The importance of reflective practice has long been acknowledged in the fields of careers and coaching. It is widely agreed that as practitioners, it's part of our professional duty to continually reflect on our practice and to think about what's working and what could be better.
It is not, however, something that we're usually taught to do. Being reflective is something that we assume that we are able to do, and to a large extent this is probably not unreasonable. But there are some frameworks out there which can help, and I think it's useful for us as practitioners to engage with them.
I have been reading a bit about Schon, whose book 'The Reflective Practitioner' is widely acclaimed.
Schon makes a distinction between reflection-in-action , which is a version of thinking on your feet, and reflection-on-action, which is what you do after the event. Reflecting-in-action involves assessing the new situation in which you find yourself, analysing it, and making links between what's in front of you right now, and your existing body of knowledge, techniques and ideas for action.Reflecting-on-action refers then to the process of post-match analysis, where you think back over what happened, why you made the choices that you did, and what alternative strategies would have led to different outcomes. This can be done individually using for example a journal, or together with a mentor or colleague.
Schon is keen on the notion of building up a repertoire.A repertoire is a collection of techniques, ideas and images that you can draw on. He suggests that every time we encounter a new situation, we make sense of it by linking it to past experiences, identifying the ways in which is it similar to a previous event and the ways in which it is different. A repertoire which identifies a range of actions that worked well in a particular situation in the past can help us easily identify how to act in this new situation. A key purpose of reflection-on-action is to hep to crystalise and cement (am I mixing my metaphors too much here?) these solutions in our minds.
At the heart of Schon's theory is that reflection should be enacted, not applied. So whilst he devised a theory for reflection, he is not particularly advocating that we should all take his theory and apply it to our practice religiously. He seems more keen to make sure that we find ways to incorporate reflection into our daily practice.
There have been criticisms of Schon's theory, with critics highlight the lack of detail given on the psychological processes involved and the exact nature of the link between reflection-in and reflection-on, but many practitioners find this a useful distinction to help them to structure their self-reflective processes.
I think this could be a helpful framework for career practitioners. I like this emphasis on continual reflection. There is some evidence that career practice trainees conduct more effective career sessions than experienced practitioners, and this is thought to be all about differing levels of reflection. If we as a profession start to incorporate reflection as an automatic part of our practice, not as an occasional or a nice-to-have, perhaps using Schon's ideas of journalling or talking with a mentor, or going down the more formal route of supervision, then surely this will be a good thing for our profession and our clients.
Here are a couple of useful websites for further information:
Smith, M. K. (2001, 2011). ‘Donald Schön: learning, reflection and change’, the encyclopedia of informal education.[www.infed.org/thinkers/et-schon.htm. ]
http://www.imprint.co.uk/C&HK/vol7/Pakman_foreword.PDF
Tuesday 16 September 2014
Wednesday 13 August 2014
Evidence for Career Learning Frameworks
I find the whole arena of career learning frameworks rather complicated. My first challenge is that there are quite a few of them, and they are not, as far as I can see, collected together in one neat little document that I can look through.
Then comparisons between them are tricky. They often overlap - sometimes using the same terminology, and sometimes using similar terms which might be synonymous, but might not. Other frameworks differ from each other so dramatically that it's hard to compare. Then then are some which have been devised for particular age groups, and it's hard to know to what extent they can be generalised.
But my biggest challenge is that there doesn't seem to be any (can this be right?) evidence that one framework is more effective than an other. So what criteria can we use to make a decision about which to choose? Not only is there this absence of an empirical base to distinguish one framework from another, there is also a lack of evidence to support the use of the particular elements of the frameworks. Take self awareness, for example. This is one of the most widely used elements contained within career learning frameworks, and is very well established as a key tenet of career education. But there is no evidence that a high degree of self awareness actually links to individuals getting a job, or getting a good job.
There is plenty of published evidence of the factors that do link to positive outcomes from career interventions, and I was wondering, what would an evidence based career education framework look like?
Liu et al. (2014) have conducted a meta-analysis incorporating the findings from 47 studies looking at nearly 10,000 job seekers and this gives us a great starting point. Based on this (and some other studies) I have devised Yates's 5 Step 5 S Evidence Based Career Learning Framework, guaranteed (not really) to get participants into jobs.
Running throughout the framework are motivational elements (motivational interviewing and future time perspective) and active learning - getting participants to actually do stuff, not just sit and listen.
Step 1: Strategy
To be effective and job search needs to be strategic, with a good emphasis on planning. Participants need to start off identifying what job they want, which we might do through a Possible Selves intervention, which helps participants identify what kind of future they want and how to get there.
Step 2: Self efficacy
No job search is going to be very successful if the individual doesn't believe in themselves, so the sessions will include a number of exercises aimed at boosting job search self efficacy. Participants will be asked to share stories of success (their's or others'), will be encouraged to set themselves a lot of small goals that they can achieve, we might do a few cognitive behavioural exercises to help get rid of negative thoughts and the sessions will have a positive and encouraging tone to them.
Step 3: Social support
Job searches are most successful when people feel supported, so I will get participants to identify people who might be able to give them support and ask them to think about how they might harness this more effectively. I will also set up the career sessions in such a way as to encourage the participants to be a support for each other.
Step 4: Skills for job search
Participants need to learn the nuts and bolts of job hunting, so will be give the opportunity to find out where vacancies are posted (and encouraged to use a range of sources) and to think about what information they need and where they could find it. Participants will be encouraged to think about the the factors that lead to job satisfaction (being good at a job, having colleagues you like and having lots of variety).
