Six months ago Andrew, the strongest backend developer on his team, became team lead, and today he is asking his manager to let him return to development. Andrew is a hypothetical character, but his story will be familiar to many tech companies. The promotion looked flawless: he had been with the company for years, delivered consistently and knew the product better than his colleagues. His salary went up and his name moved to a new line in the org chart. At the same time, architecture and difficult code disappeared from his week, and their place was taken by performance reviews, resource planning, meetings and conflict resolution.
His manager assumed that career growth means the same thing to everyone. For Andrew, growth had always been measured in mastery, and the new role took him away from the very work that keeps him in the profession. Career psychology describes such mismatches through career orientations, and the best-known model of them belongs to Edgar Schein, the MIT professor who called these orientations career anchors.
What career anchors are
Schein described a career anchor as a combination of three elements: how a person assesses their own abilities, their motives and needs, and the values they hold central.[1] The metaphor stresses how stable this combination is: Schein used the word anchor for the one element of a person's self-concept they will not give up, even in the face of difficult choices.[5] Faced with two offers, a person holds on to what they are not prepared to give up: someone anchored in autonomy, for example, will choose work on their own terms even at the cost of a more modest title.[2]
In Schein's observation, most people identify primarily with one or two anchors.[2] Later researchers split the stability anchor into two separate dimensions, job security and geographic stability, and Russian-language versions of the instrument ended up with nine scales.[1] Most professions allow several orientations to be satisfied at once, and a person as a rule has more than one leading orientation.[1] That is why the same career offer can land so differently within one team.
Schein's eight anchors in an IT team
The descriptions in the table follow Schein's definitions[2]; the IT team examples below are hypothetical.
| Anchor | What the person won't give up | What demotivates them |
|---|---|---|
| Technical/functional competence | Developing and applying mastery in their field | General management that takes them away from their specialty |
| General management | Responsibility for a unit's results and for integrating others' efforts | A narrow expert role with no path to management |
| Autonomy | Deciding for themselves how and when to work | Rigid rules and multi-step approvals |
| Security/stability | Reliable employment and predictability | Constant reorganizations and uncertainty |
| Entrepreneurial creativity | Building their own product or venture | Years of maintaining a stable system |
| Service | Work that benefits people or a cause | Tasks cut off from any meaningful outcome |
| Pure challenge | Solving seemingly unsolvable problems | Routine and easy tasks |
| Lifestyle | Balancing work, family and personal needs | Chronic overtime and relocation for the sake of a title |
The simplest way to learn how these orientations are distributed in a particular team is to ask the employees themselves. In formeasure, such a survey is put together in the survey builder, and its results can be compared across teams and departments.
Technical competence and management
Andrew's promotion stumbled precisely on the boundary between these two anchors. Andrew, in our example, is anchored in technical/functional competence. Schein writes that a person with this anchor is willing to manage others within their own field, yet avoids general management because it takes them away from their specialty.[2] Andrew's ambition is no smaller than a future manager's; it is simply measured in depth of expertise.
Maria, a colleague at the same grade, is built differently. For her, work within a specific function was a necessary apprenticeship, and the goal was always a position with responsibility for the overall results of a unit.[2] The offer that left Andrew drained would have been welcome recognition for Maria, and their grade gave no way of telling them apart.
Autonomy and stability
Oliver, the team's DevOps engineer, happily learns new technologies as long as the structure around him stays clear, and finds frequent reorganizations and team reshuffles hard to bear. In tech, change tends to be treated as an unqualified good, yet for a person anchored in stability, uncertainty is a source of strain rather than interest. Oliver is no less ambitious for it; his career values are simply arranged differently.
An employee anchored in autonomy reacts to the same environment in the opposite way. Schein notes that such people are willing to turn down a promotion if it would cost them their independence.[2] An experienced engineer can be demotivated by approvals for every step, while being perfectly content with the pay and the atmosphere on the team. The orientation has a downside too: an acute need for independence can interfere with teamwork, and a manager has to find a balance between freedom and coordination.
