Giving voice to the dual-career couple

10 downloads 20289 Views 137KB Size Report
increasing number of dual-career couples in society. Each couple faces multiple concerns, including two individual careers, a shared relationship and the ...
British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol. 32, No. 1, February 2004

Giving voice to the dual-career couple POLLY PARKER University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]

MICHAEL B. ARTHUR Suffolk University, 8 Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Changes in the nature of careers, and also of families, mean new challenges for the increasing number of dual-career couples in society. Each couple faces multiple concerns, including two individual careers, a shared relationship and the interdependence among all of these elements. This paper contributes to the counselling literature by reporting two case studies in which a new methodological approach was adopted, intended to make a couple’s concerns explicit and provide a platform for further action. Using the holistic model of the intelligent career, a facilitated process was used to elicit first subjective, then inter-subjective career data, enabling the partners to make sense of their individual careers within a context of their shared relationship. The preliminary results suggest the methodology may provide a novel and useful way to give ‘voice’ to */and in turn facilitate action by */the dual-career couple. ABSTRACT

Careers link the individual and society. As society changes, so do those links, affected by factors such as globalisation and technological progress. Other critical factors include the changing composition of the workforce, especially the growing numbers of women, and the increasing variety of non-traditional family structures in society. These factors particularly contribute to an increase in dual-career couples, defined as two people who have a shared relationship, cohabit and each have a career (Arnold, 1997). Currently, 60% of UK households comprise dual-career couples (Arnold, 1997), and 40% of all US workers are involved in dual-career partnerships (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000). As the number of dual-career partnerships have grown, the nature of careers has been changing. Among recent models are Handy’s (1990) portfolio career, Arthur et al.’s (1995) intelligent career and Hall’s (2002) re-presentation of the protean career. In each of these models, the self occupies the central position. Career is an avenue for self-fulfilment, as well as a vehicle for economic gain. Learning is fundamental, selfISSN 0306-9885/print/ISSN 1469-3534/online/04/010003-21 # 2004 Careers Research and Advisory Centre DOI: 10.1080/03069880310001648102

4 Polly Parker & Michael B. Arthur management is critical and success is measured against the person’s own subjective criteria. However, critics have questioned the ability of many people to cope with the demands of such journeys toward self-fulfilment (e.g. Hirsch & Shanley, 1996; Mallon & Duberley, 2000). The demands are exacerbated in a dual-career household. The career experiences and choices of each partner affect the other. Couples must also deal with challenges relating to changing family structures, loss of community and traditional values, and changing expectations of women (Jacobs & Gerson, 2001). The inherent individualism attributed to the central position of self in new career forms must also account for ‘the interlocking career paths of couples’ (Moen & Sweet, 2002, p. 466). How, though, can career counselling help a couple explore their interlocking paths? This paper responds to the above question by examining a methodology to help the couple explore their interdependent careers. The methodology is congruent with narrative methods and techniques that promote self-reliance and that serve to ‘translate the ‘‘new career’’ into guidance practice’ (Mignot, 2000, p. 515). This involves eliciting the inner ‘voice’ of the person in bringing subjective, and frequently subconscious, thoughts and feelings into the open. However, the methodology goes further in seeking out the ‘voice’ not just of each partner, but of the dual-career couple, a voice that is rarely heard in marital or family counselling literature (Magnuson & Norem, 1999).

Literature review The dual-career couple The term ‘dual-career family’ was first introduced in the late 1960s (Rapoport & Rapoport, 1969). It was designated to a ‘type of family structure in which both heads of household* the husband and the wife* pursue active careers and family lives’ (Rapoport & Rapoport, 1976, p. 9). Hall and Hall (1978) broadened the concept to describe ‘a couple either married or living together who are both employed’. What was once seen as an exception has now become the rule. Balancing the demands of paid work and home responsibilities has become a principal daily task for many employed adults (Fallon, 1997). Balancing these demands can be even more complicated when two people in one household are participating. Traditional views of the career see it as a single journey pursued by a centrally positioned self* reminiscent of Hughes’ (1958) ‘moving picture’. The career provides an important context for self-development, identity, and meaning, leading us to ‘places to nurture our passions, places where we can become more’ (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1996, p. 63). In dual careers, the participants’ self-development is pursued by two people at once, while at the same time nurturing their relationships and their commitments to the home, and to any children or other dependents. Two ideally independent journeys must remain connected with one another, and contribute to the success of the other, as career travels unfold. The uncertain world /

/

/

The dual-career couple

5

of employment adds more complexity to the couple’s shared task, even as it provides more flexibility to pursue that task. The myth of separation between work and family was exposed when so many married women entered the workforce (Kanter, 1977). Yet frequently the ‘problem’ with dual-career couples was framed as a woman’s problem of balancing work and family (Spain & Bianchi, 1996). However, recent models of familial identity, role identity, familial interactions and familial development are all divergent from the models presented in traditional family arrangements (Robinson & Daisy, 1997). Dual-career couples need to cope with the relative significance of each person’s career, the meaning of family and career balance for each person, and defining their dual-career relationship (Major et al., 2000). Values, attitudes, feelings and meanings are as important to the division of domestic labour as time and other relative resources that each party brings to the relationship combined (McQuillan, 1999). Moreover, stressors have been found to affect couples differently. For some, avoiding job insecurity is paramount, while for others autonomy, time pressures, hours worked or work/family conflict matter more (Burke 1998; Mauno & Kinnunen, 1999; Parasuraman et al., 1992). Whatever the stressor, there is a prospect for spillover into the family arena and the partner’s satisfaction with that arena (Hammer et al., 1997; Staines, 1980). One suggestion has been to re-conceptualise the two-career family as a ‘three-career family’. The third career, that of family life, may require both men and women to own both the instrumental and relational domains of work and family (Levner, 2000).

