Boundaryless careersConcept, Critique, Facts

Maarten van Riemsdijk

Boundaryless careers

• We have in the west economies in which opportunity, insecurity, flexibility and uncertainty coexist (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996)

• “…..Boundaryless careers are the opposite of ‘organizational careers’ – careers conceived to unfold in a single employment setting”. (p.5)

• Boundaryless career does not characterize any single career form, but, rather, a range of possible forms that defies traditional employment assumptions

Forms of the concept

1. moving across organizations and employers; 2. drawing validation and marketability from outside the

present employer; 3. being sustained by external networks; 4. where traditional organizational career boundaries have

been broken; 5. where patterns of paid work are broken for family or

personal reasons; 6. where an individual perceives a boundaryless future

regardless of structural constraints. • The meanings all have in common the notion of

'independence from, rather than dependence on, traditional organizational career arrangements' (p. 6)

Different from traditional Research

• More recognition of the fact that there is an increased interaction between the employee and the organisation

• Acknowledge that organisations will be changed by the way in which individuals build their career and that the way individuals have careers will be changed by the change in organisations.

• Supports the shift in thinking towards the relevance of activities such as: individual networking, continuous learning and entrepreneurial/pro-active behaviour

• Suggests this behaviour is completely intertwined with the activities of organisations.

Assumptions according to Rodriques and Guest (2010)

• Organizations are no longer able (or willing) to offer workers job stability and progressive careers in exchange for loyalty and commitment.

• The key concepts are flexibility, networking, marketable skills, and continuous learning, which workers exchange for performance in a career that unfolds across organizational boundaries (Sullivan and Arthur, 2006)

• It has been suggested that some workers are taking responsibility for the development of their own human capital, choosing or being forced to manage their own careers, instead of relying on formal organizational career development programmes (Barley and Kunda, 2004; Hall and Moss, 1998)

Critique (Rodrigues & Guest 2010)

1. The idea of the boundaryless career lacks accuracy (Arnold and Cohen, 2008; Inkson, 2006)

2. The concept overemphasizes individual agency over structure (Inkson, 2006)

3. The boundaryless career, like the organizational career model, ascribes primacy to organizational boundaries (Gunz et al., 2000)

4. The empirical support for the dominant meaning (i.e. inter-firm career mobility) of the metaphor is modest (Mallon, 1998; Pringle and Mallon, 2003).

Continued

• individuals are ‘the main agents in career direction and progression’ (Bird, 1994: 337). The excessive emphasis on individual agency is fostered by an ideology that legitimizes ‘individual career actors’ emancipation from the constraints of ‘‘traditional’’ careers’ (Inkson, 2006: 49).

• Freeing oneself from organizational control is often being depicted as the expression of a new employment choice and the assumption of a protean attitude (Forret and Dougherty, 2001; Hall and Moss, 1998).

• However, the evidence suggests that people are less proactive in managing their careers than what is often being implied. It seems patterns can be more readily explained by following changes in business cycles than from choice.

• It seems boundaryless careers are located in certain careers (IT specialists in Silicon Valley), rather than in the ordinary career.

Overview Dutch labour market 1970-2010

CBS statline 12-03-2012

 Total people employed Jobs

Labour years

Hours worked

Total Employees Jobs

Labour years

Hours worked

Total Self employed Jobs

Labour years

Hours worked

  x 1 000 x 1 000 x 1 000 mln hous x 1 000 x 1 000 x 1 000 mln hours x 1 000 x 1 000 x 1 000 mln hours

1970 5451 5730 4945 9847 4572 4769 4236 8055 879 962 709 1792

1980 5955 6285 5177 9250 5042 5286 4532 7637 913 999 645 1613

1990 6695 7105 5536 9711 5659 5968 4857 8116 1036 1137 679 1595

2000 8115 8683 6534 11645 6988 7410 5750 9648 1127 1273 784 1997

2005 8251 8769 6478 11496 7105 7497 5683 9554 1146 1272 795 1942

2006 8392 8920 6583 11679 7227 7626 5773 9704 1165 1293 810 1975

2007 8606 9150 6728 11950 7424 7837 5905 9946 1181 1313 823 2004

2008 8733 9287 6832 12155 7553 7972 6013 10181 1180 1315 819 1974

2009** 8669 9222 6760 11996 7487 7905 5940 10026 1182 1317 820 1971

2010* 8644 9198 6725 11937 7451 7870 5898 9950 1192 1328 827 1987

Overview Dutch labour market 1997-2011by labour relation and duration.

