PREDICTORS OF CAREER
SUCCESS & GENDER:
A PRELIMINARY CONCEPT
PAPER
By
Rachel Samuel
Supervisors: Intan Osman & Mahfooz A Ansari
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Wk 6.1
BACKGROUND
 Women make up an increasing proportion of full
time workforce and of managers around the
world (Wirth, 2001); yet they are underrepresented in management in most countries
and in senior management everywhere
(Davidson & Burke, 2004).
 Top management and senior management
positions related to being successful in career.
 Does this mean that women have not been as
successful as men in terms of career?
Distribution of Female Employment by
Occupation, 2004 in Malaysia (%)
 Legislators, senior officials & managers 5.9;
Professionals 6.7;Technicians & associate
professionals13.0;Clerical workers17.5;Service
workers, shop and market sales
workers18.4;Skilled agricultural & fishery
workers10.0;Craft and related trade
workers5.2;Plant & machine operators and
assemblers11.4; Elementary Workers12.0
DEFINITION
Career success can be divided into 2:
Extrinsic (Objective)
 Salary
 Promotion
(Judge et al, 1995)
Intrinsic (Subjective)
*
Satisfaction
*
Life success
(Gattiker & Larwood, 1988;
Boudreau et al, 2001)
 career success in two distinctive ways: first,
the external, extrinsic or objective
perspective. Here, visible metrics or tangible
indicators are used, for example, salary,
promotions or status. These measures have
been considered as the hallmarks of career
success across a wide range of societies
(Nicholson, 2000). In addition, proximity to
the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and
employability are also included as extrinsic
aspects. CEO proximity reflects power,
authority and responsibility in the current
organization. Employability is an increasing
indicator of success as multiple-employer and
multiple-profession careers become more
common (Boudreau et al., 2001).
 The second measure is subjective, intrinsic or
internal and this would depend on what
individuals perceive the criteria of success to
be using personal definitions of success or
failure, across any dimensions that are
important to that individual (Van Maanen,
1977; Gattiker & Larwood, 1989; Miguel, 1993).
Intrinsic success is made up of job success,
interpersonal success and hierarchical
success. Job success means the extent to
which individuals perceive that their jobs offer
opportunities for achievement, satisfaction,
learning and development. Interpersonal
success is the degree to which individuals
perceive they are respected and accepted by
their work colleagues. Hierarchical success is
the extent to which individuals are satisfied
with their up-to-date hierarchical
advancement and their prospects for future
advancement.
 Subjective career success is also measured by career
satisfaction (Burke, 2001; Ng et al, 2005) and life
satisfaction. Adding life satisfaction to the measures
of career success acknowledges the importance of
work-life and family balance (Boudreau et al.,
2001). A dual operationalization of career success is
necessary because the two do not always overlap
(Poole, Langan-Fox & Omodei, 1993; Bozionelos,
2003).
 The analysis of researches on career success
since 1980 show that the objective criteria/
measure have dominated most research (Burke
& Vinnicombe, 2005;Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Ng et
al, 2005; Eddleston et al, 2004; Ismail, Mohd Rasdi &
Abdul Wahat, 2005; Kottke & Agars, 2005). The
subjective criteria, though not commonly
used, has been increasingly adopted over the
last decade (Nabi, 2001; Greenhaus, 2003; Hall,
2002; Ng et al., 2005).
 The deficiency of using objective success criteria has
been recognized for a long time (Hilton & Dill, 1962).
However, many studies continue to use this measure as
the sole criteria of career success (Chenevert &
Tremblay, 2002; Judiesh & Lyness, 1999; Lyness &
Thompson, 2000). Likewise, subjective measures
of career success also have its limitation.
Subjective measures should include reactions
to actual and anticipated career-related
attainments across a broader time frame than
one’s immediate job satisfaction (Greenhaus,
Callanan & Godshalk, 2000) as well as wider range of
outcomes, such as a sense of identity (Law, Meijers &
Weijers, 2002), purpose (Cochran, 1990) and work-life
balance (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000). Job
satisfaction may contribute to subjective career success
but it could be distinct and not necessarily related.
Hence, future research should avoid adopting job
satisfaction alone as proxy for subjective career success
(Heslin, 2005).
AN ERA OF CHANGE?
 For career success to be measured using objective measures,
one has to advance hierarchically within a single organization
over the course of their career (Eby et al., 2003). However,
linear, secure and predictable careers have been replaced by
dynamic, flexible and multidirectional career paths (Baruch,
2006). Since late 1990s, career no longer follow a linear path
but are boundaryless, protean and portable in nature
(Sullivan, 1999; Goffee & Jones, 2000). In a linear career
path, managerial success is normally looked at using tangible
outcomes and the milestones are compensation, promotions
offered and managerial level. In a boundaryless career,
however, success is marked by career impatience
(the need to move to something better),
marketability, willingness to relocate, mentoring
efficacy and exposure to powerful networks (Arthur,
Inkson & Pringle, 1999; Eby et al., 2003).
 The individual factors of success which are discussed
within the boundaryless career literature are career
competencies (knowing why, knowing how and
knowing whom), locus of career development
responsibility and the boundary between work
and personal life (which is considered as part
of intrinsic success) (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996;
Cappellen & Janssens, 2005). As organizations begin
to downsize and delayer, hierarchical success is
difficult to achieve. If career is boundaryless,
then success is related to accomplishments,
expertise and personal achievement
(Wellington, Kropf & Gerkovich, 2003).
