Career Development and Gender, Race, and Class
Many theories of career development are derived from theories of personality (Sharf 1997). They attempt to illuminate the interrelationship of individual personality and behavior with work and careers. However, some prevailing career development theories were based solely on research on white males from middle- and upper-middle-class backgrounds, so their applicability to women, people of color, and other socioeconomic groups has been called into question. In addition, the focus on individual psychological or personality characteristics does not take into account the wider environmental context in which people make career decisions, thus failing to recognize the constraints faced by some groups. This Digest investigates broader perspectives on career development that are being built on emerging research focused on gender, race, ethnicity, and social class. The implications of this information for career and vocational educators and counselors are discussed.
ISSUES RELATED TO CAREER DEVELOPMENT THEORIES
Some types of career development theories include trait and factor, life-span, and social cognitive (Sharf 1997). This section looks at some of the issues surrounding the applicability of these theories in regard to gender, race, and class.
TRAIT AND FACTOR THEORIES.
The basis of trait and factor theories is the assumption that there are unique traits that can be reliably measured and that it is possible to match individual traits to occupational requirements. Holland identified six types of occupations theorized that people seek work environments and occupations that match their preferred traits. However, some people question the accuracy of the instruments used to measure these traits for groups other than white males. Do they reflect understanding of diverse life experiences? Are the requirements for success in an occupation the same for people of color as for whites? For women as for men? (Leong 1995). Research has demonstrated real differences in the abilities of different gender, racial, and socioeconomic groups, but what factors brought about these differences? According to Helms and Piper (in "Special Issue" 1994), there is "no valid reason for explaining or anticipating consistent between-group differences on the basis of race per se" (p. 125); such differences may result from shared cultural socialization experiences. Likewise, "differences in abilities, achievements, personality, interests, and values between men and women do exist, [but] they are often rather small" (ibid., p. 54).
LIFE-SPAN THEORIES.
Trait and factor theories tend to deal with career issues at one point in time, whereas life-span theories take a long-term, developmental perspective (ibid.). The most widely known life-span theory is Super's Theory of Vocational Choice, which suggests that individuals pass through stages of vocational development involving developmental tasks at each stage; it also considers the performance of multiple roles and their interaction across the life-span (Stitt-Gohdes 1997). However, some studies have shown that the life stages Super outlined are not exactly applicable to women, especially as their roles have changed in the last few decades (Sharf 1997). Super considered self-concept and vocational maturity to be important determinants in occupational choices. However, the self-concept of people of color is linked to some degree to the formation of ethnic identity, the impact of which needs to be acknowledged in life-span theory (Leong 1995). Low scores on career maturity measures may be a reflection of perceived societal barriers, restricted access to and limited opportunities in the job market, or a realistic appraisal of one's prospects (Naidoo 1998).
SOCIAL COGNITIVE CAREER THEORY.
This theory identifies the interaction of personal attributes, external environmental factors, and behavior in career decision making. It focuses on the influence of self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations on goals and behavior (Stitt-Gohdes 1997). That is, if individuals believe in their ability to undertake an endeavor and have an expectation of the outcome of that behavior, they will behave in a way that will help them achieve their goal. However, for women and people of color, barriers such as discrimination or bias may determine outcomes independent of behavior. Self-efficacy beliefs may have been undermined by racial or sex-role stereotypes. Therefore, individuals may foreclose career options that they perceive are not truly open to them (Sharf 1997). The fact that some individuals have been able to persist and achieve in a nonsupportive environment is in some cases attributable to their high self-efficacy expectations (Farmer et al. 1997).
Critics of the major career development theories (Fitzgerald and Betz 1994; Leong 1995; Naidoo 1998; "Special Issue" 1994) charge that they are based on white, middle-class values; make certain assumptions (relative affluence, access to education and occupational information, free and open labor market, work as a central value); fail to include crucial structural and cultural variables; and include concepts not applicable to certain groups. For example, "the very notion of career development may be inappropriate for some ethnic minorities" (Perron et al. 1998, p. 410). "We do not even know to what extent the term career is culturally sensible to Native people" (Peavy 1995, p. 1). Fitzgerald and Betz (1994) question the relevance of career development to people who are permanently unemployed or underemployed. Naidoo (1998) critiques research that measures minority groups against white, middle-class norms (any differences being attributed to race) and studies that confound race with social class. However, many authors agree that these theories have some utility and need to be expanded and elaborated to include relevant variables (Fitzgerald and Betz 1994; "Special Issue" 1994). The following sections look at two of a number of concepts that are being used to reexamine these theories for wider application: career maturity and salience.
CAREER MATURITY
Career maturity is the readiness to make appropriate career decisions (Lundberg et al. 1997). It has often been measured using majority populations as the norm, but research on diverse populations demonstrates that some of the variables used to measure it may not apply to all groups (Leong 1995). Career maturity is influenced by age, ace, ethnicity, locus of control, socioeconomic status, work salience, and gender (Naidoo 1998). The complex interaction of these factors affects individuals readiness to succeed in mastering the tasks appropriate to various stages of career development. Perron et al. (1998) found that minority students in Quebec had higher ethnic identity and vocational maturity earlier than the majority population but their maturity scores fell behind by 11th grade. They suggested that increased ethnic identity may lead to greater awareness of potential barriers and thus lower career maturity. In Lundberg et al.'s (1997) study, Anglo ninth-graders had higher career maturity scores than Mexican-American students, which they attributed to the latter's limited access to information about the world of work. They also found significant differences between the two groups on the Myers Briggs Type Indicator, highlighting the key influence of personality on career maturity.
