Following on from my previous post on the theory side of motivation, I wanted to add something about how this knowledge can be used in practice with clients.
One of the key messages from the theory is that it's not a lack of motivation we should be thinking about, it's barriers to motivation: the motivation is inevitably there, but we sometimes can't feel it because other things get in the way. In my experience, the key barriers are 1) fear, 2) absence of goals, 3) general depression / low mood and 4) lack of readiness.
I think these need a post each, so here is the first.
Fear
1) inference chaining or Socratic questioning (I'm not sure if these are different - they look the same when I do them, but I might well be missing something...).
This is a process of asking a series of questions which help your clients to get right down to the nub of the issue. Often the fear experienced by clients is not rational (I'm wincing a bit at that word - but I hope you know what I mean). Fear is often experienced as a generalised feeling, and it is then hard to identify whether or not the feared outcome is likely to happen, and whether it would actually be all that bad anyway. Inference chaining can help clients to work out what exactly the fear is, the probability of it occurring and the impact that it would have if it did.
For example, if you had a client who felt too frightened to cold call a potential employer, you might ask them
'What is the very worst that you could imagine happening?'
They might imagine that they get through to the perfect person and then find that they freeze and find that they don't way a word. They might think that the employer will get frustrated and hang up on them. And then you could ask:
'and then what would happen?'
They might imagine that they employer would remember their name and decide not to ever employ them again
'and then what would happen?'
Your client might reflect that they would never get to work for that particular person
'and then what would happen?'
And finally, your client might wonder whether they might then look for a job in a different organisation.
You could then talk to your client about the chances of that happening, and whether working for another employer might actually be ok. By identifying the fear, very specifically, your client might be able to assess whether the feared outcome is real, likely and problematic, and to work out whether there is something they can do about it.
2) Make it an experiment
Fearing failure can be a pretty powerful barrier. As well as being unpleasant, failing can also have a detrimental impact on our confidence and self esteem, and can make us less likely to try things in the future. So it's easy to see why it's such a common barrier to action. One approach that sometimes works is to see if you could encourage your client to think of the action simply as an experiment. So rather than being a plan that might succeed or fail, they could try to see it as a research project that might go one way or another. It depersonalises it, so it's not your client who is succeeding or failing, but the hypothesis.
A client might find that they are not applying for a job that they are interested in because they are frightened of failing. You could try and work with them to get them to think of sending their CV in as an experiment. Rather than applying for a job, they are simply wondering whether their CV is the right kind of CV for a job such as that. Just curious as to whether it might be thought of as appropriate. Any lack of success is then less personal and often therefore less painful.
If they are accepted through to the next round, that's great. If they are not, they haven't failed; they have found out that their CV is not right for that kind of role at the moment.
3) What can you do to increases your chances of a good outcome?
This one really follows on from the Socratic questioning I mentioned above. Once your client has spent some time working out exactly what their anxieties are, they are then in a position to come up with some specific strategies to increase their chances of success. In the example given above, of a client who fears that their mind might go blank in an important conversation, your client might decide that they could make some notes before the conversation of the key things they want to ask, and the things they might want to say. This isn't a foolproof solution, but might help them to feel more secure and be more prepared for the phone call.
4) Boost confidence
The final idea here is to spend some time with your client boosting their confidence. Confidence helps in so many ways with job hunting and career success, and feeling good about yourself and what you have to offer can make you more likely to give things a go. One fruitful conversation with your client is about previous successes. If they are going for a job interview, you could ask them to re-live an interview in the past which went well. Ask them to remember in some detail what happened in the interview and how they felt. You could perhaps have a discussion about how they prepared for that interview, and whether there was anything particular they did which helped to make it a success.
If they are struggling to think of past successes, you could ask them to think about what they have learned from or since that event, and have a discussion around what they are going to do to make things different this time around.
Friday, 28 March 2014
Saturday, 22 March 2014
Motivation
We often find that clients are struggling a bit with motivation. It's a complex issue, but I think I'm beginning to get my head around it.
