CAREER ANCHORS OF FILIPINO

ACADEMIC EXECUTIVES

Lily P. Custodio*

Catanduanes State Colleges

College of Business and Accountancy

Virac, Catanduanes, Philippines 4800

Telephone: +63 052 811 2196

Telefax: +63 052 811 1485

Email: lily_custodio@digitelone.com

Flinders University of South Australia

School of Commerce Research Paper: 00-13

ISSN 1441-3906

ABSTRACT
 2

Careers research has principally been an area of research by Western researchers, and

few studies have been reported of research on non-Western subjects. Career researchers

have primarily focused on external motivators associated with organizational factors and

material incentives. Research investigating internalized career orientations is necessary

to match individual expectations with institutional human resource planning. This study

investigates the career anchors held by Filipino academic executives, using results from

administering Schein’s Career Orientations Inventory to academic executives. These

career anchors influence how academic executives and human resources management

should (1) plan institutional career paths, (2) nurture academic executives during their

careers, and (3) encourage appropriate communication about career advancement.

INTRODUCTION

In the past decade there has been an explosion of research and writing about career

perceptions and career development. Most of this research has been undertaken by

Western researchers on Western subjects, and there have been few reports of research in

non-Western societies. The theories of career which guide research mostly have been

developed by Western theorists. There is an assumption in Western career theory that

individuals pursue one career at a time, and that any career change results in a serial

pattern of careers. There is also an assumption that the Western concept of career as a

series of events is universally applicable, but career patterns such as the lifetime

employment of Japanese executives in major corporations are not covered by Western

career theory.

In the Philippines, it is observed that it is common for executives to pursue simultaneous

careers. That is, during the day they work as, say bank vice-presidents, during the

evenings they work as faculty in graduate schools of business at private universities, and
 3

at other times they work as independent consultants or manage the family business. In

such a context, researchers investigating career perceptions or career development are

met with a stare and a question “Which career are you asking about?”

Unable to identify previous investigations of careers in the Philippines, this researcher

identified academic executives in state universities and colleges in Bicol Region,

Philippines as a group on which to carry out initial studies of career anchors. Public

servants, including academics in these state universities and colleges, are required by law

not to have a second, simultaneous, career.

Career Anchors

The aspect of career investigated was career anchors. The career anchor model

developed by Edgar Schein, of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has received

considerable attention. Schein (1978) coined the term career anchor to describe a

constellation of self-perceived attitudes, values, needs and talents that develops over

time, and which when developed, shapes and guides career choices and directions. It can

be thought of as a central component of the self-concept that executives are unwilling to

relinquish, even when forced to make a difficult choice. The career anchor is significant

because it influences career choices, affects decisions to move from one job to another,

shapes what individuals are looking for in life, determines their views of the future,

influences the selection of specific occupations and work settings, and affects their

reactions to work experiences (Schein, 1988). He postulated that individuals’ career

anchors gradually come to be their own definition of career success (Schein, 1974,

1978).

Schein (1993) pointed out that all people develop some kind of picture of their work life

and their own role in it. Derr (1986a) and Igbaria & Baroudi (1993) asserted that this
 4

work role focuses on the individuals’ self-concept and career values - the internal career.

Career anchors are important element of individuals’ internal careers. This is the result

of their conscious educational, work and career decisions (Schein, 1990). In this context,

the career anchor theory signifies nonmonetary or psychological factors (Barth, 1993).

Schein (1978) identified five career anchors during research conducted in the early

1960s, viz:

• managerial competence represents the need to be competent in the activities

associated with management such as problem analysis skills, emotional stability, and
interpersonal competence;

• technical competence is associated with motivation for the challenge of a technical

field, functional area, or content of the work (not the managerial process);

• security/stability anchor symbolizes the desire for an organization that provides long-
run stability, good benefits, and basic job security;

• entrepreneurial creativity embodies the need to create something, that is, to try new
projects; and

• autonomy encompasses people’s need to be free of constraint to pursue

professional or technical competence.

While it is recognized that work experience in early years is particularly influential in

forming individual career anchors, these dispositions also are applicable in later career

stages (Crepeau, Crook, Goslar, & McMurtrey, 1992; Schein, 1978).

