Career Management Chapter (3) .pptx

BSRS 4207 Career Management Chapter (3) Prepared & Delivered by Dr. ADIL AL-BALUSHI , Faculty -, Department of Business Studies , UTAS References Wiernik, B. M., & Wille, B. (2017). Careers, career development, and career management. In D. S. Ones, N. Anderson, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds....

BSRS 4207 Career Management Chapter (3) Prepared & Delivered by Dr. ADIL AL-BALUSHI , Faculty -, Department of Business Studies , UTAS References Wiernik, B. M., & Wille, B. (2017). Careers, career development, and career management. In D. S. Ones, N. Anderson, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2 Course learning outcomes • On completing this chapter, you should be able to define these key concepts. You should also know about: • Learning outcomes career management theories Theories of Career Development • Organizational researchers have been proposing theories of career for more than a century (cf. Parsons, 1909). In that time, hundreds of models, theories, and frameworks have been developed that attempt to explain the processes through which individuals enter, manage, explain, and leave their careers. Career theories can be broadly grouped into three categories—person-environment fit theories, developmental career theories, and management career models. A selection of prominent theories from each of these groups is summarized in Table 1. Person-Environment Fit Theories • Early career theories focused on assessing important characteristics of individuals and work environments and hypothesized that a match between person and environment would lead to positive outcomes (Parsons, 1909). These theories have been referred to as trait-andfactor or person-environment (P-E) fit theories. Different P-E fit career theories have focused on different sets of constructs, but each shares the hypotheses that the degree to which an individual’s capabilities meet the job’s requirements and the degree to which a job or organization’s features match an individual’s desires are key drivers of employee success, satisfaction, and persistence in a career. The P-E fit framework has been highly influential in applied settings, both for vocational guidance and for personnel selection (Huo, Huang, & Napier, 2002; Kristof-Brown, 2000), and various forms of P-E fit are related to numerous positive work outcomes (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005; Oh et al., 2014). Despite growing interest in other counseling frameworks, identifying potential careers that match individual characteristics remains the dominant approach in career counseling (Hansen, 2013). Theory of Work Adjustment • . Dawis and Lofquist’s Theory of Work Adjustment (TWA) is among the oldest career theories (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984; Dawis, Lofquist, & Weiss, 1968). TWA includes both a predictive model and a process model. The predictive model describes the personal and environmental characteristics that are hypothesized to lead to successful work outcomes. TWA focuses on the needs/values and skills/abilities of an individual, job requirements (vis á vis abilities and skills), and job reinforcers (vis á vis values and needs). Satisfaction is posited to result when the individual’s needs are met by the job reinforcers, while effective performance (called satisfactoriness) results when the individual’s abilities meet job requirements. Long-term tenure and career persistence are predicted to occur when both forms of correspondence are present. • . When there is mismatch, the TWA process model describes how individuals and environments pursue different adjustment strategies to correct the mismatch, including tolerating some degree of mismatch (flexibility), changing oneself (reactive adjustment; e.g., an individual learning new skills, an organization changing its culture), or changing the other party (active adjustment; e.g., an individual changing their job duties, an organization providing training). Individuals and organizations attempt these adjustment techniques for a limited period (called their degree of perseverance) before they give up and leave the organization (individuals) or dismiss the employee (organizations). TWA’s hypotheses have received substantial empirical support (Dawis, 2005), and many of its tenets have been incorporated into other P-E fit models in organizational research, including models for recruitment, selection, socialization, and stress (see Edwards, 2008 for a review). • Features of TWA’s adjustment process model are also clearly present in many contemporary theories of career adaptability (cf. Griffin & Hesketh, 2003). In addition, TWA has had a profound impact on vocational and IWO psychological practice. For example, the needs, values, skills, abilities, and reinforcers described by TWA were adopted with few modifications during the development of the O*NET job descriptive content model (Mumford & Peterson, 1999). Holland’s theory. • By far the most influential P-E fit theory in vocational psychology is Holland’s Theory of Vocational Personality Types and Work Environments (Holland, 1973, 1984, 1997). Holland’s theory is organized around the articulation of 6 “types” or dimensions that are used to describe both individuals and work environments. These types (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Convention; abbreviated RIASEC and arranged in a circumplex pattern), primarily consist of