Facilitating the Crafting of Sustainable Careers in Organizations

Abstract

A sustainable career is characterized by four primary attributes: (1) alignment of work with the individual’s strengths, interests and values; (2) ongoing learning and renewal; (3) security via employability; and (4) work-life fit over the life course. These four attributes map onto four core objectives of talent management: (1) maximum yield on human capital value; (2) continuous updating of organizational competencies; (3) stability via adaptability, and (4) organizational commitment and retention. Thus, sustainable careers offer opportunities to align the interests of individuals and the organizations that employ them. Given flattening organizational hierarchies and the observed decline in the employer-employee contract, the responsibility for career development and career management is increasingly shifting to the individual. In the absence of a clear, predictable and desirable career path, employees must have high self-awareness and the ability to identify opportunities. Crafting sustainable careers also requires organizational support of employee-directed career crafting and managers with a developmental orientation. This chapter reviews what facilitates the crafting of sustainable careers within organizations, with particular attention to the collaborative partnership between employees and their managers that enables career crafting that benefits both the individual and the organization.

Full text

20
2 Facilitating the crafting of sustainable careers in
organizations
Monique Valcour
Human resource management practices, labor market conditions and career patterns
have evolved significantly in recent decades. Scholars have observed a general and
ongoing weakening of the employment contract between individuals and the organiza-
tions that employ them since the 1980s (Cappelli and Keller, 2013). Companies have
embraced both downsizing and hiring from outside for management posts, with the
effect that many employees lack job security and the expectation of career growth with
their employer. Career progression systems in companies have waned, thereby removing
the signposts that previously guided employees on managerial career paths. Decreased
standardization of career paths and organizationally directed career development is
accompanied by reduced clarity about what constitutes career success and what career
strategies one should pursue. Career shifts have increased both in number and magni-
tude, so that individuals are not only making more changes of job and employer, but
also navigating more career changes across industries and occupations. Job and employ-
ment security has fallen for many people, even those with strong human capital includ-
ing university education and extensive work experience (Goodman and Mance, 2011).
Occupations have proliferated, leaving many individuals feeling that there must be some
job that would be a good fit for their qualifications and interests, but they don’t know
what it might be, or how to go about identifying it.
A number of macro- level factors account for the aforementioned changes in careers,
including an increasingly dynamic and globalized economy and rapid technological
innovation, which are reflected in decreased stability of employment and an increase
in the pace with which industries expand and contract, as well as a tendency in some
Western countries for disappearing high- wage jobs to be replaced by much more precari-
ous low- wage service jobs (Friedman, 2005). Management practices have also exerted a
profound impact on career patterns. Most significant among these are organizational
delayering (resulting in fewer opportunities for promotion), decreased emphasis on
employer- driven career management programs, increased focus on short- term financial
results, the widespread use of reductions in force to influence those results, the use of
off- shoring to countries with lower labor costs, and externalization of a greater propor-
tion of the workforce into contract positions that do not offer security of employment
(Cappelli and Keller, 2014). Cappelli (2010) argued that hiring talent from the external
labor market rather than developing employees internally has become so commonplace
that it essentially represents a core talent management strategy for many firms, replacing
workforce and succession planning, internal development, and even assessment (see also
Cappelli and Keller, 2014).
In addition to these macroeconomic shifts and changes in managerial and employ-
ment practices, demographic factors are also driving increased career complexity. The
DE VOS 9781782547020 PRINT (M3689) (G).indd 20 28/04/2015 09:06

Facilitating the crafting of sustainable careers in organizations 21
documented increase in dual- earner and single- parent households, and in households
providing elderly care, translates into a high level of non- work demands for many
employees (Cullen et al., 2009). Among working parents, 90 percent of mothers and
95 percent of fathers report experiencing work–life conflict (Williams and Boushey,
2010). The hectic lives of dual- career couples are well- documented (Schulte, 2014). The
workforce is aging dramatically in many countries, creating potentially serious chal-
lenges for organizations whose success relies on retention of knowledge and competen-
cies (Burke and Ng, 2006). At the same time, the proportion of workers in their fifties,
sixties and seventies who plan to continue working past traditional retirement age is
increasing for reasons including financial need and preference for a more active lifestyle
(Nakai et al.,2011). Research suggests that, while all employees value work–life balance
and meaningful work, younger employees place an especially high premium on these
aspects of work (PriceWaterhouseCoopers, 2013a; Twenge, 2010). HRM and other
organizational leaders are increasingly aware of these employee expectations, but are still
struggling to meet them (Brack, 2012).
It is clear that individuals must now assume primary responsibility for managing their
own careers in order to achieve career stability (Abele and Wiese, 2008; Sullivan and
Baruch, 2009). This holds true even in large organizations with robust career develop-
ment offerings. Rather than moving employees systematically through a prescribed set
of training workshops, work assignments and positions, nowadays large employers are
more likely to offer employees a menu of career resources and expect them to avail them-
selves of offerings related to their career objectives. Many employees face the challenge
of maintaining their employability (their ability to gain and maintain suitable employ-
ment) without employer support. Voluntary or involuntary job loss can render employ-
ees unemployable – even after many years of excellent performance and contributions to
a firm – if they lack skills that are marketable to other companies, a strong network and
a clever strategy for parlaying these assets into paid employment. The ‘career pandemo-
nium’ (Brousseau et al., 1996) that characterizes the contemporary labor market creates
anxiety and confusion for many people as they try to guide their own careers (De Vos
and Soens, 2008).
Individuals are not alone in their efforts to craft stable careers in this new world
of work. Employers face complex talent management challenges that result from the
same trends that have reshaped individual careers. A recent global survey of 1605
companies found that nearly three in four report difficulties attracting qualified
employees, and more than half indicated they are having difficulty retaining them
(Towers Watson, 2012). Work–life conflict drives a substantial amount of voluntary
turnover, especially among women (Steel et al., 2002). There is strong consensus
among CEOs that a lack of key skills among their workforces and in the external
labor market poses a primary threat to profitability (PriceWaterhouseCoopers,
2013b). A report on the future of HR found that executives in 27 European countries
listed talent management as both their firms’ most critical capability – and the one
in which they were weakest (Boston Consulting Group, 2010). Many companies’
provision of developmental opportunities is limited, whether for lack of budget,
creativity, or culturally- embedded learning orientation. Yet evidence indicates that
opportunities for learning and career development exert significant influence on job
candidates’ selection of one employer over another (Uggerslev et al., 2012), as well as
DE VOS 9781782547020 PRINT (M3689) (G).indd 21 28/04/2015 09:06