DeLong (1982a, 1982b) attempted to validate the career anchor model empirically.

Beyond the five anchors identified by Schein, he investigated three additional career

anchors. These are:

1. identity - the desire for status and prestige from belonging to certain
companies or organizations;
2. sense of service - concern with helping others and seeing changes that result from
efforts; and

3. variety - the desire for several different challenges.

 5

Operationalizing Schein’s model through research questionnaires, DeLong’s (1982a,

1982b, 1982c) studies validated Schein’s conclusions by clearly identifying the five

anchors and, moreover, distinguishing these additional three career anchors. He also

found that the security/stability anchor emerged as two independent anchors. One,

stability, represents individuals who will accept an organizational definition of their

careers. The other, security, is demonstrated by individuals who will move from

company to company to ensure permanence in a geographical area (DeLong, 1982a,

1982b, 1982c).

Schein’s (1985, 1987a, 1993) subsequent career history interviews of several hundred

people in various career stages found that the identity anchor can be viewed as an

extension of the security/stability anchor. Recent studies (Applin, 1982; Igbaria &

Baroudi, 1993; Igbaria, Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1991), however, have identified a

type of career anchor defined by the belief that it should somehow be possible to

integrate work, family, and self-concerns into a coherent lifestyle - the lifestyle

integration anchor. Similarly, recent studies (Applin, 1982; Igbaria & Barroudi, 193;

Igbaria et al, 1991; Schein, 1985, 1987a, 1993) have reported that the variety anchor is

favored by individuals who defined all work situations as self-tests that are won or lost

against either an absolute standard or an actual competitor. Thus the label pure challenge

was adopted as the essence of the variety anchor.

The lifestyle integration anchor supports the recent trend in human resource management

(HRM) that recognizes the way people value the importance of balancing work and

family responsibilities (Adler & Ghadar, 1990; Smith, 1992; Welch, 1994a, 1994b;

Zedeck, 1992). The pure challenge anchor, on the other hand, illustrates the general

contention about the ‘winning’ attitude of executives; that is, they value competition and

challenge as essential ingredients of success (Campbell, 1987). These characteristics are

 6

especially true among executives whose career success orientations are getting ahead,

getting free, and getting high (Derr, 1986a, 1986b). Simply put, they are success-

oriented executives (Rogers, 1987). Responding to the present trends in human resource

management and in executives orientations toward their careers, it would be more

appropriate to utilize the anchors pure challenge and lifestyle integration instead of

identity and variety anchors.

THE STUDY

This study was designed to investigate career anchors of Filipino academic executives.

Review of similar research studies conducted in different fields provided insights in

undertaking this study. Research studies (e.g., Applin, 1982; Burke, 1983; Burke &

Deszca, 1987, 1988; Crepeau et al, 1992; DeLong, 1983; Igbaria & Baroudi, 1993;

Igbaria et al, 1991; Slabbert, 1987) have looked at occupational groups such as dentists,

engineers, law enforcement officers, managers, management consultants, and

management information system personnel in Western countries. These studies found

that their subjects were oriented to most of these career anchors, although some of these

were identified as more dominant than others. Among management consultants, Applin

(1982) found that these people had three dominant career anchors, (i.e., autonomy, pure

challenge and managerial competence). Burke’s (1983) and Slabbert’s (1987) studies of

managers showed that these individuals had managerial competence, technical/functional

competence, pure challenge and autonomy as their most dominant career anchors. While

law enforcement officers were found to be more oriented to autonomy, pure challenge

and sense of service (Burke & Deszca, 1987, 1988). Management information system

personnel were found to have managerial competence, technical/functional competence,

autonomy and lifestyle integration as their more prevalent career orientations (Crepeau et

al, 1992; Igbaria & Baroudi, 1993; Igbaria et al, 1991). DeLong (1983) concluded that
 7

the central career drives in his study of dentists’ career orientations were pure challenge

and entrepreneurial creativity.

Although the security and stability anchors did not surface as more dominant than the

career anchors in any of the studies reviewed, such anchors were part of the wide variety

of career orientation of the subjects. There is a dearth of research studies on career

anchors of academic executives, though DeLong (1982c) and Zerdavis (1982) examined

the career anchors of educators. These studies identified educators as service-oriented in

their careers. The other anchors exhibited by educators are managerial competence,

autonomy, variety and creativity. Most educators seemed interested in a multifaceted

approach to teaching. Others, however, had technical/functional competence and

geographical security as their central career anchors. In the Philippines, however, no

comparable study of career anchors could be identified.