Challenge and entrepreneurship
Vicky, a platform developer, is the first to volunteer for a tangled legacy module and readily steps into an unusual incident; an easy task quickly bores her.[2] Her manager finds it hard to resist handing her everything difficult. The anchor, however, points to a source of interest rather than a reserve of energy, and challenge as a motivator is best read alongside signs of overload and burnout.
A specialist anchored in entrepreneurial creativity is drawn to greenfield work: launching a product, building a service that did not exist before. Schein describes such a person as someone who, while working for others, keeps an eye out for the chance to create a venture of their own.[2] Years of maintaining a stable system extinguish their motivation even when the pay is good.
Service and lifestyle
For a person anchored in service, what matters is the good the work does. Such people, according to Schein, turn down transfers and promotions that would take them away from work embodying their values.[2] A developer on a medical product may see a move to a better-paid project that seems pointless to them as a demotion.
Sam, the frontend developer on Andrew's team, values his work but is not prepared to give it his whole life. Schein writes that a person anchored in lifestyle may decline even a promotion if it requires relocation and upends the way they live.[2] When Sam turns down a role with constant overtime, he is making a rational career decision, and within his system of values loyalty has nothing to do with it.
Development and advancement: why they are different trajectories in IT
The familiar model of an IT career is linear: junior, middle, senior, then manager. Schein took a broader view and described movement in a career along three dimensions: up the hierarchy, laterally across functions and specializations, and inward toward the centers of influence where key decisions are made.[5] In IT these are three different tracks. The vertical one leads to managing people. The horizontal one lets a person go deeper into a specialization or take on adjacent fields without moving into management. Movement inward brings an ever larger part in architectural and product decisions without a change of profession, and people with different anchors, according to Schein, seek movement along different dimensions.[5]
How much the people choosing these trajectories differ shows clearly in a study by Igbaria, Greenhaus and Parasuraman, who examined the career orientations of 464 information systems employees.[3] The most common orientations were technical competence and management. Systems programmers, applications programmers and software engineers leaned toward the first; systems analysts, project leaders and computer managers toward the second. The key finding concerned fit: employees whose orientation matched the nature of their job reported higher job and career satisfaction, were more committed to the organization and less likely to plan to leave.[3]
This makes it clear what a single recognized path to success costs a company. If the only way up runs through management, some strong engineers face a choice between professional interest and status. Some, like Andrew, accept and lose interest in their work; others refuse and leave for a place where the technical track exists separately from the management one.
Why you can't motivate an IT team "on average"
Suppose HR notices engagement falling on Andrew's team and proposes to expand career opportunities: add levels, revise the promotion system, introduce several management roles. At the organizational level the decision looks sensible. Inside the team the picture is different:
| Employee | Leading anchor | What growth means to them |
|---|---|---|
| Maria | General management | Responsibility for people and results |
| Andrew | Technical/functional competence | Complex architecture and recognized expertise |
| Oliver | Security/stability | A predictable structure without constant restructuring |
| Vicky | Pure challenge | New unsolved problems |
| Sam | Lifestyle | Growth without constant overtime |
A new ladder of management roles will please Maria, leave Oliver and Sam indifferent, and is unlikely to keep Andrew and Vicky, for whom growth is tied to the substance of the work. An average "need for career growth" across such a group explains nothing. Career orientations are most useful precisely as a way to tell apart the real sources of motivation within a specific team.
The career anchors test: where to take it and why we don't publish the form
Schein's model and questionnaire are proprietary materials published by Wiley; the latest edition of the book came out in 2023.[4] For that reason we don't publish the form or the scoring key. Russian-language practice commonly uses the nine-scale adaptation mentioned above.[1] If you need diagnostics comparable with research, it is better to use a licensed version or to bring in a specialist who works with the instrument.
A test result describes a person's leading orientations and says nothing about their abilities or performance. It should not be used as a hiring filter or as grounds for personnel decisions. The model helps to understand what kind of work will suit a person, but it does not answer how well they will do it.
How HR can use career orientations in practice
Judgments like "developers care about money," "seniors want autonomy" or "everyone wants to grow" describe an abstract category, while decisions are made for a specific team. Career orientations can be turned into data in two ways: through a conversation about what kind of growth a person values, and through a survey whose questions HR writes itself rather than copying a protected instrument.
