Imagination. Life is your creation

Photo courtesy Warner Bros. Pictures – © 2023 Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. All Rights Reserved.

In a recent LinkedIn post Dr Naeema Pasha talked about the contribution of Barbie (Barbara Millicent Roberts) to the field of career theory, citing her You Can Be Anything slogan as the encapsulation of her theoretical position.

This has been viewed by some as a direct oppositional response to more structuralist theories of gendered career choices, exemplified by Gottfredson’s Circumscription and Compromise. However, Roberts’ initial forays into the active de-gendering of career stereotypes pre-dates the formulation of Circumscription & Compromise by almost 20 years.

Some have criticised Roberts’ approach as potentially raising women’s career expectations to a level which increases the risk of a failure to realise unrealistic ideals, possibly leading to career inaction (Verbruggen & De Vos, 2020).

Whilst the use of the word ‘Be’ rather than ‘Do’ places Roberts’ theory firmly within the domain of career identity, some have argued that it conceptualises identity in very superficial terms. They argue that it should be more accurately expressed as You Can Pretend to Be Anything If You Buy the Appropriate Wardrobe and Accessories. However, Cutts, Hooley & Yates (2015) have explored the important role that dress and appearance plays in the formulation and expression of professional identity.

Others have characterised Roberts as playing a role in condoning women’s tragic complicity in their own objectification in order to procure a degree of safety within an exploitative, hedonistic patriarchy (Dif et al, 1997).

If you’re interested in other career theories related to women and minoritised ethnic groups see this article from NGRF.

My favourite career development theory

Image by Bianca from Pixabay

I was recently interviewed by the wonderful Julia Yates about the application of career theory to practice for a CDI learning project. As part of the interview, she asked me for my favourite career development theory, even though she already knew the answer because I have previously bored her on the subject.

The Theory of Work Adjustment (TWA) is definitely on my favourites list, mainly because I feel that it is so often undervalued and neglected. Part of the reason for it’s neglect is possibly because it is believed to be part of the person-environment fit school of matching theories. Which it (sort of) is. But it’s much more than that.

Many person-environment fit theories work on the often unstated assumption that it’s about fitting individuals into appropriate niches in a fairly stable labour market environment. That’s why they date so quickly when the labour market environment is changing. But TWA envisages ‘fit’ as a dynamic two-way process rather than a one-off, one-sided event. It contains within it the idea that both the individual and the environment can act to change themselves and each other to optimise the degree of fit.

It prefigures more contemporary discussions around resilience by focusing attention not just on the individual’s ability to respond flexibly to the demands of their environment but also on the ability of the environment to respond flexibly to the needs of the individual.

It also contains concepts relevant to social justice in careers – active attempts at adjustment of the environment by the individual. Or, in other words, emancipatory social agency. Obviously, Dawis, England and Lofquist didn’t really explore this potential aspect of their model despite developing it in the 60s.

I think the reason it has this potential to be applied to a wide range or perspectives is that it is a properly systems-based approach. As a theory, it focuses more on the processes of interaction than the content. However, the proponents were swept away with the prevailing approach of the times to develop various psychometric instruments which emphasised content over process.