The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm

CDI
16,4

The meaning of career success

364

Avoiding reification through a closer

inspection of historical, cultural,
and ideological contexts
Nicky Dries

Received 7 December 2010

Revised 5 January 2011
Accepted 6 January 2011

Faculty of Business and Economics, Research Centre for Organisation Studies,

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the extent to which the concept of career success
has been subject to reification, and identify potential implications for individuals, organizations, and
societies.
Design/methodology/approach The current paper offers an in-depth analysis of the different
contextual forces contributing to the reification of careers (i.e. history, culture and ideology), and how
these have impacted on the social reality of career and the definitions of career success held by
different relevant actors.
Findings In total, eight research propositions are identified that need to be addressed in future
research in order to advance knowledge and understanding of career success in context.
Social implications One manifest outcome of career reification is the establishment of collective
norms prescribing what a normal, successful career is and what is not. Consequently, all careers
not conforming to these norms are devaluated, which is inappropriate given the present-day climate of
workplace diversity.
Originality/value Career theory, in general, has been criticized for overemphasizing individual
agency while neglecting contextual issues. Furthermore, more conceptual development is necessary in
relation to the career success construct. The current paper aims to address both of these gaps by
presenting in-depth analyses of the historical, cultural, and ideological contexts impacting on the
meaning of career and career success.
Keywords Career success, Subjective career, Career reification, Boundaryless career, Career theory,
National cultures, Globalization
Paper type Conceptual paper

Introduction
A definition of career success commonly referred to in the contemporary literature is
the experience of achieving goals that are personally meaningful to the individual,
rather than those set by parents, peers, an organization, or society (Mirvis and Hall,
1994, p. 366). According to this definition, workers of all types have careers, each of
which can be viewed as successful in one way or another. But if this is true, then why do
so many people feel unsuccessful? Research into the career experiences of blue-collar
Career Development International
Vol. 16 No. 4, 2011
pp. 364-384
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1362-0436
DOI 10.1108/13620431111158788

The author started work on this paper while she was still affiliated with the Department of Work
and Organizational Psychology at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. The work enjoyed the
financial support of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO TM490). The author would like
to thank Robert Giacalone and Hugh Gunz for their helpful feedback on an earlier version of the
manuscript.

workers, for instance, revealed that they often feel they do not even have a career,
let alone a successful one (Guest and Sturges, 2007; Hennequin, 2007).
It appears that the career success construct, somehow, evokes an objectified image
of career in people an image with which they may or may not identify. The central
argument in this paper is that careers are often subject to reification, i.e. the tendency to
see social constructs as real and fixed, rather than as complex, dynamic social realities
that can be (re)interpreted and (re)shaped in different ways. Despite the fact that
careers are not real, however, they are reality-defining for a large part of the
workforce (Evetts, 1992).
Career theory, in general, has been criticized for overemphasizing individual agency
while neglecting contextual issues (Brown, 2002; Evetts, 1992). This paper aims to
address this gap by presenting a detailed examination of how the different contextual
forces contributing to the reification of careers (i.e. history, culture and ideology) have
impacted on the social reality of career and the definitions of career success held by
different relevant actors. It then goes on to identify several research questions that
need to be tackled in future research in order to advance our knowledge and
understanding of career success in context. The paper concludes with specific
implications for careers research and practice.
Career success across historical contexts
The shift to a post-industrial economy
The evolution of the global economy (although not taking place at the same pace in
every part of the world), from an agricultural over an industrial to a post-industrial
society, has without a doubt strongly contributed to the current-day image of what
career and career success mean.
Around the onset of the nineteenth century, the industrial revolution marked the end
of the agricultural economy in most Western countries, in which the dominant social
institution had been the family and young people simply inherited their careers from
their parents. Career success, in those days, was determined by physical survival and
security and the development of character (i.e. compliance to the norm of hard work and
ethical behavior) (Savickas, 2000). The dawning of the industrial economy was
characterized by the appearance of large, bureaucratic organizations offering careers for
life. Since the typical organizational structure was hierarchical, career implied vertical
movement through a succession of related jobs, arranged in a hierarchy of prestige
(Wilensky, 1961, p. 523). Career success, accordingly, was measured by verifiable
attainments (e.g. income, position, and status) relating to upward advancement on the
corporate ladder (Heslin, 2005; Savickas, 2000). In the second half of the twentieth
century, Western society was transformed through globalization as well as scientific
and technical evolutions. In the current post-industrial economy, characterized by
widespread organizational restructuring and economic uncertainty, the hallmarks of the
traditional-organizational career are said to be disappearing (Savickas, 2000).
Careers have now become a more or less unpredictable series of experiences lived by
individuals continuously negotiating work and non-work aspects of their lives
throughout different career and life stages (Arthur et al., 2005). Consequently, the
definition of career success in the literature has been expanded to include goals much
broader (and more personal) than upward advancement alone (Mirvis and Hall, 1994).
As a result, there is no longer a clear and consensual understanding of what

The meaning
of career success

365

CDI
16,4

career means, both for individuals and organizations (Dries et al., 2008). However, the
notion of hierarchical advancement within an organization remains associated with
career success to date although the institutional arrangements at the origin of this
association have changed considerably (Heslin, 2005). According to Burns (2009, p. 25),
career may have become:

366

[. . .] a quasi-official truth [. . .] lagging behind the reality of changes occurring in employment

patterns. Getting ahead or succeeding may not figure at all, or may be only one imperative in
personal life paths, and not necessarily as central as some career trajectories imply.

Although the historical trends outlined above are well-documented within the
management literature, only in a few instances have they been linked to the meaning of
career success (Savickas, 2000). Content analyses of historical documents, such as novels,
newspapers, plays, or other media referring to the meanings attributed to career and
career success might prove particularly useful for addressing this first research question:
RQ1a. How has the shift to a post-industrial economy influenced peoples
definitions of career success throughout history?
The shift to post-materialist values
In parallel with the emergence of the post-industrial economy, a shift to
post-materialism has been observed (Inglehart, 2008). The World Values Survey,
which studied over 250,000 people worldwide across five waves from 1981 to 2007,
uncovered that in nearly all industrial societies, worldviews have shifted from
traditional to secular-rational values. Furthermore, the study found that the transition
from industrial to knowledge society is characterized by an emphasis on self-expression
values (as opposed to survival values), which implies an increased focus on subjective
well-being, self-expression, and individual spirituality (Pettersson, 2003). Inglehart
(1997) argues that the process of intergenerational population replacement and
globalization will cause self-expression values to become even more widespread in the
future in industrialized societies, at least. Considering the world as a whole, however,
the ratio between materialists and post-materialists varies from society to society
depending on their level of economic development. Low-income countries and countries
in crisis still show an overwhelming dominance of materialists, while prosperous and
secure ones exhibit a majority of post-materialists (Inglehart, 2008).
A second avenue for future research is to examine exactly how the shift to
post-materialist values has affected the subjective meanings attributed to career and
career success by diverse research populations:
RQ1b. How has the shift to post-materialist values influenced peoples definitions of
career success throughout history?
Intergenerational research designs are ideally suited for studying evolutions within the
population alive today; for studying trends over a longer timespan (e.g. hundreds of
years), comparative historical analyses are recommended.
Career success across cultural contexts
The effects of national culture
The careers literature (and many other streams of literature at that) has,
generally speaking, seriously underestimated the weight of cross-cultural differences