22 Handbook of research on sustainable careers
on employees’ turnover decisions, performance and engagement (Armstrong- Stassen
and Ursel, 2009; Spell et al., 2014).
When we consider the challenges that individuals face in managing their careers
alongside the major talent management challenges that companies are struggling with at
present, we can see that they have been shaped by a common set of changes in economic
and labor market conditions, managerial policies and practices, and demographic and
attitudinal factors. As they struggle to find work that fits their skills and interests, to
keep learning and developing, to manage both work and personal responsibilities, and to
achieve security and stability in the midst of a dynamic and often difficult business and
labor market environment, today’s employees long for careers that feel more sustainable
than the ones they currently have. For their part, employers clearly need to find ways
to attract, retain, motivate, develop and manage employees that are cost- effective and
responsive to both the needs of the business and the needs and preferences of employees.
The purpose of this chapter is to argue that the fusion of the career- related needs and
goals of individuals and organizations comes together in the notion of a sustainable
career. I develop this argument in the following section, followed by a review of practices
that support sustainable careers in organizations.
SUSTAINABLE CAREERS INTEGRATE INDIVIDUAL AND
ORGANIZATIONAL EMPLOYMENT NEEDS
According to Merriam- Webster, the word ‘sustainable’ describes things that are ‘able
to last or continue for a long time’ and that are ‘able to be used without being depleted
or destroyed’, as well as ‘methods of using resources that support their conservation
and renewal’ (http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/sustainable). A sustainable
career is thus one that endures over time and that is characterized by development,
conservation and renewal of the working individual’s career- related resources, includ-
ing human and social capital (for example, skills, credentials, reputation, relationships)
as well as personal characteristics such as proactivity and resilience that aid in career
self- management.
In view of the trends and career challenges outlined in the introduction, I propose that
a sustainable career is characterized by four primary attributes: (1) alignment of work
with the individual’s strengths, interests and values; (2) ongoing learning and renewal;
(3) security via employability; and (4) work–life fit over the life course. In other words,
people who enjoy sustainable careers perform work that makes full use of their skills
and challenges them to develop new ones. Their work interests and holds meaning for
them, thereby boosting their engagement, performance and satisfaction. They enjoy
opportunities for learning and development. Learning and development build their skills
and competencies, thus enhancing their value and marketability in internal and external
labor markets. They build and maintain connections to others who may be sources of
career information and opportunity, and also seek to help their connections, both of
which enhance their employability and career options (Grant, 2013). In turn, employ-
ability provides security. They are able to integrate and manage the demands of both
their work and personal lives and maintain a satisfactory degree of engagement in both
domains (Friedman, 2008).
DE VOS 9781782547020 PRINT (M3689) (G).indd 22 28/04/2015 09:06

Facilitating the crafting of sustainable careers in organizations 23
A career with these four attributes may sound too good to be true. However, unlike
other career concepts that are unbounded from organizational career management
systems, such as protean (Hall, 2004a), boundaryless (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996) and
customized careers (Valcour et al., 2007), the sustainable career model is specifically
intended to jointly serve the concerns of both employees and employers. It addresses the
aforementioned contemporary career- related challenges that confront both individu-
als and employers. From the employer’s perspective, the four pillars that characterize
sustainable careers for employees map onto four core objectives of talent management:
(1) maximum yield on human capital value; (2) continuous updating of organizational
competencies; (3) stability via adaptability; and (4) organizational commitment and
retention. The following paragraphs discuss how each pair of sustainable career attrib-
utes yields advantages for both individuals and employers.
Attribute pair 1: work alignment–human capital yield. When work is aligned with
employees’ strengths, interests and values, firms stand to yield greater value from
their human resources. Research suggests that performing work that aligns with one’s
strengths, interests and values boosts intrinsic motivation, sense of experienced mean-
ingfulness, job performance, and commitment to the organization (Berg et al., 2013;
Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010; Ryan and Deci, 2000). This alignment not only energizes
employees and contributes to their satisfaction and well- being, it also pays dividends for
firms. Research by the Gallup organization has found that business units where there
is an increase in the proportion of employees who report that they are able to use their
strengths on a daily basis at work, experience comparable increases in productivity,
customer loyalty, and employee retention (Gallup, 2013).
Attribute pairs 2: learning and renewal–updating of organizational competencies and 3:
security via employability–stability via adaptability. The knowledge, skills and abilities
distributed among members of an organization’s workforce are constituent elements
of the core competencies that underlie its potential for competitive success in its mar-
ketplace. Similarly, the ongoing learning and updating of skills and knowledge that
marks each individual sustainable career contributes to the capacity of the employer’s
competencies to evolve over time to meet market challenges (Arthur et al., 1995). Just as
continuous learning and acquisition of new competencies contribute to an individual’s
employability, continuous organizational learning increases stability by improving the
organization’s ability to adapt to changing competitive pressures and disruptions in its
environment. Employees in learning- rich work environments are more likely than others
to be oriented towards learning, to learn more effectively and transfer learning to per-
formance, as well as to have a proactive approach to career development (Brown et al.,
2010). Research on high- performance work systems and organizational agility has docu-
mented how training and learning practices enhance firms’ competitive performance
and ability to adapt in dynamic markets (Arthur, 1994; Dyer and Shafer, 2003; Huselid,
1995; Lepak and Snell, 1999; Shafer et al., 2001; Way, 2002).
Attribute pair 4: work–life fit over the life course–retention and commitment. Much
of the work–life conflict that disrupts employees’ careers – and the resulting turnover
that undermines organizational effectiveness – stems from an outdated yet enduring
traditional career template featuring an ‘ideal worker’ who is expected to work long
hours, avoid career breaks, and grant priority to work over other life domains (Valcour
etal.,2007). In contrast to the rigid traditional career, sustainable careers are dynamic
DE VOS 9781782547020 PRINT (M3689) (G).indd 23 28/04/2015 09:06

