4.4 Article

The dynamics of diplomatic careers: The shift from traditional to contemporary careers

Journal

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Volume 61, Issue 2, Pages 259-276

Publisher

WILEY PERIODICALS, INC
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.22092

Keywords

ambassadors; boundaryless career; diplomats; protean career

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study looks into the changing career structures in the public sector by interviewing 198 state ambassadors from four countries. It reveals a gradual breakdown of traditional career structures and the emergence of contemporary career practices. All Foreign Offices show a mixture of traditional and contemporary career structures as they undergo this evolution.
Career research has focused on the changing structures of careers, mainly in the private sector. Recent literature on employment patterns in the public sector suggests that career structures are evolving, gradually moving away from their signature traditional structures to contemporary ones. However, empirical evidence of this change is scarce and inconclusive. This qualitative study examines the changes currently unfolding in the career structure of the civil service by eliciting the experiences and views of senior Foreign Offices (FOs) staff in four countries: 198 state ambassadors from the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, and Denmark were interviewed about their career trajectories. The data were analyzed using a thematic analysis framework. The findings revealed a gradual breakdown of the structures and policies that support traditional careers, and the emergence of new principles and practices that characterize contemporary careers. However, as they were captured midway through the process of change, all FOs display a combination of traditional and contemporary career structures at this point. The findings offer unique insights into the drivers of this evolution and highlight some of the consequences.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available