in describing and explaining career phenomena (Chudzikowski et al., 2009). As a result,

there is an overemphasis in the literature on Western career concepts and measures,
and especially on concepts and measures developed in the USA (Stead, 2004). The
projection of US values onto career actors from other parts of the world, without taking
into account possible differences in their definitions of career and career success, may
be problematic (Kats et al., 2010; Schwartz, 2006).
From Hofstedes seminal work on cultural differences we can draw some preliminary
inferences about how people from different countries will, generally speaking, define
and evaluate career success. Table I provides an overview of some of the average
employee value scores Hofstede uncovered in his 1967-1973 study spanning 53 countries
and regions (Hofstede, 2001). The table compares US and UK scores to the world and
European average for each employee value the USA and the UK being the countries
that produce the largest proportion of the careers literature (Chudzikowski et al., 2009).
It clearly illustrates that specific aspects of the US and UK contexts should not be
generalized to other countries without critical reflection about possible cultural
differences (Stead, 2004).
Although, in general, cultural differences tend to be underestimated, they are also
commonly overestimated. The overestimation of cultural differences is generally caused
by stereotyping, and in turn causes further stereotyping (Niles, 1999). For instance,
a typical stereotype for portraying Asian people is the Buddhist monk who renounces
material success and personal gain (Figure 1). Furnham (2010, p. 134) describes how the
misconception that the great Oriental religions do not offer an encouraging cultural
framework for the rational pursuit of economic gain has led to the stereotypical
belief that Asian belief systems (somehow considered to be other-worldly) do not

Power distancea
Index (rank)
World average
European average
USA
UK

55
45
40 (38)
35 (42-44)

Cultural dimensions
Uncertainty
avoidanceb Individualismc Masculinityd
Index (rank)
Index (rank)
Index (rank)
64
74
46 (43)
35 (47-48)

43
61
91 (1)
89 (3)

50
59
62 (15)
66 (9-10)

The meaning
of career success

367

Long-term
orientatione
Index (rank)
45
n.a.
29 (27)
25 (28-29)

Notes: The employee values measured were: apower distance the extent to which the less powerful
members of organizations and institutions accept and expect that power is distributed unequally;
b
uncertainty avoidance the extent to which a culture programs its members to feel uncomfortable in
unstructured situations; cindividualism the extent to which the ties between individuals are loose
and everyone is expected to look after him or herself and his or her immediate family; dmasculinity
the extent to which dominant values are related to assertiveness, money, material possessions and
well-defined gender roles; elong-term orientation the extent to which values such as frugality and
perseverance are dominant; index scores are average employee value scores per country; rank scores
are based on a comparison of the index score of the focal country to the index scores of the 52 other
countries in the Hofstede sample; the long-term orientation dimension was added to the research
framework at a later point than the other dimensions; for this dimension, Hofstede only collected data
in 23 countries
Source: Adapted from Hofstede (2001)

Table I.
Hofstede employee value
scores: world average,
European average,
US scores, and UK scores

CDI
16,4

368

Figure 1.
Western scholars and
practitioners tend to
simultaneously
underestimate and
overestimate cultural
differences with regard
to peoples definitions
of career success

Source: Cartoon courtesy of The Rut, http://bigeyedeer. wordpress.com.au

promote commitment to a strong work ethic, and that the motivational patterns
of Asian employees lack need for achievement (Niles, 1999). The fact that India and
China are among the fastest developing economies in the world seems to prove
otherwise, however (Furnham, 2010).
Cross-cultural studies are needed to examine this third, important, research question:
RQ2a. How do elements of national culture influence the definitions of career
success of people around the world?
The effects of globalization
An important point of critique on the cross-cultural psychology literature is that
culture is generally described and studied as if it concerns a stable feature of societies
(Khapova and Korotov, 2007). However, as soon as social, political, and economic
factors change, people will adapt to their new environment by assuming more relevant
behaviors. Subsequently, these new behaviors can accumulate and begin to define new
cultural assumptions (Hofstede, 2001), as is demonstrated by research in rapidly
developing economies. For instance, Khapova and Korotov (2007) found clear shifts in
Russian career values when comparing their findings to Hofstedes original scores.
Chudzikowski et al. (2009), from their side, found that the younger respondents in their
Chinese sample reported career values more similar to those of Western respondents
than to those of older Chinese. Nuance must be applied, however. Data from the World

Values Survey found little to no value convergence between 20 different countries over
a period of 26 years (Inglehart, 1997). Overall, the available empirical evidence seems to
imply that both universalistic tendencies across-cultural contexts and culture-specific
tendencies play a role in the enactment of careers (Chudzikowski et al., 2009). The
literature on globalization argues that rather than juxtaposing different cultural beliefs
regarding career and career success, researchers should aim to understand how these
beliefs were shaped, and why they persist (Kats et al., 2010; Khapova and Korotov,
2007). Large-scale cross-cultural studies (of which the World Values Survey is an
ideal-typical example) are needed in order to examine exactly how globalization has
affected the meanings attributed to career success by people around the world:
RQ2b. How does globalization influence the definitions of career success of people
around the world?
The effects of religion and spirituality
Related to the question of how cultural values influence peoples definitions of career
success is the question of how religion and spirituality do so. One interesting stream of
literature that (indirectly) addresses the impact of religion and spirituality on the
meanings attributed to career success is that on the protestant work ethic (PWE). The
early literature on PWE (mainly that by Weber; see Hill and Smith, 2010) suggested
that Calvinist Protestants are more likely than other religious groups (especially
Catholics) to view work as a calling. The centrality of the ascetic lifestyle (characterized
by hard work and frugality) in the PWE and the need to glorify God throughout all
daily activities lie at the heart of this (biased) thesis. More recently, Davidson and
Caddell (1994) published a piece stating that people with less developed religious
self-concepts, or who are religiously less active, are likely to have more secular views of
work, thinking of it either as a career or a job, but rarely a calling. According to
Wrzesniewski et al. (1997), a job is associated with being interested principally in the
material benefits from work, and with expressing interests and ambitions mainly
during leisure activities; a career is associated with a deeper personal investment in
work aimed at advancement in one way or another; and a calling is associated with
morally and socially significant work that brings personal fulfillment to the individual.
Similar ideas are found in the literature on Buddhism and work, even though the
teachings of Buddhism are generally very different to those of PWE. The essence of
life, according to Buddhists, lies in the purification of human character, a goal that is
partly achieved through work. Buddhism demarcates at least three functions of work
(Schumacher, 2003): first of all, to give people a chance to utilize and develop their
capabilities; second, to overcome ego-centeredness by working towards a common goal
together with others; and third, to generate the goods and services necessary for a
becoming existence. An important guideline for Buddhists in choosing a career is the
Noble Eightfold Path (Inoue, 1997). The path of right livelihood, in particular, specifies
that people should avoid occupations that, directly or indirectly, result in harm for
other living beings. As a consequence, it has far-stretching implications for the way
Buddhists choose and evaluate careers.
I have briefly discussed PWE and Buddhism here as textbook examples of how
religion might impact on the social construction of career success. Of course, many other
examples exist (Hill and Smith, 2010) but going into each of them would take us too far
here. Either way, considering the growth in religious diversity in workplaces worldwide,

