Just a quick post to thank Jan for agreeing to help with moderation of this area. This means she will help with advice and facilitation of discussion - you can still post any comment or question you wish within the ethical guidelines of BizFace (we are not here to act as police or only allow postings we like!), it just means there is another hand (or head) to help with the area.

I will let Jan introduce herself when she has a bit of time, but I can assure you she is an excellent facilitator!

kind regards
Stephanie

__________________
Dr Stephanie Morgan
Crosslight Management
www.crosslight.co.uk

Hello, everyone:

My name is Jan Aylsworth, and it’s my pleasure to serve as moderator of this forum. I’m a second-year student in the Msc in Organizational Psychology program of Birkbeck College through the University of London. I live and work from a home office in Evansville, Indiana, in the U.S., and currently consult as a writer of employee communications, Web copy, speeches, executive letters, corporate video scripts and anything else that needs to be written as the need arises, primarily for a division of a pharmaceutical company.

Organizational psychology, for those of you who may not be familiar with the field, is not, as you might think, “the psychology of being organized.” Here in the States, at least, that’s what the people I know seem to think it means. So, I quickly explain that you can think of the field as “the science of the workplace. It encompasses everything you think it might but also more than you’ve even thought of.” Obviously, the field draws heavily from psychology and sociology, but it also gets an assist from political science, economics, anthropology and systems theory.

Here, as the title of the forum suggests, we’ll focus on careers. Specifically, I hope we can do some crossing of the academic-practitioner divide and also present some theory and tools that students, career-enterers and the already-careered can use to help resolve career issues and make evidence-informed career decisions. Hopefully, we’ll have a diversity of questions, discussions and opinions.

Our chief aim here will be to examine real problems and issues that affect people’s lives – and do so by calling upon theory and evidence from science-based peer-reviewed sources – rather than accepting, without critical thought, whatever dogma that gurus and the authors of science-coated journalism may be espousing at the moment. Rephrasing, we can talk about whatever is interesting, but we’ll also be evaluating whether there’s evidence to support it.

Here are some questions to get us started:

To academics (researchers/higher education faculty): What particular career theories do you think practitioners could most benefit from?

To practitioners (Employers, HR directors, other managers): How can the academic literature and organizational psychology be of greater value to you, your employees and your business?

To the individual: Where do you need help?

Hope to be hearing from you soon.

Kind regards,
Jan

Hello, everyone -- or perhaps I should say "no one:"

No matter... If this thread needs to begin life as a blog for a while, so be it.

In my initial post, I mentioned that there were several theories that could be helpful in thinking through career decisions for the career-chooser as well as the already-careered. We're not going there just yet... Instead, we're going to give some thought to issues of power... and how they might come into play if you're trying to choose a career or are unhappy with your current career for whatever reason.

POWER!

How would you define it? What comes to mind when you think about your own career and power? Not having the freedom to make decisions you believe to be right? Or perhaps having to conform to unrealistic expectations -- or having to please an unreasonable someone who's higher in the hierarchy than you are?

This, obviously, is a practitioner perspective -- yet academia has something to offer. The paragraph above is alluding to what is described in the academic literature as "coercive" power (French & Raven, 1958; in Liefooghe, 2003). You do it “their way” instead of “your way” because you wish to avoid the penalties, sanctions or retributions.

French & Raven’s five types comprise the traditional view of how power held by the high-power party can be described.

Paraphrasing a bit, those types are:
1) Reward -- Has the ability to reward; 2) Coercive -- Has the ability to penalize or sanction; 3) Referent -- Has characteristics that we feel are conferred upon us by association with him/her. (This is the same thing as "charisma.") (Buchanan & Hucynski, 1991; in Liefgoohe, 2003); 4) Legitimate -- Has an elected or appointed "right" to exercise power; 5) Expert power -- Has valued knowledge or abilities that others do not possess but still need.