interests in jobs and work activities, though Holland’s original descriptions also incorporated work values, skills, personality traits, and other characteristics (see Hansen & Wiernik, 2015, vol. 1, this handbook, for more discussion on the structure and construct validity of the RIASEC dimensions). Holland’s theory describes several features of individuals’ interest profiles (e.g., rank order, consistency, differentiation) and predicts that a match between an individual’s type and the type of their occupation (congruence) is a major contributor to satisfaction, performance, tenure, and other important work outcomes. Holland’s theory has generated an enormous body of research and has come to dominate vocational counseling practice, due in large part to its parsimony (Hansen, 2013). By reducing all of individual and environmental characteristics to six types, Holland’s model is very easy to remember. Additionally, using types, rather than continuous dimensions, allows researchers and practitioners wide latitude in their interpretations of the factor definitions and meaning of assessment results (Dawis, 2000), especially when the numerical scores of interest scales are discarded in favor of a simple rank order of types, as is common practice (Hansen, 2013). While Holland’s theory has been immensely popular, research testing its predictions has suffered from many serious methodological flaws. Congruence is typically assessed using some form of index that discards numerical scale values and imposes questionable constraints on the relationship between person and environment (Hoeglund & Hansen, 1999; Van Iddekinge, Roth, Putka, & Lanivich, 2011). As a result of these measurement deficiencies, RIASEC-based congruence shows weak relationships with satisfaction, performance, and other outcomes (Tsabari, Tziner, & Meir, 2005; Van Iddekinge et al., 2011). Moreover, predictions of Holland’s theory, especially with regard to the structure of interests, are frequently evaluated uncritically. RIASEC interests do not appear to actually form a hexagon (Tinsley, 2000a, 2000b), but researchers frequently conclude that their results support Holland’s model, even when their data in fact show the opposite (Tinsley, 2001). Thus, while vocational interests are important contributors to successful work performance (Nye, Su, Rounds, & Drasgow, 2012; Van Iddekinge et al., 2011), many of the specific hypotheses made by Holland’s theory have been falsified. Social Cognitive Career Theory • . Brown, Lent, and colleagues’ Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT; Lent, 2013b; Lent et al., 1994), based on general social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997), focuses on the role of self-efficacy and outcome expectations in driving vocational behavior. While not strictly a person-environment fit model, SCCT incorporates many features of P-E fit theories into its frameworks for the development of self-efficacy, interests, career choice, and performance behaviors. SCCT draws heavily on research examining the role of interests, values, abilities, and personality traits in vocational behavior, while also emphasizing the impact of contextual factors, self-efficacy, and change in personal and environmental characteristics over time (Lent, 2013b). • The current conceptualization of SCCT consists of four predictive models describing (1) interest development, (2) career choices, (3) educational and vocational performance, and (4) work and career satisfaction (Lent, 2013b). The interest model hypothesizes that interests in specific fields form as a result of positive task-related self-efficacy beliefs, outcome expectations, and learning experiences. The choice model posits that interests work in tandem with self-efficacy (influenced by abilities and skills), outcome expectations (influenced by work values), and contextual factors to mold an individual’s career goals and educational and occupational choices • . The performance model predicts that self-efficacy beliefs, goal setting, and ability lead to effective performance, while the satisfaction model predicts that self-efficacy beliefs, goal attainment, work conditions, and affect-related personality traits contribute to work satisfaction. • Recently Lent and Brown (2013) have expanded SCCT to incorporate a process model that applies social cognitive principles to describe how individuals make career-related decisions regardless of field or job domain, including managing uncertainty and setbacks, finding jobs, and balancing goals. The SSCT selfmanagement model specifies a large set of adaptive career behaviors (“behaviors individuals employ to help direct their own career development,” p. 559) and predicts how self-efficacy, outcome expectations, contextual factors, and general personality traits are related to different classes of these behaviors. • SCCT has received the most empirical research attention of any contemporary career theory (Lent & Brown, 2013; Savickas, 2013), and it is also the career theory that remains the most connected to advances from other fields of psychology, including advances in personality and cognitive ability models, biological and developmental psychology, and personnel selection and performance modeling. In response to early criticisms that SCCT research examined only limited predictions of the theory (e.g., factors contributing to career-related self-efficacy, the relationships of self-efficacy with vocational interests