Step 5: Self presentation
Participants will think about the way they want to come across on paper and in person and develop their best CV and practice interview skills.
So, what do you think? It's a bit tongue in cheek - I'm not really proposing that this 'back of an envelope' career learning framework should take the place over far more thoughtful and considered frameworks. But I'm quite intrigued by this. I wonder if it would work?
Liu et al. (2014) have conducted a meta-analysis incorporating the findings from 47 studies looking at nearly 10,000 job seekers and this gives us a great starting point. Based on this (and some other studies) I have devised Yates's 5 Step 5 S Evidence Based Career Learning Framework, guaranteed (not really) to get participants into jobs.
Running throughout the framework are motivational elements (motivational interviewing and future time perspective) and active learning - getting participants to actually do stuff, not just sit and listen.
Step 1: Strategy
To be effective and job search needs to be strategic, with a good emphasis on planning. Participants need to start off identifying what job they want, which we might do through a Possible Selves intervention, which helps participants identify what kind of future they want and how to get there.
Step 2: Self efficacy
No job search is going to be very successful if the individual doesn't believe in themselves, so the sessions will include a number of exercises aimed at boosting job search self efficacy. Participants will be asked to share stories of success (their's or others'), will be encouraged to set themselves a lot of small goals that they can achieve, we might do a few cognitive behavioural exercises to help get rid of negative thoughts and the sessions will have a positive and encouraging tone to them.
Step 3: Social support
Job searches are most successful when people feel supported, so I will get participants to identify people who might be able to give them support and ask them to think about how they might harness this more effectively. I will also set up the career sessions in such a way as to encourage the participants to be a support for each other.
Step 4: Skills for job search
Participants need to learn the nuts and bolts of job hunting, so will be give the opportunity to find out where vacancies are posted (and encouraged to use a range of sources) and to think about what information they need and where they could find it. Participants will be encouraged to think about the the factors that lead to job satisfaction (being good at a job, having colleagues you like and having lots of variety).
Step 5: Self presentation
Participants will think about the way they want to come across on paper and in person and develop their best CV and practice interview skills.
So, what do you think? It's a bit tongue in cheek - I'm not really proposing that this 'back of an envelope' career learning framework should take the place over far more thoughtful and considered frameworks. But I'm quite intrigued by this. I wonder if it would work?
Liu, S., Huang, J.
L., & Wang, M. (2014). Effectiveness of job search interventions: A
meta-analytic review. Psychological
Bulletin, 140(4), 1009-1041
Wednesday 6 August 2014
Should career group sessions always be interactive?
I'm thinking a lot at the moment about the best way to teach career education. Career training courses advocate an interactive approach to group sessions, with information interspersed with interactive exercises. My experience though suggests that in practice, career sessions tend to end up being more information based and lecture style than interactive. My view is shaped by my own practice, and my observation of colleagues, and although I'm sure there is probably a lot of really excellent interactive practice going on that I haven't come across, I wonder if in general our career group sessions should be more interactive?
Colleagues I speak to give a range of reasons for lecture style input: it's client expectations, it's big groups, it's time pressures. And this all has made me question whether this is actually the best way - are interactive exercises actually helpful? What makes me think they are any better than lecture style?
So I've found a paper. Michael (2006) has done all the hard work for me, and provides a summary of the evidence that active learning works. Michael's agenda is slightly different from mine. He is looking for the best way to teach science to University students whereas I am after good practice for career education. But even though we are not teachers, we are still in the business of getting our clients to learn, so I think there is a lot we can take from this evidence.
Michael comes out very much in favour of active learning, and feels strongly that not enough of it is seen in university education at the moment. In his introduction he goes as far as to say "it would be difficult to design an educational model that is more at odds with current research on human cognition that the one that is used in most colleges and universities".
He presents the 'big five' findings from learning research which to my mind, make a pretty compelling case for keeping career workshops interactive.
1. Learning is all about integrating new information with old. We start with what we already know and add anything new we learn to what is there already. If new information is presented without any reference to existing information, then students don't have the opportunity to integrate the new with the old and learning is less effective.
2. Learning facts is different from learning to do something. Simply teaching the facts does not equip students to do anything with the facts. So telling students that filling their CVs with power words is a good idea is different from equipping them to change their CVs; they need to have a go at doing it and then get feedback on their efforts in order to develop the ability to do anything with the facts.
3. Transferring knowledge from one context to another is surprisingly difficult. Giving an example of how something should be done (eg hearing an excellent interview answer on its own does not allow students to see how they themselves should answer a question). Students need to see how they themselves would answer a tricky interview question in order to understand how to use the information.
4. People learn better when they learn together. Talking and listening to others leads to better learning than sitting and listening to a lecture.
5. Putting ideas into words helps people work out what they think.Interactive exercises allow people to talk about their ideas and in articulating them, their thoughts develop and crystalise.
If these really are the key findings from a generation of research about learning, then I think we need to pay attention. There hasn't been very much research into what works in a career context, but evidence in a range of academic disciplines seems to suggest that this is simply how people learn - and there is nothing to suggest that learning about careers is any different from any other kind of learning.
My confidence is restored. Career sessions should always be interactive. They should always get participants to think about where they are now, and to build on their current position. They should include exercises where they put their own thoughts into words and share those words with others, and they should allow students to try out the skills they're focusing on, not just tell them the theory.