CBS statline 12-03-2012

 Employees permanent

Employees Flexible Agency On call Other flexible Self employed

Parttime 12 to 20 hours p/w

Parttime 20 to 35 hours p/w

Fulltime (>35 p/w)

Years x 1 000 x 1 000 x 1 000 x 1 000 x 1 000 x 1 000 x 1 000 x 1 000 x 1 000

1996 4911 545 191 165 190 728 418 1323 4443

1997 5055 573 214 164 195 755 450 1393 4540

1998 5244 606 225 186 195 737 525 1463 4599

1999 5464 578 222 153 203 726 545 1528 4695

2000 5584 532 195 117 221 801 578 1645 46942001 before revision 5753 503 187 115 202 765 603 1691 4727

2001 after revision 5585 486 183 115 188 865 646 1668 4622

2002 5684 457 173 99 185 867 673 1791 4546

2003 5650 438 152 94 192 880 677 1859 4431

2004 5578 454 152 99 202 910 688 1879 4374

2005 5542 498 179 111 208 933 702 1908 4363

2006 5594 541 205 121 215 962 712 1964 4422

2007 5703 601 213 137 251 1005 738 2054 4517

2008 5847 615 205 142 268 1038 736 2174 4591

2009 5851 579 164 148 267 1039 721 2244 4504

2010 5743 598 166 164 268 1049 713 2281 4397

2011 5709 606 172 187 246 1077 710 2313 4369

Labour relation of Dutch employees 1996-2011 by contract type (and self employed)

CBS Statline March 2011

Type of labour relation 1996-2010 expressed by age group

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010  x 1 000                          Total 5 456 5 628 5 850 6 042 6 116 6 070 6 142 6 088 6 031 6 040 6 135 6 304 6 462 6 430 6 341

Permanent contract, fixed hours 4 648 4 767 4 935 5 150 5 290 5 251 5 323 5 277 5 213 5 184 5 192 5 220 5 330 5 325 5 237 15 to 25 years 455 448 432 497 526 531 537 507 454 422 405 406 425 402 356 25 to 35 years 1 522 1 544 1 579 1 591 1 589 1 526 1 455 1 402 1 348 1 303 1 263 1 228 1 219 1 204 1 169 35 to 45 years 1 347 1 391 1 429 1 477 1 544 1 564 1 588 1 566 1 561 1 563 1 575 1 545 1 556 1 521 1 477 45 to 55 years 1 065 1 102 1 184 1 238 1 250 1 244 1 284 1 302 1 313 1 336 1 361 1 391 1 428 1 454 1 458 55 to 65 years 259 282 311 348 381 386 460 500 536 560 587 650 702 744 776

Limited duration, possibly permanent & fixed hours 163 185 211 223 220 269 291 292 277 267 304 376 408 401 382 15 to 25 years 58 66 69 62 60 71 73 71 71 68 75 82 88 90 85 25 to 35 years 75 86 99 104 95 112 119 118 107 110 123 151 156 146 145 35 to 45 years 23 22 31 39 44 57 66 70 65 59 70 94 105 100 91 45 to 55 years 6 10 11 16 19 26 30 29 30 26 31 41 51 55 50 55 to 65 years . . . 2 . 3 3 5 5 4 5 8 9 10 11

Limited duration, ≥1 year with fixed hours 100 104 98 90 74 65 71 80 88 90 98 107 109 125 125 15 to 25 years 32 40 25 26 20 20 20 23 25 25 28 30 30 32 34 25 to 35 years 45 42 46 37 30 24 26 31 36 36 38 40 41 47 46 35 to 45 years 15 14 18 18 15 14 17 15 16 18 18 21 22 27 24 45 to 55 years 6 6 7 7 7 6 6 8 9 9 11 12 12 13 15 55 to 65 years . . . 2 2 . . 3 3 3 3 4 4 6 6                             Agency work 191 214 225 222 195 183 173 152 152 179 205 213 205 164 166On Call Labour 165 164 186 153 117 115 99 94 99 111 121 137 142 148 164