Given the dearth of previous research in the Philippines, this study examined whether

these career anchors are operative for those in the academic field. Two research

propositions were investigated.

Proposition 1: Academic executives possess a wide variety of career anchors.

While there have been a number of studies investigating career perspectives in other

career fields (e.g., engineering, medicine, law, education, religion), little empirical

research has been published that specifically looked at the career anchors of academic

executives. Research noted above involving different occupations established that

subjects in these groups are oriented in all or most of the career anchors described earlier,

with some being more dominant than others (Burke & Deszca, 1987; DeLong, 1982;

1983). Support for this proposition would establish that academic executives are similar

to personnel in other fields. However, an analysis is necessary to confirm or refute this

 8

traditional perspective; also, investigation of this proposition enlarges the academic

executives career research foundation for more productive insights into career planning

of this group of people. Thus the following proposition was also examined:

Proposition 2: The dominant career anchors exhibited by academic executives

will be sense of service and managerial competence.

Among academics, it is speculated in the literature on career anchors that these

individuals are service-oriented. This is because the education profession is dedicated for

the welfare of others (Schein, 1987a). Recent research (Delong, 1982c) has reported that

educators are indeed service-oriented although they also possess some of the other career

anchors. Given the academic administrative involvement of the subjects in this study,

they can also be viewed as managerially oriented in their careers. Support for this

proposition is crucial considering the prevailing views of academic executives.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The Career Orientation Inventory (COI) (see Appendix A) survey developed by Schein

in collaboration with DeLong was used for data collection. The COI has been refined

and validated in several studies including Burke (1983), DeLong (1982a, 1982b, 1982c)

and Wood, Winston & Polkosnik (1985). The COI provides a pretested instrument with

demonstrated high internal validity ad reliability. The instrument contains 41 items that

measure eight career anchors described earlier. Six-point Likert response scales for

subject responses were designed to avoid neutral answers: previous researchers have

administered four-, five- and six-point scales.

Subjects in this research were 116 academic executives in four state universities and

colleges in Bicol Region of the Philippines. Data were gathered in the months of March

and April in 1995. Usable responses were received from 114 persons, corresponding to a
 9

response rate of 98.28 per cent. Of the respondents, 49 were males and 65 were females.

Six respondents were presidents or vice-presidents, 46 were academic or non-academic

deans, and 62 were department chairpersons. No distinction was made in this study

between persons holding acting and substantive positions.

STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY

Factor analysis tests were run on the data to determine whether respondents’ ratings on

41 Career Orientations Inventory (COI) items will respond to the nine career anchors.

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Hair, Anderson & Tatham, 1987) and the Kaiser-Meyer-

Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy (Kaiser, 1974) were employed. Both tests

were conducted due to the sensitivity associated with the large sample size. These results

suggest the presence of homogenous groups of variables and appropriate application of

factor analysis.

Principal components analysis confirmed the existence of career anchors among

academic executives. Factor analysis applying varimax rotation identified eight factors

using the latent root and scree criterion. Appendix A lists survey questions used for each

construct with notation for those items that did not satisfy a minimum factor loading of

0.50 (consistent with Delong, 1982a). The analysis identified the following factors: (1)

lifestyle integration, (2) sense of service, (3) managerial competence, (4) autonomy, (5)

geographical security, (6) entrepreneurship creativity, (7) technical competence, and (8)

organizational stability. Since responses associated with the pure challenge construct did

not load on any factor, they were excluded from further analysis. Subject responses

clearly distinguished two dimensions of Schein’s security/stability anchor: organizational

stability (i.e., long-term employment) and geographic location (i.e., remaining in one

geographical location). These results are consistent with prior research (see DeLong,

1982a; 1982b).
 10

Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each factor to establish reliability and determine

internal consistency (Churchill, 1979). As reported in Table 1, ranges of 0.5–0.8 surpass

acceptable reliability coefficient levels (Nunally, 1967).

