1 / 46

Facilitating Career Decision-Making

Facilitating Career Decision-Making. Itamar Gati Hebrew University of Jerusalem Presented at the National Congress of Vocational Guidance Sperlonga, Italy, May 2010. Parsons (1908) Zytowski (2008). 2. Indeed, it is difficult to make career decisions:.

jubal
Download Presentation

Facilitating Career Decision-Making

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. Facilitating Career Decision-Making Itamar Gati Hebrew University of Jerusalem Presented at the National Congress of Vocational Guidance Sperlonga, Italy, May 2010

  2. Parsons (1908) Zytowski (2008) 2

  3. Indeed, it is difficult to make career decisions: Quantity of Information:often large N of alternatives and factors, within-occupation variance  information is practically unlimited Quality of Information:soft, subjective, fuzzy, inaccurate, biased Uncertainty about:the individual’s future preferences, future career options, unpredictable changes and opportunities, probability of implementing choice Non-cognitive Factors:emotional and personality-related factors, necessity for compromise, actual or perceived social barriers and biases Lack of knowledgeabout the process is among the prevalent difficulties 3

  4. How can we Facilitate Career Decision Making? • Many factors contribute to the complexity and difficulties involved in the career decision-making process • Career counseling may be viewed as decision counseling, which aims at facilitating the clients' decision-making process, and promoting better career decisions • By adopting and adapting decision theory to the unique features of career decisions, theoretical knowledge can be translated into practical interventions to facilitate individuals’ career choices

  5. The Basis of Guidance:Assessing clients’ needs Locating the focuses of the client’s career decision-making difficulties Appraising the degree to which the client’s preferences are crystallized Assessing the client’s decision-makingstatus Acknowledging the client’s career decision-making profile (pattern, style): Interventions aimed at facilitating career decision making should be tailored to the client’s career decision-making profile 5 5

  6. Career Decision-Making Difficulties • The first step in helping individuals is to locate the focuses of the difficulties they face in making career decisions • Gati, Krausz, and Osipow (1996) proposed a taxonomy for describing the difficulties (see next slide),based on: • the stage in the decision-making process during which the difficulties typically arise • the similarity between the sources of the difficulties • the effects that the difficulties may have on the process and the relevant type of intervention

  7. During the Process Prior to Engaging in the Process Lack of Readinessdue to InconsistentInformation due to Lack of Information about Lack ofmotivation Indeci-siveness Dysfunc-tionalbeliefs Cdmprocess Self Occu- pations Unreliable Info. Internal conflicts Externalconflicts Ways of obtaining info. Locating the Focuses of Career Decision-Making Difficulties(Gati, Krausz, & Osipow, 1996)

  8. www.cddq.org 8

  9. The Career Decision-Making Difficulties Questionnaire (CDDQ) • The CDDQ was developed - to test this taxonomy and - to serve as a means for assessing individuals’ career decision-making difficulties • Cronbach Alpha internal consistency estimate: .93-.95 for the total CDDQ score

  10. Assessment of Career Decision-Making Difficulties involves: • Measuring the difficulties • computing the 10 difficulty scale scores • computing the 3 major cluster scores • computing the total CDDQ score • Interpreting the Client’s difficulty profile • locating salient,moderate, or negligible difficulties • evaluate confidence of interpretation

  11. 13

  12. Among the salient difficulties is “lack of information about thecareer decision-making process” The Distribution of the 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)

  13. Previous Decision-Theory-Based Approaches relied on: Normative decision theory (how individuals should make decisions), but this approach is – too rational too arbitrary too quantitative exceeds human’s information-processing capability Descriptive decision theory (how individualsactually make decisions) is not helpful either – it mainly documents human weakness heuristics, biases, and fallacies limited information-processing capabilities 17

  14. We adopt the Prescriptive approach: Helping the client: make better career decision Specifically, using the PIC model (Gati & Asher, 2001): Prescreening In-depth exploration Choice