24 Handbook of research on sustainable careers
and flexible. They allow individuals to modify their working arrangements and to turn
the level of work intensity up and down over the course of their careers in order to
achieve a satisfactory integration of work and non- work commitments. Sustainable
careers enable longer- term contributions to organizations by avoiding the stress and
career withdrawal that often occur when work demands prevent employees from being
able to meet non- work responsibilities (Stone, 2007). Research has demonstrated that
work and career flexibility is associated with higher levels of organizational commitment
and retention (Aryee et al., 1998; Briscoe, 2006; Cabrera, 2009; Casper and Harris, 2008).
EMPLOYEE PROACTIVITY AND ADAPTATION IN THE
SUSTAINABLE CAREER
The hallmark of the sustainable career is its dynamic alignment with the evolving
strengths, interests, values and preferences of the individual over time. Sustainable
careers therefore necessarily demand significant active career self- management on the
part of individuals. In particular, self- awareness and proactivity are vital to the realiza-
tion of a sustainable career. Self- awareness refers to the extent to which people are con-
scious of the components of their identities and the extent to which their self- perceptions
are internally integrated and consistent with the way other people perceive them (Hall,
2004b, p. 154). In the process of career self- management, one’s self or identity – whether
current or a hoped- for future self that one is moving toward – acts as a cognitive
compass that motivates one to actively adapt in order to identify, take advantage of,
or create opportunities that are concordant with one’s aspirations (Fugate et al., 2004;
Strauss et al., 2012). Self- awareness includes understanding one’s strengths, weaknesses,
values, motives and optimal working conditions. It facilitates career self- management by
increasing the individual’s ability to identify or create favorable opportunities, persuade
career gatekeepers to facilitate opportunities, and make sound career decisions.
Proactivity has a dispositional basis (commonly referred to as proactive personal-
ity) and is manifested through behaviors such as identifying new opportunities, taking
initiative, seeking feedback, challenging the status quo, issue selling, proactive socializa-
tion (Crant, 2000), and creating favorable conditions in which one can perform well.
Proactive people feel relatively unconstrained by situational forces; they seek opportuni-
ties, take action to make the most of them, and persevere until meaningful change occurs
(Bateman and Crant, 1993).
Integrating research on self- awareness and proactivity for career self- management,
Fugate and colleagues (Fugate and Kinicki, 2008; Fugate et al., 2004) articulated a com-
prehensive dispositional construct of employability, specifically linked to the challenges
of managing one’s career in today’s economy. In their definition and measure, employ-
ability is a constellation of individual differences that predispose individuals to proactive
adaptability specific to work and careers. It comprises the following: (1) openness to
changes at work; (2) work and career resilience; (3) work and career proactivity; (4)career
motivation; and (5) work identity. People with dispositional employability have a strong
sense of self, a sense of ‘who I am’ within the work context. In the absence of clear
organizationally- defined career structures to give meaning to employees’ career experi-
ences and shape their career expectations, a strong individual psychological structure is
DE VOS 9781782547020 PRINT (M3689) (G).indd 24 28/04/2015 09:06

Facilitating the crafting of sustainable careers in organizations 25
a critical resource for identifying desired career direction and directing effort toward the
achievement of career goals (Fugate and Kinicki, 2008). In addition to facilitating the
identification of career goals and opportunities, dispositional employability is reflected
in a proactive orientation towards adaptability, to undertaking self- directed learning
and personal change necessary to attain career goals (Van Veldhoven and Dorenbosch,
2008). Career adaptation involves activity directed both inward and outward. In other
words, individuals high on dispositional employability ‘actively engage the situation,
learning and asserting whatever influence is possible to change the situation to fit their
own needs and desires; at the same time, they alter their own cognitions and behaviors to
optimize the situation’ (Fugate et al., 2004, p. 17).
Self- awareness and dispositional proactivity/employability function as powerful
resources that enable employees to navigate a variety of external circumstances effec-
tively. Research has linked proactivity to job performance and to objective and subjec-
tive measures of career success (Greguras and Diefendorff, 2010; Seibert et al., 1999;
Seibert et al., 2001). Furthermore, proactive employees engage in more job crafting and,
in turn, experience greater work engagement and increased job performance (Bakker et
al., 2012). Job crafting is an employee- directed process of changing one’s current job and
work environment in order to make them more favorable to one’s performance and well-
being (Lyons, 2008; Wrzesniewski and Dutton, 2001). As operationalized by Bakker
et al., (2012), job crafting entails increasing one’s structural and social job resources
(for example, trying to develop oneself professionally, trying to use one’s capacities to
the fullest, asking for feedback and coaching), decreasing hindrance demands in the
job (for example, organizing one’s work so as to minimize contact with people whose
expectations are unrealistic and with people whose problems affect one emotionally) and
increasing job challenges (for example, volunteering for interesting projects, proactively
learning about new developments).
Raising Employees’ Self- awareness
There are a number of actions that HR and line managers can take to help raise employ-
ees’ self- awareness. Making a variety of inventories (for example, personality, leadership
style, career values, career interests) available to employees online is a first step that can
help build self- awareness in those employees proactive enough to make use of them (Hall
and Moss, 1998). Administering and debriefing inventories in workshops that employees
are expected to attend may be a more powerful approach that reaches more employees
and sends a signal that the organization values and supports the development of self-
awareness, though it is possible that attempts to ‘force’ self- awareness may be viewed
negatively by some employees. Following administration of inventories with either
facilitated group discussion or one- on- one sessions with a coach or trained facilitator
offers the additional benefit of helping employees to understand how the information
gleaned from the inventory yields actionable implications for their own work perfor-
mance and career direction (Chandler et al., 2010). Self- awareness can be increased
through 360- degree feedback, and for this reason it is a common feature of leadership
development initiatives (Ely et al., 2011).
DE VOS 9781782547020 PRINT (M3689) (G).indd 25 28/04/2015 09:06