Table 1. Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficients

Career variables Reliability
Lifestyle integration 0.84213
Sense of service 0.83198
Managerial competence 0.84325
Autonomy 0.83672
Geographical security 0.78764
Entrepreneurship creativity 0.84123
Technical competence 0.78418
Organizational stability 0.83743

A two-order factor analysis (Anderson, 1985; Kumar & Dillon, 1990; Loehlin, 1987)

was employed to summarize subject responses. DeLong (1982a, 1982b) used this

approach to determine which factors would cluster together and found that his samples

clustered into two distinct groups based on similarities of career anchors. A similar

clustering occurred with the samples of this study. The results of this second factor

analysis are found in Table 2.

Table 2. Breakdown of the Nine Career Anchors into Two Major Factors
Career Anchors Factor 1 Factor 2
Lifestyle integration 0.14760 0.82945*
Sense of service 0.05213 0.84157*
Managerial competence 0.42848 0.61444*
Autonomy 0.81870* 0.17656
Geographical security 0.75659* 0.06791
Entrepreneurship creativity 0.55072* 0.45351
Technical competence 0.69237* 0.15589
Organizational stability 0.82679* 0.01281

* Coefficients under each column which clustered together.

DISCUSSION
 11

Results of this research demonstrate that study respondents possess several, largely

independent, career anchors. Eight career anchors are evident: (1) lifestyle integration,

(2) sense of service, (3) managerial competence, (4) autonomy, (5) geographical security,

(6) entrepreneurship creativity, (7) technical competence, and (8) organizational stability.

Thus, proposition 1 is supported. In contrast to previous studies entailing other

occupational groups, respondents in this sample do not exhibit a pure challenge career

anchor. This result is quite surprising considering the nature of work of the respondents.

Being in university administration one would expect that these respondents face a lot of

challenges in their careers. However, this result may be explained by some other factors

considering the nature of the respondents. Academic administration may not be

challenging on their part. As Schein (1972) noted that individual career anchors are

developed over a period of time and one’s experience would have some effects over their

development. In this case, therefore, it could be assumed that the majority study

respondents are at ease with their administrative work and that they have already passed

the test of time. Challenges to them may be viewed as a natural thing in their academic

administrative work.

Individuals who are oriented to lifestyle integration desire to develop a lifestyle that

integrates family concerns, career concerns, and concerns for self-development.

Previous related research on career orientations (i.e., Applin, 1982; Igbaria & Baroudi,

1993; Igbaria et al, 1991) reported that executives were concerned of the possibility of

integrating work, family and self-concerns into a coherent lifestyle. This was an

indication that individuals are aware of choosing careers that balance their professional

and private lives. Among Filipinos, they give much attention to their families, and they

work in order to earn the logistics necessary to support themselves and their families.

Cordero-Fernando (1992) pointed out that members of Filipino families are each others’
 12

lending bank, health and accident insurance, social welfare and death benefit. That is,

every member of the family has to share each other’s fortune. Hence, lifestyle

integration could be a common career orientation among Filipinos.

Employees who are oriented to sense of service are dedicated to serve people and to

make the world a better place to live and work. Slabbert (1987) and Slabbert-Van Aardt

(1990) reported that employees in the public sector are oriented to sense of service. In

this study, the subjects are employed by the public sector. Philippine state universities

and colleges (SUCs) are established to cater to the educational needs of the masses.

These institutions of higher education are owned, controlled, and subsidized by the

national government of the Republic of the Philippines. Additionally, DeLong (1987)

Zerdavis (1982) concluded that people in the teaching profession were dedicated to

serving people.

Managerially-oriented employees wish to supervise, influence, and lead others. They

seek promotion to general management. Given the orientation of the respondents in this

study, it could be argued that these academic executives have prepared and planned for

their promotions. Likewise, most studies on career orientations (i.e., Burke, 1983;

Crepeau et al, 1992; Slabbert, 1987; Slabbert-Van Aardt, 1990) have reported that

individuals in managerial positions are oriented to managerial competence.

Autonomy-oriented individuals seek work situations in which they will be maximally

free of organizational constraints and restrictions to pursue their professional

competence. Philippine SUCs operate as independent systems although they are directly

supervised by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED). This means that

individuals responsible in running the affairs of these institutions independently plan and

implement their programs, projects, and activities. These programs, however, can be
 13

implemented after approval by the Board of Trustees. Given this scenario, it would be

logical for the academic executives in this study to be oriented to autonomy.

