The Kaleidoscope Career Model Revisited

The Development of the KCM

To develop the KCM, Mainiero and Sullivan (2005, 2006) conducted a series of iterative, progressive qualitative studies (Study 1, n = 109; Study 3, n = 27; Study 5, n = 52) counterbalanced with empirical quantitative studies (Study 2, n = 1,647; Study 4, n = 1,525) designed to explore the reasons why men and women make career transitions. From this series of studies, three central parameters of career decision-making emerged that influence career decisions: the need for authenticity, balance, and challenge.

Authenticity is defined as an individual’s need to behave and demonstrate their attitudes in accordance with their genuine inner selves, which may be in contrast with the behavior they may need to exhibit (such as political actions) to survive in work surroundings (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2006). The parameter of authenticity represents the individual’s need to be true to oneself and one’s values. Often authenticity was displayed through behaviors resonant with personal or work strengths or involvement in activities for personal pleasure or that genuinely reflect the inner nature of that individual.

Balance refers to individuals’ wish to have quality experiences in both work and family domains. Balance, defined here as a parameter of the model, represents work–family management and integration efforts on the part of employees to create a work–life intersection that constantly adjusts attention to both work and nonwork domains (Greenhaus, Peng, & Allen, 2012). For example, to meet an increasing need for balance, individuals may choose certain career paths that allow them to restrict work hours or slow down their career progression (Byron, 2005). Mainiero and Sullivan (2006) identified several strategies to rebalance work–family management priorities, such as adjusting work time through part-time employment, opting out of the workforce temporarily, opting out by taking turns with spouses, arranging workloads in accordance with family situations, or trying to meet demands and expectations from both work and family domains simultaneously.

Finally, the parameter of challenge refers to the need on the part of the individual to participate in intrinsically motivating work, to grow and develop one’s skills, and to make progress in one’s career, through lateral progress, skill-based progress, or linear progress (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005, 2006). Challenge refers to individuals’ need for stimulation, learning, and skill growth to increase personal capability. Challenge may be represented in an individual’s desire to climb the career ladder, by discovering opportunities to develop lateral skills to enhance one’s career portfolio, or ways to explore new job enhancing career possibilities. While challenge can be expressed in nonwork domains as well, the KCM focuses on challenges at work.

While all three parameters may remain active over the course of one’s career, the model suggests a dynamic, interactive, contextual paradigm such that one parameter may rise to ascendency at a given point when confronting a career transition. Individuals in the midst of career transitions might consider one parameter as a meaningful priority over the other two, as they determine their next career move. This does not mean that the other two remaining parameters have little influence; during times of transition, one parameter may rise to the forefront as a pivot to make a career decision at that time. That the parameters are dynamic and changeable casts a similar note to the life design paradigm of career construction (Savickas et al., 2009) in which careers are considered as part of a larger context, liquid, and dynamic and must be understood as part of a complex gestalt associated with one’s life as well as career.

Gender, Career Stages, and Alpha/Beta KCM Patterns

Mainiero and Sullivan (2005, 2006) found that the KCM was enacted differently by men and women. Two major patterns were identified: the alpha kaleidoscope career pattern and the beta kaleidoscope career pattern. The alpha kaleidoscope career pattern is characterized by the dominant need for challenge in the beginning of a career, followed by an emphasis on authenticity in the middle part of one’s professional life, followed by the need for balance and work–life integration in the later part of a career. This pattern was found to be more prevalent in men than in women. The beta kaleidoscope career pattern is characterized primarily by balance, especially in the middle years of a career, while challenge and authenticity vary. This pattern is widely found among women and some younger men, although some women also demonstrate the alpha pattern. Sullivan and Mainiero (2007) detailed these patterns by accessing qualitative information from interview and focus study participants, both men and women, who demonstrated unique relationships with each of the three parameters at different points in the career cycle.

To provide support for the KCM kaleidoscopic career patterns, Smith-Ruig (2009) conducted semistructured interviews with 59 accountants in Australia who worked in a variety of organizations and confirmed the alpha/beta pattern of the KCM (Sullivan & Mainiero, 2007). She found that men tended to exhibit alpha kaleidoscope career patterns while women had a stronger association with beta kaleidoscope career patterns. Furthermore, Smith-Ruig (2009) also found some younger men who represented Generation (Gen) X and Y who followed the beta career pattern. Compared to male baby boomers, the men from Gen X and Gen Y demonstrated, as a group, higher needs for balance (also see Sullivan, Forret, Carraher, & Mainiero, 2009).

