An Analysis of Mid-Career Managers' Long-Term Unemployment

Resilient Career Narratives: An Analysis of Mid-Career Managers’ Long-Term Unemployment Narratives

By Ann Marie Gagnon

B.S. 1985, Worcester Polytechnic Institute M.Ed. 1996, Boston University

A Dissertation Submitted to

The Faculty of The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

May 16, 2010

Dissertation directed by

Diana Burley Associate Professor of Human and Organizational Learning

The Graduate School of Education and Human Development of The George Washington

University certifies that Ann Marie Gagnon has passed the Final Examination for the degree of Doctor of Education as of March 11, 2010. This is the final and approved form of the dissertation.

Resilient Career Narratives: An Analysis of Mid-Career Managers’ Long-Term Unemployment Narratives

Ann Marie Gagnon

Dissertation Research Committee

Diana Burley, Associate Professor of Human and Organizational Learning, Dissertation Director

Vanessa Hill, Assistant Professor Management, University of Louisiana, Lafayette, Committee Member

Susan Swayze, Assistant Professor of Education, Committee Member

iii

Dedication

One of the primary fantasies that inspired my progress as I engaged in my doctoral studies was penning my dedication. The dedication, that glowing tribute that would make amends for all the years that I chose to read, read, read and read some more rather than do so many things with my family and friends. I cannot recall how many evenings, weekends, and holidays were spent reading, writing, or editing. Lord only knows how many hours it took to transcribe those 24 plus hours of interviews. However throughout the seemingly solitary process of scholarship, I knew I was never really alone and for that I am grateful. This dedication is my tribute to those who supported me as I pursued my doctoral studies.

First to thank is Darrell. He never once during the many years it took to complete my degree said, “This is a bad idea.” (At least, not within earshot!) Instead he stood by ever-ready to step in and cook a meal, run an errand or carry some books. Sometimes puzzled, but always patient and as committed to reaching the goal as I was. Frankly, he had more faith than I that I would reach it. Without his help, I would not have made it.

When the final crunch was on, he did everything he could to help me finish. What more could one want from a husband and a friend? Thank you Darrell, for your commitment and your unflagging faith in me.

Thank you, Jessie, for your support. We traveled together through rain and shine

(literally) on this academic journey. You were always interested, ever willing to edit

(bless you) and imminently practical as to how I should proceed when I was unsure.

Along the way you added a couple of other players to the team. I applaud your choices. I appreciate Dave’s good humor regarding my project. His technical assistance was invaluable as I approached the home stretch. Xander is a wonderful addition and a great incentive to bring this effort to a close!

My folks, Eleanor and Al, believed wholeheartedly in education. They also believed in the value of common sense. As a result, I am a blue-collar scholar, working my way through my education. Although my Dad is no longer with us, I’d like to believe he would be proud of my accomplishment. My Mum is and I thank her for that.

My sister and brother-in-law, Ellie and Ray have rooted me on. They have been kind enough to ask how it was going and kinder still to listen while I recounted my latest ups and downs. They too have been steadfast in their assurances that I would make it. As for Lynne and Christine, Jeffrey, Justin and Lexi, there was never a question as to whether I would finish, although there were a few questions as to when!

Our niece Jen, her husband Ken, Jake and Allie, too, had ringside seats for some of the milestone meetings with faculty as we visited them on our trips to and from DC.

Darrell’s family, his brothers and sisters and their families who had also heard about my efforts never failed to wish me well. Dean and Mary were even subjected to a few in depth (translate that, long) discussions of my research. With all that support, I had to keep going to “honor” my family’s confidence in me.

Along the way there have been good friends and colleagues who cheered me on.

A member of my GW cohort, Millie shared her time and her home on more than one occasion when I made the trek to DC to meet with faculty. Early on we each talked about our research. Later, I sat in on her defense. Finally, I was delighted to have her sit in on

mine. Joan came to my defense as well. As a classmates and friends, I was so pleased to

have both witness the first time that I was called “Doctor!” To Patty, Bruce, Paulette,

Robin, Lisa and Joe and all the other scholars who shared the ELP 10 experience, thank

you for your inspiration and the pleasure of your company.

Speaking of GW, there are those who represent the institution to ensure that the

services are delivered, processes are executed and the documentation is in order. The

library staff at the Ashburn campus were great. The IRB organization was always helpful.

However, as a remote, off-campus student, two women I relied on for direction were

Nancy Gilmore and Nancy McGuire. As a professional and a student I was, and continue to be, astounded at how consistently responsive and helpful they were! Considering their workload and the demands made on their time, I am deeply grateful for their support.

Some friends gave their time while others provided encouragement. Sue’s contribution was essential. Rose graciously volunteered to help me practice my interview skills. Joyce discovered that people do not speak in complete sentences. I am pleased to report that although I took her up on her offer to help with transcription, she still speaks to me. To the Poker Buddies, thank you, Gaeann, Michelle, Sheila, Terri, Faye, Deborah,

Nancy and Cathy for all your messages of support. I am honored by your faith in me.

At work, my boss indulged my passion. After asking what was new, Linda would listen as I expounded on my latest theoretical find. She asked thoughtful questions that added perspective. It was the opportunity to talk about my my research that I appreciated most. She provided a forum in which I could talk out my thoughts which proved invaluable. Shirley, our Provost, facilitated data collection by approving my request to conduct interviews at the college. Thank you to Paige who listened as I fretted my way

vi through the process and to Josi for her sartorial and other advice. Thanks to Doris, Karen,

Gale, Amy and Pat for their interest. I am fortunate to work in an environment that values learning and understands the academic process. I always felt that the institution supported my efforts. I appreciate that support.

My research topic came out of my experience and my observations of others facing long-term unemployment. I knew my own story first hand, but I learned about others’ from several different sources. One significant source was a local networking group. The individuals who attended the weekly meetings educated me on the issues they faced as long-term unemployed. Their stories are important. Although I was only privy to a few through my research, I hope that my efforts will serve all the group’s members.

Their contribution created the back story for my research. I appreciate that contribution.

I also want to thank the individuals who organized and sustained the networking group. David, Dick and Bob drew on past experience to create a program in response to

Sue’s request to support unemployed persons. Their efforts produced a grass roots program that spawned satellites and rejuvenated another group. The satellites have expanded; the rejuvenated site continues. All offer free support to the unemployed. Brian,

Ernie, Alan, Jeffrey, Mark and many others give their time and energies to support individuals working through the unemployment process. As one who knows how lonely and unsettling unemployment can be, I thank each of these individuals for their efforts.

As a career counselor, Linda offered many insights about careers and career management. In fact, she brought the portfolio career model to my attention. She also shared anecdotes that helped me understand how others were reacting to long-term unemployment. As a friend, Linda and her husband Raymond shared their own

vii experiences. Both encouraged me to continue not only for myself, but for the community that could benefit from the findings. My good friends Frank and Marian were also a great support. In addition, Frank spoke of his own history as a right-sized executive. Frank was the first person I asked, “How do you know you had a career?” His answer helped me realize how insightful responses to that question would be. Thank you Linda and

Raymond and Marian and Frank!

To Maryanne, my editor, I owe great thanks. Your vigilance and attention to detail were awesome! Your care and concern reflect the friend that you are. The quality of the document reflects your professionalism. Any errors are my responsibility. I appreciate your interest in my project. It was so helpful to talk with someone else who had gone through the process as a “mature” student. You are an inspiration. Thank you.

There are so many other friends who believed in me, Richard and Naomi who listened to my stories as I began the program, who checked in regularly for updates on my progress, even in the slow years, and who finally came to celebrate my success. My good friend, Tom, is another who never lost faith. He did remind me that time was marching, on egging me on with his great sense of humor. Sandy, who urged me to keep my mind clear by keeping my body fit, encouraged me throughout the years. Bill and

Jane, Jill and Jackie and so many others who wished me well, I thank you all.

Jimmy, the oldest and dearest of friends has not been part of this phase of my life, nonetheless he is always present. It was Jim who taught me to “[pin] thing to thing to make a new thing stand” (J. E. Sullivan, 1988, p. 31). For that and for so much else, I thank you, James E.

viii

Acknowledgements

There are two communities to acknowledge for their contribution to my efforts as

I developed, researched and wrote my dissertation. One community represents theory, the other praxis. Five scholars shared their knowledge and experience as they witnessed my efforts to add to the body of knowledge. Six practitioners offered their experiences in support of praxis. The outcome is a pertinent study on managerial career management.

Dr. Diana Burley stepped in initially as a member of my dissertation committee.

However, as the need arose she stepped up to become chair. With grace and good humor she provided insight and expertise, clarifying the focus of the study. In addition she enlisted other scholars to share their knowledge with me. Dr. Susan Swayze brought rigor to the research methodology. She encouraged the critical thinking necessary to challenge various aspects of the process, fostering a disciplined approach to the research. Dr.

Vanessa Hill expanded the academic discourse. Her thoughtful questions provided alternative perspectives and stimulated additional insights. I thank Diana, Susan and

Vanessa. As committee Chair and members, their input was critical to to the completion of this study and my academic success.

In addition, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Neal Chalofsky for his support as I began my research activities. His willingness to serve as an advisor gave my exploratory inquiries legitimacy as I worked to identify my dissertation topic.

The fifth member of the academic community to whom I owe thanks is Dr. James

Douglas Orton. His interest in my research was heartening. Dr. Orton provided the

insight I needed to develop a defensible proposal. He also encouraged me to present to

the Eastern Academy of Management. His efforts positioned me to continue my studies.

With my committee’s support I was able to complete my dissertation research.

As the six practitioners, Jane, Bill, Mike, Sue, Bart and Pete, your contribution

was essential to the success of the study. Your willingness to tell your stories and share

your experiences provided the raw data for the research. Your candor, your humor, your insights generated compelling stories about your long-term unemployment.

On the one hand your stories are uniquely your own. On the other, your career experiences reflect the experiences of many mid-career managers. The power of your stories rests in that dichotomy. Other practicing managers can identify with what you have faced and how you have dealt with your unemployment. At the same time they can recognize that your solution may not be the one they would choose. Understanding that there are a variety of responses to career setbacks is one of the many benefits of reading your stories.

I expect that theorists will find the experiential data embedded in your stories useful as they look to refine, expand or develop new career management theory. For my research the range of your experiences, the depth of your reflections on the nature of your careers, the caliber of your career management decisions, and the current status of your careers provided much to analyze. I hope that you will find the insights that I derived from my analysis of some interest and value to you.

Thank you for the significant contribution you each made to the conduct of the research and analysis that enabled me to achieve my academic goal.

Abstract of Dissertation

Resilient Career Narratives: An Analysis of Mid-Career Managers’ Long-Term Unemployment Narratives

This study is a qualitative inquiry into mid-career managers’ perceptions of the impact of long-term (six months or more) unemployment on their career and career management practices. The study examined what career models, if any, reflected the career management practices of the managers prior to becoming unemployed, during unemployment and post unemployment. In addition to the traditional bureaucratic or linear model, the study assessed the managers’ narratives for characteristics associated with alternative career models including Weick’s Eccentric Predicate, Hall’s Protean,

Arthur and Rousseau’s Boundaryless, Handy’s Portfolio, Collin’s Post-Modern, Bloch’s

Chaos Theory and Mainiero and Sullivan’s Kaleidoscope Career models. The study also analyzed the managers’ narratives to determine if they engaged in any practices that could be considered resilient career management behaviors during their employment search.

The study’s source data were transcripts of a series of three 90 minute interviews conducted with six mid-career managers (four men and two women) who were between forty and forty-eight years old at the time of their layoffs and who held positions such as

Senior Manager, Senior Architect and Senior Vice President in such industries as

Advertising, Financial Services, Investments and Retail Manufacturing. The loosely structured interviews were designed to evoke stories about the managers’ experiences

xi prior and up to layoff, during their long-term unemployment in pursuit of re-employment, and re-employment, in addition to current perceptions of their careers.

The interviews were evaluated using two forms of reasoning (Bruner, 1986), narrative reasoning and paradigmatic reasoning. Narrative reasoning was used to evaluate the managers’ stories of their experiences both thematically and structurally. The data were subjected to Paradigmatic reasoning to develop a catalog of resilient career management behaviors as the basis for future quantitative research regarding the application of resilient career management characteristics during long-term unemployment.

Research outcomes included individual mid-career managers’ experiential data regarding long-term unemployment and perceptions of the phenomenon’s impact on career management behaviors and models; and preliminary data to support the development of a quantitative inquiry into resilient career management behaviors during long-term unemployment.

xii

Table of Contents

Dedication………………………………………………………………………… iv

Acknowledgements……………………………….………………………….…… ix

Abstract of Dissertation…….………………...…...…………….………………... xi

Table of Contents………………………………...…………...….……………….. xiii

List of Figures………………………………...………………….……………….. xiv

List of Tables………………………………………………….………………….. xv

Chapter 1: Overview…………..……………………………………………….… 1

Chapter 2: Literature Review………………………………………….……….… 23

Chapter 3: Research Methodology……………………………..…….…………... 80

Chapter 4: Results…………………………………… …………...... 122

Chapter 5: Conclusions, Observations and Recommendations……………..…… 256

References…………………………………………………………………..……. 275

Appendices………………………………………………………………..……… 282

Appendix A: Participant Recruiting……………………………….…..… 283

Appendix B: Consent Form…………………………..………………..... 286

Appendix C: Interview Material……………...... 290

Appendix D: Participant Files…………………………………………… 306

xiii

List of Figures

Figure 1 Mapping career models on three career management behavior continua.. 67

Figure 2 Participant 1 (P1) Jane’s Career Map …………..…………………...... 307

Figure 3 Participant 2 (P2) Bill’s Career Map…………………………..…..……. 309

Figure 4 Participant 3 (P3) Mike’s Career Map…………………….……….…… 313

Figure 5 Participant 4 (P4) Curley Sue’s Career Map………………...………….. 314

Figure 6 Participant 5 (P5) Bart’s Career Map………….…………………….….. 316

Figure 7 Participant 6 (P6) Pete’s Career Map……………..…………………….. 319

xiv

List of Tables

Table 1 Differences between the Traditional Career and Protean Career

(Hall, 1976).. ………………………………………………………... 32

Table 2 Resilient Characteristics of Alternative Models………………..……. 72

Table 3 Jane’s Layoff Story.……….…………………………………………. 131

Table 4 Jane’s Boot Story………………………………………..………….... 143

Table 5 Bill’s Layoff Story…………………………….……………………... 152

Table 6 Start up Opportunity?...... 156

Table 7 Bill’s 1990 Layoff and New Job...... 165

Table 8 Listening…………………………………………………….……...… 172

Table 9 Michael’s Layoff Story…………………………………….………… 173

Table 10 Michael’s Reaction to Reemployment…………………….…………. 176

Table 11 Risk and Rewards of Creating a Team…………………………….… 178

Table 12 Story of Mike’s Visit to the Parent Company in Germany…….…….. 185

Table 13 Sue’s Layoff Story……………………….…………………………... 190

Table 14 Who Am I Now, Finding a New Identity……………………….…… 197

Table 15 Introductions ………………………………………………………… 202

Table 16 Bart’s Layoff Story…………………………………………………... 209

Table 17 How Far I’ve Come………………………………………………….. 215

Table 18 Job Search Rules of Thumb……...…………………………………... 217

Table 19 Corporate Career Success...……...…………………………….…….. 218

Table 20 Barriers to Non-Profit Career Transition….…………………….……. 221

Table 21 Pete’s Layoff Story…………………………………………..…...... 228

Table 22 Pete’s Re-Employment Story …………………………………….….. 231

Table 23 Feedback………………………….………………………………….. 236

Table 24 Joining the Systems Group………………………………..………….. 238

Table 25 Introducing the Gospel of Service Culture Change…………..…...….. 242

Table 26 Participant Demographics………………..…………………………… 257

Table 27 Participants’ Resilient Career Characteristics Matrix…………...……. 266

Table 28 Career Management Modeling…………………..…………………… 269

Table 29 Participant Qualification Questionnaire….…………...………………. 285

Table 30 Interview Transcription Report………..……………………..………. 305

Table 31 Jane’s Career Map Commentary…………………...…………………. 307

Table 32 Bill’s Career Map Commentary………………………………….…… 309

Table 33 Curley Sue’s Career Map Commentary……………………...……….. 314

Table 34 Bart’s Career Map Commentary……………………………...….…… 316

Table 35 Pete’s Career Map Commentary……………………………………… 319

xvi

Chapter 1: Overview

Introduction

On a chilly Tuesday evening in January, 2002, members of an employment networking group gathered in the sitting room of a country church. Half a dozen unemployed professionals took turns practicing their two minute drill, an introductory networking speech. Each began with “Hello, my name is . . . .” One by one around the room they continued, offering a brief description of their former responsibilities. “As manager of the internal audit department, I saved . . . .” “As district sales manager, sales performance improved . . . .” “As head of internal marketing for the division, I managed . . . .” After describing their key accomplishments, each speaker wrapped up their intro with a pitch describing the object of their job search, their next position, their ideal job. “Audit manager . . . .” “Regional sales manager . . . .” “Marketing executive .

. . .” Within 30 minutes the drills were done. The members congratulated each other on their ability to condense decades of managerial experience and corporate contributions into two-minute sound bites. They assured each other (and themselves) that they were well on their way to re-employment. It wouldn’t be long before a company would make them an offer and they would resume their careers as managers, directors, or officers.

Many were surprised, disappointed, discouraged when no offers came. As weeks of unemployment turned into months, the managers from the re-employment group wondered what had happened to their careers.

Background

For the purposes of this study, career is defined as “[T]he evolving sequence of a person’s work experiences over time, usually with reference to a particular social setting and outcome” (Lawrence, 1998, p. 44). While employed, the managers participating in this study had pursued their careers within large organizations—an organization with more than 500 employees (SBA, 2008). As managers within large organizations, their career management was often based on what Kanter called “The bureaucratic career pattern . . . a sequence of positions in a formally defined hierarchy of other positions” (1989, p. 509).

Continuous advancement is an integral theme of the bureaucratic career pattern.

In large organizations the trajectory of managers’ career paths are often mapped as an upward slope. Many mid-career managers’ career stories incorporated a plotline representative of this bureaucratic career rhetoric. Climbing the career ladder was both a metaphor and a method for career management. This ubiquitous symbol of career success was the scaffolding for managerial careers. New assignments, additional responsibilities, salary increases signaled movement in the hierarchy. The managers participating in the present study had assumed that their careers would follow that predictable pattern. They believed that they would continue to experience the steady career growth that defined successful managerial careers. However, their career assumptions were challenged when they lost their jobs and their membership in their employing organizations. Forced to operate outside the organization, with no new employment prospects in sight, these mid-career managers were not sure where to look for the next rung on their career ladder.

The National Bureau of Economic Research marked November, 2001 as the bottom of the last documented recession to affect the US economy (2003). But even as the economy began to turn, employment lagged months behind, a characteristic of a

“Jobless Recovery” (Labonte & Levine, 2003). In fact, in June, 2003, the Department of Labor reported a 6.1% unemployment rate, the highest rate in the preceding nine years (Gongloff, 2003). And in October of that same year, The New York Times reported that the average length of unemployment was 19 weeks (Leonhardt, 2003).

The longer average period of unemployment was affected by the increased numbers of long-term unemployed. According to Bureau of Labor statistics, long-term unemployed were defined as individuals who were “jobless 27 weeks and longer (or more than six months)” (Ilg, 1994, p. 12). Since the end of the 2001 recession “elevated rates of long- term joblessness among the unemployed . . . persisted longer than during any similar period in the past 30 years” (Allegretto & Stettner, 2004, p. 1).

The 2001 recession affected many, but “the number of long-term unemployed grew faster among high salary occupational groups — such as management, business, and financial . . . and professional occupations . . . — than among service occupations .

. . or office and administrative support” (2004, pp. 7-8). For close to two years following the recession, an unprecedented number of mature, experienced managers were well represented among the ranks of the long-term unemployed (Stettner &

Wenger, 2003).

The participants in this study described the early years of their careers as following a linear career path (S. E. Sullivan & Baruch, 2009) characteristic of the bureaucratic career model. As members of their respective organizations, the managers

4 perceived their careers as being orderly and fairly predictable (Arthur & Rousseau,

1996c). “The sine qua non of a career constructed in terms of the rhetoric of bureaucratic control is that one has entered a contractual, rule-bound relationship with an organization, has entered employment, has become a member.” (Gowler & Legge,

1989, p. 444) However, after being laid off, the unemployed managers no longer had a relationship with an organization. They were no longer subject to the psycho-social stressors associated with heavy workloads and the lack of control or limited decision making capability as defined by Karasek (1979). Instead, as new members of the external labor market, the managers faced different stressors. The rules for advancement were no longer clear. They no longer had access to organizational career ladders or the associated opportunities. Without organizational membership, they no longer had a venue in which to practice their craft as professional managers. They were removed from the environment that had defined their careers. As their unemployment continued for months, the plotlines of their managerial career stories began to unravel.

Various perspectives on career development present different approaches to research. Those approaches can be linked to different disciplines such as sociology, psychology or management. They can also be based on different constructs like life stage development. However, in this study the focus was on individual managers who at mid-career find themselves suddenly outside the organization and the internal labor market. This study sought to understand the effect of long-term unemployment on the career narratives of six experienced managers. As the length of their unemployment extended to 27 weeks and qualifies as long-term, the temporal impact of the phenomenon had the potential to affect the managers’ views of their careers, to change

5 the structure of their career narratives and to alter their career management behaviors

(Ezzy, 2001). With no rules and no reliable career map to guide them, these managers were susceptible to what Brousseau, Driver, Eneroth and Larsson called “career pandemonium” (1996).

The mid-career managers’ stories are reflective constructs. In developing their career stories it was expected that they would create links between states of employment. The recollections of their careers preceding their experience of long-term unemployment, during unemployment and following their return to employment provided a temporally integrated view of their perceptions of their careers. Through narrative inquiry, it was possible to focus on the managers’ specific experiences as a first step in the study of the long term unemployment phenomenon in relation to this specific population’s career management behaviors. By documenting the managers’ interpretations of their careers, the career management behaviors that they remembered, and what they recalled as constituting re-employability at the time they were pursuing re-employment, it was expected that the study would add to the empirical knowledge base of management career theory.

Problem Statement

Historically, mid-career managers’ experiences with long-term unemployment have been limited. Because exposure to the phenomenon has not been common for this group, they have had little cause to adjust career management behaviors. However, during the 2001 recession and the jobless recovery that followed, a number of mid- career managers were unemployed for six or more months. Without organizational

6 employment, the managers no longer had access to an internal labor market. For many managers the traditional bureaucratic career model no longer represented their career experiences, which suggests that the career management behaviors associated with the traditional model would no longer meet their career management needs.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study was to add to our understanding of the career management experiences of long-term unemployed, mid-career managers. To frame the research to address the purpose, several guiding questions were considered. First, how did individual mid-career managers perceive the experience of long-term unemployment relative to their career and their career management behaviors? Second, what constituted re-employability for these managers? Finally, what aspects of their career management behaviors, if any, could be considered resilient?

To learn about the impact of long-term unemployment on the career management behaviors of participating mid-career managers, I conducted a narrative inquiry. After gathering the managers’ stories about their experiences I analyzed the content, looking for information about the managers’ pursuit of re-employment, as well as for any characteristics that reflected resilient behavior and any changes in their approach to career management. The findings contributed to the subject of managerial careers in several areas including research, practice, theory and education.

Research. The study examined a specific management population, mid-career managers, and their response to a phenomenon – long term unemployment. Empirical data about this population and this experience are not widely available. Therefore this

7 study contributed empirical data to the research on managerial career management. The narrative approach focused on the experiences of six individuals; however the findings can be used to support future quantitative research on the topic.

Practice As large organizations continue to consolidate resources and eliminate positions, more mid-career managers are likely to experience long-term unemployment.

Understanding how the study participants approached their career management without benefit of an organizationally defined career trajectory offers insight into alternative practices that others may opt to adopt if, or when, they are faced with similar career management challenges.

Theory. Employer/employee roles and responsibilities relative to career management have evolved since the 1970s. For much of the 20 th century, the

bureaucratic career model reflected the employer/employee relationship within the

internal labor market and provided a framework for managerial career theory.

However, during the latter half of the century the dynamic changed. The change

affected the career management behaviors of the organization and individual managers.

As career management responsibilities shifted, career theorists developed alternative

career management models reflecting those changes. The outcomes of this study have

added to our understanding of managerial career management theory by illustrating the

career management behaviors through narratives. Several of the managers’ descriptions

of their approaches to managing their careers outside the organization reflected

alternative career models proposed by the several theorists including Bloch (2005),

Collin (2000), Mainiero and Sullivan (2006), Pryor and Bright (2007) and Weick

(1976). The descriptions of the managers’ behaviors corroborated the models with experiential data.

Education. Analysis of the mid career managers’ narratives offered an opportunity to explore how individuals, exposed to certain experiences and challenged by particular circumstances, integrated their past career knowledge with their present career experience to plot their future career management strategies. Each individual story offers potential lessons for others who may face similar challenges. Documenting the narratives of mid-career managers’ experiences with long-term unemployment as it related to their career management behaviors created a resource for others to reference.

Summary. This qualitative study offers an opportunity to examine individual, mid-career managers’ pursuit of re-employment during long-term unemployment. By analyzing the stories about their experience and how they approached their careers outside the organizational setting, the outcomes of the study have: a) Added to the body of empirical research; b) Increased our knowledge of managerial career management practices; and c) Contributed to managerial career theory. In addition, it is expected that the findings can be used to educate mid-career managers about career management behaviors that may be useful when experiencing long-term unemployment. As organizations restructure in an effort to survive these economic hard times, it is highly likely that more mid-career managers will face long-term unemployment.

Understanding that there are alternative career models for defining career management behaviors may have an effect on managers’ employability and potentially contribute to their career resilience. The study of long-term unemployed managers’ career

9 management behaviors, then, not only provides insights into career management theory

but also offers applications relevant to mid-career managers.

Research Questions

Until the recession of 2001 and the jobless recovery that followed, mid-career

managers had not often been exposed to long-term unemployment. Because it has been

a relatively uncommon phenomenon among managers, it is not clear how managers

actually integrate the phenomenon into their career management practices, particularly

as they pursue re-employment.

This study analyzed the career narratives of six mid-career managers as a first

step toward understanding the impact of long-term unemployment on career

management behaviors. The interview questions focused on individuals’ experiences; therefore the managers’ reflections could be expanded upon as the basis for future quantitative research. However, the emphasis of this research was on the individuals’ perceptions of their experience relative to their careers. With that emphasis in mind, the overarching research question for this study was:

How do long-term unemployed, mid-career managers manage their careers in pursuit of re-employment?

In addition to addressing the overarching question, four additional questions that concerned the individual managers’ narratives of their experiences were considered.

Research Question 1: What effect, if any, does long-term unemployment have on mid- career managers’ perception of their career story? Research Question 2: How does the experience of long-term unemployment influence individual, mid-career managers’ career management behaviors? Research Question 3: What effect, if any, does long-term unemployment have on mid- career managers’ perception of their re-employability? Research Question 4: Do the career narratives of managers who have experienced long-term unemployment demonstrate characteristics ascribed to career resilience?

Theory Development

At the outset of the 20 th century, Fayol and Weber (Hatch, 1997) described a

hierarchical career model for managers within bureaucratic organizations. For much of

the 20 th century, large organizations embraced the model as the standard for

management development. In fact, in 1989 Kanter noted the dominance of the

bureaucratic structure, describing it as a model American type. Nonetheless, she

predicted its decline. Kanter also described the ongoing professionalization of the

managerial role and wondered what impact that professionalization would have on

managers’ career development. Her concern has gained credence as the relationship of

organizations and managers has evolved. The experiences of the long-term unemployed

mid-career managers participating in this study provide an opportunity to examine their

career management behaviors on a case by case basis.

Once outside the organization, long-term unemployed mid-career managers

were limited in how they could apply the bureaucratic model. Useful as a career

11 management tool to map managerial career progress within an organizational hierarchy, outside the confines of an organization, the model lost relevance. How then did long- term unemployed managers sustain their careers without applying the bureaucratic career model? Did they find alternatives to the model and re-frame their career narrative? Instead of describing their career as a steady climb up the organizational ladder, did they find a different metaphor? Did they construct a new plot for their career story?

During the latter part of the 20 th century, as organizational turbulence increased,

career theorists observed a change in the career management dynamic between

organizations and managers (Marchant, 1999). The theorists proposed alternatives to

the traditional hierarchical career model as individuals and organizations developed

new approaches to career management (Arthur, Hall, & Lawrence, 1989; Rousseau,

1995). These new models represented alternative views of managerial career

management behaviors. In some cases these new theories introduced different

metaphors in lieu of the career ladder. Even the bureaucratic career’s standard plotline

that mapped managerial career success as a steady progression within the

organizational hierarchy was challenged as the emerging career management theories

offered new story lines reflective of the evolving dynamic between managers and

organizations.

In 1976 Hall introduced the concept of the protean career. Drawing from the

mythic figure Proteus’ ability to adapt and to change, the model encouraged managers

to take on more responsibility for their own career management. With this model,

managers evaluated their career progress using subjective versus objective criteria.

More autonomy fostered more adaptive responses to change, and with adaptability came greater mobility. Managers were free to move about the company. That same year, Weick described career management as eccentric predicates, the activities and experiences that in retrospect come together as career indicators that we can choose to acknowledge and pursue or not, but that do indicate things about us after the fact

(1976). Nicholson and West’s observations of managerial career transitions also emphasize that career understanding is more a function of retrospection than active career planning (Nicholson & West, 1988).

Other alternative career management models introduced at the end of the 20th century included Handy’s portfolio career (1989). Portfolio careers consist of dual/multiple threads of employment enacted concurrently. Managers coordinate and perform different activities for multiple employers. Arthur and Rousseau’s

Boundaryless Career offered another approach to career management. They described career as a loosely structured model integrating a variety of meanings but the common denominator was “one of independence from, rather than dependence on, traditional organizational career arrangements” (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996b, p. 6).

In 2000, Audrey Collin introduced the concept of the postmodern epic career, apropos of a work environ engaged in contract employment. Individuals filling temporary positions must learn to manage their careers in an external labor market where every contract is tantamount to a new job (2000). Ongoing re-generation and re-

tooling are required if a manager plans to stay employed. In a dynamic labor market,

where employers are in a constant state of flux adapting to the changing customer

demands and evolving technologies managers may embrace complexity theory to guide

13 their career management behaviors (Bloch, 2005). Authenticity, Balance and Challenge are the ABCs that frame the Kaleidoscope Career according to Maineiro and Sullivan

(2005, 2006). They determined that “[j]ust as a kaleidoscope uses three mirrors to create infinite patterns, individuals focus on [the] three parameters when making decisions, thus creating the kaleidoscope pattern of their career” (S. E. Sullivan, Forret,

Carraher, & Mainiero, 2009, p. 290).

The emergence of different career models as alternatives to the bureaucratic career structure, experienced when these long term unemployed managers were separated from their more traditional employment, is aptly represented as attraction and attractors in the Chaos Theory of Careers (Pryor & Bright, 2007). From alternatives identified as early as 1976 to those that have recently emerged, these models offer long term unemployed, mid-career managers increasingly sophisticated metaphors and plotlines with which to reinvent their career management behaviors, enhance their employability in the 21 st century, and craft their own unique career stories.

The emerging models introduced above not only presented an array of

alternatives to bureaucratic career rhetoric; they also called for different behaviors.

Analysis of the participants’ narratives of their experience with long-term

unemployment as they pursued re-employment was expected to provide instances of

alternative career management behaviors.

In addition to being analyzed for rhetoric and behavioral content, the mid-career

managers’ narratives were evaluated to understand what constituted an acceptable

outcome for the managers’ re-employment efforts. Employability was consistently

14 identified as a key outcome of the alternative career models. However, for experienced managers it is not about employability as much as it is about re -employability.

To understand what might contribute to re-employability it is useful to begin

with employability. Employment counselors describe employability in simple, practical

terms as defined by employers. Employers are interested in hiring individuals for entry

level work who are well groomed, punctual, and present a history of good work habits

(Cotton, 1993). Fugate, Kinicki and Ashforth described a more sophisticated view of

employability. They stated that employability was a psycho-social construct. From their

research they concluded that employability, as a construct, integrated the following:

career identity, personal adaptability and social and human capital (2003).

In addition to the elements described by Fugate, et al., it was presumed that

mid-career managers would consider other elements as they pursued re-employability. I

suggested that managers would incorporate a sense of purpose into the construct. To

determine if that suggestion had any merit, participants’ narratives were assessed for

their views on what constituted re-employability and the criteria they used to consider

themselves re-employed.

Finally, the study evaluated the participants’ career narratives to determine

what characteristics if any, they exhibited that reflected career resilience. To better

determine what constituted resilience, a review of the writings of popular authorities,

leadership experts, clinical psychologists and academics yielded a list of frequently

mentioned characteristics. The data analysis focused on determining if any or all of the

characteristics were demonstrated by the mid-career managers as they sought re-

employment. Some of the characteristics identified by experts were adaptability and

15 hardiness (Salvatore R. Maddi, 2005; Pulley & Wakefield, 2001; Siebert, 1996). Other characteristics on the list were the willingness to learn, the ability to look for new opportunities and to approach future employment creatively, and innovatively.

Developing new employment opportunities by combining existing expertise to create a new career narrative was another characteristic that Weick and Coutu described as bricolage. It is the process of creating something new out of bits and pieces of old behaviors, old expertise (Coutu, 2002; K. E. Weick, 1993). As conditions changed, resilient mid-career managers might act like bricoleurs, taking stock of their situation, evaluating the market, appraising their potential and then re-inventing themselves to capitalize on emerging opportunities.

In addition to bricolage, Coutu spoke of resilience based in meaning and purpose, and Weick indicated that collaboration opened the door to additional opportunities. Being open to employment alternatives offered the potential to expand a mid-career manager’s range of re-employment choices contributing to managers’ career management resilience. Identifying what characteristics, if any, were apparent after analyzing the managers’ narratives would define a catalog of characteristics that could be used to define future quantitative studies that researchers could investigate to learn more about resilient career management.

Research Methodology

The research methodology proposed is a narrative inquiry into the experiences

of mid-career managers who were unemployed long-term (six months or more) as a

result of the 2001 recession. To develop an understanding of the managers’ experiences

during their extended unemployment, the study engaged a limited population of

16 managers who had experienced the phenomenon of long-term unemployment as they sought to become re-employed. Future research focusing on the experiences of a larger population may call for a different approach, but it is my belief that the best means of learning about individual experience is to enter into the participant’s frame of reference and to seek to understand the subject from the inside out versus the outside in.

To address the needs of the immediate study and to acknowledge the potential for future study, two modes of cognitive reasoning were utilized. Bruner labeled the two forms of reasoning narrative and paradigmatic. Each mode of thought was described as complementary but irreducible to the other. Both offered “distinctive ways of ordering experience, of constructing reality” (Bruner, 1986, p. 11). The study engaged both forms of reasoning to analyze the managers’ narratives. Using the two forms provided a broader perspective on the managers’ experiences. The details were expected to have an immediate, exemplary impact while any data indicative of trends had the potential to contribute content for future quantitative research.

The overarching research question driving the study focused on how individual, long-term unemployed, mid-career managers managed their careers in pursuit of re- employment. The focus was on the narratives of several managers’ experiences following the 2001 recession, as a first step to understanding the impact of long-term unemployment on the career management behaviors of individuals. Each manager was asked to construct a narrative of his or her efforts to become re-employed during unemployment. By sequencing the events associated with their pursuit of re- employment, the narrators causally linked experiences and outcomes (Larsen, 1999).

Therefore, the managers’ narratives offered a means of comprehending both their experience and the reasoning behind their narrative.

In addition to learning how managers perceived their long-term unemployment and re-employability through narrative, the research process included an assessment of their stories to identify commonalities. As part of the research protocol, the narrative inquiry incorporated trend analysis in order “to transcend the particular by higher and higher reaching for abstraction” (Bruner, 1986, p. 13)

Six individuals were selected from a population of nine potential participants.

They were selected using a form of purposive sampling known as operational construct or theory based sampling (Patton, 2002). Of the six participants, three were self- selected. They volunteered in response to a recruiting email distributed to a local re- employment networking group. The other three were invited to participate. However, in line with the objective of engaging in a narrative inquiry into the experiences of long- term unemployed managers, all six were screened to ensure that they satisfied specific criteria. The criteria addressed age, position, experience, organizational size and timeframe parameters. Specific ranges were identified to ensure that participants manifested the construct under study. Of the nine candidates who expressed interest in participating in the study, only six met the criteria and were interviewed. An expanded discussion of the participant selection process is included in Chapter 3 Methodology; the questionnaire used to screen candidates can be found in Appendix A.

The study was designed as a two step process. The first step called for three face-to-face interviews of each participant combined with a short follow up survey conducted via email. With six participants, the total number of interviews conducted

18 and analyzed during the study came to eighteen. I used in-depth interviewing to gather the data. During the interviews, participants were invited to tell the story of their employment, unemployment and the outcomes of their efforts to become re-employed.

As the managers selected and sequenced the elements and events associated with their experiences, they created the narratives that comprised the raw data of the study.

The transcripts of the interviews provided the content for the second part of the research process, the narrative analysis. Identifying and evaluating the elements within the content and structure of the stories constituted the analytical part of the process. The participants’ stories embedded within the interviews were identified and analyzed. The outcomes were then compared to the career models, elements of the re-employability construct and the characteristics of resilient career management to identify commonalities or discrepancies, if any. The results of the research furthered understanding of the career management behaviors of long-term unemployed mid- career managers specifically in regard to alternatives to the bureaucratic career model re-employability and resilient career management behaviors.

The preceding overview of the interviewing and text analysis process is an outline of the study protocol. It also offers additional insights into methodological issues such as participant recruitment and selection and gathering and analyzing data.

Further detailed discussion of the research protocol can be found in Chapter 3,

Methodology. In the following sections are definitions of key terms used in the study

followed by a discussion of the study’s limitations.

Definitions

Career “[T]he evolving sequence of a person’s work experiences over time, usually

with reference to a particular social setting and outcome” (Lawrence, 1998, p.44).

Career Resilience The extent to which individuals keep up their spirits when things do

not work out as they would have liked, including resistance to career barriers or

disruptions affecting work. The ability to respond to obstacles and undesired events by

reframing ideas and repositioning energies in order to move ahead (London & Stumpf,

1986).

Large Organizations Businesses with 500 or more employees are considered large

(SBA, 2008).

Long-Term Unemployment Unemployment lasting 27 weeks or longer (Ilg, 1994).

Mid-Career Managers “The period during one's work in an occupational (career) role

after one feels established and has achieved perceived mastery and prior to the

commencement of the disengagement process” (1986, p. 127); alternatively, managers

over 45 years old who are not yet contemplating retirement (2003). For the purposes of

this study mid-career managers were defined as managers between the ages of 40 – 55

who have held the position of manager, senior manager, director or vice-president for a

minimum of five years with no imminent plans to disengage from the workplace.

Narrative “Discourses with a clear sequential order that connect events in a meaningful way for a definite audience, and thus offer insights about the world and/or peoples experiences of it” (Hinchman & Hinchman, 1997, p. xvi)

Narrative Analysis The investigation of story for the purpose of understanding how the author orders the flow to make sense of events and actions by examining how the story

20 is constructed, as well as what language is used and cultural influences incorporated to engage and persuade the listener (Riessman, 1993).

Re-employability A psycho-social construct comprised of four dimensions--career

identity, personal adaptability and social and human capital (Fugate et al., 2003) as well

as purpose.

Limitations

Narrative inquiry into the career management behaviors of mid-career managers

who experienced long-term unemployment while they pursued re-employment focused

on a particular population. For some the study may be considered limited in terms of its

scale or outcomes. In terms of scale the population was small. The findings were

specific to the experiences of a few. However, constraining the sample size allowed me

to focus on a specific community and minimize the impact of variables related to age,

organizational membership or lifestyle variables. It was not my objective to develop a

grand narrative from the findings but to provide insight into how the career

management behaviors of particular individuals were affected as they responded to a

specific phenomenon. The scale was necessarily limited in order to gather the in-depth

individual narratives required to produce outcomes that added to the body of

knowledge.

The retrospective approach might also be considered a limitation in that the

study did not provide access to participants’ perceptions at the time they experienced

the phenomenon as a longitudinal study might have provided. Instead the narrative

emphasis required recollection in order for the participants to construct the meaning of

their experience. The mid-career managers’ stories were reflective constructs. In

21 developing their career stories it was expected that they would create links between states of employment. The recollections of their career preceding their experience of long-term unemployment, during unemployment and following their return to employment provided a temporally integrated view of their perceptions of their career.

I did not expect to capture temporal or environmental “truths” about the managers’ experiences. That was not the objective of the narrative inquiry. By inviting the participants to share stories about their experiences of long-term unemployment I expected to hear interpretations of the narrators’ career experiences relative to the phenomenon. Those interpretations tempered by time and informed by outcomes determined by behaviors offered valuable insights into the meaning of career that were relevant to the study.

With that objective in mind, I believe the methodology was particularly well suited to both the scale of the study and the anticipated outcomes. Riessman stated this clearly as she ended her brief text on narrative analysis. She wrote “Narrative analysis allows for systematic study of personal experience and meaning” (1993, p. 70). Instead of facts, the participants shared the meaning of career as they have come to define it in terms of their unemployment experience. Whatever their employment status, the managers told career stories as first lived, and over time as re-lived and re-told.

Clandinin and Connelly propose that the construction of experiential narratives is a reflexive process. “There is a reflexive relationship between living a life story, telling a life story, retelling a life story, and reliving a life story” (2000, p. 71). Therefore the stories that the managers provided were infused with the light of hindsight. It is true that this limits our understanding of the managers’ sentiments as they first experienced

22 unemployment over an extended period. However it has been pointed out that in fact career is a story. “If work histories are lifetime journeys, then careers are the tales that are told about them” (Nicholson & West, 1988, p. 181). The methodology, narrative analysis, capitalized on the interpretive nature of career.

Because this study was an exploration rather than a definitive survey, the outcomes were expected to provide useful insights immediately applicable to a looming problem as well as contributing to future study. Developing an understanding of the relationship of alternative career models and career resilience to the managers’ career management behaviors added to the body of career management knowledge. As we experience our first recession since 2001, the information comes at a time that may prove particularly useful to managers and to career theorists.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to learn about the career management behaviors of mid-career managers who experienced long-term (six months or more) unemployment in the wake of the 2001 recession. Of particular interest was which career management models, if any, these long-term unemployed mid-career managers used during their pursuit of re-employment. Also of interest were any career resilient characteristics that the individuals participating in the study may have manifested. I engaged in narrative inquiry to gather and analyze the participants’ stories about their career management experiences as they pursued re-employment. As preparation for the inquiry, I conducted a literature review of managerial career management theory, concepts of employability, and career resilience.

In this chapter I present a discussion of past and current writings about various career management models and behaviors associated with those models. Literature on the nature of employability is reviewed, as is literature on characteristics linked to career related resilience. The following pages present a theoretical foundation to support the inquiry into the participating mid-career managers’ career management experiences as they pursued re-employment.

Beginning in 2003 I reviewed the literature from a variety of resources including the collections at the Gelman Library System at The George Washington

University in Washington, DC, the Elihu Burritt Library at Central Connecticut State

University in New Britain, Connecticut and my own personal collection. In addition to

24 physical texts, I accessed multiple electronic databases for additional articles. ABI-

Inform, Dissertations Abstracts International (DAI), Emerald Library, ERIC

(education), JSTOR, Lexis-Nexis, PsycInfo, Proquest Library Plus, and Web of Science were the primary databases. Additional resources including popular articles, reports of current events and subject matter experts were identified through general inquiries to the World Wide Web and even Wikipedia.

Search terms included, but were not restricted to “mid-career managers”,

“unemployment”, “long-term unemployed”, “career theory”, “bureaucratic career”,

“Boundaryless career”, “kaleidoscope career,” “portfolio career,” “protean career”,

“resilience,” “employability,” “qualitative research,” “constructionism,” “social constructionism,” “ narrative,” “narrative inquiry” and “narrative analysis.” In the course of the review, frequently cited authors became additional reference sources.

Searches for seminal publications of career and research methods scholars yielded works by Arthur, Baruch, Collin, Fayol, Feldman, Hall, Handy, Josselson, Kanter,

Leiblich, Nicholson, Price, Reissman, Rousseau, Rubin, Sullivan, Weber and Weick to name just a few. In addition I also mined the bibliographies of the various texts to expand the breadth of the research.

During the past eight years, I cast a broad net across organizational, sociological, psychological, economic and research disciplines. Citation dates range from the 1970s to the present. As a result of this catholic process, I have developed an appreciation of the evolution of managerial career management. Understanding the genesis of various managerial career models and their attendant career management behaviors is essential to cataloging the mid-career managers’ reactions to the effects of

25 long-term unemployment. From this review I believe it likely that some of the participant responses would describe behaviors associated with the different models as well as align with characteristics reflective of career resilience.

The remainder of this chapter is organized into several sub-sections. The first section focuses on the various managerial career models and associated behaviors. It is followed by a brief discussion of the definition of employability. The review concludes with an examination of recent resiliency research. Inferences drawn from the relevant literature are then discussed in terms of their contribution to framing the research content. The literature review concludes with a discussion of the conceptual framework of the study.

Managerial Career Models

With the focus of this study on the career management behaviors of mid-career managers who experienced long-term unemployment, it is important to understand the career models available to these managers. What models, if any, did they use to manage their careers as they pursued employment? Theorists have proposed a variety of models which foster different behaviors.

Sequencing the review of career models chronologically, the discussion proceeds from the bureaucratic model to Weick’s Eccentric Predicate and Nicholson and West’s Career as Myth. The next alternative to the bureaucratic model discussed is

Hall’s protean career model. Introduced at about the same time as Weick’s and

Nicholson and West’s model, its evolution spans three decades. A brief discussion of

Handy’s model, the portfolio career, precedes a review of the Boundaryless career.

Finally, three models introduced in the 21 st century, Collin’s post modern epic, the

Chaos Theory of Career and Mainiero and Sullivan’s Kaleidoscope Career model, complete the list of alternatives considered in this study.

In a recent article, Inkson, writing about the Protean and Boundaryless career models examined in this review, observed that both were “models of particular types of careers rather than full-blown theories of career. . . . [and] are not easily testable propositions.” (2006, p. 58). His observations apply not only to the protean and

Boundaryless career models but to all of the career models in this review. Therefore much of the available literature included in the discussion is conceptual. However, where empirical research data were provided, they are incorporated into the model discussions.

Bureaucratic Career

The Bureaucratic career model is drawn from the classical organizational theories of Henri Fayol and Max Weber. The concept of personnel tenure and hierarchy as the principal structure for organizations was initially proposed by Henri Fayol in his text General and Industrial Management translated to English in 1949 (Hatch, 1997).

Fayol’s 14 theories of organizational design also included span-of-control,

departmentation, and unity-of-command as well as a breakdown of management

responsibilities. Drawn from his experiences in the mining industry in France from the

1880s to 1919, Fayol’s theories of administration were adopted by U.S. organizations

as guiding principles. However, as organizational structures have evolved and the pace

of change has accelerated, fewer organizations are practicing Fayol’s 19 th Century theories of organizational administration. His principles of personnel tenure, unity-of- command and span of control and advancing within a hierarchy which defined the

27 career management behaviors of the organization and individual managers during much of the 20 th Century are being replaced or at least modified, as organizations move

toward temporary employment contracts, matrix management and team work.

Weber (2004) described the social position of officials in his discussion of

bureaucracy, delineating the advancement process and the role of educational patents as

indicators of status. In his observations about the relationship of rank, salary and

advancement, he outlined a hierarchical career progression in which an official could

expect “to move from the lower, less important and less well paid, to the higher

positions” (2004, p. 102). It is the theories of these two classical theorists (Fayol and

Weber) that have largely defined the parameters of the bureaucratic model of career

advancement for 20th century managers in large private and public organizations.

In the bureaucratic model, it was the organization that took responsibility for

managing employees’ careers. Once an employee was hired he or she became a

candidate for development. Organizations groomed talent internally. Adhering to

Fayol’s principles of tenure and hierarchy, organizations established long-term

relationships with individuals. And as described by Weber, individuals advanced up the

hierarchy based on skill, ability and commitment (Batt, 1996). According to the

bureaucratic career narrative, managers’ career management behaviors focused on

loyalty, commitment and building skill specific to organizational needs. The managers’

reward for putting their careers in the hands of the organization included ongoing

training and development, additional responsibilities, more authority and higher

compensation.

Continued advancement up the corporate ladder was the signal of a successful career in the organization (Brousseau et al., 1996). However the managers’ successful progress was not necessarily a result of their own career plans, nor was it based on skills they chose to develop. Their progress was at the behest of their employer and their success was measured by company standards. Large offices with windows and fine furnishings were indicators of success, as were reserved parking and access to the executive dining room; these highly visible external perks indicated progress up the proverbial ladder.

As mentioned earlier, the foundation for the bureaucratic career rests firmly on turn of the century industrial principles as the standard for organizational career management. Kanter (1989) made this point in her discussion of the bureaucratic career

form. She pointed out that this career model is:

Defined by the logic of advancement . . . all of the elements of career opportunity—responsibilities, challenges, influence, formal training and development, compensation—are closely tied to rank in an organization. Indeed, this . . . is the quintessential organizational career for which employment by an organization is a necessity for the administrative/ bureaucratic job to have any meaning at all. . . . In industrialized nations, a large proportion of the ‘employed’ are subject to the bureaucratic career logic (1989, p. 509).

Kanter made the suggestion that the model which dominated during the rise of the large industrial corporation might have diminishing value within large organizations as result of downsizing and flattening the hierarchy. She also projected the professionalization of managerial work and proposed that professional and entrepreneurial career forms were better suited to uncertain and turbulent times.

Kanter’s projections, published in 1989, continue to unfold, but the rate of the bureaucratic career model’s decline has been slow. Ten years after Kanter’s article, a survey of 470 managers in six large Australian firms revealed that managers continued to maintain long term relationships with a single employer. More than 44% of the study participants reported tenure with their employers greater than 10 years. The researchers concluded from their analysis that “long organizational careers remain the preference of most managers” (Wajcman & Martin, 2001, p. 576). In another empirical study of university graduates with no more than two years of work experience with a London retailer, some of the employees suggested that the company take a larger role in defining their career as management trainees. The implication is that even individuals who are relatively new to the management employee-employer dynamic are interested in having the organization define the direction of their careers (Coupland, 2004).

