Alterations in the economical, societal and technologic sectors are seriously influencing organizational pliability and reactivity in satisfying emulative universal market needs. Trying to lower the prices and enhance production and effectiveness, companies are currently retrenching, reconstructing and re-shifting the existing labour force workforce. Therefore, workers are progressively feeling such emotions as occupation unassertiveness and professional discretion. The alterations of above-mentioned spheres changes have resulted in the successive converting of the occupation contracts from being long –range cognate comprehension to short-range business deal connections relationships. These alterations of occupational psychologic contact and professional nature have encouraged workers to become more pro-active regarding charge taking of the personal professional life evolvement their instead of imposing this role to the appropriate companies. A lot of researchers believe that career self-management is a specifically well-pertaining re-modelling to the present professional character. It is obvious that the concept of pro-activity should be reviewed as essential for the development of career self management. The current paper will analyse the concept of individual career management on a contrary to the organisational career management.
Management of professional life incorporates specific individual competences and managerial impacts and frameworks, which stimulate and provide people with the possibility to obtain the indispensable talents, adeptness, experience and conducts so as to accomplish some personal and professional objectives and to satisfy the requirements of the working setting (Wesarat, Sharif & Majid 2014). This procedure is believed to be incessant, as it incorporates refinement, implementation and constant control over the projects and designs and the steps assumed by the workers and their working place (Wesarat, Sharif & Majid 2014). Generally speaking, there are two different and discrepant kinds of career management designs (Sturges, Conway, Guest & Liefooghe 2005). The first one singles out capacities, talents and frameworks, which intensify a professional life in the current company of selected workers, including inner trainings and nurturing of relationships with authoritative people (Sturges, et al. 2005). The second kind singles out capacities, talents and frameworks, which intensify a career in a general matter. This kind incorporates the obtainment of greater degree of qualifications and shaping relationships via commerce and occupational unions (Sturges, et al. 2005). Thus, the framework accentuated by the individual relies on numerous challenging agents, including the possibility of being engaged in the company, which means that these agents will be impacted by the kind and degree of professional life management and evolving help provided by the company (Sturges, et al. 2005). Numerous studies demonstrate that career evolving can be regarded as the most intergrading sphere in the area of management. The studies typically focus on two extreme discrepant and opposing angles towards career management, including career self-management and organizational career management. The company using organizational approach to career evolvement is accountable for controlling, instructing and ordering at one pole (Wesarat, Sharif & Majid 2014). That is the major reason why company’s operations, legislations and occupational experiences are created and shaped by the company. This information presupposes that companies are accountable for controlling are professional paths of its workers. On the other side, workers practicing individual career management are accountable for evolving their professional lives by themselves (Wesarat, Sharif & Majid 2014).
Organizational Career Management
The research by Sturges, et al. (2005) demonstrates that organisational career management operations perform numerous occupational roles. The original objective of organizational career management concerns that possibility to assure that the company has affluent amount of appropriate high-qualified and stimulated personnel to satisfy its present and expected upcoming requirements (Wesarat, Sharif & Majid 2014). This is the major reason why companies have to implement various official and unofficial capacities examinations in order to appropriately define the degree and kind of capabilities approachable for them and to coordinate them with all talents and competencies that are required by specific company (Briscoe & Finkelstein 2009). Capacities examinations pilot a broad variety of design and educational operations, incorporating progress projection, renewal and downsizing. Generally speaking, companies have a legitimate concern in enhancing worker’s performance and effectiveness, which is directly connected to the company’s prosperity and sustainment. The last factors are partially achieved with a help of various inner and outer evolvement incentives, which typically include competency tuition and coaching, job-alteration and occupational reconstruction. In addition, companies are interested in sustaining maximum-skilled and generative workers, which is the major reason why they implement specific operations for evolving objectives and spreading mission accounts (Briscoe & Finkelstein 2009). Moreover, companies also attempt to link personal professional lives of their workers to the above-stated objectives, which provides employees with a possibility to evolve a devotion to the company and plan their future in that setting. Finally, companies are frequently committed to assist workers in resolving their individual, relational and other non-job incursions, and to generate working places, which are free of conflicts, bad supervisions, and robustness or healthiness hazards. A number of companies comprehend that workers appear at work having other significant functions and challenges, which require their awareness and consideration (Wesarat, Sharif & Majid 2014). Moreover, some of the companies comprehend that workers efficiency and commitment might be disrupted by bad working operations and incentives, and by neglecting the outward requirements appointment on their workers (Sturges, et al. 2005). These angles of organisational career management incentives repulse the idea regarding the fact that a company’s labour force should be regarded as the most crucial asset and it has to equipped by possibilities and help to evolve and progress. Nevertheless, not all of the companies adhere to such idea (Sturges, et al. 2005). Thus, a number of organizations decide to create their specific career evolvement and managing operations in order to conform to a discrepant management prospect. The research by Hedge, Borman & Bourne (2006) identifies two prospects, including depreciation and conservation, as impacting kinds and degrees of coaching and developing that a company invests in its labour force. The first prospect, meaning depreciation, admits that “an individual’s value to an organization peaks early in a career, levels off at mid-career, and steadily declines until retirement” (Hedge et al. 2006; p. 343). At the same time, the conservation prospect assumes that it “views employees of all ages as renewable assets that will yield a high rate of return over long periods of time, if they are adequately educated, trained, and managed” (Hedge et al. 2006; p. 343). It practically means that those companies, which have accepted the first prospect, might, for instance, regard older employees as less effective, or less capable of benefiting from evolvement operations.