The sharpest shaping of the fluid parameters of the KCM should theoretically occur at midlife, when individuals are forced to confront work–family life priorities. Gross-Spector and Cinamon (2016) noted that vocational exploration at midlife may involve greater layers of complexity and life roles as well as critical thinking about strengths and identity. While scholars have studied women and men at midlife beginning with Levinson (1978) and Levinson and Levinson (1997), Degges-White and Meyers (2006) note that women over age 40 charting life paths that are in stark contrast against existing adult development theories based on vocational counseling and career development predictions founded on the experience of past generations of men. There remains an open question about women at midlife; some women may increase investment in careers at midlife once nurturing responsibilities are reconciled, or women may decrease investment in career, following a more nurturing pattern (Roberts & Friend, 1998). In-depth interviews with 23 professional women showed that working mothers function “in-between” by working part-time or via home-based entrepreneurial endeavors (Grant-Vallone & Ensher, 2011).

Cabrera (2007) provided a qualitative test of the KCM parameters in 25 women by examining women at midlife. She explored the reason why women choose to leave or stay in the workforce and found that for women who were family oriented and in the middle of their professional life, their decision to leave the workforce pivoted on the balance parameter. Focusing on the balance parameter suggests an adaptation to the beta kaleidoscope career pattern in midlife. In the later part of their careers, the women she studied directed their career path to pursue their need for authenticity. Furthermore, she also found that 70% of the women who left the workforce returned to work, discounting the popular belief that women who leave the workforce remain out of the workforce.

August (2011) specifically studied women’s late life career development according to the KCM. She interviewed 14 women in a qualitative study and found all three of the KCM parameters—authenticity, balance, and challenge—had relevance for older working women. Participants described relatively consistent ideas about authenticity, balance, and challenge; however, several distinct meanings were associated with the parameter of authenticity. Authenticity was on the rise for older women in late career, reporting in the study, “women seem to have negotiated a new level of prominence for authenticity, that is, they were placing themselves and their own needs at the center of a decision and allowing others’ needs to recede into the background” (August, 2011, p. 228).

Generational expectations might influence the salience of the parameters of the KCM at different points in the career cycle. In a large survey study of 982 professionals, Sullivan, Forret, Carraher, and Mainiero (2009) confirmed that Gen Xers had higher needs for authenticity and for balance than baby boomers, who would be considered to be firmly in late career. However, there was no significant difference between the two generations in their need for challenge. The authors surmised that for baby boomers in midcareer, challenge in the form of continued stimulating work situations in which they could make a contribution and have an impact remained important. Generational research serves as a proxy for career stages in this research as the age ranges suggest key points in the life/career cycle that may have shaped attitudes and beliefs about the concept of “career” (Sullivan et al., 2009).

The purpose of this study is to examine in greater detail how the parameters of authenticity, balance, and challenge pivot across career stages to more sharply address the unique differences in midlife career transition for men and for women. To obtain sharper resonance for the three parameters in the early, mid, or late career stages, the sample used in this study was restricted to formerly employed or currently unemployed individuals. Scholars have noted that unemployment is a major life stressor (McKee-Ryan, Song, Wanburg, & Kinicki, 2005) that sharpens attention on future job and career choices. Studies such as Joseph and Greenberg (2001) and Konstam, Celen-Demirtas, Tomek, and Sweeney (2015) have used unemployed samples to examine subjective well-being and career adaptability as well as self-esteem and cognitive restructuring. Unemployed individuals cope with issues of self-esteem and self-worth associated with job loss (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005) and may sometimes pivot to a new career choice based on knowledge of their strengths as well as opportunities in the workplace. Unemployment may lead to realistic self-reflection on one’s future career choices among older adults given the job market (Bullock-Yowell et al., 2012). Robson, Hansson, Abalos, and Booth (2006) found older, more seasoned employees sought realistic occupational growth and focused on achievement and personal goals. Therefore, an unemployed sample was of interest as the unemployed at midcareer may seek continued career challenges while focusing on authenticity but simultaneously may be constrained by work–family management issues.

The hypotheses of this study closely follow anticipated directions of the model as originally proposed by the KCM (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005, 2006) but with the unique contribution of focusing on an unemployed sample. This study focused upon a group of unemployed individuals, men and women, to ascertain the salience of the parameters at early, early midcareer, midcareer, late midcareer, and finally very later career stages just prior to retirement to capture some of the resonance of the KCM under conditions of unemployment when the stakes are highest predicating a career change.