Some studies fail to show that socioeconomic status (SES) has a significant influence on career maturity (Naidoo 1998), but others suggest that such concepts as career exploration and planning may not apply to poor individuals who may leave school to take jobs for economic survival (Sharf 1997). Rojewski (1994) found that adolescents from low-income backgrounds score lower on career maturity measures, which he attributed to lack of access to occupational information, role models, and the perceived lack of employment opportunities, all of which influence career choice. Although low-income youth often have high aspirations, the influence of inadequate guidance and lack of information, high school preparation, or role models affects their "fit" with the career maturity model.
Career maturity research shows conflicting results for gender, some studies finding higher levels in males, others in females (Naidoo 1998). Again, the complex interaction of other influences may make career maturity development different for women and men. Although women in Luzzo's (1995) study had higher career maturity scores than men, they were more inclined to perceive role conflicts and barriers as obstacles in their career development process. Women may balance their career preferences with what seems possible, regardless of whether their career behavior is appropriate for their career development stage (Farmer et al. 1997).
SALIENCE
Salience refers to the value individuals place on life roles (study, work service, home/family, leisure), which can change over time (Sharf 1997). In addition to these roles, the salience of racial/ethnic identity is emerging as an important dimension in explaining career development. A "Special Issue" (1994) of the Journal of Vocational Behavior explored the role of racial identity in career behavior. In this issue, Cross presented the Nigrescence model, a continuum of African American identity in which individuals range from placing low to high salience on being black. Traditional career development theory may apply to blacks with low salience (whose world view is similar to whites) but not to blacks whose world view is more Africentric (Parham and Austin in "Special Issue" 1994). Evans and Herr (ibid.) found that high salient racial identity did not predict career aspirations of African Americans, suggesting the importance of considering personal identity factors.
Leong and Chou (ibid.) found that a continuum of acculturation/ethnic identity influences the vocational behavior and career choices of Asian Americans. Similarly, the salience of Native Americans' world view compared to that of the dominant culture affects their view o¸ñÌÚrk (Leong 1995). The degree of acculturation, or the extent to which individuals adopt dominant cultural values (Carter and Cook 1992), may determine the fit of traditional career development theories. For others, bicultural competence, or the reconciliation of the values of one's culture with the dominant culture, explains career development patterns (Leong 1995; Peavy 1995).
For some the salience of the family influences career behavior. Different cultures have different conceptions of the family, gender roles, and family-work relationships. In some cultures, "career" may have a collective, not an individual meaning (Carter and Cook 1992). "African Americans expressed greater salience in home and family than the work role" (Naidoo et al. 1998, p. 23).
Several authors point out the great diversity in world view, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status within groups such as Hispanic, Asian, African, and Native Americans (Leong 1995; Peavy 1995; "Special Issue" 1994). Therefore, race/ethnicity should not be used as a primary signifier of career behavior, and it is important to look at the conditions under which membership in a particular group is salient.
SUMMARY
As career development theories are tested by research on various populations, a complex picture emerges, suggesting that career choice and development are influenced by multiple factors: personality (including vocational interests); how individuals perceive themselves and the world (self-concept, racial/cultural identity, world view); socialization; resources (financial, information, role models, social supports); experiences of sexism, racism, and classism; and the salience of various life roles and identity. Betz and Fitzgerald (in Leong 1995) recommend the following: (1) career counseling must take place within the cultural context, with counselors being aware of their own and others' cultures; (2) assumptions that all individuals in a culture have the same values, goals, and experiences should be avoided; (3) race and ethnicity must be considered in interaction with gender and class; and (4) the level of acculturation and stage of ethnic identity development should be identified. Stitt-Gohdes (1997) notes that "students of all ages spend much more of their time with the classroom teacher than the guidance counselor" (p. 54). Teachers (as well as parents) should also look at students as individuals who are also members of multiple subgroups within the context of the broader society. A more global, inclusive perspective can help all individuals with their career development across the life-span.
Showing posts with label career development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label career development. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
CAREER DEVELOPMENT IN GENERATION X
Career Development in Generation X
Generation X refers to the population cohort following the Baby Boomers. Sources differ as to the exact years during which this cohort was born. Coupland (1991) suggests 1960 to 1970; Bradford and Raines (1992) propose 1965 to 1975; and Howe and Strauss (1993) suggest 1961 to 1981. Whatever the birth years, it is their common life experiences that give this cohort an identity. Individuals born in Generation X are reputedly more global, technologically oriented, and culturally diverse than the generations before them. Coming of age when the linear career path no longer exists, where average income is falling, and where continuous change is the norm, does this generation have different values, work ethics, and attitudes toward work and career development? As the myths and realities of this question are explored, it is important to remember that the characteristics, habits, and traits attributed to individuals in this cohort are mere generalizations, presented to afford a better understanding of the generation called Generation X.