Other non permanent 128 135 126 121 119 131 128 138 147 150 153 174 183 186 185

Other no fixed hours 62 61 69 82 102 57 57 55 55 57 62 78 84 80 83

US average tenure by age group

  1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

16 years and over 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.4

16 to 17 years .7 .6 .6 .7 .7 .6 .7 .7

18 to 19 years .7 .7 .7 .8 .8 .7 .8 1.0

20 to 24 years 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5

25 years and over 5.0 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.9 4.9 5.1 5.2

25 to 34 years 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.9 2.7 3.1

35 to 44 years 5.3 5.0 4.8 4.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.1

45 to 54 years 8.3 8.1 8.2 7.6 7.7 7.3 7.6 7.8

55 to 64 years 10.2 10.1 10.0 9.9 9.6 9.3 9.9 10.0

65 years and over 8.4 7.8 9.4 8.6 9.0 8.8 10.2 9.9

US bureau of labor statistics; sept 14 2010

Average job tenure some EU countriesexpressed in years

OECD extracted March 2012

Average job tenure some EU countriesexpressed in years

OECD extracted March 2012

  Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Belgium 11,5 11,6 11,9 12,1 12,3 12,4 12,2 12,0 12,1 12,1 12,2

France 11,1 10,9 11,3 11,9 12,0 12,1 12,0 11,8 11,7 11,7 11,8

Germany 10,3 10,2 10,8 11,0 11,3 11,0 11,1 11,2 11,1 11,3 11,4

Italy 12,0 11,9 12,5 12,6 12,5 12,1 12,3 12,3 12,1 12,5 12,7

Netherlands 9,2 9,0 10,3 10,8 11,0 11,4 11,4 11,3 11,1 11,3 11,1

Spain 9,8 9,7 9,9 9,9 9,8 9,7 9,7 9,5 9,7 10,3 10,6

UK 8,2 8,2 8,7 8,8 8,8 8,7 8,8 8,8 8,8 9,0 9,3

Job tenure some EU countries10 years and over expressed as % of total working

population

CBS statline March 2012

Job mobility EU countriesTenure 10 years and over as a % of total working population

  1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

                                     

Belgium 45,3 45 44,8 45,2 45,4 45 47 47,7 46,2 47,3 46,7 45,8 46,2 46 45,4 44 44,4 45

Danmark 33,6 33,9 32,2 32,1 32,2 33 33 32,6 31,1 30,9 31,5 31,1 31,3 30,9 29,9 29 26,8 27

Germany 41,7 40 37,9 36,7 36,8 37 38 38 39,7 40,8 41,7 42,3 43 41,8 41,8 42 41,2 42

France 43 44,1 44,1 43,2 43,4 43 45 45,5 45 44 44,2 45,3 45,4 45,6 44,4 44 43,3 43

Ireland 42,1 42,1 40,8 40 39,5 38 38 34,3 35,4 34,4 35,3 34,5 30,9 29,2 31,6 31 31,4 34

Italy 48,8 49,5 49,2 48,8 48,2 48 49 50 50,7 49,9 49,3 48,7 47,2 45,6 45,6 45 45,1 46

Netherlands 34,5 34 34,1 33,9 35 37 37 37,1 36,1 35,9 39 39,1 39 39,8 39,6 40 39,5 41

Spain 38,8 39,6 38,9 38,1 38,2 38 39 38,2 39,2 38,5 37,9 37 35,7 35 34,7 34 34,2 37

UK 31,5 31,3 31,8 31,4 31,8 32 32 33,2 33,2 32,7 32,2 31,8 31,3 30,6 30,5 30 30,4 31

CBS Statline March 2012

Job tenure 5-10 years some EU countriesexpressed as % of total working population

CBS Statline March 2012

Job mobility EU countriesTenure 5-10 years expressed as a % of total working population