Entrepreneurship creativity is the orientation of individuals who need to create something

on their own by developing a new product or service, by building a new business

enterprise through financial manipulation, or by starting and building a business of their

own (Schein, 1993). It is within the Filipino system to be entrepreneurially creative.

Many of them are entrepreneurs in their own ways. Many Filipinos would prefer to find

a second job or to set up a business of their own especially when their material

necessities are not met by their first jobs. To others, however, having a business of their

own while at the same time being gainfully employed is not only a source of wealth but

social prestige as well.

Individuals who focus on functional area represented by their work are technically

oriented in their careers. The academic executives involved in this study represented a

cross-section of professionals. They are accountants, biologists, chemists, educators,

engineers, journalists, lawyers, management consultants, management information

systems experts, nurses, scientists, and the like. As college or university professors, they

impart to the students their knowledge and skills as professionals in their chosen field of

study. Hence, it would not be surprising if the subjects were oriented to technical

competence.

These results clearly distinguish two separate security/stability factors that have been

labeled geographic security and organizational stability. Although DeLong (1982a)

recognized this difference, security/stability has primarily been referred to as a single

anchor in previous research. In this sample, a clear distinction exists. In this study,

organizational stability is defined as the willingness to accept an organizational

 14

(compared with a personally developed) career definition. Geographic security is

contingent with individuals who will move from organization to organization to insure

permanence in one geographic area.

Geographically secured employees put down roots in a particular place. These are those

people who wish to be in one particular place for the rest of their working lives

especially if the other members of their families also dwell in such a place. Filipinos are

family-centered individuals. These people are not affected by any sufferings as long as

the members of the family live together (Jocano, 1992). The family is an environment

where a Filipino can be oneself (Andres, 1981). “Home is where the Filipino is”

(Camagay, 1992:41). Filipinos could dwell anywhere provided they are with their

families or kin group.

Employees who secure ties with the organization are oriented to organizational stability.

The respondents in this study were committed to their organizations and were married to

their professions given the view that academic executives follow linear careers. That is,

they planned and prepared for their careers. Hence, the academic executives in this study

could be inferred to have chosen and decided for their careers in academic

administration. Schein (1990) pointed out that individuals’ career orientations are the

results of their conscious reasons for educational, work, and career decisions.

The second-order factor analysis tested proposition 2. This statistical technique facilitates

identification of respondent groups that cluster together based on similarities in career

orientations. Two groups of academic executives were determined. As shown in Table

2, the first group of academic executives value autonomy, geographical security,

entrepreneurial creativity, technical competence, and organizational stability. The

second group values lifestyle integration, sense of service, and managerial competence.
 15

The first group values several career anchors. Autonomy is one of the anchors that these

respondents value in their careers. This means that this group of academic executives

value freedom in managing their respective institutions. Every state college or university

in the Philippines is autonomous in terms of administration. While the respondents value

autonomy in their careers, they are also oriented to geographical security, organizational

stability, entrepreneurial creativity and technical competence. Typical Filipino academic

executives are married to their professions and would choose to remain in the place

where they have already established a status or a name as academic administrators. Just

like any other executive, they are expected and should possess the expertise, skills and

technical knowledge in managing an academic institution. In any managerial endeavor

one is expected to be creative in dealing with numerous responsibilities and challenges

including a number of dilemmas and built-in problems.

Three career anchors were determined as being valuable to the second group of academic

executives in this study. These academic executives value lifestyle integration, sense of

service, and managerial competence. This shows that these people can balance their

family and career concerns. It suggests that while they are married to their profession

their family is not neglected. It can be inferred that these academic executives are

concerned of a balanced professional and private life. As emphasized by Amante (1993),

Filipinos consider a day’s work as an eight-hour job, and the rest of their time is for

social and family life. On the other hand, being in academic administration or being with

people with teaching as their profession, it is expected that these academic executives are

oriented to serving the welfare of others. Moreover, as executives they must possess the

competence of leading and managing people.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS
 16

Results clearly support the proposition that the academic executives involved in this

study possess a wide variety of career anchors. As expected among executives, they

should be managerially and technically oriented in their careers. It was noted, however,

that these anchors are not their only focus for career decisions. They were found to

possess other anchors such as lifestyle integration, sense of service, autonomy,

entrepreneurial creativity, organizational stability, and geographic security.