There are some theories that can help us to understand motivation a bit better. First there is the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation - intrinsic motivation is where you're doing it just because you enjoy it (eg me eating cake), and extrinsic is where you do something because you know it's going to lead to something else (eg me going for a run). Intrinsic motivation is generally thought to be more powerful, and tends to lead to more sustainable action (as evidence by the amount of cake I eat vs the number of runs I go for). But there are different types of extrinsic motivation, and some are better than others. The best kind of extrinsic motivation comes when the knock on impact of the action is something that genuinely matters to the individual eg studying hard at school in order to get in to get into medical school (if that is your dream), or working hard to earn money to feed yourself and your family.
So that's a basic distinction. Then there is self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2000) which breaks down a little the kinds of things that get us motivated. This theory proposes that we are driven to meet three key needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness. This theory links nicely with the evidence about job satisfaction, which suggests that some of the key factors that bring job satisfaction are autonomy, the opportunity to develop your skills and good colleagues.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs (and this concept has been very much embraced by the most recent positive psychology movement) gives a very encouraging perspective which is that we all have a desire to improve ourselves, learn and develop. And this will inevitably happen, unless something gets in the way.
So, what else?
Well there is self-efficacy, which seems to have an impact on pretty much everything I ever seem to come across. This is the confidence to feel that you are going to be able to manage it. There is outcome expectations, which is related but distinct, which is the degree to which you feel that you are likely to succeed - the higher your belief of your chance of success, the more effort you are prepared to put in to achieving your goal. There is something called future orientation - which is whether you think much about the future, and instrumentality, which is the degree to which you link current behaviour with future outcomes. High degrees of both lead to higher motivation. There is your locus of control, - those with an internal locus of control feel that they have the power to influence the outcome, and those with an external locus of control feel that they have no influence on what happens. Those with an internal locus of control are much more likely to feel motivated to act. And finally there are goals, which can lead to clear identification of the steps involved and increased motivation to put plans into action.
I think I need another post to start to look at the practical tools that we can use, or suggest to our clients to take advantage of this understanding of motivation, but there is one last thing, that I find really interesting and helpful. It is that action leads to motivation. (Kearns and Gardiner 2011). Usually, we feel that we need motivation in order to act. When the motivation comes, then we will start moving. But actually, motivation usually only kicks in after you've started. The useful lessons that we can learn from that is that if there is something that you need to do, your best bet is to start it - even if you don't want to. More often than not, after about 15 minutes, it will dawn on you that you're actually finding it quite interesting. I have personally found this a really helpful strategy. When there is something that I need to do but don't really fancy, I will simply get started, promising myself that I can stop it after ten minutes if I want to. I almost never do.
Kearns, H. and Gardiner, M. (2011) Waiting for the motivation fairy Nature 472-127
http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2011/110407/pdf/nj7341-127a.pdf
There are some theories that can help us to understand motivation a bit better. First there is the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation - intrinsic motivation is where you're doing it just because you enjoy it (eg me eating cake), and extrinsic is where you do something because you know it's going to lead to something else (eg me going for a run). Intrinsic motivation is generally thought to be more powerful, and tends to lead to more sustainable action (as evidence by the amount of cake I eat vs the number of runs I go for). But there are different types of extrinsic motivation, and some are better than others. The best kind of extrinsic motivation comes when the knock on impact of the action is something that genuinely matters to the individual eg studying hard at school in order to get in to get into medical school (if that is your dream), or working hard to earn money to feed yourself and your family.
So that's a basic distinction. Then there is self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2000) which breaks down a little the kinds of things that get us motivated. This theory proposes that we are driven to meet three key needs: autonomy, competence and relatedness. This theory links nicely with the evidence about job satisfaction, which suggests that some of the key factors that bring job satisfaction are autonomy, the opportunity to develop your skills and good colleagues.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs (and this concept has been very much embraced by the most recent positive psychology movement) gives a very encouraging perspective which is that we all have a desire to improve ourselves, learn and develop. And this will inevitably happen, unless something gets in the way.
So, what else?