Myth: Individuals in Generation X Are Slackers, Lacking Career Drive and Ambition
Various books, articles, and surveys have described individuals in Generation X as slackers, cynical about the future and resentful of Baby Boomers who have "taken all the good jobs" (Kruger 1994). This description is based on observations that Generation X workers jump from job to job, are unwilling to conform to organizational demands that do not suit them, and leave jobs that bore them and are not "fun" (Wyld 1994). Although persons in the two generations before Generation X-the Silent generation (1925-1945) and Boom generation (1946-1964)-interpret these behaviors as indicative of low career drive and ambition (Bradford and Raines 1992), it may be that Generation X just views the concept of career differently than did those before them.
The twenty somethings of Generation X who are currently in the work force entered the labor market with no expectations. Many of them believe the best years (in terms of society) are behind them (Howe and Strauss 1993). They have been told that they are the "only generation since the Civil War to come of age unlikely to match their parents' economic fortunes" (ibid., p. 7). They place little faith in job security. "They saw their parents laid off without cause and their perceptions of the working world were shaped in time of economic turmoil. Consequently, they tend to see every job they take as temporary and every company as a stepping stone to something better, or at least to something else" (Filipczak 1994, p. 23). Since they have adopted the philosophy that there are "no guarantees," they are not interested in working their way up. They want to be valued immediately for their skills (Bradford and Raines 1992). They see their career strength in their ability to solve problems and do jobs that others are not able to do. "They believe that security nowadays comes from the transferability of one's skills to other jobs rather than from advancement in hierarchically managed organizations" (Wilkinson 1995, p. 67). They use job hopping as a way to build their skills and make themselves more marketable (Filipczak 1994, p. 27).
Although individuals in Generation X may be cynical, they do not lack drive. They are very self-oriented-they want to know what's in it for them. They are also more self-sufficient and outcome based. They want to "get in, do the work, and move on to the next thing" (Filipczak 1994, p. 27). "They want to be judged not on input but output, no longer on the site where work is done, but on how well work is done" (Wilkinson 1995, p. 67).
Money is an important motivator to this generation. In fact, many studies show it is the top priority (Filipczak 1994). This is not surprising since many of the X-ers are used to spending money and have cultivated expensive tastes. As teens, they earned money that they were allowed to spend on whatever they wanted-clothes, cars, stereos, compact discs, and entertainment. This enabled them to "buy a level of affluence that still reflects massive parental subsidy" (Howe and Strauss 1993, p. 104). However, harsh reality hits when X-ers leave home or school. Today's economy offers fewer jobs to these job seekers and lower salaries. "Strauss cites statistics that show a decline in average income for people under the age of 30 in every demographic category except single women with college degrees" (Filipczak 1993, p. 23). Overall, there are fewer and fewer good-paying, entry-level jobs, even for college graduates. "From 1989 to 1992, for example, anticipated hiring of first year college grads by medium size and large U.S. companies was off a full 35%" (Fenner 1994, p. 90). Even now, despite the improving economy, the class of 1994 can expect only a 1% improvement (ibid.).
Given their priorities of money, power, and status (Howe and Strauss 1993), many of the Generation X-ers are becoming entrepreneurs, starting companies at a faster rate than other generations. "A study by Marquette University and the University of Michigan conducted in 1993 found that entrepreneurs between the ages of 25 and 34 created 70 percent of all new business startups" (Cohen and Simons, p. 54). In their book, the 13th Generation: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?, Howe and Strauss (1993) speak optimistically about a future that is possible for individuals in the 13th generation. They predict that "the most successful 13-ers will be risk takers, who exploit opportunities overlooked by established businesses" (p. 219). They predict the "leading 13-er frontier will be overseas, where this generation can most fully apply its entrepreneurial instincts and take advantage of its linguistic, computer, and marketing skills" (ibid.).
Myth: Individuals in Generation X Are Poorly Suited to Today's Career Realities
For those who are and remain unskilled and uneducated, the future is grim. Even those with a high school education are at risk. According to "Generation X-onomics" (1994), "college grads earn an average of 77% more than high school grads, and the gap is increasingly widening" (p. A27).
Fortunately, individuals in Generation X have higher levels of education than those in previous generations. "In 1993, 47% of the 18-24 year olds had at least some higher education compared with around 31% in 1980" (Quinn 1994, p. 94). Also, their high school dropout rates are down. Generation X women who are in their twenties, likely to have been raised by working mothers, are better educated than the women in any other generation in U.S. history (Kruger 1994).
The real asset individuals in Generation X bring to the workplace is their knowledge of technology and their ability to concentrate on a number of tasks at one time. This is especially significant in this "age of computers." Filipczak (1994) notes that "X-ers are either adept users or at least unafraid to try new technology. Combine this absence of fear with the ability to parallel think and process information quickly, and you've got workers who can pick up almost any software program and learn it quickly" (p. 26).