and job performance; Tinsley, 2001), SSCT researchers have begun to conduct systematic meta-analytic tests of many of SSCT’s predictions (S. D. Brown et al., 2008; S. D. Brown, Lent, Telander, & Tramayne, 2011; Rottinghaus, Larson, & Borgen, 2003; Sheu et al., 2010). These meta-analyses have led to modifications of SCCT in light of evidence and, importantly, provided point estimates for many of the parameters in SSCT’s structural models. Developmental Career Theories • While many P-E fit career models incorporate some descriptions of adjustment and change processes throughout careers, detailed descriptions of the attitudes, contexts, and behaviors related to individuals’ career decisions have primarily been the focus of developmental career theories. Classic developmental theories, such as Super’s Life-span, Life-space Theory (Super, 1980) and Gottfredson’s Theory of Circumscription and Compromise (L. S. Gottfredson, 1981) were developed to complement, rather than replace, P-E fit theories (Savickas, 1997). While P-E fit theories predicted what career choices individuals would make and the impact of those choices on outcomes, developmental theories were designed to address how and why individuals made career decisions. Contemporary postmodern career theories go further and reject the entire P-E fit paradigm, instead arguing that, in light of rapid societal, economic, and technological changes, constructing a strong career identity and remaining flexible and adaptable are more important than identifying a career path that “matches” one’s personal characteristics. Life-span, Life-space Theory. • Super conducted much of the earliest and most influential research on career development. The earliest formulation of his theory (Super, 1957) described a sequence of five developmental stages through which most individuals pass during the course of their lives. During each stage, individuals face particular development challenges, such as identifying potential career options during adolescence (exploration) or preparing to end one’s work career during late adulthood (disengagement). Individuals’ responses to these challenges were determined by their personal characteristics (e.g., abilities, interests, values), environmental features (e.g., economic situation, family demands), and past experiences. A key construct in Super’s theory is career maturity, defined as an individual’s readiness to face the particular developmental challenges at each life stage. • . Later versions of Super’s theory reduced the rigid link of career development with age, allowing the five developmental stages to be repeated multiple times as individuals managed changes in their work lives (Super, Starishevsky, Matlin, & Joraan, 1963). These revisions also increased emphasis on the role of developing a self-concept in career decision making (Super et al., 1963) and added a contextual or social role perspective that integrated work roles with roles in other life domains (Super, 1980). Research using Super’s framework has been common, though often limited to its propositions regarding childhood development and retirement (Sharf, 2013). Super’s theory forms the basis of many contemporary postmodern career development theories. Theory of Circumscription and Compromise. • Gottfredson’s (L. S. Gottfredson, 1981, 2002) theory of career choice and development is noteworthy for its consideration of both hereditary and biological factors and sociocultural factors in describing how individuals make career choices. Gottfredson hypothesizes that children develop a self-concept based on their innate talents and capabilities, including their level of general cognitive ability and their pattern of vocational interests (Gottfredson places heavy emphasis on the high levels of heritability of both cognitive ability and vocational interests; Bouchard, 2004). Based on this self-concept, children identify a set of possible career options that match their capabilities and interests. Over time, individuals eliminate career options from further consideration (circumscription), based on factors such as perceived lack of power, sex roles, and social prestige. From the resulting set of possible career options, individuals may compromise and settle a less than preferred career path based on political, economic, and social constraints. • A notable feature of both of these classic career development models is that they maintain emphasis on psychological assessment when conducting career research and during vocational counseling. Both Super and Gottfredson advocated quantitatively assessing traditional individual differences, including abilities, vocational interests, and work values, in addition to the self-identity and contextual constructs central to their theories (e.g., career maturity, self-concept, perceived barriers and opportunities) when attempting to explain career behaviors. Moreover, both Super and Gottfredson emphasized that biological processes and innate personal traits influenced career choices and development, in addition to social and contextual experiences. Both of these perspectives (psychometric assessment of basic traits, biological bases of behavior) have been heavily de-emphasized or even rejected (e.g., Savickas, 2013) in recent postmodern descriptions of career development (Leung, 2008). Postmodern career development theories • . Many recently proposed theoretical frameworks for career development have adopted a postmodern perspective