Although the bureaucratic career may no longer be dominant, it appears that it continues to be relevant. Fifteen years after Kanter’s projections, researchers determined that managers were interested in maintaining long term relationships with employers that included career management direction.

Career as Eccentric Predicate and Career as Myth

Eccentric Predicate. Weick defined careers as “fortuitous, accidental, articulated post factum, discontinuous and consequential” (1976, p. 6). He discussed various characteristics of careers, drawing from personal experience to support his comments. Based on his experiential review he concluded that careers are haphazard, and less the result of planning than had previously been assumed. To accommodate career management in such an arbitrary climate Weick recommended the practice of

30 five behaviors including ongoing learning, reflection, readiness to design one’s career on the go, playfulness, and the willingness to entertain possibilities thereby avoiding self-imposed boundaries.

The proposal that managers’ career trajectories are more often accidental than planned was supported in findings by Nicholson and West’s (1988) research on managerial transition. Surveying over 1100 managers on various aspects of career, the researchers inquired about career paths. Close to 50% of respondents indicated that they either agreed or strongly agreed with that statement: “There has been no pattern or plan to my career. I have simply picked up opportunities as they occurred” (1988, p.

76). The authors concluded from the research that “careers become fictitious if they are taken to connote personal ‘strategic plan’ or consistent thematic developments” (p. 92).

Both Nicholson and West also concluded that managers could best prepare to manage their careers by keeping an open mind, being “skeptical and prepared but flexible in the face of change” (p. 94). Their observations were based on findings that research participants had limited ability to accurately predict future transitions in their career trajectories. The best preparation was maintaining a position of readiness.

Career as Myth. Based on their studies of managers in transition, Nicholson and

West posited that the notion of career, described as smooth, continuous, planned

development was a stereotype. They saw a mythology of careers fostered by “the

unfounded assumptions of educationalists, the wishful thinking of managers and the

idealized imagery of recruiters and personnel specialists whose professional roles

tended to reify the traditional notion of career” (1988, p. 93). The authors challenged

these constituencies to conceptualize career “with more circumspect realism” (p. 94).

A study of organizational strategies for fast-track career management conducted in the mid 90’s by Viney, Adamson and Doherty (1996) indicated that some organizations were making headway in addressing Nicholson and West’s challenge.

However, although the 20 organizations studied were no longer promising long-term employment or guaranteed advancement, there were certain incongruities between philosophy and practice that belied their statements. In some organizations, fast track management recruits were regarded as feedstock for future management positions.

Because policies in place for filling those positions were still based on age related advancement practices, the implications were that long term relationships were necessary to qualify for advancement. A third of the companies had migrated from offering guaranteed employment, to giving employees the opportunity to develop competitive, transferable skills to enhance employability and improve marketability.

Despite their concern with the mythical nature of the stereotypical management career story, Nicholson and West did concede that developing stories about work histories can be useful. Careers “viewed as fictions about the past [can] help us feel good about the future. They are talismans, offering protection against the proximity of gaping uncertainties” (p. 94). Careers as described retrospectively in stories get better with the telling. “Logic, consistency and meaning are reassuringly accessible when one analyses the past” (Nicholson & West, p. 94). Apparently, Nicholson and West saw value in managers engaging in career reflection that accurately represented their work experiences. Reflection about actual experience that results in a personalized career narrative would be a more serviceable career management tool for managers than would an idealized model that no longer reflected the reality of workplace experience.

Protean Career

In 1976, Hall introduced the protean career as an emerging career ethic.

According to Hall the protean career was a process managed by the person, not the employer.

“It consists of all of the person’s varied experiences in education, training, work in several organizations, changes in occupational field, etc. The protean career is not what happens to the person in any one organization. The protean person’s own personal career choices and search for self-fulfillment are the unifying or integrative elements in his or her life. The criterion of success is internal (psychological success), not external (1976, p. 201).

Hall identified four dimensions of career effectiveness and compared the

traditional or bureaucratic career to the protean career. He created a table to represent

the relationship of both models to the issues facing individual managers as they

attempted to develop effective career management strategies (see Table1).

Table 1 Differences between the Traditional Career and Protean Career (Hall, 1976)

Issue Protean Career Traditional Career Who’s in Charge Manager Organization Core Values Freedom; Growth Advancement; Power

Degree of Mobility High Lower Important Performance Psychological success Position level; Salary Dimensions Important Attitude Work satisfaction; Work satisfaction; Dimensions Professional commitment Organizational Commitment Am I respected in this Do I respect myself? (self- organization? (esteem from Important Identity esteem) others) Dimensions What do I want to do? (self- What should I do? awareness) (organizational awareness) Work-related flexibility Organization-related flexibility Important adaptability Current competence (Measure: Organizational dimensions (Measure: marketability) survival)

The table highlights the differences in career management responsibility and with it the attendant differences in assessment criteria.

In the traditional career, once the person commits himself to a career ladder in an organization, he can take a more passive role in managing his career; thus, as long as one concentrates on the performance dimension and is satisfied with one’s rewards, there is little need to think about one’s career attitude, identity, or adaptability until the career ladder begins to wobble. . . What this demonstrates is that along with the greater personal freedom found in the protean career also goes greater responsibility for one’s choices and opportunities. This can entail greater feelings of insecurity and fear of failure than would be found in the traditional career, for the protean person knows that he cannot depend too heavily upon the employing organization for direction and security (Hall, 1976, p. 203).

At that time Hall’s proposal was driven by employee interest in career identity and adaptability. His recommendations were focused on increasing personal and organizational flexibility in the career management process. His efforts to develop an organizational career management model counter to traditional bureaucratic career management practices placed Hall in the vanguard of organizational career management theorists (Arthur et al., 1989; Hall & Associates, 1986).

Within ten years of its publication, Hall’s model for the protean career had gained acceptance with the theoretical community. Individual autonomy in career management remained as a pivotal element. In fact, organizations recognized the value of shifting career management responsibilities to employees. The recessions of 1979 and 1982 compelled organizations to re-think employment policies and practices. The bureaucratic career management model which had incorporated rule-based advancement practices in a hierarchical structure that required tenured employment

(Gowler & Legge, 1989) was not well suited to the accelerating demands of the

34 marketplace. Following the 1979 and 1982 recessions, companies faced new operational and organizational challenges. As London and Stumpf observed, “Some organizations will experience pressure to decrease their size due to increased competition. Most organizations will need to be adaptable and employ a flexible work force” (1986, p. 21).

As a result, “top managements have realized that the organization alone cannot possibly provide all of the career rewards an employee may seek. Thus it is necessary to encourage employees to be proactive in assessing what they want most (values, needs, interests) and in planning ways to achieve those desires. Even very traditional, paternalistic organizations . . . have advocated more employee participation in career planning” (Hall & Associates, 1986, p. 9).

What it boils down to is “more mutual career planning between the employee and the organization. Once a manager has developed a career plan, the employee needs assistance from the company in implementing that plan” (Hall, 1986, p. 11). In 1976, the initial thrust of the protean career model was to build recognition of and permission for managers’ right to take over their own career management. Ten years later, Hall refined the concept to accommodate the mutual career planning interests of the individual and the organization. The protean career model evolved, integrating individual and organizational roles to promote career management.

In 1996, Hall pronounced the organizational career dead. He also observed that the protean career model was very much alive (1996b). The description of the protean career that he had developed twenty years earlier had included essentially the same elements as the current version; however, the emphasis was now very different. In 1976

Hall wrote, “The protean career is shaped more by the individual than by the organization and may be redirected from time to time to meet the needs of the person”

(p. 201). The 1996 version read, “The career of the 21 st century will be protean, a career

that is driven by the person, not the organization, and that will be reinvented by the

person, from time to time as the person and the environment change” (Hall, 1996, p.8).

Clearly the individual is in the driver’s seat, re-inventing his or her career as necessary

to achieve psychological success.

The hallmarks of the protean career also evolved to reflect changing

circumstances in the work place, although psychological success remained the ultimate

career goal. Psychological success reflects “pride and personal accomplishment . . .

from achieving one’s most important goals in life . . . [such as] achievement, family

happiness, inner peace. [As opposed to] vertical success . . . climbing the corporate

pyramid and making a lot of money” (Hall, 1996a, p. 8).“The new career contract is not

a pact with the organization: it is an agreement with one’s self and one’s work. The

path to the top has been replaced by the path with a heart” (p. 10).

Additional characteristics of the protean career included continuous learning

and a shift in the sources of development. Career maturity was not measured by

chronological age and life stage, but by continuous learning and identity changes made

up of short learning stages resulting in career age. Job assignments that provided

opportunities to meet challenges, build relationships and learn from others were

projected as the learning environment. According to Hall, “Formal training and

retraining will be less relevant to the continuous learning process” (1996a, p. 9).

Success will be determined by labor market demand. The basis of evaluation will shift

36 from those who know-how to those with skills to learn-how, a critical skill, as processes and technologies are in a constant state of flux. Job security will continue to fade in importance, to be replaced by the goal of employability.

The protean career presents its own demands. “Pursuing the protean career requires a high level of self-awareness and personal responsibility. Many people cherish the autonomy of the protean career, but many others find this freedom terrifying, experiencing it as a lack of external support” (Hall, 1996a, p. 10). To realize the potential of the 21 st century protean career, the individual must develop meta- competencies, the ability to learn the skills related to learning how to the manage self and career. “[T]he person must learn how to learn to develop self knowledge and adaptability” (p. 11). Finally, the trajectory of the protean career is not represented by a straight incline with a positive slope. The protean career path is represented as a

“flexible, idiosyncratic career course, with peaks and valleys, left turns, [as managers] move from one line of work to another” (Hall & Mirvis, 1996, p.21).

As mentioned earlier, the protean career path is described as flexible. Career trajectories might be vertical, horizontal and in some cases downward. As managers pursue opportunities to build new skills or enter into new industries, the protean career trajectory allows for individuals to move within the organization not only up and across but downward, as well. A senior manager might find it necessary to take a more junior or lower ranking position to learn about some aspect of the business. According to Hall and Mirvis (1996), pursuing such a career path not only creates a unique career

“fingerprint’ for the manager, but is likely to energize the manager’s career experience.

In addition, ongoing exposure to continuous learning is expected to enhance employability.

Two studies that focused on downward mobility indicate that a downward transition can have a negative effect on career management behaviors. Neither study was designed to specifically evaluate the characteristics associated with the self- directed protean career model. However, the findings do hold implications that downward sloping career paths might not be energizing.

West, Nicholson and Rees (1990) conducted a series of two surveys with British managers and professionals. The first survey gathered biographical, educational, occupational, organizational and job characteristics, work preferences, self-concepts and role innovations. The second survey, conducted 15 months later, was distributed to a subset of the initial study population. The researchers gathered repeat data plus additional information on work attitudes. Multivariate Analysis of Variance or

MANOVA revealed a relationship between decrements to individuals’ psychological adjustment and jobs that entailed downward status moves. The researchers found that unemployment, even immobility, did not have as significant a negative impact as did moves perceived to be downward. The findings led the researchers to recommend caution when considering downwardly mobile assignments for individuals as a means of addressing problems of staff stagnation. “Unless downward moves have genuine redeeming features, and are desired or chosen by the individuals to whom they apply, the strategy seems unlikely to yield its hoped-for benefits” (West, Nicholson, & Rees,

1990, p. 133).

Sargent (2003) also researched the effects of a downward mobility; however the focus of her study was on downward status changes. She surveyed aged-care nurses who had experienced intra-organizational job changes. The survey was designed to assess various measures including job-identity threat and job and status changes. The results of the hierarchical regression analysis suggest:

Status stripping that is involuntary has deleterious effects. Importantly these effects are independent of the task enlargement changes to their job roles . . . The suggestion that this type of transition may be effective human resource development strategy is called into question, especially when it is not voluntary. (p. 119)

Another empirical study initiated by Chay and Aryee (1999) focused on the implications of careerism on work attitudes and turnover. They reasoned that since the protean career model emphasized self-directed career management, it would be more conducive to supporting a transactional psychological employment contract. The researchers evaluated 249 surveys of full-time, professional employees in Singapore to assess the impact of careerism on job involvement and organizational commitment and turnover. They hypothesized that a careerist orientation would relate negatively to job involvement and organizational commitment but positively to turnover. They also hypothesized that career growth opportunities would moderate the relationship between careerism and organizational commitment. This hypothesis was based on their understanding that employability is an important outcome of the protean model of career management. The hypothesis regarding the relationship between job involvement and turnover was confirmed. However, the moderating influence of development opportunities did not have an effect on turnover plans.

The authors concluded that careerist orientation is generalizable across cultures. They extended the research on careerism by examining the moderating influence of career growth opportunities on careerist behaviors and they inferred from the findings that a relational versus a transactional psychological contract would better serve organizations dependent on employees as a competitive resource (Chay & Aryee,

1999). Their results however, did not explicitly address the initial proposition relating the protean career model to the transactional psychological contract and careerism.

Therefore no conclusions regarding the relationship between the protean career and careerism can be determined based on Chay and Aryee’s documented outcomes.

Burke (1998) assessed MBA graduates’ perceptions of the old and new career contracts to assess the impact of both on their career management behaviors. He analyzed two hundred and seventeen respondents’ surveys to understand the nature of their support of the old and new career contracts and their perception organizational realities. Twenty items were developed for the study by drawing from the writings of

David M. Noer, author of Healing the Wounds (1993) and of Douglas T. Hall, who developed the model of the Protean Career. Burke’s objectives were to develop measures for old career beliefs, new career realities and to explore correlates of respondents’ endorsements of the new and old approaches to career management. Work outcomes, job involvement, career prospects, job satisfaction and intention to quit were incorporated into the evaluation.

Results of Burke’s study indicated that participants have neither jettisoned the old career rules, nor have they wholeheartedly adopted the new ones. However, respondents who indicated that they believed strongly in various combinations of the

40 new rules, depending on the combinations, had correlations indicating that they were either more satisfied with their careers, more involved in their jobs or were more optimistic about the future career prospects. It is interesting to note that those who believed most strongly in the new rules were the ones who appeared to be the most satisfied. Burke surmised that these graduates were more in touch with the current realities of organizational employment and that “individuals holding the new career values (i.e., Boundaryless, Protean) may be utilizing their organizational setting for their own learning and development, which coincidently yields greater satisfaction, success and commitment at work” (1998, p. 45).

Another study examined Australian public sector senior managers’ career management behaviors to determine if they had displaced traditional career paths with protean career trajectories. The mixed-method study entailed in-depth interviews with

15 senior managers (eight men and seven women) and surveys distributed to 81 (47 men and 34 women) managers throughout the organization. Four questions designed to elicit information regarding the managers’ career paths comprised the semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed according to prescribed categories associated with protean and traditional careers as well as by themes identified within the respondent transcripts. The questionnaires were analyzed using SPSS to evaluate T –

tests and correlations. In addition they examined the descriptive statistics. The

researchers were able through the mixed-methodology to address their Research

Question 1, to identify how managers reflected on the career experiences, and then to

relate those experiences to traditional or protean career paths. The researchers were also

able to determine to what extent gender differences intersected aspects of traditional

41 and protean career paths proposed in Research Question 2. Findings revealed that the traditional (bureaucratic) career was alive and well, although some aspects of the protean career such as self-directed career decisions, and ongoing development through project participation in projects were part of the developmental strategies of the respondents (McDonald, Brown, & Bradley, 2004).

As approaches to career management have evolved, the protean career has moved from being an ideal of career management behavior to being a plausible, executable process. As such, researchers are positioned to assess characteristics of protean career management behavior. The result has been an increase in empirical research associated with the protean career model. Sargent and Domberger conducted a study of final semester undergraduates to examine their development of a protean career orientation (Sargent & Domberger, 2007). The researchers interviewed 19 participants, 14 men and five women ranging in age from 21 to 30. All had prior work experience and all were actively pursuing full time employment. All nineteen respondents were interviewed initially. Follow-up interviews were conducted two years later with the four respondents who demonstrated protean career orientations.

Interview transcripts were analyzed according to two protean career characteristics, self career management and personal values congruence. Personal values congruence was broken down further to reflect two aspects of personal values, work-life balance and contribution to society. The researchers developed a coding schema based on Miles’ and Huberman’s frequency approach and validated by a subject matter expert. In addition to transcript analyses, interviews were subjected to a third analysis that enabled the researchers to identify those respondents who manifested

42 both career self-directedness and pursuit of personal versus extrinsic values. Follow-up interviews enabled the researchers to identify consistent or distinctive career themes.

Three themes emerged: 1) Employment in the public sector enabled study participants to make a social contribution; 2) All had exercised agency and self-direction in their careers; and 3) The concept of work with meaning and maintaining work-life balance retained importance in their lives.

In addition to confirming the impact of work experience and role models as contributors to decision-making, the study also made a significant theoretical contribution by exploring the nature of pursued values. The research not only extended the conceptual construct of the protean career, it contributed to the operationalization of the protean career model. This is particularly important if the model is to become viable as a career management strategy. These findings will be very helpful as the model moves from concept to implementation.

At the advent of the 21 st century Hall reflected on the protean career model’s evolution within the context of changing career management practices (Hall, 2004).

Initially in 1976, the model proposed that individuals wrest control of their career management from organizations to facilitate psychological success (Hall, 1976). Ten years later, the model had evolved, promoting a collaborative approach to career management, a joint venture between the individual and the organization (Hall &

Associates, 1986). By 1996, Hall’s description of the model clearly designated the individual as sole master and manager of his or her career (Hall & Mirvis, 1996).

Finally, a quarter of a century after introducing the protean career model, Hall concluded that organizations could contribute little if anything to help people make

43 protean career changes. At best organizations could offer various leverage points through job assignments, training and education, access to opportunities and developmental relationships.

In fact Hall proposed that “protean” was not a trait, but a state of mind that individuals can learn. He wrote, “My hunch people are capable of becoming more protean as a result of learning from career and life events” (2004, p. 8). However, self- confidence is an important contributor to the protean orientation. In addition, the meta- competencies adaptability and self-awareness are so essential to a protean orientation that Briscoe and Hall have developed an instrument called the Career Orientation Index to measure the development of both competencies. Hall makes two additional observations based on his recent research (2004) that have real implications for mid- career managers coming to terms with transition: “Established career routines are hard to break. But, hard as it is to make career changes, adaptation seems to be easier than identity change” (p.10).

After 30 years, the protean career model could hardly be considered a new concept. However as Briscoe and Hall observed recently:

While these [Boundaryless and protean career orientations] have been thought of as ubiquitous and inevitable by many academics, they are not obvious to many ‘people on the street.’ When presented these career templates a typical response . . . is one of surprise and curiosity, but not always recognition (2006, p. 7).

Incorporating the protean career model into a portfolio of career management models will make it more accessible to mid-career managers. Integrating the model into their career management behaviors will certainly make it more familiar.

Career as Portfolio

Handy introduced the concept of the portfolio career in the 1980s (1989). He proposed an alternative to employment in large organizations. In Handy’s alternative, individuals would move out of the organization to operate as sub-contractors offering an array of services to different clients. Instead of wages the portfolio worker would charge fees. Traditional corporate loyalties would be replaced. Portfolio workers’ loyalties would instead go first to their team or project, then to their trade or profession, and only then finally to the organization where they practiced their skills. This model reflects Kanter’s preview of the professionalization of the management function back in

1989.

Mallon studied experienced managers’ transition to a portfolio career. Her research was focused on learning more about individual responses to adopting an alternative to the traditional, bureaucratic career model (1998). The portfolio career was one of the alternatives where employment security rested not within the organization, but with individual employability. To learn more about the sense individuals made of the transition out of the organization and the bureaucratic career and into a portfolio career, Mallon asked participants to share their stories of the transition.

The research targeted experienced managers because they had been exposed to the bureaucratic career. The researcher believed that participants’ exposure to hierarchical advancement gave them a basis for comparing the two career paths.

Therefore, the actual sample was convenience-based. Mallon used the snowball approach for participant selection. She conducted interviews following a semi- structured interview guide. The guide evolved throughout the interview process to

45 capitalize on emerging themes. Interviews were taped and transcribed and then analyzed using NUD.IST software.

Of the 22 participants only two had been forced to leave their organizations.

The other 20 had left by their own choice. In some cases, Mallon concluded, the managers were pulled to pursue a career outside the organization; others were pushed by changing workplace conditions. Three of the study participants opted to return to more traditional careers. The remainder did not. All of the managers exhibited a level of agency and self-direction in managing their careers, including those who were forced out. Once forced into the external labor market those two managers chose to pursue and maintain portfolio careers. Those who left organizations of their own accord and then chose to return to traditional organizational employment also exhibited a level of career agency.

Mallon observed that portfolio career managers saw themselves as pioneers leading the way in adopting an alternate career trajectory. Finally, she reflected on how younger, less experienced professionals would fare pursuing portfolio careers if they did not have an opportunity to develop skills in an organizational setting. In fact, losing access to development opportunities provided by employers is an important factor that may contribute to career management behaviors.

Boundaryless Career

The concept of a Boundaryless career was initially introduced in 1994 and focused on individual career based competencies versus organizational tenure

(DeFillippi & Arthur, 1994). In 1996 Arthur and Rousseau laid out a comprehensive

46 view of the Boundaryless career that went beyond know-how, know-why, know-whom competencies first described by DeFillippi and Arthur. The Arthur & Rousseau model integrated time, employee independence, career perspective, and learning, and extended the concept of career across organizational boundaries for all (Arthur & Rousseau,

1996b). The Boundaryless career represented a new employment principle that was the opposite of the organizational career “conceived to unfold in a single employment setting” (p. 5). According to Arthur and Rousseau, the Boundaryless career had a broader definition incorporating all work experience over time. Therefore the definition meant “the unfolding sequence of a person’s work experience over time” (p. 4).

Characteristics of the Boundaryless career appeared to present behaviors that were direct opposites of the traditional organizational career management behaviors. These included:

1. Career moves across boundaries of separate employers

2. Career marketability is drawn from outside present employer

3. Career is sustained by external networks or information

4. Career occurs within traditional organization, but outside traditional

advancement principles

5. Career replaces existing career opportunities with alternatives for personal or

family reasons

6. Career is interpreted by the career actor as having a Boundaryless future

regardless of structural constraints

The essential factor common to all these meanings is “independence from, rather than dependence on, traditional organizational career arrangements” (p. 6). Agency is a behavioral imperative for Boundaryless career management.

In addition to the characteristic meanings associated with the Boundaryless career there are also four themes pertinent to all career study not only outside but within organizations. It is important to acknowledge that the study of career:

1. Affirms a definition of ‘career’ that applies to all workers and all sequences of

work roles

2. Recognizes that time, as a dimension, is a key mediator of employment

relationships.

Time is significant for all who participate in work arrangements. It affects

employment stability, skills and experience gained, relationships nurtured,

and opportunities encountered (p.5).

3. [E]mphasizes the career as a focus for interdisciplinary study; economics,

management and organization studies, political science, psychology and

sociology should all contribute to our understanding of how careers unfold.

4. Involves seeing career from both a subjective and objective perspective. The

subjective view refers generally to the individual’s own interpretation of his or

her career situation; the objective refers to institutional--firm or societal—

interpretations of the same career situation.

In addition to considering characteristics and themes, the Boundaryless career called for a new lexicon with which to discuss its concepts. Within the lexicon new

48 meanings were assigned to terms formerly associated with the traditional careers. For example terms like career, employment, and learning were redefined according to

Arthur and Rousseau.

CAREER Old meaning: a course of professional advancement; . . . restricted to occupational groups with formal hierarchical progression such as managers and professionals. New meaning: the unfolding sequence of any person’s work experiences over time (1996a, p.29-30). EMPLOYMENT Old meaning: the action of employing a person: alternatively a state of being employed, or a person’s regular occupation or business. New meaning: a temporary state, or the current manifestation of long-term employability (p. 31). LEARNING Old meaning: acquisition of knowledge committed to memory, typically by individuals. New meaning: a multilevel phenomenon, which includes creation and acquisition of knowledge, collective processes for shared interpretation, and patterns of adaptation and transformation (p. 32).

The Boundaryless career is a less structured model than Hall’s protean career.

Although Inkson found that it was better known to HR professionals and managers

(2006), in fact it appears to be more of a set of guiding principles than a model. As such, it is pertinent to a range of mid-career managers’ behaviors. Feldman and Ng conservatively described the construct as “somewhat imprecise” (2007). Nonetheless, despite the challenge, there have been several recent efforts to test the sprawling construct. Evaluating who are the winners and losers as a result of changing boundaries, researchers studied the impact of Boundaryless career management on highly-skilled employees and came up with mixed results for mid level employees

(Currie, Tempest, & Starkey, 2006). Cheramie, Sturman and Walsh evaluated executive employment changes and transitions (2007): Sommerlund and Boutaiba (2007)

49 challenged the either/or stance of new versus old career thinking. Findings from their interview study indicated that individuals who engaged in Boundaryless and traditional career management practices worked side-by-side.

There have also been some thoughtful reflections on the organizational contributions to career management and the implications for individuals managing their careers according to characteristics associated with the Boundaryless career model. Van

Buren’s (2003) comments on organizations’ responsibility to society to foster individual employability by providing work environments that build skill and provide experience are particularly intriguing. Individual agency is important, because without organizational structures in place where individuals have more exposure to opportunities to develop expertise, build relationships and gain practical experience, developing employability can be a challenging process.

As defined by Arthur and Rousseau, the Boundaryless career addresses agency, adaptation, workplace competencies, networking, learning, subjective and objective views of career execution. And, interestingly, they foreshadowed the growing applicability of chaos theory to the workplace. When they closed their text on the

Boundaryless career, they made the observation, “And chaos is, in many ways, the handmaiden of Boundaryless careers—a source of vitality and movement, that which makes the unusual usual” (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996c).

Career as Post Modern Epic

In 2000, the beginning of the new millennia, Collin introduced the concept of the post-modern epic as a career exemplar for the 21 st century. The 20 th century version

of career portrayed career as epic, a heroic struggle, with imagery characterized by a

50 ladder. “With strenuous effort and commitment, individuals could follow pathways of upward progression and increasing status, but it was often hard, and they had to struggle to keep going” (p. 170). Collin observed that lay understandings and expectations of career as epic persist. However, juxtaposed against the 20 th century view was a new imagery. The 21 st century view presented career as a patchwork or collage.

Collin wrote of a postmodern career model appropriate for a flexible, networked environ in which “temporary, part-time, concurrent and sequential employment contracts . . . proliferate. Every change in . . . contract will mean starting anew” (2000, p. 171). The struggle at the heart of the postmodern career “will be to reach a new accommodation over and over again. There will be the constant danger of slippage in status and rewards, the ongoing need to achieve new contracts and establish fallback positions (or ‘employability’)” ( p. 171). Collin’s Post-modern epic career model seems rather grim. It conjures up an image of the mid-career manager of today as a modern

Sisyphus continually struggling to roll that career rock upward only to have it roll back down again. Defining career with such an unavailing image is hardly motivating. Even in a rat race, the rats reach the finish line.

The image of career as collage, instead, resonates with other career models proposed in the 20 th century. The idea of career as collage is reflective of Weick’s concept of career as eccentric predicate or Handy’s vision of portfolio careers. A model of career as collage suggests creativity and an appreciation of different elements that that might contribute to an assemblage. Like the thrifty patchwork artist who hordes scraps of fabric to construct a fancy crazy quilt, the model suggests a vision of

51 individuals sorting through experiences, contacts, and interests, and then bringing them together to accomplish the task at hand. The act of assembly using fragments at hand, or bricolage, would become the work of the individuals choosing to manage their careers in the 21 st century. Collin quoted Sennett, who she said saw work-life as “an assemblage . . . of the accidental, the found and the improvised” (2000, p. 171). From that perspective, life history is a collection of fragments with moments of success juxtaposed with moments of failure. The juxtapositions present an opportunity for growth or decline based on how the interactions of work-life and other experiences are perceived. What is apparent with this view of career is the challenge to being planful.

“The emerging context may not be able to sustain the kinds of continuing and coherent identities that had been generated in the more stable conditions of the past. The individual could have a more fragmented self” (pp. 171-172). Adopting Collin’s postmodern epic as a model for career management, mid-career managers as individuals would “have to become responsible for their own development to ensure employability.

. . individuals will have to have recourse to their own narratives to construct continuity and meaning for their lives” (2000, p.174).

Chaos Theory of Career

Arthur and Rousseau wrote that career management can be well served by a climate of chaos (1996c). Deborah Bloch looked to chaos theory as a way to reassure individuals that career management could be a messy process (2005). She wrote:

Many individuals . . . experience their own careers as illogical, having no clear relationships between actions and reactions. However, these individuals believe there is some sequence of work roles that they are expected to follow. They believe that others make career decisions based on logical links of past experience . . . but that is not what most people experience. That is why many

people seem to keep the real stories of their careers secret. They keep to themselves the strange links between events, links they describe as "just luck" or coincidence. In truth, it is the secret career stories that reveal the reality. Career paths are characterized by unexplained trajectories and apparent, but not actual, disconnections (p.198). Bloch proposed that chaos theory when applied to career management reveals the underlying order in what otherwise appears to be random.

Careers can be described as complex, adaptive entities, with all of the characteristics including the following elements: (a) autopoiesis, or self- regeneration; (b) open exchange; (c) participation in networks; (d) fractals; (e) phase transitions between order and chaos; (f) the search for fitness peaks; (g) nonlinear dynamics; (h) sensitive dependence, or the potential for small changes to bring about large effects; (i) attractors that limit growth; (j) the role of strange attractors in emergence; and (k) spirituality (p. 199). Pryor and Bright (2007) have suggested that the Chaos Theory approach to emergence can orient individuals away from prediction to pattern recognition. This fosters career management behavior that can not only recognize the unplanned, but also appreciate it as the flip side of stability. Understanding that the unplanned is not an exception but part of the nature of reality supports behaviors that can accommodate the unexpected. As the dynamics of the career development environment continue to accelerate, the ability to accommodate change is essential.

Kaleidoscope Career

Mainiero and Sullivan developed the Kaleidoscope Career model to address how individuals shift the pattern of their career by emphasizing different parameters

(2006). The authors likened adjusting career management behaviors to accomplish desired outcomes to rotating the tube of a kaleidoscope to create new patterns. After conducting a five year study, Mainiero and Sullivan concluded that three parameters

53 came into play at different career stages. The early stage emphasizes achievement and focuses on responding to the challenges of career development. Balance becomes a priority at mid-career for many, in an attempt to meet not only workplace demands, but the needs of family. In late career, the emphasis shifts again to authenticity, making career decisions that are suited to the individual’s needs.

Initially Mainiero and Sullivan were interested in learning why women opt out of their careers (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005). What they discovered in a national survey of both men and women is that women tended to adopt a relational approach to their careers, while men tended to take what the authors referred to as a linear approach.

However as the individual/organizational relationship evolves in the 21 st century, generational research suggests that the Kaleidoscope Career model may become relevant for the workforce majority (S. E. Sullivan et al., 2009).

Conclusion

Each of the alternatives to the traditional bureaucratic career narrative is distinguished by a particular configuration of characteristics. There are certain characteristics that appear often, weaving in and out of the different career models.

Agency, and with agency a level of planning and a tolerance for ambiguity, are three attributes associated with the alternatives to the bureaucratic model. Overarching all of the different models is the recognition that career management in the 21 st century demands adaptability. Inkson’s observations about the protean and Boundaryless career models can also be extended to the other models. He noted that:

“[t]he broad propositions based on the . . . models are that (1) because of changes in the world of work, particularly in the reduction of career continuity and support that organizations give their members, these types of career are

increasing in frequency and importance, and (2) the career behavior implicit in such careers is functional because it enables people to direct and manage their own careers in an ambiguous environment (2006, p. 58). The purpose of the present study was to understand the career management behaviors of several mid-career managers who experienced long-term unemployment.

It was anticipated that analyzing the narratives about their career experiences would provide insight into the nature of their career management behaviors. Their stories were expected to show evidence of some, if not all, of the characteristics that the theorists have linked to the various alternatives to the bureaucratic career model.

Employability and Re-Employability

For each of the career theorists proposing an alternative to the bureaucratic career management model, employability was the anticipated outcome. However, none of the theorists actually defined employability. To better understand the nature of employability, I looked for definitions of the term. It appears that the meaning of employability varies depending on the population to be employed.

Employability has been defined as those characteristics employers are looking for in individuals new to the workplace such as high school or college graduates

(Cotton, 1993). Employability for that population is defined by characteristics such as punctuality and good hygiene. According to Waterman, Waterman & Collard, employability as defined by individuals in pursuit of employment are those capabilities and credentials that will enhance their marketability in an internal or external labor market. Employees interested in employment are looking for opportunities to develop a competitive edge (1994). However, Fugate, Kinicki and

Ashforth recently suggested that employability is a “psycho-social construct” (2003).

They proposed that the construct addresses three dimensions; career identity, personal adaptability and social and human capital.

According to Fugate, et al., each dimension contributes to an individual’s employability. Career identity emerges as individuals integrate work experience with career accomplishments. Personal adaptability is reflected in individual willingness to adapt to meet the demands of the environment. The ability of an individual to adapt is evidenced by the person’s organizational performance and career success. The components of the third dimension, social and human capital, are reflected in an individual’s knowledge, education, and social goodwill, etc.

A consideration for defining the three dimensions of the construct is the impact of point of view. For example, the criteria for defining personal adaptability could differ dramatically for employer and employee. How an employer defines adaptability – willingness to relocate, availability for frequent travel, may in fact not reflect how an employee defines adaptability – willingness to learn new skills, to change organizations. Since this study focuses on the experiences of employee managers, the dimensions of the construct were defined according to the perspective of the participants, the long-term unemployed managers.

The employability construct proposed by Fugate, et al., implies that it is applicable to anyone seeking employment. However, differences in experience are likely to produce differences in perspective. For example, a new college recruit will have a very different perspective than an experienced manager. Although the dimensions articulated by Fugate, et al. provide a robust framework, they may not

56 fully represent the point of view of a mature employee. The study participants are mid-career managers pursuing re -employment rather than first time employment.

Therefore, in addition to the three dimensions proposed by Fugate, et al., I believed

that the managers would incorporate an additional dimension. As these managers told

the stories of their efforts to become re-employed, I expected to learn about the

criteria the managers used to define what qualified for them as acceptable re-

employment.

The issue of meaningful work affecting career management behavior has

already been mentioned in conjunction with Hall’s protean career (1996a) and alluded

to in Arthur and Rousseau’s description of Boundaryless career characteristics

(1996b). It seemed likely that the managers would describe meaningful work or

purpose as an important parameter that determined the acceptability of potential re-

employment opportunities. Therefore, in addition to career identity, personal

adaptability and social and human capital, I added purpose as a fourth dimension of

the psycho-social construct. Because the construct was being considered in the

context of re-employment I refer to this four dimensional version as re -employability.

Resilience

Long-term unemployment is by its very nature disruptive. This is a premise of the study. In the face of such a disruption, as mid-career managers pursued re- employment they may have manifested career resilient characteristics. As part of the

57 narrative analysis I planned to look for characteristics that qualified as resilient. I believed that if any characteristics did surface, their appearance might be manifestations of behaviors associated with the alternative career models previously discussed. The following discussion of current resilience literature outlines theorists’ views of what constitutes resilience. From these descriptions I developed a catalogue of elements associated with resilience. I then used the catalog as a reference during the analyses of the long-term mid-career managers’ narratives of their career management experiences as they pursued re-employment.

Resilience, as a psychological construct, has been defined as “a family of loosely connected phenomena involving adequate (or better) adaptation in the context of adversity” (Roisman, 2005, p. 264). According to this definition, to exhibit resilience an individual must experience some manifestation of adversity and respond to the experience with an adequate or better response.

In the workplace, resilience has been defined as the “ability to adapt to changing circumstances" (London, 1993, p. 55). Another definition of career resilience is “The ability to manage one’s career in a rapidly changing environment” (Collard,

Epperheimer, & Saign, 1996, p. 10). According to both definitions, career resilience calls for the ability to respond to change – adaptability. However, the second definition adds a qualifier to the rate of change (rapid), and neither definition addresses the issue of adversity or the nature (positive or negative) of the response.

The definition and description of resilient behavior offered by London and

Stumpf in 1986 is closer to Roisman’s definition of resilience as a psychological construct. They wrote:

Career Resilience. This is the extent to which we keep our spirits up when things do not work out as we would have liked. This includes how resistant we are to career barriers or disruptions affecting our work. People who are high in career resilience see themselves as competent individuals . . . able to control their responses to what happens to them. They get a sense of accomplishment from what they do and are able to take risks. They know when and how to cooperate with others and when to act independently. They respond to obstacles and undesired events by reframing their ideas and repositioning their energies to allow them to move ahead. (p. 26). [Italics added for emphasis.]

London and Stumpf’s description incorporates an additional element, the concept of hardiness, into their characterization of a resilient response. Hardiness is of particular interest to Salvatore Maddi, a clinical psychologist who founded the

Hardiness Institute as a result of his Industrial/Organizational (I/O) studies during

AT&T’s deconstruction in 1981 (Clay, 1998). He states that hardiness is comprised of three interrelated attitudes. “Attitudes of commitment (rather than alienation), control

(rather than powerlessness) and challenge (rather than threat)” (Salvatore R. Maddi,

2005, p. 261) constitute the three hardiness attitudes. Maddi’s research and experience led him to conclude that “Hardy attitudes amount to the courage and motivation to face stressors accurately (rather than to deny or catastrophize them). This courage and motivation lead to coping by problem solving rather than by avoiding and to interacting with others by giving and getting assistance and encouragement” (p. 261).

Post 9/11, Diane Coutu explored how resilience works. She wanted to understand why when “[c]onfronted with life’s hardships, some people snap and others

59 snap back” (2002, p. 46). She identified three fundamental characteristics that she felt distinguish the resilient: 1) the capacity to accept and face reality; 2) the ability to find meaning in life; and 3) the ability to improvise. Coutu integrated aspects of Maddi’s view of hardiness, such as the courage to face reality and commitment to incorporate meaning into daily life, along with insights from Victor Frankl on the value of meaning for survival. Finding purpose is one way that “people build bridges from present-day hardships to a fuller, better constructed future” (Coutu, p. 50). The final element to be incorporated into this three part model of resilience is the ability to bring together and make do with what is in hand. Coutu wrote:

Bricolage in the modern sense can be defined as a kind of inventiveness, an ability to improvise a solution to a problem without proper or obvious tools or materials. Bricoleurs are always tinkering . . . They make the most of what they have putting objects to unfamiliar uses. . . When situations unravel, bricoleurs muddle through, imagining possibilities where others are confounded (pp. 54 - 55). Coutu made the point that consistent practice creates a framework that enables improvisation and allows for creative solutions when the world as we understand it has collapsed around us. It is an interesting dichotomy. In her discussion about bricolage and resilience, she referred to Karl Weick’s reflections on the Mann Gulch Disaster (p.

55) to illustrate how even as order is collapsing an inspired act based in experience can save a life.

Linking together the three elements that constitute her view of resilience, Coutu summarized her thoughts: “Resilience is a reflex, a way of facing and understanding the world that is deeply etched into a person’s mind and soul. . . . Resilient people . . . face

60 reality with staunchness, make meaning of hardship . . . improvise solutions from thin air” (p. 55).

As mentioned earlier, Weick addressed the issue of resilience in his reflections about the Mann Gulch Disaster (1993) and the collapse of the organizational sensemaking of a fire crew sent in to fight a forest fire. As events unfolded and the 16 man fire crew realized that their world was literally going up in flames around them, the crew ceased to function as an organization. They experienced what Weick calls a cosmology episode. “A cosmology episode occurs when people suddenly and deeply feel that the universe is no longer a rational, orderly system. What makes such an episode so shattering is that both the sense of what is occurring and the means to rebuild that sense collapse together” (p. 633). With the collapse of their universe the individuals scattered, ignoring many of the rules and roles that might have contributed to their survival. It is in this context that Weick discusses the nature of resilience and four possible sources. The four sources of resilience are: improvisation, virtual role systems, the attitude of wisdom, and norms of respectful interaction.

Improvisation and bricolage

In the midst of the crew’s race with the fire, the crew foreman was inspired to start a blaze to burn a hole through the line of the advancing fire. He then encouraged his crew members to join him and lie down in the ashes. However, the other members of the crew did not follow his lead. Unable to make sense of how a second fire could save their lives, they continued their race to the ridge hoping to outstrip the flames.

Thirteen crew members lost their race and died. The foreman survived. His improvised solution was a classic example of a bricoleur in action.

Bricoleurs remain creative under pressure, precisely because they routinely act in chaotic conditions and pull order out of them. Thus when situations unravel, this is simply normal natural trouble for bricoleurs, and they proceed with whatever materials are at hand. Knowing these materials intimately, they then are able . . . to form the materials or insights into novel combinations (pp. 639 - 640).

Virtual role systems

Weick suggested that as the organizational structure collapsed, members of the crew might have been able to make better decisions for themselves, if they had had sufficient knowledge of the various crew roles. By engaging in a virtual role play, they could have adopted the perspective of the crew chief, or the second in command and acted as them, therefore becoming their own leader to lead them out of danger. It is an intriguing way to generate an understanding of what needs to be done next; how to proceed; how to act, when the organization around one has collapsed. By taking the time to understand their roles as crew members, and the roles of others, when in the face of chaos (or at least disruption) social construction of reality can continue. The role system can be reconstituted and implemented.

If the system remains intact in the individual’s mind . . . if each individual in the crew mentally takes all roles and therefore can then register escape routes and acknowledge commands and facilitate coordination, then each person literally becomes a group. “[E]ach person can reconstitute the group and assume whatever role is vacated, pick up the activities and run a credible version of the role (K. E. Weick, 1993, p. 640). Attitude of Wisdom

In Mann Gulch, the fire fighters had not previously experienced this type of fire.

As such they had no sense of what they did not know and because of their limited exposure, they did not know what to expect or how to proceed when the fire became

62 something unfamiliar to them. And so Weick suggested that it is the wise who know that they don’t know and leave the door open to expand their understanding.

In a fluid world, wise people know that they don’t fully understand what is happening right now, because they have never seen precisely this event before. Extreme confidence and extreme caution both can destroy what organizations (and individuals) need in changing times, namely curiosity, openness and complex sensing. The overconfident shun curiosity because they feel they know most of what there is to know. The overcautious shun curiosity for fear it will only deepen their uncertainties. Both the cautious and the confident are closed- minded, which means neither makes good judgments. It is this sense in which wisdom, which avoids extremes, improves adaptability (p. 641).

Respectful interaction

The ability to interact with confidence is dependent on individual and social interaction. At Mann Gulch, after the collapse of the organization, interaction was non- existent except for two firefighters who paired up in their efforts to escape the blaze.

Interestingly, besides the crew foreman, they were the only other survivors of the fire.

Weick suggested that in fighting a fire, partnership may be better than an organization simply because it makes negotiating social construction easier. With a partner, more information, more data, and additional perspectives are added to the pool of information to be processed. However, without the appropriate level of social support, individuals can feel very much on their own. At Mann Gulch for those crew members who rejected the crew chief’s invitation to join him in the fire, it was very much each man for himself. Relying exclusively on themselves and their own judgment for their survival, these capable professionals failed. Their failure to interact cost them their lives.

The following is a catalog of characteristics drawn from various definitions and descriptions of what constitutes resilience. According to the theorists, resilience

63 requires a modicum of adaptability and flexibility. The ability to deal with difficult situations and the hardiness to survive are also characteristics of resilience. The hardiness to assess a situation realistically without drama or delusion is linked to the realization that the act of survival must be infused with meaning. A sense of purpose must inform the effort and the experience. Resilience demands an innovative approach to respond to adversity, a new way of bringing things together that accommodates re- invention. Finally, resilience requires understanding that in fact there are alternative ways to approach existing problems, that there is room for alternatives. The curiosity to explore those alternatives and the willingness to engage with others in response to adversity are critical to developing career resilience in a rapidly changing workplace.

Inferences

From a review of the literature about the various career management models, the nature of re-employability and the characteristics of resilience, I have identified various career management behaviors, re-employability dimensions and a catalog of resilient characteristics that focus the research and define the vocabulary of the narrative inquiry. These elements also help to demarcate the boundaries of the narrative content for analysis. In this section I discuss career management behaviors and characteristics associated with the various career models and then organize the information into a framework in support of the narrative analysis process.

After reviewing the different theorists’ descriptions of their proposed models, it appears to me that at least some of the models share similar features, although other models seem to have little in common. Nonetheless even disparities among models can contribute to how the information can be organized. In addition to comparing features

64 of the different models, I also compare the models’ characteristics to elements that theorists have associated with resilience. Using paradigmatic reasoning I have developed a typology to organize the models and their features. The typology lays out aspects of career management behaviors and resilience-related characteristics that will become the focus of the narrative analysis.

In the process of developing the typology, I have organized the various models along a continuum, anchoring one end with the bureaucratic career model and positioning the alternative models relative to the traditional career management model.

Recognizing that the various models differ not only from the bureaucratic model but also from each other, there are multiple continua for the three behaviors under discussion. I positioned the models at different points on each continuum. I mapped them according to a subjective assessment of the degree to which a characteristic was manifested relative to the traditional career management model.

Like any model, this is a limited representation: however, there is merit to relating the characteristics of one alternative career model to another. During the narrative analysis I determined whether the managers used any of the three behaviors

(i.e., agency, adaptability and tolerance for ambiguity) as they pursued re-employment.

Analyzing the managers’ narratives for the three behaviors yielded information about how the managers’ career management behaviors related to traditional career management.

Agency as a career management behavior appears in every model, although the level of agency exercised in each model differs. The bureaucratic career model is at one end of a continuum reflecting the significant role the organization takes in defining

65 mid-career managers’ career path vs. the manager’s role defining the path. If the career paths of individuals inducted into an organization’s management system follow a prescribed map, managers can be said to exercise a relatively low level of agency. This assessment is based on the assumption that organizational career management systems offer built-in advancements and rewards for managers’ hard work and loyalty. Rather than actively managing their own career progress, managers rely on a prescribed organizational structure to set the rate and direction of their career advancement.

The strength of managers’ organizational connection can affect their degree of agency, shifting it either higher or lower. Relative to the bureaucratic model, the alternative models require that managers exercise a higher level of agency. To represent the relationship, each model has been positioned on an Agency continuum (Exhibit 1).

At one end is the traditional bureaucratic model, indicating that the organization has assumed significant if not full responsibility for mapping the individual’s organizational career path. At the other end of the spectrum is Handy’s portfolio career in which the individual takes on full responsibility for managing their management career.

The portfolio career model described by Handy is a multi-threaded career. The individual is responsible for determining service offerings, identifying and procuring clients, performing the services and then gathering and processing the income. Career management within this strongly entrepreneurial model is primarily under the purview of the individual, although, as Peel and Inkson indicate, individual agency is tempered by demand and the structure of the marketplace (2004). Because of its very nature the

66 portfolio career is the furthest from the bureaucratic career model in terms of who is in charge of the career management.

The alternative models are positioned by their degree of agency relative to the bureaucratic and the portfolio models. For example the Boundaryless career is defined by a strong commitment to the individual as agent (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996a); however, individuals can choose to operate within the context of an organization. In that situation the individual’s ability to manage a career may be tempered by organizational constraints. The more likely a career management alternative is to be found within an organization, the less likely the individual is to have full control over his or her own career. Short of leaving the organization, the individual’s career management choices are bound by the structure of the organization. Therefore the alternatives are sequenced between the bureaucratic career model, anchoring the left end of the continuum and the portfolio career, anchoring the right, beginning with career as myth, and progressing through protean career, postmodern epic, eccentric predicate, chaos theory of career, Kaleidoscope and Boundaryless career.

Figure 1 Mapping career models on three career management behavior continua

Another behavior associated with career management is the ability to adapt to changing conditions. Even within organizations that promote the bureaucratic career model, managers need to exercise adaptability. As organizational objectives have changed, managers have needed to adapt in order to retain their positions on the organizational career ladder. However, within an organization, the majority of the defining parameters remain constant, for example product and service offerings, markets, management philosophy, organizational structure, or mission and purpose.

Alternatives to the bureaucratic career model vary by the degree of adaptability associated with each model. Like agency, all require a higher level of adaptability than

68 does the bureaucratic career model because in all cases they require that managers chart their own career course. However, for those managers being called upon to manage their careers, the degree of adaptability required may be tempered by how integrated their career is with an organization. Therefore the protean career model which has been described within the context of an organization or industry offers some constancy (Hall,

1976, 1986, 1995, 2004; Hall & Associates, 1986). It demands less adaptive behavior from managers than does the Boundaryless model (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996c), which cuts across organizations and industries. At the very opposite end, the Chaos Theory of career management anchors the Adaptability continuum. Bloch declared that autopoiesis is ongoing (2005) and Pryor and Bright observed that change is actually a constant of the chaos model (2007). Accordingly I mapped the sequence representing the degree of adaptability required by managers to manage their careers beginning with the Bureaucratic model on the left representing the lowest demand for career management adaptability. The protean career model is placed next and then portfolio, career as myth, Kaleidoscope, Boundaryless, postmodern epic with the Chaos theory anchoring the far right. The placement sequence represents the increasing demand for adaptability associated with each model.

Managers’ tolerance for ambiguity is the third career management behavior that is frequently mentioned in discussions of the various alternative models. Managers who pursued their managerial careers within an organizational framework were less likely to experience ambiguity than those who employed the alternative models. With the bureaucratic career model, the organization usually defines mid-career managers’ career management strategy. Requirements for moving ahead are laid out by human

69 resource planning as determined by the organizations. However, for the other models without benefit of organizational guidelines, career management can be considerably more ambiguous. Stepping away from career management protocols defined by the hierarchical organizational structure and the detailed succession strategies linked to the bureaucratic model is likely to generate a high level of uncertainty for mid-career managers. Adopting career management practices from any one of the alternative models is likely to require some tolerance for ambiguity.

The sequence along the Ambiguity (Tolerance for) continuum is based on the degree of predictability that can be assumed with a given model. Weick’s Eccentric

Predicate assumes no predictability. Career management is a retrospective, meaning making process. Taking advantage of opportunities that appeal to particular interests as they arise, seizing the moment and then retrospectively making sense of the experience relative to a career strategy assumes a high tolerance for the unknown and the vagaries of a work life. With that description in mind I placed the Eccentric Predicate model at the opposite end of the continuum from the bureaucratic model with its well-defined strategies. Between the two are placed the remaining models, favoring the right side of the continuum, indicative that each the alternatives required a much higher tolerance for ambiguity than the traditional bureaucratic model.

The model I placed closest to the traditional model is Career as Myth.

