British Journal of Guidance & Counselling

ISSN: 0306-9885 (Print) 1469-3534 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbjg20

Systemic thinking in career development theory:

contributions of the Systems Theory Framework

Mary McMahon & Wendy Patton

To cite this article: Mary McMahon & Wendy Patton (2018) Systemic thinking in career
development theory: contributions of the Systems Theory Framework, British Journal of Guidance &
Counselling, 46:2, 229-240, DOI: 10.1080/03069885.2018.1428941

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2018.1428941

Published online: 21 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 231

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cbjg20
BRITISH JOURNAL OF GUIDANCE & COUNSELLING, 2018
VOL. 46, NO. 2, 229–240
https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2018.1428941

INVITED PAPER

Systemic thinking in career development theory: contributions of

the Systems Theory Framework
Mary McMahona and Wendy Pattonb
a
School of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia; bFaculty of Education, Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article considers systemic thinking in relation to the Systems Theory Received 30 April 2017
Framework (STF) and to career theory. An overview of systems theory Revised 16 December 2017
and its applications is followed by a discussion of career theory to Accepted 14 January 2018
provide a context for the subsequent description of STF. The
KEYWORDS
contributions of STF to career theory and to theory integration are Systems Theory Framework;
presented. Finally, the key constructs of work, learning, and career systemic thinking; work;
identity are considered through the lenses of STF and systemic thinking. learning; career identity

Systemic thinking in career development theory has its origins in systems theory which was first com-
prehensively described by von Bertalanffy (1968) in his seminal book, “General Systems Theory.”
Bertalanffy (1934) recognised as early as 1928 that “single parts and processes cannot provide a com-
plete picture of the vital phenomena” (p. 64). He defined a system as a “complex of elements standing
in interaction” (von Bertalanffy, 1968, p. 33) and was particularly interested in open systems; that is,
systems which interact and make exchanges with their environment as living systems do (von
Bertalanffy, 1972). Systemic thinking therefore, necessitates thinking in wholes rather than parts.
Bertalanffy’s work originated in the field of biology but he contended that the principles of general
systems theory could have applications in other fields including in the human sciences. Attesting to
this wider application, systems theory has influenced disciplines as diverse as communication,
business, ecology, philosophy, physics and engineering, and developments such as air conditioning,
computers, and robotics. Systems thinking permeates common use terms such as education systems,
computer systems, and transport systems (Ison, 2008). In the human sciences, systems theory prin-
ciples have been applied through the living systems framework (D. Ford, 1987), developmental
systems theory (DST; Ford & Lerner, 1992), motivational systems theory (MST; Ford, 1992), dynamic
systems theory (e.g. Smith & Thelen, 1993), developmental psychobiological systems (e.g. Gottlieb,
1992) and Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) bioecological model to substantially advance thinking about
human behaviour and development.
Reflecting the multidisciplinary applications of systems theory, its potential value to career devel-
opment was recognised more than three decades ago by Osipow (1983) and subsequently Collin
(1985, 2006), who applied systems theory to a conceptual model of career. Systems theory is reflected
in the diverse influences on career development depicted in Super’s (1990) life-space life-span theory
and in Vondracek, Lerner, and Schulenberg’s (1986) developmental contextual model of career devel-
opment. Systemic thinking also underpins many contemporary career theories which acknowledge
the contexts in which individuals construct their work lives (e.g. career construction theory [Savickas,
2013]; career action theory [Young et al., 2011]) despite seldom being mentioned or explicitly

CONTACT Mary McMahon marylmcmahon@uq.edu.au School of Education, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD
4072, Australia
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
230 M. MCMAHON AND W. PATTON

acknowledged (McMahon, Watson, & Patton, 2014). Exceptions include the chaos theory of careers
(Pryor & Bright, 2011]) which acknowledges the contribution of systems theory, the living systems
theory of vocational behaviour and development (Vondracek, Ford, & Porfeli, 2014), and the
metatheoretical Systems Theory Framework of career development (STF; McMahon & Patton, 1995;
Patton & McMahon, 1999, 2006, 2014) which are strongly underpinned by systems theory.
Systemic thinking is fundamental to STF’s practical applications in career counselling and career
assessment. A feature of STF is its emphasis on interrelationships and the process of recursive inter-
action within and between its systems and sub-systems. Systemic thinking affords a lens through
which to conceptualise constructs and concepts fundamental to career development such as
work, learning, and career identity. For example, Patton and McMahon (1999, 2006, 2014) employed
systemic thinking to conceptualise career learning and career learning systems and to position learn-
ing at the heart of career development practices informed by STF. In 2014, McMahon considered how
systemic thinking contributes to understanding the construction of career identity (McMahon, 2014a)
and subsequently, in 2017 she discussed work and why people work through the lenses of STF and
systemic thinking. Following a brief overview of the status of career theory, this article outlines STF,
and describes its key contributions to this field. While STF has made significant contributions to career
practice and research (McMahon, Watson, & Patton, 2015; Patton & McMahon, 2015, 2017), this article
will focus on its contributions to career theory in relation to integration with other theories. An illus-
tration of how the theoretical constructs of work, career identity, and learning may be understood
through systemic thinking will be provided.