that views that the subjective career, the unique structure and story individuals use to provide meaning to work-related events in their lives, as more important than objectively observable career events and work positions. Two postmodern perspectives have been applied in some form in many contemporary career theories—constructivism and social constructionism. For a detailed discussion of the philosophical perspectives and discourses that underlie the postmodern approach to career development, see Young and Collin (2004). For a detailed review of the rhetoric and research on theories from this tradition, see Young and Popadiuk (2012). • Constructivism argues that each person mentally constructs their experience of the world through psychological processes—the world cannot be known objectively, but only based on the perceptions of individuals. Within the context of career theories, constructivists argue that career events by themselves are meaningless; work positions, transitions, successes, and failures only come to have meaning when individuals incorporate them into a cohesive self narrative (Savickas, 2013). The focus of constructivist career research is on understanding how individuals develop and manage their career identities and life narratives (Savickas, 2011b). Career counseling interventions based on a constructivist perspective often use narratives and storytelling to help individuals to deconstruct the meanings they have ascribed to life events, identify problematic interpretations, and reconstruct them in more positive, optimistic forms (e.g., Savickas, 2011a). • Social constructionism is a similar philosophical perspective. While constructivism argues that meaning is developed as the result of individual psychological processes, social constructionism argues that knowledge and meaning are the product of social practices, institutions, and the interactions between different social groups (Young & Valach, 2004; Young, Valach, & Collin, 2002). The perspective is succinctly described by Vygotsky (1978, p. 142)—“There is nothing in mind that is not first of all in society.” Extreme forms of social constructionism completely reject traditional positivistic notions that any form of truth or knowledge exists objectively and independently of a particular community of meaning. For example, Savickas (2013) argues that personality traits and RIASEC interests are social constructions that are nothing more than commonly applied reputations or stereotypes—“they have no reality or truth value outside themselves” (p. 154). Despite evidence for the heritability and biological bases of interests and personality (Beltz, Swanson, & Berenbaum, 2011; Bouchard, 2004; DeYoung, 2014), Savickas argues that “a self is built from the outside in, not from the inside out as personality trait theorists would have it” (p. 155) and “enjoins vocational psychologists and career counselors not to believe the reification fallacy by treating linguistic abstractions as if they were a real thing” (p. 154). Savickas suggests that psychometric assessments may be useful in career counseling, but only because they provide a useful vocabulary for examining and discussing clients’ constructed • meanings, not because they provide any form of objective description of individual characteristics. • While postmodern perspectives on career counseling have become very prevalent, they have not gone without criticism. In a special issue commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Journal of Vocational Behavior, G. D. Gottfredson (2001) strongly criticized the postmodern movement in career research, especially its tendency to disregard quantitative research and its preference for complexity and individualized theory over parsimony, even going so far as to call the perspective “unscientific.” Other authors in the same special issue expressed similar concerns. Hesketh (2001) cautioned vocational psychology to avoid become too sociological in its research and to attend carefully to issues of psychological assessment and the genetic bases of individual differences, and Lent (2001) and Walsh (2001) emphasized the importance for vocational research to attend to advances in personality, development, cognitive, and other fields of psychology. • Overall, while critics of P-E fit counseling are correct that career research has been historically overly limited in the constructs, populations, and career decisions that have been researched (Betz, 2001; Fouad, 2001), it is important to avoid discarding scientific knowledge in favor of new topics. Career researchers have built well-developed knowledge on the structure of individual differences and their impact on work outcomes. Changes in societal and occupational environments may require new career development practices, such as developing preparedness for unexpected career events (Lent, 2013a), but the value of identifying individual strengths, weaknesses, and goals does not change. Traditional “matching” models of career choice and success still have a strong place in understanding, predicting, and influencing career behavior (G. D. Gottfredson, 2001; Lent, 2013a; Walsh, 2001). Many vocational psychologists still use P-E fit frameworks in practice, and individual counseling tools, such as O*NET’s My Next Move, which rely on assessing and matching • individual and environmental characteristics continue to grow in use. Qualitative methodologies are useful for describing phenomena and