26 Handbook of research on sustainable careers
Mindfulness
In a more holistic vein, mindfulness shows great potential as a tool for developing the
self- awareness needed to craft and thrive in a sustainable career. Mindfulness training
and practice is catching on in many organizations due to its established relationships
with increased psychological well- being and ability to focus. Mindfulness can be defined
as a receptive, non- judgmental attention to and awareness of external (for example,
sounds) and internal (for example, emotions) present- moment states, events and expe-
riences (Brown and Ryan, 2003; Dane, 2011). Drawing on a large body of literature,
Jordan et al., (2009) noted that mindfulness has been widely characterized as an indi-
vidual learning process. Research has shown that mindfulness training is associated with
increased self- awareness (Brown and Ryan, 2003) and effective coping with unemploy-
ment uncertainty (Jacobs and Blustein, 2008), as well as with increased job performance
and decreased turnover intentions (Dane and Brummel, 2014). The self- awareness and
capacity for reflection that mindfulness fosters are integral to crafting a career that is
aligned with one’s values, that generates positive emotions, and that is well integrated
with one’s life outside of work (Kopelman et al., 2012). Recent research has shown that
mindfulness training is associated with increases in authentic functioning, that is, being
aware of one’s self, values, emotions, reactions, and managing oneself accordingly, and
with work engagement (Leroy et al., 2013). Thus, mindfulness helps people attain greater
knowledge of what it is they value most, greater openness and receptivity, greater aware-
ness of their emotions and behaviors in interactions with others and greater ability to
focus on and derive enjoyment from the work that they value.
INTERPERSONAL SUPPORT FOR SUSTAINABLE CAREERS
Crafting a sustainable career is an interactive process that relies on facilitative inter-
actions between the individual employee and others in the organization, including
managers and HR professionals. Research suggests that proactivity and interpersonal
support form a mutually- reinforcing virtuous cycle that drives sustainable career success.
Proactive personality exerts beneficial lagged effects on increases in job demands, job
control, and supervisor support, and on decreases in organizational constraints (Li etal.,
2014). The more that people possess the career self- management- boosting resources that
comprise dispositional employability, the more likely they are to both be offered and
make use of various forms of career support (De Vos et al., 2009; Lips- Wiersma and
Hall, 2007; London, 1993). This career support includes training and development pro-
grams and informal interpersonal support such as developmental feedback, invitations
to join social groups or work on important projects, mentoring or career sponsorship.
Supervisor career support is associated with greater employee career self- management
and adaptability (Ito and Brotheridge, 2005). Van Veldhoven and Dorenbosch (2008)
found that HR practices for career development were associated with greater employee
proactivity, both on the job and in terms of their own career development.
Self- determination theory (Ryan and Deci, 2000) posits that employees are more likely
to experience motivation to perform tasks and activities that are valuable to the organi-
zation when they feel competent performing the activities and when performance of the
DE VOS 9781782547020 PRINT (M3689) (G).indd 26 28/04/2015 09:06

Facilitating the crafting of sustainable careers in organizations 27
activities is valued and recognized by people to whom the employee values connection.
Thus, supervisors and others in leadership roles in organizations can support employees’
performance of organizationally- valuable work by recognizing it, and also by providing
support and resources to increase employees’ competence (for example, training, time,
membership in and attendance at professional meetings of relevant experts and practi-
tioners, mentoring by and connection to others inside and outside of the organization
who have already mastered the skills needed to perform the work). Research has found
that participation in developmental activities is positively related to employees’ percep-
tions of organizational support for development (Kraimer et al., 2011). Contrary to some
managers’ concerns that supporting employability may hurt businesses by helping their
best employees find jobs elsewhere, employers may be able to strengthen organizational
commitment and to reduce turnover by actively supporting their career development,
even if it isn’t done specifically to meet organizational needs (Benson, 2006; DeCuyper
and De Witte, 2011).
Coaching
Career coaching helps individuals to clarify their career strengths and interests, make
informed decisions about their career development and trajectory, and develop strategies
for pursuing career goals (Coutu and Kauffman, 2009). It is therefore a valuable tool for
facilitating career self- management. Coaching can also be used to help employees think
creatively about ways in which they can better use their strengths to support key organi-
zational objectives, thereby increasing employee–organization alignment. From the
employee perspective, career coaching can be a way to improve performance, brighten
their career outlook, and enhance job and career satisfaction (Feldman, 2001). To maxi-
mize the effectiveness of career coaching initiatives for facilitating sustainable careers, it
is desirable that corporations make the investment in either providing internal specialists
with the training and clinical supervision needed to develop expertise and effectiveness as
a coach or in contracting with professional coaches for the delivery of career coaching.
I- deals
In recent years, research on job crafting and ‘i- deals’ (idiosyncratic work arrangements)
has examined approaches to customizing the content of jobs and the way in which they
are performed in order to better align with the strengths, motives, needs and preferences
of employees. An excellent model of sustainable career crafting, idiosyncratic deals are
non- standard, personalized work arrangements negotiated between individual employ-
ers and their employees that benefit each party (Rousseau, 2005). Like job crafting,
i- deals are typically initiated by the employee and therefore depend on employee pro-
activity; unlike job crafting, i- deals necessarily involve negotiation with one’s manager
and are intended to deliver benefits to the organization as well as to the individual
(Hornung et al., 2010). I- deals can take many different forms, including customized
learning or career development opportunities, changes to job content, special compensa-
tion arrangements, and flexibility in the amount, time and/or place of work (Rosenetal.,
2013). Research has shown that i- deals are associated with increased performance,
organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and work–life balance,
DE VOS 9781782547020 PRINT (M3689) (G).indd 27 28/04/2015 09:06