  15. Guidance in the career decision-making process Prescreening career alternatives to locate a small and manageable set of promising occupations In-depth exploration of those promising alternatives to locate the suitable ones Choiceof the most suitable alternative 19 19

  16. Prescreening • Goal: Locating a small set (about 7) of promising alternatives that deserve further, in-depth exploration • Method: Sequential Elimination • Locate and prioritize aspects or factors • Explicate within-aspect preferences • Eliminate incompatible alternatives • Check list of promising alternatives • Outcome: A list of verified promising alternatives worth further, in-depth exploration

  17. Steps in Sequential Elimination Locating and prioritizing aspects or factors Explicate within-factor preferences in the most important factor not yet considered • Eliminate incompatible alternatives yes • Too many promising alternatives? no • This is the recommended list of occupations • worth further, in-depth exploration

  18. 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

  19. 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 occupation at a time: • Is the occupation INDEED suitable for me? • verifying compatibility with one’s preferences in the most important aspects • considering compatibility within the less important aspects • Am I suitable for the occupation? • probability of actualization: previous studies, grades, achievements, abilities • fit with the core aspects of the occupation (e.g., working in shifts) • Outcome: A few most suitable alternatives (about 3-4)

  20. A Schematic Presentation of the In-depth Exploration Stage(within-alternative, across aspects) Promising Alternatives 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 2 5 Suitable Alternatives

  21. 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 realize it? • if not - selecting second-best alternative(s) • if yes - Am I confident in my choice? • if not: Return to In-depth exploration stage • if yes: Done! • Outcome: The best alternative or a rank-order of the best alternatives

  22. www.cddq.org 26

  23. ImplementingPIC – 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, specifically, helping them in the prescreening and in-depth exploration stages 27

  24. MakingBetterCareerDecisions Does it really work?

  25. Criteria for Testing the Benefits ofPIC and ofMaking Better Career Decisions • Users' perceptions of MBCD • Changes in user’s degree of decidedness • Perceived benefits • Locate factors that contribute to positive outcomes

  26. MBCD’s Effect (Cohen’s d)on Reducing Career Decision-Making Difficulties

  27. Results -Occupational Choice Satisfaction by Acceptance and Rejection of MBCD's Recommendations (based on sequential elimination)

  28. Gender Differences in Directly and Indirectly Elicited Preferred Occupations(Gadassi & Gati, 2009)

  29. Summary of Major Findings • PICis compatible with individuals’ intuitive ways of making decisions (Gati & Tikotzki, 1989) • Most users reported 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 is less influenced by gender stereotypes (Gadassi & Gati, 2009)

  30. Additional factors Consider the client’s career decision-making profile (pattern, style) Help the client deal with the need to compromise Help clients deal with uncertainty(about themselves, about the world of work) Helpcombining intuitions with the outcome of the systematic process 41

  31. In Conclusion – Features of our Approach • Prescreening is essential when the number of potential alternatives (e.g., occupations, majors, jobs) is large • Instead of focusing on occupations (alternatives) we suggest to focus on aspects or characteristic of the options • Instead of the “snap-shot” – static assessments of vocational interests (e.g., the 3-highest RIASEC Holland’s code), use for prescreening a wide range of factors aspects elicited by a dynamic, interactive process

  32. To sum up Career choices are based on decision-making processes, therefore career counseling is also decision counseling Decision theory can be translated into practical interventions aimed at facilitating individuals’ career decision-making Many tools were transformed into user-friendly Internet-based systems, which can be incorporated into counseling interventions

  33. And Finally… • The theory-based interventions can and should be empirically tested for concurrent and predictive validity as well as practical effectiveness • The goal should be promoting a systematic decision making process – not a rational oneSpecifically – Making Better Career Decisions

  34. For further information:www.cddq.org itamar.gati@huji.ac.il

  35. Empirical Structure of CDM Difficulties (N = 10,000) Lack of motivation General indecisiveness Dysfunctional beliefs Lack of info. about self Lack of info about process LoI about occupations LoI about addition sources of help Unreliable Information Internal conflicts External conflicts

More Related