Career theory
Systems theory provides a useful backdrop through which to consider the status of career theory.
Despite a concrete documentation of career development theorising since the work of Parsons
(1909) and Munsterberg (see Porfeli, 2009), it remains a field subject to much criticism (see
McMahon, 2014b for a summary of what she terms “pervasive themes” p. 16). While theoretical prop-
ositions and models have been developed to various levels of sophistication, conclusions within the
literature generally are that career theory remains inadequate and incomplete and lacking in compre-
hensiveness and coherence (D. Brown, 2002a; S. D. Brown & Lent, 2005; McMahon, 2014b; Savickas,
2009). In particular, it continues to be critiqued for its failure to account for other than Western
middle-class, predominantly male, populations (Blustein, 2006, 2011) and its lack of attention to
social justice and diverse populations (McMahon, 2014b; McMahon et al., 2014). Related to this
aspect is its failure to attend to work other than paid work, and indeed the growing field of
unpaid care work (Richardson, 2012; Richardson & Schaeffer, 2013). In addition, it has been criticised
for focusing on intraindividual issues to the detriment of contextual issues (Collin & Young, 1986;
Leong & Hartung, 2000).
Career theory has been criticised further, for a number of decades, for being segmented both
within the individual theoretical models (Osipow, 1990; Patton & McMahon, 2014) and within the dis-
ciplinary field (Arthur, 2008; Bakshi, 2014; Collin, 2010; Collin & Patton, 2009; Dany, 2014). For example,
Bakshi (2014) commented that while there is some rapprochement between life span theory and
career theories, it is “inconsistent and, at present, less than adequate” (p. 64). An important
attempt to bring together vocational psychological and organisational perspectives on career was
Collin and Patton’s (2009) edited book which sought to move “towards the multidisciplinarity that
scholars have argued is presently missing in career studies” (p. 13).
Major commentary on career development theory “seems to occur approximately every decade”
(McMahon, 2014b, p. 24). However key issues identified above continue to be prevalent. Career devel-
opment theory in the twenty-first century continues to work to respond to challenges in three key
areas: the need for integration or convergence of theories, the importance of integrating related dis-
ciplines into the field, and the increasing influence of constructivism and social constructionism.
Since the work of Borgen (1991) and Osipow (1990), theorists have acknowledged the value to be
 BRITISH JOURNAL OF GUIDANCE & COUNSELLING 231

gained from attempting to provide a more integrative theoretical picture of career development.
Recognising the need for convergence in career development theory was the specific focus of a
1992 conference, papers from which were published (Savickas & Lent, 1994).
Since that time not only has convergence in career theory not been realised, it has remained an
“elusive goal” although progress has been made (Vondracek et al., 2014, p. 10), and there has been a
further proliferation of career theories (Guichard, 2005; McMahon, 2014b). This proliferation has poss-
ibly been a response to such critiques, but also at a time in history where society is experiencing rapid
change, and career development, concomitantly, needs a theory base that is more accommodating
of complexity. A key feature of most of these “new trends” in career theory is their philosophical base
in constructivism and social constructionism (McMahon, 2014b). While acknowledging similarities
and differences between the two philosophies, Young and Collin (2004) suggested that there are
more similarities and that differences primarily centre on whether construction is a cognitive
process or a social process. Similarities between the two philosophies concern some of their core con-
structs including connectedness between individuals and their contexts, narrative discourse,
meaning making, subjectivity and personal agency, all of which are evident in contemporary theories
and practices including STF.

The Systems Theory Framework

In acknowledging the importance of this trend toward integration and convergence, Patton and
McMahon developed and refined the STF (McMahon & Patton, 1995; Patton & McMahon, 1999,
2006, 2014). Its first publication was in 1995 (McMahon & Patton), and its first publication on practical
applications, in which several authors considered the use of STF for a range of client groups and in a
range of settings, was in 1997 (Patton & McMahon). In 1999, the major theoretical account of the
Systems Theory Framework was published (Patton & McMahon, 1999), with updates and revisions
in 2006 and 2014 (Patton & McMahon, 2006, 2014). A full description of STF and its sustained and
growing contribution to career theory and practice can be found in the most recent revision. A
detailed history of the development of STF and its applications was published on the occasion of
its 20th anniversary (Patton & McMahon, 2015).
The STF is composed of several key interrelated systems, including the intrapersonal system of the
individual, the social system and the environmental-societal system all set within the context of time
(see Figure 1). The individual system is composed of several intrapersonal content influences which
include gender, age, self-concept, health, ability, disability, physical attributes, beliefs, personality, inter-
ests, values, aptitudes, skills, world-of-work knowledge, sexual orientation, and ethnicity. Influences
representing the content of the social system include peers, family, media, community groups, work-
place, and education institutions. Environmental-societal system influences include political decisions,
historical trends, globalisation, socioeconomic status, employment market, and geographical location.
The processes of these systems are explained via the recursive nature of interaction within and between
these systems, change over time, and chance. Recursiveness, a central construct of STF, emphasises the
inseparability of parts from the whole and demonstrates that it is “essential to think of content and
process as a dynamic, integrated package” (Vondracek et al., 2014, p. 15).
Career development research which emanates primarily from the field of vocational psychology has
tended to focus on the influences contained in the individual system (e.g. interests, personality and
values). The integrative power of STF suggests that other disciplines such as economics, sociology
and education, may offer explanatory accounts of influences such as geographic location and socio-
economic circumstances which have traditionally been neglected in career development. For
example, Green (2015), a geographer, explained how geographical location impacts employment
and paid work, with a particular focus on women. Roberts (2012), a sociologist, for many years has
explained the profound impact of low socioeconomic circumstances on young people. Economists
(e.g. Barbara Pocock [Pocock, Skinner, & Williams, 2012]) provide insight into the impact of work on
families and communities. Education sociologist, Louise Archer, and her colleagues have
232 M. MCMAHON AND W. PATTON