The meaning
of career success

369

CDI
16,4

370

one recommendation is that cross-cultural research into the meanings of career success
should not only take into account national culture and/or ethnic background, but also
elements of religion and spirituality:
RQ2c.How do elements of religion and spirituality, inherent to peoples (sub)cultural
environment, influence the definitions of career success of people around the
world?
Career success across ideological contexts
Where culture more generally provides a set of attitudes, beliefs, and values about
social reality that affects its members decision making (Schwartz, 2006), ideology
involves evaluative judgment (Lucas et al., 2006). It causes people to conform to a
certain standard of what is right versus what is wrong; what is normal, or good;
and what is possible and changeable. Ideology, which is typically disseminated
through discourse, can be seen as a structuring principle of society (Ogbor, 2000).
Ideology in societies
For Western cultures, the dominant ideological framework impacting on careers is
capitalism. The most typical and well-known example of capitalist career discourse
is probably the American Dream. The American Dream promotes career values such as
meritocracy (i.e. the belief that individual talent and competence must be rewarded),
hierarchy (i.e. the belief that unlimited status is something to strive for) and materialism
(i.e. the belief that success should be measured primarily by income) (Lucas et al., 2006).
Another ideological framework shaping career, originating from a very different part of
the world, is communism. Underlying Maoist discourse, for instance, were the values of
equality (i.e. the belief that all people are equal, regardless of their position in society),
devotion (i.e. the belief that a certain sacrifice of personal needs is necessary to serve the
greater good) and nobility (i.e. the belief that working for the sake of individual
financial gain or social promotion is shameful) (Lucas et al., 2006).
Although capitalism and communism are commonly depicted as extreme opposites
in terms of ideology, according to Lucas et al. (2006), they serve a remarkably similar
ideological purpose. That is, they both promote a conceptualization of career and career
success that benefits the dominant socio-political system at the potential detriment of
individual career actors (Van Buren, 2003). The American Dream encourages people to
pursue the type of career success that is most likely to sustain the capitalist system and
foster nationwide economic growth. Failure is attributed to a person not being good
enough or not wanting it enough, so that it is never the fault of the system, and
always the responsibility of the individual. Communist discourse in the Peoples
Republic of China during Maos era suspended the Chinese peoples critical thinking,
restricted their career choices, and obscured the fact that their society, in fact,
did consist of different interest groups who were not all equal in power, and that there
was still a divide between good jobs and bad jobs. Complaining was unheard of,
however, as that would go against the value of nobility (Lucas et al., 2006).
In general, the career ideology a person is most exposed to depends on his or her
position in society. People from upper- and middle-class environments are encouraged to
believe they are working for a common good, that their work has meaning, and that their
role in life is to help other people; they are rewarded socially, economically, and politically
for enacting these beliefs. Lower-status employees, however, are not encouraged to

think of their work in such noble terms and are not rewarded as highly. They are trained
to see work as just a job and look for self-actualization resources in other life domains
(Davidson and Caddell, 1994). Furthermore, career ideologies tend to convey a message
that people want to hear and believe (e.g. you can achieve anything you want if you truly
make an effort), highlighting exceptions rather than cases more representative of reality
(Lucas et al., 2006). They are often also slightly ambiguous, so that multiple
interpretations of the same message are possible. If the definition of what success means
is kept vague, then there are no limits to the contribution or sacrifice individuals feel
compelled to make (Van Buren, 2003). Our sixth suggestion for a research question that
needs to be addressed in future research is the following:
RQ3a. How does societal ideology influence the definitions of career success held by
the people in those societies?
Cross-cultural (historical) research, aimed at regimes and ideologies rather than
countries, might help us formulate answers to this particular research question.
Ideology in organizations
Just as societal career discourse structures peoples daily lives, so do the career
structures and career development practices present in their employing organizations.
By establishing an internal labor market with more or less standardized career tracks,
organizations implicitly define success and failure within their structures
(Buzzanell and Goldzwig, 1991). Organizational career ideology commonly departs
from spatiotemporal evaluations of success, i.e. up is good, action is positive, and
quick movement should be the goal (Altman, 1997). Corporate career discourse is less
harmless as it may seem. First of all, through socialization processes and development
programs, organizations cultivate desired norms and values in their members, tying
them to so-called appropriate identities (Ogbor, 2000; Pfeffer, 2010). In early career,
peoples definitions of career and career success are confronted with those of their
organizations, often causing a reassessment of their personal belief systems and goals
(Duxbury et al., 1999). Second, corporate career discourse contributes to the devaluation
and obstruction of alternative models of career notable examples being the mommy
track, the expert track, and the stationary track (Buzzanell and Goldzwig, 1991).
Within the corporate context, atypical career types like the above are considered less
successful at best, unsuccessful at worst (Evetts, 1992). Worse still, once bookmarked as
a loser, there seems to be little to no chance of getting back on track. It rarely happens
that late bloomers or people that have taken time off work catch up to colleagues with a
record of continuous service (Buzzanell and Goldzwig, 1991). Although people tend to
believe that organizational assessments of advancement potential are grounded in more
or less objective performance data, the rules of the career game are in fact a precious
commodity, unevenly distributed among different groups in the organization (Buzzanell
and Goldzwig, 1991). The groups with the most power will likely integrate their personal
interests into the very structure of the organization, thereby influencing the public
opinion of what a successful career should look like, and marginalizing all those who do
not fit the mold (Pfeffer, 2010). It is clear that the reification of careers implies much more
than ideological discourse in fact, it lies at the heart of glass ceiling effects and other
discriminatory processes taking place in organizations worldwide (Ogbor, 2000).
Multilevel studies, examining the relationships between organizational and individual

The meaning
of career success

371

CDI
16,4

conceptions of career success, are best suited for empirically testing the following
important research question:
RQ3b. How does organizational ideology influence the definitions of career success
held by the people in those organizations?

