of Business and Psychology, Information Systems Journal, and the Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences. Eddy S.W. Ng is an Associate Professor at Dalhousie University. His research centers on gender and diversity in organizations. His recent work has appeared in Human Resource Management Review, Journal of Vocational Behavior, and the British Journal of Management. Lisa K.J. Kuron is a doctoral student in the School of Business & Economics at Wilfrid Laurier University. Her doctoral research focuses on the role of goals in job decisions, job search behaviors, and subsequent attitudes. Lisa also has extensive experience investigating gender and generational difference in the workplace.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Comparing apples to apples

357