The subjective career The concept of career has long been recognised as having a subjective as well as an objective dimension (Barley, 1989; Goffman, 1961). The objective dimension involves external views of the career, such as the status of a person’s occupation or position or observed pace of career progression. In contrast, the subjective dimension stems from the internal interpretation of personal work-related experiences. This is a private meaning of unfolding work experiences as interpreted through the individualcareer actor (Cochran, 1997). It involves the internally perceived place of work in a whole-life context, and the sense individuals make of events unfolding over time. The subjective career operates substantially at a subconscious level, linked to people’s perceptions, feelings, and unfolding identities (Derr & Laurent, 1989). The personal focus of the subjective career facilitates shifting boundaries between public and private spheres (Fletcher & Bailyn, 1996), and across successive employing organisations (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996). The subjective career also emerges from personal stories, and from the unique way that individuals interpret those stories (Savickas, 1997). The subjective career leads beyond restricted perceptions of gender (Marshall, 1989) toward a more personalised appreciation of the careers of both men and women (Gottman, 1999). The subjective careers of people who appear to have similar roles or titles may be markedly different. However, subjective careers do not exist in a vacuum of

6 Polly Parker & Michael B. Arthur self-discovery as they shape, and are in turn shaped by, larger social arrangements (Weick, 1996). Subjective careers are interdependent with the relationships in which people are embedded. These ‘tendrils of connection’ (Helgesen, 1995, p. 13) span both work and family domains. One prominent relationship for many people is their chosen partner, who ideally serves as a source of both career support and personal learning.

The inter-subjective couple Inter-subjectivity ‘involves shared experiences among people’ (Jary & Jary, 1991, p. 327) in which shared meanings are derived from a social process in which people participate cognitively, emotionally, socially and physically. This view of intersubjectivity accommodates the dual-career couple as the social participants, and the shared meanings as those derived from their investments in their relationship with one another. It also accommodates the basic position that careers for dual-career partners ‘are not only forged from individual need* or through individual choice’ (Eaton & Bailyn, 2000, p. 189) but also involve something communal, in the sense that the couple draws on resources outside the self-contained individual (Williams, 1996). However, the inter-subjective realm of the dual-career couple is not necessarily harmonious. Rather, the interplay between family life and other domains or the partners’ careers is likely to present a major source of conflict (Campbell Clark, 2000). The way a couple interact with each other gives rise to meanings that become their inter-subjective reality. The process is complex, and develops shared meaning through the use of language (Knudson-Martin & Mahoney, 1996) at the same time as inter-subjective reality surpasses the limits of language (Hanna, 1996). Each party’s subjective data are important to the relationship, and a critical prerequisite to uncovering inter-subjective realities. Benjamin (1998, p. xii) provides an apt metaphor when she suggests that we try to understand ‘the shadow cast by the other in the space in between’. It is the shadows cast by each other’s career that give rise to a need for shared understanding, that is for ‘consensual norms which define what is real and valid’ (Candy, 1989, p. 4) in the couple’s situation. However, consensual norms are likely to change. There are other forces acting on each of the partners’ careers (Campbell Clark, 2000). Not least are forces from the employment situations of each partner. Other forces, for example, from occupational peers, valued role models and further sources of social support may also engage with each partner’s career aspirations. A couple can be thought of as a self-organising system enacted by its participants (Weick, 1996) in which ‘alteration of any part may produce changes in any other part’ (Rogers, 1951, p. 487). The dualcareer couple must deal with not only the ‘moving picture’ (Hughes, 1958) of one another’s careers but also with the dynamic interaction of those careers within and upon the relationship. /

The dual-career couple

7

The intelligent career framework The complexity of the dual-career situation calls for an integrated holistic framework to accommodate ‘the reciprocity of experiences and the interrelatedness of the linkages across the domains [of work and family]’ (Robinson & Daisy, 1997). One such framework is the intelligent career framework (Arthur et al., 1995) that incorporates the separate motivations, learning agendas and supporting relationships that a person brings to his or her career situation, according to three interdependent dimensions or ‘ways of knowing’, as follows: . Knowing-why involves themes of individual motivation, the construction of personal meaning and identification. As such, it incorporates career counsellors’ traditional concern with the individuality of their clients with regard to such constructs as personality, aptitudes, values and interests. Knowing-why further incorporates attitudes to family, community and other non-work aspects of life that affect career choice, adaptability and commitment. . Knowing-how reflects an individual’s repertoire of career relevant skills and expertise. These may include both formal qualifications and training as well as informal and tacit knowledge that emerges from work experience. People may have, or may wish to develop, a broader set of knowing-how skills than their present job demands, and therefore may seek to expand or change their work arrangements, to enhance career opportunities and employability. . Knowing-whom includes a person’s work relationships spanning the set of supplier, customer, industry and internal company connections that can support a person’s unfolding career. Knowing-whom also incorporates personal relationships and broader contacts with family, friends, alumni and professional and social acquaintances. Any of the above can enhance careers by providing support, transmitting reputation or affording access to information. The theory offers a distinctive way of seeing the interplay between aspects of a person’s career situation. Someone’s knowing-why motivation to work in a particular occupation or industry will influence the development of knowing-how skills and knowledge pertinent to that field. Practising knowing-how skills will bring about knowing-whom relationships that will influence career performance. These relationships will also reinforce or confront the knowing-why identity associated with working in the person’s adopted field. For the dual-career couple, a particular aspect of this interplay involves each partner’s knowing-whom influence on the other, and the effect of that influence over the other two ways of knowing.

Methodology Traditional quantitative approaches to the study of dual-career couples may miss much of the rich data that can be uncovered through more qualitative methods (Goff, 1996). Moreover, qualitative methods appear better suited to understanding the increasing number of couples recently appearing in therapy (Gilbert & Bingham,