Hypothesis 1: Unemployed or formerly employed individuals will demonstrate unique preferences associated with the parameters of KCM challenge, KCM balance, and KCM authenticity across different career stages, such that the three parameters vary by career stage.

In the original KCM (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005), it was hypothesized that the parameters of authenticity, balance, and challenge would vary across career stages. Research on the KCM has supported this expectation (August, 2011; Cabrera, 2007; Shaw & Leberman, 2015; Sullivan et al., 2009). At different points in the career cycle, individuals may be more predisposed to seeking jobs that allow them more or less challenge, the ability to create a balanced work–home life in work and nonwork domains, and express a need to be genuine and authentic at work. The parameters are fluid, reflective, dynamic, and shift and change according to the needs of each individual.

But at midlife, differences across the parameters might sharpen considerably. The career decisions at midlife, to continue within one’s industry or to utilize one’s skills elsewhere, are complex, subject to market forces and trends, but also rely on the wisdom, experience, and perception of fit of each individual associated with the concepts of career identity and self-concept (Ibarra, Khapova, Arthur, & Wilderom, 2007). Job loss in midcareer can be devastating, leading to self-doubt, financial strain, and disrupted equilibrium (Latack & Dozier, 1986; McKee-Ryan et al, 2005). Levinson (1978) noted that middle-aged adults experience an intense period of self-evaluation and reflection on career choices, while other research shows early midlife regrets motivate career goal setting (Stewart & Vanderwater, 1999). Individuals who have financial means may view unemployment at midlife as an opportunity for career growth or a midcareer change (Eby & Buch, 1995; Zikic & Kiehe, 2006). An earlier study by Forret, Sullivan, and Mainiero (2010) associated with the KCM examined gender and unemployment issues, finding that women perceived unemployment as an opportunity while men experienced unemployment as a defeat.

To study this more effectively, we look closely as what is meant by “midlife.” Many researchers have defined midlife as a vast expanse of age ranges, sometimes beginning as early as 35 years of age and moving through one’s 60s (Schneer & Reitman, 1995). Other researchers have more tightly defined “midlife” similar to Levinson’s (1978) model, positing midlife specifically between ages 40 and 45. The concept of career stage has been studied largely through age ranges, using age as a proxy for stage. Mott (1998) has questioned what is meant by “midlife” and “midcareer,” articulating that midlife should be characterized into different subcategories with middle adulthood ranging from ages 40 to 65, young-old adulthood ranging from ages 65 to 75, and middle-old adulthood ranging in ages from 75 to 80. Staudinger, Bluck, and Herzberg (2003) suggest midlife is a period of life for which there are flexible boundaries and no single universal set of age parameters. Collin (2007) suggests that there needs to be newer, more interpretative methodologies that allow respondents to create their own constructions of whether or not they are in early, mid, or late career. For example, if an individual restarts a new career in his or her 40s, is this truly “midcareer” or should this be reconceptualized as “early career” in a new industry? Given the confluence of “midcareer” and “midlife,” we created multiple categories of “midcareer” stages—early midcareer, full midcareer, and late midcareer—to force a closer examination of the three parameters during the broad expanse of years generally called “midlife” in the literature. We hope an unemployed sample that is more precisely segmented at midlife will allow greater insight into how the three parameters of the KCM shift and vary, addressing gender differentials in the kaleidoscopic career patterns more sharply and with greater perspective.

Hypothesis 2: The parameter of KCM balance will be stronger for women than for men in midcareer, suggesting that more women prefer beta kaleidoscope careers in midcareer than men.

While male-defined constructions of work and career success continue to dominate organizational research and practice, it is important that gender be examined as a separate variable in career research, as it is an influential explanatory variable. A great deal of research shows that women’s careers are characterized by discontinuous work and career interruptions, suggesting that women often “opt-out” of their careers in order to regain better work–family management and integration (Eby, Casper, Lockwood, Bordeaux, & Brinley, 2005; O’Neil et al., 2008). Men’s careers are typically continuous and organized around the concept of career centrality (Schneer & Reitman, 2002). Women’s career patterns may differ from men’s in a variety of ways, but the central paradigm against which women are judged, using language such as “opting out” or “mommy track,” assumes a deviation from an accepted norm (Shapiro et al., 2008). Women may have rejected the outdated career model based on stable employment and instead are on the leading edge of career self-agency, creating careers based on dynamic, agile, and contextual components (Shapiro et al., 2008).