  1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

                                     

Belgium 17,1 18,3 18,7 19,7 21 21 20,5 18 17 16,4 16 17 18,3 20 20,8 20,1 19 19

Denmark 17,9 18,5 18,5 18,2 17 15 14,6 16 15 17,4 17 18 18,3 19 19,3 16,8 16 16

Germany 15 15 15,9 17,6 21 22 23 23 21 18,5 18 18 18,9 20 20,6 20,3 20 19

France 15,8 15,5 16,5 18,1 19 20 19,9 19 17 16,6 16 17 18 19 21,1 20,8 21 21

Ireland 16,1 16,3 17,6 17,9 18 17 17,7 16 15 15,5 17 19 19,9 23 22,6 22,7 22 23

Italy 18,1 18,5 19,6 21,2 22 21 20,1 19 18 17,7 18 19 18,3 20 20,8 21,4 21 21

Netherlands 16,7 17,9 19 20,6 22 24 20,9 19 17 15,5 17 20 22,3 26 27,9 26,6 24 22

Spain 14,4 15,4 16,2 16,5 17 17 16,3 16 16 15,6 15 16 16,6 17 17,2 17,5 18 19

UK 17 18,9 19,9 21,1 21 19 20,2 19 18 18,1 18 20 19,9 21 21,5 21,3 22 23

CBS Statline March 2012

Change of work environment after one year 2003-2009The Netherlands

CBS Statline 6 januari 2012

  2003 2003   2004 2004   2005 2005   2006 2006   2007 2007   2008 2008   2009 2009  

 Change No Yes   No Yes   No Yes   No Yes   No Yes   No Yes   No Yes  

    %     %     %     %     %     %     %

Male & Female 5961 478 8 5953 467 8 5958 548 9 6015 664 11 6107 757 12 6255 670 11 6297 556 9

Male 3591 285 8 3551 287 8 3515 330 9 3549 395 11 3561 437 12 3631 375 10 3598 307 9

Female 2370 194 8 2402 179 7 2443 218 9 2466 269 11 2545 320 13 2624 295 11 2699 249 9

Age: 15 to 25 529 132 25 489 131 27 488 134 27 480 158 33 482 171 35 488 160 33 484 135 28

Age: 26 to 45 3392 280 8 3346 268 8 3280 339 10 3245 407 13 3219 454 14 3260 396 12 3244 319 10

Age: 46 to 65 2040 67 3 2118 68 3 2190 76 3 2290 100 4 2406 132 5,5 2507 115 5 2569 102 4

Dutch native 4952 389 8 4944 368 7 4930 443 9 4991 528 11 5043 590 12 5108 531 10 5178 434 8

Non Dutch but western 544 45 8 533 46 9 534 51 10 530 66 12 541 66 12 574 60 10 570 50 9

Education level: Primary 1507 132 9 1421 124 9 1388 132 10 1361 161 12 1338 186 14 1400 157 11 1346 139 10

Education level: Secundary 2696 208 8 2628 200 8 2644 237 9 2673 295 11 2740 331 12 2731 283 10 2742 228 8

Educationlevel: Higher education 1741 137 8 1875 140 7 1895 177 9 1952 205 11 2001 237 12 2111 229 11 2191 189 9

Type of contract: Permanent 4987 352 7 4927 341 7 4889 396 8 4840 487 10 4897 543 11 4978 486 10 5026 388 8

Type of contract: Flexible 224 105 47 235 100 43 250 128 51 305 148 49 306 170 56 318 148 47 313 135 43

Tenure: 0 to 6 months 292 101 35 276 101 37 284 123 43 339 150 44 412 165 40 376 157 42 316 112 35

Tenure: 6 to 12 months 313 63 20 244 58 24 237 65 27 291 78 27 329 99 30 358 90 25 321 86 27

Tenure: 12 to 24 months 558 76 14 462 63 14 416 72 17 438 85 19 506 104 21 579 102 18 582 95 16

Tenure: 24 months or more 4800 239 5 4971 245 5 5020 287 6 4947 351 7 4860 390 8 4942 321 6 5078 263 5

Professional mobility: same profession 5572 134 2 5569 140 3 5568 152 3 5579 181 3 5659 207 3,7 5846 191 3 5898 179 3

Professional mobility: different profession 389 344 88 384 326 85 390 396 102 435 483 111 448 550 123 408 479117 396 376 95

Conclusion

• There is preciously little evidence that:– Labour relations are fundamentally shifting

– People become more mobile in their career.