28 Handbook of research on sustainable careers
as well as with more positive employee assessments of work characteristics (Anand
et al., 2010; Hornung et al., 2008; Hornung et al2010; McInnis et al., 2009; Ng and
Feldman,2010).
HR APPROACHES TO FACILITATING SUSTAINABLE
CAREERS
Just as career and workforce realities have changed, so too does HRM need to change–
from a standardized approach to one that enables customization. This means under-
standing each employee’s strengths, interests and motives; being aware of and helping
to build their human and social capital, as well as to apply them to organizational
problems; encouraging the articulation, expression and pursuit of career goals that are
both personally meaningful and valuable for the company; and freeing employees and
managers to find work arrangements that support employees’ productivity, well- being
and work–life integration. HRM needs to build flexibility into HR policy and people
management practices in order to maximally engage each individual employee. Cantrell
and Smith (2010) call this the ‘workforce of one’ approach. In addition to supporting
sustainable careers, this evolution holds the promise of transforming the HR function
from one that is viewed as ancillary in many companies to one that is much more vital
and directly engaged in strategy implementation.
Cantrell and Smith (2010) outline four major strategies for personalizing the employ-
ment relationship with each employee in a scalable and reliable way that helps organi-
zations capture greater value from employees, supports sustainable careers, and boosts
employee outcomes. The first step toward the full customization that provides ideal
support for sustainable careers is segmentation, that is, making customized HR choices
available to employees based upon their characteristics and preferences. The second
strategy involves providing modular choices to employees. Like the segmentation strat-
egy, this approach is an introductory step towards embracing customization. Whereas
customization involves applying sets of HR practices to groups that have been identified
as having a unique set of preferences, the modular choice approach implies giving all
employees the same menu of HR programs and benefits, from which they can choose the
ones that they care about most. One of the most well known and well- documented sus-
tainable career programs that relies heavily on modular choices is Deloitte’s Mass Career
Customization (MCC) program (Benko and Weisberg, 2007), an adaptive career pro-
gress model that enables employees to customize their career development and advance-
ment pathways. As a part of the regular performance appraisal, the MCC process
guides employees and their managers to make choices around four major dimensions of
career progression: role (leader or individual contributor), pace, location/ schedule and
workload, calibrating each based on the employee’s current career aspirations and life
circumstances. Since the system is modular, with the ability to personalize each arrange-
ment at any point in time, the MCC creates a template for managing new trends that may
emerge in the future by avoiding an overly specific focus on any one group. Since initial
implementation in 2008, the MCC program has produced impressive results includ-
ing increased satisfaction and commitment from employees, decreased turnover and
increased productivity (Galinsky and Matos, 2011).
DE VOS 9781782547020 PRINT (M3689) (G).indd 28 28/04/2015 09:06

Facilitating the crafting of sustainable careers in organizations 29
The third strategy involves defining broad and simple rules that provide general guid-
ance and define boundaries within which employees and their managers can operate
autonomously. For instance, strategic boundaries describe the organization’s broad
mission and direction to provide guidance with respect to how employees should
conduct themselves and contribute to the success of the organization. Results or outcome
boundaries define expected performance results and grant employees independence with
respect to the methods they use to achieve them.
The fourth strategy is fostering employee- defined personalization. In this approach,
HR supports individuals in defining their own personalized practices. Employee- defined
personalization enables employees to customize such elements as the content and title of
their job, their career pathway, the potential composition of the workforce (for example,
by referring acquaintances as candidates for recruiting), their development (for example,
by deciding how and when to learn from one another), and the timing and content of
their work (for example, by trading work shifts and projects with other employees).
Cantrell and Smith (2010) report that of the four ‘workforce of one’ strategies, employee-
defined personalization has yielded the most innovation in HRM in recent years. For
example, The Container Store, the Dallas- based retail chain specializing in products for
household storage, relies heavily on its current employees for recruitment. Associates
have their employment referral forms that they can give to customers or acquaintances
who they identify as fitting the profile of a successful retail employee. They receive
bonuses for successful hires. This practice is part of a system of staffing practices that
have made The Container Store a retail leader as well as an award- winning ‘Best Places
to Work’ employer, with an annual employee turnover level of 10–12 percent, which is
virtually unheard of in retail.
Additional actions that HR can take to foster sustainable careers include the follow-
ing: (1) share information with employees about the strategic direction of the business
as well as about ongoing organizational activities and results; (2) encourage employee
social networks that span functions and divisions in order to give employees broader
understanding of the organization and to promote learning; (3) train and support man-
agers in having frequent career conversations with all of their direct reports; (4) support
work–life fit for employees by specifically looking for ways to meet both employee and
organizational needs in the design of work; (5) develop and legitimate alternative career
pathways that enable employees to modify the pace and scheduling of work as well as the
trajectory and pace of career advancement; and (6) facilitate future re- entry for depart-
ing employees with a robust alumni network that keeps previous employees connected
to the firm.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE AND
RESEARCH
Harmonizing employee preferences and employer needs is easier to talk about than to
execute. Employees present an increasingly diverse profile of needs and expectations.
Some don’t seem to respond to the programs and practices that have worked for a firm
for years. Still others present needs and expectations that the firm has no experience in
responding to. So the partnership between employee and organization must be flexible,
DE VOS 9781782547020 PRINT (M3689) (G).indd 29 28/04/2015 09:06