Michael, J. (2006) What's the evidence that active learning works? Advanced Physiological Education 30, 159 - 167
Colleagues I speak to give a range of reasons for lecture style input: it's client expectations, it's big groups, it's time pressures. And this all has made me question whether this is actually the best way - are interactive exercises actually helpful? What makes me think they are any better than lecture style?
So I've found a paper. Michael (2006) has done all the hard work for me, and provides a summary of the evidence that active learning works. Michael's agenda is slightly different from mine. He is looking for the best way to teach science to University students whereas I am after good practice for career education. But even though we are not teachers, we are still in the business of getting our clients to learn, so I think there is a lot we can take from this evidence.
Michael comes out very much in favour of active learning, and feels strongly that not enough of it is seen in university education at the moment. In his introduction he goes as far as to say "it would be difficult to design an educational model that is more at odds with current research on human cognition that the one that is used in most colleges and universities".
He presents the 'big five' findings from learning research which to my mind, make a pretty compelling case for keeping career workshops interactive.
1. Learning is all about integrating new information with old. We start with what we already know and add anything new we learn to what is there already. If new information is presented without any reference to existing information, then students don't have the opportunity to integrate the new with the old and learning is less effective.
2. Learning facts is different from learning to do something. Simply teaching the facts does not equip students to do anything with the facts. So telling students that filling their CVs with power words is a good idea is different from equipping them to change their CVs; they need to have a go at doing it and then get feedback on their efforts in order to develop the ability to do anything with the facts.
3. Transferring knowledge from one context to another is surprisingly difficult. Giving an example of how something should be done (eg hearing an excellent interview answer on its own does not allow students to see how they themselves should answer a question). Students need to see how they themselves would answer a tricky interview question in order to understand how to use the information.
4. People learn better when they learn together. Talking and listening to others leads to better learning than sitting and listening to a lecture.
5. Putting ideas into words helps people work out what they think.Interactive exercises allow people to talk about their ideas and in articulating them, their thoughts develop and crystalise.
If these really are the key findings from a generation of research about learning, then I think we need to pay attention. There hasn't been very much research into what works in a career context, but evidence in a range of academic disciplines seems to suggest that this is simply how people learn - and there is nothing to suggest that learning about careers is any different from any other kind of learning.
My confidence is restored. Career sessions should always be interactive. They should always get participants to think about where they are now, and to build on their current position. They should include exercises where they put their own thoughts into words and share those words with others, and they should allow students to try out the skills they're focusing on, not just tell them the theory.
Michael, J. (2006) What's the evidence that active learning works? Advanced Physiological Education 30, 159 - 167
Tuesday 13 May 2014
Goal Setting
I've known for some time that goals are good. We've long been told that setting a goal at the beginning of a coaching session is important, and that if we can encourage our clients to identify specific and measurable goals for themselves at the end of a session then they are more likely to put their plans into action. But it was good to read Locke and Latham's paper (2002) which summarises the research on goal setting and explains why it works.
First, it's encouraging to note that there is good and solid and widespread evidence that it does work. Goals are linked with people putting in more effort and achieving more. And a specific goal results in more effort and better performance than simply encouraging someone to 'do their best'.
But there's more.
I had thought that it was crucial to set appropriate, ie moderate goals. Apparently not always. In general, the harder the goal, the more effort people put in and the more the attain. There is an issue about what this might do to people's confidence (of which more later), but broadly speaking, the harder the goal the better.
Locke and Latham explain how goals work:
1) they direct attention and effort towards the goal and away from other things - both cognitively and behaviourally ie, you think more about making sure that your efforts are linked to achieving the goal
2) they energize. And linked with the comment above, high goals lead to greater effort than lower goals
3) they affect persistence and in particular people carry on working for longer when the goals are hard
4) goals lead to better strategies. People either use strategies they already have, transfer strategies over or learn new strategies when they have a specific goal in mind.
Other important factors are:
Goal commitment
goal commitment strengthens the link between goals and performance. Goal commitment is enhanced when the outcome of the goal is important to the individual, and when the individual has high self-efficacy ie believes that they have the ability to achieve it.
Self-efficacy seems to come up all over the place, but helpfully the authors of this paper give some empirically tested methods for enhancing self efficacy. They suggest that the individuals need to be adequately trained (so that they do actually have the ability to achieve the goal), they need to see role models that they can relate to who have previously achieved the goal, and they need to be helped to develop specific strategies.
Feedback is important so that the individual can see how well they are doing and knows how much harder they need to try.
Task complexity has am impact. Goal setting works better for simple tasks. With complex tasks it seems to be more effective to set a range of small interim goals (ie one for each simple task involved).
Satisfaction: a goal seems to act as a sort of yardstick for satisfaction. Achieving or exceeding a goal leads to satisfaction and failing to meet a goal leads to dissatisfaction. This then presents us with a bit of a dilemma - there seems to be a choice that needs to be made between setting a challenging goal which is likely to lead to a higher performance or to set a lower goal which is likely to lead to higher satisfaction.
There has clearly been a huge amount of research conducted on goal setting, but I am pleased now to have a slightly clearer understanding of what it all means and how and why it works.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35 year Odyssey American Psychologist 57 (9) 705 - 717
First, it's encouraging to note that there is good and solid and widespread evidence that it does work. Goals are linked with people putting in more effort and achieving more. And a specific goal results in more effort and better performance than simply encouraging someone to 'do their best'.
But there's more.