8 Polly Parker & Michael B. Arthur 2001; Levner, 2000; Morgan & Foster, 1999). In this study we adopted a combined quantitative and qualitative approach. The intention was to provide a focus on the key issues that a couple faced but to leave further interpretation of those issues to the partners themselves. This further interpretation was sought in order to capture the uniqueness and complexity of what life meant to the participants, and how that was reflected in their values, priorities and personal needs (Savickas, 1997). A methodology was adopted that allowed us to identify and explore the intersubjective aspects of the dual-career couple using the intelligent career framework. The methodology was adapted from one previously developed by Parker (2000) to explore overlapping career investments in a larger communal setting. The underlying approach involves having individuals complete a card sort, the intelligent career card sort (ICCS) (Parker, 2000). The card sort consists of three sets of coloured cards each responding to the three intelligent career ‘ways if knowing’, namely, (blue) knowing-why, (yellow) knowing-how and (green) knowing-whom sets. For each of the three ways of knowing, individuals are asked to select and then rank seven cards from approximately 40. The approach involves the production of both individual and group (in this case, couple) reports. The couple report is a joint one, reflecting what emerge as the seven most important items for each way of knowing (as shown later in Tables 1 and 2). A weighting system based on the properties of a 40-item normal curve distribution converts individual rankings within each way of knowing into a set of overall rankings for the couple. The weights are 10, 8, 6.5 and 5 for the first, second, third to fourth and fifth to seventh items, respectively. A group report (in this case a couple report) provides the average weight and frequency of the seven highest weighted items. In the case of ties, additional items are added. The report covers all items selected by both partners and, as space permits, the highest weighted items selected by any one partner (Parker & Arthur, 2002). Couples are then guided through a process to elicit inter-subjective career data (Parker, 2002; Parker & Arthur, 2000). The first author took on the roles of both counsellor and action researcher (Stringer, 1996). The counsellor’s role involved ensuring that time was available for each partner to both listen and talk, in order to promote awareness not only of each individual career story but also of the couple’s inter-subjective relationship. It also involved establishing a collaborative process at the outset to maximise the psychological safety of each person. This in turn was intended to build the kind of trust among all three parties that was conducive to the elicitation of inter-subjective data. The interviews would take place over several sessions: one introductory session where the ICCS was completed, three more sessions for processing each of the three ways of knowing and a further session to highlight interdependencies among the three ways of knowing. Participants would also be asked to do homework, such as writing journals and drawing visual representations of their knowing-whom contacts. In initial meetings couples would be introduced to the metaphor of a bridge, where their relationship was represented by the span of the bridge, which was in turn supported by two sides, representing each partner. Thus, the overall strength of the bridge would be suggested to be dependent on each side as well on the relationship in between. The bridge imagery was seen as congruent with Levener’s (2000) ‘third

The dual-career couple

9

career’ in acknowledging a major challenge over and above the separate careers of each partner.

Results: two case studies The results below report the application of the above methodology to two dual-career couples. Both couples requested the process for their personal benefit, and both couples agreed to have their data disguised and used for research purposes. The names of people and companies, and other details that might render the couples identifiable, have been changed in response to that agreement. The paragraphs below report the first author’s experiences with each couple. Because of space constraints, the reports only provide highlights from each case study, although the intention throughout is to retain the integrity of the underlying conversations.

Case study no. 1: Jenny and Darren Jenny and Darren were a professional couple both in fulltime employment. Darren (36) was an engineer working as a team leader in a technical support function, and Jenny (33) was CEO of a charitable organisation providing business mentors to approximately 5000 small businesses annually. They had two children, age 4 and 2. Both considered that Jenny’s career was more dominant and more successful. She earned more money, and she placed more emphasis on career than Darren, who although well qualified didn’t have a clear vision of his career path. Both recognised that Darren was the children’s chief care-giver. Jenny observed: ‘I automatically assume that Darren will be there to look after the kids’. Darren in reply said he would ‘kick up a fuss’ if that were a problem for him. Jenny was also explicit about the fact that she ‘did not want Darren’s career to disintegrate’. Also, Darren did not want to give up work: ‘I don’t relish the feeling of not working. I get a lot of my self-worth from that. I like to go and be with other people and if I’m not paid then I don’t feel like I’m working’.

Knowing-why Jenny’s and Darren’s knowing-why session began with a discussion about an item that both had selected: I like to have a choice about the kind of work I do (#3 Jenny, #6 Darren). Jenny felt lucky to be able to exercise choice knowing that it was really important to her to have flexibility: ‘I just decide what my next priorities are* I follow my gut feel, I like cutting edge stuff, I enjoy flexibility, being my own boss’. She also humbly acknowledged that it was only possible because of Darren’s attitude: ‘In my life there is room for me, work and family, but I realise that for Darren there is room for work and family* none for himself. I do feel like I take, take, take’. Darren considered that he didn’t have a lot of choice at work. Rather, his role was ‘driven by urgency associated with others’ priorities* the squeaky wheel’. /

/

/

10 Polly Parker & Michael B. Arthur However, he did exercise choice that was critical to his current position in relation to work and family: ‘I decided not to compromise our family situation by working long hours. I fit everything around family’. He described how he chose to not work late and felt pressured to ‘fit everything into a short (8 9 hour) day. I will go in at the weekend instead’. The other item that both selected was I want to work in an industry that matters (#5 Jenny, #3 Darren). Here, common ground emerged on wanting to ‘do something that would add value for others’. Darren emphasised the reinforcement he personally felt from ‘working in an industry that society thought valuable’. He said he ‘wouldn’t be a hairdresser’ to which Jenny readily agreed and added that she ‘couldn’t work [in the] cigarette industry’. Her perspective on mattering, related to respect in the community which ‘opens doors for me’. Darren attributed their shared belief to ‘our families’ who ‘believe you get out of life what you put in’. They both agreed that lifestyle was important to them. Jenny admitted that she was happy because Darren ‘gives me the freedom to do whatever I like’ but that for Darren to also have that meant ‘something has to fundamentally change’. Darren’s lifestyle was about family and ‘having children was the most important decision to make’. After that he knew that he would ‘do whatever it took’. Jenny described this comment as ‘a revelation’ which led to a deeper level of discussion between them. She realised that ‘I’m helping others and Darren is doing that for our family* I had never thought of it like that’, a comment he reinforced by saying, ‘I make the world a better place by helping us’. The conversation led nicely onto the next item on the joint report, which was Darren’s primary choice: I want to provide for my family. Darren considered that the item represented a ‘big picture view of what makes for a better society’. For him, family was critical and he suggested replacing want with need to ‘create an environment that allows children to develop their full potential, whatever that may be’. Jenny suddenly appreciated the pressure Darren was under in trying to give priority to the family at the same time as maintaining his career. She observed that ‘It’s one thing for my job to take me away but I’m paid a lot compared with Darren. He doesn’t really feel valued at work’. Jenny’s primary selection was discussed as item #4: I like the feeling of sheer excitement in my work. She even spoke excitedly as she explained: ‘I’m glad I’m not at home being a mother because I love my work. I seek roles that bring me excitement. I love the variety and balancing chaos’. While this was not news to Darren, it highlighted differences in their personal style that elaborated on, describing her as ‘more of an instigator (whereas) I’m an implementer’. He wryly added that ‘our friends joke about it’. The discussion led on to a question about Jenny’s learning capability where she confessed to being ‘very confident but I also have quite a bit of self-doubt’. The knowing-why session brought about reflections focused on what ‘a good deal [Jenny was] on’ and that she needed ‘to appreciate Darren more’. She had thought of him as ‘not giving’ and ‘here he is doing it under my nose’. Darren wanted a balance ‘similar to Jenny’s’ but he also realised that his work situation had become untenable. He was exposed to an unacceptable level of risk and said that he’d been /

/

The dual-career couple 11 ‘trying to figure out what it is I want out of life and this has crystallised it for me’. This process also ‘helped me understand where Jenny is coming from’.