Now…Here's the thing to stop and think about... With regard to what you want for your future or dislike about your present, are power issues in play? If so, which ones and how might you address them? For example, where might potential career-ending dangers lie in aligning oneself with a leader whose power base is coercive? What does that say about how other kinds of power might be exercised within windows of opportunity?

Moving on as we must do, other ideas of power need to be addressed in mulling over how you will accept being acted upon or how you intend to exercise power. Buchanan & Hucynski (1991; in Liefgoohe, 2003) make some thoughtful points in stating that power is not simply attributed to leaders' exercise of it; it's also dependent on followers' willingness to follow. (You can’t have a pied piper without rats to follow your music.) Furthermore, when a leader exercises one kind of power, s/he may find another of his power forms either diminished or enhanced – because leaders operate from multiple power bases.

And if this isn't enough get you started thinking about your own power issues, we need to take a step back -- forward actually -- and acknowledge that there are more recent thinkers who ask us to question whether we can really address power issues at all. One of them, Habermas, 1971, 1972; in Liefgoohe, 2003), believes that we can. He acknowledges that, as human beings, we are all striving for autonomy -- and that by talking things through rationally, we can rebalance unfair power arrangements. This is a lovely thought, isn't it? In academia, this line of thinking is part of a framework or “paradigm” that is known as "critical theory." Do you think that Habermas is right?

If not, then perhaps you agree with the post-modern philosopher Foucault (1980, in Liefgoohe, 2003), who believes that the idea of righting power inequities via discourse (paraphrasing: “talking things through”) is basically just self-deception. To him, power is a machine -- and we're all caught up in it whether we want to be or not. (Sometimes we’re the pigeon; sometimes we’re the statue.) However, Foucault does leave us an “out.” He equates power with knowledge, which takes us back to French and Raven's notion of "expert power."

So coming full circle, the conclusion I would present to career-enterers is that it's not a bad thing to develop some expert power and make sure everyone knows that you have it. How? Volunteer for the things no one else wants to do. Do them well and in a visible but not self-congratulatory way. Anticipate not only what your manager or professor requires of you, but also what s/he doesn't require but will make his/her job easier and require less of his time. Distinguish yourself as the keeper or organizer of knowledge that others will need someday but do not have the time to make a priority today. Whatever merit these suggestions may have, they’re not presented here as a one-size-fits all solution -- because not everyone may have access to the abilities and opportunities that facilitate the cultivation or exercise of expert power. (Career theories will be helpful here in the future). But still, this a place to spend some time thinking.

However, if you are among the already-careered and if power issues are complicit in your career dissatisfaction, I’m really not sure what to suggest other than perhaps to consider whether you can either extend the expert power you already have – or cultivate a new form that would have value within your organization or industry. Perhaps there are academics and practitioners out there who can address this issue...

Anyone?

Until later...
Kind regards,
Jan


Primary References
Liefooghe A. (2003). Organizational analysis subject guide. University of London Press: London.

Secondary References
Buchanan, D, Huczynski, A. (1991). Organizational Behavior: an introductory text. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Foucault, M. Power/Knowledge. New York: Pantheon.

French, J., Raven, B. (1958). The bases of social power. in D. Cartwright (ed.), Studies in Social Power. Institute of Social Research, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Habermas, J. (1971). Toward a Rational Society. London: Heinemann.

Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interest. London: Heienemann.

Thanks for this Jan, and the good news is people are reading even if they are not replying!

I thought I would make a comment about the link between power and organizational politics. We often decry people or organizations for being overly political, but what do we mean by that?

