Help us but help yourself: the paradox of contemporary career ...

Help us but help yourself: the paradox of contemporary career management

Mohan Thite Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland, Australia

Keywords Career development , Organizational development, Human resource management

The world of work

Recent literature on career management is generally unanimous in proclaiming that Abstract careers have undergone fundamental Today’s boundary-les s and changes since the 1990s Parker and Inkson, knowledge-based economy with 1999; Arthur and Rousseau, 1996). The context its focus on learning organization and contents of career management have delivers a contradictor y messag e to employees in managing their witnessed paradigm shifts from their careers. On the one hand, traditional position Inkson, 1997). contemporar y organization s Environmental changes have left their deep expect and demand that imprint on the way we manage human employees adopt a lifelon g learning approach, be globalresources. At the macro level, human oriented, successfull y manage the resource management HRM) is inextricably dynamics of diversity in the work linked to business strategy and structure. At and marketplace, work in selfdirected teams, develop a feel for the functional level, changes in HRM can be and rapid response to fast seen in terms of a dramatic rise in part-time, changing customer expectations casual and contract employment, and so on. On the other hand, outsourcing, team work, self-management, organization s are silent on the multi-rater performance appraisals, question of who is going to bear the enormous cost of ongoing performance-based remuneration, portfolio technica l and behavioral training or modular careers and enterprise-based that the employees need to employee relations Kramar, 1999). The successfull y manage in a global traditional HRM models are fast losing their village. While today individual s accept the fact that they can no relevance to current organizational issues more expect the organization s to and challenges as they were primarily meant provide them lifelong, full-time and for manufacturing and product-driven stable careers, they would society, characterized by stability, growth, certainly prefer not to work for organization s that adopt the ``help monopolistic markets and predictable us but help yourself’’ attitude to technology Templer and Cawsey, 1999). career management. This paper Similarly, career management is today discusse s the implication s of this seen in an entirely different context. This paradox on the career management process at the needs to be analyzed at two levels, organizationa l level and reviews organizational and individual, not only best practice scenarios. because of the differences in ``roles’’ but also because of differences in `èxpectations’’ Gunz, 1989). While employers have the managerial prerogative to change the context and contents of the tasks as the situation demands, the employees are today left in a hapless situation. They can no longer rely on the organization to steer them through the career maze nor can they bargain collectively Career Development International 6/6 [2001 ] 312±317

# MCB University Press [ISSN 1362-0436]

[ 312 ]

The research register for this journal is available at http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers

as effectively as they did before on employment security, incentives, promotion, training, health and safety etc. Moreover, the traditional success factors of career management, such as organizational loyalty, specialization, seniority, management-byrules no longer apply and the employers today demand the world of them. Today, people looking for employment: need to be more flexible and versatile in their skills and knowledge, and must be willing to go anywhere, at any time, and at a moment’s notice, to do anything Brousseau et al., 1996).

The world of work is changing so fast that most individuals seem to have no clue on how to react, let alone being proactive: It is hard for someone being swept downstream in a fast-moving river to make sense of where they are, let alone where they are going Gunz et al., 1998).

Does this mean the world of work is falling apart? Not really. The present confusion and resultant frustration seem to be mainly due to the dramatic speed at which the world is changing and the panic it has caused amongst decision makers in determining how to get on top of it. Some organizations have taken a purely short-term approach and have downsized and outsourced as much as possible. Similarly, some individuals have just given up or are working longer and harder to cling to their jobs Henderson, 1999). As organizations and individuals get used to the world of uncertainty and discontinuity, one can see discernible patterns and career streams in the change Gunz et al., 1998) and better ways of adapting to the twenty-first century. To add to the pandemonium, the environmental changes and organizational responses are in a state of constant flux, making it difficult for researchers to diagnose the process and prescribe solutions. The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

Mohan Thite Help us but help yourself: the paradox of contemporary career management Career Development International 6/6 [2001] 312±317

It needs to be emphasized that as of today the identification and analysis of the change process is more of crystal gazing than empirical as the change process from the old to the new economy is still under way and remains unpredictable Thite, 2000a).