Figure 1. The Systems Theory Framework.

demonstrated how aspirations are shaped by influences such as social class, gender, ethnicity, home/
family, school, hobbies/leisure activities and television (Archer, Wong, & Dewitt, 2013). Human devel-
opment economics theory, with its emphasis on five core human freedoms and concern about
“entrenched social injustice and inequality” (Nussbaum, 2011, pp. 18–19) is yet another discipline
that could make an important contribution to the next generation of career theory development (Blus-
tein, 2015). Not only can such disciplines “fill gaps” not to date addressed by career development, they
also offer possibilities for future collaborative research which could serve to strengthen the field.

Theoretical contribution of STF

The Systems Theory Framework (McMahon et al., 2015; McMahon & Patton, 1995; Patton & McMahon,
1997, 1999, 2006, 2014, 2015, 2017) remains the first attempt to present a comprehensive
 BRITISH JOURNAL OF GUIDANCE & COUNSELLING 233

metatheoretical framework of career development constructed using systems theory. It has been
described by Blustein (2006) as an “excellent synthesis of the systems perspective of career develop-
ment” (p. 94). The STF is not a theory of career development and is not designed to be so; rather
systems theory is introduced as the basis for an overarching, or metatheoretical, framework within
which all concepts of career development described in the plethora of career theories can be usefully
positioned and utilised in theory and practice. Unlike a theory, a metatheory does not offer a detailed
account of particular phenomena. Rather, such detailed accounts are provided by specific theories
which are refined over time through research. The metatheoretical capacity of STF in relation to
more recent theoretical propositions such as career construction theory (McIlveen & Patton, 2007),
relational theory (Patton, 2007), and career action theory (Patton, 2015) has been considered and
demonstrated its ongoing relevance as an integrative framework. With the individual as the
central focus, constructing his or her own meaning of career, constructs of existing theories are rel-
evant as they apply to each individual. This is reflective of Miller-Tiedeman’s (1999) proposition that
individuals write their own career theories which are revealed through their evolving stories; “theory
is not separate from experience. Theory merely mirrors a story of someone’s experience” (p. 52).
The significance of STF to the field has been highlighted for over a decade, with Brown (2002a)
noting its potential as an integrative theoretical framework for career theory. Amundson (2005) ident-
ified STF as one of four significant theoretical innovations in recent career theory and Vondracek et al.
(2014) described STF as one of “three noteworthy efforts to create integrative and comprehensive
theoretical or ‘meta-theoretical’ frameworks” (p. 7). The STF was analysed by Young and Popadiuk
(2012) and described as a metatheoretical perspective which has made strong contributions to the
field, especially the interconnections between theory, research and practice. These authors acknowl-
edge STF as a metatheoretical account of career development that accommodates career theories
from both the logical positivist and constructivist worldviews, noting its demonstration of recursive-
ness at an individual and a metatheoretical level. McMahon (2014b) identified STF as one of the five
key theoretical developments emerging from the growing influence of constructivism and social
constructionism.
McMahon (2014b) further asserted that “the major contribution of systems theory to career theory
is in connecting constructivist and convergence agendas” (p. 35) and this has been operationalised
within the Systems Theory Framework. A number of key contributions include:

(1) demonstrating similarities, differences, and interconnections between theories (e.g. McIlveen,
2007; McIlveen & Patton, 2007; Patton, 2007, 2015);
(2) enabling a coherent accounting of the diverse range of constructs relevant to career develop-
ment evident in existing theories (e.g. McMahon, 2014a, 2017);
(3) demonstrating the complexity of systems within which individuals make decisions related to
learning and work;
(4) demonstrating the content and process of career development through an emphasis on inter-
actions and interrelationships;
(5) recognising (and being able to apply) the contribution to career development theory and prac-
tice of other fields, for example family therapy, narrative therapy, sociology (e.g. Roberts, 2012),
human development economics theory (Nussbaum, 2011), education (Archer et al., 2013);
(6) demonstrating a greater congruence between theory and practice, and providing a plethora of
new approaches for career practice (e.g. My Career Chapter [McIlveen, 2015b]; My System of
Career influences [McMahon, Patton, & Watson, 2017; McMahon, Watson, & Patton, 2013]; the
story telling approach to narrative career counselling [McMahon & Watson, 2013]; the Integrative
Structured Interview [McMahon & Watson, 2012]);
(7) enabling a focus on the individual and not on theory. The individual is central to a complex
dynamic systemic interplay of intrapersonal and contextual influences. As such systems theory
can be applicable at a macrolevel of theory analysis (e.g. McIlveen, 2007; Patton, 2007, 2015),
234 M. MCMAHON AND W. PATTON

as well as at a microlevel of individual analysis (see McMahon, Watson, & Bimrose, 2013) and all
theories can be unified in relation to the individual;
(8) enabling practitioners to choose from theories most relevant to the needs and situation of each
individual (“a focus on individuals making meaning of their own careers will continue to encou-
rage a holistic understanding of career and an ongoing drawing on theoretical constructs by indi-
viduals as they are relevant to the construction of their career” [McMahon, 2014b, p. 35]); and
(9) presenting a perspective that underlies the philosophy reflected in the move from positivist
approaches to constructivist approaches.