Knowing-how The discussion began with the one item both had selected: I am developing generalised rather than specialised knowledge (Darren #6, Jenny #1). Darren spoke of broadening his learning from his specific knowledge base to a broader one that would provide more career mobility. His homework assignment in preparation for this session was to prepare possible career options, and he described how helpful this had been. He appreciated just how much institutional knowledge he had which gave him confidence to develop his options, beginning with maintaining the status quo, in depth. Other options were: working for someone else, working as an independent contractor and working for local government. Each option included a thorough analysis including the risks, strengths, resources, satisfaction, implications for future learning, and financial consequences. Darren added the best outcome was that in the interval between sessions he had found another job. It had all happened quickly which he found flattering, and he had already accepted the position. He was finding it tough to adjust to his new situation and realised that his skill fit was not 100%. However, he felt more positive in his approach when he spoke to his own most significant item I seek to improve my range of business skills and was able to identify specific skills he required. In addition when discussing his third item, I am trying to market myself and my skills more effectively, he saw that a theme of learning and personal/professional development was emerging. Jenny’s input to the discussion indicated that she had an increased awareness of what was important to her. She reflected on her ‘really good job’ and how it was clear that ‘Darren has a family focus’ while her focus was on her career. However, she seemed challenged when asked specifically how she was developing more generalised knowledge. She saw leadership as a future possibility including options such as team building and leadership courses. When the subsequent discussion led to ways that her interpersonal skills affected her leadership, she became uncomfortable. In her own words, Jenny ‘would try hard to not rush around like a bull at a gate’. However, she could not articulate ‘what I really want’.

Knowing-whom The knowing-whom discussion was linked to relationship charts that both had prepared for homework. Jenny and Darren had identified specific people to illustrate each of their selected items. They represented them visually on one chart (each) to symbolise the relationships that provided career support, access to information and transmission of reputation. They devised their own coding system to represent criteria such as reciprocity (of support), closeness and learning. The one item selected by both, I give support to people that I can help, was used to open the discussion. Jenny raised the issue of friends. ‘I have many good friends

Rank Knowing-why 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Knowing-how 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Knowing-whom 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

His

Hers

6. 3. 1.

3. 5. 1. 2.

2. 4.

6. 1.

1. 2.

2. 3. 4. 4.

1. 4. 6.

2. 3.

5. 4. 3. 1. 2.

Description

Weight

Freq.

I I I I I I I

like having a choice about the kind of work that I do want to work in an industry that matters want to provide for my family like the feeling of sheer excitement in my work want employment to support my lifestyle like to gain a sense of achievement from my work like working for a company with an excellent reputation

5.75 5.75 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 3.25

100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

I I I I I I I

am developing generalised rather than specific knowledge seek to improve my range of business skills am trying to market myself and my skills more effectively seek to become better at problem assessment seek to learn from the projects in which I participate seek training and development for a future job seek to integrate information from different sources

7.50 5.00 4.00 4.00 3.25 3.25 3.25

100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

I I I I I I I

give support to people that I can help maintain or develop relationships to access new information maintain or develop relationships with people outside my workplace build relationships with people who have a broad knowledge of my field develop relationships as a go-between among others build relationships with people who can help me to solve my problems work with people from whom I can learn

7.50 6.50 5.75 5.00 4.00 4.00 3.25

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

12 Polly Parker & Michael B. Arthur

TABLE 1. Couple report */Jenny and Darren

The dual-career couple 13 whose company I really enjoy, but I’m not so interested in family. I have a great number of contacts* great from a business perspective but I don’t have enough time for the relationships I do have.’ When Darren suggested that she ‘goes a bit hot and cold on people’, she replied, ‘I think that’s a bit harsh’. Darren identified two close friends and said he ‘had had them for years. My long-term friends are there but I meet new people who stimulate me in different ways and so I add them too. It’s actually quite exhausting and feels like a pressure’. He realised that: /

‘I’m not very close to many people and I don’t make much of an effort to be. It is usually on a trading basis* I don’t give any more or less than I have to . . . I have a few friends* John* he needs a buddy to keep him company and I’m his buddy. He has an abrasive personality. He works hard at maintaining the relationship. Even my family* I love them all but I’m not very close to any of them. I find it hard to be with them for long periods of time* there’s not a lot to talk about.’ /

/

/

/

/

He spoke in a similar vein about a lack of closeness to his former workmates, and concluded ‘I find it really difficult to develop close relationships with people. I would like to have more friends but I don’t seem to meet people who would be’. In reflecting on their knowing-whom discussion, Jenny realised that she had ‘a lot of good friends and I spend most of my time giving out energy* at work, at home and with my friends. I have a need that is being met by my friends* they are like me so they understand me’. Darren mused how ‘these conversations are always useful. I feel I’m missing out a bit on living my life* there is more focus on Jenny* she is selffocused’. They both recognised how different they were from each other. This led Jenny to suggest that caused them to ‘operate on separate levels’ and Darren to reiterate his concerns about their future together. ‘We put a lot of effort into the children but we don’t do the same for each other. I need to work a bit harder at meeting people and maintaining existing relationships. Time* well I have none for myself* all with the children or related issues.’ In sum, their relationship was the burning issue. They returned to the issue and had a brief discussion about their need (or lack of it) for one another. Both agreed that more effort was required and that professional help would be sought. /

/

/

/

/

/

Case study no. 2: Kate and David Kate and David were a professional couple planning to go into business together. David (56) accepted a layoff package from a large corporation after a long career in engineering, management and international business. He was looking to reposition himself as an independent contractor. Kate (52) was also out of work having resigned from her previous position as a company trainer two years earlier. She was seeking to establish herself in business with David and not really sure of how to proceed or how

14 Polly Parker & Michael B. Arthur to position herself to do that in a way that maximised her potential, and that would be valuable to both of them. They had recently married after raising children with other partners. Therefore, as well as both being in unfamiliar career situations, both had the freedom from family responsibilities that previously constrained them. A prominent reference point for Kate was a trip she had recently taken to Italy some months after marrying David. She had wanted to ‘accept the challenges of travelling and being alone, as well as to study a new language’ and to ‘prove something about myself’ by doing so.