X-ers are also accepting of, if not comfortable with, change. Their youth was fraught with change and uncertainty. They have seen job prospects go from excellent to bleak; they have seen their parents lose or have altered jobs due to company downsizing and restructuring; they have seen national leaders discredited; and "40 percent of them were raised by divorced or separated parents" (Kruger 1994, p. 62). "In many ways they (X-ers) are more emotionally suited for today's career realities than their elders" (Lancaster 1995, p. B1).
Quality of life is a major consideration of individuals in Generation X as they face workplace and career demands. This generation is concerned about having a balanced life. They are not workaholics and believe in compartmentalizing their work, social, and family lives. Their outside interests are as important to them as their jobs. Having been deprived of their parents when they were children, they are committed to spending time with their own children. Their family values are more like those evident in the 1950s, and it is predicted that the divorce rates of this generation will show a downward plunge. They are more realistic about the balance between their work and family/social lives that will give them satisfaction and make them happy.
The women in Generation X are especially cognizant of career realities. Many of them are ruling out jobs in management consulting and corporate finance, the jobs women in the Baby Boom generation coveted. They are unwilling to work the 9 a.m. to 2 a.m., 17-hour day of their predecessors (Kruger 1994). Many of those who have or hope to have children want to work part-time so they can be with them during their preschool years.
Myth: Individuals in Generation X Have Little Influence in the Workplace
Representing a shrinking labor pool in an economy that demands high numbers of workers, individuals in Generation X hold the trump cards, the ace of which is education and training. To avoid the high cost of job turnovers, companies are offering education and training as incentives for workers to remain in their jobs. On-site skill training and college courses offered to workers reap rewards for both the company and its workers and are especially attractive to the "knowledge seeking" Generation X-ers. For those workers who have limited skills and the least amount of education and experience, continual skill upgrading is essential to their work future and to the company's high performance goals. Many companies are supporting school-to-work transition programs that offer apprentice-like training to high school students as a way to ensure skilled entry-level workers.
The type of training companies do is being shaped by the short attention span of this MTV generation. "Corporate-produced videos never run more than 15 minutes, and accordingly, there can't be too many visuals in the training" (Filipczak 1994, p. 24). The practical application of basic skills and job skills are preferred over instruction in theory; hands-on activity over lecture. Generation X is also shaping company leadership. Generation X-ers require more coaching and feedback from their supervisors than previous generations. They want clear communication. They want to know what is expected of them and what benefits they will get in return. They want to know how policy is set and how decisions are made. Having been educated in the total quality management process, Generation X workers expect their opinions to count and to know that they can make a difference. Most certainly they expect to participate in the decision making and in processes that influence their lives (Bradford and Raines 1992).
Managers of Generation X-ers are advised to assume a mentor role, listening to the X-ers day by day and communicating to them the organization's vision, linking it to their lives (Bradford and Raines 1992). Because many Generation X-ers missed close communication with their parents, they want more guidance and advice from their superiors. They want their company's support as they balance their work and home/social lives. The women want to know what options the company is making available to working mothers and are demanding child care, sometimes in lieu of a pension plan.
Of the greatest significance may be the workplace changes influenced by the cultural diversity of this generation. Howe and Strauss (1993) predict that the "13th" generation will become "one of the most important immigrant generations in U.S. history" (p. 218). They state that "foreign-born high-achievers will catapult new ethnic groups, especially Asians and Hispanics, into national prominence-much as the Lost Generation did for the Italians and Eastern Europeans and the Gilded Generation did for the Irish and Germans" (ibid., pp. 218-219). Their ethnic, cultural, and racial diversity will influence politics, government, and the marketplace as well. The exact influence of these factors on the workplace of the future, however, will not be known for years to come.
Generation X refers to the population cohort following the Baby Boomers. Sources differ as to the exact years during which this cohort was born. Coupland (1991) suggests 1960 to 1970; Bradford and Raines (1992) propose 1965 to 1975; and Howe and Strauss (1993) suggest 1961 to 1981. Whatever the birth years, it is their common life experiences that give this cohort an identity. Individuals born in Generation X are reputedly more global, technologically oriented, and culturally diverse than the generations before them. Coming of age when the linear career path no longer exists, where average income is falling, and where continuous change is the norm, does this generation have different values, work ethics, and attitudes toward work and career development? As the myths and realities of this question are explored, it is important to remember that the characteristics, habits, and traits attributed to individuals in this cohort are mere generalizations, presented to afford a better understanding of the generation called Generation X.
Myth: Individuals in Generation X Are Slackers, Lacking Career Drive and Ambition
Various books, articles, and surveys have described individuals in Generation X as slackers, cynical about the future and resentful of Baby Boomers who have "taken all the good jobs" (Kruger 1994). This description is based on observations that Generation X workers jump from job to job, are unwilling to conform to organizational demands that do not suit them, and leave jobs that bore them and are not "fun" (Wyld 1994). Although persons in the two generations before Generation X-the Silent generation (1925-1945) and Boom generation (1946-1964)-interpret these behaviors as indicative of low career drive and ambition (Bradford and Raines 1992), it may be that Generation X just views the concept of career differently than did those before them.