Human resource planning, utilization and evaluation in the educational systems arena

must involve both organizational and individual interests to avoid unproductive career

decision making. The scarcity of job opportunities in the Philippines is one aspect to

consider in making career decisions (Arcelo & Sanyal, 1987; Putti, Shapiro & Kang,

1984). It was reported by Garcia (1986) that many Filipinos became academics because

that was the only job available at that time. Considering the career anchors of the

respondents, therefore, career management is not a simple task. They are lucky enough to

be in a position where their career needs and expectations are met. The research results

indicated, however, that managerial or technical competence is not the major anchor of

any of the respondents. Although as academic executives, they are expected to be either

managerially or technically oriented. In this case, there must be some aspects to

reconcile. As Morin (1992) asserted, individuals’ success in their careers is dependent on

the way organizations allow people to succeed in their own terms within the context of

organizational needs.

Therefore, both organizations and individuals concerned are responsible in shaping the

kind of career that they want. This responsibility, per se, is inevitable since they know

exactly what they want from their careers that will satisfy their needs and expectations.

They know the kind of career that will suit their competence. This means that
 17

individuals should identify their needs, motives, and goals, so they can work out how to

align them with the needs of the organization.

Organizations or employers, on the other hand, must find a way to inspire, motivate, and

appropriately reward employees. These organizational concerns about the careers of

employees could be realized through the cooperation of those concerned. This means

that employees must relate their career needs and motives to their organizations. Hence

for organizations to achieve an effective human resource planning and development, they

should match their needs for human resources with individuals’ needs for personal

growth and development (Morin, 1992; Schein, 1982, 1987b).

DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Future studies are required to determine the extent to which the internal career

orientations (career anchors) of Filipino academic executives found in this study matches

the external career options provided by organizations. This research constitutes an initial

step toward exploring this important area.

While the career anchors identified by this study are representative of academic

executives as an occupational group, difference among career anchors across job

functions (i.e., presidents and vice-presidents, deans, department chairpersons) may yield

perspectives enabling academic institutions to establish more effective personnel

management. The teaching and non-teaching staff in these institutions also require

analytical career perspective of this kind. Finally, replication with a larger and more

geographically dispersed sample of academics is certainly warranted. It is hoped that this

study will serve as a catalyst for such future research.

 18

REFERENCES

Adler, NJ & Ghadar, F (1990) Strategic Human Resource Management: A Global

Perspective, in Piper, R (ed) (1990) Human Resource Management: An Inter-
national Comparison, Berlin: Walter de Gruter.

Amante, MSV (1993) Tensions in Industrial Democracy and Human Resource

Management: A Case Study of Japanese Enterprises in the Philippines, Inter-
national Journal of Human Resource Management, 4(1), 129-158.

Anderson, JC (1985) A Measurement Model to Assess Measure-Specific Factors in

Multiple-Informant Research, Journal of Marketing Research, 17(1), 86-92.

Andres, TD (1981) Understanding Filipino Values: A Management Approach, Quezon

City: New Day Publishers.

Applin, MR (1982) A Study of the Careers of Management Consultants, Master’s Thesis,

Cambridge, MA: Slogan School of Management, MIT.

Arcelo, AA & Sanyal, BC (1987) Employment and Career Opportunities After

Graduation: A Study on the Transition from College to Work in the Philippines,
Manila: Fund for Assistance to Private Education.

Barth, TJ (1993) Career Anchor Theory: A Useful Framework for Federal Managers,
Review of Public Administration. 13(4) 27-42.

Burke, RJ (1983) Career Orientations of Type A Individuals, Psychological Reports, 53,

979-989.

Burke, RJ & Deszca, G (1987) Changes in Career Orientations in Police Officers; An

Exploratory Study, Psychological Reports, 61(2), 515-526.

Camagay, MLT (1992) The Sense of Being Filipino: Home Is Where the Filipino Is,
TIME International, October 12, 41.