Framework of career management Before identifying the organizational implications of the paradigm shifts in career management, it is useful to map the key changes in the context or framework between traditional and contemporary career management. As summarized in Table I, changes in organizational and individuals’ responses to career management directly correspond to environmental changes. In the traditional environment where competition, technology, and market characteristics were relatively stable, organizations structured their activities in a mechanistic form with a view to attain stability, efficiency, order and control whereas individuals relied on specialization, organizational loyalty, steady and predictable career progression under the watchful supervision of their employers. Similarly, in the contemporary environment characterized by intense and

unprecedented global competition, technological breakthroughs at a breakneck speed, service and quality driven economies, organizations are turning towards extremely organic structures, knowledge and technology based learning systems and empowerment of people whereas individuals are taking more responsibility for their careers and are adopting portfolio careers. The contemporary framework has distinct and different implications for organizations and individuals. Having been caught in whirlpool of changes, both are experimenting with a wide range of responses, some successful and some which could be counterproductive in the longer term.

Organizational implications In the traditional framework, organizations adopted ``help us to help yourself’’ approach to career management and took charge of navigating the careers of their employees. They could afford to bear the cost of employment, training and development and had sufficient time to nurture the careers of promising employees. Today, many organizations have taken a U-turn from that approach and almost abandoned any

Table I Traditional and contemporary framework of career management Traditional framework

Contemporary framework

Environmental context

Production driven Protected markets Stable technology Familiarity with domestic political, legal, cultural framework

Era of discontinuity and hyper competition at a global level Service driven Technology intensive Global markets with upredictable economic, political and cultural scenarios

Organizational response

Growth at any cost business strategy Mechanistic, product, functional, divisional structures Hierarchical, multiple management levels Supervisor-based performance appraisal Seniority-based, time-bound promotions Command and control management style Responsible for individual career planning and development Uni-dimensional career movements =ladder)

Knowledge and information technology driven learning organization Strategic collaboration with competitors Network, cellular structures Small component of core employees and big component of part-time, casual and contract staff Empowerment of people 360-degree feedback Competency-based outsourcing Self-directed teams Delayering Multi-dimensional career movements =jungle gym)

Individual response

Loyalty to organization in return for lifelong and steady growing employment Minimal responsibility for career management Emphasis on specialization of skills Collective bargaining of employment issues

Diminishing loyalty for organization Focus on employability rather than job Portfolio of jobs and skills Increasing emphasis on life-style issues Acceptance of near-total responsibility for career management Life-long learning [ 313 ]


responsibility for career management. The main victims of this turnaround have been middle and senior managers who started their careers under the protective arms of their employers and did everything they were asked to do often, at the cost of their personal life) but today find themselves with limited employable skills Stewart, 1995). Before abandoning any responsibility for career management, the basic but key question organizations need to answer is ``how important are people in achieving organizational goals?’’ In fact, their importance is felt even more today than ever before Ulrich, 1998). In the knowledge economy, the key to the knowledge lies with individuals. It is the individuals who need to use their creativity and innovation to offer the best products and service and exploit the opportunities provided by globalization and technological revolution. Once individuals realize that they hold the key to organizational success, why would they work for organizations that adopt ``help us but help yourself’’ approach? If the career-related actions of organizations imply, `àsk not what we can do for you but ask what you can do for us’’, one can hardly expect commitment and loyalty from employees. Whymark and Ellis 1999), thus, caution that ``too cavalier an attitude by employers may have detrimental long-term effect on the health of the organisation and its ability to attract and retain talented managers’’. In the contemporary environment, it is universally recognized that no organization, public or private, profit or non-profit, can guarantee employment security. At best they can provide `èmployable skills’’ and it is up to the individual to manage the rest. Both the organization and the individual are gradually adjusting to the notion that they have to look out for themselves, meaning that organizations will become less paternalistic and individuals more self-reliant Schein, 1996).