According to Nicholson and West (1988), managers who represented that model were generally embedded within organizations. Although these managers had no apparent career management strategy of their own, they were reliant on the internal labor market practices within their employing organization. They engaged in a passive acceptance of

70 organizational practices. Taking this laissez-faire approach implied that in fact there was a level of predictability that determined the managers’ career progress. It suggests a rather fatalistic view of career management. In contrast, the architects of the remaining models acknowledged that career paths might be unpredictable but that the presence of ambiguity did not stop managers from pursuing careers. With that approach in mind, after the career as myth model I placed the remaining alternative models as follows: protean, post-modern, portfolio, Kaleidoscope and Boundaryless with Chaos theory placed next to the last model, Weick’s Eccentric Predicate.

The visual representation in Exhibit 1 provides an initial view of inferred relationships of the alternative career management models to the bureaucratic career model and to each other based on certain career management behaviors (i.e., agency, adaptability and tolerance of ambiguity). Placing each model on a continuum for one of the three career management behaviors to be evaluated predicates a relationship: however, analyzing the participating managers’ narratives may provide a different view of what constitutes career management behavior and what models, if any, the managers adopted during their pursuit of reemployment.

After considering how the alternative models relate to the bureaucratic model and to each other, another question to consider is how characteristics of the different career models might contribute to career resilience. What can be inferred from a review of the alternative models and the characteristics of work related resilience? There appears to be some overlap between characteristics identified with career resilience and the characteristics that theorists have used to define their various career management models. The following table of resilient characteristics and the eight alternative career

71 models (Table 2) indicates where model descriptors manifest resilient characteristics.

Resilient characteristics include adaptability, the hardiness to survive difficult situations, an ability to realistically assess career-related situations, a sense of meaning or purpose in career, an innovative approach to career setbacks, career bricolage (i.e., bringing together experience and skill in new ways leading to career re-invention), learning alternative approaches to career management , openness to alternative approaches to career, and the willingness to collaborate with others in response to adverse career management experiences.

Although there are indications that all of the characteristics are manifested in at least two alternative models, adaptability and learning are consistently mentioned in every model. No matter what career model may be in use, the ability to adapt to changing conditions is described as critically important. If adaptability is one key characteristic then learning is the other. In a dynamic, external labor market, learning is fundamental to sustaining employability. Long-term unemployed, mid-career managers in pursuit of re-employment outside the organization were compelled to construct new ideas or concepts about career management. Whether managers chose to develop new skills in order to pursue a portfolio career, or to re-create themselves through autopoiesis, they engaged in an active, experiential learning process based upon current and past career knowledge. The implication is that adopting an alternative career model in response to changes in the external labor market required that long-term unemployed, mid-career managers demonstrate adaptability and commit to ongoing learning.

Table 2 Resilient Characteristics of Alternative Models

Characteristics Attributed to Resilience Characteristics of Alternative Learning Bricolage Openness Hardiness Innovation

Career Adaptability Collaboration

Management Meaning/Purpose Realistic Assessment Models Eccentric Predicates XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX (1976) Weick

Protean Career XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX (1976 -1996) Hall Career as Myth (1988) XXX XXX Nicholson & West Portfolio Career XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX (1994) Handy Boundaryless Career (1996) XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Arthur & Rousseau Post Modern Epic XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX (2000) Collin Chaos Theory of Career Bloch (2005) XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Pryor & Bright (2007) Kaleidoscope Career (2005) XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX Mainiero & Sullivan

Theory Development

It is proposed that mid-career managers’ ability to sustain their career during long-term unemployment depends in part on the use of alternatives to the bureaucratic career model to construct a different career trajectory. For the long-term unemployed mid-career manager, the bureaucratic model no longer makes sense as a career management tool. Outside the confines of the organization it becomes irrelevant as a career map. However, the bureaucratic career model continues to be the standard for many careers. In fact, Kanter commented on the dominance of the bureaucratic structure as a model American type (1989). She also foresaw its decline and described the ongoing professionalization of the managerial role. She wondered what impact such a change would have on the traditional managerial career path.

In 1976 Hall introduced the concept of the protean career, one of the early alternatives to the bureaucratic career model. In this model managers took on more responsibility for career management, giving them more mobility and the freedom to evaluate success using subjective versus objective criteria (p. 200). In that same year

Weick stated that careers consisted of the “odd, whimsical, and deviant actions we take that affirm or deny things about us only after the actions have been completed.” (1976, p. 6). Nicholson and West’s observations of managerial career transitions led them to suggest that “[c]areers can be viewed as fictions about the past to help us feel good about the future. They are talismans, offering protection against the proximity of gaping uncertainties” (Nicholson & West, 1988, p. 94).

Other alternatives introduced at the end of the 20th century included Handy’s portfolio career (1989). Portfolio careers consisted of dual/multiple threads of employment enacted concurrently with managers coordinating and performing different activities for multiple employers. Arthur and Rousseau’s Boundaryless Career was a loosely structured model integrating a variety of meanings but the common denominator was “one of independence from, rather than dependence on, traditional organizational career arrangements” (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996b, p. 6).

As the 21 st century began, additional models took shape. Collin wrote eloquently of a postmodern epic career appropriate for a flexible, networked environ in which “temporary, part-time, concurrent and sequential employment contracts . . . proliferate. Every change in . . . contract will mean starting anew” (Collin, 2000, p.

171). Regeneration of self or autopoiesis, adaptability, and complexity are hallmarks of

“complex adaptive entities.” Complexity theorists postulate that mid-career managers who adopt a complexity theory based model will engage in autopoiesis (Bloch, 2005).

The emergence of new career models as a means of surmounting the constrictions that managers experience in more traditional organizations are aptly represented as attraction and attractors in the Chaos Theory of Careers (Pryor & Bright, 2007).

Authenticity, Balance and Challenge constitute the ABC’s of the Kaleidoscope Career pursued by many women and men. Each parameter is given precedence at different stages of career thus creating different patterns of career management like the shifting patterns of the model’s namesake (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005). From the early alternatives identified in 1976 to those that have recently emerged, these approaches offered long term unemployed, mid-career managers increasingly sophisticated

75 mechanisms to reinvent their career management behaviors and enhance their employability in the 21 st Century.

The career narratives of long-term unemployed mid-career managers are the

focus of this study. Understanding whether their stories indicate a level of resilience is

dependent on determining how resiliency is assessed relative to the work place and

career. Popular authorities, leadership experts, and clinical psychologists, to cite a few,

have noticed that while some mid-career managers find themselves unable to recover

from career setbacks, other mid-career managers are able to bounce back from these

disorienting career dilemmas. Al Siebert, Ph.D., Director and founder of The Resiliency

Center, describes how people react. “When . . . hit by adversity . . . [s]ome people feel

victimized, some people shut down. . . . A few, however, reach within themselves and

find ways to cope . . . [t]hey eventually make things turn out well” (1996, p. 1).

According to the Center for Creative Leadership, while a combination of depression,

fatigue, burnout, and cynicism can indicate a lack of resilience, four characteristics that

resilient managers demonstrate are: “flexibility, durability, an attitude of optimism, and

openness to learning...”(Pulley & Wakefield, 2001, p. 7). Drs. Salvatore Maddi and

Deborah Khoshaba of the Hardiness Institute have observed that “As stresses mount

many people become undermined in their performance . . . however, some people will

be resilient, and survive rather than be undermined” (2005, p. 12). But according to

these two clinical psychologists, “To be resilient, you need to hold your fears of change

at bay and capitalize on the opportunities that come with change” (p. 11). These

professionals and others recognize that adverse circumstances can be disruptive;

however they have also observed that persistence, inner confidence, adaptability, and a

76 willingness to learn and to capitalize on opportunities can lead to positive career outcomes.

Devising the means to move ahead is important, but resilience is more than maintaining a positive attitude and adapting to changing conditions. A resilient career is a crafted career. Like the woodworker who “pinned thing to thing to make a new thing stand” (J. E. Sullivan, 1988, p. 31), the resilient mid-career manager pins abilities to experience within the context of new circumstances to create a new career narrative. As conditions change, resilient mid-career managers are bricoleurs, taking stock of their situation. They evaluate the market, appraise their potential and then re-invent themselves to capitalize on emerging opportunities.

According to Weick one source of resilience is improvisation and bricolage. He writes “Bricoleurs remain creative under pressure, precisely because they routinely act in chaotic conditions and pull order out of them” (1993, p. 638). Mid-career managers who can sustain their careers even while experiencing long-term unemployment develop the ability to create a new career order for themselves. By adopting an appropriate alternative approach, these managers are acting as bricoleurs as they respond to the unruly demands of the open labor market. Innovation is one important characteristic of resilience. A commitment to reality and an ongoing state of readiness are others. Both Weick and Coutu (2002) have identified all of these elements as important contributors to a resilient approach to the uncertainties we all face in life and in our careers.

A comparison of the characteristics of the alternative models and elements of resiliency indicated that adaptability and a commitment to learning are characteristics

77 common to both career resiliency and the alternative career models. From the narrative inquiry it was anticipated that the mid-career managers’ stories would provide additional insights into the use of alternative career models as well as how the managers pursued employability while experiencing long-term unemployment.

Conceptual Framework

For much of the 20th century, the bureaucratic career model dominated the organizational approach to career management (Kanter, 1989). The career development plans of many of the mid-career managers who became unemployed at the beginning of the 21 st century were derived from protocols associated with the bureaucratic model.

“The bureaucratic career pattern involves a sequence of positions in a formally defined hierarchy of other positions” (1989, p. 509).

The bureaucratic career was the standard approach to be followed. It has been proposed that when these mid-career managers became unemployed and were no longer active members of an employing organization, they could not rely on the bureaucratic career pattern to guide their career management behaviors. Since the formal hierarchy was defined by the organization, those individuals who were no longer members of the organization were denied access to the sequence of positions.

Therefore, the managers were compelled to adopt alternatives to guide their career management efforts.

In the past thirty years, theorists have put forth a number of alternatives to the bureaucratic model. These alternatives offer individuals options for different behaviors to manage their careers. Also of interest is the impact of these alternatives to enhance

78 employability and foster career resilience. However it is not clear if in fact individuals

“on the street” are even aware of these alternatives (Briscoe & Hall, 2006). During the jobless recovery following the 2001 recession, mid-career managers experienced a relatively high level of long-term (greater than six months) unemployment. The effect of long-term unemployment short-circuited mid-career managers’ ability to manage their careers using the traditional bureaucratic model. Therefore, these mid-career managers were faced with the challenge of replacing the career management rhetoric that they had previously used as organizational members to inform their career management behaviors.

How do long-term unemployed, mid-career managers manage their careers in pursuit of re-employment? The research focused on understanding what model or models, if any, the participating mid-career managers used to manage their career behaviors during long-term unemployment as well as what model characteristics may have contributed to promoting the managers’ career resilience. And finally, the following research questions were addressed as part of the research process:

Research Question 1: What effect, if any, does long-term unemployment have on mid- career managers’ perception of their career story?

Research Question 2: How does the experience of long-term unemployment influence individual, mid-career managers’ career management behaviors?

Research Question 3: What effect, if any, does long-term unemployment have on mid- career managers’ perception of their re-employability?

Research Question 4: Do the career narratives of managers who have experienced long-term unemployment demonstrate characteristics ascribed to career resilience?

The managers’ responses relative to these questions were expected to be particularly helpful to managers and organizational theorists, as organizations continue to close or consolidate and unemployment soars.

Chapter Three: Research Methodology

Overview

The purpose of the present study was to learn about career management behaviors of several mid-career managers who experienced long-term (six months or more) unemployment in the wake of the 2001 recession. The study focused on the managers’ narratives of their experiences as they managed their careers in pursuit of re- employment. The objectives were to learn about a) how individual mid-career managers perceived the experience of long-term unemployment relative to their career and their career management behaviors; b) what constituted re-employability for these managers; and c) what aspects of their career management behaviors, if any, could be considered resilient as they pursued re-employment.

In this chapter I briefly discuss my epistemological position as it supports the interpretive paradigm and how both influenced my approach to the conduct of this study. I will review the research protocol which is comprised of two methods, and go over the procedural details of the research such as unit of analysis, participant recruitment, and data handling. The issue of trustworthiness is considered as well as a discussion of the limitations of the study. A summary concludes the chapter.

As in any study the researcher’s perspective on the nature of knowledge, how it can be acquired and how it can be transmitted shapes the research design. According to

Creswell (2003), research is framed by a “knowledge claim.” A knowledge claim reflects the assumptions that researchers make about “ how they will learn and what they will learn during their inquiry” (p. 6) [emphasis added]. Knowledge claims are based on

81 a researcher’s epistemology. How this research was conducted related to my belief that the best way to understand the impact of a phenomenon is to work directly with individuals who have experienced it. Therefore, I took what can be described as “an emic, idiographic, case-based position, which direct[ed] . . . attention to the specifics of particular cases” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 10) to develop the methodology for the study.

The methodology directly reflected the interpretive paradigm. According to

Burrell and Morgan the interpretive paradigm “is informed by a concern to understand the world as it is, to understand the fundamental nature of the social world at the level of subjective experience. It seeks explanation within the realm of individual consciousness and subjectivity, within the frame of reference of the participant as opposed to the observer of the action” (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p.29). Because I saw the managers experiences in terms of social reality as an emergent process – as an extension of human consciousness and subjective experience” (p. 253), I developed my research strategy with the interpretive paradigm in mind.

Research Strategy

My research strategy integrated in-depth interviewing and narrative analysis for gathering and analyzing the data about the managers’ perceptions of their experience.

Narrative inquiry was chosen specifically because it: a) Gave the participants voice, b)

Provided a mechanism for participants to make sense of their career management behaviors and c) Offered a means of analyzing the character of their stories (Chase,

2003).

To gather the narratives, I conducted focused, in-depth interviews with the participating mid-career managers. Focused, in-depth interviews were “designed to study . . . perceptions of individuals who have been . . . exposed to the same situation”

(Mishler, 1986, p.99). The details behind the nature and design of the interviews are explained in more depth under the heading “Focused, In-depth Interviewing” later in this chapter.

During the in-depth interviewing, participants were asked about their career experiences before, during and after long-term unemployment. The accounts of their careers and the events that they experienced constituted their narratives. The reasoning that drove the development of their stories and framed the way in which they organized the events exemplified what Bruner described as narrative reasoning (1986). By analyzing the individual managers’ narratives I expected to gain insights into how each manager perceived the experience, how the experience affected their career management behaviors as well as how they construed re-employment.

I also expected to be able to identify any characteristics of the participants’ career management behaviors that are reflective of characteristics associated with career resilience. This last effort relied on another form of reasoning described by

Bruner, paradigmatic reasoning (1986). I analyzed the narrative data for characteristics that might be associated with resilient career management behavior. The outcomes of the logico-deductive effort representative of paradigmatic reasoning will be available as input to future quantitative research. However, the essence of this research focused on understanding the experiences of a select population of individuals who in the middle

83 of their careers as managers faced a phenomenon that had the potential to change their career management behaviors.

In support of my inquiry, I invited the participating managers to reflect upon, select and sequence aspects of their experience with long-term unemployment and to create the stories that give meaning to their encounter with the phenomenon. The narratives or stories of their experiences were the subject of the analysis. Identifying narratives and evaluating these stories constituted the analytical half of my research strategy. During the analysis phase, I studied both the content (Mishler, 1986; Ochberg,

1994; Riessman, 1993) and structure (Ezzy, 2001; Gee, 1999; Gergen & Gergen, 1983;

Labov & Waletzky, 1966) of the managers’ stories.

The research protocol for the study is outlined in the next section. Included are descriptions of how the in-depth interviews were conducted and an overview of the analysis of the participants’ narratives. The interview/analysis cycle was iterative. As the cycle was repeated, both the participants and I realized additional meanings and developed additional understandings (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Josselson, 1995).

The research protocol of interview and analysis was designed to stimulate the emergence of knowledge in line with the interpretive paradigm. The outcomes are expected to add new understanding of the career management behaviors of mid-career managers experiencing long-term unemployment.

Focused, In-depth Interviewing

In line with the interpretive paradigm, the study’s strategy called for in-depth

interviewing to gather participants’ stories. As previously mentioned, it was Mishler

alluding to the work of earlier interview theorists who described focused interviews as

84 a form “designed to study . . . perceptions of individuals who have been . . . exposed to the same situation” (1986, p. 99). The interview content focused on the experience of long-term unemployment. Loosely structured interviews were developed to encourage the participants to share “affective, cognitive and evaluative meaning of the situation . .

. [along with] attributes and prior experience . . . which endow the situation with distinctive meanings” (p. 99).

During the interviews the researcher/participant interaction was not constrained by a multiple choice format that could curtail responses. Instead the interviewer relied on a script that was designed to generate a dialog that focused on the phenomenon of interest. Unlike a survey questionnaire, the interview questions were not written to confirm or refute predicted outcomes. With this model the interviewer served as the data gathering instrument versus a predefined survey (Kvale, 1996; Merriam, 2002;

Patton, 2002). The additional understanding that emerged from participants’ revelations about their specific experiences could not be predicted (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Therefore, thoughtful preparation and execution of the interviews enabled the participants to generate stories rather than mere reports of career events or milestones

(Chase, 1995).

Using a loosely structured but scripted approach allowed the participating managers and me, as interviewer, to pursue relevant topics as they surfaced during the interview while continuing to maintain focus on the topic (Chase, 1995; Rogers, 2003;

Weiss, 1994). By relying on a framework that encouraged participants to generate narratives about their career management behaviors, I was able to query the managers

85 about their careers and the vicissitudes they experienced during long-term unemployment. The queries were organized sequentially by interview.

The design of the interview cycle reflected a story plotline. The first interview with the managers set a baseline for their career narratives. It also allowed the managers to introduce themselves as the protagonists of their career narratives. The second interview focused on the disruption of their career by long-term unemployment. The disruption presented a potential for conflict between their initial view of their career trajectory and the actual trajectory of their career. They were invited to describe their experience as well as the career management behaviors they manifested in response to the disruption. In the third and final interview the managers were asked to describe how their period of unemployment ended, as well as to discuss the resolution of the disruption. The third interview then offered the opportunity to discuss the resolution of their unemployment, the denouement of their career management dilemma as well as their thoughts about their career today and their current career management behaviors.

The mid-career managers’ interviews essentially generated career stories focused on the phenomenon of long-term unemployment.

The following three paragraphs describe the content of each in-depth interview.

Seidman (1998) proposed a design for phenomenological interviewing that also calls for a three interview cycle. Although the content of my interviews differs from Seidman’s design, procedurally, I adopted a similar, three-interview protocol. I used a ninety minute format for each face-to-face interview. I was able to schedule all three interviews within a span of 10 – 21 days for five of the six participants. (Interviews for the remaining participant took place over a 28 day period to accommodate his schedule as

86 he returned to employment following another period of long-term unemployment.)

According to Seidman the spacing “allows time for the participant to mull over the preceding interview but not enough time to lose the connection between the two” (pp.

14-15). I initially planned to transcribe the interviews in preparation for the second and third interviews as recommended by Schuman (1982). However the transcription process required too much time to complete during the period of time dedicated to participant interviews. I opted instead to listen to each recording while reviewing the script prior to each of the following interviews. The first interview took place on July

30, 2009 and the final interview was conducted on September 23, 2009.

Seidman’s three interview protocol calls for setting a baseline in the first interview. The second interview is dedicated to the phenomenon under study and the final interview brings the interviewer and participant up to the present. Since the first interview set the career baseline, I asked each manager to describe their career prior to their layoff. I inquired about their titles and responsibilities, how they arrived at that particular position, including what they did to achieve their position and the contributions of others -- individuals, organizations and events that may have led to their success. I then asked them to describe the events leading up to their layoff. Finally, I asked them to reflect back and to describe their expectations regarding their career trajectory at that time.

The second interview focused on the managers’ experiences during their long- term unemployment. The initial discussion returned to the events around the actual layoff and their thoughts on what precipitated their unemployment. Then I asked the managers to describe their experiences during unemployment. We broke it down into a

87 series of timeframes beginning with what they did initially to manage their career, what they did after three months, after six months and so on. Since the unemployment end date varied by participants, the timeframes in some cases extended out for 12 months, 18 months and beyond. In each time frame, I probed for indicators of changing career management behaviors. I also noted that the participants’ accounts of their activities and their reactions often reflected behaviors linked to career resilience.

The third and final interview addressed the managers’ return to employment. In addition to capturing the details about the re-employment itself, I gathered details such as what the position was and when they returned. I also inquired about how the managers determined that the position met their needs. This line of inquiry was designed to identify what constituted re-employability. Additional discussion explored how the position related to their initial view of their career which then led to their current status and their current view of career. Inviting the managers to reflect on their experience and their current situation opened up the conversation. It provided opportunities to learn whether their view of career, or their career management behaviors had changed and if changed what the significance was in terms of their career and their career management behaviors. And if they believed that neither their views nor behaviors had changed, managers were asked how their current view and behaviors reconciled with their initial view and career management behaviors.

In my initial preparations I had anticipated that the third interview would consider the events around the managers’ return to re-employment and their ongoing employment. However because the period following the managers’ re-employment spanned years and several of the participants’ cycles of employment and unemployment,

I expanded the discussions in the third interview to include these additional employment events. Based on their experiences some participants’ reflections incorporated an assessment of their vision of career punctuated by multiple periods of employment and unemployment.

To help prepare the participants for the interviews, prior to the first interview I provided each via email with a brief summary of the research and the area of interest to be discussed. I also included the text of the research consent form. At the beginning of the first interview, I went over the form with each participant and provided them copies for signature. Once the consent forms were signed, I provided a quick re-cap of the purpose of the study. I outlined the approach that I planned to follow in terms of the three interview protocol to confirm that they were still available and interested in participating. Finally I described the focus of the first interview.

After completing the participant’s orientation to the interview process, I began each of the first interviews with a series of demographic questions. There were two objectives for asking the questions. The first was to backfill any missing demographic data. The second was to start the interview with straightforward questions as a means of breaking the ice. However, as the interviewer, I also found it a helpful way to get the process started. Using a script as a guide for the interview, the manager and I reviewed their career immediately preceding their layoff and then walked through the events leading up to their layoff. I concluded the interview with an invitation to the participant to add any other thoughts in conclusion. I then previewed the subject matter for the next

interview and scheduled the next interview.

I mentioned that I used an interview guide for each interview. It served as both a reminder to prompt participants and a means of gathering an adequate level of detail from the participating managers (Chase, 1995, 2003). Using the interview script also promoted some consistency as a reference, assuring that I covered the same material with each participant. Although I found the guide helpful, I was careful to avoid becoming too dependent on the script. I wanted the interview to flow as naturally as possible. I was concerned that following a script too closely would affect the back and forth between the manager and me. Seidman (1998) cautioned against a slavish commitment to a pre-set interview guide. Weiss also warned that “Focusing closely on the guide, at the cost of attention to the respondent and the flow of the interview, is always a mistake” (1994, p. 48). I did however, follow Weiss’ recommendation to use the guide to prepare for the interview, as a prompt during the interview, and as a checklist near the end of the interview to ensure that nothing was missed.

I prepared the three scripts following guidelines suggested by Weiss (1994),

Reissman (1993) and Chase (2003). Weiss recommended including four to six topics with probing questions while Riessman suggested including “5 to 7 broad questions about the topic of inquiry, supplemented by probe questions” (p. 55). With that strategy in mind I followed Chase’s approach to identifying the topic and developing the probing questions. To paraphrase, she suggested noting the areas to be covered during the interview. For each area she recommended generating questions. The next step would be to consolidate and refine the questions and then organize them by topic to create a logical flow. And as Chase pointed out it helps to know what is of interest, what is it that you want to hear about. In the case of this study the focus was on the career

90 management relative to long-term unemployment. A well thought out interview guide will often yield answers to questions that were not even considered.

Finally, I linked the topics and the probing questions back to the research questions to confirm that the topics and probes were relevant. The final scripts are included in Appendix C. With that level of detail I was prepared at each interview to explore the managers’ experiences as they described their response to career management during long-term unemployment.

At the beginning of the second interview I briefly re-visited the content of the previous interview and invited participants to provide any additional insights as appropriate. Also during the second interview I asked for clarification about topics discussed in the first interview as needed. Once again before concluding the session I asked the participants for any additional thoughts before previewing the subject and then scheduling the third and final interview. The third session followed the same opening protocol as Interview Two but because there were no additional interviews, I relied on email for participants to enjoy the same opportunity to provide feedback after the third interview. Detailed protocols for the interviews are included in the appendices. After completing the interviews I sent out a couple of emails to update participants on my progress as I was transcribing the interviews. Once the transcriptions were complete I distributed the texts of the three interviews to each participant electronically for their review and comment. Several responded with their comments via email; another I spoke with in person. I received no feedback from two participants.

A key driver for distributing the transcripts was to provide the participants, as study members, the opportunity to review the data for its accuracy and to confirm that

91 the transcript accurately reflected the conversation from the narrator’s view? It also served as a check for the researcher. It is interesting to note that the participants’ feedback regarding the transcripts ranged from specific to broad. The most detailed feedback identified some typos. The participant also requested that place names, such as the names of states, either be expunged or more aggressively generalized to ensure that the participant or colleagues would not be identified. This was very much in line with my commitment as a researcher to protect the anonymity of the study participants. I appreciated the input and made the updates to the raw transcripts and any excerpted data in the dissertation. Interestingly, I did not get comments that challenged the interview content. Perhaps because I made every effort to document the interviews verbatim, the participants did not question the transcripts. In fact participant feedback trended toward the apologetic, with at least one member expressing concerns about repeating himself, while several others apologized for being long-winded.

During the interview the participants developed their meaning of career as they relayed the story of their unemployment experience. The managers constructed narratives as they described and organized various events that occurred before, during or after their unemployment. In an effort to make sense of their unemployment experiences, their input into the dialogue combined content and structure into narratives that served as the data for analysis. The outcomes of the evaluation of the participants’ first-hand accounts of their experiences has added to our understanding of the impact of the phenomenon of long-term unemployment on mid-career managers’ career management behaviors.

Narrative Analysis

According to Hinchman and Hinchman, narratives are “discourses with a clear sequential order that connect events in a meaningful way for a definite audience, and thus offer insights about the world and/or peoples [sic] experiences of it” (1997, p. xvi).

Based on that definition of narrative, narrative analysis offers the means of exploring

mid-career managers’ experience with long-term unemployment. Narrative analysis has

provided insights into the study participants’ perceptions of their experience.

As narrators, managers articulated their perception of the effect of long-term

unemployment on the trajectory of their careers. Using their own words to depict their

experience enabled the participants to construct their own meaning. In their stories, they

told about their professional selves as well as offered interpretations of their roles within

the organizational setting where they were employed and their place in the world of

work when they were no longer employees of an organization. Analyzing the managers’

career stories before, during and after exposure to the phenomenon presented a way to

learn about participants’ view of the impact of the experience. This information provides

insights about the context of the participants’ employment history and their perceptions

of how their work lives evolved within the socially defined construct of career. As

Catherine Kohler Riessman observed, social context is important to narrative analysis:

“The text is not autonomous of its context” (1993, p. 21).

Within the interpretive paradigm, narrative analysis is the primary means of

addressing the symbolic nature of language and its role in meaning making; however,

narrative study is a broad subject. In this study I evaluated three different aspects of

narrative during the analysis. Riessman cited British linguist M. A. K. Halliday when

93 she wrote “Language has three analytically distinct, but interdependent functions”

(1993, p. 21). Reissman continued to reference Halliday’s framework, labeling and describing each function. “The ideational function expresses the referential meaning of what is said . . . [t]he interpersonal function concerns the role relationships between speakers . . . [t]he textual function relates to structure . . . Meaning is conveyed at all three levels” (p. 21). I have analyzed each narrative in terms of content, narrator’s role and the structure of the story in line with Halliday’s three functions. Before in depth analysis could begin, it was necessary to convert the interviews into a format that permitted me to view the taped interviews as text.

Transcription

As I transcribed the interview recordings I was forced to make choices about how the audio material would be represented as text. Kvale observed that during the transcription process a researcher must make a number of choices (1996). For example is it appropriate to transcribe all or only part of the text? I chose to transcribe all text that related to the career discussion. Should the transcriber include all verbiage and paralinguistic features such as “uhms” and pauses? Again I chose to include the verbiage including most paralinguistic features. What about observations regarding the participants’ appearance and demeanor during the interviews? I made some notes about mannerisms and gestures that appeared to add emphasis to managers’ delivery.

Riessman (2001) and Mishler (1986) described the challenges associated with capturing and documenting narrators’ words, utterances and pauses. Omissions or other inaccuracies can affect the content of the narratives and potentially distort the participants’ stories. Those concerns reinforced my decision to do my own transcription.

However, I did not attempt to translate the speakers’ inflections. Gee (1999) was particularly interested in what inflection and the rate of speech indicated about the narrative. Although I did document some outstanding characteristics of the different managers’ delivery, I decided early in the transcription process that rather than try to document rate and delivery for each transcript, the process of analysis was better served by listening to the recordings of those exchanges during the analysis. Therefore, I only noted characteristics associated with rate and pitch of delivery for those excerpts I used to support the analysis. In addition to ensuring that the transcripts of the recordings were accurate and complete, a final benefit of completing my own transcription was that it gave me a head start, engaging me in the narrative analysis process at transcription.

To expedite the transcription process I converted digital recordings of the interviews to MP3 files and used Audacity®, free, open source software for recording and editing sounds to manipulate the recordings. With Audacity I was able to select file segments and then re-play the segments in a loop while I typed the dialogue as text a into Word file. Audacity worked very well. Unfortunately I did not have the same success with the Voice Recognition Software I had planned to use transcribe the interviews. I used Nuance Dragon NaturallySpeaking voice recognition software with four of the 18 recordings. However, the software frequently locked up, slowing down rather than expediting the transcription process. After comparing my transcription rates with and without Dragon I opted to forego the technology and simply type up the remaining recordings. I recorded eighteen interviews averaging approximately 90 minutes each. Total recording time transcribed was just under 27 hours. Professional transcribers allow eight to ten hours to transcribe an hour of recording. Using the high

95 end of ten hours as multiplier, transcription took a minimum of 270 hours distributed over a four month period to complete.

I used Halliday’s three narrative functions, ideational, interpersonal and textual, as a framework for analyzing the interviews. To get a sense of the ideational function, I focused on the participants’ stories – what and who were the subjects of their narratives.

To analyze the interpersonal function I evaluated the role relationship of the study participants to me, the researcher. I examined our correspondence and our interview interactions in the transcripts for data that documented the interpersonal function during the process. Finally, I studied the textual function or structure of the interview narratives, breaking out the narrative elements and evaluating the plotline of the participants’ stories.

In the ideational or content analysis I focused on the mid-career managers’ narratives. Based on the approach outlined for the three interviews, I expected that the narrators would develop a number of stories. They were invited to talk about events and the characters that affected their career development in order to share employment experiences such as career milestones, successes and disappointments. Models, mentors, gate keepers, and job terminators, those who contributed to the narrators’ evolving definition of a career, surfaced as characters in their stories. What the managers chose to talk about along with whom they spoke of was a significant part of the content analysis

(Cohen & Mallon, 2001).

Lincoln & Guba (1985) declared that analysis in naturalistic inquiry is an inductive process. Therefore instead of reasoning from the general to the particular by conducting a deductive analysis of the mid-career managers’ narratives, my analytical

96 protocol focused on the particular details. By examining the content of the stories, I expected to identify and generate observations about the impact of long-term unemployment on the managers’ individual career management behaviors.

To identify resilient characteristics of career management, I drew from methods of analysis described by Lincoln and Guba (1985), Miles and Huberman (1994) and

Weiss (1994). I subjected the managers’ stories to a cycle of deconstruction, organization and reconstruction. Lincoln’s and Guba’s process draws on the comparative method of Glaser and Strauss, which is similar to Miles’ and Huberman’s approach. Miles and Huberman use an interactive model involving a series of steps to analyze qualitative data. Weiss, who developed his method specifically for qualitative interview studies, also breaks the analysis down into four processes.

The number of steps may vary across the different approaches, but the nature of the process is consistently iterative. Lincoln and Guba’s version of the comparative method calls for ongoing comparisons, classifications and re-classifications of data elements. Miles’ and Huberman’s interactive model incorporates data gathering, reduction, and display that yield conclusions that can then be re-framed through additional data gathering, reduction and display. Finally, Weiss, who focuses his analytical protocol on three aspects of the process -- reduction, display and conclusion -- states: “There are four distinct analytic processes involved in producing an issue-focused analysis . . . These are coding, sorting, local integration and inclusive integration. . . .

But all analytical processes occur throughout the analysis” (1994, p. 154).

Keeping these approaches in mind, I subjected the narratives to a series of evaluations. Initially, I broke down the narratives into components. These components

97 were then re-assessed and broken down again until they could be reduced no further.

Lincoln and Guba refer to this process as “unitizing” (1985, p. 154). The objective is to de-compose the narrative content into its most basic units. These units, which may include beliefs, emotions, reactions, activities, roles, characters or other elements, can then be evaluated and organized into categories which can finally be integrated into themes.

The themes were assessed relative to the overall body of knowledge under development. Some themes were specific to the individual narratives or “local” (Weiss,

1994). Other themes applied to more than one narrative, Weiss describes these as

“inclusive.” Whether the themes were specific or “local” to a given narrative or universal or “inclusive,” across several narratives, they became the basis of my observations. As indicated above, I took an iterative approach to the ideational analysis.

Even for a relatively small number of interviews, breaking down the transcripts into units, reorganizing and then reconstructing the narrative was a labor intensive effort.

Keeping track of various data elements and different iterations can be particularly troublesome if the text analysis is processed manually.

Interpersonal Analysis

The interpersonal function examined the relationship between the narrators and

interviewer. Researchers have observed that interaction can affect the content and

structure of an interview. Mishler stated that “[t]he interviewer’s presence as a co-

participant is an unavoidable and essential component of the discourse, and an

interviewer’s mode of questioning influences a story’s production” (1986, p. 105). Yow

(1994) observed that the impact of the listener on a narrative can extend beyond an

98 actual interview. And Elliott observed that “The teller of a narrative will be influenced not only by the immediate listener, the person who is directly being addressed, but also by those who might overhear . . . or possible future audiences. . . . This is particularly likely to be true of tape-recorded research interviews” (2005, p. 11).

There is also a power relationship between the narrator and interviewer that can affect the narrative (Riessman, 1993; Yow, 1994). Researchers who have worked with participants from different economic or socio-cultural backgrounds have acknowledged that the balance of power is usually tipped in the interviewer’s favor (Bloom, 2002). On the other hand, Rubin & Rubin have observed that interviewing across different backgrounds is often less problematic than interviewing people with similar backgrounds. “Because the interviewees assume that you know what they know . . . they may not explain taken-for-granted meanings in the way they would to an outsider”

(1995, p. 110).

In addition to Rubin and Rubin’s observation about participants’ assumptions of shared experience, Weiss commented that he “found it most difficult to interview highly successful people in . . . fields not too different from [his own]”(1994, p. 138). The similarity of experience and background seemed to foster a level of competitiveness that affected the interview process. Czarniawska also observed that “Similarity, . . . might both hamper and facilitate access” (1998, p. 46). This observation came as a result of an uneasy relationship she developed with a study participant. According to Czarniawska the difficulty was that she and the participant were “too alike to achieve an easy distance and yet too alien to become close” (p. 46).

The individuals I interviewed shared with me a similar professional and socioeconomic status. I knew most of the participants either socially or as members of a local re-employment networking group. That background of shared experience definitely affected the interpersonal relationship between individual participants and me as the interviewer. The tone of the tapes and the final comments of participants indicate that the process was a positive experience, what Czarniawska describes as dialogical

(1998). Success, according to Weiss, depends on establishing “an effective research partnership” (1994, p. 138).

I approached each participant’s experience as a unique expression of the phenomenon. Acknowledging that the narrators are the experts, I focused on their individual stories and examined the uniqueness of their experience. My approach reduced the problem of assumed understanding, and minimized the potential for competitiveness, instead fostering a sense of collaboration. Whatever the relationship between me and each participant, it is important to recognize that the relationship can affect the information shared and gathered during the interview process (Yow, 1994).

Therefore I used my notes and correspondence to assess the nature of the interaction. By documenting my observations and reactions during the process of profiling, recruiting, selecting, scheduling and interviewing research participants I developed a repository of documented interactions for reference. During the process of evaluating the impact of the interpersonal function on the narratives, I used my participant correspondence in addition to the interview transcripts to remind me of the context and the nature of our interaction (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000).

100

Textural or Structural Analysis

I focused on how the participants constructed their stories by analyzing structural elements of their narratives. I integrated two approaches and evaluated both the narrative elements (Labov & Waletzky, 1966; Mishler, 1986; Riessman, 1993) and the plotline

(Ezzy, 2001; Gergen & Gergen, 1983, 1988).

Narrative elements. William Labov and Joshua Waletzky (1966) developed an analytic scheme for evaluating narratives at the clause level. Riessman described their approach as “paradigmatic . . . [in that] most investigators cite it, apply it, or use it as a point of departure.” (1993, p. 18). Labov and Waletzky identified fundamental narrative elements and categorized them by function and placement within a narrative. The elements include orientation, complication, evaluation, resolution, and coda. Riessman has described another structural element that is often included with Labov and

Waletzky’s initial group. It is the abstract, which serves as a summary of the narrative. It can be introduced by the narrator prior to the narrative as a prospectus or offered post narrative as a summary.

According to Labov and Waletzky, the narrative elements have different functions within the narrative (1966). The orientation, which may or may not always be present, sets the stage for the listener in terms of “person , place, time , and behavioral

situation ” (p. 32). The complication is made up of the events which constitute the complicating action and is the main body of the narrative. The evaluation offers insight into the narrator’s view of the narrative. In some narratives the evaluation may in fact constitute the resolution which (when separate) follows the evaluation and presents the

“resolving action” (p. 39). The coda is the narrative’s final element. Also not always

101 present, its function is to return the audience to the present moment. These along with the abstract are the structural elements that I looked for as I reviewed participant responses to define the boundaries of the embedded narratives.

Identifying Labov and Waletzky’s narrative elements was an important step in the transcript review. I looked for statements that functioned as orientations, evaluation/resolution statements, and coda (if present) that set a story apart. Conventions indicating that a story is about to be told or that it is about to end are important means of defining narrative within the interview (Gergen & Gergen, 1988). But when such conventions are not used within an interview, locating a narrative is “a complex interpretive process” (Riessman, 1993, p. 18). Where a story begins or ends can affect

how it is interpreted (Mishler, 1986). Since it is possible that structural elements alone

will not be enough to distinguish the narrative, I also examined the content and delivery.

By combining the analysis of the ideational with the textural functions, I am assuming

Riessman’s perspective that narrative analysis requires an interdependent approach.

Labov and Waletzky’s model suggests a sequence for the elements which is

inherently linear. Organizing narratives as a linear sequence is common practice. For

example, Hinchman & Hinchman (1997) included sequence as a defining characteristic

of narrative. Social psychologists Ken and Mary Gergen (1988) observed that a linear

sequence along a timeline is the most widely used convention for organizing stories.

They also suggested that how events are ordered in a narrative may simply be a matter

of social convention. Riessman made a similar observation, stating that “Western

assumptions about time marching forward underpin Labov’s approach” (1993, p. 17).

However, she went on to mention alternative ways to organize a narrative around

102 causality (where one event causes another) or theme. Thematic sequencing results in an episodic narrative that is based on a theme versus a timeline.

Acknowledging that there are alternative ways to sequence events in a narrative can be helpful for identifying narrative boundaries. Whether narrators take a time sequenced, causal or thematic approach to organizing their narratives, the underlying plotline will be evident. Identifying the particular plot line that mid-career managers have adopted as the framework for their narrative is a critical component of this research. It is the basis for understanding the career model adopted by the participating mid-career managers as they construct the story of their careers.

Narrative Plotline. Ken and Mary Gergen defined narratives as “accounts of the relationship among self-relevant events across time. . . . social constructions, undergoing continuous alteration” (1988, p. 19). They viewed individual or self narrative as a way in which individuals give meaning to their life stories; however, as social psychologists they also saw self narrative as a social construct. The narrative is developed around a

“valued end point . . . an event to be explained . . . typically saturated with value,

[which] is understood to be desirable or undesirable. . . . [The] initial rule for the well- formed narrative immediately introduces a nonobjective ingredient. The shared values of the interlocutors determine what is counted as an appropriate end point.” (1988, p. 21).

The narrator’s approach to selecting events that are relevant to the goal state is affected by what the narrator determines to be socially appropriate. “An intelligible story is one in which events are selected that serve to make the goal more or less probable”

(Gergen & Gergen, 1988, p. 21). From this perspective, social convention affects what the narrator chooses to include as well as how to frame the content to create a narrative

103 that will qualify as probable and give the story credibility. In an effort to understand these behaviors the Gergens examined the plotlines of individual narratives. From their analysis the Gergens determined that the choice of story line is not only indicative of the narrator’s views but is an active negotiation influenced by the perspective of others within a given social context.

Adopting the premise that the story line or plot form is a social convention used by the narrator to construct a plausible narrative, I compared the plots of the mid-career managers’ career narratives to the plotlines associated with the stock of alternative career models. For example, did a manager describe their career path as having no direction, a “no career,” career, or did they describe their career outside of the organization as a series of independent gigs predicated by interesting opportunities that just seemed to fall into place? Whatever the narrative, by comparing the managers’ stories with the alternatives and with the organizationally focused bureaucratic career model, I developed a deeper understanding of how participants managed their careers outside of the organization.

Summary

I have outlined the analytical process I applied to the individual narratives of the mid-career managers who participated in the study. The objective of the analysis was to develop an understanding of these individuals’ perceptions of the impact of the phenomenon on their specific employment histories within the socially defined construct

-- career. The process involved evaluating participant narratives at the ideational, interpersonal and structural levels. As outcomes emerged from the analysis of each level, it was necessary to engage in an iterative review process to ensure that the

104 findings from the analysis of one level informed the findings of the others. The iterative review of the outcomes from each level focused and clarified the participants’ meaning since “meaning is conveyed at all three levels” (Riessman, 1993, p. 21).

In addition to identifying meanings specific to each participant during the analysis, I looked for recurrent meanings across multiple managers’ narratives. It is possible that multiple occurrences or meta-themes may be indicative of social influences affecting the managers’ view of career; therefore, I was particularly interested in any language that indicated the narrating manager’s view of career and how their career view aligned with the socially constructed bureaucratic career model. I examined the alignment of the actual versus the socially recognized model for any influence the juxtaposition could have on how participants interpreted the effect of long-term unemployment on their professional development. In addition to looking closely at the manager’s language I also incorporated a step in the analysis protocol in which I examined the individual analyses for recurrent or meta-themes.

The final step in the narrative analysis protocol entailed comparing characteristics of the various managers’ career management behaviors to those characteristics associated with career resilience. After documenting the presence or absence of the different characteristics it is possible to make some recommendations for developing future quantitative studies on the effect of career management behaviors, alternative career models and career resiliency, which will be discussed in Chapter Five.

By comparing the outcomes of the individual narrative analyses, I was able to highlight participant similarities and singularities as well as trends. Therefore the sequence of the narrative analysis protocol was as follows:

105

Step 1: Analyze each of the interviews by individual and evaluate the narratives by level (i.e., ideational, interpersonal and structural.)

Step 2: Identify themes by individual and career model.

Step 3: Catalog all the themes and determine if there are recurrences.

Step 4: Evaluate any recurrent themes for social influences,

Step 5: Compare participant career narratives to the alternative career models.

Step 6: Identify any participants’ career management behavior characteristics reflective of those characteristics associated with career resilience.

In this section of Chapter Three I described the research strategy – a combination of in-depth interviewing and narrative analysis. I outlined my approach to data collection and transcription. I also detailed my approach for evaluating participant narratives based on Halliday’s three narrative functions -- ideational, interpersonal and structural -- concluding with a summary of how I organized the research protocol. In the next section

I will discuss the research design including the unit of analysis, the sample selection and the logistics of data collection and analysis.

Research Design

The epistemology and research paradigm of this study are focused on understanding a phenomenon through the experience of individuals who have been exposed to its impact. The interpretive paradigm provides a framework for the methodology. Narrative inquiry combines focused interviews and narrative analysis to expand understanding of the career management behaviors of several mid-career managers who experienced long-term (six months or more) unemployment in the wake

of the 2001 recession. The unit of analysis is determined by the nature of the study and

106 the approach to the sample selection strategy is also strongly influenced by the framework of the research.

Unit of Analysis and Sample Selection Strategy

The perceptions of individual mid-career managers were the focus of the research; therefore, the individual is the unit of analysis for the study. Because it was necessary to get the information for the study from a population who had had a specific

experience (i.e., mid-career managers who have experienced long-term unemployment

following the 2001 recession), the sampling method was purposeful. This particular

purposeful sampling strategy has been labeled by Patton as “operational construct

sampling” (2002, p. 239). Using this approach enabled me to identify and work with

participants, who had experienced long-term unemployment after January, 2001.

The ideal candidate for the study was an individual between 40 and 55 years of

age at the time they became unemployed. The candidates had to have a minimum of

five years of experience as a manager, senior manager, director, or vice president in a

large (over 500 employees) company. Their unemployment had to be the result of a

layoff; it could not be voluntary. In addition, the length of their unemployment had to

extend for a minimum of six months. Because I linked the participants’ unemployment

experience to 2001, the year of the last recession, candidates were expected to have

experienced their period of long-term unemployment after January, 2001.

I approached the facilitator of a local networking group for permission to recruit

participants. The group had been established as a resource for unemployed individuals

after the 2001 recession and continued to actively serve the unemployed through

107 meetings and a list serve of job postings and networking events. I prepared an invitation outlining my research and the criteria to qualify as a participant (See Appendix A) that was posted on the list serve. In July 2009, the message was distributed via email to over three hundred active and former members. I received four email responses within two days of the posting. I contacted all four to thank them for their interest and to screen them to ensure they qualified to participate. Three of the four met the criteria. The fourth person had worked for small companies and therefore did not qualify.

After several weeks with no additional responses to the recruiting email, I sent email invitations to three members of the networking group who had been active between 2002 and 2004. I received positive responses from two of the three and no response from the third. I reviewed the participant criteria with each of the two respondents to confirm that they qualified and that they would be interested in participating. In addition I invited another individual who was not a member of the networking group but who met the criteria to participate as well. My objective for including a participant that was not a member of the networking group was to provide some additional variety to the study population relative to agency as a career management behavior. The individual also agreed and qualified bringing the total number of study participants to six. It should be noted that I did receive a fifth response to my recruiting email about five months after beginning the interview process.

However at that time I had ended data collection and moved into analysis. The study sample included six participants, five of whom were members of the networking group.

108

Three self-selected in response to a recruiting email and three were invited. All were screened to ensure that they met the criteria to participate in the study.

After screening the candidates, the next step was to confirm their participation and to provide additional information regarding the nature of the study, the participant’s role and rights, a preliminary interview schedule and my contact information. The confirmation with information was distributed electronically via e-mail. Within a week of distributing the participants’ confirmation materials, I was able to schedule the first of the three face-to-face interviews.

Data Gathering Logistics

Interviews were conducted in Connecticut and Massachusetts at various sites including public and community college libraries, office meeting rooms and a private residence. The first interview took place on July 30, 2009 and the final interview was completed on September 23, 2009. Interview appointments were scheduled on days or evenings to accommodate participants’ schedules. Only one interview was re-scheduled due to a conflict. Each interview took approximately 90 minutes. To allow for set up and the potential for the occasional delay, I advised the participants to schedule two hours per session. As previously mentioned, after the transcription was completed I also sent the transcribed interviews via email to provide the participants with an opportunity to react to the interviews as well as to follow up with the participants and bring closure to the interview process.

In terms of interview documentation, at the beginning of each of the first interviews the participant and I reviewed and signed consent release forms (see Appendix

109

B). We each retained copies with original signatures for our files. I also recorded the participant’s demographic data on the interview script. Following the interviews, I transferred the information to a participant data sheet. I also had blank Post Interview checklists for each interview to record any comments, observations, extenuating

circumstances that might affect the course of the interview (Rubin & Rubin, 1995; Yow,

1994). Although I had checklists for each interview, I found I relied on the recordings as

the primary record of the interviews. Finally, during the third interview I asked five of the

six participants to create a map of their career trajectory as a way to capture their

perception of their career path. I also requested that they explain the map during the

interview. Scanned versions of the participants’ maps along with the transcripts of their

explanations are included as data in Appendix D.

I neglected to ask one of the participants to draw and explain the map during our

final interview. I was able to contact the participant and request his assistance. He

completed the map, and returned it to me at a later date. It is included in Appendix D;

however, there is no transcript of the manager’s explanation of his map. Because, I did

not follow the protocol and use the check list, I do not have that additional information.

My experience also suggests that in designing an interview cycle that incorporates

gathering tangible materials from the participants, it would be prudent to gather the

materials earlier in the cycle, instead of waiting for the last interview.

Additional documentation during the data gathering phase included email

correspondence. In addition, I developed and maintained spread sheets used to track the

interview schedule and status. I also prepared a spreadsheet to monitor the status of the

transcription process. I also maintained an online word file for capturing observations and

110 reflections which I regarded as my journal for the project. It served as a reminder and a mechanism for documenting ideas (Elliott, 2005; Patton, 2002). This collection of documentation served as field notes (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Lincoln & Guba,

1985) that I used to analyze the data to develop the findings and results discussions in

Chapters Four and Five.

With data gathered and processed, the question of its trustworthiness has significant implications for the findings and results presented in Chapters Four and Five and for the study overall. The next section is a discussion of the trustworthiness of the conclusions and recommendations developed through narrative analysis as qualitative research process.

Trustworthiness

Lincoln and Guba addressed the issue of trustworthiness by first explaining that

the objective of demonstrating the trustworthiness of some research is to persuade the

audience “that the findings of an inquiry are worth paying attention to” (1985, p. 290).

This is not a case of arguing the significance of the research, but a function of

demonstrating that the research has been conducted with a level of rigor.

Trustworthiness means that the research methodology and outcomes are confirmable and dependable and, as appropriate, subject to external checks.