A strength of STF is its connectedness between theory, research and practice (see Patton &
McMahon, 2017). As a systemic map, it can assist practitioners to conceptualise career development
and STF’s systemic maps of the therapeutic system and the school system clearly demonstrate the
complex contextual and dynamic nature of career practices such as career counselling and career
education. The core constructs of STF have been applied and researched in career counselling and
qualitative career assessment throughout its history and attest to its contemporary relevance.

Theory integration
Since its first publication, STF has encouraged new patterns of relationships between existing the-
ories, therefore further providing a conceptual unity within the field. Patton (2007) presented a dis-
cussion of the potential for STF in theory integration with respect to relational theories. McIlveen
(2007) and McIlveen and Patton (2007) proposed the integration of dialogical theory (Hermans,
2002, 2003) with both career construction theory and with STF, acknowledging the potential for dia-
logical self to contribute to the individual’s process of constructing career-related stories.
Patton (2008) discussed similarities and differences between STF and career construction theory,
noting the contribution that both had made to the convergence agenda. More recently, Patton (2015)
discussed the interconnections between constructs within STF and contextual action theory (Young,
Valach, & Marshall, 2007), focusing on conceptual understandings and practice dimensions. Finally,
the Systems Theory Framework was used by McIlveen (2015a) as the underpinning for the develop-
ment of a Vocational Psychology of Agriculture framework. McIlveen asserted that STF was instru-
mental in this development as it enables the integration and coherent organisation of
conceptually different vocational psychology theories.
As a metatheoretical framework, STF has addressed four criteria that Vondracek et al. (2014) have
claimed are needed by integrative frameworks of career development, specifically:
(1) combine a focus on the person as a unified organization of many attributes, the context as a unified organ-
ization of many attributes, and the dynamics of person-context interactions, (2) utilize relevant fundamental
scientific and professional advances in other fields, (3) provide pathways of linkage to other human development
domains that could continually facilitate future improvement in both (e.g. family, child, adolescent and adult
development), and (4) demonstrate clear links to the work of counseling psychologists and other practitioners
in the field (p. 6).

As an integrative framework, STF does not advocate particular theories. Rather, it recognises the com-
plexity and breadth of career development and therefore values the contributions of all theories in
providing accounts of career development content influences and processes. Moreover, as a
metatheoretical framework founded on systems theory, STF encourages and accommodates other
disciplines’ accounts of content and process influences on career development.

Career development constructs and concepts through the lens of systemic thinking
Career theory has to date accounted for some of the visible elements of STF, primarily influences
located within the individual system. This inclusion can be related to career theory’s traditional
focus on individual-level content influences. For example, Holland (1997) offered a theoretical
 BRITISH JOURNAL OF GUIDANCE & COUNSELLING 235

account of the content influence of personality and Brown (2002b) of the content influence of values.
Some theories however, have proffered accounts of career development processes which are visible
in STF indirectly through the process influences of recursiveness and change over time. For example,
Super (1990) accounted for change over time as a series of career development stages across the life-
span. Moreover, Super was one of the first theorists to consider the recursiveness between multiple
life roles that may impact on career decision-making. Indeed, Super’s life-span and life-space theory
and his archway of career determinants evidence systemic thinking; that is, taking an “individual in
context view … that avoids oversimplification of career decision-making and career development”
(McMahon et al., 2014, p. 30).
Systemic thinking is a way of looking at the world as “a set of interrelated parts that make up the
perceived whole” (Espejo, 1994, p. 202) with an emphasis on the recursive interrelationships rather
than on the parts. In essence, systemic thinking is about “learning how to manage situational com-
plexity” (Espejo, 1994, p. 210) and taking a broad perspective that enables a view of the nonlinear
relationships present in complex systems (Ryan & Tomlin, 2010). Systemic thinking encourages the
telling of contextually-grounded stories that reveal complexity; it takes a holistic view while also
taking account of contributing elements (McMahon, 2014c). Systemic thinking is complex and chal-
lenging because it reveals a “complex web of relationships” and “crucial influences and tensions”
(Collin, 2006, p. 300) that obviate over-simplistic linear thinking and cause and effect explanations.
While systemic thinking provides a way of viewing the influences explicitly depicted in STF, it also
provides a means of considering theoretical constructs central to career development that are not
visible because of their fluid nature or their location in the spaces and dotted lines of STF (see
Figure 1). Examples include work, learning and career identity; their centrality to career development
and their non-depiction, as with the non-depiction of career, are reflective of Dany’s (2014) obser-
vation that “careers are necessarily located in time and space” (p. 718). The STF may be used as a
map of influences and interrelationships (McMahon & Patton, 2017); systemic thinking involves
“looking inside the ‘space between’ these parts and the interaction between them” (Sexton, 2012,
p. 61) in order to understand. The examples of work, learning and career identity will be considered
in turn to demonstrate the theoretical contribution of STF in general and systemic thinking in particu-
lar to conceptualise these theoretical constructs.