Does this spell the end of stable and long-term careers? Not necessarily. If we carefully look at the composition of current organizations, one can notice that on the one hand, megamergers and strategic alliances in banking, automobile, petro-chemical, aviation, media and Internet service providers etc.) are creating super organizations and on the other, small but dynamic organizations are springing up globally Allfred et al., 1996). Both these kinds of organizations have different employee profiles and adopt different approaches to career management. Mega-organizations can offer long-term employment to people with a wide range of evolving skill sets and would need to take an

[ 314 ]

active role in the career development of their ``core employees’’. The small organizations, on the other hand, will be extremely flexible in hiring and firing and may not play any active role in the career development process of their small number of employees. If the above scenario takes root in the long run, medium to large organizations will have to continue to take an active role in the career development of individuals and invest time and money in their training and development if they want to retain them. By taking a U-turn from the traditional approach, these organizations will only lose their past gains. Some organizational theorists, therefore, recommend a pluralistic approach by incorporating older, more static career concepts along with newer, more dynamic career concepts on the ground that: . . . the repeated cycle of out-with-the-old-andin-with-the-new is likely to increase rather than reduce pandemonium Brousseau et al., 1996).

An analogy from leadership literature would further strengthen this argument. The current leadership literature distinguishes between transactional and transformational leadership Bass, 1985). A transactional leader clarifies the requirements of tasks, expected outcomes and rewards and, thus, focuses on the transactional aspect of employment relationship. A transformational leader goes a step ahead of a transactional leader by energizing the subordinates to rise above the contractual obligations and perform better for mutual benefit. Today’s organizations need super achievers with commitment, not just ordinary compliance, and organizations can recruit them and retain them only by rising above contractual employment terms and offering them career support and encouragement. Paradoxically, organizations expect employees to show ``transformational’’ characteristics in return for ``transactional’’ employment conditions! It will be hard for organizations to attract and retain top talent. If employment relationship is viewed as: . . . more of short term economic exchange arrangement instead of a long-term, mutually beneficial commitment

A recent survey revealed that: . . . the use of coaching and mentoring was found to be a significant way that managers were able to improve career management for their staff Whymark and Ellis, 1999).

hallmarks of transformational leadership. Even in this age of uncertainty, organizations need stability and order and this can only be achieved by permanent employees who have been carefully trained


and developed. Only they can institutionalize the knowledge base that is unique to the organization by codifying it and passing it on to successive generations of employees. Toyota, for instance, would not be able to leverage its core competency in production management without the enthusiastic support and loyalty by its long-term employees. It is futile to expect that loyalty from part-time, casual or contract employees. No wonder research shows that supporting employee development is one of the prerequisites for fostering employee commitment Desler, 1999). Many organizations expect all of their employees at all levels to be super heroes in all aspects of their employment: technically brilliant and behaviorally perfect. Just as all organizations cannot be leaders in their field despite wishing to be one in their mission statement, all employees cannot fulfill all the expectations of the management. Some want to be just technicians, some can work best alone, some excel only in domestic markets and so on Drucker, 1994). By pushing these people to be what they are not or cannot be, organizations will gain little, if anything. While expectations on quality, customer service, lifelong learning attitude etc. need not and should not be compromised, organizations need to be realistic in their expectations of employees. Today’s management literature offers many fads and fashions that are claimed to be universally applicable. Their `òne size fits all’’ assumption, particularly in a global economy, only serves to undermine the importance of cultural differences across trading nations. Multi-national corporations need to be aware of cross-cultural implications of their policies in HRM, including career management. For instance, in Eastern cultures, people still highly value titles, promotions even if nominal, seniority of employment etc. and may, therefore, negatively react to delayering, titleless positions etc. Thite, 2000b). Further, all the new structures and designs in vogue, such as network and cellular forms, self-directed teams, strategic business units require alignment between organizational strategy, structure, culture, communication, leadership, technology etc. Many organizations shed their past structures and design and embrace the new without ensuring the fit and gradual adaptation. The result is confusion and frustration amongst employees. For instance, an academic institution aiming for flexible delivery has to first ensure that its technology is up to date and its employees have a common vision of what flexible delivery means and have the necessary skills

to deliver it. If employees’ performance falls short of expectations because of organizational shortfalls, they cannot be held responsible for not adapting to the new order: Many managers see the rhetoric of the new organization as running well ahead of its practice and are fatigued by change, insecure, defensive in their career strategies, and highly political in their behaviors. Some organizations falsely believe that they can be reengineered overnight Nicholson, 1996).