I had thought that it was crucial to set appropriate, ie moderate goals. Apparently not always. In general, the harder the goal, the more effort people put in and the more the attain. There is an issue about what this might do to people's confidence (of which more later), but broadly speaking, the harder the goal the better.
Locke and Latham explain how goals work:
1) they direct attention and effort towards the goal and away from other things - both cognitively and behaviourally ie, you think more about making sure that your efforts are linked to achieving the goal
2) they energize. And linked with the comment above, high goals lead to greater effort than lower goals
3) they affect persistence and in particular people carry on working for longer when the goals are hard
4) goals lead to better strategies. People either use strategies they already have, transfer strategies over or learn new strategies when they have a specific goal in mind.
Other important factors are:
Goal commitment
goal commitment strengthens the link between goals and performance. Goal commitment is enhanced when the outcome of the goal is important to the individual, and when the individual has high self-efficacy ie believes that they have the ability to achieve it.
Self-efficacy seems to come up all over the place, but helpfully the authors of this paper give some empirically tested methods for enhancing self efficacy. They suggest that the individuals need to be adequately trained (so that they do actually have the ability to achieve the goal), they need to see role models that they can relate to who have previously achieved the goal, and they need to be helped to develop specific strategies.
Feedback is important so that the individual can see how well they are doing and knows how much harder they need to try.
Task complexity has am impact. Goal setting works better for simple tasks. With complex tasks it seems to be more effective to set a range of small interim goals (ie one for each simple task involved).
Satisfaction: a goal seems to act as a sort of yardstick for satisfaction. Achieving or exceeding a goal leads to satisfaction and failing to meet a goal leads to dissatisfaction. This then presents us with a bit of a dilemma - there seems to be a choice that needs to be made between setting a challenging goal which is likely to lead to a higher performance or to set a lower goal which is likely to lead to higher satisfaction.
There has clearly been a huge amount of research conducted on goal setting, but I am pleased now to have a slightly clearer understanding of what it all means and how and why it works.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35 year Odyssey American Psychologist 57 (9) 705 - 717
Saturday 5 April 2014
Careers information: is online the only way to go?
I was given a guided tour of LSE's lovely careers service this week, and was struck by the almost total lack of careers information within the service. Information about careers is now so widely available online, that they simply aren't using paper based information at all, so services have stopped holding it. This makes sense to me - there is no point in wasting space and time maintaining a careers library that no one uses. But I am concerned about the alternative.
The evidence tells us that we are all, in general, pretty poor at taking in information that we read. Studies time and again show us that the process of reading careers information is not massively useful to clients; what helps is the conversations with the practitioners they have before and after their research (Savard and Michaud 2005). This also fits with Vygotsky's theories about language and thought, which explain that our thoughts are crystallised through conversations: we only really know what we think when we have a chance to talk it through.
In the old days, a student would start their trip to the careers library by telling the librarian what they were looking for - this brief conversation helped them to be really clear in their own minds about exactly what they were trying to find. Some might then have an ongoing dialogue with the librarian throughout their visit, but even the most independent researchers would be asked to engage with a brief chat about whether they had found what they were looking for at the end of their visit, and this conversation might then lead to booking an appointment with a careers adviser to discuss what their new information means to them.
These conversations are what make the information meaningful and relevant, and they are what has been lost with the move from a paper based service to an online service.
So what can we do about it? The solution might be in the way that the online services are designed and managed. My very limited understanding of the potential of technology limits my imagination, but I am sure there are ways to work it better.Could we design websites that ask the right questions at the right time? Rather than letting people browse for themselves, could we ask them what, specifically, they are looking for before giving them access to the right information? Or could their web browsing trigger some interactive questions? Or even better, could it trigger some kind of real time, real person contact - actively encouraging interaction on each webpage? Could we get people to sign in with their twitter accounts so that we can tweet them whilst they are searching?
I wonder what innovative ideas other people have? There are probably some great websites out there that do these sorts of things really well. Do let me know if you've come across any.
The evidence tells us that we are all, in general, pretty poor at taking in information that we read. Studies time and again show us that the process of reading careers information is not massively useful to clients; what helps is the conversations with the practitioners they have before and after their research (Savard and Michaud 2005). This also fits with Vygotsky's theories about language and thought, which explain that our thoughts are crystallised through conversations: we only really know what we think when we have a chance to talk it through.
In the old days, a student would start their trip to the careers library by telling the librarian what they were looking for - this brief conversation helped them to be really clear in their own minds about exactly what they were trying to find. Some might then have an ongoing dialogue with the librarian throughout their visit, but even the most independent researchers would be asked to engage with a brief chat about whether they had found what they were looking for at the end of their visit, and this conversation might then lead to booking an appointment with a careers adviser to discuss what their new information means to them.
These conversations are what make the information meaningful and relevant, and they are what has been lost with the move from a paper based service to an online service.
So what can we do about it? The solution might be in the way that the online services are designed and managed. My very limited understanding of the potential of technology limits my imagination, but I am sure there are ways to work it better.Could we design websites that ask the right questions at the right time? Rather than letting people browse for themselves, could we ask them what, specifically, they are looking for before giving them access to the right information? Or could their web browsing trigger some interactive questions? Or even better, could it trigger some kind of real time, real person contact - actively encouraging interaction on each webpage? Could we get people to sign in with their twitter accounts so that we can tweet them whilst they are searching?
I wonder what innovative ideas other people have? There are probably some great websites out there that do these sorts of things really well. Do let me know if you've come across any.