The twenty somethings of Generation X who are currently in the work force entered the labor market with no expectations. Many of them believe the best years (in terms of society) are behind them (Howe and Strauss 1993). They have been told that they are the "only generation since the Civil War to come of age unlikely to match their parents' economic fortunes" (ibid., p. 7). They place little faith in job security. "They saw their parents laid off without cause and their perceptions of the working world were shaped in time of economic turmoil. Consequently, they tend to see every job they take as temporary and every company as a stepping stone to something better, or at least to something else" (Filipczak 1994, p. 23). Since they have adopted the philosophy that there are "no guarantees," they are not interested in working their way up. They want to be valued immediately for their skills (Bradford and Raines 1992). They see their career strength in their ability to solve problems and do jobs that others are not able to do. "They believe that security nowadays comes from the transferability of one's skills to other jobs rather than from advancement in hierarchically managed organizations" (Wilkinson 1995, p. 67). They use job hopping as a way to build their skills and make themselves more marketable (Filipczak 1994, p. 27).
Although individuals in Generation X may be cynical, they do not lack drive. They are very self-oriented-they want to know what's in it for them. They are also more self-sufficient and outcome based. They want to "get in, do the work, and move on to the next thing" (Filipczak 1994, p. 27). "They want to be judged not on input but output, no longer on the site where work is done, but on how well work is done" (Wilkinson 1995, p. 67).
Money is an important motivator to this generation. In fact, many studies show it is the top priority (Filipczak 1994). This is not surprising since many of the X-ers are used to spending money and have cultivated expensive tastes. As teens, they earned money that they were allowed to spend on whatever they wanted-clothes, cars, stereos, compact discs, and entertainment. This enabled them to "buy a level of affluence that still reflects massive parental subsidy" (Howe and Strauss 1993, p. 104). However, harsh reality hits when X-ers leave home or school. Today's economy offers fewer jobs to these job seekers and lower salaries. "Strauss cites statistics that show a decline in average income for people under the age of 30 in every demographic category except single women with college degrees" (Filipczak 1993, p. 23). Overall, there are fewer and fewer good-paying, entry-level jobs, even for college graduates. "From 1989 to 1992, for example, anticipated hiring of first year college grads by medium size and large U.S. companies was off a full 35%" (Fenner 1994, p. 90). Even now, despite the improving economy, the class of 1994 can expect only a 1% improvement (ibid.).
Given their priorities of money, power, and status (Howe and Strauss 1993), many of the Generation X-ers are becoming entrepreneurs, starting companies at a faster rate than other generations. "A study by Marquette University and the University of Michigan conducted in 1993 found that entrepreneurs between the ages of 25 and 34 created 70 percent of all new business startups" (Cohen and Simons, p. 54). In their book, the 13th Generation: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?, Howe and Strauss (1993) speak optimistically about a future that is possible for individuals in the 13th generation. They predict that "the most successful 13-ers will be risk takers, who exploit opportunities overlooked by established businesses" (p. 219). They predict the "leading 13-er frontier will be overseas, where this generation can most fully apply its entrepreneurial instincts and take advantage of its linguistic, computer, and marketing skills" (ibid.).
Myth: Individuals in Generation X Are Poorly Suited to Today's Career Realities
For those who are and remain unskilled and uneducated, the future is grim. Even those with a high school education are at risk. According to "Generation X-onomics" (1994), "college grads earn an average of 77% more than high school grads, and the gap is increasingly widening" (p. A27).
Fortunately, individuals in Generation X have higher levels of education than those in previous generations. "In 1993, 47% of the 18-24 year olds had at least some higher education compared with around 31% in 1980" (Quinn 1994, p. 94). Also, their high school dropout rates are down. Generation X women who are in their twenties, likely to have been raised by working mothers, are better educated than the women in any other generation in U.S. history (Kruger 1994).
The real asset individuals in Generation X bring to the workplace is their knowledge of technology and their ability to concentrate on a number of tasks at one time. This is especially significant in this "age of computers." Filipczak (1994) notes that "X-ers are either adept users or at least unafraid to try new technology. Combine this absence of fear with the ability to parallel think and process information quickly, and you've got workers who can pick up almost any software program and learn it quickly" (p. 26).
X-ers are also accepting of, if not comfortable with, change. Their youth was fraught with change and uncertainty. They have seen job prospects go from excellent to bleak; they have seen their parents lose or have altered jobs due to company downsizing and restructuring; they have seen national leaders discredited; and "40 percent of them were raised by divorced or separated parents" (Kruger 1994, p. 62). "In many ways they (X-ers) are more emotionally suited for today's career realities than their elders" (Lancaster 1995, p. B1).
Quality of life is a major consideration of individuals in Generation X as they face workplace and career demands. This generation is concerned about having a balanced life. They are not workaholics and believe in compartmentalizing their work, social, and family lives. Their outside interests are as important to them as their jobs. Having been deprived of their parents when they were children, they are committed to spending time with their own children. Their family values are more like those evident in the 1950s, and it is predicted that the divorce rates of this generation will show a downward plunge. They are more realistic about the balance between their work and family/social lives that will give them satisfaction and make them happy.
