The theory does not appear to allow for success in the workplace solely for the sake of workplace success. Instead, it appears to view procreation as the ultimate purpose of human life, with workplace success only a vehicle towards attaining success within the loving family circle. To these ideas the authors add that the theory does not account for intimacy beyond the heterosexual and indeed beyond the sexual. As such, the theory is fundamentally inadequate to address the entire paradigm of successful adult individuation and attachment. Furthermore, the authors note that the theory is very limited in its connection between the biological and the psychological paradigms of differences between the male and female. While the theory does indeed better address the positive aspects of female development, it does so primarily in terms of the female drive to bear children, which substantiates the feminist view that the theory appears to be sexist.

In order to avoid this charge, the authors propose not so much a fundamental change as an...

Instead of focusing only on the biological differences between male and female, the authors propose an extension that also includes psychological elements as they relate to both male and female. The drives to care for children, to love another human being, and to succeed in the workplace are therefore expanded to transcend biological differences and instead address human beings in general.
I do not believe that the authors weaken either my own ideas or Erikson's in any way. Instead, their focus on human beings instead of the divide between male and female adheres well to the psychosocial environment in which modern human beings develop towards adulthood. Erikson provides a good basis for this further development, and instead of flawed, can be seen as a sound basis from which the author's expansion extends in a logical fashion.

Source

Franz, Carol E. & White, Kathleen M. Individuation and attachment in personality development: Extending Erikson's theory. Boston University.