Knowing-why Discussion of Kate and David’s knowing-why selections began with the item I want to be challenged in my work (David #1, Kate #5), which revealed different priorities for each of them. David got ‘satisfaction from being mentally and intellectually stimulated’ from new challenges, and especially those with no ‘reference standards’ or ‘map to follow’ where he had to be ‘fast on my feet and quick intellectually’. He gave as an example the ‘China project’, a major initiative he was involved in with his former corporation, where he was ‘pitting my skills against top intellectual challenges and getting a buzz from that’. The project had also involved being ‘embedded in their culture’ and growing from that as well. There was challenge in his new situation since ‘it’s the first time I’ve had a break from the work environment since I left university’. Kate offered that she needed ‘the challenge to grow’ and that growth was ‘not necessarily enjoyable’ but provided stimulation or met some inner need. She noted that when she got up to speak at ‘Wims’ (a pseudonym for a women’s support group she belonged to) she was ‘really nervous’, adding how risk-taking even in a support group represented a challenge. The discussion then turned to lifestyle issues based on the shared selection I want employment to support my lifestyle (Kate #1, David #7), where Kate reflected that ‘after two years of not working my funds have dwindled and it is now an issue for me’. She asked David what expectations he had for their lifestyle and they agreed that as their lifestyle had changed the support they received from one another also needed to change. Kate still enjoyed playing golf, going to yoga and learning Italian. She had the time to indulge in those activities and she enjoyed them. ‘I feel ambivalent about what I’m going to do and just what will spin my wheels.’ David noted that ‘most of my family responsibilities have gone and I am enjoying being able to do whatever I want. This position has built up over three decades. Flexibility and choice as to what I do (are) important’. The other item both had selected was: I want to gain a sense of achievement in my work (David #2, Kate #3). Kate said that ‘achievement helps me gain confidence* it is always around my skill base. I think I am generally confident within myself, but around others? Well it goes back to school and I consider myself more of a nonachiever compared with the others in my family’. David described himself as ‘very achievement oriented* I set goals, MBO, I have pushed against targets since I was at /

/

The dual-career couple 15 university’. He had ‘been involved with two big start-up companies and established a world first in electrically smelting basalt rock* commissioning plants’. The remaining time in the session was spent with each partner speaking to their selections. For Kate flexibility ‘could include my family, yoga, friends* it is a luxury to have the time to connect * it is doing my work* it is a gift I do have. I’ve done it before and I like it’. David’s focus was more performance oriented. He spoke ardently of the synergy that enables leveraging of the ideas of others within the team’, and provided clear examples from his work in China where his ‘focus was on keeping other people focused and developing strong relationships within the team and also bridging across other cultures’. Then he turned to address the ‘new team’ of himself and Kate as a professional partnership ‘there are implications of working together and these are spread into the areas that you are best able to contribute* e.g. your networking skills. Therefore you need confidence in the other person to rely on them, [and to] delegate when appropriate’. /

/

/

/

/

Knowing-how Preliminary discussions were concerned with the transition from knowing-why to knowing-how. Kate observed that ‘learning competency . . . had reared its ugly head’. Her disquiet was paralleled by David’s uneasiness: ‘I’m out of my comfort zone at present* I may have many irons in the fire but (switching metaphors) I like to have lighthouses structured along the way. I’ve been thinking more deeply* that’s what you (the counsellor) said was ideal* how we have been through stresses but what is ideal is something you’d like to get to’. Kate concurred that ‘I don’t think I can go back to what I was* I don’t even want to’. Kate’s further reflections highlighted a lack of confidence in her potential: ‘it’s vague but that may cover scary as well* I will be tested and the question is* Will I come up to scratch? Will I be able to do this? The answer comes back YES but is it true? I’m afraid because I’ve always been behind someone else’. David quickly identified the ‘root cause of (Kate’s) uncertainty is still her inability to grasp what she is good at and what others think she is good at. It is a real inner confidence and belief thing’. He sounded frustrated as he explained that he’d ‘listened to her concerns about this and I think it’s taking the first step that’s hardest’. He suggested that she ‘may find that it’s not so bad’. However, Kate held her line: ‘You’re still coming from a different base from mine’. They turned to discuss their single shared item, I seek to improve my range of business skills (Kate #2, David #6). David explained that as a priority it was ‘not as high for me as I have a broader base of business skills than Kate’. The session proceeded with each partner speaking to the other cards that were on the joint report. For Kate ‘becoming a better coach’ reflected that she ‘didn’t have a huge amount of experience yet’. David said that was ‘bullshit’, whereupon Jane qualified the point to emphasise professional experience. In her perception an earlier migraine attack had resulted from an uncomfortable experience at Wims. Her trip to Italy was ‘a fantastic experience’ but then she ‘couldn’t bring it home and savour it’. Homework was set /

/

/

/

/

/

Rank Knowing-why 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Knowing-how 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Knowing-whom 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

His

Hers

1. 7. 2.

5. 1. 3. 2.

3. 4. 4.

6. 1.

2. 1.

2. 3. 3. 4.

4. 3.

4. 3. 1.

1. 2. 2. 5.

Description

Weight

Freq.

I I I I I I I

want to be challenged in my work want employment to support my lifestyle like to gain a sense of achievement from my work want flexibility to organise my daily schedule enjoy being a member of a high performing team enjoy helping other people like being involved with new business opportunities

7.50 7.50 7.25 4.00 3.25 3.25 3.25

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

I I I I I I I

seek to improve my range of business skills learn through being open to fresh ideas seek to become a better coach seek to become a more strategic thinker seek to learn from the projects in which I participate seek to become a better leader seek to learn from the people I work with

6.50 5.00 5.00 4.00 3.25 3.25 3.25

100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

I I I I I I I

maintain or develop relationships with people outside my workplace look for support from people who are interested in my career develop relationships as a go-between among others look for support from people who can help me maintain or develop relationships to access new information build relationships with people who have a broad knowledge of my field develop relationships with people who can give me feedback

6.50 6.50 5.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 2.50

100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0%

16 Polly Parker & Michael B. Arthur

TABLE 2. Couple report */Kate and David

The dual-career couple 17 for Kate to write in her journal about the Wims experience, her role in it and taking responsibility for that. They both agreed that this would be processed with her individually. On the prospect of going into business together Kate saw possibilities in that she had ‘learned what the things are that we cross-pollinate. We need to refresh ourselves on that* I feel that David is on my tail about it quite a lot and it makes me go into myself* withdraw’. David acknowledged that he was indeed on Kate’s tail since he wanted ‘to see us making progress’, although speed wasn’t that important to him. They both recognised however that they had made progress by reflecting on their complementary skills and coming up with a model for their joint business. Kate would be the ‘mobile relationship builder’ and David would bring his analytical skills and direct business experience. Kate felt encouraged by the progress but noted that David was ‘way down the track’ compared to her. /