Well there is self-efficacy, which seems to have an impact on pretty much everything I ever seem to come across. This is the confidence to feel that you are going to be able to manage it. There is outcome expectations, which is related but distinct, which is the degree to which you feel that you are likely to succeed - the higher your belief of your chance of success, the more effort you are prepared to put in to achieving your goal. There is something called future orientation - which is whether you think much about the future, and instrumentality, which is the degree to which you link current behaviour with future outcomes. High degrees of both lead to higher motivation. There is your locus of control, - those with an internal locus of control feel that they have the power to influence the outcome, and those with an external locus of control feel that they have no influence on what happens. Those with an internal locus of control are much more likely to feel motivated to act. And finally there are goals, which can lead to clear identification of the steps involved and increased motivation to put plans into action.
I think I need another post to start to look at the practical tools that we can use, or suggest to our clients to take advantage of this understanding of motivation, but there is one last thing, that I find really interesting and helpful. It is that action leads to motivation. (Kearns and Gardiner 2011). Usually, we feel that we need motivation in order to act. When the motivation comes, then we will start moving. But actually, motivation usually only kicks in after you've started. The useful lessons that we can learn from that is that if there is something that you need to do, your best bet is to start it - even if you don't want to. More often than not, after about 15 minutes, it will dawn on you that you're actually finding it quite interesting. I have personally found this a really helpful strategy. When there is something that I need to do but don't really fancy, I will simply get started, promising myself that I can stop it after ten minutes if I want to. I almost never do.
Kearns, H. and Gardiner, M. (2011) Waiting for the motivation fairy Nature 472-127
http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/2011/110407/pdf/nj7341-127a.pdf
Wednesday, 12 March 2014
Career Change: why would you?
As career coaches we spend quite a lot of our time working with people who are making or at least thinking about making a career change. I've just been reading about Carless and Arnup's longitudinal study on what makes people change career, and what happens to them afterwards.
First it's quite interesting to note that not many studies have been conducted on what makes people change career. There is quite a lot on what makes people change jobs - the HR and Occupational Psychology brigade are particularly interested in that from an organisational perspective. Then there are several studies that look at what factors lead to the intention to change career, but curiously (perhaps?) the intention to change career is only moderately correlated to actual career change (ie most people who say that they intend to change career don't actually do so). So it's nice to read about a study that looks at people who have actually taken the plunge, and to examine what's gone on.
Encouragingly, the study suggests that people who change career are overwhelmingly pleased that they did it. They tend to report higher levels of job satisfaction and work engagement (how 'into' your work you are), more job security and shorter working hours.
The factors that lead to a job change are partly to do with the work place itself and partly to do with the individual. The study suggests that those high on extraversion and openness to experience are more likely to make a change. Extraverts tend to be more positive and optimistic, and tend to have wider networks, which all make getting a new job easier. Those open to experience tend to like change - they find the familiar boring, and are curious to try new things, so are more likely to want to change.
Demographics come into play too. Older workers are less likely to change career, as they have more invested in a particular arena and are less willing to start at the bottom again. High levels of education increase your chances of change as you tend to be more able to learn new skills and the skills you've got are more transferable.
Finally, there are a few, fairly predictable, work reasons for change. Those with low satisfaction, those being bullied and those who feel their jobs are not secure tend to be more likely to be looking around for something new.
I'm not sure that this research is particularly helpful for career coaches. The evidence that most people end up happier after a change could be a useful one to share with a client who is struggling to decide. Beyond that though I think it's just interesting. I hope you do too!
First it's quite interesting to note that not many studies have been conducted on what makes people change career. There is quite a lot on what makes people change jobs - the HR and Occupational Psychology brigade are particularly interested in that from an organisational perspective. Then there are several studies that look at what factors lead to the intention to change career, but curiously (perhaps?) the intention to change career is only moderately correlated to actual career change (ie most people who say that they intend to change career don't actually do so). So it's nice to read about a study that looks at people who have actually taken the plunge, and to examine what's gone on.
Encouragingly, the study suggests that people who change career are overwhelmingly pleased that they did it. They tend to report higher levels of job satisfaction and work engagement (how 'into' your work you are), more job security and shorter working hours.