The challenge for the qualitative researcher engaging in narrative analysis is demonstrating that outcomes are confirmable and dependable, particularly when outside checks are problematic. As discussed throughout this chapter, the researcher is committed to understanding how individuals perceived the impact of an experience on their careers. The process for coming to that understanding involved storytelling on the

111 part of the narrator-managers and analysis on the part of the researcher. The challenge is to demonstrate confirmability and dependability through the analysis of ephemera. After all, no one tells the same story twice (Riessman, 1993). New information or current experiences can cause a narrator to adjust the plotline of events that have occurred previously (K. E. Weick, 1995). A new audience can influence the content, the detail, the emphasis of a narration. Acknowledging the transitory nature of narrative as well as the effect of interpretation on outcomes of the analysis is crucial to building a case for narrative research trustworthiness. By recognizing the risk that the research can be discounted as inherently untrustworthy, the researcher strives to build in rigor throughout the research process beginning with the study design and ending with the report.

I have integrated accepted qualitative research practices into each step of the process in an effort to incorporate rigor throughout the study’s design. Beginning with defining the participant sampling strategy as “operational construct sampling [which entails] finding manifestations of a theoretical construct of interest so as to elaborate and examine the construct” (Patton, 2002, p. 239). I have developed a plan that acknowledges that although the study does not fit the natural science paradigm, it does honor the interpretive paradigm. Conducting interviews with a loosely structured script rather than no script at all allows for some level of reproducibility by enabling other researchers to follow a similar protocol using the script outline and prompts. Although the script was loosely structured, the interview protocol offered some consistency by reminding me, the researcher, to inquire about the same content with all of the

112 participants. “Guides, in the form of protocols, outlines or checklists, help keep the interviewer focused on the topic and main themes” (Rubin & Rubin, 1995, p. 161).

Nonetheless, it should be noted that how questions are interpreted is situational and can vary by between narrator and interviewer. As Mishler pointed out “Even questions that are apparently simple in structure and topic leave much room for alternative interpretations by both interviewer and respondent” (1986, p. 45). His observation indicates that uniformity is not the objective in the conduct of narrative inquiry. The real power of the loosely structured interview guide is that it permits the interview process to flow naturally, focusing on a specific area as the participant and I pursue topics of interest as they arise (Riessman, 1993; Rubin & Rubin, 1995; Weiss,

1994). An interview that flows naturally lowers the risk that the interview outcome is determined exclusively by the researcher’s intent. By engaging in narrative inquiry and using a loosely structured script, the combination supports the managers’ efforts to develop a story of their own and facilitates their attempt to capture their own perceptions of their career experiences, one moment in time.

Another aspect of the study that fostered trustworthiness was related to the number of interviews completed during the research. I conducted three interviews with each of the six participants for a total of 18 interviews. Although the sample population

was not large, the actual number of interviews fell within the numbers conducted in

current studies. According to Kvale “the number of interviews tend to be around 15 +/-

10” (1996, p. 102). Kvale’s figure was reinforced by a number of researchers including

Dukes who recommended 3, 5, even 10 interviews (Dukes, 1984). Josselson and

Lieblich recommended no fewer than five but no more than 30 to avoid being

113 overwhelmed by the data. They also pointed out that fewer, but more in depth interviews

could be as effective as many short interviews because the interviews were so data

intensive. In fact, Josselson and Lieblich suggested that the number of interviews “is

inversely proportional to the intensiveness of the study” (2003, p. 268). I found that by

conducting a series of interviews with the same individuals, the participants re-visited

certain stories, thus corroborating key points and enriching the data.

As outlined previously, I transcribed the entire interview, including the

paralinguistic elements. The transcript is a complete record of utterances during the

interview. The objective of taking such an inclusive position was to reduce the risk of

filtering and potentially misinterpreting the narratives because of missing content

(Kvale, 1996). Reviewing previous recordings during the interview cycle helped me to

identify additional questions and areas to probe for specific information (Weiss, 1994).

Providing transcripts of the interviews to the interviewees gave them an opportunity to

confirm that the interview content reflected their perceptions of their experience. Taking

an iterative approach and conducting three interviews enhanced the emergent nature of

the interview process. It also provided both the participants and me with opportunities to

clarify the content to ensure that it reflected the participants’ meaning.

Maintaining the email correspondence and any field notes provided additional

reference material that was used to reduce the risk of relativism. Clandinin and Connelly

recommended the review of correspondence and field notes gathered during research

(2000) as one means of evaluating personal and social aspects of the interview

interaction during the analysis process. The issue of relativism is significant. Research

analyses and outcomes are framed by the information that any researcher chooses to

114 examine within the context of a study. The very choice of topic establishes a filter.

However, I prefer to regard this filtering process as a form of focus versus bias. I relied on tools, such as Computer Aided Qualitative Data Analysis Software and a structural analysis protocol (Labov & Waletzky, 1966) to evaluate the ideational and structural content of participant narratives. I also developed and relied on a procedural approach to the data analyses that I followed for each participant to help reduce the risk of finding only that content that supported my interests. My hope was that by using tools, protocols and procedures, the discipline I followed during the analytical process contributed to a consistent and thorough analysis of each interview and the embedded narratives. In addition I looked to my committee to provide additional insights to add perspective to the analysis and outcomes.

Ultimately, the trustworthiness of this research will be determined by the reader.

My commitment to operating within the interpretive paradigm, adhering to protocols appropriate to narrative inquiry and demonstrating that the research was conducted in a disciplined manner will contribute to the reader’s confidence in the outcomes. However,

besides method and intent outcomes that the reader considers plausible also contributes

to the trustworthiness of the data (Riessman, 2008).

Limitations

Every study is bound by limitations; in this study there are three aspects of the

research that merit discussion as specific limitations. The three aspects are the limited

character of the sample, the nature of the data and the makeup of the research team.

The first is the limited size of the sample. For those interested in a model that can

be used to frame a grand narrative about the career management behaviors of all mid-

115 career managers who have experienced long-term unemployment, the outcomes of this study will not be sufficient. The scale of this intimate examination of the experiences of a select few precludes the development of predictive generalities that could be used to frame policy or design process. However, as clearly stated, the objective of the study was not prediction. The objective was to add to our understanding of the career management behaviors of mid-career managers who experienced long-term unemployment. By focusing on the experiences of a few, we can learn how they faced

and responded to unusual career circumstances. The stories become examples that can

be added to our repertoire of career management behaviors. And as examples they may

provide fresh insight into the issue of mid-career managers’ career development.

The second significant limitation for researchers interested in capturing

managers’ perceptions of long-term unemployment as they experienced the

phenomenon, is the nature of the data under evaluation. This is a retrospective study. It is not longitudinal; therefore, the managers’ perceptions were tempered by hindsight.

The stories cannot relay the immediacy of the managers’ feelings and reactions to the ambiguity of their circumstances. Instead the managers’ narratives are defined by outcomes that they have already experienced since the period of long-term unemployment. The retrospective nature of the research requires that managers organize events, actions, and outcomes, establishing causalities as they construct their narratives.

Because the information is self reported, the accuracy and veracity of the participants’ stories are open to challenge. The study design does not include referencing external data sources to corroborate either the accuracy or validity of the participants’ statements in an effort to establish correspondence. As Reissman pointed out:

116

For projects relying on social constructionist perspectives, the correspondence of reported events in a personal narrative with other kinds of evidence is not as relevant as in realist tales, sometimes even beside the point. . . . [A] narrative is not simply a factual report of events, but instead one articulation told from a point of view (2008, p. 187).

The objective of the research was to develop a current understanding of participants’ perceptions of their experiences. Providing external corroboration of their perceptions at the time of their unemployment was not the focus of the research. For this

study, their perception is reality. “The value of stories, then lies in their potential for

elucidating this subjective level and the relationship between individual action and wider

social and cultural contexts” (Cohen & Mallon, 2001, p. 49). By focusing the research

on the meaning that the participants have constructed about their long-term

unemployment, the researcher has developed a line of research that is informed by

recollected, self reported data that can then be related to career in the broader, social

context.

Finally, a third limitation is the unit of one that constituted the research “team”.

Qualitative research such as narrative inquiry, particularly during the analysis process, is

often done with multiple reviewers. Multiple reviewers can offer different perspectives

during the analysis and interpretation process. Multiple reviewers also offer a means of

verifying interpretations as they generate similar outcomes. Because this is a doctoral

study, I was the sole analyst. There is therefore a risk that the research outcomes were

biased, that data gathering and analysis were limited by my abilities and expertise or that

my conclusions were drawn through the lens of a single eye. However as noted earlier

there are several elements built in to the design of the research that will attempt to

address this limitation.

117

First, the study participants and I established a working relationship that yielded a richer understanding of their perceptions of the phenomenon. My approach was apparent in my discussion of how I intended to manage the interpersonal function during the narrative gathering process. I wrote, “Acknowledging that the narrators are the experts, focusing on their individual stories and examining the uniqueness of their experience should . . . foster a sense of collaboration.” I asked the participants as experts to allow me to tap into their knowledge base. As collaborators, I was able to discuss the phenomenon with the participants to learn more about their perceptions, expanding my point of view and the range of my perspective.

Another resource readily available to me was an online journal. During the course of the study I documented notes regarding the study for ongoing reference.

Thomas Mallon wrote that as a diarist, he not only wrote for himself but for another, a

“you” that he found himself “talking to like a person” (1984, p. xvi). And so the journal offered an “other” with which I “discussed” the research and analysis. At the same time the journal served as a repository of ideas during the course of the study that were readily available for review.

Finally, the doctoral chair and committee offered oversight throughout the study.

Their feedback during the research and analysis added perspective. They encouraged me to look beyond particular disciplines or methodologies and to examine the data from different vantage points. I believe that incorporating alternate points of view has reduced the risk for potential bias and omissions in the outcomes presented in Chapters Four and

Five.

118

The qualitative nature of the study presents limitations in terms of the predictability of findings and the generalizability of results. However, since this study examined the particular, broad application was not the issue. Individual responses were the focus of the research. The objective was to assess the career management behaviors of mid-career managers who experienced long-term unemployment and to learn from their reactions.

Human Subjects

Researchers who involve human participants in the research process have an obligation to consider the impact of the process on the participants. In accordance with

The George Washington University’s Internal Review Board (IRB) practices and policies I received approval to conduct this study. Based on IRB approval I moved ahead to conduct the research. I recruited six mid-career managers who met the research criteria I informed them that I would ask them to recount their long-term unemployment experiences and that I would tape the interviews. The participants were informed of the plan and agreed to my proposal for utilizing and maintaining the data before participating in the study.

In accordance with my proposal to IRB, I used pseudonyms and generalized descriptive details regarding the participants’ employment, such as employee title, office locations and other potentially revealing information to protect the participants’ privacy.

In addition, interview recordings and transcripts were labeled with a code. The list with the codes, linking identities to the transcripts and recordings have been, and will continue to be, kept in a separate location from the recordings and transcripts until the materials are destroyed.

119

It is my intent to keep the transcripts and recordings for a period of up to five years upon the completion of the study. The recordings and transcripts will be maintained for this period in the event that follow-up study will be conducted that requires further assessment of the interviewer’s and/or interviewee’s content delivery.

However, in the event that any follow-up studies using existing participant data, are contemplated, the participants will be contacted for permission before the study will be conducted.

During the course of the research, I transcribed the recordings and analyzed the managers’ embedded narratives. I submitted the transcripts to all of the participants for their review. In addition to confirming that to the best of their recollection, transcripts reflected what they had communicated, I also asked that the participants indicate any additional information that they considered revealing that I could then revise. I received feedback from one participant with that information. I have revised his transcripts and all excerpts accordingly.

Upon completion of my analyses I have generated my findings which are the basis for the interpretations and conclusions presented in the following chapters for the review and approval of my committee. Upon committee approval, the research documents will be made available publicly and the thesis will be published through the proQuest database Dissertations and Theses. Because of the public exposure of the information, as previously described the participants’ identities have been masked and any potentially revealing information has been removed or revised to prevent any undue and/or inappropriate use or distribution of the participants’ personal or professional information.

120

The implications for the participants are expected to be minimal. Although the actual long-term unemployment experience may have proven to be difficult and personally and professionally disappointing, I did not anticipate that the managers’ reflections would result in any untoward emotional distress. In fact several of the participants expressed their satisfaction with the process and the opportunity to review their careers. Their responses reflect other researchers’ observations regarding the therapeutic aspect of the interview process (Cohen & Mallon, 2001; Elliott, 2005; Kvale,

1996; Rubin & Rubin, 1995; Weiss, 1994). In accordance with Internal Review Board

(IRB) guidelines, I have and will continue to adhere to the appropriate protocols for

ensuring the humane and ethical treatment of the participants and their privileged

information.

Summary

In this chapter I have presented a discussion of the epistemology that informs the research and the paradigm that supports the methodology. Espousing an anti-positivist philosophy, I adopted an interpretivist paradigm in order to learn more about the career management behaviors of mid-career managers who have experienced long-term unemployment. Interpretive based methods including in-depth interviewing and narrative analysis are the vehicles for capturing and analyzing participants’ perceptions of long-term unemployment, their career management behaviors as they pursued re- employment, and any characteristics of their behaviors that may be manifested as resilient career behaviors. In addition to a detailed description of methods used to conduct my narrative inquiry I also described details of my research design. The chapter continued with a discussion of the trustworthiness of the research process and outcomes,

121 followed by my thoughts concerning the study’s key limitations. I concluded by stating my commitment to meeting and maintaining The George Washington University

Internal Review Board standards of protection for human subjects research.

122

Chapter Four: Results

Introduction

To understand the impact of long-term unemployment on midcareer managers’ career management behaviors, I asked six people to describe their experiences. Jane and Bill, Mike and Sue, Pete and Bart, are the pseudonyms of the four men and two women that participated in the study. Prior to their layoffs they had held positions as managers, directors, vice presidents. Over the course of a series of three interviews these individuals shared their career narratives. They described their careers leading up to the day they learned that their employment was ending. They spoke of their efforts to become re-employed during long-term unemployment. Finally they reflected on their view of their career at the time of the interviews. The stories that they shared were unique to their circumstances, but there were similarities that wove through their experiences.

To address the idiosyncrasies of their individual careers, I chose to analyze each of the participants’ narratives individually in line with a case-centered approach

(Riessman, 2008). However, in recognition that any similarities across the managers’ experiences would also add to understanding the career management behaviors of mid- career, long-term unemployed managers, I opted to document shared experiences at the end of the chapter following the individual analyses and preceding the chapter summary.

123

The interviews were the primary data for the study. They were analyzed using methods that exercised both narrative and paradigmatic reasoning as described in

Chapter Three. Quotes and excerpts from interview transcripts were provided as supporting documentation for the outcomes discussed on the following pages. As mentioned earlier, the interview cycle consisted of three interviews. The interview topics were organized sequentially through time.

In the first interview, the six participants were asked to provide background on their careers and the events leading up to the layoff announcement. Each spoke of their

positions and how they came to have those responsibilities. They described the

sequence of events on the day they lost their jobs; where they were; who gave them the

news; what happened next. They talked about how they felt or the reactions of

colleagues or their families’ responses. In the second interview the participants focused

on their long-term unemployment, what they did, who they interacted with, the nature

of the opportunities they pursued and the results of their efforts. They described their

frame of mind and the evolution of their job search as the period of unemployment

extended beyond three months to six months and beyond. In the third and final

interview the six managers addressed their return to employment. Some explained why they chose to accept the position, what the employment offered them and how they felt

about their new job and the status of their career. They also offered additional

commentary on what happened next and concluded with reflections about their careers

based on their experiences up to the day of the final interview.

124

In this chapter I started the analysis for each manager with overviews of the individuals’ careers developed from their interviews. The overviews follow the same basic outline of the interview cycle. They open with background on the managers’ initial career activity as well as descriptions of the managers’ roles and responsibilities immediately preceding layoff. Transcripts of the stories of their layoff are provided so that the reader can read about the experience in the managers’ own words. Descriptions of the managers’ activities post-layoff were also developed from the interview data and as the period of the unemployment continued, any adjustments reported by the managers were also noted. The overviews concluded with the managers’ discussions of their re-employment, outcomes of the re-employment experience and the managers’ perceptions of the state of their careers at the time of the final interview.

Short and long quotations punctuate each overview along with excerpts from the transcripts describing key events, interactions or observations as appropriate.

Integrating the managers’ own words within the text of the overview provides access to the participants’ narratives that were subjected to the analytical process. The objective of the overview is to represent the particular issues faced by each individual as they addressed their long-term unemployment experience and to provide background on those areas relevant to the research agenda which were subjected to analysis.

The results of the analyses of the individual career narratives told by Jane, Bill,

Mike, Sue, Bart and Pete, have been addressed respectively in that order. As previously documented in Chapter Three, the framework of the narrative analysis was based on

Riessman’s interpretation of Halliday’s narrative elements--thematic, structural and

125 interpersonal (1993). Each manager’s interviews were evaluated for manifestations of the three elements and the evaluation discussions are organized accordingly, beginning with thematic analysis.

The sources for the themes used in the analysis can come from the data themselves; prior theory, or even the research purpose (Riessman, 2008). After the texts of the eighteen interviews were reviewed, one or two themes specific to each manager were identified and analyzed. In addition, the interviews were analyzed thematically for any relationship to the eight career management models (i.e., Bureaucratic, Eccentric

Predicate, No-Career, Protean, Boundaryless, Post-Modern, Chaos or Kaleidoscope).

Besides the thematic analysis, a story from each manager’s interviews was assessed

structurally by applying Labov’s and Waletzky’s classic approach to clause analysis

(1966). Examining how each manager structured their tale added insights into the

manager’s perception of the experience. Further analysis of how particular managers

narrated either specific career stories or their overall career narrative by examining the

use of point of view, dialogue or metaphor was documented when appropriate.

The emphasis of the structural analysis was on how the narratives were said, while the thematic analysis emphasized what was said. Halliday’s final element to be assessed as part of the narrative analysis was the interpersonal function. I evaluated the interpersonal function from the interviews or from research correspondence between the manager and me. An examination of the interactions as documented offered insights into the relationship between the manager as narrator and the researcher as interviewer

126 and its effect on the narrative. Completing the analysis of the interpersonal function concluded the narrative analysis segment.

The next segment in the discussion of each manager’s results addressed the logico-deductive aspect of the analysis associated with paradigmatic reasoning (Bruner,

1986). Included are the demographic data and any other information that was used to generate descriptive statistics about the study’s six-member population. In addition, each participant’s behavior during the period of their long-term unemployment was assessed to identify any characteristics that the manager manifested that could be associated with career resilience. The catalog of resilient characteristics produced from the analysis is expected to contribute to the design of future quantitative research.

The section in Chapter Four which precedes the chapter summary addresses those results that were considered common to all of the participants. Discussions of the participants’ career management behaviors in terms of agency, adaptability and their tolerance of ambiguity, what constituted re-employment for them, as well as any additional findings determined to be common to all of the participants were presented in this section. The chapter concludes with a brief summary.

Please note that in addition to the use of pseudonyms, some information regarding employers or geographic locations was edited to preserve participants’ privacy. The appearance of excerpts may differ based on the narrative element being evaluated. When warranted, excerpts from the interview transcripts were consolidated.

Interviewer comments such as “Yeah,” “Right,” “Oh, okay,” and “Mmhmm” were eliminated. This approach was particularly appropriate for the thematic analysis of the

127 narratives, where “data are interpreted in light of thematics” (Riessman, 2008, p. 54) and the focus is about what is said versus how it is said. However, for those excerpts subjected to structural analysis where the interest was in how it was said, transcript excerpts were not edited to remove hesitations, stammering and other dysfluencies

(2008). Interviewer comments were also included to facilitate the structural analysis.

Mid-Career Manager Career Narratives

Jane

Overview

Background At nineteen, Jane began her professional career as a secretary. Her

supervisor encouraged her to enroll in an in-house programming course. After

completing the training she promptly applied what she learned to automate her job. At a

loss to keep Jane busy, her supervisor encouraged her to post for a junior programmer

analyst trainee position. According to Jane, she was not impressed with the opportunity.

As she recalled, she told him she was more interested in riding her horse. Her

supervisor prevailed, persuading her that the job was not only an opportunity to get into

the systems division, but was a way to pay for her horse. With that vignette, Jane laid

out the primary elements of her career. For over twenty years Jane pursued her

professional career in accounting, finance and systems, while committed to her

avocation, which she referred to as “horse life.”

As a novice systems professional just beginning her career, Jane relied on

corporate training during the day to develop her systems skills. At night she pursued a

128 degree in accounting and finance. However, shortly after joining the systems division, the project she supported was cancelled and Jane was laid off. She found a similar position at another company only to be laid off again. She then joined a manufacturing firm. In her first year with the firm, she saved the company $30 million by rewriting the accounts payable, receivables and inventory systems. For several more years Jane continued to have a significant effect on the organization, overhauling critical systems like payroll and HR, until she was recruited away by her original employer.

In her new job, Jane was charged with managing the electronic upgrade of the company’s trading room--an important, highly visible project. The upgrade was a success, but according to Jane, rather than getting a chance to manage another large project she was denied by a systems management team that thought she was too young to manage a big project. Instead, as she described it, she bounced around developing different and more critical skills.

Jane worked her way through the finance arm of the systems organization where she had a hand in managing the department’s capital equipment and payroll budgets.

Eventually, she moved out of finance and into pure systems. There she became involved in the architecture of the corporate PC network. Her role evolved and Jane became the go-to person on PC network security. On her authority the company would

shut down systems throughout the organization from offices in the Far East across the

US and Europe to protect the integrity of the corporate systems. She was responsible

for securing the company’s network against employee misuse and could send security guards to remove an employee that was jeopardizing the system. She demanded good

129 service from vendors and got it because she wielded her company’s “forty thousand votes.” She had power and authority because of her position. As she explained, “I didn’t have a problem floating at the director level, because I knew the risk was at the

AVP level . . . so floating at the director level . . . and getting good background was good because then you, in theory, you could move to another company.” Her career management strategy at that time was to maintain a position which offered opportunities to build marketable skills and provided some level of authority and influence within the organization, but with a low enough profile to avoid being a target for layoff. After more than twenty years, Jane had reached the level that met her needs and allowed her to support her colleagues and serve the organization.

During those twenty years Jane had a number of opportunities to demonstrate her commitment to her role and to the organization. She recounted several stories of long hours and weekends spent averting system disasters. In one instance she described spending a holiday weekend coaxing 600 offices through the installation of virus protection software to defend against a potent virus. She explained that she was so successful; the software vendor enlisted her aid with her organization’s blessings to help various branches of the military get back up and running. It took five days, but she enjoyed the challenge. “It was actually fun to do . . . . It was great.”

That was actually the lead-in to her story about her layoff. “And that’s what I was doing; in fact I was in the middle of saving the company from a disaster. There was a virus going on and they kept calling me on my desk phone. I said you need to get off

130 my desk phone, because I’m in the middle of doing something. And I hung back up on them three times. . . . They were waiting for me to give me my notice.”

Layoff At the time of her layoff, Jane was wrapping up a corporate-wide systems security implementation. She said, “I was actually looking for another big project within the organization and the previous manager and I had agreed to discuss what nice project we could pick out for me.” However, according to Jane her “previous manager” ended up on the wrong end of a power struggle.

“And there was a fight to the end. When my manager went, so did all of the managers underneath him. . . . Actually there were like three layers. And they went, this layer, (flicks her finger) then this layer, (repeats flicking gesture), then this layer, (flicks again) then HIM and then they re-organized and I got to work for this guy. . . . And said, (She whispers) Oh, shit! . . . I'd had a major confrontation with him about six months prior.

Jane described the confrontation which did not go well and the outcome. The bottom line—after their interaction their working relationship was badly damaged and according to Jane, “[It] was never fine after that. . . . And then when my boss got laid off. I just knew.”

Table 3 is a transcript of Jane’s story about her lay off and what it meant to her to lose her job.

131

TABLE 3 Jane’s Layoff Story

J: And that's what I was doing; in fact I was in the middle of saving the large major company from a disaster. There was a virus going on and they kept calling me on my desk phone. I said you need to get off my desk phone, because I'm in the middle of doing something. And I hung back up on them three times. And they kept saying “You need to just come to the conference room.”. . . I wasn’t allowed to say out loud we were- it was taking us over. And I would just hang the phone up on them. And I kept going and going and going. And then finally two security guards appeared.

I: Gasps.

J: And they said, “Would you step away from the desk please.” And I looked at them and I said, “Are you nuts?”

And they said “Ma’am, we really mean it, you need to step away from the desk.” And I said, “I need to call my second in command and then I will do it.”

And they said “No call, step away now.”

And I said. “Fine, but you two are going to explain.” And then when I got to the room I said, “I see what it is.” but I said “Do you know what you’ve just risked?”

I: . . . How did you feel at that moment in time to have security officers come and take you away from your desk?

J: I was mad as hell. And then when I got downstairs and I looked at my boss at that time. Looked him right straight in the eye. And I said, “Don’t even say it to me, because you . . . lied to me two days ago. You said I was perfectly safe. I had nothing to worry about and I can tell by who’s in the room what you are going to say. Don’t waste my time. Just don’t waste my time. . . .”

And they let that virus thing go. They didn't even tell the security team, that there was a problem. I got called at home that night saying how come you didn’t finish.

I said. "Call them. I can't speak to you.”

And I had really enjoyed doing all that, but I went from you know . . . being a star person to (pauses - strumming fingers on the table.) . . . to nowhere

132

Long-term Unemployment As part of her severance package, Jane’s former employer required that she sign a one year non-compete agreement. The agreement prohibited Jane from working in security at any other financial services company in the area; thus limiting the companies she could target in her job search. For the first four months of her unemployment, she took advantage of the company’s in-house outplacement services. In addition, she joined a couple of networking groups. She contacted recruiters. She also decided to take advantage of her avocation to expand her network. Over the winter, Jane installed her horses at an upscale stable downstate to tap into a community of horse owners outside her usual circle of contacts. Her interactions with the other horse owners became an effective networking tool. She got leads, contacts and interviews and made some friends in the process before taking her horses home for the summer. It should be noted that Jane’s relationship to her horses goes beyond avocation. She herself said, “When it’s somebody’s horse, that’s more than a pet, it’s a member of the family.” For Jane, her horses, as well as her dog and cat, qualified as family.

Perhaps the most valuable professional connection Jane made during the year was joining the state chapter of the Information Systems Security Association (ISSA).

As a member, she was linked to other security professionals locally and nationally.

Based on their input, she decided to pursue a certification in security to add to her credentials. Qualification required ISSA sponsorship, meeting certain educational and experiential criteria, as well as passing a rigorous exam. After some intense training and months studying, she passed the exam and became a Certified Information Systems

133

Security Professional (CISSP). Armed with her new certification and well-groomed, widespread network, Jane felt sure that she would be re-employed quickly. But despite her credential and connections, she found few opportunities. Even walking into the local grocer’s with a retired employee as a reference generated no interest in her application.

Re-employment After 15 months, Jane ended her unemployment by taking a job as a consultant. She worked with a medical professional, advising him as to how he could bring his office into compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule. After two months she left to take a consulting job in financial services. That assignment lasted five months. Jane completed several short-term assignments for different clients, working through local resource management companies. As a contractor with systems security expertise and an accounting and finance background, she was employed to test programs, audit systems and make recommendations for improving performance at banks, insurance companies, even a pharmacy. She engaged in the same types of analyses and prepared similar recommendations as she had for twenty-plus years at her former organization; however, the outcomes were considerably different from the recognition that she had enjoyed as an employee.

At one engagement, a permanent employee would become violent two or three times a week. She described an incident when he turned on her. “At one point I asked him a question and . . . [h]e decided to come after me with a ruler.” Although Jane considered the work interesting and enjoyable, she also went on to say, “It was just

134 challenging at moments, because this person could not be controlled. . . . And I was really glad that it ended a month early, because it was very stressful too. You never knew what he was going to do.” At another assignment, Jane made a series of recommendations to ensure compliance with certain freedom of information and disclosure laws. However, the organization saw the plan not as something to be implemented, but simply as insurance against prosecution. The ethical implications were significant and she was glad when the client and she mutually agreed to end the contract. On one of her last agency assignments, Jane was contracted to a company that managed their temporary staffing head count on a weekly basis. The company’s approach was to release consultants at the end of the week without notice. Consultants

would learn after they left the office at the end of the day if they could return to their

desks Monday morning or if they were unemployed again. Once terminated,

contractors were not allowed back on the property, nor were they permitted to retrieve

any personal belongings left behind. According to Jane, consultant belongings were

often not returned. Unexpectedly, Jane got the call Friday evening that her services

were no longer needed, but she had left medications at her desk! Because of her special

circumstances, the company permitted the agency representative to pick up Jane’s

things; nonetheless Jane said the whole assignment left a nasty taste in her mouth. That

assignment ended in 2008. When Jane and I began our interviews in July 2009, she had

been unemployed for close to two years.

Jane was still looking for permanent employment at the time we met. The day

before her first interview in the cycle, she had attended a job fair. She recounted how

135 she had presented a resume highlighting her equestrian background to a company that produced and distributed farm equipment that Jane used and respected. The recruiter was looking for a professional sales person. Jane was hoping that her experience in project management, her appreciation for the product and her commitment would make her a serious candidate. We discussed the opportunity during our first meeting and our last. In our last interview she reviewed her latest conversation with the recruiter and her plan to send additional materials to showcase her skills. However, after a recent check of the website, the position remained open and five months after our final interview,

Jane remained unemployed.

Career Assessment During the third interview I asked Jane to map out her career for me starting a few years before her layoff up to the day of the interview. (Her map is included in Appendix D). After she had drawn out the diagram I asked her to explain it to me. She had represented the years prior to lay off with a lumpy, bumpy ascending arc. The dips and upward inclines were dependent on the type of project she worked on. She liked some projects better than others. The years post-layoff were more erratic, with some ups and downs influenced by her consulting assignments and the well-being of her horses. Eventually, the line returned to a high at approximately the same level as the morning of the day of her layoff, the highpoint on the map. The low point was the afternoon of the same day.

When I observed, “So, day of layoff you went from top of the morning, literally, to bottom of the afternoon . . . “ Jane responded, “Yes, because, I was no longer, Jane, security at a large company. You will do what I say. Or when I’m calling with forty

136 thousand votes, I need this changed in your program and I want it done in four hours with the code back to me.” Instead she went on speaking in a sweet, tentative voice,

“Gee, I’m Jane calling in. I would like to request that you maybe give me my health benefits back?” Reverting back to her normal voice she said, “It makes a big change in your persona. I didn’t like that change. I didn’t deal well with it. . . . Um, it took a while to adjust that I was just me.” Pausing and then going on she said, “And I didn’t know who I was . . . That took me a long time to adjust to. That might have been also why I went to the horse world. ‘Cause somewhere back here,” (pointing to the career map),

“when I got the dressage horse that I have, and I have been a reigning champion for a long time on him. . . . My horse career has been more stable. It’s been more consistent.

Um, it has progressed more . . . My other career has sort of been not as directed.

Particularly in the last six years. It’s been whatever jobs have been available.”

In my final question for her, I asked Jane how she knew she had a career. Her response concludes her career story.

Boy, that’s a really good question. Um, I guess I know I had a career at the major company: one, because of the length of service. Two, because it progressed steadily from the lowest position I had up to the one that I had. And three, because I still know a lot of people from there that even though I haven’t kept in touch with them, now that LinkedIn is becoming a more current thing to do for professionals, they’re looking me up, um, and wanting to be linked to me. . . . Um, but also, through ISSA, a lot of the people that I'm meeting there are people that knew me as the, say the purchasing person, and um, they were the vendors. And one of them who was going to be a reference for me, um, still teases me that God, if you could get a sale past her, you were doing really good. If you could get into that company, you were doing great. If she even invited you to speak to their group or team to consider the product, you were doing really, really great. If she’d take your call, this was great. And he was like, he says, ‘We revered when you decided to even put out a request for proposal and you invited us, um,’ he’s says ‘‘cause I remember the number of times I called and you said, go away. I don’t have time. Your product is not on the list, now,

137

go away.’ And he said. ‘But you were honest about it. It’s just not in this round of consideration. Find another product.’ And he said, ‘It didn’t matter when I changed companies. It just didn’t matter, the answer was that.’ And they still tease me about that, but yet I still get nominated for the board. I still get like the respect and the . . . I found that six or eight years later, I now know who Jane is and they still; they still haven’t changed their definition of me. I guess that’s the way I would define it. They, they’ve always known who I’ve been, whether I’ve known who I’ve been or not. Narrative Analysis The following analysis assesses Jane’s career narrative thematically

and structurally and presents Jane’s view of the interpersonal interaction between her

and the interviewer. In the thematic analysis three themes were assessed. The first two

came from the data and addressed Jane’s avocation and her professional career. The

second considered Jane’s perception of her identity and its manifestation, as a function

of the power she wielded as an employee in her company. The third and final theme is

based on the theories that define the models considered relevant to managerial career

management.

Thematic Analysis Throughout Jane’s three interviews, career was defined by

two distinct threads. One thread represented her professional career as an accounting

and financial systems security analyst, the other, her career as an equestrienne. The

importance of her “horse life” was immediately apparent in the first interview when she

described a position she was pursuing as an indoor sales rep for a company specializing

in agricultural equipment. As proof of her capability, she had tailored her resume to

showcase her equestrian experience, including photos of her horses and the equipment

she used to care for and corral her animals. Her commitment to her avocation was the

backdrop to all of her professional activities. When her first supervisor suggested she

pursue a systems career, her response was “I want to ride my horse.” When she was

138 laid off, her solution to developing her networking skills was to install her two mounts at a stable where the horses would attract attention to themselves and therefore to her, a creative way to initiate conversation and make connections. And in her final interview she observed, “My horse career has been more stable.”

Jane enjoyed success competing with her thoroughbred horse. In fact, she stated that she “had been a reigning champion for a long time on him.” She also explained that she was working towards becoming a dressage judge. There are certain requirements that must be met, certain levels of accomplishment demonstrated and acknowledged. Once the levels are reached and awarded, the accomplishments are not removed. They don’t expire. Although Jane projected that it would take a long time to reach her goal, she found satisfaction in that she was the one who managed and controlled her progress.

On the other hand, Jane described her professional career as “Not as directed . .

. particularly in the last six years. It’s been whatever jobs have been available.” In effect, once Jane was no longer employed by the large financial services company and the outplacement services, and the non-compete agreement ended, her connection to the company was completely severed. At that point it appears that her professional career lost direction. Even with her certification as a Computer Information Systems Security

Professional (CISSP) Jane had not been as successful competing for employment in the external labor market as she had been competing as an equestrienne in a horse arena.

Jane ended her layoff story with the observation, “But I went from you know . . . being a star person to (pauses - strumming fingers on the table.) . . . to nowhere.”

139

Without the organization behind her, she no longer had the power of “forty thousand votes” to persuade others to follow her direction. And in a series of contract assignments not only did firms not act on the advice and counsel that she provided as a certified security professional (such as the organization that asked her to craft an information management plan that they had no intention of implementing just to avoid censure by the state Attorney General’s office), her circumstances had so changed that she was vulnerable to personal physical attack. On her last contract position, Jane was abruptly dismissed. She no longer had access to her own personal items in her former work area. Without the intercession of the placement agent, she not only would have lost her employment, but her personal property as well. As she said, “That one left a nasty taste in my mouth.”

The concept of power and the loss of power and control surfaced several times during the interviews as Jane spoke of her job loss. Unemployment was not simply a matter of lost income for Jane; it was also a loss of identity. However it is interesting to note that as she spoke of the professional relationships she continued to enjoy as a

Board member of the state chapter of ISSA, she appeared to have come to terms with her role as a professional and found her identity. One of the criteria she used to explain how she knew she had a career was based on the respect that she had been awarded by, and retained from her former colleagues. “I still get like the respect and the, I found that the six or eight years later, I now know who Jane is and they still, they still haven’t changed their definition of me. I guess that’s the way I would define it. They, they’ve always known who I’ve been, whether I’ve known who I’ve been or not.”

140

Jane’s dual career interests and the counterpoint between her avocation and her professional career present one theme that emerged from the interview data. Her sense of lost identity is another. According to Jane’s layoff narrative, her loss of identity was a result of a perceived loss of access to organizational power. However, it appeared

Jane came to terms with the issue of her identity based on her discussion of how she knew she had a career. As for the counterpoint between her avocation and professional career, Jane’s pursuit of employment with Farmtek or other agriculturally-based employers was indicative that she was reconciling the two to develop a new career management strategy.

Career theory as represented by the eight career models is the source of the final theme considered during the thematic analysis of Jane’s narratives. I had suggested earlier that the career model that managers from large organizations were most familiar with was the Bureaucratic Career model (Kanter, 1989) represented by steady advancement within an organization. That is exactly how Jane mapped her career path as she represented her career highs and lows (see Appendix D). She indicated a relatively steady upward progression preceding her layoff. That was how Jane described her view of her career at the large financial organization when she explained how she knew she had a career. When asked the question her first response was because of the length of service, but her second response was, “Because it progressed steadily from the lowest position I had up to the one that I had.” Steady upward advancement is a classic depiction of the Bureaucratic model. Apparently for at least

141 twenty-plus years at her company, Jane would have related her career to the

Bureaucratic career model.

After Jane was no longer an employee of an organization and the bureaucratic model no longer applied, what model would most closely represent her career following layoff? The duality of avocation and professional career suggests a potential match to the Boundaryless career model (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996c), which broadly defines career as incorporating all work experience over time. However, the concept is so all-encompassing as to offer little to distinguish the model from any of the other models. Handy’s Portfolio career (1989) based on a concept of multiple and possibly concurrent engagements is another possibility. But Handy’s model was primarily focused on activities associated with revenue generation. Jane’s avocation has not been a significant source of revenue.

The career model that most closely resembled Jane’s career as a contractor following her long-term unemployment was the Post-Modern career. Audrey Collin described the model (2000) when she wrote of a proliferation of temporary, part-time employment situations requiring workers to develop “new accommodations over and over again.” As a contractor it was necessary for Jane to adapt to a variety of employment arrangements based on the nature of the assignment, the source of the assignment and the manager that she reported to at the engagement site. In some situations the work was satisfying. “In the banking business . . . that was a pretty good assignment. . . . I was just testing out their systems, because they were implementing a new system. So even though I found mistakes there, it was, that was my whole job was

142 to find . . . what wasn't working right.” Other situations as already discussed “Left a nasty taste.”

Besides having to adapt to a variety of assignments, Jane also found it necessary

to pursue different avenues to find work. She picked up assignments from networking

groups and contract placement agencies. As Jane had mentioned “My . . . career has

sort of been not as directed. Particularly in the last six years. It’s been whatever jobs

have been available.” With observations like that it is obvious that even Jane realized

that her professional career had changed. To what extent it has changed will depend on

what she lands, or if she is successful in her plans to find permanent employment by

combining her equestrian and professional careers.

Structural Analysis In evaluating how Jane tells the stories of her career and focusing on a particular example, structural analysis reveals another aspect of Jane’s view of her unemployment. Laying her off created hardship for Jane and jeopardized her career. However, it also exposed the company where she had been employed for more than twenty years to unnecessary risk. Without her services the company was more vulnerable to attack.

Jane was a vivid story teller. Her interviews were peppered with dialogue. She adopted different voices to imitate the different characters in her stories. Most of her stories were long and complex, weaving in and out of her interview responses.

However, in the following brief narrative, Jane described an event that occurred months after her layoff. I analyzed the story using Riessman’s refinement of Labov’s structural codes, which included an abstract (AB) in addition to Labov’s categories of orientation

143

(OR), complicating action (CA), evaluation (EV), resolution (RE) and a coda (Labov &

Waletzky, 1966).

Table 4 Jane’s Boot Story

J: Because having been in the position that I was in, I was known OR throughout the company. OR So I came and went because the guards would say hi. OR And I kept telling them they had to check me in and they would say “No, you’re So-and-So.” OR Nobody informed the guards that I was no longer So-and-So, in the capacity I was in, CA Including an external (Pause 2.5 seconds) guard [who] booted my car for being in the Visitor’s parking space, which is where we were supposed to park because we were no longer employees. CA And I came out and found it booted.

I: Ooo. That’s insult to injury. (Chuckling)

J: Yes. And I called back in and said I’m supposed to park there. CA And they looked up on the database and said “No, you’re a current employee.”

I: Yeh.

J: What they had done is they had fouled up their database so they went EV back two years and put in the database.

I: Yeah. Okay.

J: The tape, so that was really, really foolish, because they had no current EV employees,

But I was current and I could come and go, but I was parked wrong. EV And I said, “Well if I’m current then I’m coming in there and I’m going to straighten out your database. CA

144

I: Yeah.

J: And they said, “Come on in.” CA

So I walked inside the building got to the other side of the guard and I CA called the head of security in Philadelphia and said CA ”Hi So-and-so, guess who this is?” CA He said, “I know this voice, very well.” I said, “I’m standing in your building.” CA And he said, “You can’t be.” CA I said, “I am, because this is what happened. And this is where I am. CA Now get the Goddamn boot off my car.”

I: (Laughing) Number 1

J: “And 2 this is the state of your security. CA And 3 my access is open.” CA

I: Yeah, yeah.

J: “Now I can fix it, I can ______it, or you need to fix your people.” CA

I: Yeah. So what did he do?

J: Within five minutes, the boot was off my car, RE I had an escort (starting to laugh).

I: Aoooh great, J: And he called me at home later to thank me. Co da

OR = Orientation – Set up; CA = Complicating Action – Events, Actions; EV = Evaluation – Narrator Insights, Observations; RE = Resolution – What happened. Coda – Final Element (Riessman, 1993, 2001)

145

The story, as Jane told it, highlighted her continued commitment to the company that had laid her off as well as her own professionalism in dealing with the organization. In that story Jane describes a situation that the reader can only assume would not have been allowed to happen if Jane was still an employee. The story reinforced Jane’s point of view that her layoff was not only unwarranted, it ultimately exposed the company to unnecessary risk and left it vulnerable to attack.

Interpersonal Analysis The final element to be considered as part of the narrative analysis is the interpersonal function. What was the relationship like between

Jane and the interviewer? One of the concerns with the interview process is that the relationship between the narrator and the interviewer was stilted, skewed in favor of the interviewer. According to Jane, the process was not uncomfortable or unpleasant and it was not skewed to favor the interviewer. At the end of the first interview when asked how the interview process worked for her, Jane’s response was, “Fine. . . . It's like talking to an actual human being.” Needless to say as the interviewer, I was heartened by her assessment.

Paradigmatic Analysis The focus of the paradigmatic analysis is to identify that data that can be extracted from the manager’s narratives and combined with the other managers’ results in an effort to identify possible trends or areas for additional quantitative analysis. In this section, Jane’s demographic data is included as background. It will be compiled with the other managers’ data to create some descriptive statistics about the study population. Jane’s activities as she looked for re-

146 employment will also be assessed in an effort to identify content for the catalog of resilient career management characteristics.

Demographic data Jane was a single woman with no dependents. Her

immediate family consisted of her aging parents, a sister and brother-in-law and her

two horses, her dog and her cat. She earned a Bachelor’s degree in Accounting and

Finance at night while working for a large, international financial services company.

Early in her career she was laid off twice within the same year. But after returning to

her first employer, the large financial services company, she worked there for over

twenty years. She was 46 when she was laid off from her position as a Senior Architect

(Systems). She was unemployed for approximately 15 months before returning to work

for a series of consulting and contractor assignments. While unemployed she became a

Certified Information Systems Security Professional. Jane is currently unemployed. She

ended her last contract position in January, 2008.

Resilient Career Management Characteristics One of the questions regarding

the effect of long-term unemployment was whether the managers who participated in

the study who had experienced long-term unemployment manifested any of the nine

characteristics associated with resilient career management. The nine characteristics

included Adaptability, Hardiness, Realistic Assessment, Meaning/Purpose, Innovation,

Bricolage, Learning, Openness and Collaboration.

Jane demonstrated her ability to adapt as she explored different ways to access

the job market such as taking advantage of her horse life to expand her network, as well

as becoming a Certified ISSP to open up new employment opportunities. Throughout

her unemployment she maintained her sense of humor while moving forward on her

147 efforts to become re-employed. Because Jane was the sole earner in her household, there was no backup. No one else was working or could begin working to contribute to the household income stream or become an alternative source of healthcare benefits.

Despite her precarious financial position, Jane was optimistic about her future. She did

have trepidation about her next mortgage payment, but she continued to provide for

herself and her “family.” Her ability to continue to move ahead in the face of potential

financial setbacks demonstrated her Hardiness.

It is difficult to determine how realistic Jane’s assessment was of her ability to

make a successful transition into a new industry. Although she has many skills, she did not have the experience the Farmtek recruiter required. However, she had no delusions about today’s job market. As a contractor or temporary worker, she and her employment category felt the effects of the recession early on, since businesses eliminated contract staff first, before laying off their permanent employees. As she had indicated her last job ended in January of 2008. After two years, she remained unemployed.

During the interviews, Jane did question her commitment to a security career. At one interview she said, “I'm tired of security. I'm tired of being out of bed in the middle of the night.” At another point she mentioned, “Maybe I don’t want to be a security person (laughs).” However, she spoke of her abiding commitment to her horses and her career as an equestrienne. As she said, “Well, I shoveled a lot of poo. (Laughs). . . Tha- that was not professional career-related. It was to keep my horse, where [I] wanted to keep it. I did a lot of horseback riding for other people. It was all other kinds of things.”

148

In addition her efforts to become a dressage judge not only gave her equestrian career a focus, it gave it meaning and purpose.

Within the confines of her job search, Jane engaged in some innovative approaches to expand her circle of contacts as well as taking advantage of any opportunities that surfaced at networking meetings or agencies. However, at the time of our interviews it appeared that she was just beginning to look into combining her skills and interests in new ways to create an alternative career path. There was little to indicate that Jane engaged in any form of Bricolage, by combining existing expertise to create a new career narrative Although she worked in different industries and organizations, she applied her financial and systems skills exclusively.

During her search, Jane made a concerted effort to learn about systems security as she pursued her ISSP certification. In addition, she learned about the job search process, and how to develop and maintain the various tools available to her to help her in her job search, such as resumes, cover letters and her “two minute drill.” And once she landed as a contractor, Jane continued to learn about the clients and the different industries in which they operated. Jane actively engaged in learning to promote her professional career.

At one point, Jane mentioned that she was a “hotshot in security.” She went on to say,”I discovered that there was still a lot more about security that I didn’t know.”

Discoveries like that helped Jane expand her professional contacts as well as engage in continuous learning, staying open to new ideas and opportunities. Finally, Jane realized the benefit of collaboration for enhancing her job search. She took advantage of the

149 outplacement resources provided by her former employer and she joined networking groups. Her efforts paid off in job placements. “I met a man and he got me a very nice

consulting job in security . . . .” The banking assignment “was a job that came out of the

networking group as well.”

Based on an analysis of her narratives, it is apparent that Jane manifested many

of the characteristics associated with career management resilience including

Adaptability, Hardiness, Meaning/Purpose, Innovation, Learning, Openness and

Collaboration. Meaning/Purpose was focused on her avocation. However, in terms of

Realistic Assessment, it is not clear that Jane was able to realistically assess the

organization’s position regarding her employability immediately preceding her layoff,

or more recently, her ability to assess her value to potential employers based on their

needs and objectives. Her willingness to work hard and her interest in landing a

position may have clouded her ability to assess her employability through the eyes of

the organization. In terms of Bricolage, only recently had Jane considered combining

her professional career and her avocation to develop a new career.

This concludes the discussion of the findings from the analysis of Jane’s

interviews. Additional results such as how she demonstrated the three career

management behaviors-- adaptability, agency and her tolerance for ambiguity--will be

discussed in conjunction with how she determined what constituted re-employability

later in the Chapter, along with the other five participants’ results. The next findings

discussion focuses on Bill’s results.

150

Bill

Overview

Background Bill observed. “Change has been a large part of my career for many years.” For almost his entire career, Bill worked within one industry. However, during those twenty odd years, the industry changed significantly, a result of technological advances and regulatory requirements. As the industry evolved, so did the organizations where Bill worked. He was forced to adapt. He switched employers frequently, sometimes by design, more often by necessity, re-locating as he went. He moved from DC, to Philadelphia, to Virginia, and finally returned to his roots in New

England.

Bill studied to become an archaeologist. His first job out of college was with an archaeological firm in Washington, DC. After only seven months his employer announced plans to close. Economically, it was a difficult time, but as Bill described it, he went door to door looking for work. Eventually he walked into a bank, handed in his resume and got a job. He gave his notice and went to work as a teller. Within six months he was working part time as a teller and part time as a broker. By the end of the year he went full time at the brokerage firm, but it wasn’t long before the brokerage firm was taken over. On the advice of a client, Bill took a job at a regional brokerage firm in Philadelphia to broaden his experience.

In 1987, shortly after Bill’s arrival, the small, well-run company was acquired.

Under the new management the firm went into decline and by 1990, people were being

151 let go monthly, even weekly. Bill was one of the last to be laid off. With no severance and no prospects, he scrambled to find work in Philadelphia without success. Bill contacted former colleagues and the networking paid off. He learned of a position in

Richmond. Bill hesitated because he didn’t know anyone in Virginia. However, he discovered that a distant relative lived there so he took the job.

Within a few years the investment firm that Bill joined in Richmond was acquired and re-organized. During the reorganization, Bill faced much turmoil. In 1995 he decided to return to New England. According to Bill, his father was suffering from cancer and had come out of remission and Bill felt he should be closer to his family. He was offered a job in trading at a regional brokerage firm. He took the job expecting to advance to being a market maker as he had done previously at other firms. Instead after a couple of years with the firm, he was re-assigned and given agency responsibility.

Bill did not consider it a positive change. In fact, financially he described it as “a huge step back.” But because of the change in assignment, he did have more time for his family. It also gave him a chance to wrap up his MBA. During one of his interviews

Bill observed that as one thing closed another thing opened, in this case as his educational commitments wrapped up, demands at work ramped up.

With the advent of Y2K, Bill began doing project work in operations and systems. Eventually he set up and maintained a trading desk in New York along with other automation projects for the firm. In 2000 the regional brokerage firm was purchased by an insurance company. Several years later a larger insurer took over. The final transition occurred in September, 2005. Unbeknownst even to the firm’s president

152 the company was sold to an investment company that proceeded to re-structure the business.

Layoff After Bill’s company had been acquired in 2004, the new owners were looking for improvements to the bottom line. The firm closed offices including the trading desk Bill had established in New York. Some employees had golden handshakes, others were simply given notice. The President of the company went to

New York to present a new operating plan on a Friday. The following Monday the parent company announced that Bill’s company was being sold. “Monday the announcement came. . . The minute the announcement occurred . . . we . . . knew we were out of jobs.” Table 5 is a transcript of Bill’s description of the events surrounding the announcement of the company’s sale.