The value of such a survey shows when it is set against other data. A strong demand for autonomy proves nothing on its own. If, however, job satisfaction is lower in the same department and open-ended answers keep returning to excessive control, the hypothesis becomes concrete. A pronounced orientation toward professional development alongside falling satisfaction with career opportunities suggests checking whether the company offers only a management career where a technical track is needed. Strong motivation by challenge next to signs of burnout signals a risk that professional interest has grown into chronic overload.
Career anchors complement Gerchikov's motivation types well. Gerchikov describes what a person wants from work and how incentives act on them; Schein describes which trajectory they consider their own. Together the two models help tell apart an employee who needs a new level of problems from one who needs a new role.
No orientation is more correct than another. The mistake arises when an organization assumes it knows an employee's motivation without asking or measuring it. The conversation with Andrew should have begun with the question of where he sees himself in two years: at the head of the team, or over the hardest part of the system.
Career expectation surveys in formeasure
In formeasure, a survey on career expectations is put together in the survey builder. It is worth asking, for example, what kind of growth employees value, whether they have enough autonomy and how clear the development options are without moving into management. Results are viewed by team and department and compared with satisfaction and engagement surveys.
Such a survey remains the company's own instrument, and its results are not compared with the norms of Schein's validated method.
Frequently asked questions about career anchors
What are career anchors?
They are a person's stable career orientations: the combination of their view of their abilities, motives and values that they will not give up when choosing work. The concept was proposed by Edgar Schein.[1]
How many career anchors did Schein identify?
Eight: technical/functional competence, general management, autonomy, security/stability, entrepreneurial creativity, service, pure challenge and lifestyle. Russian-language versions have nine scales, because stability is split into job security and geographic stability.[1]
Can a person have more than one anchor?
Yes. Usually one or two anchors lead, and most professions allow several orientations to be satisfied at once.[1]
Where can I take the career anchors test?
The original questionnaire is published by Wiley.[4] For comparable diagnostics, use a licensed version of the instrument; we don't publish the form.
How do career anchors differ from Gerchikov's motivation types?
Gerchikov describes what a person wants to get from work and how incentives act on them. Schein describes which career trajectory a person considers their own. The two models complement each other.
How do you keep a strong specialist who doesn't want to manage?
Offer growth in their direction: a technical track, harder problems, a role in architectural decisions, recognition of expertise. A fit between orientation and the nature of the job is associated with satisfaction and the intention to stay.[3]
Can the Schein test be used in hiring?
Not as the sole basis for a decision. The test shows what kind of work will suit a person, but it doesn't measure ability or performance.
Why do IT specialists' orientations differ from other professions?
IT has many roles where growth is possible without managing people. In a study of information systems employees, programmers leaned more often toward technical competence, while project leaders leaned toward management.[3]
Sources
- Volkova N. V., Chiker V. A. — Career attitudes of students in strategically promising fields of study // Social Psychology and Society. 2018. Vol. 9, No. 1. P. 90–107 (in Russian). https://psyjournals.ru/journals/sps/archive/2018_n1/sps_2018_n1_Volkova_Chiker.pdf
- Schein E. H. — Career Anchors: Discovering Your Real Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer, 1990.
- Igbaria M., Greenhaus J. H., Parasuraman S. — Career Orientations of MIS Employees: An Empirical Analysis // MIS Quarterly. 1991. Vol. 15, No. 2. P. 151–169. https://doi.org/10.2307/249376
- Schein E. H., Van Maanen J., Schein P. A. — Career Anchors Reimagined: Finding Direction and Opportunity in the Changing World of Work. 5th ed. Hoboken: Wiley, 2023. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/shop/general-introductory-business-management/career-anchors-reimagined-finding-direction-and-opportunity-in-the-changing-world-of-work-5th-edition-p-9781119899495
- Schein E. H., Van Maanen J. — Career Anchors: Participant Workbook. 4th ed. Wiley, 2013 (publisher's excerpt). https://catalogimages.wiley.com/images/db/pdf/9781118455753.excerpt.pdf