The facts demonstrate that the concept of planned, established, solid and unchangeable professional life ways, which evolve during the whole life span of the individual, in which both the worker and the company facilitate the professional and individual evolvement of the person, encouraged challenge during the last years. The challenge appeared as a result of altering economical circumstances connected to the activities of globalisation, uncontrolled commerce, technologic progress combined with elevations in workforce and overhead costs (Feldman & Ng 2007). Such changes have stimulated the alteration in the structures of numerous working places, in which redesign, reduction of employees’ amount and retrenchment have become the normal standard, and in which historical working place models are progressively being superseded by short-term, half-time, short-range contracts and self-hired job (Feldman & Ng 2007). Moreover, the majority of workers do not anticipate long-range, long-established occupation, and they believe that above-mentioned characteristics are limiting and unacceptable (Feldman & Ng 2007). In fact, long-established organisational occupations are viewed as retreating. That is the main reasons why they are being superseded with innovative career frameworks, in which the primary concentration lays initially on personal pliability and adaptation (Wesarat, Sharif & Majid 2014). The innovative occupational frameworks incorporate career self-management in a form of boundary-less and protean occupations (Wesarat, Sharif & Majid 2014).
Wesarat et al. (2014) define individual career management as a three-step procedure. The first step regards career investigation. This is a procedure, during which an employee collects information and cognition regarding different seizing, valuables, and capacities strong and weak points. The second step concerns professional life objectives, during which employee is able to define and formulate his/her professional objectives and ambitions (Wesarat, Sharif & Majid 2014). The third step regards the objective accomplishment, during which an employee devises and contributes to discrepant occupational approaches and incentives that assist in obtaining of professional objectives. Individual career management incorporates all operations and incentives, which are performed by employees so as to improve their upcoming professional and occupational perspectives (Wesarat, Sharif & Majid 2014). The study conducted by Briscoe & Finkelstein (2009) concentrated merely on individual career management due to the fact that it regarded to be a progressive tendency of present companies. The major objective of the researchers was to understand the affect of individual career management on various aspects of occupational engagement. For instance, the study conducted by Bambacas (2010) demonstrates that there is a positive connection between individual career management and two aspects of occupational engagement, including normative and emotional. The researcher gathered data from 200 managers utilizing self-report questionnaires. The researcher concentrated on emotional and normative aspects, as they are regarded highly esteemed by the company of analysis (Bambacas 2010). On the other hand, Struges et al. (2005) also analyzed the influence of individual career management on emotional engagement of people. The researcher vividly depicted that when somebody assists people in management of their individual professional lives, it allows enhancing the emotional engagement of a worker (Sturges, et al. 2005).
Individual career management is controlled by the employee him/herself and incorporates the collection of the data and designs for professional issue resolving. Wesarat et al. (2014) states that individual career management includes individual attempts of employees regarding the advancement of their individual occupational objectives, which might or might not concur with the objectives that the company has towards these employees. Career self management typically incorporates two major conducts. The first one is connected to incessant enhancement during the present occupation. The second one relates to movability, standing for occupational motility willingness. The research by Sturges et al. (2005) demonstrates that the selection of the conduct relies on kind of the occupational framework that the employee is following.