– People become more pro-active

• However:– Do Demographic, Technological developments, organisational

change and internationalisation ask for more Employability (=the ability to get and keep work)?

– Does knowledge become obsolete (or too costly) more quickly?

– Do people really have to adapt more often/faster?

Way’s ahead

• Find out if job content changes more rapidly (halfwaarde tijd, Den Hertog)

• If so:– Look at Pro-activeness (and other

predictors)and effect on employability– Study Engagement literature– Study Job demands-resources literature– Study Job Crafting literature

Concrete projects

• Obsolence of knowledge and skills• Do employees experience more/faster change in

their tasks and related knowledge and skills?

• Determinants of Employability• What characteristics determine the ability to keep

employment?

• ZZP• What are the facts, why do people chose(?) to

become self-employed?

Concrete projects: ZZP

• With students: research into the reasons for change to zzp.– Define zzp more precisely

– A self-employed individual is independent and works for a customer on the basis of an agreement that formulates a task or a service and its price. The individual is independent; she does not work under the authority of the customer (Corvers, Euwald, De Grip 2011: 34)

– Forced or voluntary?– Difference younger and older workers?– E.g. survey among zzp-ers at seats to meet,

www.zzp-nederland.nl

Facts

• In Holland14% in 2008 – about 1.000.000 people (international definition, 1995 12.5%, 1986 11%)

• Comparable to Germany, higher than France and Denmark (2008,10%) and US (8%), Lower than Italy (25%), Spain (17%) and Portugal (24%)

• In Holland, about 50% of new startups survive after 5 years

• (Corvers, Euwald, De Grip 2011, figures extracted from OECD)

We Know

– In particular highly educated older male workers with large network and lots of experience.

– Might have perfect position to start

– Might find getting back onto labour market impossible

– Might want to work at what they know best.

– Most cited reasons for self employment:• Independence, allows them to decide how and when to work and on what

projects

• Development of skills and knowledge

• Negative are stress and dissatisfaction with current employment

• Avoid paying social security premiums

We know

• Although the probability of entering self-employment increases with age, after age 40–50 this probability decreases.

• There is relatively little evidence that social capital, like social networks, promotes entry.

• Experience in self-employment is positively related to chances of re-entry.

• Most studies find a positive effect of education.

• Family background, that is, having a self-employed father, doubles the probability of self-employment; as some argue, entrepreneurship runs in the family‘.

• Considerable attention is given to psychological traits such as optimism and risk attitudes, but the results are ambiguous.

• The first and only empirical study for the Netherlands concludes that the chance to enter self-employment depends positively on earnings differentials, IQ level, and paternal employment status (De Wit and Van Winden, 1989).

• Aandeel jongeren (25-45 jaar) in beroepsbevolking is flink afgenomen (47% 1999 naar 40% 2009).

• Relatief is aandeel mensen boven 45 dus toegenomen (ook door langer doorwerken, 36% naar 42%) deze groep vertoont veel minder arbeidstransities/migraties dan de eerste

• Ondanks de economische crisis ligt de interne beroepenmobiliteit in 2009 nog steeds op

• een hoger niveau dan in 2006. In 2009 wisselden 408 duizend werkenden van beroep bij

• de eigen werkgever, in 2006 waren dit er 390 duizend. De interne beroepenmobiliteit is

• aanzienlijk hoger voor personen die werkzaam zijn in een hoger of wetenschappelijk

• beroep

• (respectievelijk (8,8 procent en 9 procent) dan voor mensen die werkzaam zijn in

• een elementair (4,8 procent), lager (5,0) of middelbaar beroep Bron: Dynamiek op de Nederlandse arbeidsmarkt, CBS 2011