The women in Generation X are especially cognizant of career realities. Many of them are ruling out jobs in management consulting and corporate finance, the jobs women in the Baby Boom generation coveted. They are unwilling to work the 9 a.m. to 2 a.m., 17-hour day of their predecessors (Kruger 1994). Many of those who have or hope to have children want to work part-time so they can be with them during their preschool years.
Myth: Individuals in Generation X Have Little Influence in the Workplace
Representing a shrinking labor pool in an economy that demands high numbers of workers, individuals in Generation X hold the trump cards, the ace of which is education and training. To avoid the high cost of job turnovers, companies are offering education and training as incentives for workers to remain in their jobs. On-site skill training and college courses offered to workers reap rewards for both the company and its workers and are especially attractive to the "knowledge seeking" Generation X-ers. For those workers who have limited skills and the least amount of education and experience, continual skill upgrading is essential to their work future and to the company's high performance goals. Many companies are supporting school-to-work transition programs that offer apprentice-like training to high school students as a way to ensure skilled entry-level workers.
The type of training companies do is being shaped by the short attention span of this MTV generation. "Corporate-produced videos never run more than 15 minutes, and accordingly, there can't be too many visuals in the training" (Filipczak 1994, p. 24). The practical application of basic skills and job skills are preferred over instruction in theory; hands-on activity over lecture. Generation X is also shaping company leadership. Generation X-ers require more coaching and feedback from their supervisors than previous generations. They want clear communication. They want to know what is expected of them and what benefits they will get in return. They want to know how policy is set and how decisions are made. Having been educated in the total quality management process, Generation X workers expect their opinions to count and to know that they can make a difference. Most certainly they expect to participate in the decision making and in processes that influence their lives (Bradford and Raines 1992).
Managers of Generation X-ers are advised to assume a mentor role, listening to the X-ers day by day and communicating to them the organization's vision, linking it to their lives (Bradford and Raines 1992). Because many Generation X-ers missed close communication with their parents, they want more guidance and advice from their superiors. They want their company's support as they balance their work and home/social lives. The women want to know what options the company is making available to working mothers and are demanding child care, sometimes in lieu of a pension plan.
Of the greatest significance may be the workplace changes influenced by the cultural diversity of this generation. Howe and Strauss (1993) predict that the "13th" generation will become "one of the most important immigrant generations in U.S. history" (p. 218). They state that "foreign-born high-achievers will catapult new ethnic groups, especially Asians and Hispanics, into national prominence-much as the Lost Generation did for the Italians and Eastern Europeans and the Gilded Generation did for the Irish and Germans" (ibid., pp. 218-219). Their ethnic, cultural, and racial diversity will influence politics, government, and the marketplace as well. The exact influence of these factors on the workplace of the future, however, will not be known for years to come.
CAREER DEVELOPMENT WITH PORTFOLIOS
Assessing Career Development with Portfolios
The assessment of career development is a relatively new concept. In general, ideas of appropriate methods for assessing student achievement and mastery of any set of competencies are shifting. Criterion-referenced tests, which measure performance relative to a specified set of standards or tasks, are gaining favor, for example, over norm referenced tests, which measure how an examinee performed in relation to others. At the same time, support for internal accountability, that is, determining what is worth knowing and assuring that students know it, is increasing. One response to this has been an increased use of portfolios that provide a medium for assessing student work and invite them to become responsible partners in documenting their learning. Through portfolios, students compose a portrait of themselves as able learners, selecting and presenting evidence that they have met the learning standards for individual classes and for broader learning tasks (Wolf, LeMahieu & Eresh, 1992). A student portfolio may be described as "a purposeful collection of student work that tells the story of the student's efforts, progress, or achievement in a given area. This collection must include student participation in selection of portfolio content; the guidelines for selections; the criteria for judging merit; and evidence of student self-reflection" (Arter and Spandel, 1992, p.36).
As career development becomes an increasingly important component of educational systems, the issues of measurement and accountability are raised. This digest focuses on the use of portfolios in assessing career development.
Career Development Goals
In today's workplace, employment security is becoming "employability security" (Kanter, 1991, p.9) -- the knowledge that one has the competencies demanded in a global economy and the ability to expand and adjust those competencies as requirements change. The challenge of preparing our young people for this new workplace has generated legislative efforts to stimulate educational reform directed at creating "world class" education and a comprehensive system for helping American youth make a smooth transition from high school to productive, skilled employment and further learning. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act establishes eight national education goals and two national councils -- one to stimulate the development of voluntary academic standards and the other to identify essential occupational skills. The School to Work Opportunities Act of 1994 is a strategy to implement the purpose of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, that is, helping all Americans to reach internationally competitive standards through educational reform.