30 Handbook of research on sustainable careers
dynamic and customizable. It needs to be updated over time to accommodate changing
circumstances and demands on both sides of the table – and to make sure that it contin-
ues to work for both employer and employee. Longitudinal research tracking the inter-
play of employee career preferences and strategies with HR and managerial initiatives
over time would be very useful in illuminating the dynamics of how sustainable careers
unfold over time, what conditions facilitate them, and how they impact individuals and
organizations.
The conceptualization of employee alignment with organizational strategic objec-
tives is unique to the concept of sustainable careers. To facilitate sustainable careers in
organizations, employees, their managers and HR professionals need to have a clear
understanding of the organization’s strategic objectives and be able to see how indi-
vidual employees’ work and growth objectives connect to the larger strategy. In order to
manage their own sustainable careers, employees need to understand what value they can
provide to the organization, especially with respect to the firm’s strategic direction. Just
as HR directors need to pay attention to business and employment trends internal and
external to their employer in order to be able to add value to the business, so do employ-
ees need to do so in order to manage their value and marketability. This is a linchpin of
the sustainable career, and it requires a key managerial and HR competency: helping
employees to explore and identify the overlap between the firm’s strategic imperatives
and their own skills, interests and values. Research in this area is sorely needed, particu-
larly with regard to the following questions: Does lack of clarity in the articulation of
strategic objectives limit the ability of HR and managers to facilitate sustainable careers?
What mechanisms are most effective in aligning organizational strategy with individual
jobs? How does understanding of organizational strategy and its linkage to one’s own
work affect employees’ job attitudes and work performance? How and to what extent
does organizational–individual alignment increase the performance and effectiveness of
organizations?
One of the obvious limitations to the full implementation of sustainable careers in
organizations is the need for self- awareness and proactivity, both among employees
and their supervisors. Some people are low on dispositional proactivity, and there are
limitations to the extent to which organizations can catalyze significant increases in
self- awareness in some people, as coaches and leadership development experts have
long known. For example, research has shown that people with the highest levels of
self- awareness are most open to feedback and to making efforts at self- improvement,
while those with low levels of self- awareness are both resistant to feedback about their
deficit and also uninterested in working to improve it (Sheldon et al., 2014). A study that
tested the effects of a three- day career self- management training program found that
the initiative was unsuccessful in resocializing employees of a major US transportation
company to engage in career self- management (Kossek et al., 1998). Furthermore, the
researchers found that, when carried out as an isolated HR initiative, the training actu-
ally decreased trainees’ likelihood of engaging in career self- management behaviors.
These results suggest that efforts to encourage employees to take ownership of their
career development should be integrated systematically into organizations’ talent man-
agement activities. There may also be value in incorporating a self- awareness inventory
into selection testing (Thompson, 2014) and in communicating the importance of career
self- management in recruitment communication, especially in companies with a clearly
DE VOS 9781782547020 PRINT (M3689) (G).indd 30 28/04/2015 09:06

Facilitating the crafting of sustainable careers in organizations 31
articulated expectation of employee career self- management. Companies that are not
clear about their expectations that employees will manage their own careers are likely to
depress employee morale and increase turnover intentions rather than motivate sustain-
able career crafting. Research is needed to examine the malleability of self- awareness and
proactivity. In particular, studies that identify what types of initiatives are most effective
at building these critical career resources would be helpful.
REFERENCES
Abele, A.E. and B.S. Wiese (2008), ‘The nomological network of self- management strategies and career
success’. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(4), 733–49.
Anand, S., P.R. Vidyarthi, R.C. Liden and D.M. Rousseau (2010), ‘Good citizens in poor- quality relation-
ships: Idiosyncratic deals as a substitute for relationship quality’. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5),
970–88.
Armstrong- Stassen, M. and N.D. Ursel (2009), ‘Perceived organizational support, career satisfaction,
and the retention of older workers’. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1),
201–20.
Arthur, J.B. (1994), ‘Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover’.
Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 670–87.
Arthur, M.B. and D.M. Rousseau (eds) (1996), The Boundaryless Career: A New Employment Principle for a
New Organizational Era, New York: Oxford University Press.
Arthur, M.B., P.H. Claman and R.J. DeFillippi (1995), ‘Intelligent enterprise, intelligent careers’. Academy of
Management Executive, 9(4), 7–20.
Aryee, S., V. Luk and R. Stone (1998), ‘Family responsive variables and retention- relevant outcomes among
employed parents’. Human Relations, 51(1), 73–87.
Bakker, A.B., M. Tims and D. Derks (2012), ‘Proactive personality and job performance: The role of job craft-
ing and work engagement’. Human Relations, 65(10), 1359–78.
Bateman, T.S. and J.M. Crant (1993), ‘The proactive component of organizational behavior’. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–18.
Benko, C. and A. Weisberg (2007), Mass Career Customization: Aligning the Workplace with Today’s
Nontraditional Workforce, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Benson, G.S. (2006), ‘Employee development, commitment and intention to turnover: A test of “employabil-
ity” policies in action’. Human Resource Management Journal, 16(2), 173–92.
Berg, J.M., J.E. Dutton and A. Wrzesniewski (2013), ‘Job crafting and meaningful work’, in B.J. Dik,
Z.S.Byrne and M.F. Steger (eds), Purpose and Meaning in the Workplace (pp. 81–104), Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Boston Consulting Group (2010), ‘The future of HR in Europe’. Paris: Boston Consulting Group.
Brack, J. (2012), ‘Maximizing millennials in the workplace’. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina,
Keenan- Flagler Business School, UNC Executive Development.
Briscoe, F. (2006), ‘Temporal flexibility and careers: The role of large- scale organizations for physicians’.
Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 60(1), 88–104.
Brousseau, K.R., M.J. Driver, K. Eneroth and R. Larsson (1996), ‘Career pandemonium: Realigning individu-
als and organizations’. Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), 52–66.
Brown, A., J. Bimrose, S.- A. Barnes, S. Kirpal, T. Grønning and M. Dæhlen (2010), ‘Changing patterns
of working, learning and career development across Europe’. Warwick, UK: Institute for Employment
Research of the University of Warwick.
Brown, K.W. and R.M. Ryan (2003), ‘The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological
well- being’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–48.
Burke, J.R. and J.E. Ng (2006), ‘The changing nature of work and organizations: Implications for human
resource management’. Human Resource Management Review, 16(2), 86–94.
Cabrera, E.F. (2009), ‘Protean organizations: Reshaping work and careers to retain female talent’. Career
Development International, 14(2), 186–201.
Cantrell, S.M. and D. Smith (2010), Workforce of One: Revolutionizing Talent Management Through
Customization, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Cappelli, P. (2010), ‘The rise and decline of managerial development’. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(2),
509–48.
DE VOS 9781782547020 PRINT (M3689) (G).indd 31 28/04/2015 09:06