Table 5 Bill’s Layoff

BILL: The- what happened was the announcement occurs. It was on a Friday, the President was down at the parent company, and giving his report of the company. And he- you know as he even described, you know they gave him no indication the company was for sale. He was given benchmarks to improve the company’s well-being. We had met that and in that week we were already at the execution phase of a very large reduction, re-structuring of the company and I was part of that. And Monday the announcement came. And at that time they already had people from the take-over firm literally there. And they- the- the announcement came out.

I: Was it an email or, or

BILL: It was a-uh- it was an internal. Yeah both internal and announcement. . . . And the third in command literally walked out. And uh, cause he knew he was done. Didn’t care what bonuses, whatever they told him, meaningless. And a lot of us had that opinion. The minute the announcement occurred that we were sold, we all knew we were out of job. .

153

Everybody in the Operations knew we were out of a job. Everybody in the trading desk knew they were out of a job. You always have hope. But being that we- given my experience I knew we were all out of a job. And immediately, people started looking, . . . Full-time job on the desk irregardless of what they’re telling you. It was shell-shock for the brokers. The-There was tremendous anger, tremendous anger on a lot of parts, because the employees, many of these employees were very long time employees. They had taken pay cuts when the company wasn’t doing well. They were given promises. They were, they were you know, they were really just plain screwed. With that then it was a matter of they, the acquiring firm tried to immediately secure employees with retention bonuses, if they stay. If they were chosen to stay and basically handle some of the transition and they tried to get the bonuses to the producers and th-, and th- there was a tremendous backlash, bottom line. . . .

BILL: First meetings there were outbursts and you know when the head of the acquiring firm tells you everything is going to be rosy and you get backlash. You know the President was trying to do damage control . . . and Head of Sales was trying to, you know anybody in sales and production knew they had potential to have a job.

Two weeks basically notice. So you know there was an incentive to stay.

And for us they gave us a timeline and ah basically it was I think it was six months, basically May really. It turned out to be May, but we were geared for that next six months

Bill stayed on as part of the transition team for another six months to close out the business. By May of 2006, he was done.

Long-Term Unemployment Bill received two bonuses. One bonus was for retention and the other was a severance bonus. Bill decided to put the severance amount towards re-training. After checking out the market, he zeroed in on project management. Conversations with project managers who had done projects in IT convinced him that becoming certified as a Project Management Professional (PMP) would make him more competitive in the jobs market. After all, he was in financial

154 services and there were a lot of project management jobs. He enrolled in an online course at Villanova and eventually sat for and earned his certification as a PMP.

On a personal note, a few months after his firm’s take over Bill proposed to his future wife. They were married in the fall. As Bill was closing out one phase of his career, winding down the organization he helped to build and saying good bye to his colleagues, he was ramping up the next phase of his career and building his own family. In the office after closing up the books and transferring out the firm’s records, he became a bystander, ready to help anyone who needed a hand within the company.

On the home front he was center stage, focused on wedding plans, the ceremony, the honeymoon, and the logistics involved in combining two households. 2006 was a year of transition as Bill established his own, new family. However, according to Bill the real transition came in December, when everything was done.

Re-Employment In February, 2007, almost eight months after his layoff, Bill found a temporary position with an investment management company in sales. Five months into his contract work, new leadership came on board and eliminated all contractor positions. Bill was out of work again. To make matters worse his brokerage licenses were about to expire. To renew them he needed to be working in the field.

When a colleague offered Bill a job, he was able to renew the licenses for another two years even though the position did not pan out. At that time both his licenses and his

PMP, his new professional designation, were current; however, all of his credentials required that he be a practitioner, employed in the industry if he planned to renew them in the future.

155

After Bill’s first contracting job ended, months passed. Even though he had done everything “by the numbers,” he knew he was in trouble. He was active in a networking group; he was calling people, but all he was seeing in the industry was contraction. He got interviews, but when he told people his former salary range, he was out. The PMP wasn’t getting any traction either. He would interview, but the employers wanted IT experience. After the wedding, re-locating wasn’t really an option. Bill’s wife was firmly established in her career. Her salary and health insurance were an important part of the family budget. Bill described his frame of mind during that period:

So that’s um from that point after that contract it was another long haul. That was long, because really, December, January from June to, May, June, June, ah to December was long. That was long. . . . All I know is you’re in panic mode. I was in panic mode from the time I was unemployed anyways. But um I don’t, you know they tell you, “Oh once you get past panic mode, you can, you settle into acceptance.” I’m going like, “No you don’t! I don’t know what you are talking about?” You know, panic mode’s panic mode, because you want to work. And you don’t understand why you, you know, you have skil-the skills. You are productive. People want to hire you and either they don’t hire you because of cost, or they don’t hire ‘cause of demographics, age, whatever else. Out of nowhere a contracting firm called Bill for a temporary position trading for a local insurer. With no decision making authority, it wasn’t particularly challenging, but it held the promise of becoming a permanent position. He kept working. “Doing what I was supposed to do.” He was on track to be hired, attending orientations and training sessions, but before the paperwork was signed the firm pulled the plug on the project. At the end, Bill said,”We were given notice. You know which they never do. They gave us basically two weeks’ notice, which is unheard of. And they said it was unheard of. Everybody knew it.” That job ended in April 2009. At the time

156 the interview series began, Bill was busy, networking, day trading, working on projects

at home, and trying to figure out what was next.

Career Assessment “ It’s a MESS!” That’s how Bill described his career at the

end of his first interview. He was in search mode again, looking within the industry,

despite the fact, in his words, the jobs were largely gone: “Where are the jobs? So uhm

the career model, what I loved to do, what I liked doing is largely gone. It’s still

around, but largely gone.” Throughout the three interviews, Bill often referred to a

colleague who was considering a start up. We talked about it as an opportunity to build

skill and add to his credentials. However it sounded more like a way to stay connected

to the industry than a viable position. He mentioned the opportunity again during the

final interview, I asked him about it in Table 6.

Table 6 Start-Up Opportunity?

BILL: That job, that I’m out in the wing, that’s that type of job and that’s the, that’s the extra leg in your career even though you know it probably won’t be very long.

I: So you’d do it even though you, it would only last 18 months?

BILL: Yeah, absolutely.

I: Six months?

BILL: (Nods Assent).

I: Okay.

BILL: No regret. . . . Gives me extra two years of my licenses. Gives you new experience that you didn’t have. Gives you more networking, friends within the industry who may know people, who may know people, who may know

157

people.

I: . . . What’s the likelihood that’s going to happen?

BILL: I- You know, I don’t know, because I can’t—I just really, that’s why I say it’s mess. If I knew, I wouldn’t have said it’s a mess, because I’d have a goal.

But it means, okay, I need to continue to do this. I need to continue to get my PDUs for project management or I lose that next year too. So I could be losing my licenses of all, to all my licenses and not be employed. And that would be a really bad thing.

So you know, I say, there are things you have to just keep pushing forward. You, you hope that the networking and talking to people will present a lead. Present an opening, and you hope that you’ll have the support. And you expect to have the support at home, so that you don’t get too frustrated about the changes.

Realizing that he might never get back into investing, Bill talked about looking elsewhere. He said he explored getting back to his roots and resurrecting his career in archaeology. He met with the state archaeologist, but once Bill realized that he would actually make less than he did in 1982, archaeology was out.

Teaching was another possibility. There were a number of teachers in Bill’s and his wife’s family. They encouraged him to explore that avenue. But during the three interviews, it wasn’t really clear from our conversations who or what Bill would teach.

He talked about teaching at the college level, but he thought requirements at the local

University called for a Ph.D. He looked into adjunct work, but he heard that the pay scale was minimal. He was putting together his application for an Alternate Route to

158

Certification, but thought he needed to sit for a GRE and that would take months of preparation. When asked what he would teach, subjects ranged from investments, to chemistry.

Bill described the ambiguity of his situation as a mess. There were several different challenges to establishing a new career. The first was financial. It wasn’t simply a matter of getting another job. It was finding another job that would cover the costs of working. “Yeah, a sales job someplace that may pay you S15, 000, $16,000,

$18,000. It will not cover the cost of you know, you know okay . . . .” Another critical concern was location. Prior to his marriage, Bill had been free to move at will. Now, he and his wife were pursuing adoption as the next step in establishing their family. The question would become who would stay at home and who would work? And if Bill were the one to go to work, how far afield could he go for employment? After all, if he needed and wanted to be close to home to support his family, what were his options?

There were certainly few opportunities in his field locally and he wasn’t prepared to pursue alternatives, like teaching. But perhaps the biggest challenge Bill faced in determining how to manage his career was acknowledging the loss of the profession he loved and setting a new direction.

As Bill said, “If I knew, it wouldn’t be a mess.” If he knew that there was no chance of being active in the investment business, he would be able to give up his licenses and pursue alternatives. But as long as the possibility existed “in the wings,” he wanted to stay current in the field, meanwhile distributing any remaining time and energies across a number of other potential job fronts. The resolution to his dilemma

159 was not clear. However, in one interview Bill did say, “Home or family will really, truly dictate a lot of career path or choices.” Just before the holidays, Bill wrote that adoption plans were falling into place and that he and his wife were looking forward to

becoming new parents. As Bill’s own family grows, he may find the direction he needs

to dictate the next steps in his career path.

On the following pages are the results of the analyses of Bill’s interviews. The

data were evaluated using narrative and paradigmatic reasoning. The narrative analysis

examined the three elements--theme, structure and the interpersonal function. The

descriptive statistics and any manifestation of resilient career management

characteristics reflect analysis based on paradigmatic reasoning. Finally, those elements

common to Bill and the other participants are considered at the end of the chapter.

Narrative Analysis Beginning with the thematic analysis, the three elements of

narrative analysis are considered next.

Thematic Two themes were addressed in Bill’s thematic analysis, one came

from the data. The other related to the career models. Family surfaced as a primary

theme from the interviews. Bill talked of family often. He mentioned his own

immediate and distant family. He spoke metaphorically about his colleagues as the

family he grew up with during his twenty plus tumultuous years in the investment

industry. And as he conjectured about the future, his thoughts were clearly on the needs

of his own burgeoning family.

160

When Bill talked about his immediate family, his parents, sisters and nieces, proximity and contact were important. They were significant factors that contributed to several career decisions. One reason Bill returned to New England was to be nearby during the course of his father’s terminal illness. After his dad passed away, Bill mentioned that he planned to stay in or close to New England as long as his mother was alive. He described himself as a substitute dad to two of his nieces who lived in the next state. It was important to stay connected to them also, but he relied on technology to stay in touch. For them he was just a phone call or text message away! Beyond his immediate family, Bill also maintained strong ties to his extended family. He mentioned an 80 year old family member that called him monthly to check in and offer advice and encouragement. Early in his career when Bill was making the decision to leave Philadelphia for Richmond, an important criterion for him was whether he had family in the area. He did. He didn’t know them, but the fact that he had family who were local was enough.

Bill’s sense of family was reflected in his relationships with colleagues and clients. His co-workers and clients became family too. In what Bill described as an

“INTENSE business environment,” it was the people he sat next to, side-by-side and nose-to-nose, “eight hours a day, 10 hours a day, 300—270 days a year” that became his family. And as the industry evolved, and market makers and researchers moved from one firm to another following their migrations was like tracing a family history.

More than once Bill rattled off the history of one broker or another and the role that he

161 or she played in the industry. In retrospect, he sounded more like a genealogist than a broker.

According to Bill, “It was a people business. It’s a people business. . . . It was a people business until 2000.” From his description of the success and failure of good and bad deals, the shared experiences, and the relationships, it would appear that the brokerage community was one large sprawling family. However, industry consolidation took its toll. When his job ended in May 2006, Bill was no longer a member of the family. At one point he described his own sense of loss and reinforced it by referring to his colleagues in the industry.

Yes. It’s a tremendous feel[ing] of loss, which everybody feels. Everybody that was, you’re in touch with has almost, in my opinion, the exact same feeling . . . , they consider it such a family, because you know they have more, they had done more in their life in that short bit of time, whether its 5-10, a year, two years, five years, 10 years, 20 years. But they lived more life in those, in that environment, than they did in their life outside and than in many other people’s lives and you know that . . . But the relationship and the type of stuff you did with that person. That’s different! Don’t necessarily have that in a lot of industries.”

Losing his job was an economic and emotional loss. But even as Bill was separating from his industry family, he was beginning his own nuclear family. Months after his job ended, he was a happily married man. He and his wife were focused on starting a family. And according to a recent report, they have become proud parents.

From his narratives Bill appears to be deeply committed to family. His commitment has consistently influenced his career decisions. As he said, “Home or family will really, truly dictate a lot of career paths or choices.”

162

The second theme examined as part of the thematic analysis was drawn from the data, as well as from theory associated with one of the alternative career models, the

Chaos Theory of Career. Throughout his career Bill experienced many changes, and much turmoil. After he diagrammed his career path on his career map (Appendix D), he described his diagram:

And I would, I did this. ‘Cause this is archaeology, banking, brokerage and I started moving up, I was a quick. Yeah let’s do it this way (Sound of erasing in the background) because it went up and right down. Unemployment and then, right back up (Pause 6.0 seconds) and I was pretty close to the top by, (erasing) because in Richmond I was pretty, I was professionally not as happy but I hit the top as far as I was finally making markets. And then 95-97, that’s a change. 199- change, change, change, change 95’s a change (Pause 3.0 seconds). Change, (Pause 3.0 seconds) change, (Pause 6.0 seconds) Uh let’s see where’s my base? (Pause 7.5 seconds sound of drawing in the background). 2001 for different reasons, clearly and then. OOOOup! (Drawing a line) (Laughs.)

It should be noted that the diagram indicated a steady upward progression for a period in Bill’s career. That upward trend is characteristic of the traditional bureaucratic model. But during the interviews, Bill related that he actually reached his career goal as a market maker several times. Every time he changed firms, he had to start over and work up to the position to reach that goal again. It was a cycle of change and advancement that

Bill repeated several times until finally in the late 90’s he was reassigned to operations with no access to the market and therefore no opportunity to become a market maker. Bill described that re-direction as a career setback. With his description of his career experiences in mind, it’s evident that the Bureaucratic model does not reflect Bill’s career experience. The model does not accommodate an iterative cycle of advancement.

163

A close look at the diagram of Bill’s career (Appendix D) shows ten triangles distributed along the baseline. The triangles are symbols indicating change. In the 20 plus years of his Bill’s investment career, it changed on average every two to three years. Along the way Bill described it as “turmoil, turmoil, turmoil.” The alternative career model that best represents that level of change and uncertainty is the Chaos

Theory of Career. Several characteristics of the Chaos theory such as autopoiesis, or self-regeneration; participation in networks; fractals as represented by the iterative cycle of change and advance that Bill went through as he moved to different firms, and transitions between order and chaos (Bloch, 2005) are representative of Bill’s experience. Although he was not aware of the model, intuitively he fully appreciated that the unplanned was not the exception (Pryor & Bright, 2007). One case in point was the takeover announcement in 2005. It was a setback, but Bill used the benefits to earn additional credentials, his PMP, that he anticipated would make him more marketable.

Throughout his career Bill experienced change. His career narrative reflects that change. Based on that thematic analysis, his career is best represented by the Chaos

Theory of Career.

The data from Bill’s interviews were evaluated thematically, examining two themes – family and change. The two themes were significant in terms of the impact on or reflection of Bill’s investment career. The next section considers the structure of his narratives for any additional insight.

Structural analysis It was a challenge to get to Bill’s stories, not because he was unwilling to talk – on the contrary. He was enthusiastic about the investment industry

164 and its evolution. He loved reviewing the history of the business and the different firms.

Like a genealogist detailing a family tree he was able to describe connections between firms and employees and showcase important persons and pivotal events. He brought the history of the industry to life.

However when it came to his own history, Bill was not as eloquent. When he did speak to his own experiences for the most part he spoke in the second person. The narratives of his experiences were therefore less personal and more like commentary.

However, there were instances when Bill spoke of experiences that touched an emotional chord and he reverted to the first person. I have chosen one of those stories for a structural analysis using the Riessman/Labov approach to clause analysis

(Riessman, 1993, 2008). The story describes Bill’s response to his layoff in 1990.

165

Table 7 Bill’s 1990 Layoff and New Job

BILL:: . . . .When I was [Laid off] - when we were like the last group, and uh OR I’d say three months later, they sold the firm...

OR So, ahm, you got turmoil, turmoil, turmoil and then it took almost six months almost to the day to get a job and I got a job offer by networking, going- CA EV I didn’t know what to do I was running out of money and I’m in a city

: And uh it was not, it really wasn’t good. EV And I was doing odd jobs, but it wasn’t enough to pay the rent. And CA um I would call this guy that acq- that firm we acquired [drumming on the table for emphasis].

: Ah, who had moved to Richmond OR and he said Bill you know there’s a position here. It’s a step back. CA

And um it’s a good firm. And I knew it was. EV And I figured, had to figure who do I know any family relatives in the EV region even and there was somebody, way, that I didn’t know , but they were down there. So I took the job and there was actually an increase in pay. RE

I: Omi God, well good . . .

BILL: That’s how cheap the firm was. That was it. Coda OR = Orientation – Set up; CA = Complicating Action – Events, Actions; EV = Evaluation – Narrator Insights, Observations; RE = Resolution – What happened. Coda – Final Element (Riessman, 1993, 2001)

166

Previously, I mentioned that Bill tended to use the second person; however in situations that were particularly significant or emotional he would shift into first person. Bill’s experience in Philadelphia made a deep impression. Suddenly out of work, with no back up and no way to make ends meet, he was distressed. The switch to first person indicates how deeply the uncertainty affected him and the gravity of his situation. Embedded within the story he described the turmoil he felt and he also incorporated family into his decision-making equation. Both reflected the two significant themes that were discussed in the thematic analysis. In addition, he also mentioned networking with a former colleague, which demonstrated that early on he was already engaging in practices that lent themselves to resilient career management.

The last element to be considered in Bill’s narrative analysis is the interpersonal function. In the following paragraph I briefly review Bill’s comments from two of the interviews that provide some insights into how he regarded his role in the study.

Interpersonal Function After thanking Bill for his time at the end of the first interview, his response was “Not a problem. It’s almost therapeutic, y’know.” His interest was evident throughout the interview cycle. He was engaged in the process and intrigued by the study and the research in general. This became particularly evident in his final comments when he said, “Well I enjoyed. . . I love this stuff, I like research though.” His comments indicate that rather than seeing himself as a guinea pig, Bill saw himself as a contributor and collaborator.

Paradigmatic Analysis Bill’s demographic data and an evaluation of his resilient career management characteristics are included in this section. The information along with

167

Jane’s and the other participants’ analyses added to our understanding of the study population by providing descriptive statistics. It is also expected to add to existing empirical data about mid-career managers in the 21st Century. Finally Bill’s use of resilient career management characteristics populated the catalog of characteristics as the starting point for future quantitative research.

Demographic data Bill was a newlywed. His wife and he were in the process of

adopting an infant. And at the time of this writing it is expected that they are new

parents. Bill earned his MBA as part of his ongoing effort to keep himself competitive.

As a member of the investment community, he had a variety of licenses that allowed

him to trade bonds and other securities instruments as well as to supervise others

performing such transactions. These licenses were crucial to his investment career. In

addition, Bill earned his Project Management Professional certification from the Project

Management Institute, adding to his professional toolkit and enhancing his

marketability. Like Jane, Bill had also been laid off early in his career, but unlike Jane,

Bill worked for a number of different firms. He was 45 when his employment as Vice

President of Agency Desk and Operations ended. He was unemployed eight months

before returning to work. He returned to work as a contractor. His first assignment ran

for five months at an hourly rate higher than his previous compensation, but with no

benefits. Bill landed a second position after another five months of unemployment, with

a lower hourly rate and again, no benefits. The employer ended the project and

cancelled his contract; however they did give a two week severance, an unheard of

benefit for contractors. His last contract position ended in April of 2009. Bill is

currently unemployed.

168

Resilient Career Management Characteristics One of the questions regarding the effect of long-term unemployment was whether the managers who participated in the study who experienced long-term unemployment manifested any of the nine characteristics associated with resilient career management. The nine characteristics included Adaptability, Hardiness, Realistic Assessment, Meaning/Purpose, Innovation,

Bricolage, Learning, Openness and Collaboration.

Bill demonstrated his ability to adapt to changing circumstances throughout his career. He also demonstrated his hardiness in the face of adversity. To stay in the industry, he re-located, he even adjusted his role as needed. He assured me that even if he knew a position would last less than six months, he would take it to stay in the job that he loves. At the time of his interview, even as he acknowledged that there were few, if any employment opportunities in his industry, it appeared difficult for him to realistically say that his investment career was behind him. However as a new parent, he may be compelled to realistically assess his future employment options and turn his energies to setting a new career direction.

In terms of meaning and purpose there did not appear to be any confusion that

Bill’s employment was focused on revenue generation. There was camaraderie and there was kinship but ultimately it was about the money. “It really didn’t make any difference. You’re there to make money.” During the course of our interviews, we did not address meaning or purpose. What we addressed was the nature of his career. The nature of his career was about making money. It was the business he was in, that was the objective and that’s what he did!

169

Innovation did not quickly come to mind from the discussions with Bill: he was willing to work hard; he was willing to entertain suggestions and explore alternative positions like teaching. He even toyed with the idea of operating a booth at local country fairs. The absence of innovation was not so much a matter of not thinking outside the box, it was more an issue of interest, or possibly readiness, to think outside the box. That is an equally appropriate sentiment regarding bricolage. Bill was not ready to pin “thing to thing to make a new thing stand” (J. E. Sullivan, 1988), I am certain, however, that if need presented itself, he would think creatively about his career management options.

Bill’s commitment to learning relative to career management is obvious. He earned his MBA, he pursued his PMP. He also worked to expand his knowledge of systems and the intricacies required to create a secure trading environment. Learning for him was an ongoing and energizing process. As for openness – to alternative methods, objectives, new ideas – he has the capability. However, the question is does he have the interest, perhaps the better question is does he need to have the interest? After all, if Bill can find an opportunity in investments, there is no need to change. All he needs is the chance to demonstrate the contribution he is qualified to make. That opportunity may appear as a result of the connections he has made in the workplace, in the industry, in the community. Bill knows the value of networking. He knows how to work with others. He learned that lesson early in his career. Collaboration is definitely one of the resilient characteristics that Bill has manifested in the past and will continue to do so as part of his efforts to manage his career.

170

From the analysis of Bill’s narratives, it is apparent that he has demonstrated several of the characteristics that have been associated with career resilience including

Adaptability, Hardiness, Learning, and Collaboration. And as mentioned earlier, if the need arises, it is very likely that Bill would also manifest the characteristics of

Innovation, Openness, possibly even Bricolage as he manages his career. This concludes the discussion of the findings from Bill’s interviews. Results about adaptability, agency and tolerance for ambiguity, the career management behaviors – will be discussed later in the chapter along with what constituted re-employability for

Bill. The next findings discussion focuses on Mike’s results.

Mike

Overview

Background Mike began his career at an international consumer manufacturer on the manufacturing side of the operation. He came in with his Associate’s degree and earned his Bachelor’s degree while advancing through various positions. In roughly five years Mike was a Project Engineer in manufacturing. After four years as a Project

Engineer, he posted for a position in a newly formed U.S.-based product development group within the company. It was a lateral move. He got the position, spending nine years with the group and eventually advancing to senior project manager. During that time he also earned a Master’s degree in Engineering Management. The group had a somewhat non-traditional structure, in keeping with its creative functions, and so was housed in a separate building on the campus.

171

In support of his role and the international aspect of the business, Mike traveled to Europe and the Far East. He picked up a language, joined professional groups and engaged in community activities. According to Mike, his position, his career, was a healthy portion of who he was. His family was intrigued by the international aspect of his work but his travel schedule precluded him from being involved in some of the day- to-day family routine. Overall his family accepted his career success with its particular demands as a positive.

The work was engaging. The product was a sophisticated educational “toy” well received by academics in the school systems around the world. It tapped into various learning concepts one of which was ‘hard fun.” Michael embraced the term not only as

a design objective, but as a personal mantra. The group and their products were a

success. Over time they added staff and at their largest, the group employed 12 people.

But while the department was growing, the parent company was facing financial

difficulties. Eventually, those difficulties affected the whole organization, including the

U.S.-based product development group. The group’s decline and eventual demise took

about twenty months. Twelve months in, a Vice President from European operations

assembled the group and announced that three members of the team would remain and

the rest were being let go. As one of the three left standing, it was, according to

Michael “A difficult point. And then, and then myself and then two others were

actually incorporated into the larger organization down the street. So the separate

facility was closed.” At that point in the interview, I asked Mike, if he thought things

172 were going to change? Table 8 illustrates how he explained his thoughts on what would happen:

Table 8 Listening

MIKE: There wasn't good sense that this was a transition period only. It was to bring out the next round. The next version of the product and then there probably wouldn't be any work.

I: Okay

MIKE: Um that was the sense that wasn't stated. And I wasn't listening very well at all.

I: Why not?

MIKE: I don't know. I just, I liked what I was doing. (Pause 2 seconds) And I thought obviously at some point, things would change.

I: Which way did you think they were going to change?

MIKE: To well, well I’d I hope, I tend to be optimistic.

Layoff A few months later Michael was laid off, Table 9 is the transcript of his story.

173

Table 9 Michael’s Layoff Story

MIKE:: So I was c- continuing on my responsibilities and at one point, I needed to- um, to have a meeting (pausing) in Boston at a local university. So my new boss at the time, because we were condensing, so now I was reporting to someone who was actually in Europe . . . And my new boss at the time said “Well that would be a good time for me to come over and meet up with the folks that you’re talking to there. . . . So we can meet in Boston.” So I said. “Okay.” And so on my way to Boston. I got a phone call, that said “Maybe we shouldn't meet in Boston maybe I should meet you at our offices.” And so I said, “But, they're waiting in Boston.” And he said, “Well we really have to meet at our facility.” And um and so obviously there's, there’s always some sense that things are an issue. So I turned around on the highway and started driving backwards, back to the facility, and I called up the guy at the university and I said “Something's going on. I'm not quite sure what.” So, but then I got another call, that said, “No wait maybe I can meet you at the school” . . . So I turned around again and went to Boston. But had somewhat a sense that something was going to change. So we had very, actually a good meeting. But at the end of that meeting at a coffee shop on campus, I was told that the group was no longer in existence. I: Okay, so the group is no longer in existence.

MIKE: Yeah, there the- and I will give them a little bit of leeway, there is translation issues, but it was something about the opportunity is such that, you no longer work with the company

I: Okay, so it wasn't just that the group was shut down. Your position is gone.

MIKE: Right.

And that’s how Michael was laid off.

Michael’s last day was actually two months later. The company asked Michael to distribute equipment and clean out the facilities that had been closed down as a result of the earlier layoffs. He was encouraged to post for other positions; however, product

174 development was being done exclusively overseas, relocating his family was not an option, and nothing else seemed appropriate. So Michael prepared to end his 18 year career with the organization. There were moments of humor, but as Michael said in response to my inquiry as to how he felt leaving the company:

“I- you know I felt awful, obviously. Any, any relationship that you have that someone says we don't want you anymore is- is a tough listen... You become isolated, outside. You become isolated from the group of people that you work with, fellow colleagues, people, who are still there. I was in a building that was, you know, still had 300 or so people, plus 600 may be. I don't know. So, so I knew every day that I came, was one day less that I’d see them. I put little I put little a little tag outside my door way saying 20 more days, 19 more days, 18 more days. (Pausing) But I did see that-. I did, I accepted it as due course of business. . . . I definitely did see it- perceive it as an opportunity on my side. I had done some fairly positive things and I had helped my professional career. So I was ready to pick up my stuff and, and move to some other progressive organization and help them be happy. Long-term Unemployment Michael assessed his severance as fairly generous. It

included six months of compensation, eight months of paid health care benefits and

outplacement services. He took advantage of all of the resources provided and looked

for others on his own. He traveled the 50 miles round trip to attend outplacement

training sessions and meetings. He joined a networking group. He pursued leads on the

web. He hooked up with colleagues to kick around ideas. He did what he called the ”I

Inc.” thing and developed a brochure in addition to his resume and 20 second

introduction speech as marketing materials. He pursued his search for what he

described as his “next best, greatest opportunity”

175

Physically, Mike stayed active, snowboarding in the winter, cycling and kayaking in the spring while training throughout for a marathon, which he ran in 2005.

He also ran charity races and he used those races as another networking tool. As he contacted potential sponsors for the charity, he would explain his commitment and then turn the conversation to his availability. He turned his fundraiser efforts into a promotional device.

His days were long and full, but after three months he was still unemployed. He expanded his search to include local newspaper postings. As he described, he progressed from “very optimistic, to I'll take what I can get realm and so . . . for instance, the tools that I used. You know, I checked, I literally checked the paper, type of arrangement. Or at least the, the local paper websites, which I hadn't thought would be condu-conducive because of the region.”

And according to Mike after five months, unemployment got very old and financially, seriously concerning, his severance was about to end and his medical benefits were winding down. In terms of doing things differently, Mike continued to do the same things; but, he increased the breadth of his search by making his filtering less specific. He also expressed his interest in contract work to potential employers. Five to six months out, in May or June, he connected with a California firm for a contracting assignment. It was important to Mike, because: “It kept me in the industry, so that I didn't have this gap, when I did talk to companies. Because it-it's the industry that I was in, and a retail consumer type of arrangement and so a six-month gap is huge. It was change. It was also somewhat technology related. Things obviously change in an

176 instant. If you're not actively playing in it then you’re sleeping.” The contract work not only helped keep his resume current, it also lifted his spirits.

Re-Employment Nothing else appeared on the horizon until he saw a posting in the local online want-ads. It required engineering expertise, at a local company a mere twenty minutes from his house. He responded with a snail mail, hard copy cover letter and resume. After several interviews he accepted their offer, but with a range of emotions:

Table 10 Mike’s Reaction to Re-employment

MIKE: . . . The compensation was considerably lower than what I had previously had so

there was a little bit of a personal integrity question. It was in a field that I hadn’t

wanted to stay. I thought I had “advanced past that,” but it was a paying position

that was fairly local, easy transition. . . .

It involved interaction with people that ah- a style of people that hadn’t been part

of my clique in a while. It was a manufacturing environment, which I didn’t mind,

but didn’t; wouldn’t have selected, if I had other opportunities. . . .

But it felt good to be collecting a paycheck and have benefits. There was always

the comparison of what was and what is and personally I felt that I was, what was,

was better, than what is. I worked very hard to create connections with the

company, (pausing). Because I knew that employment now was a (pausing again)

was not a choice, it was a necessity for me.

INT: Mmhmm, mmhmm. “You worked very hard to create connections with the company.” What do you mean by that? MIKE I knew that I needed them, more than they needed me.

177

Evidently his work ethic and his commitment showed. Shortly after joining the company, the president asked Mike to take on project manager responsibility for a new facility the company was building locally. The company, with headquarters in Europe was setting up a processing plant to house new equipment from their European operations. Mike said, “I saw that as a challenge so to me that was a bit fun. It was hard fun (laughs). It was EXTREMELY hard fun. . . . I was completely outside of my domain and my comfort zone. But the project was a success, a bit over budget, but on schedule.” He went on to say, “I pride myself on it, but I do think I could have done better . . . It was a tremendous amount of work.” And he did believe his employers were happy.

After completing the project Mike joined another firm, a family owned business. After six months he was approached and asked “if I wanted to create a specialized new product development group. Mike developed a plan and a protocol and put together a product development team of about eight or nine people who were charged with executing the protocol. According to Mike the group had a 90% success rate. However after two to three years the privately owned company was sold to a West

Coast firm with a product development organization of its own. After an organizational review, Michael’s product development group was eliminated; the staff that he hired was laid off and he himself was back in the ranks of the unemployed as of June, 2009.

When he told me the story, I asked: if under the circumstances he would want to head up a team again? Create an organization? Bring people on? His response is outlined below in Table 11.

178

Table 11 Risk and Rewards of Creating a Team

MIKE: Absolutely.

I: Okay, why?

MIKE: I, I do think it’s a, a personal strength to mentor and to make organizations uh, that

are productive. I think the work of many exceeds the work of one. And so I-I just

think there’s a larger contribution if I can work with a group to accomplish.

I: The reason I ask that um, you’d given a very reasonable and sensible and, and, and

powerful, in many ways, answer, but you were also sad that you couldn’t sort of

um, honor, I guess is the verb I would use, uh the commitment that you had made

to the people you brought together as a group.

MIKE: Uh-huh.

I: You would be willing to risk that?

MIKE: Go through that pain again? (Chuckles) Ahh. Oh, Yeah. Yeah, no, ‘cause I see the

benefit far exceeding any potential loss. So I would, I would hope that their time

uh, in our group was fulfilling in some ways. And so, yes, so now they’re looking

for a job. But uh, but you know, potentially they’ve learned and can use that as a

tool in their new endeavors. So, do I think? Yeah. Good question. Uh, you know,

I hope that they’re, even though I-I couldn’t honor that whole essence, uh, I hope

that they’re better for it than not.

Career Assessment I neglected to ask Michael to map his perception of his career for me during the final interview. But he did put together a map and sent it to me later. After reviewing the map, I observed that Mike saw his career trajectory falling

179 even before the partial layoff of the design group. However, after the first layoff when

75 per cent of the team was let go, the slope of the line indicating the decline of his career path became much steeper. His career path stabilized after Mike was told his position had been eliminated. The path remained fairly flat during the two months it took to close down the design group’s operation.

Mike’s career path declined again, after his unemployment began. Although he had expressed some enthusiasm at the prospect of finding a new employment opportunity, his career path declined steadily during the ten months he pursued re- employment. The path started to climb again after he returned to work. Mike eventually joined another firm and became the head of a product design group. His career map indicated his professional success as the line inclined upward with a gradual positive slope. However his career path had not reached its earlier heights before it changed direction again, dropping dramatically. The abrupt decline began when he learned that his latest employer had sold the company. It continued to fall as he learned that the product design group he established would be dismantled and finally dropped to its lowest point when he was laid off again. On the diagram, his career trajectory continued at that low level up to the moment Mike sent off the map as he continued to look throughout New England for another position.

Mike said during the final interview that the impact of his unemployment experience did have an effect on how he would manage his career: He said:

I now need to expend energy and I will forever expend energy on outside things, um. I’ll expend energy looking for employment. I’ll expend energy if and when I have employment to ensure I have backup plans. I will now expend energy in finding probably more about the companies than I would have

180

preferred to. Uh, I think there’s a lot of wasted or unproductive energy that I now have to expend.

Finally, Mike explained how he knew he had a career:

Because I believe that I have progressed fundamentally as a person and learned over this period of time and that I have evolved into positions, and this is the career aspect, positions that have had a larger scope than originally, than what I was doing originally. And so as you were saying, I have fingerprints in many more areas and the finger tips are strategic as well as just tactical. I guess that’s it. I would, I would generally have also added, I believe in what I do.

Narrative Analysis

Thematic Analysis There are two themes that are analyzed in Mike’s interviews,

the first, was the concept of “hard fun.” The other addressed the career model that best

reflected Mike’s career path. In terms of “hard fun,” Mike spent eighteen years with a

company that manufactured toys. During the last half of his tenure with the company,

he was a product/project manager in the company’s US-based product development

group. Mike was involved with the development of an educational product designed to

foster learning through play. He embraced Seymour Papert’s concept that “Learners do

not mind, and benefit most from, activities that are ‘hard’ as long as they connect

deeply with interests and passions” (Picard et al., 2004, p. 261) and integrated it into his

own approach to his career.

Mike paraphrased Papert, saying:

People don’t learn anything unless it is hard. If it’s easy, there’s no learning. . . . And so the essence of fun and the essence of challenges and the essence of

181

pushing, of learning has been a part of my outlook for a good number of years. . . . And so I try to carry that on to every business endeavor I do, as well.

During the second interview, I asked Mike to speak to the concept again. He continued by describing it as part of an indoctrination as well as a personal belief. He also called it a mantra. He said, “I believe it’s a true concept . . . where you cannot inherently learn something without going through some sort of a challenge, . . . anything that is valid and fun is also a challenge some sort of a challenge.” As to how it related to his career, he said:

“I would . . . state that for me potentially that career developments were always a challenge. They were always somewhat related, but slightly non-typical tracked. The essence, that I dabble both in engineering and marketing, and just general business, that comprehensive outlook has sort of a has-been a challenge.” The challenge for Mike was effectively straddling two different communities, marketing and engineering, and being accepted as a member of both cultures. As a product developer of high tech toys, his success depended on recognition and acknowledgement from both communities.

Michael spoke of hard fun again in reference to the responsibilities he was asked to take on a few months after he became re-employed. About ten months after being laid off Michael accepted an offer with a local company. He was hired ostensibly to help solve a problem with programmable logic controls. After six to eight weeks on the job, the president asked Mike to take on project responsibility for constructing a new facility. Mike described it as a huge differentiation in terms of task and he described it as “EXTREMELY hard fun. . . I was completely outside of my domain and

182 my comfort zone.” After rising to the challenge and delivering an award winning construction, Mike moved on. But the project proved to be far more rewarding in terms of providing a rich learning experience than he had initially envisioned.

Mike continued to face new challenges as he went on to work for another organization with a staff of seasoned, experienced employees. His efforts to acclimate to “a position where everyone knew what they were doing except me . . . was a challenge. It was hard fun.” Hard fun, the concept of challenge, of learning, and of fun, which Michael described as “a triangular circle,” provided a conceptual infrastructure that helped define his career. As he said when asked how he knew he had a career, “I have evolved into positions, and this is the career aspect, positions that have had a larger scope than originally, than what I was doing originally.”

The second theme focused on the career management model that represents a reasonable fit to Michael’s career. Certainly the first 16 years of his career could be associated with the bureaucratic model in that he progressed from the manufacturing floor to a position as a senior manager. He took advantage of the company benefits and earned his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees, in addition being compensated appropriately for his position and tenure. Even his outplacement package was commensurate with his position. However, after he was let go Michael described his career as heading down hill. Training for and completing a marathon, fund raising and public service did nothing for his perception of his performance. As he said, “I-I personally cannot stand to not be actively helping out a business or an organization and getting compensation for it.” Therefore not working was unacceptable.

183

When Mike found employment he took it. As he said, “I knew that employment now was a, (Pause 3.0 seconds) was not a choice, it was a necessity for me.” And even though the position did, as he said, “I did see it as not following in terms of my . . . any presumed career path. It, at that point, it was a position uh, that needed to be filled with them and an opportunity for me to have a compensating position. . . . I had come from a um, manufacturing/engineering realm and moved away from it uh, by choice.” Returning to manufacturing was a humbling experience for Mike. As he said, I thought I had

“advanced past that,” but it was a paying position that offered a fairly local, easy transition.

As mentioned earlier, Michael was offered the position based on his previous experience as a manufacturing engineer. His expertise in programmable controls distinguished his application from others’. But it was his project management skill set that compelled the president to ask Mike to manage the facilities construction project. In addition, Michael had international experience which was helpful as he dealt with international import requirements and the company’s European owners. And when

Michael stepped into his last and latest position, his familiarity with plastics was a plus, as was his marketing background and his understanding of what it takes to put together a product development group. Each position tapped into Michael’s skill sets and experience base. In fact, these very different jobs moved his career forward, broadening his experience. The opportunities were, as Weick wrote, “fortuitous, . . . discontinuous and consequential” (1976, p. 6).

184

The Eccentric Predicate model seems to reflect Michael’s recent career experiences. For example, when Mike accepted the position in plant engineering, he had no idea that the company was on the lookout for a project manager. He needed a job and they offered him one. And so the opportunity to manage the construction of an award winning building was a happy accident. The added breadth and depth of experience he acquired from his last two positions can be “articulated post factum” (p. 9) as Weick suggested in 1976, when he described his view of career management as haphazard.

Unbeknownst to Michael, he had engaged in the very behaviors Weick had recommended

30 years ago. In terms of career management, Michael was committed to ongoing learning and reflection, he demonstrated a readiness to adapt his career as needed, his sense of playfulness was reflected in his commitment to hard fun, and his willingness to entertain possibilities enabled him to grow beyond his knowledge base and avoid self- imposed boundaries. Looking at Mike’s career thematically, it appears that initially his career management model may indeed have been bureaucratic, but his current approach is best reflected by Weick’s Eccentric Predicate career management model.

Structural Analysis Mike spoke thoughtfully and carefully about his experiences,

the interview series was the overarching narrative, but on occasion he created little

vignettes to give a sense of his experiences. At one point he told a brief tale of his trip

overseas to view the German facilities of the parent company. The objective of his trip

was to view the equipment to be installed in the US plant that was under construction. As

the project manager, he was eager to see the equipment in operation. The information

185 would give him a much better understanding of what was required for the new plant to operate as efficiently as possible. The reaction of his German colleagues surprised Mike.

Table 12 Story of Mike’s Visit to the Parent Company in Germany

Mike: Um, I had the opportunity to go to Germany to their facility, um roughly OR halfway through the project

I was the, the first of two American, uh visitors to the site OR

And I was actually treated as an outsider in some ways EV

You know at one point, I said, “Whoa , you know, don’t worry, I’ll just mill CA around. I need to find out and you know, figure out what’s going on so I can uh, uh, figure out what I need to know

And they said, “No, you need to be escorted every time, every moment that CA you’re here.

So you know, they were very, a closed uh environment EV

But uh, um so I mean, that was it. And, and uh, just tried to talk to basic-, RE essentially, every, anyone I could

OR = Orientation – Set up; CA = Complicating Action – Events, Actions;

EV = Evaluation – Narrator Insights, Observations; RE = Resolution – What happened. Coda – Final Element (Riessman, 1993, 2001)

Mike’s story describes his style of learning, but it also foreshadows his

relationship with the parent company. After the plant was completed, he considered

staying on. He said:

186

I wanted that position [facilities manager] . . . I was willing to - If I could be a, play a part in the management role of the company, I was willing to allow that to override personal uh, passion in terms of endeavors of product development. I approached the president in terms of. Okay. Can we elevate this role to not just facilities management? Can we elevate it to a position that has a little more voice in terms of direction of the company, in terms of markets, in terms of uh, just playing a larger role? Uh, and he was uh, verbally interested in, in, in that. His commentary was that, uh, that his supervisors didn’t understand how that could be a possibility, his supervisors being over in Germany.

Mike had attempted to create a role for himself within the European-based company. Once again, the administration would not entertain his proposal. Mike left the company and joined a U.S. based firm to practice his passion, product development.

Interpersonal Function Over the series of the three interviews Mike did not make any comments regarding his interaction with the interviewer or his reaction to the interview process. However, he did comment on the questions saying often, “Good question” and he made every effort to answer the questions thoughtfully and thoroughly. He did not give any indications that he was intimidated or irritated by the interviewer.

After completing the narrative analysis of Mike’s interviews, the next step was to subject the data to the paradigmatic analysis. The results both documented Mike’s demographic data, and determined if he manifested any characteristics associated with resilient career management.

Paradigmatic Analysis The analysis in this section was conducted to identify data that were added to a profile of the study participants and contributed content to be used for future quantitative study of future resilient career management characteristics.

187

Demographic data Mike was married and the father of three. After earning an

Associate’s degree in Technology, Mike had joined the manufacturing area of the company from which he was terminated. Over the course of his18 year tenure, he took advantage of the company’s tuition re-imbursement and earned his Bachelor’s and

Master’s degrees from local institutions Mike’s first layoff experience occurred in

2002. He was then 41. It was 10 months before he found employment as a manager of engineering for a consumer manufacturing firm. When he landed, he took a significant pay cut. He spent a year with the company as Project Manager for a facilities construction project. After completing the project Mike moved on to another company to pursue his passion, product development. The privately-held, family-owned business was sold at the end of 2008 to a California company. After the acquisition, the new owners consolidated or eliminated services. The home office of the parent company opted to keep a product development group on the West Coast and disbanded the

Product Development unit on the East Coast. Mike’s position as head of the department was eliminated and his staff was laid off as well He is currently unemployed.

Resilient Career Management Characteristics How the managers who participated in the study manifested characteristics of resilient career management, was another aspect of the paradigmatic analysis. The nine resilient career management characteristics included Adaptability, Hardiness, Realistic Assessment,

Meaning/Purpose, Innovation, Bricolage, Learning, Openness and Collaboration.

Despite working exclusively for a single company, Mike displayed adaptability as an employee advancing from production staff to engineering management. After seven or eight years on the manufacturing side of the house, Mike took a position with

188 a newly formed product development group where he worked for another nine years.

After his layoff, Mike landed first at an industrial manufacturing firm, and then went on to packaging company where he established a product development department prior to his last layoff. Mike had limited experience with unemployment; however for the ten months he was unemployed he did persevere. On more than one occasion Mike observed that he was unprepared for the layoff. As he described it, he was not listening well enough at his first company and at his last position he also assumed that the group would survive. His optimism appeared to have obscured his ability to realistically assess the vulnerability of his position and the positions of his direct reports.

Mike spoke of his passion for product development. However at one point he explained that if he could have landed a permanent position as a facilities manager with some say in the company management, he would have set aside his passion for product development. Such an admission leaves one to wonder how deep was his sense of meaning/purpose?

Mike’s ability to innovate was apparent in his approach to networking, particularly in his fundraising efforts. As he canvassed for sponsors for his charity runs, he took advantage of the conversations to introduce himself and his skills as well as to inform contacts of his availability. In terms of Bricolage, in his first position after becoming re-employed Michael was called upon to bring his skills together in new ways to manage the plant construction. He brought the project to a successful conclusion, but that was not Mike’s original employment objective. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to recognize him for manifesting Bricolage as one of his resilient career management characteristics. However, he can certainly be recognized for his

189 ongoing commitment to learning, his openness to alternative industries, as well as his willingness to explore different roles within those industries. Finally, he collaborated with others during the course of his search by taking advantage of the outplacement and networking groups and by meeting regularly with individuals to gather their insights.

The results of his efforts added resources and range to his search.

Analysis of Mike’s narratives made it apparent that he has demonstrated several of the characteristics that have been associated with career resilience including:

Adaptability, Hardiness, Learning, Innovation Openness and Collaboration. Mike’s manifestation of the three career management behaviors -- adaptability, agency and tolerance for ambiguity, are discussed later in the chapter along re-employability. The next few pages focus on Curley Sue and the analysis of her results.

Curly Sue

Overview

Background Curly Sue worked herself out of her job. She had been recruited as

an Assistant Director to improve marketing operations at a large financial services

company. She came to the organization with a background in finance and accounting,

information systems and operations. Her charge was to improve communications,

training and overall performance. She worked with regional and corporate sales offices

to streamline reporting, identify training requirements and coordinate training

development and distribution to sales personnel, and revamp compensation and

commissions.

190

Sue described her tenure: “It was really kind of a lot of, get some stuff started and hand it off to a rightful owner.” She not only worked within the sales organization to implement improvements, she also worked closely with other departments. In fact, that’s how Curly Sue learned that her role was about to be discontinued. She heard it through the grapevine. She recalled, “In casual conversations in some other meetings with people at my own level. They’re going, ‘Sue, what's going on? We’re hearing your job is being eliminated?’ I’m like, ‘Well that's interesting. I didn't know that.’”

Layoff After hearing the rumors from her colleagues, Curly Sue confronted her

boss. She actually had to make him tell her that she was being laid off! Table 13 is an

excerpt of the transcript in which she describes the conversation.

Table 13 Sue’s Layoff Story

SUE There was never a day that someone came to me and said you have to leave the company. It was positioned almost very cowardly in my mind as “We’re working on career development for you. And you need to start looking for- We want to start looking for other opportunities for you to contribute in the organization.”

I Okay.

SUE (Laughs)

I: And you said. “So what does that mean?”

SUE EXACTLY!

And I had actually heard that that role was going to be discontinued through the grapevine.

I: Wow.

SUE I never got that directly from my boss until I heard about that and then went and confronted him and said. “What is this really?”

191

I: Yeah

SUE And then that's when he said, “We need to downsize our department and your role’s being eliminated and you need to find some other things. And everybody loves you and everybody wants you to stay with the organization. So here's a bunch of opportunities that you can potentially look at.”

At home Sue and her husband had had conversations about her work and her changing role. When she went home after her confrontation and shared the news, although it was unexpected, it was not a big surprise. She did say that she was a little annoyed about the way it was handled and she acknowledged that she was hurt, after all her ego was in there. Finally, she did not like the fact that there was some evidence of cronyism and that “the boys reign supreme again.”

Sue learned that her position was being eliminated in June. At that point she was eligible to take advantage of the company’s three month internal placement protocol. The protocol gave any employee whose position was being eliminated three months of paid, unassigned time to find a new spot within the organization. Curly Sue spent the time wrapping up loose ends, reviewing her options; and networking within the division. She also spoke with other contacts throughout the parent company. After reviewing her options, she realized nothing appealed to her. Sue went on to describe the situation in terms of choice. She said, “At that time I had had it with Corporate America and the ‘old boys’ network, with the commute, and made the decision that no . . . I wasn’t going to do that.” As for her options, she described her unassigned internal search period as follows:

192

I was also not really trying that hard, because I was at a point in my life, where it was actually perfect to leave that role. Because I had kids in middle school and I was coming up on those ages where you know they’re too old to be in daycare, but they’re too young to be left home alone after school. So, and we were in a position financially to be able to you know stomach my not working for a little bit and being there for the kids. I think at that point I had made my mind up that I didn't want to stay with the company.

She went on to say:

My family is the most important thing to me, so it doesn't matter. I'm driven by work, you know, I get a sense of self and fulfillment through work, but I get the same fulfillment through being there for my family. And my kids, I felt just weren't going to be by themselves through this you know late elementary, early middle school timeframe. . . . I actually looked at this as I had been handed truly a gift. . . .

Long-term unemployment Sue wrapped up her remaining responsibilities and in

September, Sue took advantage of the “gift.” For the next 30 months, she stayed home

with her children, volunteered at their school and joined the board of a non-profit

dedicated to funding equipment used in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. She took

up birding, re-kindled old school friendships and dusted off the keyboard of her piano.

She worked around the house doing various projects. She went hiking and learned how

to use new software applications through online courses. Eventually the family got a

pet, a new puppy. At home Sue and the puppy developed a strong bond as they kept

each other company during the day.

Finally, after two years away from the workplace, Sue started to get itchy. She

described herself as a social creature and she realized that even though she was

interacting with family, friends and some very creative volunteers, she was missing

193 being a part of something and working where there was a broader realm of people that

she would be exposed to, doing some things that she enjoyed doing from a work

perspective, which was technology and a few other things. So as she said, “I got itchy.

And that was what prompted me to just kind of start putting some feelers out.”