Savard, G. & Michaud,
M. (2005). The Impact of LMI on the Career Decision-Making Process: Literature
Review. FLMM
Friday 28 March 2014
Motivation - practical tools for dealing with fear
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.
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.
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
Sunday 9 February 2014
Social class and careers
I've been thinking a bit lately about social class and the many and varied benefits that being middle class might have on our career paths.
There's some issues that are fairly obvious. We know that some fields (such as politics, the media and fashion) all but require a significant period of unpaid work experience, and managing this when you have parents who can support you financially is bound to be helpful. We also know how important networks are, and that the notion of 'social capital' is important. The middle classes are much more likely to have access to interesting opportunities for internships and jobs because of their well connected parents. Greenback and Hepworth (2008) conducted a great piece of research a few years ago into the impact that social class has on career decision making styles and had some interesting findings which illustrate the uphill struggle that working class kids face when competing with middle class kids. Working class kids, for example, tend to focus on their degree first, and then start thinking about jobs afterwards. This seems like a very reasonable approach in itself, but at job interviews, these young people are up against the middle class kids who have already may have notched up a number of relevant internships. Those middle class competitors will be able to talk with confidence about the skills needed in the workplace, commercial issues and can prove that they understand the behaviour needed in a professional environment.
But what I've been thinking particularly about is not the fact that being middle class can bring specific benefits (networks, the flexibility associated with money, approaches to employability) but that being middle class is an advantage simply because being middle class is more admired - not that it's associated with any particular qualities or behaviour, but just because it's more desirable to be middle class.
There is plenty of evidence that an attractive appearance is linked with a range of positive employment outcomes - more money, more promotion, more job offers etc. But what is interesting is that the notion of attractiveness, in much of this research, is much broader than basic good looks, including things such as 'tasteful' clothing, 'well applied' make up, and the ability to know how to behave in social settings. Which in many cases boils down simply to looking (or being) more middle class. I don't just mean that middle class people are more able to afford to dress 'well', it's more that society decrees that what we think of as 'tasteful' or 'well' dressed is simply the way that middle class people look.
I've also read something recently about accents (eg Rakic et al. 2011) , and essentially, a middle class accent is more likely to get you a job than a working class one - not because there is anything intrinsically better about it, but simple because it symbolises the middle classes.
Then finally, I've just been reading a really interesting article on the advertising industry (McLeod et al 2009) which essentially suggests that ad agencies favour middle class applicants in part because they are more likely to be fit in and be desirable to clients.
The impact of social class is deep, subtle and insidious. And I don't know what we should do about it. It's a complex issue (far more nuanced than I'm making it seem in this post). But you could argue that it's woven into the fabric of our society (maybe any society?) that being middle class is better than being working class. And whilst we, as a society or as a bunch of practitioners, can work with clients to change some of the issues - encouraging all clients to get involved in work experience early on, teach people how to develop and make the most of their networks, there are many symbols of class which are hard for individuals to change, and which are deeply ingrained in our society. And these confer advantages to the middle classes, simply by signalling that they are middle class.
Greenbank and Hepworth (2008) Working class students and the career decision making process: A qualitative study: Manchester HECSU
McLeod, C., O'Donohoe, S. and Townley, B. (2009)The elephant in the room? Class and creative careers in British advertising agencies Human Relations 2009 62: 1011
Rakic, T., Steffens, m.C. and Mummendey, A. (2011) When it matters how you promounce it: the interview of regional accents on job interview outcome British Journal of Psychology 102 868 - 883
There's some issues that are fairly obvious. We know that some fields (such as politics, the media and fashion) all but require a significant period of unpaid work experience, and managing this when you have parents who can support you financially is bound to be helpful. We also know how important networks are, and that the notion of 'social capital' is important. The middle classes are much more likely to have access to interesting opportunities for internships and jobs because of their well connected parents. Greenback and Hepworth (2008) conducted a great piece of research a few years ago into the impact that social class has on career decision making styles and had some interesting findings which illustrate the uphill struggle that working class kids face when competing with middle class kids. Working class kids, for example, tend to focus on their degree first, and then start thinking about jobs afterwards. This seems like a very reasonable approach in itself, but at job interviews, these young people are up against the middle class kids who have already may have notched up a number of relevant internships. Those middle class competitors will be able to talk with confidence about the skills needed in the workplace, commercial issues and can prove that they understand the behaviour needed in a professional environment.
But what I've been thinking particularly about is not the fact that being middle class can bring specific benefits (networks, the flexibility associated with money, approaches to employability) but that being middle class is an advantage simply because being middle class is more admired - not that it's associated with any particular qualities or behaviour, but just because it's more desirable to be middle class.
There is plenty of evidence that an attractive appearance is linked with a range of positive employment outcomes - more money, more promotion, more job offers etc. But what is interesting is that the notion of attractiveness, in much of this research, is much broader than basic good looks, including things such as 'tasteful' clothing, 'well applied' make up, and the ability to know how to behave in social settings. Which in many cases boils down simply to looking (or being) more middle class. I don't just mean that middle class people are more able to afford to dress 'well', it's more that society decrees that what we think of as 'tasteful' or 'well' dressed is simply the way that middle class people look.
I've also read something recently about accents (eg Rakic et al. 2011) , and essentially, a middle class accent is more likely to get you a job than a working class one - not because there is anything intrinsically better about it, but simple because it symbolises the middle classes.
Then finally, I've just been reading a really interesting article on the advertising industry (McLeod et al 2009) which essentially suggests that ad agencies favour middle class applicants in part because they are more likely to be fit in and be desirable to clients.