372

While cross-sectional multilevel studies could focus on the differences between

organizations with different cultures, longitudinal multilevel studies could examine the
relationships between organizational- and individual-level career variables before and
after important socialization periods.
Ideology in research
Several career scholars have posited that, since the assumptions of career are becoming
increasingly ambiguous, individuals personal sense-making processes should move to
the forefront (Young and Collin, 2004). Indeed, a shift can be observed in the recent
careers literature away from reductionist methods and toward qualitative in-depth
research (Gibson, 2004). In recent years, a growing number of careers researchers are
turning their attention to constructivism and social constructionism (Arnold
and Cohen, 2008). Constructivism focuses on individual meaning making and the
construction of social and psychological worlds though cognitive processes; social
constructionism studies how these social and psychological worlds are made real
(i.e. reified) through social processes and interaction (Young and Collin, 2004).
There seems to be somewhat of a divide, however, between the theoretical careers
literature and the operationalization and measurement of career and career success in
research papers. The majority of empirical studies on career success still use salary,
promotion and functional-level data as proxies of career success, without much
reflection about construct validity (Dries et al., 2008).
One especially popular concept in contemporary career discourse is the boundaryless
career. Rather than representing one specific type of career, the boundaryless career
encompasses all possible career forms that defy the traditional assumptions of career,
i.e. continuous service with one employer, a focus on upward mobility, and a strong
separation between work and personal life (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996). The common
factor among the different meanings of the boundaryless career is that they all imply
weakened ties between employees and their organizations (Arnold and Cohen, 2008).
However, mainstream the notion of the boundaryless career may have become in the
careers literature, signs are that this new theoretical approach to career is also not
completely attuned to the actual experiences career actors are (still) having (Briscoe and
Finkelstein, 2009).
First, although the literature implies that boundaryless career types are becoming
more and more prevalent in the field, serious questions have been raised about the
transferability of the concept beyond the USA, the cultural importance people attach to
job security and the influence of employee unions in the national labor market being at
the heart of the discussion (Sullivan, 1999). Second, although the careers literature tends
to promote the benefits of boundaryless careers, its discourse has also been said to serve
the needs of the current-day ruthless economy in that it enables organizations to be rid
more elegantly of as many permanent workers (and their associated costs) as needed
(Van Buren, 2003). For organizations as well, there may be downsides to the
boundaryless career. Fournier (1998), for example, states that it encourages

a consumerist career mentality, reducing organizations to tools merely there to help

equip employees with the resources they need to develop their personal projects. Third,
it has been said that the boundaryless career concept is only advantageous for those
employees who were formerly also privileged in traditional career settings (i.e. highly
motivated, highly skilled white-collar employees) (Buzzanell and Goldzwig, 1991;
Van Buren, 2003). It appears that while the original goal of boundaryless career
discourse was to free career actors from the dogmas of the traditional-organizational
career, it has created new ideological dogmas instead. In general, the literature on the
boundaryless career tends to neglect the needs and contributions of unskilled people;
also, it focuses primarily on agency determinants of career. It would be highly
informative to examine to which extent normative beliefs about career success resonate
throughout the academic literature. Critical literature reviews, meta-analyses, and
survey studies aimed specifically at the population of careers researchers might provide
answers to the following research question:

The meaning
of career success

373

RQ3c. How does researcher ideology influence the definitions of career success
propagated in the academic literature?
Implications for research
Having outlined the major historical, cultural and contextual forces contributing to the
reification of career success, this paper will now move on to identify some promising
avenues for avoiding career reification in research and practice in the future.
Challenge the increasing range of construct operationalizations and measures
In recent years, career success has often been accused of being a poorly defined
construct (Heslin, 2005). In the careers literature, the current consensus seems to be that
career refers to everything a person has done over the course of his or her working life
(Gunz and Mayrhofer, 2010). Although such a broad definition of career allows for
multiple interpretations of career success which is generally considered a positive
evolution it also lies at the heart of a certain vagueness in the careers literature,
evoking questions in some about the legitimacy of career studies as a stand-alone
discipline (Gunz and Mayrhofer, 2010).
In the careers literature, we can identify three main dichotomies characterizing the
different criteria that can be used to operationalize and measure career success
(Table II): objective versus subjective, self-referent versus other-referent, and factual
versus self-report. Objective career success criteria refer to criteria that are tangible,
observable, and quantifiable, such as pay, promotions and functional level (Nicholson,
2000); subjective measures are concerned with a persons idiosyncratic perceptions of
his or her career and the resulting feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction
(Greenhaus et al., 1990). Self-referent criteria reflect an individuals personal standards
Objective
Self-referent
Other-referent

Factual
Factual

Subjective
Self-report
Self-report

Self-report
Self-report

Note: As it is highly unlikely that factual data can be collected about subjective criteria for
operationalizing and measuring career success, this combination was left blank

Table II.
Typology of the different
criteria that can be used
to operationalize and
measure career success