Career development is a major component of the School to Work Opportunities Act (STWOA). Career guidance and counseling, which are interventions in the career development process, are recognized as essential in helping students to choose their career (educational) pathway. Section 102 of the STWOA states that "The school-based component of a School-to Work Opportunities program shall include ... career awareness and career exploration and counseling (beginning at the earliest possible age, but not later than the 7th grade) in order to help students who may be interested to identify, and select or reconsider, their interests, goals, and career majors, including those options that may not be traditional for their gender, race or ethnicity." The Act also provides grants to states to plan for and implement school-to-work opportunities systems.
Renewed interest in career development has led to an equal demand for accountability. This prompts several questions. What do we want our students to know and be able to do as a result of a career development process and how will we know that they have achieved it? This legislation has placed the onus on school systems to provide the programs to help students make informed career decisions, and to provide opportunities for students to take responsibility for their career development. How will they know they have achieved these outcomes?
Two major endeavors can help schools to meet the double need of accountability and assessment. First, state and professional associations, as well as national leaders, practitioners, and career development experts, collaborated to develop the National Career Development Guidelines (NOICC, 1989). The National Career Development Guidelines offer a comprehensive, competency-based approach to career development that states, educational institutions and other organizations can use in developing effective career guidance programs. The Guidelines offer the processes, content and structure for such programs. More importantly, they provide the standards or competencies for career development at four different levels--elementary, middle/junior high, high school, and postsecondary/adult. The competencies fall within three areas of career development -- self-knowledge, educational and occupational exploration, and career planning. The Guidelines, already being used in over 40 states as standards or as the basis for establishing career development standards, provide nationally validated competencies that can be used in assessment.
The second significant effort has been the work of the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS). In the Commission report, What Work Requires of Schools (U. S. Department of Labor, 1991), five areas of competencies based on a three-part foundation are delineated. Of the 36 specific skills or qualities noted, over half are commonly included in a career guidance program. This report validates the integration of career guidance and counseling into educational programs and supplies a complementary set of standards by which a career development process can be measured.
Assessment Through Portfolios
The essential criteria for measuring the accountability of a career guidance program are available. Since self-assessment and reflection are important to developing personal responsibility in career decision-making, a portfolio that sets standards and also allows for reflection emerges as the instrument of choice. Until now, most efforts to document career development have been through career planners. Career planners are usually the end product of a career development process and, as such, are appropriate for secondary education or higher but not for the student at the awareness or exploratory stages. They also do not typically provide for the self-reflection essential to an individual's ownership of the process.
Get A Life: Your Personal Planning Portfolio (ASCA, 1993), designed through collaboration between the American School Counselor Association and the National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee, is one instrument that sets standards and allows for self-reflection. The portfolio is divided into four sections -- self-knowledge, life roles, educational development, and career exploration and planning. Each section contains competency files and personal files. The National Career Development Guidelines for the middle and high school levels are used as competencies for both program and individual assessment. Program planners can analyze the comprehensiveness of their programs by evaluating their activities in relation to the expected student outcomes contained in the Guidelines. Individuals can determine if they have met the career development competencies through the programs offered. Within the competency file, a sign-off ascertains the strategies and the date on which each competency was addressed. In some schools, students make the decision whether, in fact, the activity or strategy presented did help them to master the competency. The personal files are a set of guiding questions that help students to reflect on their learning. The portfolio is an organizational tool that allows the owners to collect information about themselves to use in making personal, educational and career decisions. At the same time, the students are introduced to the idea that the process is lifelong, and that they must become "career negotiators" (Bailyn, 1992), taking responsibility for their own development.
Summary and Conclusion
Recent efforts to improve education have led to a new look at assessment. As pedagogy has changed to focus on learner-centered education, the need to make assessment an integral, on-going part of instruction has become obvious. Concurrently, Federal initiatives to promote educational reform have required the provision of career development opportunities and have demanded accountability in this area. The portfolio concept is one way to meet this challenge by giving students ownership of their work and standards by which they can be measured. States and local districts must define the career development standards they wish to implement, allow students the opportunity to take responsibility for their career development, offer the necessary career guidance and counseling to support student learning, and assess both the program and the individual to assure that the expected outcomes are being achieved. The portfolio provides the format for the process and documentation of career development while giving individuals and programs standards for assessment.
The assessment of career development is a relatively new concept. In general, ideas of appropriate methods for assessing student achievement and mastery of any set of competencies are shifting. Criterion-referenced tests, which measure performance relative to a specified set of standards or tasks, are gaining favor, for example, over norm referenced tests, which measure how an examinee performed in relation to others. At the same time, support for internal accountability, that is, determining what is worth knowing and assuring that students know it, is increasing. One response to this has been an increased use of portfolios that provide a medium for assessing student work and invite them to become responsible partners in documenting their learning. Through portfolios, students compose a portrait of themselves as able learners, selecting and presenting evidence that they have met the learning standards for individual classes and for broader learning tasks (Wolf, LeMahieu & Eresh, 1992). A student portfolio may be described as "a purposeful collection of student work that tells the story of the student's efforts, progress, or achievement in a given area. This collection must include student participation in selection of portfolio content; the guidelines for selections; the criteria for judging merit; and evidence of student self-reflection" (Arter and Spandel, 1992, p.36).