The impact of social class is deep, subtle and insidious. And I don't know what we should do about it. It's a complex issue (far more nuanced than I'm making it seem in this post). But you could argue that it's woven into the fabric of our society (maybe any society?) that being middle class is better than being working class. And whilst we, as a society or as a bunch of practitioners, can work with clients to change some of the issues - encouraging all clients to get involved in work experience early on, teach people how to develop and make the most of their networks, there are many symbols of class which are hard for individuals to change, and which are deeply ingrained in our society. And these confer advantages to the middle classes, simply by signalling that they are middle class.
Greenbank and Hepworth (2008) Working class students and the career decision making process: A qualitative study: Manchester HECSU
McLeod, C., O'Donohoe, S. and Townley, B. (2009)The elephant in the room? Class and creative careers in British advertising agencies Human Relations 2009 62: 1011
Rakic, T., Steffens, m.C. and Mummendey, A. (2011) When it matters how you promounce it: the interview of regional accents on job interview outcome British Journal of Psychology 102 868 - 883
Wednesday 5 February 2014
Freelance success
Many career coaches make their living as freelancers, so I was intrigued to read the findings of this study which explores the factors that make a freelancer successful.
Self-employment is, for many, a desirable career choice. It can provide autonomy and flexibility, and the financial rewards can be great. But we know that many small business fold within their first year, and many freelance careers fail to take off. Born and Witteloostujin (2013) examined the careers of a large number of freelancers and identified three factors which consistently seem to be linked to those who make a success of their freelance careers.
The first is networking. This is perhaps no surprise. We know anecdotally that work for freelancers often if not usually comes through word of mouth, so the ability to network is bound to have an impact. The paper suggests though that it's not just about numbers. What is crucial is how strategic an individual is in their networking - it's about targeting those you connect with and raising your profile with the right people in the right way.
The second key factor is establishing a niche. It seems to be easier to make a success of your business or freelance career if it's highly specialised. This is one that I didn't expect, but on reflection, it makes sense to me, and fits with many stories of successful freelance careers. My initial thoughts were that if your practice is generic, then you are more likely to appeal to a wider range of clients, and therefore will get more business. But I think the key is that from a client perspective, there is something very attractive about engaging the services of a real expert. Specialising in a specific arena both gives you the opportunity to become an expert, and gives a clear message to clients that you are one.
These two factors are useful ones for career coaches, and could lead to useful conversations that could provide clients with a valuable competitive edge.
The third factor is interesting too. The researchers found that individuals whose work life balance mattered to them were less likely to make a success of a freelance career. This does make sense, doesn't it? It is hard to get established in a new field, and presumably, you're more likely to get repeat business if you can say yes to any offers that come your way, and the more hours you can spend preparing, the better the quality of your work.
This factor I think could be particularly valuable for discussions with clients who are motivated by the flexibility that a freelance career can bring. As a freelancer, you can certainly take a month off work every winter to learn to scuba dive in Brazil, and you are free to arrange your time to make sure you're there to drop the kids at school every day. But I wonder at what cost to your professional success?
Born, A., & Witteloostuijn, A. (2013). Drivers of freelance career success. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 24-46
Self-employment is, for many, a desirable career choice. It can provide autonomy and flexibility, and the financial rewards can be great. But we know that many small business fold within their first year, and many freelance careers fail to take off. Born and Witteloostujin (2013) examined the careers of a large number of freelancers and identified three factors which consistently seem to be linked to those who make a success of their freelance careers.
The first is networking. This is perhaps no surprise. We know anecdotally that work for freelancers often if not usually comes through word of mouth, so the ability to network is bound to have an impact. The paper suggests though that it's not just about numbers. What is crucial is how strategic an individual is in their networking - it's about targeting those you connect with and raising your profile with the right people in the right way.
The second key factor is establishing a niche. It seems to be easier to make a success of your business or freelance career if it's highly specialised. This is one that I didn't expect, but on reflection, it makes sense to me, and fits with many stories of successful freelance careers. My initial thoughts were that if your practice is generic, then you are more likely to appeal to a wider range of clients, and therefore will get more business. But I think the key is that from a client perspective, there is something very attractive about engaging the services of a real expert. Specialising in a specific arena both gives you the opportunity to become an expert, and gives a clear message to clients that you are one.
These two factors are useful ones for career coaches, and could lead to useful conversations that could provide clients with a valuable competitive edge.
The third factor is interesting too. The researchers found that individuals whose work life balance mattered to them were less likely to make a success of a freelance career. This does make sense, doesn't it? It is hard to get established in a new field, and presumably, you're more likely to get repeat business if you can say yes to any offers that come your way, and the more hours you can spend preparing, the better the quality of your work.
This factor I think could be particularly valuable for discussions with clients who are motivated by the flexibility that a freelance career can bring. As a freelancer, you can certainly take a month off work every winter to learn to scuba dive in Brazil, and you are free to arrange your time to make sure you're there to drop the kids at school every day. But I wonder at what cost to your professional success?
Born, A., & Witteloostuijn, A. (2013). Drivers of freelance career success. Journal Of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 24-46
Sunday 2 February 2014
The Quarter-Life Crisis: does it exist, and does that matter?
I've been working with one of my career coaching graduates (Hiba Dabis) on a paper about the Quarter Life crisis, and I've come to the conclusion that this concept is a useful addition to the career coach's understanding of career development.