/

Knowing-whom There were two overlapping items, I look for support from people who are interested in my career (David #3, Kate #3), and I maintain or develop relationships with people outside my workplace (David #4, Kate #4), which triggered the following exchanges. Kate noted that ‘This whole group (of knowing-whom cards) was really easy for me* it is what I do!’ while David ‘found it harder than either (of) the yellow (knowing-how) or the blue (knowing-why) cards’ and ‘certainly found it harder than Kate did’. Her selections also gave Kate a further opportunity to reflect on her experience with the Wims group, and that ‘the reason (they) don’t necessarily support me is because they don’t know what they’re supporting. What I see from both of our pictures is that we don’t ask for support* in my head it is a big ask to get you (the counsellor) to help me do this* I’m not very good at asking for help’. The session concluded with a prolonged discussion on how they might work together, which reconnected with earlier conversations about Kate’s self-confidence and David’s depth of experience. /

/

/

Further action The counselling process and each couple’s reflections on it gave rise to a range of action items, some principal ones of which are summarised in Tables 3 and 4. As with the preceding reports, these items are categorised according to each of the three ways of knowing. However, the couples’ understanding of their action items transcended these distinctions, as they saw how, for example, a refined sense of (knowing-why) purpose for the couple could lend support for each partner’s further (knowing-how) skill investments. They further saw how they could better appreciate and work through their overlapping (knowing-whom) relationships, and including their relationship with each other. For both couples, however, greater understanding threatened to lead to greater expectations. Darren’s gallant attempts to be the principal care-giver for his and

18 Polly Parker & Michael B. Arthur TABLE 3. Action plans for Jenny and Darren Knowing-why “/ Appreciating the core values that they share “/ Appreciating what each brings to the relationship and the family “/ Valuing the choice and flexibility that Jenny has “/ Valuing the support that Darren provides “/ Clarifying and sharing future goals Knowing-how “/ Working on each person’s range of business skills “/ Sharing progress with and supporting one another “/ Developing additional capability alongside some stability in work roles “/ Reflecting together regularly on their progress Knowing-whom “/ Making time to spend quality time together “/ Balancing the different needs each has for other relationships “/ Developing Darren’s personal relationships “/ Protecting Jenny’s time for personal relationships

Jenny’s children appeared to have left him in an uncomfortable career situation. Jenny heard his cry for help, but wasn’t sure she was willing to make the sacrifice in her own career and social activities to help share the load. Moreover, it had become clear they sought different things from their time together, where his relatively introverted self and her relatively extraverted self leaned in different directions. Turning to David and Kate, she was struggling with her self-confidence, and the blow it had received at the women’s group she had looked to for support. David appeared patient, but also eager for some action once the problem had been defined. TABLE 4. Action plans for David and Kate Knowing-why “/ Working on Kate achieving her potential and what that means for her “/ Developing an ideal scenario for their business “/ Recognising and working with the partners’ different world views and ambitions “/ Working together to enhance Kate’s confidence Knowing-how “/ Listing and developing each partner’s required business skills “/ Working with and valuing complementary skill sets “/ Encouraging Kate to think strategically “/ Becoming better aware of each partner’s competencies and learning edges Knowing-whom “/ David giving out clearer messages when he wants support “/ Recognising and working with their different approaches to relationship development and maintenance “/ Raising joint awareness of the networks that they have “/ Monitoring energy invested in/taken by network connections

The dual-career couple 19 They seemed committed to start a business together, and made progress in clarifying what this would involve. However, their very intentions to work together could become the seeds of future disappointment. Both were heading where they had never been before, and recognising complementary talents was no assurance they could be effectively combined in a successful business. Both couples were asked to contribute their thoughts after their process was completed. In both cases their responses indicated what David described as ‘an insight into areas where we had similar views and personal drivers and [into] areas where we were different’ that had ‘obvious extension’ into their personal lives. Both couples also affirmed the facilitator’s contribution, exemplified by Darren’s comments that ‘it is really hard to find a catalyst for these conversations’ and that even if they had made the time available to simply talk with one another they ‘wouldn’t have got to these issues’.

Discussion The research reported above gives rise to a series of questions concerned with the shared understanding, integration, commitment and aspirations for the future that dual-career couples develop through joint career counselling. There is also a further question concerning the counselling methodology adopted. Each of these questions will be covered briefly below. A first question concerns a shift from focusing on the individual paths of each partner to the interlocking career paths of the couple (Moen & Sweet, 2002). We sought to accommodate such a shift by transforming a methodology for eliciting the subjective career of each partner (Parker, 2002) to also elicit inter-subjective data for the couple. This inter-subjective data have been recently described as essential for any greater sensemaking ‘about our [own] subjective truths and also the subjective truths of others’ (Bushe, 2001). The described approach appears to have generated a degree of near-term success in greater sensemaking for the two couples involved. However, the long-term effectiveness of the approach for these and other couples cannot be observed. A further question addresses the integration of separate careers into the context of a single household (Friedlander & Delbecq, 1996; Major et al., 2000). Such integration calls for bringing issues out of the subconscious of either or both parties into the conscious realm of the couple (Gurman & Fraenkel, 2002). Once more, the described approach appears to have brought about some short-term success, as there were a number of instances where partners went on from gaining new insights into the other partner to a further appreciation of the joint challenges that the couple faced. Once more, however, there is no way of assessing the longer-term effectiveness of the approach in contributing toward more effective dual careers. A third question concerns the commitment of the couples involved, concerning both the time and readiness for psychological adaptation that partners give to the counselling situation (Friedman & Greenhaus, 2000). In the cases described a very clear statement of commitment was sought from both sets of partners before the