CDI
16,4

374

and aspirations; other-referent criteria involve comparisons with others, e.g. with the
industry average, with peers or with colleagues in comparable positions (Heslin, 2005).
Finally, the factual versus self-report dichotomy is determined by the type of data that
are collected. Factual data are generally collected from archives or personnel records;
self-report data are proxies for factual data collected from the focal person him or
herself (Dries et al., 2009). As Table II illustrates, based on these three dichotomies,
at least six different ways of operationalizing and measuring career success are
conceivable. It is important that careers researchers thoroughly reflect on the type of
operationalizations or measures to use in their research endeavors, as meta-analyses
have demonstrated large differences in effect sizes when using different measures of
career success (Arthur et al., 2005; Judge et al., 1995). Clearly, in order to advance
research into subjective career success, much more work needs to be done in terms of
the operationalization and measurement of the construct.
Adopt a dual viewpoint of career
One clear recommendation from the recent careers literature is that careers scholars
should adopt a dual viewpoint of career through the incorporation of both objective
and subjective conceptualizations and measures of success in their research (Hall and
Chandler, 2005). By comparing both types of data across multiple samples, careers
researchers (and practitioners alike) may come to a better understanding of the career
experiences people have on a daily basis, and of the tensions experienced between
objective career achievements and subjective career perceptions. Past studies
incorporating both objective and subjective measures of career success have found
that they are only moderately related constructs (Ballout, 2009; Stumpf, 2010) and
consequently, that traditional positivistic research focused mainly on objective aspects
of career may not (or no longer) be appropriate to grasp the complex and dynamic
realities of postmodern-day careers (Savickas, 2000).
Some careers researchers have even come to the conclusion that the complexities
that occur within and between career actors traits and environments are simply too
complicated to capture in theoretical models and that therefore, we should stop trying
to do so, and look at careers at the subjective level alone (Brown, 2002).
A disproportionate amount of research in the career field (around 75 percent) has
been dedicated to the objective career, in particular to sex differences and their causes
(Arthur and Rousseau, 1996), while the subjective career has been gravely
underresearched (Heslin, 2005). There have been a few studies, however, that have
specifically explored and measured the subjective meanings individuals from diverse
background attribute to the term career success. An overview of the most cited studies
is provided in Table III. Inspecting the subjective career success themes that emerged
from the different studies, we see that there is considerable overlap between them
across time, culture, and research populations. However, more studies are needed in
order to fully capture the diversity of perspectives that exist in the workforce today
(Dries et al., 2008).
Helpful theoretical frameworks for researchers looking to engage in research
projects on the subjective career are found in the literature on the protean career
(Briscoe and Hall, 2006; Sargent and Domberger, 2007), professional identity (Ibarra,
1999), authenticity (e.g. the Kaleidoscope Career Model; Sullivan et al., 2009), and
calling (Dik and Duffy, 2009).

Reference

Data type

Research population

1. Gattiker and
Larwood (1986)

Quantitative Successful managers and

successful support personnel

2. Greenhaus et al.
(1990)
3. Chusmir and
Parker (1992)

Quantitative Black and white managers

4. Sturges (1999)

Qualitative

5. Nabi (2001)

Quantitative Administrative personnel

6. Dyke and
Murphy (2006)

Qualitative

Successful male and female

managers

7. Lee et al. (2006)

Qualitative

Part-time professionals

Quantitative Employees in general

Male and female managers

Meaning of career success

Factors/themes

221 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1,628 1.
756 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
36 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
439 1.
2.
40 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
87 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

8. Hennequin (2007) Qualitative

Blue-collar workers

25 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Job success
Interpersonal success
Financial success
Hierarchical success
Life success
Career satisfaction
Status/wealth
Social contribution
Family relationships
Personal fulfillment
Professional fulfillment
Security
Accomplishment
Achievement
Enjoyment
Integrity
Balance
Personal recognition
Influence
Position
Reward
Intrinsic job success
Extrinisic job success
Balance
Relationships
Recognition
Material success
Contribution
Freedom
Peer respect
Upward mobility
Appreciation/
recognition
Having a life outside
work
Learning, growing and
being challenged
Fun and enjoyment/
doing interesting work
Performing well
Having an impact/
making a contribution
Monetary rewards
Fringe benefits
Hierarchical position
Number of promotions
Career satisfaction
Job success
(continued)

The meaning
of career success

375

Table III.
Overview of studies
addressing the subjective
meaning of career success

CDI
16,4

Reference

Data type

Research population

376
9. Dries et al. (2008) Qualitative

Table III.

Managers

Meaning of career success

Factors/themes

7. Interpersonal success
8. Life balance
9. Social status
10. Recognition
11. Reputation
22 1. Performance
2. Advancement
3. Self-development
4. Creativity
5. Security
6. Satisfaction
7. Recognition
8. Cooperation
9. Contribution

Focus on processes, rather than outcomes

The literature generally assumes that objective achievements lead to subjective
feelings of success and that the subjective meanings attributed to career success set the
stage for objective goal-setting. However, in both cases, a reverse causality
argumentation is also possible (Dries et al., 2008). As for the former case, it is not
quite clear to what extent subjective feelings of success, through the resultant
heightening of motivation, affect objective career success (initiating a so-called
psychological success cycle; Hall and Chandler, 2005). Furthermore, Nicholson and
de Waal-Andrews (2005) have argued that when subjective outcomes do not correlate
with objective success or failure, individuals will conduct ex-post rationalizations that
help them maintain mood and equilibrium. Similar ideas are found in the literature on
cognitive dissonance reduction (Festinger, 1957).
As for the latter case, an alternative theory is that peoples definitions of career
success are shaped continuously throughout their lives, changing whenever changes in
their personal lives affect their priorities (Dany, 2003). Becoming a parent, for instance,
has been repeatedly demonstrated to result in a decrease of the centrality of the work
role, if only for a limited period of time (Sturges, 1999). Another example would be the
relatively unambitious student who discovers a hidden talent, causing him or her to feel
excited about work for the first time in life. In both examples, an objective
(i.e. tangible, observable) career situation or event occurs, causing the subjective
definition of career success to change, or at least evolve rather than the other way
around. In order to get a clearer picture of the causal effects playing a role in the
construction of career success, much more research is needed on the processes by which
people construct the meanings of career (Dries et al., 2008).
Focus on structure as well as agency
As mentioned earlier, the careers literature is widely criticized for overemphasizing
personal agency determinants of career (i.e. freedom of choice), at the detriment of
structural variables (i.e. constraining or enabling social structures) (Brown, 2002;
Lucas et al., 2006). The current paper clearly demonstrates that researchers need to be
more mindful of the contextual forces shaping careers.