generating hypotheses, but they do not obviate the need for quantitative research (Walsh, 2001). Researching the importance of environmental pressures, self-concepts, and personal meaning in careers is important and valuable, and such topics can be studied in a scientifically and psychometrically rigorous manner. For example, research from career construction theory has examined the structure and assessment of career adaptability (Savickas, 1997; Savickas & Porfeli, 2012), and numerous studies on meaningfulness and calling in careers have examined questions related to career self-concepts and individual meaning without rejecting a positivist perspective on the existence of personality traits (Dik & Duffy, 2009; Dik & Hansen, 2008; Duffy, Dik, & Steger, 2011; Hirschi, 2011, 2012). Management Career Models • While person-environment fit theories focus on identifying predictors of career choice and success and vocational developmental models examine the processes through which individuals make career decisions and develop career identities, career models developed in management, organizational behavior, industrial-workorganizational psychology, and related fields usually focus on individuals’ observable patterns of movement between different jobs, roles, and employers and their attitudes toward these transitions. In recent decades, career research has been concerned with the implications of broad societal and economic changes, such as globalization, technological advances, and declining job security, for the way individuals and organizations manage careers. Career scholars have suggested that these societal shifts have resulted in dramatic changes to individual careers. While “traditional” careers (alternately called organizational, linear, or bureaucratic careers) were characterized by lifetime employment in a single organization, • advancement up a linear organizational hierarchy, and development opportunities determined by organizational superiors (Arnold & Cohen, 2008), career scholars argue that contemporary careers are characterized by high levels of mobility and individual initiative. The degree to which such changes have actually occurred appears to be overstated (Baruch, 2006, see also the section on career transitions and persistence, below). • The two most popular alternatives to traditional careers are the boundaryless career and the protean career. The boundaryless career (Arthur, 2014; Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Sullivan & Arthur, 2006) is a career path characterized by independence from any single employer for work success, resources, and advancement. In the original descriptions of the concept, the “boundary” in boundaryless careers referred specifically to the boundaries between organizations. Originally, DeFillippi and Arthur (1994) focused specifically on employment across organizations and defined the boundaryless career as “sequences of job opportunities that go beyond the boundaries of single employment settings” (p. 307). Arthur and Rousseau (1996) expanded the concept and described six organizational boundaries that have been relaxed during the era of the boundaryless career: • 1. Movement between separate employers • 2. Gaining reputation and validation from external sources (e.g., academic researchers) • 3. Drawing support from outside networks or information sources • 4. Advancing in ways other than up an organizational hierarchy (e.g., lateral moves) • 5. Favoring personal or family concerns over career opportunities • 6. Perceiving one’s career as “boundaryless” despite constraints • It’s clear that, even early in the life of the construct, the term “boundaryless career” had already come to refer to a wide array of disparate phenomena. This trend to expand the definition of the term continued, and it has now been used to • describe retirement (M. Wang, Adams, Beehr, & Shultz, 2009), work-family interface (Greenhaus & Powell, 2003, 2006), career renewal (Baruch & Quick, 2007), learning and development (Gentry, Griggs, Deal, & Mondore, 2009), expatriation (Stahl, Miller, & Tung, 2002), migration (Carr, Inkson, & Thorn, 2005) and even mentoring (Gayle Baugh & Sullivan, 2005). This definitional expansion has rendered the term all but meaningless. Feldman and Ng (2007) noted “the term boundaryless careers has been used in so many ways in so many different contexts that it is now difficult to determine whether the term refers to the permeability of labor markets, the degree of actual mobility in individuals’ careers, or individuals’ perceptions and attitudes toward mobility” (p. 351). Sullivan and Arthur (2006) attempted to clarify the construct and return it to its early definitions by specifying that careers may vary in boundarylessness along two dimensions: physical mobility (one’s capacity for or actual movement across objective employment situations) and psychological mobility (self-confidence about one’s career independent of one’s current employer). Briscoe, Hall, and Frautschy DeMuth (2006) developed scales to measure individual’s preferences for physical and psychology mobility (referred to as a “boundaryless mindset”). • The second major alternative to traditional careers in organizational research is the protean career. The protean career concept focuses on the benefits of career self-management and flexibility, as opposed to reliance upon the organization for career development (Briscoe & Hall, 2006; Hall, 1996, 2004). A protean career