Campbell, A (1987) High Achievers, Drake Business Review, 1(2), 18-19.

Cordero-Fernando, G (1992) Sharing: The Sense of Being Filipino, TIME International,

9.

Crepeau, RG, Crook, CW, Goslar, MD & McMurtrey, ME (1992) Career Anchors of
Information Systems Personnel, Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(2),
145-160.

DeLong, TJ (1981) Career Anchors: A New Concept in Career Development for the
Professional Educator, Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Los Angeles, California, April.

DeLong, TJ (1982a) The Career orientations of MBA Alumni: A Multidimensional

Model, in Katz, R. (Ed) (1982) Career Issues in Human Resource Management,
Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall, Inc.
 19

DeLong, TJ (1982b) Reexamining the Career Anchor Model, Personnel, 59(3), 50-61.

DeLong, TJ (1982c) Career Orientations of Rural Educators: An Investigation, The

Rural Educator, 4(2), 12-16.

DeLong, TJ (1983) Dentists and Career Satisfaction: An Empirical View, Journal of

Dentistry for Children, May-June 179-185.

Derr, CB (1986a) Five Definitions of Career Success: Implications for Relationships,

International Review of Applied Psychology, 35, 415,435.

Derr, CB (1986b) Managing the New Careerists, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Feldman, DC (1988) Managing Careers and Organizations, Glenview, ILL: Scott

Foresman.

Garcia, LG (1986) Job Satisfaction of College Instructors in Seven State Colleges in

Region III in Relation to Selected Individual Variables EdD Dissertation, Baguio
Central University Graduate School.

Hair, JF Jr., Anderson, RE & Tatham, RL (1987) Multivariate Data Analysis, New York:
Macmillan.

Igbaria, M & Baroudi, JJ (1993) A Short-Form Measure of Career Orientations: A

Psychometric Evaluation, Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(2), 131-
154.

Igbaria, M, Greenhaus, JH & Parasuraman, S (1991) Career Orientations of MIS

Employees: An Empirical Analysis, MIS Quarterly, 15(2), 151-169.

Jocano, FL (1992) The Sense of Being Filipino: A Family as Old as Racial Memory,
TIME International, 17, 7.

Kaiser, HA (1974) An Index of Factorial Simplicity, Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.

Kumar, A & Dillon, WR (1990) On the Use of Confirmatory Measurement in the

Analysis of Multiple-Informant Reports, Journal of Marketing Research, 27(1), 102-
111.

Loehlin, JC (1987) Latent Variable Models, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Morin, WJ (1990) Motivation and Rewards: Redefining Success, Executive Excellence,

August, 9-10.

Putti, JM, Shapiro, HJ & Kang, LB (1984) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Work Values in the
Asean Subsidiaries of a Japanese Company, 44th Academy of Management
Proceedings (US), Academy of Management Journal, 105-109.

Rogers, J (1987) Success: A By-Product of the Right Attitude, Drake Business Review,
1(1), 22.
 20

Schein, EH (1971) The Individual, the Organization, and the Career: A Conceptual
Scheme, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7(4), 401-426.

Schein, EH (1974) Career Anchors and Career Paths: A Panel Study of Management
School Graduates, Technical Report No.1, Cambridge, MA: MIT, Alfred Sloan
School of Management.

Schein, EH (978) Career Dynamics: Matching Individual and Organizational Needs,

Philippines: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.

Schein EH (1985) Career Anchors: Discovering Your Real Values San Diego, Ca:
University Associates.

Schein, EH (1987a) Individuals and Careers, in Lorsch, JW (ed) (1987) Handbook of

Organizational Behavior, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Schein, EH (1987b) Increasing Organizational Effectiveness through Better Human
Resource Planning and Development, in Science, EH (ed) (1987) The Art of
Managing Human Resources, New York: Oxford University Press.

Schein, EH (1988) How “Career Anchors” Hold Executives to Their Career Paths, in
Katz, R. (Ed) (1988) Managing Professional in Innovative Organizations: A
Collection of Readings, Cambridge, MA: Harper and Row Publishers, Inc.

Schein, EH (1990) Career Anchors: Trainer’s Manual revised edition, Cambridge, MA;
Alfred P. Sloan School of Management, MIT.