Historical, cultural, and ideological contexts impact significantly on peoples

subjective definitions of career success, which in turn affects their career behaviors and
decisions. All three contextual factors might generate barriers and opportunities to
the construction of meaning in careers (Blustein et al., 2004). A historical barrier might be
the emergence of a global financial crisis, for instance limiting the opportunities people
have to express their personal values through career and make conscious choices
(Valcour, 2010) while an example of a historical opportunity is the rise of postmodernist
thought, advocating that no single truth exists, and that people should ground their
decisions in their own personal worldview (Savickas, 2000). Culture has a large influence
on the distribution of career opportunities across different groups: some cultures, for
instance, do not allow women to work outside of the home; some cultures are characterized
by caste systems; others by egalitarianism. It is well documented that different cultures
promote different meanings of career (Hofstede, 2001). Ideologies like the American
Dream might create opportunities in that they encourage and inspire people to follow their
dreams. They can also pose barriers, however, as they hinder the development of, and
devaluate the enactment of, alternative career trajectories (Lucas et al., 2006).
The enormous complexities hindering accurate long-term predictions of important
career outcomes are increasingly being acknowledged in the literature. As a response,
several researchers have endeavored to apply much more complex prediction paradigms
to careers the most notable examples being the systems theory framework of career
development (Patton and McMahon, 1999), the Chaos theory of careers (Pryor and
Bright, 2007), planned happenstance theory (Mitchell et al., 1999), and the contextual
action theory of career (Young and Valach, 2000).
Practice more self-reflection as researchers
A fifth and final suggestion for researchers, and one that is related to the previous
point, is that researchers in the fields of career ought to practice more self-reflection
and more explicitly declare their interests and agendas. All too often, researchers
personal visions, and the interests they aim to promote, are hidden, mystified or
buried in analysis which pretends to be neutral (Ogbor, 2000, p. 628).
It is highly likely that most, if not all, careers researchers project their personal
definitions of career success onto their academic work, at least to some extent.
An interesting paper by Baruch and Hall (2004) describes how the academic career is
an ideal-typical example of a boundaryless career: it is enacted in a field made up
entirely out of knowledge workers; it thrives on cross-boundary collaborations; it is
characterized by quasi-effortless international mobility; and the majority of those
working in academia are on fixed-term contracts. Careers researchers personal
experiences with boundaryless career forms might cause them to overestimate the
prevalence of the phenomenon in the general population.
Earlier in this paper, we already addressed the impact national culture may have on
peoples definitions of career success. The scores presented in Table I (adapted from
Hofstede, 2001) reveal some large differences between several of the US and UK scores
and the world and European average, especially for the values uncertainty avoidance
and individualism which may, in part, explain the ongoing discussion between
US and European researchers about the prevalence and appeal of boundaryless careers.
US and UK researchers, in general, are more enthusiastic about the boundaryless

The meaning
of career success

377

CDI
16,4

378

and protean career concepts than European researchers (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996;
Guest and Mackenzie Davey, 1996; Van Buren, 2003).
The recommendation here is not that all careers researchers should declare their
agendas explicitly in all of their papers. We should, however, self-reflect on our personal
motives when interpreting our findings and never lose sight of alternative truths
(Ogbor, 2000). Also, we must ask ourselves what our role as researchers is, or can be,
in dealing with the issue of career reification. Are we describing what careers actually
look like? Or are we prescribing what they should look like, and how individual career
actors, career counselors, and organizations should act in order to achieve desired goals?
Neither one of these approaches is better or more valid than the other; however, we must
be aware of the fact that they result in very different types of research.
Implications for practice
Is career reification a mere philosophical issue?
Although the phenomenological meaning of career and career success may be regarded
as a mere philosophical issue by some, the constant and ongoing reification of both
constructs has important implications for individuals, organizations, and societies
(Lucas et al., 2006). What the current paper offers might not be especially new or
shocking. The main point of this paper, however, is that although we may know that
history, culture, and ideology shape personal and social perceptions of career success,
employees, employers and researchers do not necessarily take this knowledge into
account when managing or describing careers.
One manifest outcome of career reification is the establishment of collective norms
prescribing what a normal, successful career should look like. The normal career,
apparently, is one involving continuous service and steady, regular promotions to
higher levels in a corporate hierarchy. Considering the fact that less than 1 percent of
employees worldwide actually reach the highest levels of their organizations (Buzzanell
and Goldzwig, 1991), and that many people are forced, at some point in their careers, to
take a step back in their careers because of (unexpected) personal events (i.e. parenthood,
dismissal, burn-out) (Bright et al., 2009), it would follow that most people have
unsuccessful careers. Furthermore, as the relative impact of certain (gendered, racial,
social class) barriers on peoples career achievements is commonly underestimated,
it also follows that people tend to be held personally responsible when they fail in their
careers (Brown, 2002; Lucas et al., 2006).
It is clear that the devaluation and inadequate rewarding of all careers diverging from
the norm weakens the general satisfaction, motivation, and well-being of the people in
these careers, which might eventually lead to negative organizational and economic
outcomes (Van Buren, 2003) (Figure 2). Current demographic and psychological contract
trends are adding to these dynamics, as talent, in the traditional sense, is becoming
increasingly scarce. In the near future organizations will need to foster the talent
that is available within the labor market, rather than select for fit with their specific
career ideology (Van Buren, 2003).
Implications for the different parties involved
As organizations are increasingly expecting (highly skilled) employees to take their
careers into their own hands (Verbruggen et al., 2007), it is in any employees best
interest to purposively establish a dynamic framework of what success means to him

or her personally (Dries et al., 2008). Awareness of the different possible meanings of
success might help individual career actors in their careers, if only by instilling in them
the relative value of the term. The literature on the protean career, for instance,
advocates that people in values-driven and self-directed careers are more likely to
achieve their personal career goals (Sargent and Domberger, 2007). Some caution must
be exercised, however, as not all responsibility for career management should be
placed in the hands of individual career actors. Career self-management can never truly
replace organizational career management rather, both forms of career management
reinforce each other. Furthermore, research by Verbruggen et al. (2007) has revealed
that the more satisfied employees are with their career, the fewer initiatives they take
to enhance their external employability and the less interest they show in external
career counseling. Individual career actors need to be realistic, however, about
the career promises organizations today are willing and able to make considering the
current economic climate (Granrose and Baccili, 2006). As organizations can no longer
guarantee lifelong careers, developing and maintaining personal employability is an
indispensable asset in the labor market (Van Buren, 2003).
Career counselors should assume their responsibility, as well, and encourage
employees to incorporate idiosyncratic meaning-making into their career decisions and
transitions (McMahon, 2006; Schultze and Miller, 2004). Career counseling has
traditionally focused on problem solving, in the sense that its goal was to match
knowledge about the self with knowledge about the world of work. However, such
oversimplified models of career do not capture, or even approximate, how career
choices are actually made (Mitchell et al., 1999). Career counselors today need to be
co-participants or co-constructors of their clients life stories and encourage them to tell
their untold stories stories from the non-work domain that are indicative of vocation
(in other words, they should not take but I dont have a career for an answer). These
untold stories might then generate valuable entry points into the clients idiosyncratic
definition of career success (Blustein et al., 2004; McMahon, 2006).
Employers, from their side, need to implement career management programs
that assist employees in developing a broader definition of success. On a yearly basis,
less than 1 percent of an organizations employees actually reach the highest levels.
This means that failure, in terms of not reaching the highest levels of the organization,
is quasi-unavoidable (Buzzanell and Goldzwig, 1991). By encouraging employees to see
the meaning of career success as much broader than linear progression and rather,

The meaning
of career success

379

Societies
Collective norms

Economic outcomes

Organizations
Appreciation

Individuals

Satisfaction,
motivation,
wellbeing

Figure 2.
The social construction of
career success has
tangible implications for
individuals, organizations
and societies

CDI
16,4

380

as the satisfaction of multiple life roles feelings of authenticity will be enhanced.

