BLOG POST BY ZHEREN LI
Background
Rapid advancement in technology and globalization have fundamentally changed the way we work. This new shift in the way we work can be localized from the mid 1980’s and onwards. For example, the latest development in communication technology such as smartphones and wireless data, enabled workers to have more freedom, flexibility, and control over their work. Work can be done at home, or places such as coffee shops, airports, or during transportation. On the other hand, an increased number of external shocks has impacted the labor market, such as the financial crisis in 2008 and series of environmental disasters, have threatened the employability and job security of individuals in the workforce. Combinations of these factors have given new career patterns.
What is Boundaryless Career?
Contemporary careers became more dynamic and contract-based. Traditional organizational careers, characterized by linear and hierarchical progression within a single organization, has become less relevant. In midst of this uncertain outlook of the job landscape, the onus of career development falls onto the individual. Some career theorists refer to this phenomenon as “boundaryless careers” (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996). Contrast to the traditional organizational careers, individuals with a boundaryless career mindset seek employment outside of their career boundaries with greater movement between employers, organizations or locations.
Boundaryless career is characterized by psychological and physical mobility that transcend organizational and career boundaries.
The concept of boundaryless career has gained a lot of attention in the career literature, but there has been also a lot of debate on the applicability and generalizability of the theory. Specifically, the question of “are contemporary careers becoming more boundaryless?” and “do organizational career still exists?” is often brought up to debate.
Chudzkowski (201) examined the career transitions of Australian business graduates in the 1970’s and 1990’s. The cohort from the 1970s represented the era of traditional careers and the cohort from the 1990s represented the contemporary (boundaryless) career era. They found that career transitions were more frequent and multidirectional in the 1990’s cohort than the 1970’s cohort, which means that people are changing careers more frequently and not bounded within a single organization or occupation than before; there is less emphasis on long term employment within a single organization. This finding supported the notion that careers have become more boundaryless.
Certainly, there is evidence to suggest that some individual’s career development patterns fit into the boundaryless career perspective, characterized by seeking employment beyond organizational boundaries and higher frequencies of contract-based employment. However, does this mean that traditional, organizational careers are no longer relevant? How well does the boundaryless career theory explain career patterns in other cultures?
Traditional Organizational Careers Are Still Relevant
The generalizability and applicability of the boundaryless career theory are often questioned. There is evidence to support that traditional career patterns are still dominant in other parts of the world. For example, a study on the career patterns of Nigerian workers suggests that Nigerian workers still exhibit much of the traditional career pattern, characterized by hierarchical and progression within a single organization (Ituma and Simpson 2009). Similar results were also found in Lebanese Arab women; career patterns of Lebanese Arab women appeared to follow a traditional career scheme, where job security and stability are desired (Afiouni, 2014). These findings demonstrated that boundaryless careers may have limited applicability to collectivist cultures.
Traditional organizational career is characterized by linear and hierarchical progression within a single organization.
Regardless of the debate, the boundaryless career perspective remains to be the dominant career theory. However, it is also important to note that much of the boundaryless career literature is premised on the assumption that traditional careers are being replaced by boundaryless careers, which reflects the uncertainty of the job landscape. So how do boundaryless careers compare to traditional careers? According to the U.S. Department of Labor, median years of job tenure in America with current employer had almost no change from 2008 to 2018 (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2018). In Canada, the length of job tenure of full-time and part-time Canadians has increased from 1980 to 2019 (Statistics Canada 2019). Therefore, contrary to the dominant view that careers are becoming more boundaryless, labor data from both the United States and Canada suggest that traditional careers are still very much relevant today.
Discussion
So why has the career literature seemed to be so quick to dismiss traditional careers as if it was no longer relevant? It is possible that some career researchers might have been too quick to jump to the boundaryless career ‘bandwagon’. Since boundaryless career was a relatively new concept, whereas research on familiar concepts of traditional organizational careers may be perceived as boring and dull to some researchers.
Proponents of the boundaryless career tend to argue that due to the changing nature of work, careers have become more flexible, and individuals must take greater responsibility while downplaying the role of organizations. Some critics have noted that this school of thought is more aligned with the value of neoliberalism, which emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility, self-regulation, and a reduced role of governments. Specifically, under the lens of neoliberalism, individuals are regarded as ‘actors’ with freedom of choice. This perspective is also evident in the boundaryless career literature, in which unemployment and frequent career transition was more of a personal choice by the ‘boundaryless career actor’ rather than decided by organizations.
It is also important to note that individuals from individualist cultures are more likely to adopt a boundaryless career orientation than individuals from a collectivist culture. One possible explanation for this is might be that the boundaryless career orientation is more aligned with individualist culture values. However, the effect of globalization and the changing nature of work is also felt in collectivist cultures. For example, research on Pakistani employees of foreign multinational organizations located in Pakistan found that Pakistani employees exhibited both boundaryless and traditional career orientations (Chaudhry 2013). While this is only one study to demonstrate that boundaryless career orientation can also coexist with traditional career orientation in a collectivist culture. It is possible that the acceptance of boundaryless career orientations might be more pronounced in collectivist cultures in the future, especially when the way they work shifts to similar patterns that of technologically advanced nations.
Conclusion
So back the original question: have contemporary careers are become more boundaryless? The answer is, it depends. Do organizational careers still exist? Absolutely, it is still the most preferred and predominant form of employment. Right now, what we do know is that technology, globalization, and other factors have fundamentally changed the way we work. There are benefits to the boundaryless approach to careers, especially during times of uncertainty, where the level of job security is low. But there is a fine line between those who choose to be flexible and look for short term employment outside of their career boundaries, and those who have no options to find stable jobs but resort to temporary jobs that are outside of their career boundaries. Thus, we should not be too quick to jump to the conclusion that boundaryless careers have replaced traditional organizational careers, nor should we too eager to dismiss the boundaryless career perspective in favour of the traditional career perspective. Instead, we should critically examine the applicability and usefulness of the boundaryless career theory to a broader context.