32 Handbook of research on sustainable careers
Cappelli, P. and J.R. Keller (2013), ‘Classifying work in the new economy’. Academy of Management Review,
38(4), 575–96.
Cappelli, P. and J.R. Keller (2014), ‘Talent management: Conceptual approaches and practical challenges’.
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 305–31.
Casper, W.J. and C.M. Harris (2008), ‘Work–life benefits and organizational attachment: Self- interest utility
and signaling theory models’. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(1), 95–109.
Chandler, D.E., D.T. Hall and K.E. Kram (2010), ‘A developmental network & relational savvy approach to
talent development: A low- cost alternative’. Organizational Dynamics, 39(1), 48–56.
Coutu, D. and C. Kauffman (2009), ‘What can coaches do for you?’. Harvard Business Review, 87(1), 91–7.
Crant, J.M. (2000), ‘Proactive behavior in organizations’. Journal of Management, 26(3), 435–62.
Cullen, J.C., L.B. Hammer, M.B. Neal and R.R. Sinclair (2009), ‘Development of a typology of dual- earner
couples caring for children and aging parents’. Journal of Family Issues, 30(4), 458–83.
Dane, E. (2011), ‘Paying attention to mindfulness and its effects on task performance in the workplace’.
Journal of Management, 37(4), 997–1018.
Dane, E. and B.J. Brummel (2014), ‘Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job performance
and turnover intention’. Human Relations, 67(1), 105–28.
De Cuyper, N. and H. De Witte (2011), ‘The management paradox: Self- rated employability and organiza-
tional commitment and performance’. Personnel Review, 40(2), 152–72.
De Vos, A. and N. Soens (2008), ‘Protean attitude and career success: The mediating role of self- management’.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73(3), 449–56.
De Vos, A., K. Dewettinck and D. Buyens (2009), ‘The professional career on the right track: A study on the
interaction between career self- management and organizational career management in explaining employee
outcomes’. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 18(1), 55–80.
Dyer, L. and R.A. Shafer (2003), ‘Dynamic organizations: Achieving marketplace and organizational agility
with people’, in R.D. Day, R.S. Peterson and E.A. Mannix (eds), Leading and Managing People in the
Dynamic Organization (pp. 7–40), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ely, R.J., H. Ibarra and D.M. Kolb (2011), ‘Taking gender into account: Theory and design for women’s lead-
ership development programs’. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10(3), 474–93.
Feldman, D.C. (2001), ‘Career coaching: What HR professionals and managers need to know’. Human
Resource Planning, 24(2), 26–35.
Friedman, S.D. (2008), Total Leadership: Be a Better Leader, Have a Richer Life, Boston, MA: Harvard
Business Press.
Friedman, T.L. (2005), The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty- first Century, New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux.
Fugate, M. and A.J. Kinicki (2008), ‘A dispositional approach to employability: Development of a measure
and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational change’. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 81(3), 503–27.
Fugate, M., A.J. Kinicki and B.E. Ashforth (2004), ‘Employability: A psycho- social construct, its dimensions,
and applications’. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 14–38.
Galinsky, E. and K. Matos (2011), ‘The future of work–life fit’. Organizational Dynamics, 40(4), 267–80.
Gallup (2013), ‘State of the American workplace: Employee engagement insights for US business leaders’.
Washington, DC: Gallup.
Goodman, C.J. and S.M. Mance (2011), ‘Employment loss and the 2007–09 recession: An overview’. Monthly
Labor Review, 134(4), 3–12.
Grant, A.M. (2013), Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success, New York: Viking.
Greguras, G.J. and J.M. Diefendorff (2010), ‘Why does proactive personality predict employee life satisfaction
and work behaviors? A field investigation of the mediating role of the self- concordance model’. Personnel
Psychology, 63(3), 539–60.
Hall, D.T. (2004a), ‘The protean career: A quarter- century journey’. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 1–13.
Hall, D.T. (2004b), ‘Self- awareness, identity, and leader development’, in D.V. Day, S.J. Zaccaro and
S.M.Halpin (eds), Leader Development for Transforming Organizations: Growing Leaders for Tomorrow
(pp.153–76), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hall, D.T. and J.E. Moss (1998), ‘The new protean career contract: Helping organizations and employees
adapt’. Organizational Dynamics, 26(3), 22–37.
Hornung, S., D.M. Rousseau and J. Glaser (2008), ‘Creating flexible work arrangements through idiosyncratic
deals’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 655–64.
Hornung, S., D.M. Rousseau, J. Glaser, P. Angerer and M. Weigl (2010), ‘Beyond top- down and bottom- up
work redesign: Customizing job content through idiosyncratic deals’. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
31(2–3), 187–215.
Huselid, M.A. (1995), ‘The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity and
corporate financial performance’. Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 635–72.
DE VOS 9781782547020 PRINT (M3689) (G).indd 32 28/04/2015 09:06