In doing so, employees will feel supported in bringing their whole self to work, which
will ultimately feed back into the organizations by enhancing employees satisfaction,
motivation and well-being (Sullivan and Mainiero, 2008). It will also support diversity
at work, which will be necessary in light of the ongoing war for talent fuelled by current
demographic and psychological contract trends (Van Buren, 2003).
At the societal level, Blustein et al. (2004) as well as Buzzanell and Goldzwig (1991)
have suggested that oppressive power structures affecting the enactment of careers
can be countered, albeit very gradually, by establishing alternative career discourses
between people in everyday life and in the various media (e.g. by propagating different
types of hero stories). It appears that there is a significant need and opportunity
for career scholars to lead the way.

References
Altman, Y. (1997), The high-potential fast-flying achiever: themes from the English literature
1976-1995, Career Development International, Vol. 2 No. 7, pp. 324-30.
Arnold, J. and Cohen, L. (2008), The psychology of careers in industrial-organizational
settings: a critical but appreciative analysis, in Hodgkinson, G.P. and Ford, J.K. (Eds),
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 23, Wiley,
Chichester, pp. 1-44.
Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. (1996), The Boundaryless Career: A New Employment Principle
for a New Organizational Era, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Arthur, M.B., Khapova, S.N. and Wilderom, C.P.M. (2005), Career success in a boundaryless
career world, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 177-202.
Ballout, H.I. (2009), Career commitment and career success: moderating role of self-efficacy,
Career Development International, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 655-70.
Baruch, Y. and Hall, D.T. (2004), The academic career: a model for future careers in other
sectors, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 241-62.
Blustein, D.L., Palladino-Schultheiss, D.E. and Flum, H. (2004), Toward a relational perspective
of the psychology of careers and working: a social constructionist analysis, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 423-40.
Bright, J.E.H., Pryor, R.G.L., Chan, E.W.M. and Rijanto, J. (2009), Chance events in career
development: influence, control and multiplicity, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 75
No. 1, pp. 14-25.
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 No. 3, pp. 242-60.
Briscoe, J.P. and Hall, D.T. (2006), The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers:
combinations and implications, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 4-18.
Brown, D. (2002), Career Choice and Development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Burns, E. (2009), How time-flow shapes three meanings of midcareer, Australian Journal of
Career Development, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 24-32.
Buzzanell, P.M. and Goldzwig, S.R. (1991), Linear and nonlinear career models: metaphors,
paradigms, and ideologies, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 4,
pp. 466-505.

Chudzikowski, K., Demel, B., Mayrhofer, W., Briscoe, J.P., Unite, J., Milikic, B.B., Hall, D.T.,
Shen, Y. and Zikic, J. (2009), Career transitions and their causes: a country-comparative
perspective, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 4,
pp. 825-49.

The meaning
of career success

Chusmir, L.H. and Parker, B. (1992), Success strivings and their relationship to affective work
behaviors: gender differences, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 132 No. 1, pp. 87-99.
Dany, F. (2003), Free actors and organizations: critical remarks about the new career literature,
based on French insights, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14
No. 5, pp. 821-38.
Davidson, J.C. and Caddell, D.P. (1994), Religion and the meaning of work, Journal of the
Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 135-47.
Dik, B.J. and Duffy, R.D. (2009), Calling and vocation at work: definitions and prospects for
research and practice, The Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 424-50.
Dries, N., Pepermans, R. and Carlier, O. (2008), Career success: constructing a multidimensional
model, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 254-67.
Dries, N., Pepermans, R., Hofmans, J. and Rypens, L. (2009), Development and validation of an
objective intra-organizational career success measure for managers, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 543-60.
Duxbury, L., Dyke, L. and Lam, N. (1999), Career Development in the Federal Public Service:
Building a World-class Workforce, Treasury Board of Canada, Ottawa.
Dyke, L.S. and Murphy, S.A. (2006), How we define success: a qualitative study of what matters
most to women and men, Sex Roles, Vol. 55 Nos 5/6, pp. 357-71.
Evetts, J. (1992), Dimensions of career: avoiding reification in the analysis of change, Sociology,
Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
Fournier, V. (1998), Stories of development and exploitation: militant voices in an enterprise
organization, Organization, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 55-80.
Furnham, A. (2010), Ethics at work: money, spirituality and happiness, in Giacalone, R.A. and
Jurkiewicz, C.L. (Eds), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational
Performance, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 197-215.
Gattiker, U.E. and Larwood, L. (1986), Subjective career success: a study of managers and
support personnel, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 78-94.
Gibson, P. (2004), Where to from here? A narrative approach to career counseling,
Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 176-89.
Granrose, C.S. and Baccili, P.A. (2006), Do psychological contracts include boundaryless or
protean careers?, Career Development International, Vol. 11, pp. 163-82.
Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S. and Wormley, W.M. (1990), Effects of race on organizational
experiences, job performance evaluations, and career outcomes, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 64-86.
Guest, D. and Mackenzie Davey, K. (1996), Dont write off the traditional career,
People Management, February, pp. 22-5.
Guest, D. and Sturges, J. (2007), Living to work working to live: conceptualizations of careers
among contemporary workers, in Gunz, H. and Peiperl, M. (Eds), Handbook of Career
Studies, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 310-26.