20 Polly Parker & Michael B. Arthur counselling work began. However, the psychological readiness of the four partners appeared to vary as the process unfolded, and as each of them witnessed new data emerging about their dual-career situations. It may be imagined that a new level of joint consciousness can make the couple better equipped to address new challenges (Lederer & Jackson, 1968) and to cultivate corresponding ‘new bargains’ to accommodate those challenges (Gurman & Fraenkel, 2002). The time-bound research reported here observed the articulation of new challenges, but did not continue to follow how those challenges were pursued. A fourth question focuses on a shift from a retrospective toward a more futuristic and outcome-centred perspective on the couple’s welfare. Each couple had made an effort, in Vannoy and Dubeck’s (1998, p. 18), terms, to ‘clarify the choices [they faced] and the things [they could] do’ to make the time ahead of them ‘a time of expanding opportunities rather than diminishing hope’. Each of the couples involved developed action plans for the future (Tables 3 and 4), and appeared serious on pursuing them. The ideal was to choose ‘not between your career or your marriage, but for greater fulfilment in both’ (cited in McCrea, 1995). However, both couples were just beginning to transform their plans into action, and one couple had already expressed concerns about whether they were suited for a long-term future together. Once more, the evidence from this research is necessarily incomplete. A final question concerns the methodology applied in this research, and its appropriateness for use in future career counselling activity. The ideal was to act in the role of ‘collaborative investigator’ (Gurman & Fraenkel, 2002) and thereby help the partners articulate and begin to operationalise their ‘values and priorities in their daily lives’ (Haddock et al., 2001. p. 457). The research approach also sought equity: each partner completed the ICCS on his or her own, each was afforded approximately equal time in the counselling sessions, and in turn each had a similar opportunity to influence the interpretation of data. No single voice (including that of the facilitator) set the agenda for discussion. The inter-subjective data emerged from joint discussions. There was a symbolic value in the approach in that it did not privilege one partner over the other. In sum, the collaborative investigator approach appeared to be taken seriously, although once more it needs to be said that the longterm value of the approach could not be assessed.

Conclusion This paper began by asking how career counselling could help a couple explore their interdependent career paths. The question has been pursued through a theory of ‘intelligent careers’ and a process for counselling the dual-career couple. The initial results in terms of the apparent utility of both the theory and the process appear encouraging. However, it was not possible within the time frame for this research to assess the longer-term consequences of the counselling intervention. The changing context surrounding the dual-career couple may be seen as a threat or an opportunity. It may be threatening if either party expects a stable relationship. However, it may be an opportunity if both parties can take advantage of the greater

The dual-career couple 21 flexibility in career arrangements that have recently emerged. In either case, the role of the counsellor is more complicated than in the case of individual career counselling. The research process began by introducing both couples to the metaphor of a bridge. For each couple, the challenge was to reconstruct the base of each bridge while keeping the span between the bases strong. Perhaps a more dynamic image is that of a perpetual dance, where each partner takes separate steps while staying connected and responsive to the other. If so, it is a dance where both partners will need to hear and respond to new musical variations. The career counsellor, in turn, cannot guide the partners from any preconceived score but also needs to adapt to the variations in the air. We hope that the approach described helps in that adaptation. References ARNOLD, J.A. (1997). Managing Careers into the 21st Century. London: Paul Chapman. ARTHUR, M.B., CLAMAN, P.H. & DEFILLIPPI, R. (1995). Intelligent enterprise, intelligent career. Academy of Management Executive , 9 (4), 7 /20. ARTHUR, M.B. & ROUSSEAU, D.M. (1996). Introduction: the boundaryless career as a new employment principle. In: ARTHUR, M.B. & ROUSSEAU, D.M. (Eds), The Boundaryless Career: a New Employment Principle for a New Era (3 /20) . New York: Oxford University Press. BARLEY, S.R. (1989). Careers, identities, and institutions: the legacy of the Chicago School of Sociology. In: ARTHUR, M.B., HALL, D.T. & LAWRENCE, B.S. (Eds), Handbook of Career Theory (41 /65) . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BENJAMIN, J. (1998). Shadow of the Other: Intersubjectivity and Gender in Psychoanalysis . New York: Routledge. BURKE, R.J. (1998). Dual career couples: are men still advantaged? Psychological Reports , 82 (1), 209 / 210. BUSHE, G.R. (2001). Clear Leadership. Palo Alto, CA: Davies /Black. CAMPBELL CLARK, S. (2000). Work/family border theory: a new theory of work/family balance. Human Relations , 53 (6), 747 /770. CANDY, P.C. (1989). Alternative paradigms in educational research. Australian Educational Researcher , 16 (3), 1 /11. COCHRAN, L. (1997). Career Counseling: a Narrative Approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DERR, C.B. & LAURENT, A. (1989). The internal and external career: a theoretical and cross-cultural perspective. In: ARTHUR, M.B., HALL, D.T. & LAWRENCE, B.S. (Eds), Handbook of Career Theory (454 /471) . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. EATON, S.C. & BAILYN, L. (2000). Career as life path: tracing work and life strategies of biotech professionals. In: PEIPERL, M., ARTHUR, M.B., GOFFEE, R. & MORRIS, T. (Eds), Career Frontiers: New Conceptions of Working Lives (177 /198) . New York: Oxford University Press. FALLON, B.J. (1997). The balance between paid work and home responsibilities: personal problem or corporate concern? Australian Psychologist , 32 (1), 1 /9. FLETCHER, J.K. & BAILYN, L. (1996). Challenging the last boundary: reconnecting work and family. In: ARTHUR, M.B. & ROUSSEAU, D.M. (Eds), The Boundaryless Career: a New Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era (256 /267) . New York: Oxford University Press. FRIEDLANDER, F. & DELBECQ, A. (1996). The reciprocity of work and home life. Agenda for the 21st century. Cincinnati, OH: Labour Force Conference. FRIEDMAN, S.T. & GREENHAUS, J.H. (2000). Work and Family */Allies or Enemies? . Oxford: Oxford University Press. GILBERT, L.A. & BINGHAM, R.P. (2001). Career counseling with dual-career heterosexual African American couples. In: WALSH, W.B. et al. (Eds), Career Counseling for African Americans (77 /98) . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