The quarter life crisis is something that some people experience early on in adult hood (there is also research into the "turning 30 crisis" which is very similar but where the turning 30 crisis relates specifically to age, the quarterlife crisis is defined more by experiences). It's a crisis of identity and usually occurs when people start to feel that the life they are leading is incongruous with the adult that they are. It's often seen in people who have ended up following a career path that was highly influenced by their parents, school or peer group, and in individuals who perhaps didn't have a high degree of self-clarity in their late adolescence. Those going through a quarter-life crisis experience self-doubt, struggle with self-esteem and question their decisions. This can lead to insecurity, confusion, loneliness and a great feeling of isolation.
Rossi and Mebert had a look at a group of young people in 2011 and found no support for the concept of a quarter life crisis. They found that all the different emotions associated with this time of life could be explained by other factors, with depression and levels of job and life satisfaction being predicted by social and family support, income and identity development. Their research concludes that young adults may be depressed or have low job satisfaction, but this is no different from depression and job satisfaction at any other stage in life.
But I can't help but thinking that Rossi and Mebert were asking the wrong question. From the perspective of a coaching practitioner, one of the really useful applications of a theory is that it can help clients to normalise their experiences, which in turn can help them to accept their situation, validate their emotional responses and can reduce feelings of isolation. It is clearly helpful for practitioners to have some understanding of the antecedents of some of the emotional elements of the quarterlife crisis. If we know that social support is linked to enhanced life and job experience, and a clear sense of identity is likely to reduce depression, then these can point towards particular discussions and interventions to help. But I would also suggest that some of the feelings of isolation, self-doubt and the sense of failure experienced by many young adults might be softened a little by the understanding that their situation is not unique, and that the idea of a 'quarterlife crisis' is experienced and resolved by many.
Thinking back to my own crisis of identity in my mid-twenties, I can't help by think that knowing that my inability to define myself and my sense of loss and confusion were part of a tried and tested developmental path might have made me feel less isolated and less of a failure.
I do appreciate the importance of academic rigour when we try to identify concepts within psychology, but I also think it's incumbent on us as coaches to think about how we can use the academic research to best effect with our clients.
Dabis, H. (2013) Navigating the Stormy Seas of the Quarterlife crisis MA Dissertation University of East London
Rossi, N. E., & Mebert, C. J. (2011). Does a Quarterlife Crisis Exist?. Journal Of Genetic Psychology, 172(2), 141-161
The quarter life crisis is something that some people experience early on in adult hood (there is also research into the "turning 30 crisis" which is very similar but where the turning 30 crisis relates specifically to age, the quarterlife crisis is defined more by experiences). It's a crisis of identity and usually occurs when people start to feel that the life they are leading is incongruous with the adult that they are. It's often seen in people who have ended up following a career path that was highly influenced by their parents, school or peer group, and in individuals who perhaps didn't have a high degree of self-clarity in their late adolescence. Those going through a quarter-life crisis experience self-doubt, struggle with self-esteem and question their decisions. This can lead to insecurity, confusion, loneliness and a great feeling of isolation.
Rossi and Mebert had a look at a group of young people in 2011 and found no support for the concept of a quarter life crisis. They found that all the different emotions associated with this time of life could be explained by other factors, with depression and levels of job and life satisfaction being predicted by social and family support, income and identity development. Their research concludes that young adults may be depressed or have low job satisfaction, but this is no different from depression and job satisfaction at any other stage in life.
But I can't help but thinking that Rossi and Mebert were asking the wrong question. From the perspective of a coaching practitioner, one of the really useful applications of a theory is that it can help clients to normalise their experiences, which in turn can help them to accept their situation, validate their emotional responses and can reduce feelings of isolation. It is clearly helpful for practitioners to have some understanding of the antecedents of some of the emotional elements of the quarterlife crisis. If we know that social support is linked to enhanced life and job experience, and a clear sense of identity is likely to reduce depression, then these can point towards particular discussions and interventions to help. But I would also suggest that some of the feelings of isolation, self-doubt and the sense of failure experienced by many young adults might be softened a little by the understanding that their situation is not unique, and that the idea of a 'quarterlife crisis' is experienced and resolved by many.
Thinking back to my own crisis of identity in my mid-twenties, I can't help by think that knowing that my inability to define myself and my sense of loss and confusion were part of a tried and tested developmental path might have made me feel less isolated and less of a failure.
I do appreciate the importance of academic rigour when we try to identify concepts within psychology, but I also think it's incumbent on us as coaches to think about how we can use the academic research to best effect with our clients.
Dabis, H. (2013) Navigating the Stormy Seas of the Quarterlife crisis MA Dissertation University of East London
Rossi, N. E., & Mebert, C. J. (2011). Does a Quarterlife Crisis Exist?. Journal Of Genetic Psychology, 172(2), 141-161
Wednesday 29 January 2014
How to identify your vocation?
The notion of a vocation is one that the career scholars
have been thinking a lot about over the past decade. Dik and Duffy, who seem to
be the academic leading lights on this topic, have recently published a paper
summarising what we have found out and what is yet to come.
From a practitioners perspective, there is a huge gap in the
research. It’s all very well knowing how marvellous it is for individuals who
have found their vocation (and the list of benefits is huge - not only job satisfaction, but life satisfaction, better health and a whole host of others), but what we’re really interested in is how can we
help clients to find theirs. The literature seems pretty sketchy on this point, but there are a few ideas put forward which we might be able to work with.