This is not to say that men do not value family balance; as demonstrated by Greenhaus, Peng, and Allen (2012), many men do value their families and define their identities as “family men.” However, given the vast literature on work–family management and integration issues, it is clear that many more women than men opt out of careers or take a career interruption for a period of time than men due to family concerns (Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005; Schneer & Reitman, 2002). Therefore, in concurrence with previous research, we would expect a strong theme on the part of women to be more focused on the balance parameter overall than men. But midlife concerns may vary. For example, once women have answered the call for nurturing in midlife, is balance still preeminent in women’s lives and careers? Some research suggests the answer is yes (Cabrera, 2007); other research that defines “midcareer” at a later age range suggests otherwise (August, 2011). We offer sharp contrasts across multiple midcareer stages associated with years of employment rather than age to more closely examine this phenomenon.

Research Sample and Administration

The survey used in this study was posted on the website of a large U.S. market research panel from Criticalmix, Inc., pro bono for research purposes. Criticalmix, Inc., draws on approximately 50,000 individuals of various ages, races, backgrounds, industries, and job titles who have agreed to participate in at least two surveys per month. Panel participants voluntarily choose which surveys to complete as per their convenience and interest. Participants are double blind; no identification information is available other than a coded number on the part of researchers as the information is confidentially contained within the panel population data set. Responses are confidentially reported; panel members must complete a lengthy privacy policy, rigorous documentation, and detailed set of terms in order to qualify for participation in the panel. Such documentation guards against “professional test takers” and assures the sample is certified for participation. Given the academic purpose of this research, the sample was further carefully culled to ensure the authenticity and objectivity of participants. We requested a representative sample of unemployed individuals in the United States. The firm reported the survey response rate at 35%, which they considered as “very good,” given typical response rates. Survey administration was completed within 2 weeks.

Of the 744 individuals who responded, 255 (34.3%) were men and 489 (65.7%) were women. While the sample was representative across all age categories, the sample skewed slightly older toward individuals at midcareer, with 93 participants (12.5%) under age 30; 120 participants (16%) between 30 and 40; 155 (21%) between age 40 and 50; 256 (34.5%) between 50 and age 60; and 120 (16%) between age 60 and 85. About 25% (187 respondents) reported they were single, 10.6% reported they had a partner, 42.3% reported they were married, and 21.9% reported they were divorced or widowed. About 15% of the sample offered diversity in race or ethnicity: 4.2% identified their race as Hispanic, 2.4% as Asian, 7.9% as Black or African American, 0.8% as native American, while the majority were identified as Caucasian. Household income was reported as 16% at 10,000 or less; 15.1% between 10 and 20,000; 32.4% between 20 and 40,000; 29.1% between 40,000 and 60,000; and 7.5% higher than 75,000. About half (51.1%) identified themselves as the primary breadwinner for their families. As we were interested in an unemployed sample only, we asked their reasons for unemployment. Fifty-four percent reported their unemployment was “not by choice” and only 5% reported their unemployment was “by choice.” The remainder of the sample offered a variety of reasons, such as “survival job,” “quit,” or laid off voluntarily as part of a furlough program associated with their firms.

Independent Variables

Gender (coded 1 = male, 2 = female) was measured by directly asking respondents to indicate their gender.

KCM parameters of authenticity, balance, and challenge

The three parameters of the KCM were measured using a series of items designed to capture these parameters identical to an earlier study by Sullivan et al. (2009) that demonstrated consistently reliable scales for the three parameters of authenticity, balance, and challenge. Using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 = this does not describe me at all to 5 = this describes me very well, individuals responded to 5 items per parameter, such as “I thrive on work challenges and turn work problems into opportunities for change” (challenge), “I constantly arrange my work around my family needs” (balance), and “I want to have an impact and leave my signature on what I accomplish” (authenticity). Coefficient αs for the authenticity, balance, and challenge scales were .84, .81, and .80, respectively. To further test these items as scales, an exploratory principal components factor analysis was performed. All 15 variables were entered into an exploratory factor analysis (principal axis with oblimin rotation) to determine the number of factors necessary to account for the variance in the variables. Table 1 presents the items used and the factor loadings for each parameter. Following Worthington and Whittaker (2006), the factor analysis revealed the presence of three distinct factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0, rather than a single factor. The three factors together accounted for 55% of the total variance; the first (largest) factor did not account for a majority of the variance (37%). The Kaiser–Mayer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy is appropriate (.911) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant at the p < .0001 level, suggesting that the factor analysis was performed efficiently. The factor analysis revealed clean and distinct factors as can be seen in Table 1. Although the results of these analyses do not preclude the possibility of common method variance (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003), they do suggest that common method variance is not of great concern.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis (Principal Axis, With Oblimin Rotation).