Schein, EH (1993) Career Anchors: Discovering Your Real Values, revised edition,
Sydney: Pfeiffer and Company.

Slabbert, L (1987) An Evaluation of Management Training and the Career Anchors of a

Group of MBA/MBL Graduates, Pretoria, South Africa: Human Sciences Research
Council.

Smith, CR (1992) Dual Careers, Dual Loyalties: Management Implications of Work

Home Interface, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 30(4), 19-29.

Steers, RM (1991) Introduction to Organizational Behavior, 4th edition, Oregon, USA:

Harper Collins Publishers.

Welch, D (1994a) Determinants of Inter-national Human Resource Management

Approaches and Activities: A Suggested Framework, Journal of General
Management, 19(14), 52-68.

Wood, L, Winston, RB, Jr. & Polkosnik, MC (1985) Career Orientations and
Professional Development of Young Student Affairs Professional, Journal of
College Student Personnel, 26 (6), 533-538.

Zedeck, S (1992) Introduction: Exploring the Domains of Work and Family Concerns,
in Zedeck, S (ed)(1992) Work, Families, and Organizations, San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
 21

Zerdavis, AZ (1982) The Career Orientations of Pima Community College Faculty,

Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Brigham Young University.

Appendix A
The 41 COI Items Organized by Career Anchors
(Response Scale, Completely True to Not at All True, Omitted)

Importance of:

Managerial Competence
1. The process of supervising, influencing, leading and controlling people at all levels.*
2. To be in a position of leadership and influence.*
3. To rise to a position of leadership and influence
4. I would like to reach a level of responsibility in an organization where my decisions
really make a difference.
5. I want to achieve a position which gives me the opportunity to combine analytical
competence with supervision of people.

Technical and Functional Competence

1. To build my career around some specific functional or technical area.
2. Remaining in my specialized area as opposed to being promoted out of my area of
expertise.
3. Remaining in my area of expertise rather than being promoted into general
management.
4. I will accept a management position only if it is in my area of expertise.
5. I would leave my organization rather than be promoted out of my area of expertise.*

Autonomy
1. The chance to pursue my own lifestyle and not be constrained by the rule of an
organization.
2. A career which is free from organization restrictions.
3. A career which permits a maximum of freedom and autonomy to choose my own
work hours.*
4. During my career I have been mainly concerned with my own sense of freedom and
autonomy.
5. I do not want to be constrained by either an organization or the business world.

Organizational Stability
1. An organization which will provide security through guaranteed work, benefits, and
good retirement program.
 22

2. An organization which will give me long run stability.

3. I prefer to work for an organization which provides lifetime employment.

Geographic Security
1. Remaining in one geographic area rather than being prompted into moving because
of a promotion.
2. It is important for me to remain in my present geographical location rather than to
move because of promotion or new job assignment.
3. I prefer to work for an organization that will permit me to remain in one
geographical area.

Sense of Service
1. The use of my interpersonal and helping skills in the service of others.
2. The process of seeing others change because of my effort.*
3. Being able to use my skills and talents in the service of an important cause.
4. I have always sought a career in which I could be of service to others.
5. I want a career in which I can be committed and devoted to an important cause.

Lifestyle Integration
1. Developing a life cycle that balances my career and family needs.
2. Developing a career that permits me to continue to pursue my own lifestyle.
3. I have always tried to give equal weight to my family and to my career.
4. A career is worthwhile only if it enables me to lead my life in my own way.
5. Choosing and maintaining a certain lifestyle is more important than is career
success.

Entrepreneurial Creativity
1. To be able to create or build something that is entirely my own product or idea.
2. The use of my skills in building a new business enterprise.
3. I have been motivated throughout my career by the number of ideas or products
which I have been directly involved in creating.
4. Entrepreneurial activities are an important part of my career.
5. I have always wanted to start and build up a business of my own.

Pure Challenge
1. Working on problems that are almost insoluble.*
2. Competing with and winning out over others.*
3. The real challenge in my career has been confronting and solving tough problems,
no matter what area they were in.*
4. Competing and winning are the most important exciting parts of my career.*
5. I feel successful only if I am constantly challenged by a tough problems or a
competitive situation.*

_____________
*Item did not meet 0.50 minimum factor loading.
23
24
25