The factors that lead to a job change are partly to do with the work place itself and partly to do with the individual. The study suggests that those high on extraversion and openness to experience are more likely to make a change. Extraverts tend to be more positive and optimistic, and tend to have wider networks, which all make getting a new job easier. Those open to experience tend to like change - they find the familiar boring, and are curious to try new things, so are more likely to want to change.
Demographics come into play too. Older workers are less likely to change career, as they have more invested in a particular arena and are less willing to start at the bottom again. High levels of education increase your chances of change as you tend to be more able to learn new skills and the skills you've got are more transferable.
Finally, there are a few, fairly predictable, work reasons for change. Those with low satisfaction, those being bullied and those who feel their jobs are not secure tend to be more likely to be looking around for something new.
I'm not sure that this research is particularly helpful for career coaches. The evidence that most people end up happier after a change could be a useful one to share with a client who is struggling to decide. Beyond that though I think it's just interesting. I hope you do too!
Wednesday, 26 February 2014
Gender differences in career interests - what changes since 1990?
I always like to read anything written by Itamar Gati. So much research within careers is small scale and qualitative; these studies are of course important and provide richness and flavour to our understanding. But Gati's study provide another element. Gati does BIG STUDIES with BIG DATA and although I don't particularly agree with his approach to careers in many respects, I do love his academic rigour.
This study looked at data provided by 38,000 young adults who had filled in a career interest inventory either in 1990 or in 2010 and compared the changes over time and the differences between sexes.
The findings indicate that gender differences in career interests have narrowed during that period, but a significant gap remains. I'll go on to highlight a few interesting details, but perhaps the most important point is that the data provide some evidence that differences in career interests may be socialised rather than genetic. If differences were genetic (ie girls were just born to find caring jobs more interesting) then we would be less likely to see changes over time.
Gender differences have reduced overall, but there are a few notable examples. Women in 1990 were far less interested in professional advancement, management, authoritativeness and income than men. In 2010 the differences were much reduced suggesting that young women these days are more likely to want to climb the career ladder. This feels like great progress and with any luck this change in interests may lead to more women making their way up the career ladder to the board room.
There are some areas in which gender differences have increased and these include counselling and community service. The gender differences have increased because men are now less likely to cite these as interests. And this is not such a good thing for diversity in the work place. These were female dominated areas twenty years ago and are now even more so.
What this says about gender equality is complex, and I'm not sure that it's easy to work out. It is surely a good thing that women are now feeling that they can overtly state a desire to climb to the top of the corporate ladder. But men becoming less interested in caring professions? What does that say?
My concern is that both these changes indicate that male values and male style are becoming increasingly valued in society. The jobs and qualities that have traditionally been seen as the reserve of men are clearly valued and women now are confident enough to aspire to these arenas. But the roles that have been traditionally associated with women are becoming less valued by society and men are less likely to want to be associated with them.
I wonder if the real sign of gender equality will be not only when women make up half the board room, but when men make up half the counsellors.
Gati, I. and Perez, M. (2013) Gender differences in career preferences from 1990 to 2010: gaps reduced but not eliminated Journal of Counseling psychology
This study looked at data provided by 38,000 young adults who had filled in a career interest inventory either in 1990 or in 2010 and compared the changes over time and the differences between sexes.
The findings indicate that gender differences in career interests have narrowed during that period, but a significant gap remains. I'll go on to highlight a few interesting details, but perhaps the most important point is that the data provide some evidence that differences in career interests may be socialised rather than genetic. If differences were genetic (ie girls were just born to find caring jobs more interesting) then we would be less likely to see changes over time.
Gender differences have reduced overall, but there are a few notable examples. Women in 1990 were far less interested in professional advancement, management, authoritativeness and income than men. In 2010 the differences were much reduced suggesting that young women these days are more likely to want to climb the career ladder. This feels like great progress and with any luck this change in interests may lead to more women making their way up the career ladder to the board room.
There are some areas in which gender differences have increased and these include counselling and community service. The gender differences have increased because men are now less likely to cite these as interests. And this is not such a good thing for diversity in the work place. These were female dominated areas twenty years ago and are now even more so.
