How Time-Flow Shapes Three Meanings of Midcareer

Abstract

This article reviews the theoretical notion of midcareer as it is described in career development literature. Three patterns of use of the term ‘midcareer’ are identified, and these differ in the time that authors either nominate or assume constitutes midcareer. These timeframes are: (1) a period some time after career commencement; (2) a variable period of time midway between start and end of career; or (3) a period beyond a midpoint in the second half of career. The discussion centres on findings that point to how midcareer theory can be reframed. Even so, career theory may still echo traditional unhelpful assumptions about midcareer that need continual questioning.

Facilitating midcareer transitions.

“…Traditionally, midlife has been conceived of as an age-related construct. Although there is an absence of consensus on an exact age, the professional literature has recognized three cohorts as transitional periods (Burns, 2009): early adulthood (late 20s and 30s), middle adulthood (40s and 50s), and late middle adulthood (mid-50s and 60s). The main developmental tasks of midlife consist of identity reappraisal, recognition of mortality, time perspective modification, and reappraisal of human relationships and career commitments (Okun, 1984).…”

The meaning of career success

“…However, the notion of hierarchical advancement within an organization remains associated with career success to date – although the institutional arrangements at the origin of this association have changed considerably (Heslin, 2005). According to Burns (2009, p. 25), career may have become:[…] a quasi‐official “truth” […] lagging behind the reality of changes occurring in employment patterns. “Getting ahead” or succeeding may not figure at all, or may be only one imperative in personal life paths, and not necessarily as central as some career trajectories imply.…”

Re-imagining career transition: What help from typologies?

“…Attention to career typologies avoided head-on confrontation with these dominant theories (Levinson, 1980: 265) while creating some space for western scholars to begin exploring obvious changes occurring around them post the oil-shocks of the 1970s: the expansion of tertiary education, the presence of women in professional labour-markets, reduced job security, the economic rise of Japan, plus other late-modern changes unfolding, all of which made the dominant models less and less accurate portrayals of career paths and transitions. Levinson (1977) and others also used notions of 'life-course' to bridge existing literature to something more relevant, but this concept, too, has tended to receive rather than generate critical engagement about gendered and racialized career paths (Burns, 2009). The concept of boundary-less careers challenged the usefulness of career typologies, just as these had earlier attempted to avoid the problems of previous developmental and trait models (Arthur et al, 1999;Hall, 1996).…”