Work
This first example was selected because work is at the heart of the field of career development and is
the reason for the field’s existence as reflected in the title of Parsons’ (1909) seminal work “Choosing a
vocation”. Parsons understood the complexity of finding work and indeed proffered a systemic view
when he urged job seekers to gather information on intrapersonal system influences such as abilities
and interests; to talk to influential members of their social systems such as family, friends, employers
and teachers; and to consider environmental-societal influences such as financial status and mobility.
According to Hulin (2002), working and having a job are defining features of adulthood. Conse-
quently, since the days of Parsons, career development has maintained its focus on paid employment
to the exclusion of unpaid care work and volunteer work which to date, have primarily been viewed
as the domain of women and has been challenged to assume a more inclusive stance. Further, the
focus on paid work that prevails in career development does not adequately address the nature of
work and why people work outside Western, middle-class settings. For example, Arulmani (2014)
and Watson (2013) have described the situation of workers in developing countries that is not ade-
quately accounted for by extant Western career development theories.
Work of all kinds, paid and unpaid, is “an inherently systemic activity” (McMahon, 2017, p. 9) that is
located “in workplaces, in families and in community groups and is intrinsically influenced by political
decisions, socioeconomic status, globalisation, the labour market, historical trends and geographic
location” (McMahon, 2017, p. 11). It cannot thus, be depicted in any particular location of STF
because it is recursively embedded in the lives of individuals, families, communities and societies
and in globalisation and government policy. For example, access to work may be related to
236 M. MCMAHON AND W. PATTON

socioeconomic status, gender or ethnicity. Participation in paid work impacts an individual’s access to
education, health care and lifestyle options. The nature of work available in rural areas differs from
that in regional centres and metropolitan areas. McMahon (2017) has provided a detailed systemic
account of work and why people work from the perspective of STF’s recursive systems of influence.
By taking such a systemic view, career development theory could move beyond its dominant match-
ing paid employment focus, take a more inclusive view of work, and expand its relevance to a broader
range of populations and settings. Indeed, from a systemic perspective, as discussed earlier in this
article, other disciplines such as geography (e.g. Green, 2015), sociology (Roberts, 2012) and
human development economics theory (e.g. Nussbaum, 2011) may offer more detailed accounts
of the systemic nature of work and entrenched inequality that to date, vocational psychology has
not addressed.

Learning
Learning, the second example, has been included because it has been central to career development
since its inception in the vocational guidance movement and also because it is a specific feature of
STF that distinguishes it from other contemporary theories (e. g., chaos theory, career construction
theory). Indeed Parsons’s (1909) tripartite model concerns learning about self and the work environ-
ment in order to make a career decision. Despite the centrality of learning to career development, few
theories have specifically addressed it, with the exception of the Social Learning Theory of Career
Decision Making (SLTCDM; Mitchell & Krumboltz, 1990) which described how the genetic endow-
ments, abilities, and environmental conditions and events influence learning and subsequent task
approach skills. Learning, although not explained in detail, was described by Super (1990) as the
glue that held together the components of his archway of career determinants which is essentially
a systemic portrayal of the systems of influence in interaction.
Learning, like work, is inherently systemic and Patton and McMahon (2014) have described learn-
ing as a “bridge between career theory and practice which comes together in the individual who is
central to the learning process” (p. 292). Indeed, there are many schools of thought about systems
theory but all recognise the importance of learning. For example, from a soft system dynamics per-
spective, Wolstenholme (1990) advocated the use of maps and models as a visual way of learning.
From a critical systems perspective, Flood (1999) emphasised the application of action learning
and from an open systems perspective, Emery (2000) suggested that learning and planning are
posited as the relationship between systems and social environments. Drawing on experiential learn-
ing theory (Kolb, 1984), Patton and McMahon view learning as a continuous process that is grounded
in experiences which are located in the spaces and recursiveness of STF. Learning experiences may
come from interaction with any part of the system as reflected in Barnes and Brown’s (2016) systemic
description of learning:
both planned and unplanned (non-formal learning); in formal or informal settings; in all types of learning situ-
ations (social, workplace, schools or training providing institutions); for personal or work-related purposes;
from interactions with all kinds of people (teachers, trainers, mentors, colleagues, peers and friends) (p. 235).

Learning may effect changes in values, attitudes, behaviour and understanding (Barnes & Brown,
2016). Similarly, Illeris’s (2014) description of transformative learning includes elements such as
experience, reflection on the experience, dialogue with self and others about the experience, and
awareness of context. Moreover, Illeris emphasises the inseparability of cognitive and emotional pro-
cesses in learning and in doing so draws attention to a neglected topic in career development,
specifically emotion. Learning is evident in career development across the lifespan from childhood
(see Watson & McMahon, 2005) to adulthood where learning features strongly in midlife career
change (see Bimrose, Barabasch, Brown, & Mulvey, 2015). Learning is illustrative of STF’s process con-
struct of change across time and the recursive relationship between past, present and future and the
stages portrayed in career theory. A systemic view of learning in career development enables links
between theories, and between theories and practice.
 BRITISH JOURNAL OF GUIDANCE & COUNSELLING 237

Career identity
Career identity, the third example, has been included because it is central to career development
theory, in particular, all contemporary theories of career development including STF. Put simply,
career identity is about “who I am” or “who I want to be” (Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashforth, 2004, p. 17).
As a construct, it comprises “the career aspirations, values and beliefs that inform our self-
concept” (Lysova, Richardson, Khapova, & Jansen, 2015, p. 40) and serves to guide and motivate indi-
viduals to take action that enables them to realise opportunities. Fundamentally, “career identity
guides our career development; it also influences how we view our work and how we behave in
the workplace” (Lysova et al., 2015, p. 39). From a systemic perspective, career identity is socially situ-
ated, performed in interaction and co-constructed (La Pointe, 2010) in historical, social and cultural
contexts and over time, beginning in childhood and is never fixed because it is constructed and
reconstructed across time and context (McMahon, 2014a). A systemic view of career identity suggests
that career theories that are more holistic by taking account of time and context are more likely to
address concerns about the relevance of career theory to some populations.
As evidenced in these examples, systemic thinking is not new to career development. It has been
present throughout its history but has seldom been named. Further, it has been shown to provide a
theme through which theoretical constructs within career theory may be integrated, and concomi-
tantly, the theories themselves may be integrated.