What this says about gender equality is complex, and I'm not sure that it's easy to work out. It is surely a good thing that women are now feeling that they can overtly state a desire to climb to the top of the corporate ladder. But men becoming less interested in caring professions? What does that say?
My concern is that both these changes indicate that male values and male style are becoming increasingly valued in society. The jobs and qualities that have traditionally been seen as the reserve of men are clearly valued and women now are confident enough to aspire to these arenas. But the roles that have been traditionally associated with women are becoming less valued by society and men are less likely to want to be associated with them.
I wonder if the real sign of gender equality will be not only when women make up half the board room, but when men make up half the counsellors.
Gati, I. and Perez, M. (2013) Gender differences in career preferences from 1990 to 2010: gaps reduced but not eliminated Journal of Counseling psychology
Tuesday, 25 February 2014
Learning by teaching: possible model for career learning?
I'm doing a project at the moment that is looking at a teaching methodology called "learning by teaching'. It suggests that one of the best ways to get students to really understand any material inside and out is by asking them to run the teaching session. It was originally used for language teaching, but its impact has now been tested in a range of disciplines at different levels in educational settings, and in professional contexts with doctors and managers.
It's based in part on the thinking of Vygotsky, who did a lot of work on the relationship between language and thought, suggesting that when we start to speak, our thoughts are not yet fully formed. Instead we have with a fuzzy, vague notion in our heads, and then it's only as we start to talk and put the notion into words that we refine and crystallise our thoughts. It's almost as though our thoughts and our words are collaborating and working together. From an educational perspective, the implication is that for students to understand a topic properly, they need to talk about it.
The learning by teaching method then takes full advantage of this process by making the student put all their thoughts about a particular topic into words, which allows them to develop a really thorough understanding of the topic.
I'm interesting in this in my role as a lecturer, but I was wondering if and how we could apply it to career learning? My first instinct is that clients might feel a bit short changed. If they are coming along to a specialist workshop intended to enhance various aspects of their career decision making ability, then they might be expecting some more traditional didactic input from the career practitioner. But is my response a bit defensive, and does it suggest a lack of professional confidence? If there is evidence it works, then surely we would be letting our clients down if we didn't try it?
So how would it be then, if we arranged a series of career workshops all around learning by teaching? Could we conduct sessions that essentially ask participants to provide all the content? Would it work? Would it be credible?
We might have to think about how the approach fits with career learning topics, but I think with a little imagination, we'd find some creative ways to apply the methodology in a career context.
We could, for example, get participants to research career areas, and then tell each other about them (this might work better with a slightly homogenous group - for example, students from the same University course). We could put participants in small groups and get them to present to each other all about their own strengths, and talk about a time when they really excelled at something. We could get them talking about a time when they made a good decision, and get a dialogue going about exactly how they made that decision and what was so good about the process.
The evidence suggests that it gets students engaged with the subject matter and leads to deep level cognitive learning. I think it might be worth a try.
It's based in part on the thinking of Vygotsky, who did a lot of work on the relationship between language and thought, suggesting that when we start to speak, our thoughts are not yet fully formed. Instead we have with a fuzzy, vague notion in our heads, and then it's only as we start to talk and put the notion into words that we refine and crystallise our thoughts. It's almost as though our thoughts and our words are collaborating and working together. From an educational perspective, the implication is that for students to understand a topic properly, they need to talk about it.
The learning by teaching method then takes full advantage of this process by making the student put all their thoughts about a particular topic into words, which allows them to develop a really thorough understanding of the topic.
I'm interesting in this in my role as a lecturer, but I was wondering if and how we could apply it to career learning? My first instinct is that clients might feel a bit short changed. If they are coming along to a specialist workshop intended to enhance various aspects of their career decision making ability, then they might be expecting some more traditional didactic input from the career practitioner. But is my response a bit defensive, and does it suggest a lack of professional confidence? If there is evidence it works, then surely we would be letting our clients down if we didn't try it?
So how would it be then, if we arranged a series of career workshops all around learning by teaching? Could we conduct sessions that essentially ask participants to provide all the content? Would it work? Would it be credible?