orientation is an attitude where individuals feel responsible for their own outcomes, where they value satisfaction and subjective career success more than material rewards, and where freedom and growth are highly prized (Hall, 1976). The protean careerist is able to repackage his/her knowledge and skills to meet changing work demands (Hall, 1996). The protean career orientation has two dimensions (Briscoe & Hall, 2006): values-driven (making career decisions to • affirm one’s values, rather than to pursue material rewards) and self-directed (feeling responsibility for one’s own development, flexibility in meeting new performance and learning demands). Measures of the protean career orientation appear to be substantially related to similar constructs (e.g., Openness, proactive personality, mastery goal orientation; Briscoe & Hall, 2006). However, protean career orientation appears to be essentially unrelated to relevant work outcomes, such as job changes (Briscoe & Hall, 2006) or organizational commitment (Briscoe & Finkelstein, 2009). In many ways, the protean career appears to be treating a large number of distinct phenomena, such as feelings of meaningfulness, selfconfidence, preferences for autonomy and growth, and self-directed learning, as though they all function together as a single personal characteristic. While the protean career (as well as the boundaryless career) is an interesting phenomenon, it remains to be convincingly demonstrated that it is best conceptualized as a single construct, rather than merely as the combination of its (essentially independent) components. • Nearly all discussion of the protean and boundaryless careers has been framed positively. While early research on boundaryless careers took a more descriptive tone (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996), more recent literature in this domain has been more prescriptive and suggests that boundaryless/protean careers are inherently better than more stable, organizationallybounded, and other-directed careers (Vardi & Kim, 2007). Career research in general has taken the perspective that “boundaryless careers…are the way of the future, and the only question is learning how to live in a world of boundarylessness” (Gunz, Evans, & Jalland, 2000, p. 50). This attitude has led to numerous researchers describing “barriers to boundarylessness” (Bagdadli, Solari, Usai, & Grandori, 2003; Dany, 2003; Pang, 2003; Segers, Inceoglu, Vloeberghs, Bartram, & Henderickx, 2008; Sullivan & Baruch, 2009). Critics of this optimistic perspective argue that boundaryless • and protean careers are value-neutral phenomena; they can be desirable or undesirable based on economic conditions and individual differences. Individuals may lack the transferrable skills and network contacts necessary to fluidly move between organizations (Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashforth, 2004), and they may find the lack of stability in boundaryless careers to be overly stressful (Sennett, 2011). Individuals may also struggle with managing their own career development and identifying future career options in absence of a clearly defined path (Hirsch & Shanley, 1996; Richardson, 2000). The optimistic viewpoint of the boundaryless and protean career literatures may also attribute too much individual control career outcomes, underemphasizing the role of social and economic factors (Dany, Louvel, & Valette, 2011) and random events (Betsworth & Hansen, 1996; Pryor & Bright, 2014; Seibert, Kraimer, Holtom, & Pierotti, 2013) in providing and preventing success. Finally, the entire concept of boundarylessness may not be applicable to certain occupations and segments of the workforce (Hennequin, 2007; Pringle & Mallon, 2003). Criticizing the concept of boundaryless careers, Gunz, et al. (2000) suggested that, rather than focusing on experiences of boundarylessness, it would be more fruitful to identify the boundaries that do exist in contemporary workplaces and to understand the implications of those barriers for different groups of workers. • As in many fields of applied psychology, career research appears to have focused too strongly on development of new theory and not enough on basic descriptive research and rigorous parameter estimation (Cucina, Hayes, Walmsley, & Martin, 2014). Many career development theories are highly redundant and developed without reference to well-established and empirically supported models that address the same constructs and outcomes. For example, the three dimensions of the Kaleidoscope Model of Careers (authenticity, balance, and challenge; Mainiero & Sullivan, 2005) are very similar to constructs described in the Theory of Work • Adjustment (Dawis et al., 1968), the Job Characteristics Model (Hackman & Oldham, 1976), and especially Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), but the authors make no reference to work on any of these theories. Moreover, researchers frequently appear to shoehorn data into theoretical frameworks that are ill-suited to their research designs, rather than examining the phenomena the data actually address (Arnold & Cohen, 2008). Moving forward, career research will benefit from increased emphasis on rigorous data collection and evidence-based model development. CONTACT INFORMATION: Name of the Staff : Dr ADIL KHAMIS AL-BALUSHI Office:: BS043 Email: adil.albalushi@hct,edu.om VERSION HISTORY Version No Date Approved 01 Sem. (2) 2022/2023 Changes incorporated 34