A challenge that is often levelled at career decision making theories is that the whole notion of making a choice about what path to follow is a fanciful luxury for huge swathes of the population.
I love a career theory, but I never have a great answer for this - I try argue that most people have at least some kind of choice at some level, and also that even if choices are limited for many, we still need career decision making theories to help support the choices of others. But to be honest, It's a weak argument.
I love a career theory, but I never have a great answer for this - I try argue that most people have at least some kind of choice at some level, and also that even if choices are limited for many, we still need career decision making theories to help support the choices of others. But to be honest, It's a weak argument.
But here is a nice theory which specifically addresses the issue: the psychology-of-working perspective (Blustein, 2006). It's ten years old, but I've only recently come across it, and I think it's got something to offer.
The psychology-of-working perspective (Blustein, 2006) was developed to sit alongside traditional career decision making theories, and is aimed at helping us to understand the experiences of those for whom work is a basic form of survival rather than an expression of self-actualisation.
The authors of this theory highlight some particular groups of individuals who are likely to have limited choice over their career trajectories. These include those on welfare who are required to take any job which comes their way, those with learning disabilities, those who lack the economic or social resources to get the training they need to get the jobs they desire and those who are discriminated against on the grounds of gender, race, ethnicity or social class. They argue (rightly so) that people in these groups are less likely to have a wide range of options open to them, so the more mainstream career theories which encourage individuals to design their own lives, actualise their self-concepts or live out their values in their work, simply don't apply.
The authors of this theory highlight some particular groups of individuals who are likely to have limited choice over their career trajectories. These include those on welfare who are required to take any job which comes their way, those with learning disabilities, those who lack the economic or social resources to get the training they need to get the jobs they desire and those who are discriminated against on the grounds of gender, race, ethnicity or social class. They argue (rightly so) that people in these groups are less likely to have a wide range of options open to them, so the more mainstream career theories which encourage individuals to design their own lives, actualise their self-concepts or live out their values in their work, simply don't apply.
So this theory tries to be a bit broader and works at different levels. According to the psychology-of-working perspective, work fulfils three functions: survival and power; relatedness; and self-determination.
At the bottom of the pyramid, work provides us with a means to survive, and some source of power over our own lives, though access to material resources (ie money) and social resources (ie status). The second facet is relatedness - work allows us to develop meaningful relationships. Good relationships with colleagues have been shown to increase job satisfaction and improve well-being in all areas of our lives. The third element is the notion of self-determination (Ryan and Deci, 2000) which says that intrinsic motivation is always going to lead to more fulfilling work than extrinsic: if you can find a job your enjoy for its own sake, you're going to be happier than if you are just working to earn money to pay the bills. Blustein acknowledges that many of us are in jobs which aren't necessarily all that intrinsically interesting, but suggests that one thing that career practitioners could usefully do, is to work with clients to see if they can identify ways to make their jobs more fulfilling.
The theory suggests, much like Maslow's hierarchy of needs, that you need to have the lower needs met before you can start to think about the higher level needs: you're not going to start thinking about whether or not you have lovely colleagues until you are sure you're earning enough money to survive. In this way, the approach provides a single framework which explains the motivation of those who have limited work choices as well as those who have control over their career paths.
Alongside this explanatory framework, Blustein gives four recommendations for practice, suggesting that career practitioners should:
1) Foster empowerment
2) Foster critical consciousness
3) Promote skill building
4) Provide support for work volition
The first three aren't particularly innovative - career practitioners are well versed in encouraging clients to take ownership of their own career paths, ensuring their decisions are grounded in reality and ensuring that they are aware of their strengths and how they can build on them. The fourth though, this idea of supporting 'work volition' feels a bit different. The focus here is on getting clients to address the barriers which might be keeping them stuck at the 'survival and power' level, and maybe seeing if they could overcome, or even reframe the barriers.
I quite like this theory. It's perhaps not rocket science, but it does make sense to me, and I think that a theory which actually reflects the real lives of our clients is useful.
Alongside this explanatory framework, Blustein gives four recommendations for practice, suggesting that career practitioners should:
1) Foster empowerment
2) Foster critical consciousness
3) Promote skill building
4) Provide support for work volition
The first three aren't particularly innovative - career practitioners are well versed in encouraging clients to take ownership of their own career paths, ensuring their decisions are grounded in reality and ensuring that they are aware of their strengths and how they can build on them. The fourth though, this idea of supporting 'work volition' feels a bit different. The focus here is on getting clients to address the barriers which might be keeping them stuck at the 'survival and power' level, and maybe seeing if they could overcome, or even reframe the barriers.
I quite like this theory. It's perhaps not rocket science, but it does make sense to me, and I think that a theory which actually reflects the real lives of our clients is useful.
No comments:
Post a Comment