Conclusion
The Systems Theory Framework has a history of almost a quarter of a century that, through its long-
evity, attests to its contribution to career development theory. When first published internationally as
a career theory book (Patton & McMahon, 1999), STF was described on the back cover by reviewers as
a “groundbreaking departure from traditional counseling texts”, a “landmark work leading to the con-
vergence of career development theories”, and as a “rare book that not only illuminates a field of
study but also advances it”. Indeed, STF was ahead of its time in a field calling for integrative frame-
works but not prepared for the challenges associated with the emergence of such a theoretical fra-
mework. Further STF accommodates integration of theory from other fields such as economics,
education and sociology. The STF is complex and dynamic, attesting to its relevance in a similarly
complex and dynamic society. Its application through systemic thinking is complex and challenging;
it does not provide quick or easy answers. Systemic thinking does however offer the possibility of
enhanced inclusivity for career development and greater relevance to individuals, families, commu-
nities, practitioners, and policymakers. Importantly, systemic thinking can be learned and the Systems
Theory Framework may provide a map for doing so.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Mary McMahon is an honorary senior lecturer in the School of Education at The University of Queensland. She has written
and published extensively in the field of career development and is the developer and co-author with Wendy Patton of
the Systems Theory Framework of career development. Mary’s research focuses on career development across the life-
span and the application of systemic thinking to career theory, research and practice.
Wendy Patton serves as Professor Emeritus in the Faculty of Education at Queensland University of Technology. She is the
developer and co-author with Mary McMahon of the Systems Theory Framework of career development. Wendy has
published extensively in the area of career development, including articles, book chapters, conference papers, and
has co-authored and co-edited books. She was Series Editor of the Career Development Series with Sense Publishers,
and is currently on the editorial advisory boards of a number of national and international career development journals.
238 M. MCMAHON AND W. PATTON

References
Amundson, N. (2005). The potential impact of global changes in work for career theory and practice. International Journal
for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 5, 91–99.
Archer, L., Wong, B., & Dewitt, J. (2013). Spheres of influence: What shapes young people’s aspirations at age 12/13 and
what are the implications for education policy? Journal of Education Policy, 29, 58–85.
Arthur, M. (2008). Examining contemporary careers: A call for interdisciplinary inquiry. Human Relations, 61, 163–186.
Arulmani, G. (2014). Career guidance and livelihood planning. Indian Journal of Career and Livelihood Planning, 3, 9–11.
Bakshi, A. (2014). Life span theory and career theories: Rapprochement or estrangement. In G. Arulmani, A. Bakshi, F.
Leong, & T. Watts (Eds.), Handbook of career development: International perspectives (pp. 43–66). New York: Springer.
Barnes, S.-A., & Brown, A. (2016). Stories of learning and their significance to future pathways and aspirations. British
Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 44, 233–242.
Bimrose, J., Barabasch, A., Brown, A., & Mulvey, R. (2015). Midcareer changes symposium. British Journal of Guidance &
Counselling, 43, 255–262.
Blustein, D. L. (2006). The psychology of working: A new perspective for career development, counseling, and public policy.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blustein, D. L. (2011). A relational theory of working. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 1–17.
Blustein, D. L. (2015). Implications for career theory. In J. Bimrose, M. McMahon, & M. Watson (Eds.), Women’s career devel-
opment throughout the lifespan: An international exploration (pp. 219–230). Abingdon: Routledge.
Borgen, F. H. (1991). Megatrends and milestones in vocational behavior: A 20-year counseling psychology retrospective.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 39, 263–290.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Brown, D. (2002a). Status of theories of career choice and development. In D. Brown, & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and
development (4th ed., pp. 510–515). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, D. (2002b). The role of work values and cultural values in occupational choice, satisfaction, and success: A theor-
etical statement. In D. Brown, & Associates (Eds.), Career choice and development (4th ed., pp. 465–509). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (2005). Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley.
Collin, A. (1985). The learning circle of a research project on “mid-career change”: Through stages to systems thinking.
Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 12, 35–53.
Collin, A. (2006). Conceptualising the family-friendly career: The contribution of career theories and a systems approach.
British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 34, 295–307.
Collin, A. (2010). The challenge of career studies. Career Research and Development, 23, 12–14.
Collin, A., & Patton, W., (Eds.). (2009). Vocational psychological and organisational perspectives on career: Towards a multi-
disciplinary dialogue. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Collin, A., & Young, R. (1986). New directions for theories of career. Human Relations, 39, 837–853.
Dany, F. (2014). Time to change: The added value of an integrative approach to career research. Career Development
International, 19(6), 718–730.
Emery, M. (2000). The current version of emery’s open systems theory. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 13, 623–643.
Espejo, R. (1994). What is systemic thinking? System Dynamics Review, 10, 199–212.
Flood, R. L. (1999). Rethinking the fifth discipline: Learning within the unknowable. London: Routledge.
Ford, D. (1987). Humans as self-constructing living systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ford, D., & Lerner, R. (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ford, M. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions and personal agency beliefs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 14–38.
Gottlieb, G. (1992). Individual development and evolution: The genesis of novel behavior. New York: Oxford University Press.
Green, A. (2015). Geographical perspectives on women’s careers: Why and how space matters. In J. Bimrose, M.
McMahon, & M. Watson (Eds.), Women’s career development throughout the lifespan: An international exploration
(pp. 11–25). Abingdon: Routledge.
Guichard, J. (2005). Lifelong self-construction. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 5, 111–124.
Hermans, H. J. M. (2002). The dialogical self as a society of mind. Introduction. Theory & Psychology, 12(2), 147–160.
Hermans, H. J. M. (2003). The construction and reconstruction of a dialogical self. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 16,
89–130.
Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.).
Odessa, FL: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hulin, C. M. (2002). Lessons from industrial and organisational psychology. In J. M. Brett, & F. Drasgow (Eds.), The psychol-
ogy of work: Empirically driven scientific research (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Illeris, K. (2014). Transformative learning and identity. Abingdon: Routledge.
 BRITISH JOURNAL OF GUIDANCE & COUNSELLING 239