Contemporary organizations feature three kinds of employees: core, contract and temporary Handy, 1996). Obviously the career needs of these employees will vary widely. Core employees primarily look for employability, stability and caring and nurturing career environment. Professional contract employees would look for opportunity to work with emerging technologies and top class remuneration. Temporary employees may emphasize flexible hours, opportunity for permanent employment etc. Accordingly, organizations need to fine-tune their approach to career management to suit the needs of different employees. While the need to work on `èmployable skills’’ is the common thread between the three classes of employees, other needs vary significantly: The role of career development is less clear now than it was in the traditional organization. This should not be a sticking point of nostalgia however, but rather the incentive for developing new models of career development Templer and Cawsey, 1999).

It has almost become a fashionable trend amongst the Chief Executive Officers to introduce radical measures soon after taking the reins of a new organization without even familiarizing themselves with the ground realities Bamber, 1999). Many organizations make hasty decisions to sell off certain assets, retrench people en-masse, radically alter the organizational structures decentralization, for instance), tinker with the reward systems etc. only to reverse the decisions later with no convincing justification. These short-sighted actions play havoc with people’s morale and careers. For instance, studies show that the majority of organizations do not achieve the perceived benefits of downsizing Whetten et al., 1995) and face problems such as decreases in motivation, promotion opportunities, commitment and morale along with increased concern about job security Littler et al., 1997). Nicholson 1996) warns against the unintended and undesired effects on jobs and careers of some ``popular’’ management trends, such as downsizing, delayering, decentralizing etc.

[ 315 ]


[ 316 ]

Best practice scenarios The organizational implications as detailed above provide vital clues on the possible range of best practices in career management: Large, established organizations need to adopt a long-term focus to career management. To retain and motivate people, who create and codify key competencies, these organizations will have to establish their credentials in providing a nurturing and caring environment. They may have to provide employable skills, reasonable job security, family-friendly HRM policies, relatively stable organizational structures and above all, a clear management vision. Meyer and Allen 1997) argue that whether employees are motivated by fear or acceptance of job insecurity, performance commitment is likely to be influenced by the availability of opportunities for developing their `èmployability’’. Similarly, Stratford 1996, p. 20) recommends ``new contracts’’ with employees, changing management activities to retain employee commitment, organizing career profiling services for internal redeployments and outplacement services for the redundant. Only then can they secure long-term employee commitment. This may read like a wish list in today’s turbulent environment but human relations have always been and will always be based on basic principles of trust, ethics and mutual obligations. ``Help us but help yourself’’ attitude clearly flies against these principles. Before altering HRM policies, organizations need to ensure proper fit between structure, strategy and processes at the macro level and between HR functions at the micro level. For instance, Whetten et al. 1995, p. 287) caution that changes associated with downsizing, such as de-layering and greater reliance upon teamwork, may require changes in selection and promotion criteria, compensation systems and training and development plans. Provision of `èmployable skills’’ is the key success factor in contemporary career management. Organizations can provide necessary assistance to employees to fulfill this key criterion by way of helping them identify these skills and supporting continuous learning through mentoring schemes, virtual career development centers, computer-based training CBT), flexi-hours and so on.

When vacancies for ``hot skills’’ arise, organizations can reinforce their commitment to employees by recruiting internally to the extent possible Slamet, 1999, p. 19). This also helps organizations to provide the bridge between the present and the future. We need to question organizational expectations of super heroic qualities in all employees. Instead of expecting everything from everybody, organizations need to identify the key strengths in each individual and assign tasks and responsibilities accordingly. In a global environment, cultural sensitivity to career management needs to be recognized. Organizations cannot blindly impose their policies across their global network without fine tuning them based on cultural differences. It is clear that even in the twenty-first century economy, organizations have a clear role and responsibility in career management. The nature and level of this responsibility may vary depending on organizational size, organizational life cycle, industry, type and level of employees, occupation, top management philosophy, national and organizational culture etc. Removal of hierarchical, functional and organizational boundaries, through delayering, multi-skilling and outsourcing activities have resulted in boundary-less careers and increased labor turnover, thus limiting long-term career management. However, organisations can still play a proactive role in career management by removing internal boundaries for career movements, individualizing career planning, mentoring employees in self-management and overhauling the HR philosophy Parker and Inkson, 1999, pp. 80-4). Any way one looks at the new economy, there is scope and a window of opportunity for organizations to play a constructive role in career management.