22 Polly Parker & Michael B. Arthur GOFF, S.G. (1996). Dual earner couples in which the wife is the primary earner: a qualitative study with implications for counseling. Dissertation Abstracts International , 56 (11-B). GOFFMAN, E. (1961). Asylums . Garden City, NY: Doubleday. GOTTMAN, J.M. (1999). The Marriage Clinic: a Scientifically Based Marital Therapy. New York: Norton. GURMAN, A.S. & FRAENKEL, P. (2002). The history of couple therapy: a millenial review. Family Process , 41 (2), 199 /260. HADDOCK, S.A., ZIEMBA, S.A., ZIMMERMAN, T.S. & CURRENT, L.R. (2001). Ten adaptive strategies for family and work balance: advice from successful families. Journal of Family Therapy, 27 (4), 445 / 458. HALL, D.T. (2002). Careers In and Out of Organizations . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. HALL, F.C. & HALL, D.T. (1978). Dual careers */how do couples and companies cope with the problems? Organizational Dynamics , Spring , 57 /77. HAMMER, L.B., ALLEN, E. & GRIGSBY, T.D. (1997). Work /family conflict in dual-earner couples: within-individual and crossover effects of work and family. Journal of Vocational Behaviour , 50 (2), 185 /203. HANDY, C. (1990). The Age of Unreason . Boston: Harvard Business School Press. HANNA, F.J. (1996). Community feeling, empathy, and intersubjectivity: a phenomenological framework. Individual Psychology, 52 (1), 23 /30. HELGESEN, S. (1995). The Web of Inclusion . New York: Doubleday. HIRSCH, P.M. & SHANLEY, M. (1996). The rhetoric of boundaryless */or, how the newly empowered managerial class bought into its own marginalization. In: ARTHUR, M.B. & ROUSSEAU, D.M. (Eds), The Boundaryless Career: a New Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era (218 /233) . Oxford: Oxford University Press. HUGHES, E. (1958). Men and their Work . Glencoe, IL: Free Press. JACOBS, J.A. & GERSON, K. (2001). Overworked individuals or overworked families? Explaining trends in work, leisure, and family time. Work and occupations , 28 (1), 40 /63. JARY, D. & JARY, J. (1991). Collins Dictionary of Sociology. Glasgow: HarperCollins. KANTER, R.M. (1977). Work and Family in the United States: a Critical Review and Agenda for Research Policy. New York: Russell Sage. KNUDSON-MARTIN, C. & MAHONEY, A. (1996). Gender dilemma and myth in the construction of marital bargains: issue for marital therapy. Family Process , 35 , 137 /153. LEDERER, W. & JACKSON, D.D. (1968). The Mirages of Marriage . New York: W.W. Norton. LEVNER, L. (2000). The three-career family. In: PAPP, P. (Ed.), Couples on the Fault Line: New Directions for Therapists (29 /47) . New York: Guilford Press. MAGNUSON, S. & NOREM, K. (1999). Challenges for higher education couples in commuter marriages: insights for couples and counselors who work with them. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families , 7 (2), 125 /134. MAJOR, V.S., KLEIN, K.J. & EHRHART, M.G. (2000). Work time, work interference with family and employee well-being. In: Academy of Management Conference Proceedings . Toronto: Academy of Management. MALLON, M. & DUBERLEY, J. (2000). Managers and professionals in the contingent workforce. Human Resource Management Journal , 10 (1), 33 /47. MARSHALL, J. (1989). Re-visioning career concepts: a feminist invitation. In: ARTHUR, M.B., HALL, D.T. & LAWRENCE, B.S. (Eds), Handbook of Career Theory (275 /291) . New York: Cambridge University Press. MAUNO, S. & KINNUNEN, U. (1999). The effects of job stressors on marital satisfaction in Finnish dualearner couples. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 20 (6), 879 /895. MCCREA, J. (1995). Continental divide, World Traveler , January, 17 /21. MCQUILLAN, J. (1999). Gender and marital power: explaining the division of labor, perceived equity, and distress among two-earner couples. Dissertation Abstracts International 59 (9-A). MIGNOT, P. (2000). Metaphor: a paradigm for practice-based research into ‘career’. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling , 28 (4), 515 /531.

The dual-career couple 23 MOEN, P. & SWEET, S. (2002). Two careers, one employer: couples working for the same corporation. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 61 , 446 /483. MORGAN, B. & FOSTER, V. (1999). Career counseling for re-entry dual career women: a cognitive development approach. Journal of Career Counseling , 26 (2), 125 /136. PARASURAMAN, S., GREENHAUS, J.H. & GRANOSE, C.S. (1992). Role stressors, social support, and wellbeing among two career couples. Journal of Organizational Behaviour , 13 (4), 339 /357. PARKER, P. (2000). Career communities. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Auckland. PARKER, P. (2002). Working with the Intelligent Career Model. Journal of Employment Counseling , 39 (2), 83 /96. PARKER, P. & ARTHUR, M.B. (2000). Careers, organising and community. In: PEIPERL, M., ARTHUR, M.B., GOFFEE, R. & MORRIS, T. (Eds), Career Frontiers: New Conceptions of Working Lives (99 /121) . New York: Oxford University Press. PARKER, P. & ARTHUR, M.B. (2002). Bringing ‘new science’ into careers research. Management , 5 (1), 105 /125. RAPOPORT, R. & RAPOPORT, R. (1969). The dual-career family: a variant pattern and social change. Human Relations , 22 , 3 /30. RAPOPORT, R. & RAPOPORT, R. (1976). Dual-Career Families Re-examined: New Integrations of Work and Family. London: Martin Robinson. ROBINSON, W. & DAISY, J. (1997). Employment and family: reconciling work place and family linkages among dual-earner families. Dissertation Abstracts International , 59(1-A). ROGERS, C.R. (1951). Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. SAVICKAS, M.L. (1997). The spirit in career counseling: fostering self-completion through work. In: BLOCH, D.P. & LEE, J.R. (Eds), Connections between Spirit and Work in Career Development (3 /25) . Palo Alto, CA: Davies /Black. SPAIN, D. & BIANCHI, S.M. (1996). Balancing Act: Motherhood, Marriage, and Employment among American Women . New York: Russell Sage Foundation. STAINES, G.L. (1980). Spillover versus compensation: a review of the literature on the relationship between work and non-work. Human Relations , 33 , 111 /129. STRINGER, E.T. (1996). Action Research: a Handbook for Practitioners . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. VANNOY, D. & DUBECK, P.J. (1998). Challenges for Work and Family in the Twenty-first Century. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. WEICK, K. (1996). Enactment and the boundaryless career: organising as we work. In: ARTHUR, M.B. & ROUSSEAU, D.M. (Eds), The Boundaryless Career: a New Employment Principle for a New Organizational Era (40 /57) . Oxford: Oxford University Press. WHEATLEY, M.J. & KELLNER-ROGERS, M. (1996). A Simpler Way. San Francisco, CA: Berrett /Koehler. WILLIAMS, C. (1996). Community, subjectivity and selfhood. In: BRIER, A. & LOVELOCK, R. (Eds), Communication and Community Anglo-German perspectives . Aldershot: Ashgate.

(Accepted 13 October 2003)