381

CDI
16,4

382

Gunz, H. and Mayrhofer, W. (2010), Social chronology theorizing as an organizing framework

for career studies, paper presented at the 3rd International Conference New Work,
New Employment, New Careers, Bordeaux, France, May 21.
Hall, D.T. and Chandler, D.E. (2005), Psychological success: when the career is a calling,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 155-76.
Hennequin, E. (2007), What career success means to blue-collar workers, Career Development
International, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 565-81.
Heslin, P.A. (2005), Conceptualizing and evaluating career success, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 113-36.
Hill, P.C. and Smith, G.S. (2010), Coming to terms with spirituality and religion in the
workplace, in Giacalone, R.A. and Jurkiewicz, C.L. (Eds), Handbook of Workplace
Spirituality and Organizational Performance, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 171-84.
Hofstede, G. (2001), Cultures Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions,
and Organizations Across Nations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Ibarra, H. (1999), Provisional selves: experimenting with image and identity in professional
adaptation, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 764-91.
Inglehart, R.F. (1997), Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic and Political
Change in 43 Societies, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Inglehart, R.F. (2008), Changing values among Western publics from 1970 to 2006,
West European Politics, Vol. 31 Nos 1/2, pp. 130-46.
Inoue, S. (1997), Putting Buddhism to Work: A New Approach to Management and Business,
Kodansha International Ltd, Tokyo.
Judge, T.A., Cable, D.M., Boudreau, J.W. and Bretz, R.D. (1995), An empirical investigation of the
predictors of executive career success, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 485-519.
Kats, M.M.S., Van Emmerik, H.I.J., Blenkinsopp, J. and Khapova, S.N. (2010), Exploring the
associations of culture with careers and the mediating role of HR practices, Career
Development International, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 401-18.
Khapova, S.N. and Korotov, K. (2007), Dynamics of Western career attributes in the Russian
context, Career Development International, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 68-85.
Lee, M.D., Lirio, P., Karakas, F., MacDermid, S.M., Buck, M.L. and Kossek, E.E. (2006),
Exploring career and personal outcomes and the meaning of career success among
part-time professionals in organizations, in Burke, R.J. (Ed.), Research Companion to
Working Time and Work Addiction, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp. 284-309.
Lucas, K., Liu, M. and Buzzanell, P.M. (2006), No limits careers: a critical examination of career
discourse in the US and China, in Orbe, M., Allen, B.J. and Flores, L.A. (Eds), International
and Intercultural Communication Annual, Vol. 28, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 217-42.
McMahon, M. (2006), Working with storytellers: a metaphor for career counseling, in
McMahon, M. and Patton, W. (Eds), Career Counselling: Constructivist Approaches,
Routledge, London, pp. 16-29.
Mirvis, H.P. and Hall, D.T. (1994), Psychological success and the boundaryless career,
in Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds), The Boundaryless Career, Oxford University
Press, New York, NY, pp. 237-55.
Mitchell, K.E., Levin, A.S. and Krumboltz, J.D. (1999), Planned happenstance: constructing
unexpected career opportunities, Journal of Counseling & Development, Vol. 77 No. 2,
pp. 115-24.
Nabi, G.R. (2001), The relationship between HRM, social support and subjective career success
among men and women, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 457-74.

Nicholson, N. (2000), Motivation-selection-connection: an evolutionary model of career

development, in Peiperl, M., Arthur, M.B., Goffee, R. and Morris, T. (Eds), Career
Frontiers: New Conceptions of Working Lives, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 54-75.
Nicholson, N. and de Waal-Andrews, W. (2005), Playing to win: biological imperatives,
self-regulation, and trade-offs in the game of career success, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 137-54.
Niles, E.S. (1999), Towards a cross-cultural understanding of work-related beliefs,
Human Relations, Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 855-67.
Ogbor, J.O. (2000), Mythicizing and reification in entrepreneurial discourse: ideology-critique of
entrepreneurial studies, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 606-35.
Patton, W. and McMahon, M. (1999), Career Development and Systems Theory:
A New Relationship, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.
Pettersson, T. (2003), The relations between religion and politics in the contemporary Western
world: the impact of secularization, postmodernization and peoples basic value
orientations, available at: www.worldvaluessurvey.org
Pfeffer, J. (2010), Management practices that sustain values, in Giacalone, R.A. and
Jurkiewicz, C.L. (Eds), Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational
Performance, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 27-43.
Pryor, R.G.L. and Bright, J.E.H. (2007), Applying chaos theory to careers: attraction and
attractors, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 375-400.
Sargent, L.D. and Domberger, S.R. (2007), Exploring the development of a protean career
orientation: values and image violations, Career Development International, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 545-64.
Savickas, M.L. (2000), Renovating the psychology of careers for the twenty-first century,
in Collin, A. and Young, R. (Eds), The Future of Career, Cambridge University Press,
New York, NY, pp. 53-68.
Schultze, G. and Miller, C. (2004), The search for meaning and career development,
Career Development International, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 142-52.
Schumacher, E.F. (2003), Buddhist economics, Parabola, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 63-9.
Schwartz, S.H. (2006), A theory of cultural value orientations: explication and applications,
Comparative Sociology, Vol. 5 Nos 2/3, pp. 137-82.
Stead, G.B. (2004), Culture and career psychology: a social constructionist perspective, Journal
of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 389-406.
Stumpf, S.A. (2010), Stakeholder competency assessments as predictors of career success,
Career Development International, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 459-78.
Sturges, J. (1999), What it means to succeed: personal conceptions of career success held by male
and female managers at different ages, British Journal of Management, Vol. 10 No. 3,
pp. 239-52.
Sullivan, S.E. (1999), The changing nature of careers: a review and research agenda,
Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 457-84.
Sullivan, S.E. and Mainiero, L. (2008), Using the kaleidoscope career model to understand the
changing patterns of womens careers: designing HRD programs that attract and retain
women, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 32-49.
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.

The meaning
of career success

383

CDI
16,4

384

Valcour, M. (2010), Career success in times of economic crisis, paper presented at the
3rd International Conference New Work, New Employment, New Careers, Bordeaux,
France, May 21.
Van Buren, H.J. (2003), Boundaryless careers and employability obligations, Business Ethics
Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 131-49.
Verbruggen, M., Sels, L. and Forrier, A. (2007), Unraveling the relationship between
organizational career management and the need for career counseling, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 69-83.
Wilensky, H.L. (1961), Careers, lifestyles, and social integration, International Social Science
Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 553-8.
Wrzesniewski, A., McCauley, C., Rozin, P. and Schwartz, C. (1997), Jobs, careers and callings:
peoples relations to their work, Journal of Research in Personality, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 21-33.
Young, R.A. and Collin, A. (2004), Introduction: constructivism and social constructionism in the
career field, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 373-88.
Young, R.A. and Valach, L. (2000), Reconceptualizing career psychology: an action theoretical
perspective, in Collin, A. and Young, R.A. (Eds), The Future of Career, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 181-96.
About the author
Nicky Dries is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Research Centre for Organisation Studies of
the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (Belgium). She conducted her doctoral research at the
Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium), during which time she was also a Visiting Scholar at the
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (The Netherlands). Currently, Nicky is developing and expanding
a model of subjective career success that will take into account important personal and
social-contextual variables impacting on individuals personal definitions of success. She is also
working on a theoretical framework for the popular, but ill-defined concept of talent
management. Nicky Dries can be contacted at: nicky.dries@econ.kuleuven.be

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints