1 / 29

Making Better Career Decisions

Making Better Career Decisions. Itamar Gati The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Parsons (1908) Zytowski (2008). Career Decision-Making Difficulties.

fallon
Download Presentation

Making Better Career Decisions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Making Better Career Decisions Itamar Gati The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

  2. Parsons (1908) Zytowski (2008)

  3. Career Decision-Making Difficulties • One of the first steps in helping individuals make a career decision is locating the focuses of the difficulties they face in the decision-making process • Relying on decision theory, Gati, Krausz, and Osipow (1996) proposed a taxonomy of career decision-making difficulties

  4. During the Process Prior to Engaging in the Process Lack of Readinessdue to InconsistentInformationdue to Lack of Informationabout Lack of motivation Indeci-siveness Dysfunc-tionalbeliefs Cdmprocess Self Occu- pations Unreliable Info. Internal conflicts Externalconflicts Ways of obtaining info. Possible Focuses of Career Decision-Making Difficulties (Gati, Krausz, & Osipow, 1996)

  5. www.cddq.org :

  6. Sample from the CDDQ

  7. Among the salient difficulties is “lack of information about the career decision-making process” (4) Three Levels of Difficulties(negligible, moderate, salient difficulty) in the Ten Difficulty Categories and the Four Groups (N = 6192; H-Hebrew, E-English, p-paper and pencil, I-Internet) LP

  8. Stages in the career decision-making process The PIC model (Gati & Asher, 2001) separates the career decision-making process into 3 distinct stages: - Prescreening - In-depth exploration - Choice

  9. Prescreening • Goal: Locating a small set (about 7) of promising alternatives that deserve further, in-depth exploration • Method: Sequential Elimination

  10. A Schematic Presentation of theSequential Elimination Process (within-aspects, across-alternatives) Potential Alternatives Aspects a (most important) b (second in importance) c . n 1 2 3 4 . . . . N Promising Alternatives

  11. Prescreening (cont.) • Method: Sequential Elimination • Locate and prioritize relevant aspects or factors • Explicate within-aspect preferences • Eliminate incompatible alternatives • Check list of promising alternatives (Sensitivity analysis)

  12. Prescreening (cont.) • Goal: Locating a small set (about 7) of promising alternatives that deserve further, in-depth exploration • Method: Sequential Elimination • Outcome: A short list of “verified”, promising alternatives worth further, in-depth exploration

  13. In-depth exploration • Goal: Locating alternatives that are not only promising but indeed suitable for the individual • Method: collecting additional information, focusing on one promising alternative at a time: • Is the occupation INDEED suitable for me? • Am I suitable for the occupation? • Outcome: A few (e.g., 3-4) most suitable alternatives

  14. Choice • Goal: Choosing the most suitable alternative, and rank-ordering additional, second-best alternatives • Method: • comparing and evaluating the suitable alternatives • pinpointing the most suitable one • Am I likely to actualizeit? • if not - selecting second-best alternative(s) • if yes - Am I confident in my choice? • Outcome: The best alternative or a rank-order of the best alternatives

  15. MBCD Making Better Career Decisions MBCD is an Internet-based career planning system that is a unique combination of • a career-information system • a decision-making support system • an expert system Based on the rationale of the PIC model, MBCDisdesigned to help deliberating individuals make better career decisions

  16. Making Better Career Decisionshttp://mbcd.intocareers.org

  17. However, Although Internet-based, career-related self-help sites are flourishing, these sites vary greatly in quality Therefore, it is very important to investigate the utility and validity of these self-help programs So, the question is Making Better Career Decisions Does it really work?

  18. MBCD’s Effect (Cohen’s d)on Reducing Career Decision-Making Difficulties(Gati, Saka, & Krausz, 2003)

  19. Predictive Validity of MBCD: A 6-year follow-upFrequencies of Occupational Choice Satisfaction by “Acceptance” and “Rejection” of MBCD's Recommendations(Gati, Gadassi, & Shemesh, 2006)

  20. Gender Differences in Directly Elicited and Indirectly Derived Preferred Occupations(279 Women + 79 Men, Mean Age=23; Gadassi & Gati, 2008) 2. Preferences in 31 career-related aspects Data from participant: 1. Directly Elicited list of preferred occupations 5. comparison Occupational information database 4. Indirectly Derived listof recommendedoccupations 3. Matching preferences & database MBCD

  21. Gender Differences in Directly Elicited and Indirectly Derived Preferred Occupations (279 Women + 79 Men, Mean Age=23;Gadassi & Gati, 2008) Masculine Feminine

  22. Conclusions • Internet-based interactive systems, that implement decision-theory, can help individuals in making better career decisions • Career counseling may be viewed as decision counseling, which aims at facilitating the clients' decision-making process, and promotes better career decisions • The challenge – how to incorporate quality self-help tools in the face-to-face counseling process

  23. itamar.gati@huji.ac.il www.cddq.org

  24. end --

  25. Summary of Major Findings • PICis compatible with people’s intuitive ways of making decisions (Gati & Tikotzki, 1989) • Most users report progress in the career decision-making process (Gati, Kleiman, Saka, & Zakai, 2003) • Satisfaction was also reported among those who did not progress in the process • Users are “goal-directed” – the closer they are to making a decision, the more satisfied they are with MBCD • The list of “recommended” occupations are less influenced by gender stereotypes (Gadassi & Gati, 2008)

  26. The Career Decision-making Difficulties Questionnaire (CDDQ) • The Career Decision-making Difficulties Questionnaire (CDDQ) was developed to test this taxonomy and serve as a means for assessing individuals’ career decision-making difficulties • Cronbach Alpha internal consistency estimate of the total CDDQscore ranged from .92 to .95 • The proposed structure was empirically supported (N=10,000) • For additional information – see www.cddq.org--- the CDDQ is offered free of charge ---

  27. After the dialogue Before the dialogue 1 2 3 4 5 1- no direction 34 7 6 7 0 2 - only a general direction 41 66 15 9 5 3 - considering a few specific alternatives 27 58 84 30 6 4 - would like to examine additional alternatives 23 51 35 54 6 5 - would like to collect information about a specific occupation 9 20 21 41 28 6 - sure which occupation to choose 3 0 1 9 16 Decision StatusBefore and After the “Dialogue” with MBCD

More Related