Facilitating the crafting of sustainable careers in organizations 33
Ito, J.K. and C.M. Brotheridge (2005), ‘Does supporting employees’ career adaptability lead to commitment,
turnover, or both?’. Human Resource Management, 44(1), 5–19.
Jacobs, S.J. and D.L. Blustein (2008), ‘Mindfulness as a coping mechanism for employment uncertainty’.
Career Development Quarterly, 57(2), 174–80.
Jordan, S., M. Messner and A. Becker (2009), ‘Reflection and mindfulness in organizations: Rationales and
possibilities for integration’. Management Learning, 40(4), 465–73.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), ‘Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work’. Academy
of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
Kopelman, S., E.R. Feldman, D.M. McDaniel and D.T. Hall (2012), ‘Mindfully negotiating a career with a
heart’. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 163–71.
Kossek, E.E., K. Roberts, S. Fisher and B. DeMarr (1998), ‘Career self- management: A quasi- experimental
assessment of the effects of a training intervention’. Personnel Psychology, 51(4), 935–62.
Kraimer, M.L., S.E. Seibert, S.J. Wayne, R.C. Liden and J. Bravo (2011), ‘Antecedents and outcomes of
organizational support for development: The critical role of career opportunities’. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96(3), 485–500.
Lepak, D.P. and S.A. Snell (1999), ‘The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allo-
cation and development’. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 31–48.
Leroy, H., F. Anseel, N.G. Dimitrova and L. Sels (2013), ‘Mindfulness, authentic functioning, and work
engagement: A growth modeling approach’. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(3), 238–47.
Li, W.- D., D. Fay, M. Frese, P.D. Harms and X.Y. Gao (2014), ‘Reciprocal relationship between proactive
personality and work characteristics: A latent change score approach’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(5),
948–65.
Lips- Wiersma, M. and D.T. Hall (2007), ‘Organizational career development is not dead: A case study
on managing the new career during organizational change’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(6),
771–92.
London, M. (1993), ‘Relationships between career motivation, empowerment and support for career develop-
ment’. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 66(1), 55–69.
Lyons, P. (2008), ‘The crafting of jobs and individual differences’. Journal of Business & Psychology, 23(1/2),
25–36.
McInnis, K.J., J.P. Meyer and S. Feldman (2009), ‘Psychological contracts and their implications for
commitment: A feature- based approach’. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(2), 165–80.
Nakai, Y., B. Chang, A.F. Snell and C.D. Fluckinger (2011), ‘Profiles of mature job seekers: Connecting needs
and desires to work characteristics’. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32(2), 155–72.
Ng, T.W.H. and D.C. Feldman (2010), ‘Idiosyncratic deals and organizational commitment’. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 76(3), 419–27.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2013a), ‘PwC’s NextGen: A global generational study’. New York:
PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (2013b), ‘16th Annual Global CEO Survey’. London: PriceWaterhouseCoopers.
Rich, B.L., J.A. Lepine and E.R. Crawford (2010), ‘Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job perfor-
mance’. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617–35.
Rosen, C.C., D.J. Slater, C.- H. Chang and R.E. Johnson (2013), ‘Let’s make a deal: Development and valida-
tion of the ex post i- deals scale’. Journal of Management, 39(3), 709–42.
Rousseau, D.M. (2005), I- deals: Idiosyncratic Deals Employees Bargain for Themselves, New York:
M.E.Sharpe.
Ryan, R.M. and E.L. Deci (2000), ‘Self- determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well- being’. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Schulte, B. (2014), Overwhelmed: Work, Love and Play When No One Has the Time, New York: Sarah Crichton
Books.
Seibert, S.E., J.M. Crant and M.L. Kraimer (1999), ‘Proactive personality and career success’. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84(3), 416–27.
Seibert, S.E., M.L. Kraimer and J.M. Crant (2001), ‘What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model
linking proactive personality and career success’. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 845–74.
Shafer, R.A., L. Dyer, J. Kilty, J. Amos and J. Ericksen (2001), ‘Crafting a human resource strategy to foster
organizational agility: A case study’. Human Resource Management, 40(3), 197–211.
Sheldon, O.J., D. Dunning and D.R. Ames (2014), ‘Emotionally unskilled, unaware, and uninterested in learn-
ing more: Reactions to feedback about deficits in emotional intelligence’. Journal of Applied Psychology,
99(1), 125–37.
Spell, H.B., L.T. Eby and R.J. Vandenberg (2014), ‘Developmental climate: A cross- level analysis of voluntary
turnover and job performance’. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(3), 283–92.
Steel, R.P., R.W. Griffeth and P.W. Hom (2002), ‘Practical retention policy for the practical manager’.
Academy of Management Executive, 16(2), 149–62.
DE VOS 9781782547020 PRINT (M3689) (G).indd 33 28/04/2015 09:06

34 Handbook of research on sustainable careers
Stone, P. (2007), Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home, Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Strauss, K., M.A. Griffin and S.K. Parker (2012), ‘Future work selves: How salient hoped- for identities moti-
vate proactive career behaviors’. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(3), 580–98.
Sullivan, S.E. and Y. Baruch (2009), ‘Advances in career theory and research: A critical review and agenda for
future exploration’. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1542–71.
Thompson, R. (2014) ‘For a more flexible workforce, hire self- aware people’, available at http://blogs.hbr.
org/2014/01/for- a- more- flexible- workforce- hire- self- aware- people/.
Towers Watson (2012), ‘2012–13 Towers Watson global talent management and rewards study’. New York:
Towers Watson.
Twenge, J. (2010), ‘A review of the empirical evidence on generational differences in work attitudes’. Journal
of Business & Psychology, 25(2), 201–10.
Uggerslev, K.L., N.E. Fassina and D. Kraichy (2012), ‘Recruiting through the stages: A meta- analytic test of
predictors of applicant attraction at different stages of the recruiting process’. Personnel Psychology, 65(3),
597–660.
Valcour, M., L. Bailyn and M.A. Quijada (2007), ‘Customized careers’, in H.P. Gunz and M.A. Peiperl (eds),
Handbook of Career Studies (pp. 188–210), Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Van Veldhoven, M. and L. Dorenbosch (2008), ‘Age, proactivity and career development’. Career Development
International, 13(2), 112–31.
Way, S.A. (2002), ‘High performance work systems and intermediate indicators of firm performance within the
US small business sector’. Journal of Management, 28(6), 765–86.
Williams, J.C. and H. Boushey (2010), ‘The three faces of work–family conflict: The poor, the professionals,
and the missing middle’. San Francisco, CA: Center for WorkLife Law, University of California, Hastings
College of the Law.
Wrzesniewski, A. and J.E. Dutton (2001), ‘Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their
work’. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 179–201.
DE VOS 9781782547020 PRINT (M3689) (G).indd 34 28/04/2015 09:06