Sue said she was looking for meaningful work, something that she could do and

continue to grow and intellectually feel that she was learning. She wanted to be

surrounded by people that she liked and respected and enjoyed being with. And she

wanted, at the end of the day, to be fairly compensated for her effort and contribution.

But most importantly it had to fit her schedule. She wanted flexible hours and the

ability to work from home. According to Sue, she wasn’t looking for anything specific; she just knew that she was ready to go back in. Her approach was very, open ended, let’s just see. . . “You know you’ve heard that right, it’s like Okay Universe, I’m ready.

Show me what you got.” And so after meeting a friend for lunch, Sue got an offer to fill in for someone on leave. The job in financial reporting played to her strengths. The schedule was perfect; the hours were flexible and she could telecommute. The job was ideal.

Re-employment After the temporary assignment ended, a new permanent part- time assignment surfaced. At the time of this writing Curly Sue still worked at the same company. Her hours had expanded, but her schedule was still flexible and she still worked from home on some days. Her responsibilities had changed from her earlier career at previous employers. No longer an Assistant Director or Director, she described herself as an independent contributor. In that mode, she was looking ahead at

194 the direction the company appeared to be taking. She was enrolled in an online course in project management. She felt there was potential to move into more project management work and therefore to experience additional career growth in terms of learning and building new skills to supplement her existing tool kit.

Career Assessment During the final interview Sue plotted out her career on the x, y diagram. She didn’t visualize her career as a continuous line. She saw it instead as a series of ebbs and flow which she placed on the chart in a kind of a step diagram (See

Appendix D). It was not necessarily representative in terms of traditional career ladders progressing through a series of titles. But there were factors, factors that she saw as the basis of her career highs and lows. Some of the characteristics were the authority that she had in a particular job to effect change, to affect the decision making and the level within the organization that she interacted with. She also looked at her career in terms of reach. By reach she meant how far out in the organization her responsibilities extended, providing opportunities to interact across departments and not only within, but also outside the organization. Finally, she looked at her career in terms of the variety and degree of skill sets she needed to use to be effective at the given points in her career. Did she use just one set of skills in the job or did she use a variety?

Therefore the highpoints were those moments in which she had extensive authority, broad reach and the opportunity to apply multiple skill sets to accomplish the objective

In response to the question of how she knew she had a career, Sue spoke of how she defined career, or more correctly how she did not define career when she said:

195

I define career as not necessarily upward mobility. But mobility into progressing roles that, and by progressing, I am defining it as: more challenging; causing me to grow, you know they, I am not necessarily moving from one functionality to the next level of functionality where just maybe I have greater experience but I am not going to learn much more or now I am going to become the teacher instead of the student. Am I moving on to a situation where I have a whole new opportunity where I ha-, to grow, to learn, to affect? You know to challenge myself and add to my tool kit. I think that’s the big part of it. I think adding to the tool kit is really the piece that defines me and my career tracking.

Sue made one other observation during the third interview which she considered something of an epiphany regarding the approach she took towards her career management.

One of the things in my career (Taps table for emphasis) that I believe was limiting in many ways is I grew I up with “Good Kid” syndrome. Right, so I always want to please, I always only do what I know is allowed. I want to . . . So in many ways, I was probably much more empowered by my management to go out and do things and command things and effect change and you know, walk into blind situations or in other departments than, I gave myself permission to or saw myself in a role of enough authority to do or to command. And I think, I was kind of the kind of person that needed to have somebody almost validate with me that I had that. And, and, why I am making this point is when we talk about careers in particular traditional paths and you’re being an individual contributor. A lot of what gives you the weight to do some of those things is that title that is behind you. And without having that title I kind of held myself back in check to in essence limit what I was really able to do within roles that I had. I didn’t empower myself. I didn’t give myself permission. And I didn’t empower myself, because I was waiting for somebody to empower when in fact I probably had that authority all along. How do I-, well perfect example in my organization right now. I’m in a position where I’m limiting myself, cause I don’t feel like all these new players that are out there, right, that I am giving myself permission to just kind of walk in and say, “Hi I’m So-and-so and this is what I think. . . .” Where I know very well if that’s what I do, do or did, it would be extremely well received more than likely. And it could potentially open opportunities and they would learn that I have some things to contribute, right. But I’m kind of waiting for somebody to invite me. . . .

196

Or for somebody to say you need to go talk to so-and-so. And you know I’m kind of, so it’s the risk averseness too that kind of throws that back, but almost feeling like I would be overstepping my boundaries too if I did that, because I’m not in a direct role that needs me to go present my opinion on whatever X may be at the time So my epiphany is I have to stop doing that. I don’t know if that is an epiphany or a gradual change (Laughing) the epiphany is that I recognize it! As to the future of her career, in that final interview Sue described an idea she had been toying with: If I could get up enough of-, overcome enough of-, my severe risk aversion, I would seriously consider doing consulting on my own. You know or maybe try to find a ready situation where I could attach, you know with a one- or two-man shop that already did that, they just need someone else with my skills to round out a consulting company, you know something. I think that would, something like that would be right up my alley. You know, particularly as I sun-sunset into my kids going into college and I’m more fr-, you know I start to free up to be able to travel again more. That-, that would be something that I would consider at that point in my life.

With that overview of Sue’s experience, the next section is devoted to the narrative analysis of the data.

Narrative Analysis Two themes are considered in the thematic analysis, Sue’s coming to terms with her identity outside of the workplace and the thematic assessment of her career relative to the career models. The structural analysis and interpersonal analysis follow.

An important theme in Sue’s narratives was the question of how she would go about defining herself when she was no longer employed. At one point she described herself as driven, but she also said her family came first. The decision to leave the corporate world behind was easy because she had an out, but as she said herself, if she had had to make the call it would have been a lot tougher:

197

I had been given an opportunity to step out of, you know career driven. Just ‘cause, I worked a lot, I mean a lot of hours, put a lot of time into the organization, was there often. Once I am committed to an organization, I just drive. That's just the nature of me, and the beast. I said to myself. “You've been handed such a blessing and a gift, because if it had not been for the way this was handled (tapping on the table for emphasis). Not even the way it was handled, the fact that this happened. . . . [I said to myself.] “You would never have stepped out of that role.” . . . I would've been agonizing and torn about leaving of my own volition to go home and be with my kids. . . . Because that would have been almost like, not giving up but, kind of like, you know, (Long Pause). Eh I don't know. I don't know how to describe what, what that would really mean. But it would be, I would have had to make that decision. I don't know if I would have wanted to make that decision (with a laugh). So, I had the decision made for me which was the best and the right thing to happen.

Once Sue accepted the opportunity, she finished out her three months and stepped away from corporate culture. She turned in her employee badge and with it went her identity. I asked Sue to review that experience with me and this is what she said:

Table 14 Who Am I Now, Finding a New Identity

SUE: Those first few weeks, sitting you know not having to get up, to get dressed, to go to work (rapping the table for emphasis) to uhm get in the car, to drive there and be part of the commuter scene. I mean you get up and you go Uhn. You can’t see this on the tape, but you’re like Uhn. (She gestures as she makes a sound with her head cocked and hands in the air and then laughs.) And you know like “Okay, alright, I’m something different now. And I’m, I’m okay with that, but I don’t know what to call it.”

And so on, and I mean it’s interesting so that. Let me kind of back way up. Me, my personality, ever since I was a little kid, driven, driven, driven, right. So you know at 13 I got a job, and I was working in the job and then I always wanted to get good

198

grades, right so I always had A’s. And I always was planning my next thing, right so I planned and I achieved what I wanted to achieve grades wise. I participated in sports and next thing is you’re going to get in all these clubs and be part of this and then you’re going to, you know, graduate from college or high school and then you’re going to graduate from college and then you- you know so you con- and you’re going to marry and you’re going to have k- and so you’re going, you always have to plan and you doing the next thing. And your career is like that too, right. . . .

And so you can get into that and now it’s the career, right so you got the first job and what’s the next move going to be and the next move? Even though we talked about I had no real set career ladder, you kind of knew you’d have this move. So then you start to define yourself around your work. As much as my family is my passion, my work is what I defined myself by.

So, (Pausing) that was gone. So internally, how do I define myself and then how do I be okay with that?

And that was, that was a battle for like six months or so, between the, you know that driven persona who wanting to be and always had been, you know, work focused and just very high work ethic. I have never allowed myself to believe that what you do for your family and what you do you know all in the personal side of your is really kind of the work. That’s just not enough to define yourself by, even though it’s THE most important thing. It doesn’t define me.

So all that other stuff is what I had led myself to believe is what defined me. So when I didn’t have that, I didn’t change to anybody else.

The real issue for Sue was based in reward or compensation, as she said herself:

I couldn’t quite emotionally make that leap over to saying, you know, who you are, isn’t what you do. It’s how much you give to the world and the people around you and the people that you love. And so it took me time to really come to that realization that I didn’t have to have a job. It wasn’t even a title, cause I’m not a title person, but a job something that was paying me to make me feel like I had value. . . . And that, I think that sums it up. I think that’s really the

199

thing, I wasn’t in a paid position that made me feel I have. That’s silly! (Laughs).

It took Sue a while to shake the belief that her “proof” of value was not tied to a paycheck. She estimated that it took about six months. When pressed as to how she was able to make the adjustment, she cited the feedback from her children, her friends and her co-volunteers. Their appreciation and their respect were essential, but more importantly, Sue realized that she had to define the reward herself. Instead of looking to a dollar figure determined by an organization to determine her worth, she opted instead to measure her value in joy and satisfaction based on metrics she defined. She described the indicators she used, rather than trailing zeros to measure her success as follows:

Little comments like “Gee Mummy, we’re so glad you’re here.” You know and “We’re so glad you’re not working, because you wouldn’t be able to do this, or this, or this.” And it, you see how much that means and how much it matters. And then when you know, you hand over a check to the local hospital for 25 grand and they can go buy a mobile mammography unit and it was a result of your work. . . . You know, that begins to replace it all. . . . And I think that’s how I finally came to terms with it.

In addition to the identity question, the other theme considered during the thematic analysis of Sue’s interview data related to whether Sue’s experiences could be linked to any of the managerial career models. When Sue spoke of the early years of her career, she talked of advancement, new opportunities to learn, expanding responsibilities and increasing compensation. She saw herself as

Going to come in at some entry level staffer position and then . . . get promoted to a supervisor, then . . . get to a manager, and then . . . make a director. . . . And had, I think I mentioned this in one of our, I was kind of like ‘I think I could be

200

happy at a Director level,’ if I ever made a VP or AVP whatever, that would be kind of gravy or icing on the cake.

Her initial description of her career path, like Mike’s and Jane’s, could be easily matched to characteristics of the Bureaucratic career model. However, just as Mike and

Jane’s models diverged from the upward sloping arc and turned in other directions.

Sue’s career trajectory did the same when she took advantage of the “gift” of her layoff.

Sue was in control of her career and her decisions did not align with the

Bureaucratic model. Although she was interested in advancing and increasing her compensation, she was also interested in being engaged. She described her style to me at one point.

I guess I don’t manage my career in terms of upward mobility. . . . I kind of have taken my career moves as, I like to achieve the next level of management. . . . I like to achieve the next level pay grade of compensation, but I was always looking to round out my skill set because, I get bored.

Over time, Sue realized that her view of what constituted a career high differed from her initial view of her career. The conflicting demands of work and family weighed on Sue and as she juggled to bring into balance what was important to her, her perspective changed. Changing her perspective altered her view of what her career should be and where the focus of her energies should be directed. She spoke of the impact on her career as a result of her evolving perspective:

You know I was always conflicted between that career group and, and family. And what all that meant and the sacrifices that came with it. And I think at that point in my life I had enough of the traditional and the career path and the work experience to say, hmm not so much, not so much what it’s cracked up to be. . .

201

And started to really reflect on ways I could find, I could fulfill those same similar goals without traditional paths and keep quality of life. So that’s when my perspective of career changed to you know, it doesn’t necessarily have to be a management position, it could be an individual contributor who is a very sound and expert technician in one of the disciplines that I had bounced back and forth between in my career.. And then basically just having this, and oh by the way, I still need to make a decent compensation in that, but it doesn’t have to be, you know, millions of dollars. What’s enough, where’s your comfort level, you know what standard of living are you really looking to achieve and maintain and then come back to meaningful work.

Sue’s concept of a changing career perspective as her circumstances changed suggested to me that her approach to career was closer to the Kaleidoscope Career model (2005) proposed by Mainiero and Sullivan then to the traditional Bureaucratic career model, or even to the more loosely structured Boundaryless Career model. As

Sue described her career story in terms of her change in focus from achievement to work-life balance to her current and anticipated roles as an independent contributor, her approach to career management addressed issues of Authenticity, Balance and

Challenge. These are the same ABC’s that Mainiero and Sullivan defined in the

Kaleidoscope career model (2006).

Having examined the theme of identity driven by the data and the theme of career model as it pertains to the theory informing the study, it is now time to discuss the structural analysis of a narrative from Sue’s interview data.

Structural Analysis Recently a new comptroller joined Sue’s company. He

became her new boss. Sue described a visit to his office in which she laid out what she

offered the organization, what he could expect for performance and what she expected

202 in terms of her working arrangements. Using Labov’s approach I analyzed Sue’s story about her meeting.

Table 15 Introductions

SUE: I had gotten a new, I’d gotten a new boss in the last six months OR

I: Yeah.

SUE: Probably jumping ahead to tomorrow, but you know basically went in and OR when he first came on, he’s probably early thirties. He’s now the controller of the company and I work for him.

I: Mmhmm.

SUE: And I’m kind of like an ancillary to his perspective and role, because EV I don’t, I’m not an accountant. I don’t do accounting. I do this the financial support around from the technology and reporting perspective. But I don’t, I am not debits and credits and I don’t enter all that stuff.

I: Yeah.

SUE: You know like, “Lookit, I’m old. I’m experienced. I’ve been around CA the block a lot of times. You know I’ve done sales. I’ve done operations, I’ve done technology. I’ve done financial, been in financial planning. I’ve done, all these different other kinds of things. I said, “Whatever you need me to do, is what I’ll do.”

I: Right.

SUE: “And I’ll do it well. And you won’t have to worry about a maturity CA issue.” (Starts laughing) So it’s kind of like, you know. .

I: So what did he say?

SUE: “Great!” (Still laughing) CA

I: Smart man! Smart man! Alright. .

203

SUE: “All I ask from you, is to respect the original employment CA opportunity that was presented to allow me flexibility .”

I: Okay.

SUE: I work, you know, around the clock. You’ll always get your CA deadlines. You’ll always get your stuff. I’ll always get my stuff done, but I won’t always be here.

I: Yeah

SUE: And he was like, “Never mind, we’ll just go ahead until it doesn’t RE work.”

OR = Orientation – Set up; CA = Complicating Action – Events, Actions;

EV = Evaluation – Narrator Insights, Observations; RE = Resolution – What happened. Coda – Final Element (Riessman, 1993, 2001)

The recent dialogue Sue had with her new boss was very different from the confrontation she had seven years ago. In that interaction, in 2002, Sue approached her boss to ask him to define the status of her position. Sue’s story of her recent conversation with her current boss presents a very different dialogue. Sue took the lead to introduce herself and to lay out the ground rules of their working relationship. She was very clear about her commitment; however, she was also clear about what she expected in return. The Comptroller’s final words did suggest that he maintained the final work on how their working arrangements would ultimately be defined, but at that moment, Sue and her boss both knew where they stood. Sue was no longer approaching her interactions as a “Good Kid” seeking for permission to do her job; instead she came to the table as a seasoned professional negotiating a mutually agreeable arrangement.

204

The next section which addresses the interpersonal function completes the narrative analysis of Sue’s data.

Interpersonal Function According to Sue, the opportunity to reflect on her career prior to, during and after her long-term unemployment was beneficial. She said,

“Actually it’s been really helpful, because it’s kind of helped me reflect on what is my career.” Her comment presented a positive view of the experience and suggested that

Sue did perceive the interaction between herself, as narrator, and the interviewer as coercive.

The narrative analysis of Sue’s data focused on two themes, the first addressed the issue of establishing identity apart from the workplace, and the second focused on which career model represented a good fit with Sue’s career management experiences.

The structural analysis provided an opportunity to examine a vignette from Sue’s interview that reinforced her development as a professional and re-visited Sue’s epiphany regarding her manifestation of what she defined as “Good Kid” syndrome.

Based on Sue’s comments about the interview, the process was not perceived to be coercive. The next section, paradigmatic analysis, focuses on the quantitative aspect of the data analysis including a summary of the descriptive data about Sue as a participant and an assessment of how she manifested resilient career management characteristics as a means of populating the catalog of elements to support future quantitative research.

Paradigmatic Analysis In addition to narrative analysis, the data from Curly Sue’s interviews were also submitted to a paradigmatic analysis. The objective was to identify data that would establish parameters for the population that participated in the

205 study to determine if there were any trends as well as to catalog those characteristics that may qualify as content for future quantitative study of resilient career management characteristics.

Demographic data Curly Sue was married and the mother of two. Her

undergraduate degree was in Finance. She also earned an MBA. Although Sue had held

a variety of positions at several different companies, she had always been the driver

behind the decisions to make the transitions. This was her first experience with a lay off

and where the direction of her career was being managed by someone else. Sue turned

40 just before her severance took effect. Sue returned to the workforce 30 months after

her layoff date. She took an interim position covering for an employee out on leave.

Compensation was significantly lower. At the time the leave ended a part time position

became available. Over time the position was expanded. At the time of the interviews

Sue was employed full time, working some days from home and other days at the

company’s main office or off site.

In addition to presenting descriptive data about each manager in this section, the

manager’s narratives were examined for information regarding any characteristics of

resilient career management that they may have manifested. An analysis of Sue’s

interviews yielded the following assessment

Resilient Career Management Characteristics The study focused on nine

resilient career management characteristics including: Adaptability, Hardiness,

Realistic Assessment, Meaning/Purpose, Innovation, Bricolage, Learning, Openness

and Collaboration. Sue had been employed in banking and financial services companies

206 in a variety of capacities. Her experiences helped her to become an operations professional that could work not only in accounting and finance but also in systems and marketing. Her adaptability enabled her to be a versatile and valued contributor. In terms of hardiness, it is difficult to tell, since this was Sue’s only experience with job elimination and one that she herself chose to take advantage of. It really is not clear how she would respond to career setbacks. Her flexibility and attitude suggest that she would respond well, but to date, she has had the good fortune not to be tested by an unwelcome, career-challenging event. Sue, like the other candidates, did not demonstrate a very realistic assessment of her position. Despite the fact that she had successfully accomplished much of what she had been brought on board to do for the organization, Sue was still surprised to learn that her position was eliminated due to budget constraints. Of course hearing it from her colleagues before she heard it from her boss was added to the surprise!

Sue’s career decisions were driven by her commitment to her family. According to her own admission, it was true that she was not subject to the financial pressures driving the other participants; nonetheless Sue clearly manifested meaning and purpose as she managed her career. Even her return to full employment, with its mix of flex time and work-at-home arrangements, reflected her commitment to her family.

Interestingly Sue was the only one who specifically said she was looking for work with meaning, purpose during her interview.

At one point during the interviews, Sue spoke of risk aversion, she also spoke of overcoming her own conservative biases and not waiting for permission to step in to offer her expertise to help solve a problem. From that perspective, how she might have

207 taken an innovative approach to her career management was not clear. Based on how she approached her unemployment, however, it is likely that given the appropriate incentives, Sue would be innovative. As for Bricolage, again there was no real opportunity to observe her bringing together her talents to create something new.

Perhaps her future view of a consulting career might create situations where she could manifest that characteristic, but there was nothing to indicate that characteristic.

Throughout her career Sue spoke enthusiastically of her interest in learning new things. In her current position, she was taking a course online to prepare her for certification in Project Management. She was intrigued with the possibilities of becoming a project manager staffing a Project Management Office to be established within her organization. Learning and openness to new opportunities are hallmarks of the career narrative Sue shared during the three interviews. And finally it was obvious that Sue was a valued colleague. Her transitions to new opportunities were all initiated by invitations by former colleagues to join them on new projects, or at new organizations. Even when Sue’s boss told her that her position had been eliminated, he said, “Everybody loves you and everybody wants you to stay with the organization.”

That level of regard is only offered to individuals who are a pleasure to work with, who know how to get a job done, but to get a job done well and to have some fun in the process as well. Perhaps Sue’s greatest strength is her ability to be an effective collaborator.

Based on the analysis of Sue’s narratives, it was not possible to assess the characteristics of Hardiness, Bricolage and Innovation. It was clear, however, that although she did not demonstrate a very Realistic Assessment of her employability

208 within the organization, she definitely presented her Adaptability, her focus on career management based on Meaning and Purpose and her commitment to Learning,

Openness and Collaboration. As with the other participants, how Sue manifested the three career management behaviors – adaptability, agency and tolerance for ambiguity, is included at the end of the chapter, as well as an analysis of what constituted re- employability. An analysis of Bart’s data is discussed in the next section.

Bart

Overview

Background Bart’s job was a victim of 9-11. An officer in a national marketing organization, he lost his job as Vice President one month to the day after the terrorists’ attacks. The 2001 recession had already created problems for the company. As Bart recalled, “We were have having a poor year. Being in [the] analysis [department] . . .

[w]e had done some scenarios. Hey, we’re going to have to trim. . . . But then 9-11 hit and the advertising just cratered. And I wasn’t doing the analyses anymore . . . And that meant the Senior VP of Finance and the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) were doing them themselves. So you knew they were going to be drastic. Everybody knew something was coming.”

Layoff The day arrived. Table 16 recounts Bart’s story.

209

Table 16 Bart’s Layoff Story

BART: It was the classic hot stove approach. They called you in. They told you were being let go. There was an HR person and my boss. I was in her office maybe five minutes.

I: : Okay.

BART: (Asking himself) Was she the CFO? Yeah she was the- a fairly, newly named CFO.

Different lady, a different boss, um she goes “You look surprised?” I go, “Well, I

mean, we knew something was going to happen, but you never know, if it's going to

be you. Yes I am surprised.”

And she goes “Tsk.” (He throws up his hands and rolls his eyes and makes a tsking

noise imitating her reaction) and she goes, “Go ahead, leave.” Well she told the “Go

ahead leave” to the HR person, but I mean you’re standing there. And then they took

me and HR handed me, “You know, here’s your outplacement package, here’s your

blah blah blah blah, here's the benefit thing. And since you're at a senior level, we're

gonna take you-, you're going to get full outplacement and the outplacement guy’s

here. And they took me to the outplacement guy. I talked to him for 10 minutes. And

with the beverage company, and the direct marketer, they both kept me for awhile

after they fired me. . . .

So I thought they were just going to walk me out and that was going to be it. . . .

But then when he was done, the HR person came back in, and my boss came in, not

the CFO. And they said, “We’d really like it if you stayed for a while. And cleaned a

few things up and settled the department.” So I did that.

210

The entire department was eliminated that day. Three people including Bart’s admin were re-assigned, but everyone else was let go. As Bart explained, the decision made sense. A company has to do accounting, has to do payroll, but it doesn’t need a department to do analysis.

That afternoon, Bart went home and told his wife that he had been let go. When asked how that went, his response was “She does not respond to those kind of news very, in a very positive manner, let’s say.” As for how Bart felt, he had been laid off about eight or nine years earlier and a couple of times since, so when asked, he said.

“Well I feel bad. I mean I feel bad every time. . . . But each time I think first of all it feels lousy . . . You- I, I dread telling my family, because I know how bad they are going to react, and how-how negatively it’s going to impact them. You think if I should have done something differently. And one of the things you think about, is should I have been smarter about this and been looking for a job and got a new job before.”

Since Bart had been happy in his job, he had said no thanks when approached by recruiters. Suddenly finding himself out of work, he had time for second thoughts: should he have spoken to those recruiters?

Long-term Unemployment Once Bart wrapped up the department’s affairs, he started on his own. As an officer he had a substantial severance including salary, health benefits and executive outplacement. So for the next six months Bart made the daily commute to his new “office.” He re-worked his resume and polished his elevator speech, he searched the web for jobs, he lifted that 10,000 pound telephone to make calls, he joined networking groups, he met with recruiters and he shared leads with

211 other unemployed managers. His excellent attitude and his commitment to his search actually earned him an extension of medical benefits.

The 2001 recession bottomed out in November, but the impact on available jobs was profound for another 12 to 18 months. In fact it has been described as the jobless recovery. Bart said it was the worst job market he has ever seen, including the job market of the 2008-2009 recession. “There was no worse time than that October to about March. There was nothing. There was no activity. Everybody was scared.

Nobody was doing anything. By January all the headhunters were losing their jobs!”

After six months with little to no activity, he went back to his former employer and asked for an extension of salary and benefits. He didn’t get a salary extension, but he did get an additional month or two of outplacement and the company continued to pay his health insurance for another 3 months. At well over $1000 per month, it was a significant benefit. Even though Bart didn’t land a position in those first few months, he

”earned” additional dollars in benefits. Eventually, outplacement ended and Bart moved

his job search to his home.

Bart’s agreement with his wife was that his job search activities would not

interfere with the family’s routine. He set up shop with his computer, a phone and a fax

in a corner of his basement. His daily routine was to be up and dressed and down in the

basement by 7:30. Every day he made calls, wrote letters, sent out resumes and did

follow ups. He maintained binders of contact sheets and companion follow up sheets, a

lesson he learned during outplacement. There was nothing profound about his efforts.

According to Bart what distinguished his search from others was his persistence.

212

I just plugged away at it. You-you’re going to sit here. And you’re going to either make calls or you’re going to find other jobs on the Internet or you going to do research. My approach, it ty-I guess typical accountant, I just plug away at it and I make myself keep doing it and hopefully sooner or later it will yield results.

“I find looking for a job to be very stressful.” Bart said often during the interview cycle. He continued by explaining what stressed him about the process.

Cause I think it’s. I hate, I don’t know if it ever showed, I hate being out of work. I hate, I absolutely hate looking for a job. I hate it. I hate having to network. It’s not what I l- I don’t-- I like talking to people I know. I don’t like talking to people I don’t know.

Bart’s approach to his job search was to “just plug away at it.” When asked if

Bart had ever considered doing anything other than financial services related work, he did speak of his interest in doing something that would allow him to give back more. At one point he looked into teaching but the compensation just would not support his family’s needs. When asked about non-profits, he said, “Oh, yeah, I would entertain it.

I’ve signed up and tried to get into a lot of non-profits,” but without success. He continued by explaining that after being a candidate in a couple of situations, he realized the organizations were just stringing him along until someone with a non-profit background became available.

Bart pursued job leads through recruiters, job and company web sites, networking groups and individuals. He expanded his search and included medium to small companies. He explained his logic for expanding the field and the reaction to his efforts. “Well, if you weren’t going to break back in with big companies, the way to go

213 is you go with smaller companies.” Unfortunately the smaller companies weren’t very interested.

An awful lot of smaller companies don’t want to talk to people just from big companies who’ve had lofty titles and um who’ve had decent sized staffs because they don’t think they’ll come in and roll their sleeves up and do the dirty work. So, it can be kind of hard to break into. And I found a number of companies that would talk to you but not believe you would really do that.

Eventually Bart found an ad in the paper. A local small company was looking for a controller/CFO. He applied and got a response. “So um, it was interesting to get somebody to say ‘Oh yeah, we’re interested in you and we’ll make an offer.’

Unfortunately the offer was low. Bart came back with a counter offer.

I went back and said I needed more money. . . . And he said bye. . . . And then he-he did call back, like a week later. . . . So we started negotiating again and he-he went, “So okay, I'll pay for all your benefits, and I’ll give you an extra week of vacation, but that's it, I'm not goin’ any, you know. So take it or leave it now.” I guess I would say, I wouldn't have taken it maybe, if it was real early in the process, I wouldn’t have taken it. But by mid-process, I probably would have. . . . Well, I think the key thing is. I’d been out 15 months. I had a family. I had to work. I had to make some money. And, it was better to have something than to not have something.

Re-employment And that’s how Bart made the transition to becoming a financial officer in a small business. Circumstances for both the owner and Bart compelled them to make the decision to make an offer and to accept it. Bart negotiated the transition into a new employment market, the small business. However, he paid the price for admission with a significant reduction to his compensation. Besides a loss of income,

Bart faced other challenges as he made the transition. Perhaps the most challenging one was learning to work with entrepreneurial owners. Bart described himself as “just a

214 straightforward, matter-of-fact, let’s you know, deal with the facts, kind of person.”

The owner was not. Bart spoke of his small company versus large company experience.

Um, the getting used to the personalities, ya know the personalities in small companies. You talk about personalities. Everybody who’s worked for big companies say there’s personalities . . . all the politics and stuff. Well, small companies, they say there’s not much politics, but it’s, it’s actually more. Because I wouldn’t say it’s politics as much but it’s personality. And so that, that whole personality driven thing is a whole new dynamic you have to get used to.”

At the beginning of the interview cycle Bart was just beginning a new position as Controller with another small company, the third in six and a half years. It was not clear how used to the small company dynamic he had become. But he did say he was still trying, as he described his new position relative to his career.

And uh, (Long Pause) so now I’m probably in smaller companies, mid-sized companies, maybe turnaround situations. And that’s my career path, and I’m 54. I’m with a company right now that’s a small, privately-owned company, and if I could work there for 10-11 years and retire, I’d be fine with that.

Career Assessment In the third interview, as Bart diagrammed his career he chose to represent the high and low points using two criteria and therefore created two paths. One path which represented compensation and responsibility reflected his initial successes in large corporations. As an officer in a large company his compensation reached an all time high just prior to the layoff on October 11, 2001, as did his level of corporate responsibility. Since that time his compensation has improved, but it has not returned to its peak and Bart does not believe it ever will.

For the other criteria, his responsibility in terms of ownership and exposure to risk has become much higher working in the small companies than it was in the

215 corporate setting. That is due in part to the fact that in the corporate setting there were many excellent resources to turn to for ideas and information. In small organizations there are more opportunities for exposure, broader responsibilities, but fewer resources to call upon and so the risk of making a poor choice is higher as is the potential to successfully effect significant change.

Bart then shared his reflections regarding his career as he was breaking through into management as well as where he believed his career was heading. His reflections conclude this overview.

Table 17 How Far I’ve Come

BART: I’m going to relate a story when I worked for the large beverage company. . . .

So, I don’t remember how long, it was several years into my career with the company and I had not broken. I was on the verge. I’d just been promoted to a level that got a bonus. . . . My salary was still less than $50,000. So I probably was at 50 with salary and bonus. So I had just broken into the bonus area in a big company. And I remember we were at a national convention like in Palm Springs, and you know late at night we were in a hot tub someplace. And a group of us that who were all around the same level a couple higher, a couple lower, but mostly very close in level. We’re talking about it and it was like, “Goll, if I could just make 50 grand and you know have a job like that, I’d be set for life everything would be wonderful.” . . . And um (Pause) what I found I made is when I started working I made $12,500 plus overtime and I was a cost accountant. Um (Pause) so (long pause) my-my career has been unbelievable compared to that naïve kid coming out of school that didn’t even know what business did even though I studied it for four years. . . .

I’ve, I achieved more with the beverage company than that guy who had just got his first supervisory, well no it wasn’t my first supervisory, it was my first management job with a bonus.. . . I’ve far exceeded anything that guy thought he would do. . . . Um, now, now I’m on the other side of the curve. . . .

216

After reflecting on what he had experienced early in his corporate career, Bart concluded his reflections with thoughts about how he expected his career and his compensation to progress in a small company environ in the future.

Unless there’s a very unique environment, I’m never going to work for the big companies again, unless something really unique happens. . . . I took the sideways step, smaller companies, different role, a broader role I should say. And uh but the remuneration, I’m still not back, well, I don’t know that, I wouldn’t expect to ever get back to where I was, when I quit, when I was let go from the direct marketer. I don’t think it’s in the cards.

Narrative Analysis

With an overview of Bart’s experience as background, his interview data were subjected to a narrative analysis. In the thematic phase of the analysis two themes were identified and evaluated. The first theme came from the review of the interviews focused on Bart’s approach to pursuing re-employment. The other theme focused on which of the career model’s best reflected Bart’s career. A structural analysis of the story of his experience pursuing a non-profit opportunity was completed and any commentary regarding the interview experience was evaluated to assess the interpersonal function, thus completing the narrative analysis of Bart’s data.

Thematic Analysis The first theme that was identified and analyzed focused on

job search rules of thumb Bart relied on during his job searches. Bart is an articulate,

affable man in his early fifties. He is smart, sincere, enthusiastic and hard working. It

was a surprise to learn how much he disliked two elements of the job search process.

He spoke passionately about how difficult he found two key job search practices. He

217 said that making cold calls was like using a “10,000 pound phone.” And he flatly announced that he hated informational interviews. Nonetheless, he was convinced that both activities were critical to his job search. Despite his distress with the two practices, he made it a point to execute both during his search. Considering how much Bart disliked the process of picking up the phone, speaking with people he didn’t know and the uncertainty that added stress to his family life, it was remarkable that he found a way to sustain his search week after week and month after month.

One key to his success was his ability to treat his job search as a job. That kept him going. However, he also attributed his staying power to his faith in three job search

Rules of Thumb. He relied on those three rules as measures of his progress. He understood that “sooner or later it will work out. It seems too long (voice falters slightly on long). It drives- it drives you crazy but, following the old pattern, following the rules of thumb. The rule[s] of thumb . . . worked pretty well.” When asked, Bart explained the rules and how they related to his experiences during several of his own job searches the rules are explained in Table 18.

Table 18 Job Search Rules of Thumb

Rule Number 1 At “the national advertising company we talked about coupons and a successful coupon is . . . a response on 2%. . . . [Placement firms] equate or use statistics like that in . . . job search.”

Explanation: “So I already knew that statistic. So if you go out and send 100 of those things [applications] and get answers on two of them, I know that’s a good result, and it doesn't bother me.”

218

Rule Number 2 “It takes a month for every 10,000 of salary . . . “ Explanation: “I was out [a number] of months after the advertising company, after, if that 10,000 works. My salary was less than that, but if you add on bonus . . . my yearly compensation, that wasn't (Pausing) too long, that was close to right. 15 months seemed like forever, but it, that old saw. It was about right. Now, this time, you know, I've moved into the smaller companies, less pay, less benefits. This month, actually the 10 months, is about right, real close.”

Rule Number 3 “One of the things [a local networking group] told me when I was looking for a job is expect to have 30 interv-, 30 real job interviews, before you land a job.”

Explanation: “I did it when I was out last time. You know how many I had? (Pausing) I had 28, before I landed that job with that small company, 28 real company interviews.”

As a self-described “numbers” guy, using those metrics helped Bart stay upbeat and confident during a difficult and uncertain period and to successfully land a new position on several different occasions.

Bart’s interviews were subjected to additional scrutiny in an effort to identify the career model that best reflected his career management experience. Certainly Bart’s description of his early years at an international beverage company presents a classic example of the Bureaucratic career model. Table 19 includes excerpts from his narrative.

Table 19 Corporate Career Success

BART: I-I wo- I got to some points where I go, Goll, if I just crest the next level. . . .

I-I mean like at the beverage company, I was to a level, I had a good salary, a good bonus, a car, and you got some stock. . .

I went to the advertising company. I took a half step back when I went in, but it, but within a couple years, I was back up and farther. And I had stock, and you got stock options every year and I and you got, I got a car allowance and you had a

219

good salary. So you were at the point, where you were I mean more than comfortable, more than blessed. . . .

But like that next step, you know they get steeper. And that next step, “Boy I might be able to cross over into that.” Because nobody puts in that kind of time, they say, cause nobody puts that kind of times and efforts and those demands, without a steep step. So the steps are getting steeper. And it was like so yeah then there was the time, when I thought I’m not positive of the steps. I-I still wasn’t positive and still wasn’t sure. And, and I knew, I had learned by then I didn’t want to be a CEO of a company, because their life-styles were just not what I wanted to live. . .

All but one of them that I had ever met or worked for had been divorced at least once and they didn’t know their kids. And I didn’t want that. . . .

I wanted to crest another level, but I didn’t want it to kill my life you know. So I don’t know if that makes sense, but yes my expectations for two thirds of my career, , far exceeded anything the kid from Indiana, who won the Evans scholarship to go to college ever imagined. And then I got to the point where, “Goll it- Man if I things keep going like they’re going, I’m going to crest over into this. I’m already- I’m in a great level, thanks God, but boy if I crest over into the next one . . .

I: (Laughs heartily.) THEN, I’M IN THE CATBIRD SEAT!

BART: Yeah, but then I went the other way so. . . .I was at, I was at those nice levels for awhile and then I didn’t keep the upward trend. .

However, as Bart pointed out, his upward progression ended on October 11,

2001, and in the months following his termination, there were no jobs. Bart’s corporate career was a victim of bad timing. The result changed the trajectory of his career as he described

But (Pause) you’re at juncture when you’re looking for a job. And sometimes you can go forever up. . . . And some people do. I didn’t . . . So once you don’t go up again. . . . Then you’re, I guess, I guess last time, when I didn’t go to another big company in an even greater position, then you’re, it made the trajectory for my career in a different ra-in a different area in a different range.

220

Fortunately Bart was able to set a new direction for his career. By migrating to smaller organizations, he found new and different opportunities. In his corporate days

Bart pursued the challenge of advancement to avoid boredom, but the small companies present a different challenge, continually expanding his breadth of knowledge. As Bart explained:

I’m a person who works and I want to succeed and I want to be successful and you know if you stay at the same thing too long, you get bored. . . . So I guess my motivation more for moving up and the continued, was the growth and the not being bored. So now . . . that not being bored has been different situations, different industries, different companies, to learn dif- you know with these three small companies in a row. That-that is um, that’s the change, that’s the exciting part, learning the new industry, learning the new way, working with you know a different sort of outside person, having to do a broader-. I’m the, I’m the HR guy in the last two companies I worked for. . . . Finance has HR. Finance is HR. . . . You’re the HR guy; you take it all on... So, there’s still growth, there’s still learning so it’s still interesting... But yeah, yo- the career path isn’t, I don’t see it as and less, don’t know where I’m going to end up anymore.

It is obvious from Bart’s description that his career, like Jane’s and Mike’s has changed direction. However, Bart’s comments suggest that he has developed a strategy.

If possible, he looks forward to remaining with the company he recently joined, but if circumstances change, then he would look for other opportunities to work with another small business. His interest is not entrepreneurial. In fact during the course of the interviews, he expressed no interest in creating his own startup. Bart’s interest is in the challenge of ongoing learning, of doing good work, of sustaining his family. Hall’s

Protean Career model is characterized by these same elements, achievement, family happiness, continuous learning. Bart’s objectives align well with the Protean Career model. In fact Bart’s approach reflects Hall’s description: “The new career contract is

221 not a pact with the organization: it is an agreement with one’s self and one’s work. The path to the top has been replaced by the path with a heart” (1996a, p. 10).

Structural Analysis In addition to the thematic analysis, a structural analysis of a

vignette from Bart’s interviews offered some additional insight into the issue of cultural

barriers to career transitions. Bart mentioned that he was and continued to be interested

in ways to shift the direction of his career to be more service oriented. Towards that end

he had explored a number of opportunities in the non-profit sector. Table 20 is an

analysis of Bart’s story about his efforts to make the transition to non-profits. He was

responding to a question about non-profits that are actually reasonably funded: “Is that

something that might, you might entertain?”

Table 20 Barriers to Non-Profit Career Transition

BART: Oh, yeah, I would entertain it. I’ve signed up and tried to get into a lot of OR non-profits. I don’t know if you recall, but a mutual acquaintance even tried to help me get into the um- um local YMCA.

I: Oh, yeah.

BART: Because they needed people. He went to bat for me, really helped me. CA But non-profits is fund accounting.. . .

BART: And its, I’m going to tell you it’s not that much different, but everybody EV who does it. Like the non-profits think it’s that much different. It’s like the insurance companies. “We are so different, we don’t hire people at the top levels who didn’t come up through the ranks of insurance” And that’s what the non-profits tell you.

I: Oh, really.

BART: Yeah If you haven’t been doing fund accounting and you haven’t EV worked in non-profits, we don’t want you. And I’ve tried to break through. You know I think I’ve made so- I’ve had some real good

222

efforts, especially like the one with our mutual friend. I’ve had a couple more tries like that.

And um in both insurance companies and non-profits, for just to use a EV term that will cl-it probably wasn’t this clear, but I was ‘strung along”

BART: Until they, I was the fall back candidate and once they found somebody with the prior experience, they snapped them up and told me no. But they were stringing, for lack of better term, because it clearly paints a picture. Both, I’ve been strung along by both for months and months.

BART: And then boom all of a sudden it’s over and they hired somebody with RE the experience they want. OR = Orientation – Set up; CA = Complicating Action – Events, Actions;

EV = Evaluation – Narrator Insights, Observations; RE = Resolution – What happened. Coda – Final Element (Riessman, 1993, 2001)

Structurally the story is less about action and more about Bart’s evaluation of the biases he ran up against as he pursued opportunities in the non-profit sector and the insurance industry. However the essential story structure is in place from the orientation, “There was an opportunity at the YMCA;” to the complicating action. “A mutual friend spoke on my behalf” is followed by an evaluation that enabled Bart to explain his observation that the non-profit sector’s hiring practices are biased against anyone who did not “grow up” in the industry, to the Resolution, which indicates how his candidacy was resolved. “Boom all of a sudden it’s over and they hired somebody with the experience they want.”

Interpersonal Function An assessment of the Interpersonal Function completes the narrative analysis of Bart’s data. At the end of the last interview Bart commented on the process. What he realized from the interviews was that as he tried to explain events

223 in order to put them in context he referred back to earlier events. The interview experience was useful to him and provided him with insights into how he integrated past experience into his own thought processes. His response suggests that he did not find the experience coercive but instead found the process beneficial.

This was.. this was thought provoking, too. And I think that’s good. And even though I’m analytical and analyzed some of these periods, it made me think about the whole, and uh, what was interesting to me, when I, and I did it again tonight, in trying to explain the current I go way back in the past. And I didn’t realize I did that so much. And that goes back, I think, I don’t know, to the old thing, that..that uh,..I hope I haven’t stopped growing, but you develop a lot of your base beliefs and they don’t change. And ..and ..you know, I know that whole circle of beliefs thing, ..but that was interesting to me that I went back so far so many time to explain.

Paradigmatic Analysis With the narrative analysis, the assessment focused on Bart, the individual, and his particular experiences with long term unemployment. However the objective of the paradigmatic analysis was to identify elements that could be drawn from his data and combined with the other participants’ for insight into possible trends and to populate the catalog of characteristics associated with resilient career management. The collected data are potential content for future quantitative research.

Demographic data Bart was a married father of three school age children. His

undergraduate degree was in accounting and he earned a Masters’ in Business

Administration. He sat for and passed the CPA exam, but did not have the audit hours

necessary to become Certified. Prior to his layoff in 2001, he had been laid off from an

executive position with a large international beverage distributor. He was 47 when he

was laid off in 2001. He was in job search mode for a total of 15 months before he

finally landed a position as Comptroller for a small business. He has worked for three

224 companies since 2001. He recently returned to work as the CFO of another small company ending another period of unemployment (10 months). Following the 2001 layoff, Bart suffered a significant loss in terms of compensation. His salary and compensation remain significantly below 2001 levels.

Besides Bart’s descriptive data in this section, the other quantitative content is an assessment of what resilient career management characteristics if any, Bart may have manifested during his long-term unemployment.

Resilient Career Management Characteristics , The study focused on nine resilient career management characteristics including Adaptability, Hardiness, Realistic

Assessment, Meaning/Purpose, Innovation, Bricolage, Learning, Openness and

Collaboration. Bart worked in accounting/finance throughout his career at several different organizations. However at the employer from which he was laid off in 2001,

Bart served on a variety of committees. He managed systems projects, worked closely with sales, managed a small revenue generating unit and was heavily involved in rate setting. He was extremely flexible, which enhanced his adaptability. Earlier, Bart was quoted about how much he hated being in a job search mode. Despite his aversion, he continued to pursue employment. His tenacity has paid off with employment on two different occasions.

Bart’s ability to realistically assess his career in terms of employability is

questionable. On the day layoffs were announced at his former employer’s facility,

even the CFO, Bart’s boss, was amazed that Bart did not realize that he was an ideal

candidate for dismissal.

225

Bart’s employment has purpose and meaning in that it enables him to support his family. As the sole breadwinner it was very important to him. Throughout the course of the interview cycle, Bart often stated how happy he was that his new position enabled him to support his family and maintain the lifestyle to which they were accustomed. Bart’s approach to his job search was fundamental. His edge came from conducting his search as a job and executing the different practices consistently and persistently. As a finance professional, innovation was therefore not a significant element in his career management practices. That also holds true for bricolage.

Even if he were not interested in learning, Bart’s positions as chief financial officer for three different small companies would compel him to engage in ongoing learning. The good news is that the real appeal for Bart in taking on the challenge of working for these different companies is that he does have the opportunity to learn many new and interesting things. Bart was, and continues to be open to a variety of employment options, from large to small companies, and for profit or non-profit.

Finally, Bart was recognized for his collaborative efforts at the outplacement firm and the various networking groups. He was consistently on the lookout for opportunities that he would then share with others. His philosophy was that working together would give everyone a better shot at re-employment.

Based on the analysis of Bart’s data, the resilient career management characteristics that he manifested include Adaptability, Hardiness, Meaning/Purpose,

Learning, Openness and Collaboration. A description of how Bart manifested the three career management behaviors -- adaptability, agency and tolerance for ambiguity, was

226 included at the end of the chapter as well as a description of what constituted re- employability for Bart.

Pete was the final participant recruited to participate in the study. As the last of the participants’ data evaluated in this chapter, the findings from Pete’s interviews conclude the series of individual case reviews. Findings from the narrative and paradigmatic analyses of his interviews can be found on the next pages. After Pete’s results, more findings from the analysis of elements common to the whole group such as the Career Management Behavior can be found in the section of the chapter preceding the brief summary that concludes Chapter Four.

Pete

Overview

Background Pete was an officer in a software services company that supported the financial services industry. For close to 20 years he had been an employee, with 16 of those years as an officer. During his tenure he managed operations at various locations around the country, turning around offices, improving productivity and contributing to the company’s success on the local and divisional levels.

Because Pete understood the product, the employees, and the operations he could coax out the best from all three. When problems arose, they called on Pete to come in, roll up his sleeves, and get the job done. He was known for his work ethic but more importantly, he was known for his excellent results. He was highly regarded by his direct reports and the organization. Over time he built a solid record of

227 accomplishment and was compensated accordingly. He aspired to be COO and he had built a solid track record to support his aspiration.

With the new millennia came change, as senior management came and senior management went. January, 2002, new leadership came on board. During the first half of the year a number of Pete’s colleagues on the senior management team were replaced. Pete noticed the changes. In fact his organization had been re-structured, operations that formerly reported to Pete were re-assigned. At the beginning of 2002, he was responsible for multiple products and was managing hundreds of employees, by

August of 2002 he was down to one product and was managing one tenth the number of staff.

Nonetheless, Pete was not alarmed because his record spoke for itself. He was a

“top performer.” He was working on a high visibility project. In the weeks ahead, he

had flights booked for several trips to the field to meet with top clients and staff around

the country. In fact, the day Pete was laid off he was scheduled to fly out on one of

those trips.

The Layoff Before Pete could catch an afternoon flight for a client meeting, his boss asked him to stop in and meet with him first thing in the morning. At 8 AM Pete walked into his boss’s office, as a Senior Vice President. Before 9 AM, Pete walked out

unemployed. Table 21 is the transcript of Pete’s description of his layoff.

228

Table 21 Pete’s Layoff Story

PETE: Enh, I kind of, I didn’t have the warm and fuzzies at that point, but yeah. But so then I went in and HR was in there with him

I: Ohhh.

PETE: So that’s when they delivered the news.

I: What’d they say?

PETE: They just said that the position was being eliminated.

I: Okay.

PETE: Thank you very much.

I: (Chuckles) Love the thank you very much. That always goes so well. And then . . .

PETE: Yeah. Nah, you know it was “We appreciate everything you’ve done.” And all this other kind of stuff.

I: Yeah.

PETE: Ahm, and you know it wasn’t, it was (Pause 1.0 second) You know it wasn’t (Pause 1.5 seconds) It wasn’t performance related. It was kind of the other thing so.

He didn’t go back to his office until that evening to pack up. “Wasn’t able to tell my people that I was let go or anything.” When asked if he was surprised, Pete said,

“Probably shouldn’t have been surprised, but I looked at it as I was a top performer. . . .

Yeah, I was – I was kind of surprised. . . . I was leaving on a flight that day I was told. .

. . And then I had two other trips booked. . . . So in a way it was kind of a surprise, you know why book it if you’re not going to do that.”

229

Pete was not the only person who was surprised. After he arrived home to tell and told his wife, “I got laid off.” She thought he was kidding. He assured her he was serious. Her reaction:

I think disbelief, but . . . I think she was of the mindset that I should be weighing opportunities that may have come across versus being dedicated to the company.” . . . Was it a complete shock to her, probably not, because a number of other people went by the wayside before me.

Long Term Unemployment After 16 years as a manager, responsible for hundreds of employees, Pete was responsible for managing one, himself. As part of his severance he was given outplacement services at a local firm. In addition to counseling sessions, he had access to the facility and its resources for a month. Wasting no time, he was at the outplacement offices the Monday following his layoff. Thereafter he went in daily to use the phone and their other resources. He took advantage of the resume writing service. Although Pete felt his resume was in reasonably good shape, he hadn’t

looked for a job in a long time. With input he revised his resume to capitalize on job

search in a digital age. He also attended outplacement workshops. He updated his Juran

Institute Quality training from his manufacturing days by reviewing the latest in quality

methodologies including Six Sigma principles. At the suggestion of a colleague who

had also been let go from the same company, he joined a local networking group. Pete

was laid off on a Thursday. He was at the weekly networking meeting the following

Tuesday evening.

Pete also set up a networking meeting with his former boss and another

colleague from his former employer to determine if there was a performance issue that

230 dictated his layoff. He was assured that his performance was not an issue. The leadership at the company had changed and with that change came a new management team. They were looking for fresh resources to move the company forward. In fact, as

Pete’s wife had already observed, others had been laid off months before him.

Reassured that his performance was not an issue, Pete set out to find a senior management position. He was looking for a position as either a senior officer or higher.

Pete had a diverse background, so his search spanned industries. As he said, “I was a

Senior Vice President. I was looking at COO positions. I was looking at CIO positions.”

It was the respect that he earned from his colleagues and his direct reports that inspired the party his reports put together for him after he was laid off.