	Item Loadings
Factor	M	SD	1	2	3
1. Challenge
I thrive on work challenges and turn problems into opportunities for change.	2.90	1.24	.827	.385	.439
I continually look for new challenges in everything I do.	2.76	1.34	.749	.332	.510
I view setbacks not as problems but as challenges that require solutions.	3.06	1.22	.711	.424	.480
Most people would describe me as being very goal-directed.	2.96	1.21	.675	.299	.423
Added work responsibilities don’t worry me.	3.12	1.27	.654	.271	.332
2. Balance
I constantly arrange my work around my family needs.	2.66	1.32	.362	.707	.295
Achieving balance between work and family is life’s holy grail.	3.00	1.29	.412	.697	.474
My work is meaningless if I cannot take off time to be with family.	3.25	1.40	.240	.690	.367
Nothing matters more to me than balancing work with family responsibilities.	2.83	1.35	.336	.670	.324
I would give up my work to settle problematic family issues or concerns	2.99	1.38	.251	.637	.337
3. Authenticity
I want to have an impact and leave my signature on what I accomplish.	3.16	1.29	.546	.381	.732
I hope to find a greater purpose to my life that suits me.	3.29	1.34	.352	.288	.709
I feel I have a unique life purpose to fulfill.	3.00	1.24	.544	.427	.647
I hunger for greater spiritual growth in my life.	2.86	1.40	.314	.385	.580
If I could follow my dream right now, I would.	3.71	1.32	.376	.334	.559
I have discovered that crises offer perspective in ways that daily living does not.	2.93	1.38	.507	.389	.524

Note. Boldface indicates factor loadings; all factor loadings are significant at the p < .001 level. Items are on a scale from 1 = this does not describe me at all to 5 = this describes me very well. Cronbach’s α for challenge = .844, for balance = .810, and for authenticity (6 items) = .809. Sample is based on n = 744.

Control Variables

Demographic, family, and other background variables were selected for inclusion as control variables in the study, as they provide insight as to the resources and constraints that might influence individuals’ careers. The control variables consisted of age (measured as a continuous variable), race (1 = White, 2 = other), marital status (1 = married, 2 = not married), children (1 = yes, 2 = no responses to “are there children under age 18 living at home?”), and income (anchors ranged from 1 = up to US$20,000, 4 = US$60,000–US$80,000, to 8 = US$200,000 or greater). To measure income, respondents indicated their former income level, as this was an unemployed sample. We also controlled for whether respondents were unemployed by choice (1 = “quit work”; “laid off voluntarily”) or no choice (2 = “unemployed not by choice and looking for work”; “laid off involuntarily”).

Implications for Practice

Several authors have written about the drain in women’s ambition over time (Fels, 2004; Hewlett & Luce, 2005), and a study by the Center for Talent Innovation (Hewlett, Forster, Sherbin, Shiller, & Sumberg, 2010) concluded there is a strong correlation between off-ramping and ambition levels. The authors suggest a vicious cycle created by women who are forced to choose between career and family obligations, such that women who accept jobs with fewer responsibilities or who off-ramp altogether are perceived as less committed, remain underchallenged or not promoted, and then redefine themselves in terms of lower confidence, ambition, and self-esteem (Hewlett et al., 2010, p. 28). This cycle contributes to the “brain drain” of competent, educated, and successful women who leave corporations to tend to family and personal needs (Hewlett & Luce, 2005).

The KCM describes this differently. According to the KCM, men and women seek challenge, balance, and authenticity over the course of their careers. But at midlife, while in transition, the differences between the parameters may be sharper, and more individuals (especially women) may prefer the beta kaleidoscope career pattern, with a focus on balance in midcareer, to the alpha kaleidoscope career pattern that supports challenge as well as authenticity in lieu of balance. This is not to say that there are not also alpha kaleidoscope women and beta kaleidoscope men at midlife. While gender remains an important contextual factor associated with career patterns, women face a double bind that is exacerbated by persistent socialized gendered schemas and may simply be enacting an updated self-employed, short-term horizon career model (Shapiro et al., 2008). Therefore, organizations should be mindful of the changing, dynamic, and fluid aspects of career development in the new age of portfolio careers, protean careers, and boundaryless careers that suggest that an individual may have different needs at different points of the career cycle (Hall & Chandler, 2005).