First it could be helpful for clients to simply know a bit about what it is. It might be useful for a client to know that one's vocation can be measure on a continuum - it's not something that you either have or don't have, but something that you can have a bit of, or a bit more of. It might seem a bit unrealistic for some clients to think that they ought to find their whole life purpose in their job, but moving a degree or two towards a vocation could feel a bit more achievable and could have some real benefits.
It could also be useful for clients to understand the three key elements of a vocation: First for it to be a calling, there must be a caller. Traditionally, this has often been conceptualised as a spiritual thing, but the caller could be anything - one's country, community, a group of people or a sense of destiny. Second for it to be a vocation, the purpose of your work needs to be very similar to you life purpose - so that the values driving the work-you, are the same as those driving the whole-you. And third there needs to be some pro-social element to the role - you need to feel that you are doing some good in some way - whether that is working with the vulnerable and needy, or providing bigger dividends to shareholders.
Leading on from that last point, I think it's useful to remember that vocations don't need to be carey-sharey doing-good roles. Around a third of us have feel that we have a vocational orientation to our jobs, and this is pretty consistent for all occupations (surprisingly perhaps). I did hear one lovely story that illustrates this nicely. The cleaner at Nasa was asked what he did for a living, and his reply was 'I put people on the moon'.
So finally, just a few thoughts to bear in mind in discussions with clients. Duffy and Dik suggest that we should encourage clients to develop openness in new directions, to actively explore their interests, values and skills and think about how these match with potential jobs. Discussions around how jobs could connect with some kind of pro-social orientation could be fruitful - either thinking about what other jobs could have a pro-social orientation that chimes with their values, or thinking about ways to make their current jobs more socially orientated.
But there are still big gaps in our understanding of how interventions can help us identify our vocations. If anyone fancies doing a research project, do let me know!
Duffy, R.D. and Dik, B.J. (2013) Research on calling: what
have we learned and where are we going? Journal
of Vocational Behavior 83 428 – 436
Saturday 25 January 2014
How to be more successful at work
I've just been reading a paper that describes a meta-analysis of studies that examine the factors that make us successful at work. Of course the whole notion of what 'success' looks like in career terms is up for debate (one to return to another day), but for the purpose of this article, the researchers were looking at the factors that predict salary and promotion.
The first thing I found interesting was that there are apparently two identified ways to promotion in the work place. The first is known as 'contest mobility' which is promotion based on merit. Promotion is based on an open contest, and the most suitable person gets the job. The second is 'sponsorship mobility'; which refers to the idea that the person who gets promoted is the one who has been chosen by the organisation as a high flier. Early in your time in any organisation, the senior managers make a decision about whether you are the kind of person they want to promote. If you are the chosen one then you are likely to get the promotion regardless of whether you are actually the most deserving.
Contest mobility is (thankfully) the more common reason for people to get a promotion or pay rise, but I was interested to see that as well as leading to higher chances of promotion, being sponsored by your organisation is also a really clear predictor of job satisfaction. It seems that the feeling that your managers rate you and want to help you in your career makes you feel good about work, over and above its impact on objective factors such as promotion and pay.
In terms of top tips for clients (and indeed ourselves) looking to climb the corporate ladder, the strongest predictors of salary are:
1. Your IQ
2. Your education level
3. Your political knowledge and skills
And the factors most likely to lead to a promotion are:
1. The amount of training you get access to (strongly linked to the organisational sponsorship idea)
2. Your social capital
3. The hours that you work (the more the better).
The notion of organisational sponsorship is a good one to share with clients, as it seems that putting in a super human effort in the early stages of your time in an organisation to try and make the right impression, pushing for training opportunities and working long hours are likely to pay off.
Ng, T.W.H., Eby, L.T., Sorensen, K.L. and Feldman, D.C. (2005) Predictors of objective and subjective career success: a meta-analysis Personnel Psychology 58 367 - 408
The first thing I found interesting was that there are apparently two identified ways to promotion in the work place. The first is known as 'contest mobility' which is promotion based on merit. Promotion is based on an open contest, and the most suitable person gets the job. The second is 'sponsorship mobility'; which refers to the idea that the person who gets promoted is the one who has been chosen by the organisation as a high flier. Early in your time in any organisation, the senior managers make a decision about whether you are the kind of person they want to promote. If you are the chosen one then you are likely to get the promotion regardless of whether you are actually the most deserving.
Contest mobility is (thankfully) the more common reason for people to get a promotion or pay rise, but I was interested to see that as well as leading to higher chances of promotion, being sponsored by your organisation is also a really clear predictor of job satisfaction. It seems that the feeling that your managers rate you and want to help you in your career makes you feel good about work, over and above its impact on objective factors such as promotion and pay.
In terms of top tips for clients (and indeed ourselves) looking to climb the corporate ladder, the strongest predictors of salary are:
1. Your IQ
2. Your education level
3. Your political knowledge and skills
And the factors most likely to lead to a promotion are:
1. The amount of training you get access to (strongly linked to the organisational sponsorship idea)
2. Your social capital
3. The hours that you work (the more the better).
The notion of organisational sponsorship is a good one to share with clients, as it seems that putting in a super human effort in the early stages of your time in an organisation to try and make the right impression, pushing for training opportunities and working long hours are likely to pay off.
Ng, T.W.H., Eby, L.T., Sorensen, K.L. and Feldman, D.C. (2005) Predictors of objective and subjective career success: a meta-analysis Personnel Psychology 58 367 - 408
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)