Ison, R. L. (2008). Systems thinking and practice for action research. In P. W. Reason, & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The sage hand-
book of action research participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed., pp. 139–158). London: Sage.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
La Pointe, K. (2010). Narrating career, positioning identity: Career identity as a narrative practice. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 77, 1–9.
Leong, F. T. L., & Hartung, P. J. (2000). Adapting to the changing multicultural context of career. In A. Collin, & R. A. Young
(Eds.), The future of career (pp. 212–227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lysova, E. I., Richardson, J., Khapova, S. N., & Jansen, P. G. W. (2015). Change-supportive employee behavior: A career iden-
tity explanation. Career Development International, 20, 38–62.
McIlveen, P. (2007). A test for theoretical integration: Systems theory and dialogical self. Australian Journal of Career
Development, 16(3), 31–37.
McIlveen, P. (2015a). A research agenda for the vocational psychology of agriculture. Australian Journal of Career
Development, 24(3), 157–165.
McIlveen, P. (2015b). My career chapter and the career systems interview. In M. McMahon, & M. Watson (Eds.), Career
assessment: Qualitative approaches (pp. 123–128). Rotterdam: Sense.
McIlveen, P., & Patton, W. (2007). Dialogical self: Author and narrator of career life themes. International Journal for
Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7(2), 67–80.
McMahon, M. (2014a). Constructing career identity through systemic thinking. In M. Coetzee (Ed.), Psycho-social career
meta-capacities: Dynamics of contemporary career development (pp. 75–86). Switzerland: Springer International
Publishing.
McMahon, M. (2014b). New trends in theory development in career psychology. In G. Arulmani, A. Bakshi, F. Leong, & T.
Watts (Eds.), Handbook of career development: International perspectives (pp. 13–27). New York: Springer.
McMahon, M. (2014c). Systemic thinking: A foundation for “doing” narrative career counselling. In J. G. Maree, & A. Di
Fabio (Eds.), Exploring future/ New horizons in career counselling: Turning challenge into opportunity (pp. 99–116).
Rotterdam: Sense.
McMahon, M. (2017). Work and why we do it: A Systems Theory Framework perspective. Career Planning and Adult
Development Journal, 33, 9–15.
McMahon, M., & Patton, W. (1995). Development of a systems theory of career development. Australian Journal of Career
Development, 4, 15–20.
McMahon, M., & Patton, W. (2017). The Systems Theory Framework A conceptual and practical map for career counselling.
In M. McMahon (Ed.), Career counselling: Constructivist approaches (pp. 123–126). London: Routledge.
McMahon, M., & Watson, M. (2012). Telling stories of career assessment. Journal of Career Assessment, 20, 440–451.
McMahon, M., & Watson, M. (2013). Story telling: Crafting identities. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 41,
277–286.
McMahon, M., Watson, M., & Bimrose, J. (2013). Older women’s careers: Systemic perspectives. In W. Patton (Ed.),
Conceptualising working women’s lives: Moving the boundaries of discourse (pp. 119–134). Rotterdam: Sense.
McMahon, M., Watson, M., & Patton, W. (2014). Context-resonant systems perspectives in career theory. In G. Arulmani, A.
Bakshi, F. Leong, & T. Watts (Eds.), Handbook of career development: International perspectives (pp. 29–42). New York:
Springer.
McMahon, M., Watson, W., & Patton, W. (2015). The Systems Theory Framework of career development: Applications to
career counselling and career assessment. Australian Journal of Career Development, 24, 148–156.
Miller-Tiedeman, A. L. (1999). Learning, practicing and living the new careering: A twenty-first century approach. New York:
Taylor Francis.
Mitchell, L. K., & Krumboltz, J. D. (1990). Social learning approach to career decision making: Krumboltz’s theory. In D.
Brown, & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (2nd ed., pp.
145–196). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Osipow, S. H. (1983). Theories of career development (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Osipow, S. H. (1990). Convergence in theories of career choice and development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36,
122–131.
Parsons, F. (1909). Choosing a vocation. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Patton, W. (2007). Connecting relational theory and the Systems Theory Framework Individuals and their systems.
Australian Journal of Career Development, 16(3), 38–46.
Patton, W. (2008). Recent developments in career theories: The influence of constructivism and convergence. In J. A.
Athanasou, & R. Van Esbroeck (Eds.), International handbook of career guidance (pp. 133–156). Springer Science & Media.
Patton, W. (2015). Career counseling: Joint contributions of contextual action theory and Systems Theory Framework. In
R. A. Young, J. Domene, & L. Valach (Eds.), Counseling and action: Toward life-enhancing work, relationships and identity
(pp. 33–50). Springer Science and Media.
Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (1997). Career development in practice: A systems theory perspective. Sydney: New Hobsons
Press.
240 M. MCMAHON AND W. PATTON

Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (1999). Career development and systems theory: A new relationship. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/
Cole.
Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (2006). Career development and systems theory: Connecting theory and practice (2nd ed.).
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (2014). Career development and systems theory: Connecting theory and practice (3rd ed.).
Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (2015). The Systems Theory Framework of career development: 20 years of contribution to
theory and practice. Australian Journal of Career Development, 24, 141–147.
Patton, W., & McMahon, M. (2017). The Systems Theory Framework of career. In J. P. Sampson Jr., E. Bullock-Yowell, V. C.
Dozier, D. S. Osborn, & J. G. Lenz (Eds.), Integrating theory, research and practice in vocational psychology: Current status
and future directions (pp. 50–61). Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.
Pocock, B., Skinner, N., & Williams, P. (2012). Time bomb: Work, rest and play in Australia today. Sydney: Australia New
South Press.
Porfeli, E. J. (2009). Hugo Munsterberg and the origins of vocational guidance. The Career Development Quarterly, 57, 225–
236.
Pryor, R., & Bright, J. (2011). The chaos theory of careers: A new perspective on working in the 21st century. Hoboken, NJ:
Taylor & Francis.
Richardson, M. L., & Schaeffer, C. (2013). Expanding the discourse: A dual model of working for women’s (and men’s) lives.
In W. Patton (Ed.), Conceptualising women’s working lives: Moving the boundaries of discourse (pp. 23–50). Rotterdam,
The Netherlands: Sense.
Richardson, M. S. (2012). The ongoing social construction of the counseling for work and relationship perspective. The
Counseling Psychologist, 40, 279–290.
Roberts, K. (2012). Career development among the lower socioeconomic strata in developed countries. In M. Watson, &
M. McMahon (Eds.), Career development: Global issues and challenges (pp. 29–43). New York: Nova Science.
Ryan, C. W., & Tomlin, J. H. (2010). Infusing systems thinking into career counseling. Journal of Employment Counseling, 47,
79–85.
Savickas, M. L. (2009). Revitalising vocational psychology and energising the study of career. In A. Collin, & W. Patton
(Eds.), Vocational psychological and organisational perspectives on career: Towards a multidisciplinary dialogue (pp.
197–208). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Savickas, M. L. (2013). Career construction theory and practice. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and
counseling: Putting theory and research to work (2nd ed., pp. 147–186). New York: Wiley.
Savickas, M. L., & Lent, R. W. (Eds.). (1994). Convergence in career development theories: Implications for science and practice.
Palo Alto, CA: CPP Books.
Sexton, T. L. (2012). The challenges, focus and future potential of systemic thinking in couple and family psychology.
Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 1, 61–65.
Smith, L. B., & Thelen, E. (1993). A dynamic systems approach to development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span life-space approach to career development. In D. Brown, & L. Brooks (Eds.), Career choice
and development: Applying contemporary theories to practice (2nd ed., pp. 197–261). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1934). Modern theories of development. Oxford University Press. (German original: von Bertalanffy,
L. (1928). Kritische Theorie der Formbildung. Berlin: Borntraeger).
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory. New York: George Braziller.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1972). The history and status of general systems theory. Academy of Management Journal, 15, 407–426.
Vondracek, F. W., Ford, D. H., & Porfeli, E. J. (2014). A living systems theory of vocational behavior and development.
Rotterdam: Sense.
Vondracek, F. W., Lerner, R. M., & Schulenberg, J. E. (1986). Career development: A lifespan developmental approach.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Watson, M. (2013). Deconstruction, reconstruction, co-construction: Career construction theory in a developing world.
Indian Journal of Career and Livelihood Planning, 2, 3–14.
Watson, M. B., & McMahon, M. (2005). Children’s career development: A research review from a learning perspective.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 119–132.
Wolstenholme, E. (1990). System enquiry. Chichester: Wiley.
Young, R. A., & Collin, A. (2004). Constructivism, social constructionism and career [Special issue]. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 64(3).
Young, R. A., Marshall, S. K., Valach, L., Domene, J. F., Graham, M. D., & Zaidman-Zait, A. (2011). Transition to adulthood:
Action, projects and counseling. New York: Springer-Science.
Young, R. A., & Popadiuk, N. E. (2012). Social constructionist theories in vocational psychology. In P. McIlveen, & D. E.
Schultheiss (Eds.), Social constructionism in vocational psychology and career development (pp. 9–28). Rotterdam,
The Netherlands: Sense.
Young, R. A., Valach, L., & Marshall, S. K. (2007). Parents and adolescents constructing career. In V. Skorikov, & W. Patton
(Eds.), Career development in childhood and adolescence (pp. 277–294). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.