We might have to think about how the approach fits with career learning topics, but I think with a little imagination, we'd find some creative ways to apply the methodology in a career context.
We could, for example, get participants to research career areas, and then tell each other about them (this might work better with a slightly homogenous group - for example, students from the same University course). We could put participants in small groups and get them to present to each other all about their own strengths, and talk about a time when they really excelled at something. We could get them talking about a time when they made a good decision, and get a dialogue going about exactly how they made that decision and what was so good about the process.
The evidence suggests that it gets students engaged with the subject matter and leads to deep level cognitive learning. I think it might be worth a try.
Saturday, 15 February 2014
Erotic Capital: feminist solution or hostage to fortune?
I feel it's about time for another feminist rant. I'm co-writing a paper* about attractiveness in the work place, what advantages it confers on the beautiful and whether career practitioners should get involved in discussions around these kinds of issues.
Our starting place for this paper was a concept coined by Catherine Hakim - 'erotic capital'. We've heard of social capital and cultural capital, and Hakim suggests that erotic capital is similar, representing the advantages that can come with being attractive. She defines 'attractive' broadly, covering nice clothes, a good hair-do, posture, poise and charm as well as pure physical beauty.
Hakim is a sociologist and has written extensively on feminist issues in the past. She proposes the notion of erotic capital as a feminist one, but I'm not so sure about its long term contribution to equality. She acknowledges that women face considerable barriers in the work place, and suggests that women therefore should take full advantage of whatever assets they have. She says that research suggests that men rarely get enough sex, and therefore are often susceptible to the charms of a pretty lady.
Her point makes some sense in the short term. Women do indeed face unfair discrimination in the work place. They need to be better than their male counterparts to get the same rewards, and face prejudice in all industry areas at all levels. We've been trying for some time to get equality and haven't managed it - maybe it is time for a new approach? But I think we need to feel sure that a new approach doesn't do any damage.
One particular barrier which I think is pertinent to this debate is that women are assumed to be not as good as men in the work place. There is evidence from Neilsen and Huse (2010) that in the board room, people assume that women aren't going to make valuable contributions, and so are less likely to pay attention or rate their opinions. Schein's (1993) replication of her earlier Think Manager Think Male study (really interesting stuff - do google it if you haven't come across it before) showed that men still think that women in general don't have the skills you need to be a good manager.
So, my concern is this. If women go along with Hakim's suggestions, and make sure that they dress elegantly, spend money on expensive haircuts, and flatter and charm male colleagues, it may indeed lead to higher salaries and promotions. And who wouldn't want that? But what happens to all the stereotypes and prejudice in ten years time when the board rooms are full of attractive women who have got there by flashing their eyelashes and showing a well turned ankle, working side by side with men who have got their by merit? Are we not fueling the existing prejudice that women have less to contribute in the work place than men?
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I am concerned that this approach may compound existing prejudices in the long term.
Nelisen, S. and Huse, M. (2010) Women directors’ contribution to board decision-making and strategic involvement: The role of equality perception European Management Review 7 16 – 29
Schein, V. E., & Davidson, M. J. ( 1993). Think manager–think male: Managerial sex typing among U.K. business students. Management Development Review, 6( 3), 24– 28
* with Tristram Hooley from iCeGs
Our starting place for this paper was a concept coined by Catherine Hakim - 'erotic capital'. We've heard of social capital and cultural capital, and Hakim suggests that erotic capital is similar, representing the advantages that can come with being attractive. She defines 'attractive' broadly, covering nice clothes, a good hair-do, posture, poise and charm as well as pure physical beauty.
Hakim is a sociologist and has written extensively on feminist issues in the past. She proposes the notion of erotic capital as a feminist one, but I'm not so sure about its long term contribution to equality. She acknowledges that women face considerable barriers in the work place, and suggests that women therefore should take full advantage of whatever assets they have. She says that research suggests that men rarely get enough sex, and therefore are often susceptible to the charms of a pretty lady.
