1 / 20

From Career Decision-Making Styles to Career Decision-Making Profiles: A Multidimensional Approach

From Career Decision-Making Styles to Career Decision-Making Profiles: A Multidimensional Approach. Itamar Gati, Shiri Landman, Shlomit Davidovitch, Lisa Asulin-Peretz, and Reuma Gadassi The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The four facets for assessing career clients’ needs.

ashby
Télécharger la présentation

From Career Decision-Making Styles to Career Decision-Making Profiles: A Multidimensional Approach

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. From Career Decision-Making Styles to Career Decision-Making Profiles:A Multidimensional Approach Itamar Gati, Shiri Landman, Shlomit Davidovitch, Lisa Asulin-Peretz, and Reuma Gadassi The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

  2. The four facets for assessing career 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-making status • Assessing the client’s career decision-making profile (style): interventions aimed at facilitating career decision making should be tailored to the client’s career decision-making profile 2

  3. Previous approaches • Previous approaches have often focused on classifying individuals into one of few types based on their mostdominant style (e.g., rational, intuitive, dependent; Harren, 1979; + spontaneous and avoidant, Scott & Bruce, 1995). • The problem: labeling individuals by a single dominant characteristics is an oversimplification 3

  4. Our approach • We suggest to consider 12 dimensions simultaneously, while referring to career decision-making profiles rather than career decision-making styles. • We use “profile” instead of “style” for two main reasons: • we are dealing with a multidimensional construct rather than with a single dominant trait; and • “style” implies personality characteristics, whereas “profile” refers to both personality and situational influences on the decision-making behavior 4

  5. Developing the Multidimensional Model Comparing the most common 16 prototypes deduced from 40 types in previous research From this list we derived 12 basic dimensions Defining the high and low pole of each dimension (e.g., for information processing: “analytic" vs. "holistic”) Refining the model on the basis of preliminary empirical tests (5 samples, N=2764) 5

  6. Assumptions underlying the multidimensional model: • individuals differ in their approach to making career decisions and thus in their characteristic profile ofcareer decision making • individuals’ career decision-making process can be better described by a multidimensional profile rather than by a single dominant characteristic • each dimension describes a continuum between two extreme poles, along which the individual can be characterized • the dimensions are not independent; nevertheless, each has a unique contribution

  7. Assumptions underlying the multidimensional model (Cont.): • like personality-related measures (and unlike career decision-making difficulties) the dimensions cannot be combined to produce a single total score • depending on the dimension, some poles are more adaptive for decision making than others • whereas some dimensions are mainly personality-related and more consistent across situations, others are more situational and may depend on the specific decision task or the stage of the decision-making process in which the individual is at

  8. The 12 Dimensions • IG -Information gathering (much vs. little) • IP - Information processing (analytic vs. holistic) • LC- Locus of control (internal vs. external) • EI - Amount of effort invested in the process (much vs. little) • PR - Procrastination in entering the process (low vs. high) • SP - Speed of making the final decision (fast vs. slow) • CO - Consultation with others (frequent vs. rare) • DO - Dependence on others (low vs. high) • DP - Desire to please others (low vs. high) • AI - Aspiration for an"ideal occupation" (low vs. high) • WC - Willingness to compromise(high vs. low) • IN - Intuitive(much vs. little) 8

  9. The 12 Dimensions • Information gathering (comprehensive vs. minimal) – the degree to which individuals are meticulous and thorough in collecting and organizing information. • Information processing (analytic vs. holistic) – the degree to which the individual analyzes information into its components, and processes the information according to these components. • Locus of control (internal vs. external) – the degree to which individuals believe they control their occupational future and feel that their decisions affect their career opportunities, or that these are mainly determined by external forces such as fate or luck. • Effort invested in the process (much vs. little) – the amount of time and mental effort individuals invests in the decision-making process.

  10. The 12 Dimensions • Procrastination (high vs. low) – the degree to which the individual avoids or delays beginning or advancing through the career decision-making process. • Speed of making the final decision (fast vs. slow) – the length of time individuals need to make their final decision once the information has been collected and compiled. • Consulting with others (frequent vs. rare) – the extent to which individuals consult with others during the different stages of the decision process. • Dependence on others (high vs. low) – the degree to which individuals accept full responsibility for making their decision (even if they consult with others), as opposed to expecting others to make the decision for them.

  11. The 12 Dimensions • Desire to please others (high vs. low) – the degree to which the individual attempts to satisfy the expectations of significant others (e.g., parents, partner, friends). • Aspiration for an ideal occupation (high vs. low) – the extent to which individuals strive for an occupation that is perfect for them. • Willingness to compromise – the extent to which individuals are willing to be flexible about their preferred alternative when they encounter difficulties in actualizing it. • Intuition –(much vs. little) - the degree to which individuals rely on internal (gut) feelings when making a decision.

  12. The Career-Decision-making Profile Questionnaire (CDMP) • 36 statements (3 items x 12 dimensions) • Response scale: 1- Strongly disagree to7-Strongly agree • The CDMP is embedded in WWW.CDDQ.ORG 12

  13. Results - CDMP • Reliabilities of the 12 Dimensions (Cronbach Alpha): • Sample 1 (N=208) – median= .79 , Min .70, Max .89 • Sample 2 (N=431) – median= .81 , Min .74, Max .91 • Reliabilities Test-Retest (N=212): • Test-retest (4 months) consistency: median= .70, Min .52, Max .83 • Test-retest (2 weeks) reliability: median= .84, Min .75, Max .86 • Among the Most Stable dimensions: • DO– Dependence on Others (r = .79) • DP– Desire to Please others (r = .78) • Least Stable dimensions: • WC- willingness to compromise (r = .52) • CO- consultation with others (r =.60) 13

  14. Associations between CDMP and GDMS (Scott & Bruce, 1995; N=427)

  15. Associations between CDMP and VDSI(Walsh,1986;N=427)

  16. Means of the 12 CDMP Scales by three Levels of Decision Status (N = 427)

  17. Incremental Validity of the CDMP • The five GDMS styles accounts for 45.1% of the variance in the decision-status-group membership. • The GDMS styles combined with the CDMP dimensions accounts for 52.1% of group membership variance. • But, the CDMP dimensions alone accounts for 50.4% of the variance. • Conclusion: The CDMP better predicts decision-status-group membership than the GDMS 17

  18. Conclusions & Implications • The proposed and tested model can be used to characterize individuals' career decision-making • There are dimensions in which one of the poles appears more adaptive • The CDMP allows a more accurate assessment of the counselee's career decision-making profile, thus better “tailoring” the intervention to the individual • The CDMP allows individuals to learn about their career decision-making profile, and thus to consider adopting more adaptive strategies 18

  19. Future challenges • Further testing and validating the dimensions in terms of which poles are the more adaptive • Expanding research related to the relations between career decision-making profile and other career-related factors (e.g., dysfunctional thoughts, preference crystallization, career decision-making difficulties) • Attempting to locate groups of individuals with similar career decision-making profiles • Designing interventions to help clients adopt career decision-making profiles that are more adaptive 19

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

More Related