They actually had a party for me a few weeks later. . . . the people that reported in to me, the people that I was letting go and stuff. Actually, some of the people I let go were there. . . . They probably knew it wasn’t me, but which was nice. . . . It was arranged by them. . . . Oh, it wasn’t the company. No. No, it was a good group of people that were there.

Ultimately it was the connections to his colleagues that made the difference in

Pete’s search. There were the occasional “tangible” interviews. In fact he described one which would have permitted him to work while honoring the non-compete clause in his severance agreement. In the first few months after his layoff a local software company in a different field was looking for a VP. It would have been a great opportunity and if

it had panned out the layoff would have been a brief blip in his career, but they finally

hired someone from within. Pete continued look for opportunities. He expanded his

search beyond the region. He traveled to the mid-West to follow up on a position

231 another former colleague had encouraged him to pursue, but he concluded that his interest in COO opportunities scared them off. Pete’s outplacement had ended after a couple of months, but he belonged to several networking groups, he searched the web daily sending out resumes and letters. He followed up with his references updating them on his activities.

He picked up a sales job through one of the networking groups, which provided a little revenue. He took a part-time job, mostly for the opportunity to get in front of people, but the few dollars he earned covered networking lunches. Relying on a combination of severance, unemployment, savings and stocks he managed to pay his bills. This was important as both of his children were in college by the time he finally returned to employment. Healthcare was also an issue, but Pete’s wife went to work and her full time job provided health benefits. But as Pete said, “Obviously with each passing day the pressure starts to go up even more.”

Re-Employment And then in July of 2002, almost two years after his layoff, he landed. Table 22 is the transcript of Pete’s story about how he landed at the financial services firm.

Table 22 Pete’s Re-Employment Story

I : What happened?

PETE: There was a whole bunch of people in the company that were advocating for me.

I : Really?

PETE: Yup, and I had touched base with the company and you know I’d been in touch with them, but (Pausing) the issue there was their concern was financial, that I made too

232

much.

I : Okay.

PETE: (Pause) But anyways I ended up, (Brief pause) I ended up (Pause) accepting a position quite a bit lower, than what I would have wanted. . . . Salary-wise. . . . But looked at it from the standpoint, you know I’m 22 months into this. You know, I really need to (Short Pause) get in the c- you know get in, get my foot in the door and hopefully you can prove, that you can do something and move up.

I : Right.

PETE: So that was the approach I took. . . . I settled for, you know, I took a substantial hit. Actually over what I was making. Obviously, because it was a lot more than I was making at that point. But, you know, eh you know it substantially less, than I was. . . . But then I again, I had substantially less responsibility, too. . . . It’s not like I was managing two hundred people or whatever the number was. I was, I was brought in as a Director level position . . . My charter going in there was to look at how their business was working, make improvements, make organizational suggestions, to reorganize if need be. And it was an individual contributor position.

I : Okay. How did you feel about an individual contributor position?

PETE: At that point, I was happy to get into a company and start getting paid. . . . So that was my feeling at that point.

During our final interview we discussed his current position. Since joining the company in 2004, Pete has been promoted, but becoming COO, or even a division head in this large was not likely at this stage of his career at his current employer.

Nonetheless he had not forsaken his goal. He mentioned that not too long ago he had explored an opportunity that once again came to his attention through a former colleague. It didn’t work out, but Pete gave it some serious thought and in fact he was still open to the possibility:

233

I have the internet job searches that I had before, and I have those and some of the networking groups that I was part of, I’m still on the email distribution list, so I do keep my eyes open. [I] came extremely close to a COO position within the past year or two. .. . With a smaller, a small, relatively small company, but ah was recommended by an individual who was like the chief marketing officer of the company who I had worked with before.

Career Assessment When Pete was asked to diagram his career, his path looked like a decaying sine wave (Appendix D). Five years prior to layoff, his career path was ascending. It peaked about eight months prior to his layoff. The line shifted to the right and so the right gradually sloping downward, it eventually dropped below the zero baseline. It gradually curved back up to baseline and intersected baseline at the point of re-employment. The slope continued upward to about two thirds of the height of the other curve before leveling off. Pete’s current employment meets many needs, but he would be the first to tell you that the role of independent contributor is very different than COO.

In October, weeks after completing the third interview with Pete, I received an email. He wrote:

Just an update for you -- had a great vacation on the beach in Cocoa Beach, FL (beautiful weather) only to return to work this week to find out on Tuesday functional consolidations taking place is resulting in the elimination of my position. Ah, the worst fears become reality. I'm still an active employee through the end of November but the active job search has begun. The person I report to and HR indicated that if I see any opportunities that I would be interested in they would go to bat for me -- but, one can't rely on that happening although there are some positions of interest that I have applied for (2009a).

And in December another message:

234

As far as where I stand, yes I am currently in the job search mode again. To date, nothing solid in the works as far as job prospects -- am following up on a few things. Actually got a call from a local insurer as I was reading your message -- was scheduled to have some informational interviews with them (five people) . . . but it is being delayed . . . due to scheduling conflicts (2009b).

In our first interview Pete talked about becoming unemployed again as a worst fear becoming reality. He spoke with the confidence of someone not expecting to face that situation. His October email was a reminder of how quickly circumstances can change. In his October message, he indicated he might be spared returning to the ranks of the unemployed. However his second message relayed the news that he did not land within the organization. After a little over five years at his most recent position, Pete is once again unemployed. The fact that he has experienced long-term unemployment and has become re-employed, may prove to be useful, if not comforting knowledge as he faces another career management challenge.

With the overview of Pete’s career management experiences completed, the remainder of Pete’s case review focused on the two forms of analyses, narrative and paradigmatic. The narrative analysis identified and examined two themes. The first theme was derived from the data and the second related Pete’s career management experience to the theories associated with the managerial career models. A structural analysis and an assessment of the interpersonal function completed the narrative analysis. The paradigmatic analysis included a recap of descriptive data about Pete and also assessed which resilient career management characteristics, if any, Pete manifested during the twenty months he was unemployed.

235

Narrative Analysis The narrative analysis first considered the thematic analyses starting

with a theme derived from the data, which examined Pete’s relationship with

colleagues and the second addressed the nature of Pete’s career model based on his

career experience. The structural analysis examined the story of changing culture and

the interpersonal function considered Pete’s reflections regarding the experience.

Thematic Analysis The first theme drawn from the data assessed Pete’s

relationship with his co-workers. The character of his relationship is reflected in the

ongoing support Pete received from colleagues during the course of his job search.

Throughout the interview cycle, Pete spoke often of the support and assistance he

received from one direct report after another. The examples began with the celebration

in his honor shortly after his layoff. Other instances surfaced as Pete described the

different job opportunities he pursued as a result of leads he received. A few months

after his layoff, a former direct report suggested that he apply to a local software firm.

Pete did and he was a strong external candidate. A company in the mid-west

interviewed Pete after receiving his application. Pete applied at the company after he

was contacted by a former direct report. And again Pete was a very strong candidate.

Even at the company where he landed, there was a cadre of people who had formerly

worked for him, who lobbied on his behalf. And the recent COO position he considered

was brought to his attention by a former colleague who was working for the

organization at the time.

The level of loyalty, support and interest that he received after his ouster

suggest that Pete was not just a good manager; but that he was also a good leader. In

236 one of his assignments Pete turned around a customer service center. It is interesting to note that his concerns about improving performance at the center did not focus exclusively on the customer. He also considered how demoralizing it was for the staff to work under such difficult conditions. Pete wasn’t only interested in making the customer happy; he wanted the staff to enjoy a better work experience as well! As he said, “So, you know, so it was a quality of life change for a lot of people . . . too. Where yo- you know it's a different atmosphere, when you can start to improve some of that

stuff.” Later Pete spoke of his approach to improving employee work lives as a

motivator for him personally and professionally. “What was gratifying is turning

around those areas and improving people's lives. . . . In reality, because they were

living in hell, having to deal with some of that stuff too. . . .”

Pete’s approach at work was to treat everyone equally. At one point he stated.

“I've always been a proponent of treating everyone the same. I don't care who they are,

whether they’re CEO or whether they’re mailroom person. To me I'm going to be as

responsive to anyone.” Evidently his style helped earn him the respect of his staff and

colleagues in the organization. At one point, Pete reflected on feedback he had received.

Table 22 is an excerpt of the transcript that included his reflections.

Table 23 Feedback

PETE: I had people come to me after you know I'd left, or they’d left and said, “Geesh, I never knew I learned as much as I did from you.” I mean it really, you know people that went to a VP positions . . . and stuff like that. So it was nice to get that type of feedback.

237

I: Yeah, that is a nice thing. Yeah.

PETE: I had one guy in an office who didn't report to me who told me once he goes, he goes, “I wish-“ he said, “If I could have half the respect you got from your people.” He said, “I would be really happy.”

I: Wow.

PETE: And he didn't have to say that.

I: Yeah. No he didn't have to say that.

PETE: It was kind of nice. It was nice of him to say that.

I: Yeah.

PETE: And I guess he had been at [one of the sites I managed] and had been talking to people. So that's, that’s kind of nice.

I: That is nice. That's very nice.

PETE: So from that standpoint, you know I mean, I think that's rewarding too. You can have an impact on people from that standpoint.

Granted these observations were self-reported, but the fact that so many of

Pete’s employment opportunities came from individuals that had worked with him is indicative that he did indeed generate that regard and respect. The network that Pete built during his tenure as an officer made the difference in his search for re- employment. He experienced a real return on the investment he made in human capital over the years. It was the people that had worked for him, even people that he had laid off, who lobbied on his behalf and as a result helped him to become re-employed.

The second theme in the thematic analysis focused on determining what career model could be considered a good fit with Pete’s career management efforts. On the

238 one hand, Pete’s self directed approach suggested the Protean career model; on the other his career management efforts reflected characteristics of the Bureaucratic Career model.

At his first employers, just out of college, Pete made every effort to build knowledge and flesh out his expertise. He went to grad school to earn his MBA. He was trained in Juran training for quality management. Realizing that he needed systems expertise to enhance his professional tool kit, he pursued a lateral transfer into the company’s systems group. It required persistence on his part, but eventually Pete was able to gain entry into the group. Table 24 describes his efforts and his reasons for getting into systems.

Table 24 Joining the Systems Group

PETE: I eventually hooked up with people in the IT organization, because of my business background, [they] were interested in trying to get me to come over. And it took me three times to get before I actually got over there.

I:: So they were really interested.

PETE: They were calling me asking me to apply and then they’d get somebody with a, you know highly technical background or programming background and I had a business background. . . . Each time they opted to go the other way, so I said I’ll give it one more shot . . . and then if not, forget it. But I ended up getting over there. . . . Cause it was that, at that point was going to be a lateral move. . . . But it was strictly geared to diversifying my background. Get the IT and business blend. . . . Hopefully future career opportunities

239

Pete’s efforts paid off. He was tapped to lead a strategic initiative at one company, the company he had joined out of college. And he was recruited by another company. Although he appreciated the offer from his first employer, the compensation and the opportunity for growth at the other company made the decision easy. He joined the new firm and stayed there over sixteen years until he was laid off in 2002.

Pete’s career management style during his first years out of college epitomized

Protean Career management behaviors (Hall, 1976). He actively pursued knowledge, for example the Juran training and his pursuit of his MBA. To broaden his skill set he willing transferred to an in-house systems group. Pete was making the decisions and setting the course of his career. Hall referred to that self-determination and direction as agency. And agency was a real departure from the traditional bureaucratic career where advancement, responsibility, perks were bestowed at the behest of the organization as a reward for company loyalty.

After Pete joined the new firm he settled into a different approach to managing his career, an approach that more closely reflected the Bureaucratic Career model. He worked hard, and did what the company asked, including working long hours, re- locating his family multiple times, even eliminating personnel, some of the same personnel who regarded him so highly. And as expected with the Bureaucratic Model,

Pete was promoted. He was well compensated and there were other perks such as bonuses, even a large office as rewards for his loyalty and commitment.

The question was, what happened when Pete became re-employed? Which direction did he choose to go in? Did he embrace the Protean Career model? Or did he

240 manifest the traditional Bureaucratic Model again. I propose that he did neither, in fact

I don’t believe any of the career models discussed, either bureaucratic or the alternative models, fit Pete’s career s management experience over the last few years.

When Pete returned to work, he took a significant cut in pay, he worked out of a cubicle instead of an office and he was no longer a VP. However, it should be noted that he was hired by much larger institution, an international financial services organization with tens of thousands of employees. He moved from a relatively small company to a very large company. His role changed as well, from officer to individual contributor. He did put in his 48 hours, but he no longer put in 60 - 80 hours a week. It was a significant change. Unlike Sue, Pete’s role does not reflect characteristics of any of the models that have been discussed. Based on his aspirations and experience, the closest I can come to explaining Pete’s managerial career for much of the past five years is as an under-employed executive (Feldman, Leana, & Bolino, 2002). That does mirror an observation he made several times over the course of the interview cycle. He did comment that he felt that his bandwidth was not being fully utilized, and that he had much more to offer. In response to Pete’s comment I asked him what would challenge him and he responded:

I-I’m just looking for more responsibility and with it you know the promotion, the expanded responsibility, the monetary growth and um so I’d like to be past where I was at the other job.

At the time of the interviews, we discussed how Pete could keep his eye out for opportunities within the organization as well as outside. However, once he became

241 unemployed again, he was free to actively look for new opportunities in pursuit of a

Chief Operations Officer (COO) position. Only time will tell if he will reach his goal.

The challenge will be balancing the need for income and finding the right opportunity that will offer the appropriate level of responsibility. Whatever the outcome, Pete has been given another opportunity to find a career model that will enable him to tap into all of his band width.

That concludes the thematic analyses of Pete’s data. The theme that emerged from the data that were discussed was how the relationships that Pete developed during his tenure paid off in leads when he was looking for employment during his period of long-term unemployment. The other theme examined how Pete’s career related to the

Bureaucratic and other alternative career models. Prior to his long-term unemployment, it appeared that Pete adopted the Protean and the Bureaucratic Career models at different periods during his career. However after his long-term unemployment, there does not appear to be any significant similarities to any of the models, Bureaucratic or alternative. Instead, Pete’s employment experience appears to be less about career and more about a case of executive underemployment. The next element of the narrative analyses is the structural analysis.

Structural Analysis To get a better sense of Pete’s role in the organization and to

scrutinize his story construction, the following story was subjected to structural analysis

using Riessman’s adaptation of Labov’s clause analysis (Riessman, 2008). Pete told a

story of introducing a procedural document to be used as a base protocol to provide

consistent service to clients and others in the internal organization.

242

Table 25 Introducing the Gospel of Service Culture Change

PETE: Uhm, so you know, we implemented in our area. The way, the intent was, OR I produced a book, CA

I: Yeah.

PETE: A guide of what people ought to do, with examples of emails that they EV ought to be sending out to the people, ‘cause really this equates to getting everyone involved.

I: Yeah.

PETE: Getting a group of people associated with each area, coming up with EV those tangible examples and then being disciples and

I: Spreading the gospel

PETE: Spreading the, spreading the gospel you know and I-and I remember at a OR meeting I don’t know if we were in Las Vegas or something like that, I EV presented this whole thing to everyone, you know the CEO and everyone else. And I just, for effect, I said, “And if you’re not going to follow this, CA let’s just throw this away and leave, not even deal with this, because everyone here has to be a proponent of it or we shouldn’t even do it.”

I: Right,

PETE: “Because it’s going to be a façade.” CA

I: What did they say?

PETE: CEO just said, you know everyone was just quiet. The CEO said, “We’re EV going to do this.” And they actually brought that to . . . The old CEO CA became the Chairman of the Board, he went to a large insurance comp- carrier. They actually brought that to that insurance carrier and they wanted to implement it.

I: Really!

PETE: Yeah, so. Go figure. EV

I: Go figure. So did th-did they, did they really do it, after you-

PETE: No. No, they didn’t really. We did it in my, when I, when I. Well this is RE nine locations.

243

OR = Orientation – Set up; CA = Complicating Action – Events, Actions;

EV = Evaluation – Narrator Insights, Observations; RE = Resolution – What happened. Coda – Final Element (Riessman, 1993, 2001)

Interpersonal Function Pete and I met at a networking group in 2002. And in fact it was a conversation with Pete that initiated my interest in the experiences of the mid- career managers who faced the phenomenon of Long-term Unemployment. According to my memory, Pete once said, “I don’t understand, I did everything right.” He was implying that he had gotten the appropriate degrees and worked hard and did what was expected to guarantee executive success. Interestingly, Pete never made any such statement or allusion during the research, so I will consider it apocryphal and therefore attribute it to all of my networking contacts who experienced the challenge of Long-

Term Unemployment and did their best to come to terms with its impact.

Pete did make one comment at the end of the third interview that indicates that the experience was not abusive or coercive, when he said, “It’s been a pleasure seeing you again, I’m glad we were able to connect again. It’s great.”

That concludes the narrative analysis of Pete’s data. The paradigmatic analysis which includes the Pete’s descriptive data as well as a discussion of the resilient career management characteristics follows.

Paradigmatic Analyses Pete’s information along with Jane’s and the other participants’ analyses will add to our understanding of the study population by providing descriptive statistics. It is also expected to add to existing empirical data about mid-career

244 managers in the 21st Century. Finally Pete’s use of resilient career management characteristics will be used to populate the catalog of characteristics as the starting point for future quantitative research.

Demographic data Pete is married with two adult children. His daughter

recently married and his son lives and works locally. Pete attended night school and

earned his MBA early in his career. He also had quality training from the Juran

Institute, Total Quality Management (TQM), and refreshed his skills by reviewing Six

Sigma during his long-term unemployment. Pete was laid off for the first time in his

career in September of 2002. Prior to that time he had been employed by two

organizations. He was recruited from his first job in the manufacturing industry by the

company that laid him off approximately 16 years later. At the time of his layoff Pete

was a Senior Vice President in the organization. He was 47 years old. He was

unemployed for over twenty months before returning to work for a large, international

financial services company. He returned to work as an individual contributor. He

retained his employment for just over five years. He was notified that his position was

being eliminated effective at the end of November of 2009 as a result of organizational

consolidation. Pete is currently unemployed.

Resilient Career Management Characteristics One of the questions regarding

the effect of long-term unemployment was whether the managers who participated in

the study who experienced long-term unemployment manifested any of the nine

characteristics associated with resilient career management. The nine characteristics

included Adaptability, Hardiness, Realistic Assessment, Meaning/Purpose, Innovation,

Bricolage, Learning, Openness and Collaboration.

245

Pete developed a rich foundation of expertise operations and systems in the financial services and manufacturing industries. In addition he re-located to sites around the country as part of his job, demonstrating his and his family’s ability to adapt to geographic change as well. He also demonstrated his hardiness during his career as he worked long hours to meet organizational requirements. In terms of his unemployment, Pete was unemployed for 20+ months, the longest unemployment period of all of the six participants other than Sue. Although he found the search process distressing, he did not give up throughout the period and worked on his search daily. Pete, like the other participants, was surprised to be laid off, despite the dramatic change in his responsibilities. His presumption that he would retain his position despite a senior management regime change because he was a top performer suggests that he did not have a realistic assessment of his role in a changing organization. Pete was committed to providing good service to the customer, to his staff and to the organization. In that context his high performance standards and his corporate loyalty imbued his career with meaning and purpose.

Pete executed several practical but innovative financial activities to manage his exposure to debt. Considering the length of his unemployment, the strategies worked well for him. He also tapped into several part-time activities to keep engaged and in front of people enhancing his networking strategies. However, in terms of Bricolage, Pete did not suggest any alternatives to his career focus. He is committed to business and is still pursuing COO or division head assignments in his job search.

246

Learning is important to Pete and he has demonstrated throughout his career his willingness to learn about new products, new organizations, new practices that can contribute to making him a more effective professional. In terms of openness, although

Pete did his job and did it well, underemployment was not a satisfying situation for him.

It was frustrating to him not to be able to make decisions and take charge of the task at hand. Pete had an intellectual appreciation of the situation and the professionalism to execute his tasks as directed. I suspect, however, that a number of the constraints he faced working in a larger and potentially more bureaucratic organization must have offended his commitment to disciplined, expeditious and efficient execution. Pete was open to activities, organizations and any methods that would help him return to the workplace as

a contributing professional. He did have reservations about schmoozing, and therefore

was disinclined to engage in artificial, small talk. He was much more interested in getting

the job done and allowing his work to speak for itself. In that same context Pete was

willing to collaborate as long as the collaboration did not get in the way of execution. It

was not that he was unwilling to share. It was just that the process needed to proceed in a

timely manner.

From the analysis of Pete’s data, it appears that there are only a couple of the

characteristics associated with career resilience that are not manifested at all, and those

are a Realistic Assessment and Bricolage. Adaptability, Hardiness, Learning, Meaning

and Purpose, Innovation, Collaboration and Openness are manifested. Some of the

manifestations may be constrained, but they are present. This concludes the discussion of

both the narrative and paradigmatic findings from Pete’s interviews.

247

Results about Pete’s career management behaviors adaptability, agency and tolerance for ambiguity, have been incorporated with the other study participants’ data and will be discussed in the next section of the chapter under the heading Shared

Characteristics, Common Experiences. The discussion of what constituted re- employability for Pete and the others can also be found in that section.

Shared Characteristics, Common Experiences

Jane, Bill, Mike, Sue, Bart and Pete had very different experiences during the course of their long term unemployment; however they were all unemployed for six months or more. At 30 months, Sue’s was the longest period of unemployment. But when you read how she described her experience, it seems more like a sabbatical. For

Pete who was out almost as long at 22 months, it was not a sabbatical. In fact it wasn’t much of a sabbatical for the other four participants either. So what did the members of the group have in common?

Demographically, they were all white, middle class professionals. They were all college graduates with earned Baccalaureate degrees. They were all in their 40’s when they lost their jobs. They all worked for large companies, companies with 500 or more employees at the time that they were laid off. As a group they had demonstrated a strong work ethic and a commitment to their employers and to getting the job done.

They were willing and ready to take ownership of their responsibilities in the workplace. But how similar were they in terms of career management behaviors? Their career management behaviors are the next consideration discussed on the following pages.

248

Career Management Behaviors Earlier, I identified Agency – the ability to take charge of one’s career, Adaptability – the capacity to respond to change quickly and effectively, and tolerance for Ambiguity as critical Career Management Behaviors or

CMBs. I suggested that as managers the participants would have exercised these behaviors to some degree even in the most traditional of bureaucratic organizations. In the next few paragraphs I will discuss how the six participants manifested those behaviors as employed and unemployed professionals for each of the three CMBs beginning with Agency.

From the various stories about their roles and responsibilities at their former employers as well as how they directed their own career development, it is obvious that each of the managers exercised a high degree of agency. They were in charge of managing their careers during the course of their employment history and within their previous employer’s organization. Jane spoke of choosing her next project, Bart described lobbying for his own promotions, Mike pursued the product design position,

Pete took on a variety of activities including crossing over into the systems arm of one employer to “Round out, to diversify”, Sue spoke of looking for opportunities to challenge herself and expand her skill base and Bill migrated down and up the Eastern

Seaboard in search of employment opportunity.

As unemployed professionals these individuals were no longer constrained by their previous employers as to the type of work that they might do or for that matter whom they would do the work for and or where or how they would do the work going forward. From that perspective, it would seem that unemployment then would offer

249 even more opportunities for career agency to the six managers. Therefore long term unemployment should have had a minimal impact on who was in charge of their careers. Perhaps Mike said it best when asked who he thought was responsible for directing his career. He replied, “It’s always a personal endeavor.”

Adaptability, the ability to adapt to changing conditions, is another Career

Management Behavior. Based on Bill’s career narrative, I would nominate him as the poster child of adaptability for the group. That said, every one of the participants talked about responding to changing conditions prior to their recent layoff. Jane, Bill, Bart, had already been laid off before, so they had already been through the drill in some ways and knew what to expect. Having experienced job loss, they were perhaps better prepared to take action. Mike and Sue and Pete demonstrated their adaptability in the workplace. The nature of Mike’s business called for continuous adaptation in response to changing consumer demand. Pete had managed staff and offices in different industries and different geographic locations. Like Mike, Pete was very aware of changing customer demands and its potential impact on the bottom line. Sue’s role evolved during her tenure at the company from which she was laid off. The changes required that she adapt as the organization changed for the better, in part due to her efforts. Even Sue’s description of her ideal job in the future calls for a significant level of adaptability as she considers becoming a consultant. The six participants have, according to their narratives, manifested their adaptability. And so if they have been able to demonstrate their adaptability in the workplace, again they should be well

250 positioned to demonstrate their adaptability outside of the workplace in the external labor market where their every interaction required a level of adaptation.

The response to the last of the CMBs, a tolerance for Ambiguity was not as uniform as the other two, agency and adaptability. I can still hear Bill calling his career a “MESS” or describing the panic he felt about being unemployed! And Bart lamented about being unemployed, He HATED it! He very definitely disliked the ambiguity. He hated not knowing what he was going to be doing the following week. Mike spoke of lying awake at night as his unemployment extended beyond six months, wondering if he would get a job? The concept of uncertainty, of ambiguity, is simply not as welcome to individuals who are used to taking action. However despite their distaste, each of the participants faced the ambiguity and moved on. Jane was unsure what direction her career should take, Bill was unsure of where to focus his energies, Mike was unsure of what companies he could trust. Sue was not sure how to step in and take control in her workplace, for that matter she was not sure she even wanted to, and Bart was unsure of the future as was Pete.

The tolerance for ambiguity depends on what is at risk. When employed there are some constants that constrain the range of ambiguity that are just not available when unemployed. Within those constraints, which can be as simple as where and when to go to work and what to do when you get there, it is easier to tolerate some ambiguity. On the other hand it may indeed be easier to take a leap of faith and engage in a significant career change if there are no other options open. Finally, in discussing ambiguity, there is an efficiency cost of always operating in the unknown, in which

251 nothing can be assumed, nothing can be taken for granted. Will I have a job tomorrow?

Will my company keep its doors open? Will the management team change? The dis- ease as a result of these questions generates a by-product of insecurity. That level of insecurity for mid-career managers in response to the ambiguity that pervades their careers when they are unemployed does warrant some assessment.

Re-employability Another element of the study that was common to all of the participants was the issue of re-employability. All of the participants lost their jobs and all of the participants returned to work. In some cases they went through the cycle multiple times. It would seem that there would be some information that would shed light on what constitutes acceptable employment. I had proposed that the construct of re-employability was not only characterized by the needs and interests of the employer, exclusively, but that there was an element defined by the individual as well.

My proposal was that managers might choose to do work based on its purpose and how meaningful it might be. What became apparent from the interviews is that there were some positions a manager seeking employment might choose not to pursue.

For example Jane mentioned a contracting situation where she was happy when there was a mutually agreed upon decision to end the contract, so that she avoided a potential ethical conflict. Sue was quite clear about what she was willing to do and why when she decided to return to work. Her choice was determined by her commitment to her family. Bill determined that becoming an archeologist was not an option when he learned what the average annual income was. Pete spoke of an opportunity that did not

252 move forward despite appearing to be an ideal job for his career interests, simply because it was not a good fit at the time.

On the other hand there were several situations where individuals accepted positions that did not meet their requirements in terms of responsibility, challenge or compensation. However, the opportunity for some compensation or a combination of compensation and benefits trumped no, or limited compensation according to four of the participants:

MIKE But it felt good to be collecting a paycheck and have benefits. BILL “if I start working for myself I’ll make some money and I’ll be happy.” PETE I settled for, you know, I took a substantial hit, actually, over what I was making. Obviously, because it was a lot more than I was making at that point. BART Well, I think the key thing is, I’d been out 15 months. I had a family. I had to work. I had to make some money. And, it was better to have something than to not have something.

The findings do have implications for possible future research to be discussed in

Chapter 5 as part of the conclusions and recommendations discussion.

Shared experiences. In Chapter 4 I have taken a case like approach to individual analyses for the each of the participant’s data. However there were two findings that appeared to be common to all. Therefore I chose to discuss the two different findings in one section and addressed the participants’ results as a group. One finding related to the barriers each of the participants faced as he or she attempted to change the direction of their careers. The other noted the participants’ surprise at being let go.

253

During the course of their interviews each participant cited one or more instances of barriers that prevented them from making a transition to a new industry, a new function or a new role. Sue was an operations professional in a marketing department. Her work was valued, her contribution was welcome, but when it came down to choosing who would stay and who would go, Sue went and the person with the marketing background stayed. Even though there was more operational work to be done, she was not a member of the club. Bill invested in his career. He became a

Certified Project Management Professional (PMP) to diversify his skill set and make him more marketable. But when he went knocking on doors, his PMP got little traction.

Hiring managers were looking for PMPs with information systems technology backgrounds.

Pete spoke of trying to break into the systems department at a previous employer. The systems people asked him to apply for positions. But when it came down to selecting the final candidate, they hired someone else. The department hired them, because they had a systems background! Systems asked Pete to post three times, before they finally hired him. Jane laughed about applying at the local supermarket chain with no success. And despite her efforts and her equestrian background, Jane never did get the sales job at Farmtek. Mike spoke of applying for a variety of jobs in product development, sales engineering, all to no avail. He recited a litany of barriers including: age, experience, clique mentality, geographic location. He finally landed, because he had very specific expertise that qualified him for the position. Bart was particularly disappointed that he was unable to break into the non-profit market. As a

254 finance guy with a Public Accounting background, it was surprising to learn that he had been strung along by several non-profits until the person with the “right” credentials came along. Bart said, speaking for the non-profit organizations: “If you haven’t been doing fund accounting and you haven’t worked in non-profits, we don’t want you.” The participants’ experiences are very disturbing and I believe have implications for career management that I will discuss in Chapter Five.

The other shared phenomenon was the surprise that each participant felt at being laid off. As the interviewer, I was particularly intrigued because they often described contexts that were highly indicative that their positions would be eliminated. One participant spoke of being the only person in his organization in that position. It should have come as no surprise when the company, forced to cut, eliminated the position.

Jane described a conversation with her new boss that clearly indicated that if it came down to a choice between her or him she would be the one to go. Sue basically worked herself out of a job and yet she had to hear it from others before she realized she was on the way out. Pete’s company got new senior management. In the ensuing months they eliminated one position after another. The day Pete went home and told his wife that he had been let go, she was the one who pointed out to him that it should have come as no surprise; after all he was one of the last of the old regime. For Mike the handwriting was also on the wall, but as he said, “I wasn't listening very well at all” The necessity for Bart’s layoff began in the recession that preceded 9-11, when the company was already struggling for revenue. The blow following 9-11 was the final straw. As a finance guy, Bart knew the company was looking at cuts, and as he explained quite

255 thoroughly to me, his department, although important, was not critical like payroll or receivables. So it is not surprising, that Bart’s CFO was amazed that Bart was surprised. It appears that only Bill could justify his surprise based on the events that surrounded his company’s takeover. And yet Bill himself said that as soon as they knew that the company had been sold, they knew they were out of a job.

Why they were surprised is not clear. Jane said “They kept giving me assignments.” Pete said, “Why book flights, if you know they won’t happen?” Mike

said, “Well I’d I hope, I tend to be optimistic.” And perhaps that is the real answer. It is

interesting that all of these bright, capable professionals, even ones who had experience

laying off others themselves, did not see the ax coming.

Summary

The 749 pages of interview transcripts provided the raw data for the vignettes

and analyses presented on the previous pages. Organized by individual case and by

group summaries, I have laid out a number of findings resulting from evaluating the

data using both narrative and paradigmatic reasoning. These findings were presented in

order to better understand the individuals and their views of the issues and challenges

that they faced as a result of their long-term unemployment experiences. The findings

also serve as the basis for the conclusions and recommendations found in Chapter 5.

256

Chapter Five: Conclusions, Observations and Recommendations

Introduction

The objective of this study was to develop a better understanding of the career management behaviors of mid career managers who experienced long-term unemployment. The phenomenon of long term unemployment has not been common among these professionals; however, the impact of the two recessions bookending the first decade of the 21 st Century has increased the exposure of the professional worker not only to unemployment, but to unemployment that extends for periods in excess of six months. As the likelihood increases that more mid career managers will at some point in their career experience the phenomenon, learning how others have responded to the experience may prove helpful. It is also expected that the information drawn from actual experiences of the participants will add to the data upon which theorists can draw as they develop or expand career theory pertinent to mid-career managers.

Six individuals agreed to participate in the study. Five were members of a networking group, one was not. The following table is a summary of the descriptive data documented in Chapter Four. It was organized to provide the reader with an overview of the participants’ backgrounds and aspects of their long-term unemployment experience.

257

Table 26 Participant Demographics Title of Start Unemployment End of Unemployment Currently Employed start of at Age Unemployment AgeCurrent Education Additional Credentials with Married Family

Jane Senior 1-03 3-04 No 46 53 BS CISSP S P1 Arch..

Bill PMP & M VP 5-06 2-07 No 45 48 MBA P2 Lics.. plus 1

MGT Mike Senior ENG PMP M 1-05 9-05 No 41 46 P3 Mgr Mas- Pend Plus 3 ters

Sue Asst M 9-02 4-05 Yes 40 47 MBA S/W P4 Dir. plus 2

Bart (Inactive) M VP 10-01 1-03 Yes 47 54 MBA P5 CPA Plus 3

Pete Senior APICS M 9-02 8-04 No 47 54 MBA P6 VP TQM Plus 2

258

According to the participants of this study, their responses to managing their careers were very specific to their individual professional and personal goals and objectives and at the same time dependent on context in terms of industry conditions, organizational permeability and the economic pressures. However, within the very uniqueness of the participants’ responses there were certain consistencies that deserve consideration as topics for discussion as well as representing potential for further study.

In addition to the overarching question of this study there were four additional questions that will also be addressed in the course of this discussion. All five questions have been included below for the reader’s reference.

How do long-term unemployed, mid-career managers manage their careers in pursuit of re-employment?

Research Question 1: What effect, if any, does long-term unemployment have on mid- career managers’ perception of their career story?

Research Question 2: How does the experience of long-term unemployment influence individual, mid-career managers’ career management behaviors?

Research Question 3: What effect, if any, does long-term unemployment have on mid- career managers’ perception of their re-employability?

Research Question 4: Do the career narratives of managers who have experienced long-term unemployment demonstrate characteristics ascribed to career resilience?

259

Research Question 1: What effect if any does long-term unemployment have on mid- career managers’ perception of their career story? As part of the data gathering process, I invited the six managers to map out their

view of their career in light of their underemployment experience. The maps of five of the participants represented the period of unemployment as a low point and a period of loss for various reasons. Jane spoke of the period in terms of a loss of authority. Instead of having the weight of the organization behind her to give her leverage to demand service and to make changes happen, she was reduced to creating change through her own powers of persuasion.

Mike also saw that first period of unemployment as a low point in his career.

However, after becoming re-employed, he was laid off again in 2009 and represented his career path at an even lower point on the map. Mike also rankled at the loss of leverage that working for a large company can provide. However in terms of managing his career, after his latest setback he now appeared to be taking more of a careerist position towards future employers. His experiences have sensitized him to be more mindful of the organizations and management and strategies. He lost two jobs that he enjoyed as a result of organizational ownership and management changes. In his final interview he spoke specifically to the effort and care he planned to use to qualify and select the companies he would partner with in an effort to manage his future employment more effectively. Although as he observed he would need to put much unnecessary energy into monitoring the “health” of his employer just so that he could track the state of his own career more effectively.

260

Bart saw the effect of his long term unemployment as permanently side tracking his career. Once forced out of the advertising organization, he lost access to the springboard he believed he would need to reach the next level of compensation and performance. However, in terms of challenge and opportunity to do critical work, he observed that he actually had better access to making a difference as well as to exposure to new learning opportunities in his new role in small companies. For Pete, his long term unemployment lowered his compensation dramatically, but perhaps even worse, it put his COO aspirations out of reach at least for the time being.

Only Sue regarded her unemployment as a positive and productive period.

Based on her criteria of reach and skill utilization, the period of time when she was able to do a variety of different activities in support of family, friends and her own personal development was as positive a time for her career wise as was being Associate

Director. Sue’s response may be indicative of the fact that she was not actively looking for employment after her layoff. Sue was the one member of the sample that was not also a member of the networking group. Because she was not actively looking for employment during her 30 months of unemployment she did not join any groups focused on supporting job search activities. And because Sue was not looking to become re-employed, she did not face the rejection and uncertainty associated with the job search process.

261

Research Question 2: How does the experience of long-term unemployment influence individual, mid-career managers’ career management behaviors? Earlier, I identified agency, adaptability and tolerance of ambiguity as behaviors

management associated with careers. Agency, the ability to be self-directed, to take

action on one’s own, is critical for any manager who is experiencing long term

unemployment. Each of the participating managers told tales of agentic behavior in

terms of their career management behavior before and during their long term

unemployment. During her long-term unemployment, Jane became certified as an

Information Systems Security Professional. Bill also pursued a certification as a Project

Management Professional during his long term unemployment. Mike’s transition from

manufacturing to product development is an early manifestation of his sense of agency.

His approach to combining his charitable efforts with opportunities to alert donor

companies of his availability is another manifestation. Sue’s willingness to make

choices about directing her energies to support her family is one example of agency.

However her epiphany regarding her need for “corporate” permission is more

indicative of a reliance on the organization to direct her career. During his

unemployment Bart returned to his employer and asked for more support for his job

search. He didn’t get everything he asked for but he did get something, indicative of his

ability to identify and execute practical solutions. Pete’s ongoing efforts to become

COO were another example of his agency in support of his long held career objective.

Adaptability is another aspect of career management behavior. During a period

of long-term unemployment it is an imperative to be able to adjust the scale and scope

of the job search. All six participants spoke of adjusting their searches. For Pete it was

262 expanding the breadth of his search efforts from local to national, and for Jane and Bill it was their willingness to pursue contract versus permanent employment. Michael spoke of pursuing a position in manufacturing which he considered a step back, but which then led to a construction project manager role which was very challenging.

Bart’s decision to include small and large companies in his search led to his employment, and finally, Sue’s ability to come to terms with her paycheck-free identity are choices that indicate the participants were willing to accept and accommodate for change

Tolerance for ambiguity is more of a challenge. The fact is that each of the participants made it through a period of unemployment and eventually became re- employed. That takes some tolerance for the undefined, the unscheduled, the unexpected and shows that they all have some tolerance. However, it would appear that

Sue’s faith that a solution for her return to work would be supplied by the universe certainly shows she’s open to leaving the future to chance. Her conviction is tempered by the fact that her return to employment was not driven by the same sense of urgency as was that of the other five participants. Jane and Mike also seem to have a healthy tolerance for ambiguity as evidenced by Jane‘s willingness to pursue contract work, and Mike’s commitment to developing and leading product development teams. On the one hand, Bill’s career in finance has been as he described it in a constant state of turmoil. Continued employment in the industry has been fraught with ambiguity for decades. However, Bill is extremely uncomfortable with what he would face outside of the industry. The ambiguity of the old and familiar doesn’t present half the risk

263 associated with a career outside of financial services that could potentially prove to be more stable. As for Bart and Pete, neither liked the ambiguity. Bart relied on Rules of

Thumb to quantify and add metrics to his search and to reduce the uncertainty. It’s no surprise that a Comptroller/CFO would prefer the definite, but Pete was not comfortable with ambiguity either, which is one reason why 20 months of unemployment was a difficult experience for him. The participants’ ability to manage despite their discomfort is a sign of their mental toughness, a trait that will be examined further in the discussion of resilience.

From the analyses of the managers’ CMBs it would appear that the managers continued to be agentic, continued to be adaptable and sustained a level of discomfort with ambiguity after experiencing long-term unemployment. The difference for the participants was in the scale and scope of the arena in which they exercised those behaviors. Agency, adaptability, and even ambiguity were more manageable within the defined constraints of their employing organizations’ internal labor market. Once released from their organizations there was so much opportunity to exercise the three

CMBs that the experiences proved to be very uncomfortable.

Research Question 3: What effect, if any, does long-term unemployment have on mid- career managers’ perception of their re-employability?

I had suggested that mid-career managers’ view of re-employability would incorporate a dimension in addition to the elements that constituted the psycho-social construct described by Fugate, Kinicki & Ashforth (i.e., career identity, personal adaptability and social and human capital) (2003). I presumed that that dimension would be associated with meaning or purpose. What became very apparent during the

264 interviews is that the primary factor for accepting re-employment for five out of the participants was revenue and/or benefits. Jane had an ethical concern with a client and negotiated herself out of her contract, but in part the decision was still related to finances and future revenues. Jane would have been at risk to lose her certification and be discredited if she signed off on an inappropriate security protocol. Sue and her husband were in a position at the time in which the lost income was not a sufficient hardship to prevent her from taking the time to be with her family. Perhaps because Sue was operating more from a position of choice, she could look at re-employment options differently. Perhaps that contributed to her consideration of meaning and purpose, as she considered re-employment. She also had a series of specifications that had to be met before she would return to the workplace. But revenue was not driving Sue’s return to work. She was the only one with that luxury.

On the other hand, of the remaining participants, two of the four were sole earners for their families. Two others were major contributors in that they contributed the bulk of the family income. The fifth participant, Bill, was recently married and that gave him some leeway, though he was contributing his share to the household budget from savings. Looking ahead, he was concerned about the future revenue stream and just like his co-participants, if any opportunity presented itself, he would take the money. Mike spoke for all five participants when he said, “It felt good to be collecting a paycheck and have benefits.”

From the findings, it would appear that it was not an issue of purpose, but an issue of compensation that helped participants decide what opportunities qualified as

265 acceptable employment. Additional study into what compels managers to accept or reject an opportunity is in order. Acceptance may be based on practical need, but the basis for rejection appears to be more complicated. Need based concerns do appear to be drivers in the decision process. If there was any factor that could be added to Fugate, et al., pragmatism rather than meaning might be a more appropriate choice.

Research Question 4: Do the career narratives of managers who have experienced long-term unemployment demonstrate characteristics ascribed to career resilience?

The following table is a matrix representing those resilient career management characteristics manifested by the different managers. The participants all demonstrated at least some characteristics associated with Resilience. All demonstrated their adaptability and most demonstrated their hardiness as they endured the ambiguity associated with long-term unemployment. Sue’s unemployment was infused with her own sense of purpose as she committed her time to family, friends and community.

Jane’s purpose was less a function of her professional career in fact it was her avocation that gave her life meaning. Bart’s employment assured him that he could continue to support his family.

Jane and Mike both engaged in some innovative ways to network such as choosing an upscale stable to board horses (Jane) or recruiting donors for charity runs or bike rides (Mike). Although the learning varied by participants, they all spoke of new understandings of themselves and of their colleagues. All engaged in learning to better equip themselves to compete in the external labor market. In terms of openness to career alternatives at the time of their long-term unemployment, Sue stepped off the

266 traditional career path to forge her own way. And when Bart found that there were few options available to him in large firms, he flipped to small companies. Finally, five of the six participants were members of various networking and professional groups where they shared opportunities, techniques, rules of thumb and support.

Table 27 Participants’ Resilient Career Characteristics Matrix

Participants Jane Bill Mike Sue Bart Pete P1 P2 P3 P4 p5 P6 Resilience Characteristics

Adaptability * * * * * *

Hardiness * * * * *

Realistic Assessment

Meaning Purpose * * * *

Innovation * * *

Bricolage

Learning * * * * * *

Openness * * * * * Collaboration * * * * *

267

There were two characteristics the participants did not appear to manifest. The fact that every one of the individuals who was laid off was surprised suggested to me that they did not have a grasp of the organizational realities surrounding them and their positions. As such, the managers were caught off guard by their layoff announcements.

The only one who had a reasonable case for surprise was Bill based on his description of his company’s takeover, but it is noteworthy that everyone else was almost as surprised as Bill.

The other characteristic was bricolage. My assumption as to why none of the managers manifested this characteristic is that none of the managers made any significant effort to change their careers. Because these individuals chose to stay within their field in their search for re-employment, there was no reason or necessity for anyone in the group to bring together skills to develop a radically different response or behavior to career management or employment. Perhaps if any of the participants had made a dramatic adjustment that changed their careers, instances of Bricolage might have been evident.

How do long-term unemployed, mid-career managers manage their careers in pursuit of re-employment?

When people talk about career they often reference career ladders. They talk about climbing to the top, or knowing someone who is a rising star. These metaphors suggest that there is a standard career path that invariably plots with a positive slope.

That metaphor is reflective of the traditional bureaucratic career model which until the end of the 20 th Century was the primary vehicle available to represent a corporate

268 model of career management. However in the 70’s it became apparent that a one size fits all solution was not representative of managers’ experience.

In 1976 when Douglas Hall (1976) introduced the protean career model, he presented an alternative to the linear or bureaucratic model. It allowed for career paths that had ups and downs, and allowed for lateral turns to the right or left as needed. Over the years Hall refined his model to reflect a philosophy of care that informs the Protean career (Hall, 2004). However Hall was not alone. Others have introduced such career models as well (Handy, 1989; M. Mallon, 1998). Some were little more than intriguing concepts (K. Weick, 1976), while others were more robust (Bloch, 2005; Collin,

2000). Some had significant data behind them (Nicholson & West, 1988), while others were just beginning to be evaluated using empirical data (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996c;

Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005). There is a collection of models that offers some diversity to individuals as they attempt to develop strategies to manage their careers. As contexts change for individuals in their work world, adopting some combination of alternative career models might help them develop strategies to meet their needs. Therefore the findings suggest that careers strategies that combine two or more models like bureaucratic and portfolio, or bureaucratic and post-modern might be a more effective representation. This is in keeping with a version of the hybrid models as alluded to by

Sullivan and Baruch (2009).

The participants in this study spoke of their careers prior to layoff and post- layoff. For most, their earlier careers were reflective of the bureaucratic model, positive slope, and steady progress. However after 2001 many of them experienced dramatic

269 changes in their careers as their organizations eliminated or combined departments or simply changed out staff. The affect of these changes can be seen in the career maps

(Appendix D) the individuals prepared during the third interview of the study. Based on the stories told by Jane and Bill, Mike and Sue and Bart and Pete, I associated different models to each of the participants that I consider represents their career experiences either throughout their careers, as in Bill’s case, or more often in the period following their long term unemployment. Table 27 lists the models introduced in Chapter 4. The models are indicative of how these long-term unemployed mid-career managers managed their careers in pursuit of re-employment. Since the managers were not aware of the models, they could not use them to explain their careers, or guide their activities.

Table 28 Career Management Modeling

Participant Career Model Key Points

Post Modern Epic Temporary, Sequential contracts Jane Collin (2000) Employment changes , mean starting anew

Chaos Theory of Career Autopoiesis, regeneration of self; Bill Bloch (2005); Adaptability and complexity Pryor & Bright (2007)

Eccentric Predicate Accidental, Fortuitous Mike Ongoing Learning; design one’s career on the Weick (1976) go, playfulness, entertains possibilities

Kaleidoscope Career Career defined by individual not corporate Sue terms Mainiero & Sullivan (2005) Authenticity, Balance & Challenge,

Protean Career Bart Self Directed Path with a Heart (1976-1997) Hall

Pete N/A Under employed executive

270

Observations

Observation 1: As I prepared for this study I assumed that I would speak with individuals that had experienced long-term unemployment and then returned to work. I assumed that they would have landed in positions commensurate with their previous responsibilities and compensation. I assumed that their unemployment experience, although extended, was over and that they had returned to the same level of financial well being and authority that they had enjoyed prior to the layoff. Finally, I assumed that once re-employed, they remained employed.

What I discovered was very different. Four out of the six participants were unemployed. Three of the four had held multiple positions since their initial layoff.

None were financially as secure as they had been the day before they had been laid off.

Several had become disenchanted with the organizational structure that had been the source of their development and training. The group was older, and they were conscious of and concerned about the impact of their age on current and future employment.

A recent study of middle-aged, middle class unemployed white males found that instead of promoting their experience they were instead discounting, camouflaging their experience and expertise to minimize the risk of age discrimination (Mendenhall,

Kalil, Spindel, & Hart, 2008). Similar concerns and behaviors were addressed during the course of the conversations with the participants.

271

Observation 2: As the participants discussed their efforts to develop experience in different departments or to become re-employed in alternative disciplines, they spoke often of the fact that their expertise or interest did not generate enthusiasm within the target audience. Bill became certified in project management, but IT organizations were not interested in his candidacy, because he did not “grow up” in IT. Pete described his experience trying to join a systems group. The department invited him to post, but then didn’t make him an offer, because he didn’t have the expertise. Bart described his experiences of being strung along by non-profits and insurance organizations because again he had not “grown up” in their discipline. Jane could not persuade a potential employer to hire her, because she did not have marketing expertise and Mike found that although he had engineering experience and a degree in the discipline, because his program was not from an engineering accredited institution, his credentials were suspect.

These cultural biases represent real barriers to potential career transitions and have been identified as an issue for concern (Zikic & Hall, 2009). As industries such as manufacturing migrate overseas or consolidate like telecom or simply disappear like investment banking, individuals with backgrounds in those industries will need to re- tool to find new employment. If cultural and experiential biases result in barriers to employment, these individuals are likely to face a difficult path to re-employment, a path that is far different than the one projected by organizational gurus like Tom Peters

(1997) or career theorists like Arthur and Rousseau (1996c) or Ibarra (2003).

272

Recommendations

Recommendations for future research are based on the findings or on additional questions not addressed in this study. Perhaps the most important recommendation is to expand the research to sample a more diverse population. Diversifying the sample to include career changers, participants from different geographic locations, additional industries and minorities offers significant potential to expand our understanding of the career management behaviors of more than the six study participants.

I found only one indication that re-employability was based on a decision about the nature of the work. For long-term unemployed persons, employment with a paycheck and benefits appeared to be the essential criteria. However, I do believe that re-employability and what it comprises does warrant future study. Compensation appears to be important in a market that favors the employer. However, when the market favors the candidate additional elements may contribute the characteristics of the construct. Certainly conducting a comparative study of populations where income is

an imperative versus populations with some financial flexibility may provide additional

insights into what parameters constitute a re-employability construct.

In line with the re-employability recommendation, I would also suggest that

further study explore the issue of cultural and experiential barriers to cross hiring.

Much managerial career management theory proposes that individual agency will

contribute to the employment of candidates that are not native to an industry or a

discipline. Understanding the nature of employment opportunities available to mid-

career managers relative to barriers to career transitions, if any, would be relevant

273 information. And if any barriers are presented, what response(s) if any, contributed to overcoming those barriers would be useful information to those managers who opt to change careers. A popular solution to re-employment is crossing over organizational, cultural or technical boundaries; however if that solution is not going to be successful because of potential cultural or expertise bias it would be appropriate to identify, acknowledge and explore the issue to determine how it can be managed or minimized.