References Allfred, B.B., Snow, C.C. and Miles, R.E. 1996), ``Characteristics of managerial careers of the 21st century’’, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 17-27. Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. 1996), ``The boundaryless career: a new employment principle for new organisational era’’, in Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. Eds), The Boundaryless Career: A New Employment Principle for a New Organisational Era, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 370-82. Bamber, G. 1999), ``Fads, fashion and fantasies: reflections on management trends and on


university business schools’’, Professorial Lecture Series, Griffith University, Australia. Bass, B. 1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY. Brousseau, K.R., Driver, M.J., Eneroth, K. and Larsson, R. 1996), ``Career pandemonium: realigning organizations and individuals’’, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 52-66. Desler, G. 1999), ``How to earn your employees’ commitment’’, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 58-67. Drucker, P. 1994), ``The age of social transformation’’, The Atlantic Monthly, November, pp. 53-80. Gunz, H.P. 1989), ``The dual meaning of managerial careers: organisational levels of analysis’’, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 26, pp. 225-50. Gunz, H.P., Jalland, R.M. and Evans, M.G. 1998), ``New strategy, wrong managers? What you need to know about career streams’’, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 21-37. Handy, C. 1996), Beyond Certainty, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Henderson, I. 1999), ``Work standards fail test of time’’, The Australian, June. Inkson, K. 1997), `Òrganisation structures and the transformation of careers’’, in Clark, T. Ed.), Advancement in Organizational Behaviour, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, pp. 165-85. Kramar, R. 1999), ``Policies for managing people in Australia: what has changed in the 1990s?’’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 24-32. Littler, C.R., Dunford, R., Bramble, T. and Hede, A. 1997), ``The dynamics of downsizing in Australia and New Zealand’’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 65-77. Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. 1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory , Research and Application, Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Nicholson, N. 1996), ``Career systems in crisis: change and opportunity in the information

age’’, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 40-51. Parker, P. and Inkson, K. 1999), ``New forms of career: the challenge to human resource management’’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 76-85. Schein, E.H. 1996), ``Career anchors revised: implications for career development in the 21st century’’, The Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 80-88. Slamet, D. 1999), ``The search for IT workers get smarter’’, HR Monthly, December. Stewart, T. 1995), ``Planning a career in a world without ladders’’, Fortune, March, pp. 40-5. Stratford, D. 1996) `Òutplacement is but one part of corporate change strategy’’, HR Monthly, April. Templer, A.J. and Cawsey, T.F. 1999), ``Rethinking career development in an era of portfolio careers’’, Career Development International, Vol. 4 No. 2. Thite, M. 2000a) ``Career management in the new economy: surfing the turbulent waves of change’’, 2nd Annual Conference of the International Association of Insight and Action, School of Management, Griffith University, Australia. Thite, M. 2000b), ``Cultural analysis of management theories & trends from an Asian perspective’’, Key Note Address at the 20th Organisation Development World Congress, Goa, India. Also presented and published at the Third Joint La Trobe University/Yunnan University Research Conference, Kunming, China, 26-8 October, 1998. Ulrich, D. 1998), `À new mandate for human resources’’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 76 No. 1, pp. 124-35. Whetten, D.A., Keiser, J.D. and Urban, T. 1995), `Ìmplications of organisational downsizing for the human resource management function’’, in Ferris, G.R., Rosen, S.D. and Barnum, D.T. Eds), Handbook of Human Resource Management, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA. Whymark, K. and Ellis, S. 1999), ``Whose career is it anyway? Options for career management in flatter organization structures’’, Career Development International, Vol. 4 No. 2.

[ 317 ]