Individual Career Management Orientation Kinds
The research conducted by Briscoe et al. (2006) segregating between two discrepant kinds of occupational conducts. The first one stands for the organizational motility partiality, which means that the vigour of concern sustains with worker(s). The second one regards boundary-less attitudes set, meaning the overall perception of an employee to work across company’s partitions. Thus, the research depicts that employees are motivated by their individual determination of prosperity. Workers might decide to shift across inner functionary divisions or geographic branches or offices of a single company. It practically means that the workers make a decision to agglomerate professional importance (Wesarat, Sharif & Majid 2014) within the only company via selecting various designs and frameworks that provide them with an opportunity to congest broad experience, evolve large-scale occupational nixes, and sustain great semblance. On the other hand, the research by Lazarova and Taylor (2008) offers a specific design, which differentiates between outlooks and conducts. The researchers admit that there is a solid discrepancy between the inner psychologic boundary-less occupations and inner ordained boundary-less occupations (Lazarova & Taylor 2008). Thus, the first types stands for the psychologic readiness to be moved inside the frontiers of a company, searching for the elevation of personal capacities, talents, and experience assortments combined with tasks, which equip the best selection for the employees present objectives (Lazarova & Taylor 2008). On the other hand, the second type stands for the genuine shift across internal company’s divisions, roles and geographic offices and branches. Employees who observe the function of companies as restricted to equip them with complicated or challenging tasks, appropriate tuition or couching, data and other evolvement resources make a decision to erase one or several impediments (including distributive, professional, vocational, etc.) (Lazarova & Taylor 2008). Currently, jobs can no longer be defined inside the limits of a single organization. Cappelli (2008) outlines boundary-less career as consistency of professional possibilities, which surpass the impediments of a sole occupational environment. Researchers frequently depict ‘new career’ (meaning individual career management) in relation to a “new deal”, which presupposes that the psychologic contact, which subsists between manager and his/her worker has altered in order to repulse the situation, in which there are not promises of expectations of an occupation for the whole life span (Cappelli 2008). The long-range tradition demonstrates that workers bartered their dedication, fidelity and hard work for the assurance of professional safety within the occupational relationships. The companies are currently concentrating on non-basis and half-time employees, as it allows gaining pliability at decreased costs. The present managers demonstrate a tendency to concentrate on “employability” more instead of looking forward to long-range devotion in a particular occupation (Cappelli 2008). Therefore, the current tendency in directed in the course of “career portfolio” (meaning a number of occupations sustained by a worker) (Wesarat, Sharif & Majid 2014). In accordance to numerous researchers, the engagement in individual occupation development (also known as utilization of individual career management incentives) has superseded organizational engagement and devotion (Lazarova & Taylor 2008). Therefore, workers are eager to look for occupational flexibility, possibilities for talents evolvement, and pliability instead of employment safety, as the above-mentioned possibilities allow quick responding to changing employment necessities. Workers appear to assume higher liability for their individual occupational progress so as to elevate their career venality and approve the concept of the boundary-less careers (Lazarova & Taylor 2008). In accordance with Lazarova and Taylor (2008), boundary-less career, as individual career management incentive, incorporates six discrepant senses. Firstly, it incorporates the moving across the frontiers of a couple of managers or directors. Secondly, it draws confirmation and venality from outside of employees’ current manager or director. Thirdly, it is supported by outer nettings and data. Fourthly, it disrupts the historical and traditional assumption regarding chain of command, ranking order and professional progress. Fifthly, it incorporates the rejection of existent professional possibilities for individual and household causes. Finally, it is grounded on the expositions of the occupational agent who might accept a boundary-less futurity in spite of constitutional limitations (Lazarova & Taylor 2008).