It has also been recommended that additional examination into what Zikic and

Hall (2009) and Sullivan and Baruch (2009) refer to as some of the darker issues of career management career theory are in order. Perhaps a study of ambiguity and its impact on employed versus unemployed managers; or monitoring manifestations of careerism or organizational exploitation would provide some sense of the scope of the issue. Certainly it would be helpful to assess current trends and to catalog contributing factors, or simply documenting the conditions experienced by contract managers would provide insights into issues that remain to be examined.

Based on my observations, additional study into the career management experiences of mid-career managers who have experienced long-term unemployment appears to be warranted. First, additional study of the trajectories of mid-career managers may be useful for developing new managerial career management strategies that integrate multiple career models representative of different phases in managerial career life-cycles. Learning more about mid-career managers’ career trajectories following long term unemployment would be useful in determining whether there is a trend indicating a degree of decay, in terms of compensation, responsibility,

274 contribution and development opportunities that may be occurring earlier in the management career life cycle.

Using different qualitative or quantitative approaches to research the subject would be another way to expand our knowledge. For example, engaging in case studies would provide insight into the impact of social context on managers’ career management behaviors or developing quantitative instruments drawn from the research findings would be another way to expand the research on the impact of long-tem unemployment. Although the findings from the study have added to the body of knowledge, it is not possible to generate broad based conclusions or recommendations from the select sample that was the focus of this research. It has been clearly stated throughout this study that quantitative research was expected to be developed from the data and used to inform the design of research instruments that may yield additional insight into characteristics associated with resilient career management or other career management behaviors of long-term unemployed, mid-career managers.

It is recommended that the examination of the career management behaviors of long-term unemployed mid-career managers continue. Studying larger and more diverse populations and using additional qualitative and quantitative methods will increase the repository of data and add to our understanding of mid-career managers’ experiences with long-term unemployment.

275

References

"Pete". (2009a). Reply to "Hello "Pete!" A note from Ann Marie Gagnon. In A. M. Gagnon (Ed.) (E-mail ed., pp. 2): EMail, Microsoft Office Outlook. "Pete". (2009b). Reply to "Transcripts for your review and a couple of questions too!". In A. M. Gagnon (Ed.) (E-mail correspondence ed.): E-Mail, Microsoft Outlook Allegretto, S., & Stettner, A. (2004). Educated, experienced, and out of work: Long- term joblessness continues to plague the unemployed. Journal, (#198), 10 Arthur, M. B., Hall, D. T., & Lawrence, B. S. (Eds.). (1989). Handbook of career theory . New York: Cambridge University Press. Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996a). A career lexicon for the 21st century. The Academy of Management Executive, 10 (4), 28 - 39. Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996b). Introduction: The boundaryless career as a new employment principle. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era (pp. 3-20). New York, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (Eds.). (1996c). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era . New York, New York: Oxford University Press. Batt, R. (1996). From bureaucracy to enterprise? The changing jobs and careers of managers in telecommunication service. In P. Osterman (Ed.), Broken ladders: Managerial careers in the new economy (pp. 55-80). New York: Oxford University Press. Bloch, D. P. (2005). Complexity, chaos and nonlinear dynamics: A new perspective on career development theory. The Career Development Quarterly, 53 , 194 - 207. Bloom, L. R. (2002). Stories of one's own. In S. B. a. A. Merriam (Ed.), Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (pp. 289 - 309). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (2006). The interplay of boundaryless and protean careers: Combinations and implications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69 , 4 - 18. Brousseau, K. R., Driver, M. J., Eneroth, K., & Larsson, R. (1996). Career pandemonium: Realigning organizations and individuals. The Academy of Management Executive, 10 (4), 52-66. Bruner, J. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Review. Burke, R. J. (1998). Changing career rules: Clinging to the past or accepting the new reality? Career Development International, 3 (1), 40 - 45. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis . Exeter, New Hampshire: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc. Chase, S. E. (1995). Taking narrative seriously: Consequences for method and theory in interview studies. In R. Josselson & A. Lieblich (Eds.), Interpreting

276

experience: The narrative study of lives (Vol. 3, pp. 1-26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Chase, S. E. (2003). Learning to listen: Narrative principles in a qualitative research methods course. In R. Josselson, A. Lieblich & D. P. McAdams (Eds.), Up close and personal (pp. 79 -100). Washington, D C: American Psychological Association. Chay, Y.-W., & Aryee, S. (1999). Potential moderating influence of career growth opportunities on careerist orientation and work attitudes: Evidence of the protean career era in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20 (5), 613-623. Cheramie, R. A., C., S. M., & Walsh, K. (2007). Executive career management: Switching organizations and the boundaryless career. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71 , 359 -374. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Clay, R. (1998). More clinical psychologists move into organizational consulting realm. Journal, 29 (7), Cohen, L., & Mallon, M. (2001). My brilliant career? International Studies of Management & Organization, 31 (3), 48 - 68. Collard, B., Epperheimer, J. W., & Saign, D. (1996). Career resilience in a changing workplace (No. ED 396 191 E 072 062). Columbus OHIO: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career and Vocational Education. Collin, A. (2000). Epic and novel: The rhetoric of career. In A. Collin & R. A. Young (Eds.), The Future of Career (pp. 163 - 177). New York: Cambridge University Press. Cotton, K. (1993). Developing employability skills. In N. R. E. Laboratory (Ed.): Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Coupland, C. (2004). Career definition and denial: A discourse analysis of graduate trainees' accounts of career. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64 , 515 - 532. Coutu. (2002). How resilience works. Harvard Business Review, 80 (5), 46 - 55. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Currie, G., Tempest, S., & Starkey, K. (2006). New Careers for old? Organizational and individual responses to changing boundaries. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17 (4), 755 - 774. Czarniawska, B. (1998). A narrative approach to organization studies (Vol. 43). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication. DeFillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A competency- based perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15 (4), 307 - 324. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dukes, S. (1984). Phenomenological methodology in the human sciences. Journal of Religion and Health, 23 (3), 6. Elliott, J. (2005). Using narrative in social research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

277

Ezzy, D. (2001). Narrating Unemployment . Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company. Feldman, D. C., Leana, C. R., & Bolino, M. C. (2002). Underemployment and relative deprivation among re-employed executives. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75 , 453-471. Feldman, D. C., & Ng, T. W. H. (2007). Careers: Mobility, embeddedness and success. Journal of Management, 33 (3), 350 - 377. Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2003). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65 , 14 - 38. Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to discourse analysis . New York, NY: Routledge. Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (1983). Narratives of the self. In T. R. Sarbin & K. E. Scheibe (Eds.), Studies in social identity (pp. 254-273). New York: Praeger Publishers. Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (1988). Narrative and the self as relationship. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 17 - 56). San Diego: Academic Press, Inc. Gongloff. (2003). Unemployment rises to 6.1%. Retrieved 4-14-2008, 2008, from http://money.cnn.com/2003/06/06/news/economy/jobs/ Gowler, D., & Legge, K. (1989). Rhetoric in bureaucratic careers: Managing the meaning of management success. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory (pp. 437 - 453). New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations Glenview, IL: Scott, Foreman and Company. Hall, D. T. (1986). Breaking career routines: Midcareer choice and identity development. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), Career development in organizations (pp. 120 - 159). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hall, D. T. (1995). Executive careers and learning: Aligning selection, strategy and development. HR, Human Resource Planning, 18 (2), 14 - 23. Hall, D. T. (1996a). Protean careers of the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 10 (4), 8 - 16. Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65 , 1 - 13. Hall, D. T. (Ed.). (1996b). The career is dead-long live the career . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hall, D. T., & Associates, a. (1986). Career development in organizations . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Hall, D. T., & Mirvis, P. H. (1996). The new protean career: Psychological success and the path with the heart. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), The career is dead--long live the career . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Handy, C. (1989). The age of unreason . Cambridge: Harvard Business. Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization Theory: Modern, symbolic, and postmodern perspectives . New York: Oxford University Press.

278

Hinchman, L. P., & Hinchman, S. K. (Eds.). (1997). Memory, identity, community: The idea of narrative in the human sciences . Albany: State University of New York Press. Ibarra, H. (2003). Working identity : Harvard Business School Press. Ilg, R. E. (1994). Long-term unemployment in recent recessions. Monthly Labor Review , 4. Inkson, K. (2006). Protean and Boundaryless careers as metaphors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69 (1), 48 - 63. Josselson, R. (1995). Imagining the real: Empathy, narrative and the dialogic self. In R. Josselson & A. Lieblich (Eds.), Interpreting Experience (Vol. 3, pp. 27 - 44). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Josselson, R., & Lieblich, A. (2003). A framework for narrative research proposals in psychology. In R. Josselson, A. Lieblich & D. P. McAdams (Eds.), The Narrative Study of Lives (pp. 259 - 274). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Kanter, R. M. (1989). Careers and the wealth of nations: A macro-perspective on the structure and the implications of career forms. In M. B. Arthur, D. T. Hall & B. S. Lawrence (Eds.), Handbook of career theory . New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. Karasek, R. A., Jr. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24 (2), 23. Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Labonte, M., & Levine, L. (2003). The "jobless recovery" from the 2001 recession: A comparison to earlier recoveries and possible explanations. In C. R. Service (Ed.). Washington DC: The Library of Congress. Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1966, 4-8-1966). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. Paper presented at the 1966 Annual Spring Meeting of the American Ethnological Society, Philadelphia. Larsen, D. J. (1999). Biographies of six Canadian counsellor educators: Stories of personal and professional life. Unpublished Dissertation, University of Alberta, Edmononton, Alberta. Lawrence, B. S. (1998). Career Theory. In N. Nicholson (Ed.), The Blackwell Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behavior (pp. 51 - 53). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, Inc. Leonhardt, D. (2003). A slowing stream of new jobs gives a full picture of a slump. Journal, (October 1). Retrieved from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DA1F3DF932A35753 C1A9659C8B63 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. London, M. (1993). Relationship between career motivation, empowerment and support for career development. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 66 , 55 -69.

279

London, M., & Stumpf, S. A. (1986). Individual and organizational career development in changing times. In D. T. Hall (Ed.), Career development in organizations (pp. 21 - 49). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Maddi, S. R. (2005). On hardiness and other pathways to resilience. American Psychologist, 60 (3), 261 - 262. Maddi, S. R., & Khoshaba, D. M. (2005). Resilience at work: How to succeed no matter what life throws at you . New York: AMACOM. Mainiero, L. A., & Sullivan, S. E. (2005). Kaleidoscope careers: An alternate explanation for the "opt-out" revolution. The Academy of Management Executive, 19 (1), 106-123. Mainiero, L. A., & Sullivan, S. E. (2006). The opt-out revolt: Why people are leaving companies to create kaleidoscope careers . Boston: Intercultural Press. Mallon, M. (1998). The portfolio career: Pushed or pulled to it? Personnel Review, 27 (5), 361-377. Mallon, T. (1984). A book of one's own: People and their diaries . New York: Ticknor & Fields. Marchant, T. (1999). Managers' careers in the context of organizational turbulence. Australian Journal of Management & Organizational Behavior, 2 (4), 43 - 60. McDonald, P., Brown, K., & Bradley, L. (2004). Have traditional career paths given way to protean ones? Career Development International, 10 (2), 109 - 160. Mendenhall, R., Kalil, A., Spindel, L., & Hart, C. (2008). Job Loss at Mid-Life. Social Forces, 87 (1), 185 -209. Merriam, S. B. a. A. (2002). Qualitative research in practice (1st ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research Interviewing: Context and narrative . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. NBER, B. C. D. C. (2003). Announcement . Boston: National Bureau of Economic Research. Nicholson, N., & West, M. A. (1988). Managerial job change: Men and women in transition . New York: Cambridge University Press. Ochberg, R. L. (1994). Life Stories and Storied Lives. In A. Leiblich & R. Josselson (Eds.), Exploring identity and gender: The narrative study of lives (Vol. Volume 2, pp. 113 - 144). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Peel, S., & Inkson, K. (2004). Contracting and careers: Choosing between self and organizational employment. Career Development International, 9 (6), 542 - 558. Peters, T. (1997). The brand called you. Fast Company (10), 83. Picard, R. W., Papert, S., Bender, W., Blumberg, B., Breazeal, C., Cavallo, D., et al. (2004). Affectve learning -- a manifesto. BT Technology Journal, 22 (4), 16. Pryor, R. G. L., & Bright, J. E. H. (2007). Applying Chaos Theory to careers: Attraction and attractors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71 , 375 - 400.

280

Pulley, M. L., & Wakefield, D. (2001). Building resiliency: How to thrive in times of change . Greensboro, NC: Jossey-Bass/Center for Creative Leadership. Riessman, C. K. (1993). Narrative analysis (Vol. 30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Riessman, C. K. (2001). Analysis of personal narratives. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 695 - 710). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. Rogers, A. G. (2003). Qualitative research in psychology: Teaching an interpretive process. In R. Josselson, A. Leiblich & D. P. McAdams (Eds.), Up close and personal: The teaching and learning of narrative research (pp. 49 - 60). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Roisman, G. I. (2005). Conceptual clarifications of the study of resilience. American Psychologist, 60 (3), 264 - 265. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sargent, L. D. (2003). Effects of a downward status transition on perceptions of career success, role performance and job identification. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55 (2), 114 - 120. Sargent, L. D., & Domberger, S. R. (2007). Exploring the development of a protean career orientation: Values and image violations. Career Development International, 12 (6), 545 - 564. SBA, T. U. S. S. B. A. (2008). Guide to SBA's definitions of small business . Retrieved 4-2-2009. from http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/guide_to_size _standards.pdf . Schuman, D. (1982). Policy analysis, education, and everyday life: An empirical reevaluation of higher education in America . Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Siebert, A. (1996). Survivor Personality. New York: The Berkley Publishing Group. Sommerlund, J., & Boutaiba, S. (2007). Borders of"the boundaryless career". Journal Of Organizational Change Management, 20 (4). Stettner, A., & Wenger, J. (2003). The broad reach of long-term unemployment. Journal, (194), Sullivan, J. E. (1988). In order of appearance : Self-Published. Sullivan, S. E., & Baruch, Y. (2009). Advances in career theory and research: A critical review and agenda for future exploration. Journal of Management, 35 (6), pp 1542-1571. Sullivan, S. E., Forret, M., Carraher, S. M., & Mainiero, L. A. (2009). Using the kaleidoscope career model to examine generational differences in work attitudes. Career Development International, 14 (3), 284-302.

281

Van Buren, H. J., III. (2003). Boundaryless careers and employability obligations. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13 (2), 121-149. Viney, C., Adamson, S., & Doherty, N. (1996). Paradoxes of fast-track career management. Personnel Review, 26 (3), 174 - 186. Wajcman, J., & Martin, B. (2001). My company or my career: Managerial achievement and loyalty. The British Journal of Sociology, 52 (4), 559-578. Waterman, R. H., Waterman, J. A., & Collard, B. A. (1994). Toward a career-resilient workforce. Harvard Business Review, 72 (4), 87 - 95. Weber, M. (2004). Bureaucracy excerpts from Economy and Society, Vol. 2. In J. Farganis (Ed.), Readings in social theory: The classic tradition to post- modernism (4th ed., pp. 99 - 125). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Weick, K. (1976). Careers as eccentric predicates. Executive, 2 (Winter), 6 - 10. Weick, K. E. (1993). The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38 (4), 628-662. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies . New York, NY: Free Press. West, M. A., Nicholson, N., & Rees, A. (1990). The outcomes of downward managerial mobility. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11 (2), 119 - 134. Yow, V. R. (1994). Recording oral history: A practical guide for the social scientist . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Zikic, J., & Hall, D. T. (2009). Toward a more complex view of career exploration. The Career Development Quarterly, 58 (December), 181-191.

282

Appendices

Appendix A: Participant Recruiting ...... 283 Appendix B: Consent Form ...... 286 Appendix C: Interview Material ...... 290 Appendix D: Participant Files ...... 306

283

Appendix A

Participant Recruiting

I recruited participants from a local re-employment networking group based in

Connecticut. I sent the following invitation to participate in a doctoral research study as an e-mail announcement to members.

Research Recruiting E-Mail

Hello,

My name is Ann Marie Gagnon. I am a former member and facilitator of XXXX. I am currently a doctoral student at The George Washington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development. To complete my studies, I am conducting research on the career management experiences of mid-career managers. My study, entitled “Resilient Career Narratives: An Analysis of Mid-Career Manager’s Long-Term Unemployment Narratives” is based in part on my observations of members’ experiences following the recession of 2001. It is an inquiry into the career management behaviors of mid-career managers who became unemployed and who remained unemployed for at least six months after January, 2001.

I am recruiting volunteers from the group who fit the research criteria and who would be interested in participating in the study. Key criteria for participation are individuals who were:

• Working as managers, senior managers, directors or vice presidents for at least a 5 year period prior to becoming unemployed.

• Between the ages of 40 and 55 at the time of their involuntary separation.

• Unemployed for a period of six months or longer.

• And who eventually returned to employment. (If, since your return to employment, you have again become unemployed, please contact me. You may still meet the criteria to participate.) If you have questions about the study and your qualification to participate, or you believe you fit the profile and would be interested in participating in this study, please

284 send an email with your contact information to [email protected] . I will respond to you directly to discuss the study in more detail, including objectives, participant qualifications, and participation requirements.

Participation in the study is voluntary. You are free to end your participation at any time. There are no costs to participate other than the commitment of your time (approximately seven hours distributed across several interviews). There is no compensation for your time; however, sharing your experiences will provide insight into a phenomenon affecting the careers of mid-career managers. Understanding participants’ experiences is expected to provide information that may be invaluable to other mid-career managers as they face the possibility of managing their careers during long-term unemployment.

This study is being conducted with the approval of the Graduate School of Education and Human Development at The George Washington University and in accordance with the University’s Institutional Review Board’s guidelines regarding the ethical conduct of research.

Thank you in advance for your interest. I look forward to speaking with you.

Ann Marie Gagnon

[email protected]

285

Table 29 Participant Qualification Questionnaire

Contact Phone #: Candidate Name: Info: Email: Desired Qualifying Question Actual Responses Response 1. Did you work for an organization that Y employed 500 or more employees? 2. Were you between the ages of 40 and 55 Y when you became unemployed? 3. Was your title Manager, Senior Manager, Any on the Director or Vice President at the time of list your layoff? 4. How long had you held that position or 5 years or other similar positions prior to becoming more unemployed? On or after 5. When did your unemployment begin? 1/1/2001 6 or more months 6. When did your unemployment end? after start date 6 mos. or 7. How long were you unemployed? more 8. Are you willing to participate in three, two-hour face-to-face interviews and a possible phone interview of Y approximately 30 minutes for a total of time of approximately seven hours? 9. Will you permit me to tape each interview for transcription purposes? Y 10. Are you available to participate in the study between July, 2009 and September, Y 2009?

Gender: Male/Female

286

Appendix B

Research Consent Form

Resilient Career Narratives

An Analysis of Mid-Career Manager’s Long-Term Unemployment Narratives

GW IRB number: 040916

Principal Investigator: Diana Burley, Ph.D. Telephone: (703) 726-

3761

Sub-Investigator: Ann Marie Gagnon Telephone (860) 347-

7260

Invitation You are invited to participate in a research study under the direction of Ann

Marie Gagnon, a doctoral student of the Graduate School of Education and Human

Development at The George Washington University in Washington GWU). Taking part in the study is voluntary. You can withdraw at any time.

You are being invited to participate in this study because you became unemployed after

January 1, 2001 and your period of unemployment lasted six months or more, which is considered long-term unemployment. At the time your unemployment began you were between the ages of 40 and 55 and you had served as a manager, senior manager, director or vice president for five years or more in large organizations immediately preceding your unemployment.

287

Why is this study being done? The purpose of the study is to expand our understanding of managers’ experiences with career management during long-term unemployment. It will document your perceptions and non-canonical career management behaviors. It is also expected to contribute content for future paradigmatic research about the resilient characteristics of mid-career managers’ career management behaviors.

What is involved in this study? The research will take place in the Hartford,

Connecticut area. It is anticipated that you will be one of at least six participants with

the possibility of including up to an additional six participants.

If you choose to participate in this study you will be interviewed in three separate face-

to-face interviews and one follow up phone interview. Each of the face-to-face

interviews is expected to last a minimum of 90 minutes. The phone interview is

expected to take approximately 30 minutes. All of the interviews will be recorded and

transcribed. You will be provided copies of the transcripts of each of the interviews for your review. You will be invited to add to your comments or insights if you believe the

additional information will be helpful or clarification is necessary. I recommend that

you allow two hours for each of the three in-person interviews and 45 minutes for the

phone interview. The total time commitment for your participation excluding your

review of interview transcripts is approximately seven hours.

What are the risks of participating in this study? There are no physical risks associated with this study. There is, however, the possible risk of loss of confidentiality. Every effort will be made to keep your information confidential;

288 however, confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. In addition some of the questions to be asked may make you feel uncomfortable. You may refuse to answer any of the questions and you may take a break at any time during the interviews. Also you may stop your participation in this study at any time.

What are the benefits to taking part in this study? You will receive no gifts or other compensation for your participation in this study. However, sharing your experiences

of managing your career during long-term unemployment will provide insights to the

effects of this relatively recent phenomenon on managerial career management. These

insights may prove to be invaluable to other mid-career managers, as they face the

possibility of managing their own careers during long-term unemployment as a result of

the current recession.

Can I be taken off the study? The researcher can decide to withdraw you from the

study at any time. You could be taken off the study for reasons related solely to you

(for example, if you are unable to make yourself available for the interviews) or

because the study is stopped.

How will my privacy be protected? If results of this research study are reported in

journals or at scientific meetings, the people who participated in the study will not be

named or identified. GWU will not release any information about your research

involvement without your written permission, unless required by law. Your privacy

will be protected through the use of pseudonyms and generalizing descriptive details of

your employment. In addition tapes and transcripts will be labeled with a code. The key

289 list to the code linking your identity with the transcripts and tapes will be kept in a location separate from the transcripts and tapes.

Problems or Questions The Office of Human Research, The George Washington

University, at telephone number (202) 994-2715, can provide further information about your rights as a research participant. If you think you have been harmed in this study,

you can report this to the Principal Investigator of this study.

Documentation of Informed Consent

I understand the information printed on this form. I have discussed this study its risks

and potential benefits and my other choices with Ann Marie Gagnon. My questions so

far have been answered. My signature below indicates my willingness to participate in

this study and my understanding that I can withdraw at any time.

Participant’s Name (printed) and Signature Date

Name (printed) and Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

Principal Investigator’s Signature Date

290

Appendix C

Interview Material

Sample Interview Protocol Interview Scripts Interview Checklist Interview Transcription Report

291

Sample Interview Protocol Sheet

Protocol: Interview 1 -- Career prior to Layoff

Plan to conduct interview in a quiet room with a table and chairs where you will not be interrupted at mutually agreed upon location – a conference room at a local library, place of work or elsewhere.

Meet, Greet and Thank participant for interest, willingness to participate and their time.

Conduct a brief orientation:

Review the research project objective

Revisit their role and contribution

Confirm the interview schedule (finalize second and third interview)

Introduce written consent form for signatures:

Present the content including what is involved, risks (confidentiality and discomfort); benefits; options (choose not to participate, decide to withdraw); privacy protection and questions.

Give them an opportunity to read on their own before signing two copies, one for the researcher and one for their records.

Set Up for the Interview Conduct.

Set up recorder.

(Have back up batteries ready at hand)

Complete interview 1 data sheet header information. Data sheet is for recording notes and observations.

Position Interview Script Guide for reference.

Outline interview protocol for participant and introduce subject for discussion: Career before layoff:

Start recorder: State Interview Number in Series (This is Interview 1)

Participant Name: Interviewer Name:

292

Date: Time: Location:

Replay to ensure recording is clear. Begin interview, [Note: Check to confirm interview is recording clearly after five minutes, make adjustments if needed.]

Continue interview for a minimum of 45 minutes or material covered, whichever comes first. Use script to manage content – make sure bases covered, go back as needed for follow up.

Wrap up conversation, inviting interviewee to add any additional insights.

Describe the focus of the second interview, career during layoff.

End interview.

Pack up.

Thank participant for time. Confirm next appointment and leave.

Return to car/office and record/document any additional interview observations notes. Do this as soon after the interview as possible. Notes can include thoughts about interview content, context, participant, interviewer, process, equipment, protocol, miscellaneous. Use a check list to prompt recollections, if needed.

293

Interview Scripts

Interview 1 Script: Career prior to Long-term Unemployment

Record Participant Data Name: Current Employment Status: Position/Title Preceding Long-Term Unemployment: Employer (if applicable) Preceding Long-Term Unemployment: Number of Years as Manager Preceding Long-Term Unemployment (by range) ___ 5, ___ 6-8, ___ 9-11, ___ 12-15, ___ >15 Date Long-Term Unemployment Began: Date Long-Term Unemployment Ended: Length of Long-Term Unemployment: Employment Position that ended Long-Term Unemployment: Employer (if applicable): Position/Title Understand the nature of the management position each participant had achieved prior to their long-term unemployment.

Please describe the position you held and the responsibilities of your position immediately preceding your layoff.

Did you have direct reports? (How many; were they local or distributed – regionally, nationally, internationally)? To whom did you report? (Departmental or Divisional Officers; C-level executives, or other level in the organization?) Whom else did you interact with? (Clients, regulators, analysts, vendors, other) What was your operating budget? (Annual size?) Did you manage an organization that generated revenue? (Gross revenue?) Or did you manage an administrative organization? (Function?)

294

Learn how they arrived at that position.

Would describe for me how you came to have that position and those responsibilities?

What did you do to earn that title and those responsibilities? Did you apply for the position internally? Did you interview for the position? Did you move out of your: ___ Department, ___ division, ___ company to take the position? Were you hired into the organization for the position? Did the organization design the position for you? Did you take on new responsibilities as a result of organizational need? Were you asked take on new responsibilities as a result of organizational changes? Identify the support or assistance if any, they received to attain the position.

What support do you believe that you had to help you achieve that position?

If you believed you had no support, how do you believe you earned the position?

Did you pursue academic education to hold that position? Were you professionally qualified (certified) to hold that position? Were you recruited for the position? If you did, how would you describe the type of support you received?

Were you part of an internal program designed to manage talent? Were you trained internally to hold that position? Was anyone instrumental in helping you reach that position? Did someone promote you to the position? Did someone recommend you for the position? Did someone mentor you?

295

Invite the participant to reflect on how they perceived their career prior to their experience with long-term unemployment.

Who do you believe was responsible for managing your career?

Before you became unemployed, how would you describe your career?

Did you believe you had a career? How did you know you had a career? How did you prepare for your career? Had you planned to become a manager? If they should respond with the phrase “it was a typical career” Ask them “What do you mean by ‘typical’?

Inquire about their approach to managing their careers at that time

Was there anything that you did in particular to sustain your career?

Did you engage in any particular efforts at work to keep your career going? Did you join any organizations? Did you participate in activities? Did you put in additional hours? Did you volunteer to lead projects or programs? What did you expect your employer to contribute to your career management?

Did you expect the organization to manage your career?

Did you anticipate that the organization would make changes that would affect your career?

296

Ask about their plans for the future at that time

How did you envision your career would progress?

What were your plans for the future assuming there were no significant changes imminent, did you plan to continue in your career?

How did you expect to respond if there were any changes?

Did you plan to make a change at some point in the future?

Were you actively planning for future change? If so, what were you doing to prepare for that change?

297

Interview 2 Script: Career during Long-term Unemployment

Please describe the circumstances leading to your becoming unemployed? Were you aware that a change in your employment status was imminent? Was your unemployment the result of internal or external factors affecting the organization and ultimately your position? What was happening within the organization? What was happening in the industry? What was happening in the economy?

What do you recall about becoming unemployed and leaving the organization? When were you notified? Can you describe how you were notified? How did you feel? What did you do? Whom did you speak with? What happened next? Did you speak with anyone? Were you asked to leave? What did you have to return to your employer? How did you return those items? What about your: ___ desk/office; ___Email/voicemail; ___Responsibilities; ___Direct reports

Do you recall how you shared the information with the people around you? How did you tell your: ____ Direct Reports; ____ Co-workers; ___ Significant Other; ____Children, ____ Colleagues; _____ Community; ____ Friends; ____ Parents/Siblings?

298

Were you surprised by anyone’s reaction? Please explain? ____ Direct Reports; ____ Co-workers; ___ Significant Other; ____Children, ____ Colleagues; _____ Community; ____ Friends; ____ Parents/Siblings?

Was a severance package made available to you? If yes: What pleased you about your severance? Did you take advantage of the severance arrangements? Outplacement Office resources What disappointed you? How long was the severance agreement in place after your termination? What did you do during your severance period? If no severance or after severance ended (unemployment begins after severance ends) Do you recall what you did after realizing that you were unemployed? Did you take a holiday? Did you engage in reflection about your future employment? Did you develop a job-search plan? Did you update your resume? Did you contact people? How? Phone or email in person Whom did you speak with? Did you do nothing?

How would you describe your career after you realized that you were unemployed?

Who do you believe was responsible for managing your career during your unemployment/

299

How did you spend your time during your period of unemployment? Did you look for full time employment? Did you engage in temporary or contract work? Did you start a business? Did you provide assistance to family? Did you travel? Did you volunteer? Did your reaction to being unemployed change over time? Can you describe your reaction after being unemployed for a couple of months? What was your reaction after being unemployed for several (three - four) mos.? After being unemployed for six months, can you recall what your reaction was?

Did financial or health insurance concerns have any influence on your pursuit of re- employment? Did you have resources such as unemployment benefits, savings, another household member or other resources such as a line of credit to tide you over? Was there a time when you were concerned that those resources were no longer available or not sufficient to help you cover expenses? What about health insurance? Did you have access to COBRA? What impact did either have on your efforts to become re-employed?

If you were pursuing employment were there any resources that you took advantage of to assist you with your efforts?

Did you employ an individual or service to help you find employment? Did you use online services – search, monster, et al., bots Did you take advantage of no/low cost support? Unemployment office, library services, church support services, formal networking groups, job fairs, alumni/ae career services, military, other community services, informal job search buddies, family, friends, employer alumni/ae

300

Did you change any of the activities that you had initially engaged in as you pursued re- employment? What changes did you make? Did you take advantage of additional services or eliminate services?

Did you change the nature of your pursuit of re-employment during the period of unemployment? When did you make that change? What was the nature of the change? Change geographic location Change industries Change ____ Position; ____ Level Change career? What precipitated the change? What was the outcome of the change?

During the period of time when you were unemployed, what did you miss most about being part of an organization?

Describe your re-employment ? When did you become re-employed? What was the nature of the position? How did you become aware of the position? Why do you believe you were offered the position? What were your qualifications? Why did you decide to accept the position? How did the new position differ from the position you held prior to your unemployment? Describe the employer? How did this employer differ from your previous employer?

301

How was this employer similar to your previous employer?

How would you describe your career as you returned to full employment?

302

Interview 3 Script: Career after Long-term Unemployment

Describe how you became re-employed?

What actions did you take to become re-employed?

What was the nature of the re-employment opportunity?

Describe the opportunity. What was it about the opportunity that interested you?

What did you find most/least attractive about opportunity? How did it take tap into your skills and your interests? How did you determine it met your needs?

How did you become aware of the opportunity?

Did you find the position online at ___ jobsite; ____ company website; ____ professional community; _____ other?

Did someone contact you about the opportunity ___ an employee; ___ former colleague; ___ a vendor; ___ a recruiter; ___ a family member; ____other?

How did you pursue the opportunity?

What did you do to indicate your interest?

How did you demonstrate your qualifications?

Did you work with anyone inside or outside of the organization to obtain the position?

Why did you believe that you should be offered the position?

What was your reaction when you committed to the position? Why did you decide to accept the position? What were the benefits of taking the position? Did you feel that you were sacrificing anything to take this position?

303

Were you excited about taking the position?

Describe your employer? How did this employer differ from your previous employer? How was this employer similar to your previous employer?

How long did it take after becoming unemployed before you returned to full employment? When you returned to full employment, how did you envision your career?

Do you believe that you looked at your career differently after your unemployment experience?

If so what was the difference?

Did you approach your career differently?

Please reflect on your current career status

How are you currently employed?

If you were to face unemployment again, how would you respond?

Would you do anything differently?

What would you do the same?

Do you think any of the differences are significant?

In what way are they important? Why do you believe that the differences are important? Today, how do you envision your career?

Who do you believe is responsible for managing your career?

How does your current vision relate to the vision you had of your career prior to your long-term unemployment?

304

Post Interview Checklist and Notes

Interview: 1 2 3 Date: Time:

Narrator: Location:

Checklist

Topic Notes Content

Context

Equipment

Interviewer

Participant

Process

Protocol

Miscellaneous

305

Table 30 Interview Transcription Report

Interview Length Candidate Month Date Time Location Pages # (h:m:s)

P1 July 7/31/2009 2:00 PM COSC 1 1:41:12 61

P2 July 7/30/2009 10:30 AM COSC 1 1:35:02 44

P2 August 8/4/2009 10:30 AM COSC 2 1:32:15 45

P1 August 8/7/2009 2:00 PM COSC 2 2:01:06 64

P2 August 8/11/2009 10:30 AM Office 3 1:48:36 41

Public P3 August 8/11/2009 3:00 PM 1 1:18:33 29 Library

P3 August 8/18/2009 10:00 AM Public 2 1:41:20 32 Library Public P3 August 8/25/2009 10:00 AM 3 1:49:38 33 Library

Public P1 August 8/18/2009 1:30 PM 3 1:36:42 37 Library

P5 August 8/18/2009 7:00 PM Office 1 1:34:57 50

P4 August 8/25/2009 7:00 PM Office 1 1:06:01 35

P4 August 8/26/2009 7:00 PM Home 2 1:16:26 41

P6 September 9/1/2009 7:00 PM Office 1 1:27:56 56

P4 September 9/2/2009 7:00 PM Home 3 0:52:58 25 College P6 September 9/8/2009 6:30 PM 2 1:07:37 43 Library College P6 September 9/15/2009 6:30 PM 3 1:09:23 36 Library P5 September 9/16/2009 7:00 PM Office 2 1:27:48 44

P5 September 9/23/2009 7:00 PM Office 3 1:38:47 33

Totals 26:46:17 749

Averages 1:29:14 41.6

306

Appendix D

Participant Data

Figure 2 Participant 1 (P1) Jane Career Map Figure 3 Participant 2 (P2) Bill Career Map Figure 4 Participant 3 (P3) Mike Career Map Figure 5 Participant 4 (P4) Curly Sue Career Map Figure 6 Participant 5 (P5) Bart Career Map Figure 7 Participant 6 (P6) Pete. Career Map

307

Figure 2 Participant 1 (P1) Jane’s Career Map

Table 31 Jane’s Career Map Commentary

JANE: . . . [L]et’s see this is what we’re going to do. We’re going to put something there which is the AM of the day. . . . Later in the day it went straight to there.

I: Okay.

JANE: Let’s see. This is like the last time we talked.

I: Yeah. Okay. so that would be August 7 th , by the way, if you want to put a day on it. . . .

JANE: Right. And that was pretty much there. . . . For the last two times, we’ll stick it there.

I: Um,kay.

JANE I’m going to do, today gets a one there. Um, five years and prior. What was I doing five years prior to that at the insurance company? This was a three year project, so it was pretty much a wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, wiggle, there.

308

I: Okay.

JANE Those were, those just as the project went. What was I doing before I did the virus project?

I: I’m trying to remember some of the things you said to me.

JANE I was doing process reengineering so that’s going to be down about here.

I: Okay.

JANE So, there, I guess that’s how that would go.

I: Okay.

JANE And then it would go there (laughs).

I: It’s a good day. It’s amazing how your career can go in four hours. Bonk.

JANE (laughs) Um, and then somewhere over here is where I put the horses in the stable . . . And let’s see, and this is six, this is a six year time frame. . . . So, I’m just going to mark it six years.

I: Yep. That’s good.

JANE: And it’s been (makes sounds like going up and down). Well, see, and today, this is talking to him was up there. We’re probably about here, too. So, that’s the interview. And this is the I: interview. (laughs). We’ll call that FarmTek. And then we’re, sort of go there and stay there for a while.

I: Okay. Thanks.

JANE: And she says “What the hell happened to ah, oh.”

I: It doesn’t. Okay. Cool. So, day of layoff you went from top of the morning, literally, to bottom of the afternoon. And we are not talking about the ninth inning here. We are talking about in the cellar. Um,..

JANE Yes, because, I was no longer Jane, security at a large insurance company.

309

Figure 3 Participant 2 (P2) Bill’s Career Map

Table 32 Bill’s Career Map Commentary I: [I]t’s a drawing exercise.

BILL: Mmhmm

I: And I wasn’t sure how to setup the template. But I started, I started it with 5 years prior to layoff, layoff and today and sort of highs and lows, career highs and lows and any commentary you might want to put in there.

BILL: Oh I said it all verbally already it’s a bell curve. . . . You know, at what point it was a bell, I couldn’t tell you, but you know. Five years prior.

I: Yeah. If so and I mean if you don’t have enough room you can change that. Feel free.

BILL: No, but you know. If this is 2006, er 9.

310

I: This is 2009

BILL: The layoff was 2006

I: Yup

BILL: And this is 2001. You know th-the peak (Pause 3.5 seconds) was probably—It had multiple peaks. It would be, if I was to look at a career beginning in 1982. . . . 1990, 1995, uh (the sound of writing in the background). I could do it by merger, but it wouldn’t make any sense really. Probably not, 2000, 2005, 2009 and to be quite honest I knew this is being the top, (Pause 2.5 seconds) mid, (Pause 2.0 seconds) oh, entry level, ‘kay.

I: Yup

BILL: And I would, I did this. ‘Cause this is archaeology, banking, brokerage and I started moving up, I was a quick. Yeah let’s do it this way (Sound of erasing in the background) Because it went up and right down. Unemployment and then, right back up (Pause 6.0 seconds) and I was pretty close to the top by, (erasing) because in Richmond I was pretty, I was professionally not as happy but I hit the top as far as I was finally making markets. And then 95-97, that’s a change. 199- change, change, change, change 95’s a change (Pause 3.0 seconds). Change, (Pause 3.0 seconds) change, (Pause 6.0 seconds) Uh let’s see where’s my base? (Pause 7.5 seconds sound of drawing in the background). 2001 for different reasons, clearly and then. OOOOup! (Drawing a line) (Laughs)

I: Okay

BILL: And that’s where we’re at.

I: Right there.

BILL: And this is liquidation. This, transition. This is entry.

I: Okay.

BILL: This is liquidation or actually merge. This was going to be merged, can, let’s absorbed, this firm-place merged, up, but up at this date, 1990-95. Uh, this was a cutting period, by 1995 uh. Company -see I went to it. Wheat First, great place, that’s why I went straight up. . . . Yeah. (Pause 7.0 seconds) They cut ’97, (Pause 2.5 seconds while writing) um moved to agency (Pause 3.0 seconds more writing.) And merge, there’s another one in here, 200- and like I think 2. (Pause 3.5 seconds, writing) merge, (Pause 2.5 seconds writing) merge, and we had 4 mergers- . . . at the regional investment company. There was one large company and then another. So this is merge, the first company, the other and then another. Referring to an earlier employer, that one actually

311

occurred months after I left.

I: Oh, okay.

BILL: It just, I was, my, I just seemed to have good timing there. Um there was talk.

I: Yup.

BILL: But I didn’t, it wasn’t my decision. We acquired four companies between 1987 and 1990, so I can’t fit them in there.

I: Right

BILL: But there were four.

I: And those were all smaller

BILL: No, they were- no they were big.

I: Oh, okay.

BILL: They were big. It’s just that I was entry level.

I: Right, right.

BILL: I was just starting to

I: You just saw it happening.

BILL: You were just living with it.

I: Yeah.

BILL: It affected us and eventually, it really, I got a big bump up there in the career, because I had to make markets, my boss left.

I: Okay.

BILL: So me and a couple other guys were trading everything.

I: Yeah.

BILL: And so you got great experience. I loved it, but it was, you knew the writing was on the wall again and couldn’t do a thing about it. And like these are both unemployment periods. Not by your own choice, but the way it, you know the way it occurred, so . . .

I: Isn’t this an unemployment period too?

312

BILL: No that’s employment, that’s archaeology. That’s college.

I: Right. Yeah. Okay. So that’s college and archaeology, but wasn’t there an unemployment period after archaeology?

BILL: No.

I: You went directly into banking, just rolled right-- . . .

BILL: I applied, and got a job and gave my notice, which you know

I: That was great. . . . Worked out for you there.

BILL: Worked out very well. . . . It-it was horrible, I didn’t want to do it, but they were closing the firm anyways. Get out as fast as you can

I: Right, right

BILL: Um

I: That’s it.

BILL: How’s that.

I: That’s good, that’s good. Absolutely, ‘cause as I said, I wasn’t sure how to lay this all out.

BILL: Well, you did the right thing. The only thing I might have done differently if I were to lay this out. Draw a straight line, a base point

I: Yuh.

BILL: A base point access and just leave it, meaning you split the paper in two. Now if this is your unemployment (Points to the diagram)

I: Ahhh

BILL: Because you could have highs and lows going below it.

313

Figure 4 Participant 3 (P3) Mike’s Career Map

Mike (P3) developed his diagram after the interview cycle was completed; therefore, there was no map commentary.

314

Figure 5 Participant 4 (P4) Curley Sue’s Career Map

Table 33 Curley Sue’s Career Map Commentary

I: Sue and I have been talking a little bit about a diagram that she’s laying out for me that sort of represents her career trajectory, starting from about five years prior to layoff and up to now. Sue was just sharing with me sort of what the, what her career represents for her so go to town.

SUE: So what I was saying is the ebbs and flows that I placed on the chart in a kind of a step diagram, was not necessarily representative in terms of your traditional career ladders of progressing through a series of titles. But there were more factors, there were different factors that I evaluated what I consider to be my career highs and lows based on. And so some of these characteristics were the level of responsibility

I: Mmhmm

315

SUE: That I had in that particular job.

I: Now t-tell me what you mean by level of responsibility

SUE: Okay, it would be the amount of authority I had . . . To affect change, to affect you know any decision making and the level within the organization that I interacted with. So just in terms of what I brought into the organization and was able to affect. Also I looked at it in terms of reach. And what I mean by that is how far out in the organization, my job or my responsibilities extended me. So for example in one job, I am specifically an individual contributor in a financial department working pretty much in a you know in a financial role not interacting, extensively where in another role, I am interacting, not only with every department within the internal organization, but without with all of the field organizations as well.

I: Okay

SUE: So field sales, field ops, field anything, so kind of looking at it in that extent and beyond team customers and what not. So level of reach and then I also looked at it in terms of the variety and degree of skill sets that I needed to use in those particular jobs. So you know my background, it spans from operations, to technology, to financial accounting to systems, right, so did I use just one of those facets in the job or did I have responsibilities that extended across all of those disciplines. . . . So I looked at it in terms of that. And there was one other and I don’t remember what it was. Hmm (Pause 3.5 seconds)

I: Who you worked with?

SUE: I-I-It very well, I mean that is a factor. Just how many people I was interacting with, but that kind of goes into some of the reach too

I: Reach issues SUE: Um I didn’t really take into consideration in the mapping of-of what I consider to be careers highs and lows. If I had a staff or I didn’t have a staff or how many staff, I didn’t really, I don’t really um categorize my success or not whether I have “Oh I have a thousand people working for me” or if I have one, it’s more in terms of you know the projects that I was working on, the impact to the organization, did I just do it by myself, that’s fine, I don’t care.

I: Yeah SUE: If I had you know a hundred people helping me do it what was the job that needed to be done. So that’s kind of the stuff that I put into packaging whether my career what we, what I want to call a career has moved upward, downward, laterally throughout all these years.

I: Okay, thanks

316

Figure 6 Participant 5 (P5) Bart’s Career Map

Table 34 Bart’s Career Map Commentary

BART: Do we start at five years prior to layoff?

I: You can you can you can do that . . .

BART: So let’s say we’re here.

I: Yeah.

BART: So were coming up steady. . . . And… (Sounds)

317

I: Ok.

BART: I was actually laid off again, but I didn’t have a break. We sold that company. It’s the wrong spot.

I: And that’s the new one. Yeah (unintelligible)

BART: This probably, this probably needs to be a little bit higher. . . . Let’s go (breadth of responsibility). . . .Course everything drops down here. . . . Gotta make a little line here so it kind of follows the same path. . . . And then, let’s go put it up here. Well actually the first little one doesn’t go quite as high. . . . Goes close . . . So breadth of responsibility in a job… Um, Dollars…This is dollars of compensation. . . . And this is breadth of responsibility . . . I think those are the two biggest changes.

I: Ok

BART: And then dollars compensation kinda follows…dollars compensation and and uh responsibility cuz the bigger company was so much bigger.

I: Yeah.

BART: Um, breadth of responsibility. I think I’ll call that breadth and ownership. You can call that a uh what do you call it.. brain fade…Breadth of responsibility, ownership and you can call this a uh responsibility or slash stress factor

I: Oh, really?

BART: Yeah, because you’re the decision.. With a small company, . . . the decisions you make and what you do . . . you’re more relied upon for it and you can crater the company.

I: Yeah

BART: Or you can make it do great things. . . . So I think, although you think you’re more stressed out maybe with the big company really I feel more ownership with the smaller ones. I think that’s good to kinda capture that because the only other thing that would follow one of these curves is the um this might also include growth and intellectual stimulation . . . that might also foll-, it would follow more closely that curve because you’re, you’re working with a lot more, excuse the term, smart people that pushes you, that makes you grow, makes you think of things in more and different ways. Here since you rely on yourself and sometimes you go, I mean you can always try, call on a buddy . . . and bounce something off him. . . . But it’s not the same as working with those people . . . and knowing that whatever idea you’re gonna have is. You can’t get anything done unless it’s vetted by a lot of smart people. . . .. You know what I mean?

318

I: Yeah

BART: But that also takes away… I mean you feel, um, stress in that kinda stuff sometimes when you present it then and try to win them over. But it’s not the stress you feel when am I making the right decision so this place doesn’t crater tomorrow

I: Yeah, the implications for your decision the, uh, the leverage I guess for a bad decision and its impact is pretty profound. Thank you.

BART: So I don’t know if I can think of any other . . . charts to do

I: That’s, no that’s nice. I appreciate that

BART: ‘Cause the more, a couple other things, I just wanted to capture the major elements. . . . Because a career high and low..there’s different..there’s different pieces to each and there’s different um there’s I mean compensation is always a plus and a minus factor but, look at your studies. Your studies always say compensation There’s very few people who are driven just by compensation. Compensation for very few people is the end all and be all. We’re not coin- operated. So the other psychic income, for lack of a better term, is important. So I wanted to.. I didn’t capture all that exactly, but I wanted to show that there was a dichotomy

319

Figure 7 Participant 6 (P6) Pete’s Career Map

Table 35 Pete’s Career Map Commentary

PETE: (15.0 seconds of silence followed by 3.0 seconds of the sound of the pencil on paper)

I: Okay.

PETE That’s probably what it would like. . . . Not very smooth is it

I: It’s, it’s, it’s fine

320

PETE So, what does it mean? five years prior to layoff actually I was in, last time we talked, right around that time I was doing the dual role on in another state and one in this state . . . So at that particular point in time, I had quite a bit of responsibility . . . But it was also mixed, I was also dealing with a scenario at one point in time where they were looking at reducing, potentially closing that office or certain aspects of it, so I had to deal with convincing people that it was a viable entity, probably better than the other areas that they had. So I was able to convince them to hang on to it.

Going up here, as I- you know, I, (Pause 2.0 seconds) helped out that new organization. Within a year picked up a lot more responsibility. You know where I had said, you know upwards of a couple hundred people spread out over like five locations and what have you. Um, so probably the peak of my responsibility level in that particular time frame. Also got some decent monetary increases as well, in there.

Obviously the downslide is prior to the layoff. . . . There was, as I had mentioned some re-you know had to layoff a number of people . . . . And close some offices, there was a reduction in the level of responsibility, plus they were positioning it so others could probably step in once they laid me off. I: Mmhmm

PETE And then so as you go to the layoff, I’m saying I’m below the line. I mean obviously that’s, I didn’t enjoy it.

I: Yeah

PETE At all. I don’t consider myself at all, um, I don’t consider myself a big networker. . . . I did it because I needed to do it. So while I was laid off, I would say you know that was the lower the level. Was I depressed? I’d say no, I didn’t let it affect me to that degree. Although, you know, it was kind of depressing, at times, when you know you (Pause 1.5 seconds) more than qualify for positions and you don’t get them or you apply for positions and you don’t even get a response or a return phone call so to me that was, a time that I wouldn’t really want to replicate.

I: Right

PETE Going back up is when I landed the position at the company I am with now. Picked up a little bit more responsibility over that period of time. You know I think I made a pretty substantial impact early on. . . . . And in the area I’m in, I think it’s done an exceptional job performance-wise.

I: Good

321

PETE But level, I mean not necessarily increasing responsibility. Have had to go to offshore, parts of the organization, which impacted some peoples positions as a result of that, so, I don’t consider that necessarily either a high or low, but what we made that work extremely effectively.

I: Mmm

PETE Based on how we approached it. So I mean career-wise, you know, right now, am I satisfied? No, . . . You know, I think I can do a lot more. Do I think I’ll get there at the company, I’m at? No, I don’t.

I: Why is that?

PETE Um (Pause 2.5 seconds) Well I, a certain level of political (sort of laughs)

I: Yuh?

PETE Posturing and stuff like that, which I don’t, I prefer to execute.

I: Yeah.

PETE: Want to be blunt, um, and I think to some degree, not that-that everyone who does that gets rewarded, but you know it, that level, that internal networking. . . . Can payoff, but I think at execution of (Pause 1.0 seconds) execution . . . .I mean I that to some degree plays a larger role, (and people’s, people getting a head) then actual execution does.

I: Yea

PETE And you know raising the performance level of the organization you’re with and what have you, which (Pause 2.0 seconds) you know I kind of have a problem with so, that’s where I look at it. Age-wise, I think that can be a deterrent as well. . . . . At-at this stage, I mean, because obviously you get into some kind-. You know you always need to be looking at succession planning and things along those lines and you know. I’m sure the intent is to get, you know bring in youth and move them along cause that, you got (Pause 1.5 seconds) Probably longer range stability versus someone that may have 10 years, 15 years left. I think there is a tendency to go to the younger side and plus there is probably a cost component associated with that too.

I: Which is?

PETE Younger, less pay.