Her point makes some sense in the short term. Women do indeed face unfair discrimination in the work place. They need to be better than their male counterparts to get the same rewards, and face prejudice in all industry areas at all levels. We've been trying for some time to get equality and haven't managed it - maybe it is time for a new approach? But I think we need to feel sure that a new approach doesn't do any damage.
One particular barrier which I think is pertinent to this debate is that women are assumed to be not as good as men in the work place. There is evidence from Neilsen and Huse (2010) that in the board room, people assume that women aren't going to make valuable contributions, and so are less likely to pay attention or rate their opinions. Schein's (1993) replication of her earlier Think Manager Think Male study (really interesting stuff - do google it if you haven't come across it before) showed that men still think that women in general don't have the skills you need to be a good manager.
So, my concern is this. If women go along with Hakim's suggestions, and make sure that they dress elegantly, spend money on expensive haircuts, and flatter and charm male colleagues, it may indeed lead to higher salaries and promotions. And who wouldn't want that? But what happens to all the stereotypes and prejudice in ten years time when the board rooms are full of attractive women who have got there by flashing their eyelashes and showing a well turned ankle, working side by side with men who have got their by merit? Are we not fueling the existing prejudice that women have less to contribute in the work place than men?
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I am concerned that this approach may compound existing prejudices in the long term.
Nelisen, S. and Huse, M. (2010) Women directors’ contribution to board decision-making and strategic involvement: The role of equality perception European Management Review 7 16 – 29
Schein, V. E., & Davidson, M. J. ( 1993). Think manager–think male: Managerial sex typing among U.K. business students. Management Development Review, 6( 3), 24– 28
* with Tristram Hooley from iCeGs
Wednesday, 12 February 2014
Occupational Prestige
I'm just reading some bits and pieces on occupational prestige. There tends to be pretty good consensus around which jobs are most prestigious, and there is a surprising degree of stability in rankings of occupational prestige, across time and culture. Doctors, for example, have held a high occupational status for centuries, in more or less all culture. But identifying what factors make one occupation more prestigious than another have been surprisingly hard to pin down.
There have been theories that suggest that key factors are influence and money - jobs which have a wide ranging influence, and those which are linked to financial power houses (NB I don't here mean high salaries, but people who have influence on how money is spent - budget holders and the like) are more likely to be prestigious. So power is usually important, but there are those who think that the causal relationship is the other way round - ie people in high prestige jobs are powerful, rather than that power leads to high prestige. I was thinking that academics are often asked to take on powerful roles (advisory committees, influencing policy etc) even though their jobs in themselves are neither powerful nor in charge of large sums of money.
Education and skill are other factors that are frequently mentioned. Most high prestige jobs require extensive training and / or high levels of education to enter.
So, I can reveal that the most prestigious occupations are:
Zhou, Q. (2005) The Institutional Logic of Occupational Prestige Ranking: Reconceptualization and Reanalyses American Journal of Sociology 111 (1) 90 - 140
There have been theories that suggest that key factors are influence and money - jobs which have a wide ranging influence, and those which are linked to financial power houses (NB I don't here mean high salaries, but people who have influence on how money is spent - budget holders and the like) are more likely to be prestigious. So power is usually important, but there are those who think that the causal relationship is the other way round - ie people in high prestige jobs are powerful, rather than that power leads to high prestige. I was thinking that academics are often asked to take on powerful roles (advisory committees, influencing policy etc) even though their jobs in themselves are neither powerful nor in charge of large sums of money.
Education and skill are other factors that are frequently mentioned. Most high prestige jobs require extensive training and / or high levels of education to enter.
So, I can reveal that the most prestigious occupations are:
- Physician
- Lawyer
- Computer systems analyst
- Post-secondary teacher
- Physicist or astronomer
- Chemist
- Chemical engineer
- Architects
- Biological or life scientist
- Physical scientist
- Dentist
- Judge
- Engineer
- Chief executive
- Geologist
- Psychologist
- Manager, medicine
- Aerospace engineer
- Clergy
- Civil engineer
Zhou, Q. (2005) The Institutional Logic of Occupational Prestige Ranking: Reconceptualization and Reanalyses American Journal of Sociology 111 (1) 90 - 140
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)