As career development becomes an increasingly important component of educational systems, the issues of measurement and accountability are raised. This digest focuses on the use of portfolios in assessing career development.
Career Development Goals
In today's workplace, employment security is becoming "employability security" (Kanter, 1991, p.9) -- the knowledge that one has the competencies demanded in a global economy and the ability to expand and adjust those competencies as requirements change. The challenge of preparing our young people for this new workplace has generated legislative efforts to stimulate educational reform directed at creating "world class" education and a comprehensive system for helping American youth make a smooth transition from high school to productive, skilled employment and further learning. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act establishes eight national education goals and two national councils -- one to stimulate the development of voluntary academic standards and the other to identify essential occupational skills. The School to Work Opportunities Act of 1994 is a strategy to implement the purpose of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, that is, helping all Americans to reach internationally competitive standards through educational reform.
Career development is a major component of the School to Work Opportunities Act (STWOA). Career guidance and counseling, which are interventions in the career development process, are recognized as essential in helping students to choose their career (educational) pathway. Section 102 of the STWOA states that "The school-based component of a School-to Work Opportunities program shall include ... career awareness and career exploration and counseling (beginning at the earliest possible age, but not later than the 7th grade) in order to help students who may be interested to identify, and select or reconsider, their interests, goals, and career majors, including those options that may not be traditional for their gender, race or ethnicity." The Act also provides grants to states to plan for and implement school-to-work opportunities systems.
Renewed interest in career development has led to an equal demand for accountability. This prompts several questions. What do we want our students to know and be able to do as a result of a career development process and how will we know that they have achieved it? This legislation has placed the onus on school systems to provide the programs to help students make informed career decisions, and to provide opportunities for students to take responsibility for their career development. How will they know they have achieved these outcomes?
Two major endeavors can help schools to meet the double need of accountability and assessment. First, state and professional associations, as well as national leaders, practitioners, and career development experts, collaborated to develop the National Career Development Guidelines (NOICC, 1989). The National Career Development Guidelines offer a comprehensive, competency-based approach to career development that states, educational institutions and other organizations can use in developing effective career guidance programs. The Guidelines offer the processes, content and structure for such programs. More importantly, they provide the standards or competencies for career development at four different levels--elementary, middle/junior high, high school, and postsecondary/adult. The competencies fall within three areas of career development -- self-knowledge, educational and occupational exploration, and career planning. The Guidelines, already being used in over 40 states as standards or as the basis for establishing career development standards, provide nationally validated competencies that can be used in assessment.
The second significant effort has been the work of the Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS). In the Commission report, What Work Requires of Schools (U. S. Department of Labor, 1991), five areas of competencies based on a three-part foundation are delineated. Of the 36 specific skills or qualities noted, over half are commonly included in a career guidance program. This report validates the integration of career guidance and counseling into educational programs and supplies a complementary set of standards by which a career development process can be measured.
Assessment Through Portfolios
The essential criteria for measuring the accountability of a career guidance program are available. Since self-assessment and reflection are important to developing personal responsibility in career decision-making, a portfolio that sets standards and also allows for reflection emerges as the instrument of choice. Until now, most efforts to document career development have been through career planners. Career planners are usually the end product of a career development process and, as such, are appropriate for secondary education or higher but not for the student at the awareness or exploratory stages. They also do not typically provide for the self-reflection essential to an individual's ownership of the process.
Get A Life: Your Personal Planning Portfolio (ASCA, 1993), designed through collaboration between the American School Counselor Association and the National Occupational Information Coordinating Committee, is one instrument that sets standards and allows for self-reflection. The portfolio is divided into four sections -- self-knowledge, life roles, educational development, and career exploration and planning. Each section contains competency files and personal files. The National Career Development Guidelines for the middle and high school levels are used as competencies for both program and individual assessment. Program planners can analyze the comprehensiveness of their programs by evaluating their activities in relation to the expected student outcomes contained in the Guidelines. Individuals can determine if they have met the career development competencies through the programs offered. Within the competency file, a sign-off ascertains the strategies and the date on which each competency was addressed. In some schools, students make the decision whether, in fact, the activity or strategy presented did help them to master the competency. The personal files are a set of guiding questions that help students to reflect on their learning. The portfolio is an organizational tool that allows the owners to collect information about themselves to use in making personal, educational and career decisions. At the same time, the students are introduced to the idea that the process is lifelong, and that they must become "career negotiators" (Bailyn, 1992), taking responsibility for their own development.
Summary and Conclusion
Recent efforts to improve education have led to a new look at assessment. As pedagogy has changed to focus on learner-centered education, the need to make assessment an integral, on-going part of instruction has become obvious. Concurrently, Federal initiatives to promote educational reform have required the provision of career development opportunities and have demanded accountability in this area. The portfolio concept is one way to meet this challenge by giving students ownership of their work and standards by which they can be measured. States and local districts must define the career development standards they wish to implement, allow students the opportunity to take responsibility for their career development, offer the necessary career guidance and counseling to support student learning, and assess both the program and the individual to assure that the expected outcomes are being achieved. The portfolio provides the format for the process and documentation of career development while giving individuals and programs standards for assessment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