Three Main Models of Individual Career Management
Due to the fact that the requirement for workers to utilize individual career management conducts is elevating, the scholars developed three essential theoretic frameworks of individual career management. The first framework is presented in the research of King, and is known as a “cyclical implementation” of conducts (King 2004; p. 126). Due to the fact that the researcher believed that individual career management is repetitive dynamical, the researcher suggested to use a conceptual model of direction on this type of professional managing for comparatively stable employability within companies. Thus, the framework consists of four steps. The first step stands for the comprehension of possibilities designs and decision-maker’s accounts (King 2004). The second step stands for definition of people who have a controlling impact over professional life and their decision making standards (King 2004). The third step regards the deployment of impacts and positioning incentives, with a major aim of changing controlling individuals’ resolutions (King 2004). The final step regards the possibility to make assessments concerning the adroitness in positioning of incentives and probability of these incentives. When the employee reaches the final step, the process starts all over again (King 2004). The second individual career management framework stresses the significance of knowledge in career management. The main point of this model stands for the fact that career is receptacle of knowledge, which is known to be employee’s individual capital. Thus, employees can become career capitalists by agglomerating three kinds of knowledge, meaning “knowing why, knowing who, and knowing how” (Wesarat, Sharif & Majid 2014, p. 104). The agglomeration of one kind will affirmatively impact the rest of above-mentioned kinds. In fact, knowledge of why incorporates the capacity, feeling of aim, stimulation, and determination within the working world that employees implement in their careers (Wesarat, Sharif & Majid 2014). The knowledge of who stands for relations, repute, data sources, and reciprocal responsibilities, which employees collect during their professional life. The knowledge of how incorporates capabilities, competence, and explicit comprehending that employees obtain and agglomerate on their professional path (Wesarat, Sharif & Majid 2014). The third framework combined reflective and conductive constituents and stressed the importance of these two factors (Sturges, et al. 2005). Reflection can be outlined as cognizant commitment in totalizing individual practice, and the ideas, which employee evolves into professional ambitions. This factor enhances employees feeling of individuality (Sturges, et al. 2005). The second component is based on the pro-activity, which employee incarnates during self-developmental professional process. The concentration on both factors can result in quick and prompt career development and success (Sturges, et al. 2005).
The major aim of this paper is to review and analyze nine peer-reviewed articles and outline the connection between the organizational career management and individual career management. The studies demonstrate that the concept of planned, established, solid and unchangeable professional life ways, in which both the worker and the company facilitate the professional and individual evolvement of the person, has encouraged a specific challenge during the last 20-30 years. The challenge appeared as a result of altering economical circumstances connected to the activities of globalisation, uncontrolled commerce, technologic progress combined with elevations in workforce and overhead costs. The analysis of studies demonstrates that companies can develop and sustain professional and career individuality by equipping affluent possibilities for self-evolvement, and capacities for professional progress. The current world developed in such a way that the notion of individual career management has appeared as crucial and the major essence of career as such has solidly changed. There are employees who decide to formulate their professional life and path in companies, while their occupation is essentially impacted by company’s career managing incentive and frameworks. On the other hand, there are employees who evolve their professional life individually in a number of companies. The career management has changed to such an extent that even managers or company directors progressively look forward for employees to take liability for controlling and creating their individual professional lives and paths. Employees can select different individual career management incentives and conducts. Thus, each employee can select a method, which will suit employee’s individual and professional objectives and ambitions the best.
Alterations in the economical, societal and technologic sectors are seriously influencing organizational pliability and reactivity in satisfying emulative universal market needs. Trying to lower the prices and enhance production and effectiveness, companies are currently retrenching, reconstructing and re-shifting the existing labour force workforce. Therefore, workers are progressively feeling such emotions as occupation unassertiveness and professional discretion. The alterations of above-mentioned spheres changes have resulted in the successive converting of the occupation contracts from being long-range cognate comprehension to short-range business deal connections relationships. These alterations of occupational psychologic contact and professional nature have encouraged workers to become more pro-active regarding charge taking of the personal professional life evolvement their instead of imposing this role to the appropriate companies. A lot of researchers believe that career self-management is a specifically well-pertaining re-modelling to the present professional character. The current paper will analyse the concept of individual career management (ICM) in the nine peer-reviewed articles, on a contrary to the notion and understanding of organisational career management (OCM).
The analysis of studies demonstrates that companies can develop and sustain professional and career individuality by equipping affluent possibilities for self-evolvement, and capacities for professional progress. The current world developed in such a way that the notion of individual career management has appeared as crucial and the major essence of career as such has solidly changed. The employees decide to evolve their professional life individually in a number of companies. The current paper reviewed organization career management, individual career management, the conducts of self-managing incentives and theoretical models formulating helping to understand self-managing workers’ pursuing professional success. The career management has changed to such an extent that even managers or company directors progressively look forward for employees to take liability for controlling and creating their individual professional lives and paths. Thus, each employee can select a method, which will suit employee’s individual and professional objectives and ambitions the best.