Human resource professionals should design career paths that allow people to pursue authenticity, balance, and challenge at different points in the career cycle. This suggests that on-ramping and off-ramping at different points in the career cycle should be naturally incorporated into such career paths. New ways of working in the 21st century require a fresh mind-set to create career paths that focus not only on work–family balance but work–life integration. Contemporary career paths should involve diagonal, lateral, upward, downward, enrichment, and exploratory moves at different points in the career cycle to alleviate stress, manage work–family balance, and encourage sustained ambition. At the present time, many women (and some men) abdicate their careers to transition into a less stressful or demanding job that best addresses work–family management and integration.

Vocational counselors should remain mindful of the three parameters of the KCM to discern which parameter rises into the ascendency at a given point in an individual’s career path to counsel individuals more appropriately before making a major career move. Arthur and Rousseau (1996), in their discussion of the “intelligent” career, describe three critical aspects to assess a career change: knowing why, how, and whom as part of a career change. The KCM can help clients discern why they want to make a career move. Vocational counselors can then focus on solving the how (specific actions associated with job exploration and seeking) and help clients identify with whom (developing a network). The three parameters can serve as signposts to offer guidance that addresses the most salient parameter to ensure a smooth career transition. Ronzio (2012) suggests that psychosocial development trajectories, the roles of family and relationships, the importance of underlying physical and mental health issues, and sociocultural and contextual stressors are relevant for women in the midst of a career transition. Further career coaching can specifically utilize the parameters of the KCM to determine whether a job prospect would lead to a more fulfilling career move during a time of career transition.

Limitations

The limitations of this study involve the sample and method of design. Career stage was self-report, where individuals indicated about how long they had been in the workforce (10 years or less, 10–15 years, 15–25 years, and beyond). Full midcareer in this study was defined as 15–25 years into the workforce, but other studies have defined it by age. This was an important definitional aspect of this study, as individuals often characterize where they are in their careers not necessarily by age but by tenure in an industry or organization. We did not collect information about switching industries or reinventing careers at midcareer; this variable was self-report. More specific information about respondents’ career paths at midlife would have enhanced the data.

A second major limitation of the study involves attributions made about the career stages and how the parameters pan out over time. A cross-sectional method was used for this study to assess the importance of each parameter for men and for women in each career stage; we are making assumptions about time through the cross-sectional results that were reported. To test which parameters are active at different points within each individual, a time-series longitudinal-based design is more appropriate and suggested for future research. The current cross-sectional design only allows us to look at groups of individuals in the aggregate at different career stages, so the assumptions we are making in this Discussion section require further tests that could be addressed through a longitudinal design.

Please note that alpha and beta kaleidoscope career patterns are assumed rather than directly tested in this study. There was no question asking whether or not an individual identified with the alpha pattern or the beta one. Assumptions of the career patterns are based on the aggregate of the sample and whether or not they prioritized the balance parameter, suggesting a beta kaleidoscopic pattern, versus prioritizing challenge and authenticity (see Sullivan & Mainiero, 2007, for a more detailed explication of the two kaleidoscope career patterns). Further research is suggested to directly test the kaleidoscopic career patterns as a longitudinal design to see if these initial cross-sectional results are supported. In addition, as it was not possible in this study, questions need to be asked whether or not individuals in the sample are primary caregivers for their children, as that may suggest a relationship between the kaleidoscopic career patterns and the three parameters of the KCM.

This study was not intended as a test of a social cognitive career theory model by examining gender as an explanatory variable. However, parallels to social cognitive theory, in which issues of self-efficacy and other explanatory variables focus an individual’s efforts and career decision-making at a time of transition, remain apparent. If the study had been designed to incorporate the actual career decisions individuals were making at midlife, rather than simply identify the parameters influencing their decision-making, it would have been a more direct test of social cognitive theory. In an ideal world, we would have had the opportunity to validate the study to determine whether participants ultimately found a job that echoed their three chosen parameters, but that opportunity did not exist. Further research is needed to ascertain the contribution of the KCM parameters as variables associated with social cognitive career models.