 Linked to boundaryless career is the concept of
protean career which is internally-oriented,
flexible, and mobile and may involve both
horizontal and vertical growth in the pursuit of
goals defined by individual workers (Hall, 1999;
Sullivan, 1995). Protean model assumes that
careers continue to develop throughout life as
skills and knowledge is continuously sought in
accordance with individual goals (MacDermid &
Lee, 2001). This model allows workers with
various personal or family needs or different
definitions of success to adjust the pace of their
career development while continuing to make
valuable contributions to the organization. The
increasing diversity of the workforce will
continue to increase the pressure on
organizations to create niches whereby all
workers, not just those following the traditional
external career, can be successful (MacDermid &
Lee, 2001).
Role of Gender
 Research on career success and gender has long been
examined (Powell & Mainiero, 1992; Lyness &
Thompson, 2000). When objective criteria is used to
measure career success, women fall short. Though with
equal employment policies women are given more
opportunities to advance, a wide wage gap remains
between men and women.
 Women however report equal levels of subjective
success to men (Kirchmeyer, 1998; Bradley, Brown &
Dower, 2003). Understanding of women’s careers
require the acknowledgement that women have
fundamentally different experiences and women find
themselves in different situations when developing
their career compared to men (Mavin, 2001). Pay
and position do not appear to define how women
managers and older managers define success for
themselves (Sturges, 1999). Women were more
likely than men to describe success with reference to
internal intangible criteria especially
accomplishment, achievement, and in particular
personal recognition. Women have transcended
material career success and their definition of
success is broader. Career success is just one part of
the success they wish to achieve in other parts of
their lives as a whole. That is why balance is
important for women.
 For men, it is essentially career success when they talk
about success (Wellington et al, 2003). Despite
poorer income progression and lower returns from
promotion, women may perceive careers to be as
successful as males. In fact, once the effects of the
career determinants were considered simultaneously,
women’s perception of success is higher than men
(Jackson, 1989).
 How do women fit into these changes in the career
and working world? Women now prefer a
kaleidoscope model of career that fits their concerns
for authenticity, balance and challenge, vis-à-vis the
demands of their career in the new millennium
(Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005). They prefer selfcrafted careers that suit their objectives, needs and
life-criteria, where they can blend and integrate
rather than separate the work and non-work facets
of their lives. Today’s managerial and professional
women do not have a typical male-type linear
career. She is prepared to settle for a satisfying
career than one that maximises her capacity to reach
the top (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005). Hence,
research should focus on finding the most valid
predictors of job performance or success regardless
of the job (Canger, 2003).
 Women’s career might not follow the same trend as men’s
where in the middle and later career years, men experience
stability, maintenance and decline. Women, on the other
hand, might find renewed sense of purpose, energy and
increased vitality for work pursuits in middle adulthood
(O’Neil & Bilimoria, 2005). Between the ages of 24 and 35
years, women experience positive management. The trend in
career is positive in this stage. In the second stage, between
the ages of 36 and 45 years, women are between middle and
upper levels of management in many organizations. If their
needs are not met at this stage, they can quit and this will
result in continued under-representation of women in senior
organizational levels. For women in management positions,
the burdens placed upon them during this stage are
enormous, and it often happens at a time in their lives when
they are trying to juggle the requirements of young families,
ageing parents and developing their own careers (Cross &
Linehan, 2006). The career trend is negative in this stage.
The third stage, between ages 46 and 60, the career trend is
positive again. Success for these women is about recognition,
respect and living integrated lives (Wellington et al, 2003).
 The relationship between mentoring,
networking and career success has been noted
in literature on career success (O’Reilly, 2001;
Higgins and Kram, 2001). Would these variables still
be critical when determining success in the
boundaryless career? In the pursuit of
boundaryless career success within the
organizational setting, individuals still need the
factors of information, support and
relationship ties. In fact, extra-organizational
support which is one of the outcomes of
boundaryless career is drawn from the
individual’s peer group within the same
occupational or industrial setting (Arthur &
Parker, 2002). Hence, these variables are also related
to boundaryless career success measures.
 In the boundaryless career, too, some personality
factors are pertinent to strive for goals in the
individual’s lives. Self-confidence (self-efficacy)
which is important for advancing careers in
organizations could be an equally important
factor for success in the boundaryless career
(Hollenbeck & Hall, 2004; Hall, 2002). To chart your
own direction and to pursue goals which are
important to an individual, self-confidence is a very
effective tool.
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
i)
ii)
Contest-mobility perspective
Sponsored-mobility perspective (Turner, 1960)
PREDICTORS THAT HAVE BEEN FREQUENTLY USED:

Human capital (Wayne, 1999; Kirchmeyer,



2002)
Organizational sponsorship (Dreher & Ash,
1990)
Socio-demographic predictors (gender, race,
marital status & age) (Powell & Butterfield,
2003; Simpson et al, 2004)
Stable individual differences (Seibert et al, 2001;
Eby et al, 2003)
ISSUES TO BE LOOKED AT
 Salary, promotion & career satisfaction represent
conceptually distinct aspects of career success (Judge
et al, 1995; Poole et al, 1993; Jaskolka et al, 1985)—
need to isolate key variables that predict a particular
aspect of career success.
 In sponsored-mobility perspective, need to look at
person-organization fit.
Continued…
 Boundaryless career—to examine the
presence of strong external networks
(Eby et al, 2003; Arthur & Rousseau,
1996)
 Specific conditions where men and
women may have advantage over one
another (Ragins et al, 1998; Ng et al,
2005)