Political definitions are varied, early studies (e.g. Pettigrew 1975) defined politics as the illegitimate or non-sanctioned use of power, and this is still supported by some researchers (e.g. Mintzberg 1998). However some research suggests employees perceive political behaviour as informal but not illegal ( Drory & Romm 1988), this supports other studies highlighting the management of meaning, taking a social influence perspective, yet these often still focus on the ‘self-serving’ nature of political behaviour (Christiansen et al. 1997). Conflict is another aspect regularly offered as a necessary criteria for politics (Dawson 1996), however Drory & Romm (1988) found the existence of conflict does not impact upon perceptions of a given behaviour as political. Some argue that these definitions reinforce a negative view of organizational politics and prefer a broader definition such as ‘the use of power’ (Hardy 1994) or ‘the use of power to modify or protect an organizations exchange structure’ (Cobb 1981). Power, is a complex or ‘primitive’ concept, operating at multiple levels (Fincham & Rhodes 1992, Lukes 1974, Wilson 1992), and there is evidence that perceptions of politics influence the powerless in organizations, (Neuman 1989, Drory & Romm op.cit).

I think the key is to consider whether your organization is 'political' and to what extent certain types of power has become so ingrained that you cease to question it...

Hoping for other comments but - more later!

Stephanie

References:

Dawson, S., (1996) Analysing Organisations, 3rd Edition, Macmillan Business Press
Drory, A., & Romm, T., (1988) ‘Politics in organizagions and its perception within the organization’. Organization Studies No. 9-2, pp. 165-179.
Hardy, C., (1994) Managing Strategic Action: Mobilizing Change - concepts, readings & cases. Sage.
Mintzberg, H., (1998) ‘Politics and The Political Organization’ in Mintzberg, H., Quinn, J.B. & Ghoshal, S., The Strategy Process (Revised Edition) Prentice Hall.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1975) ‘Towards a Political Theory of Organizational Intervention’ Human Relations, 28-3 p.191-208.

__________________
Dr Stephanie Morgan
Crosslight Management
www.crosslight.co.uk

Hello, everyone:

Stephanie, thank you for the concise summary of how politics can be characterized in organizations. I'm looking forward to studying that later in Organizational Change, and your post and references provide a useful heads-up.

Anyone: Speaking of Organizational Change, for this week's moderator post, I'd like to return to the issue of the academic-practitioner divide. I still hope to discuss this in light of career theory eventually, but perhaps some of the takeaways from the post below can also be applied to the way academics and practitioners might advance method versus outcome approaches to studying organizational change.

Method vs. Outcome Approaches to Organizational Change: Academic and Practitioner Perspectives

The idea that organizations exist for a purpose – i.e. to accomplish certain goals and/or objectives is fundamental to the most basic definitions of “organization” (Hucynski, 1991, Statt, 1991, Daft, 1991; in Davey, 2003). It follows, then, that when organizations seek to change, then the implicit need is for approaches that specify how change “should” be brought about rather than how change “was” brought about.” This the essential distinction between normative versus descriptive approaches, respectively (Legge, 1984). Normative (method) approaches ask “how should” and can also be characterized as prescriptive or process.

So then, if organizations require prescriptive approaches in order to pursue their goals and objectives, what does this mean for academia? Allyn & Bacon (2000) point out that social theory exists to help us visualize complexity and explain “why” things happen. This is what academic researchers – i.e. “theorists” do. In pursuing and utilizing theory, organizational theorists must explain “how” theory ties variables or constructs together, that is, “why” things happen; and this view is consistent with Legge’s (1984) descriptive approach (outcome). (Weick, 1989; in Sutton & Staw, 1995). (Just as an aside, it’s worth mentioning here that Van Maanen’s (1989; in Sutton & Staw, 1995) call for a 10-year moratorium on theoretical papers was motivated by a desire to create a foundation for arriving at better theory – not doing away with theory itself.)

While the desire to elucidate “why” is at the heart of what academics do, academics who rest on that lofty idea may be doing so at their own peril. They have at least a couple good reasons not to be so ready to dismiss practitioners’ need for prescriptive work. One of those reasons is funding. Susman & Evered (1978; in Rynes, Bartunek & Daft, 2003) say that as academic research methods have become increasingly more sophisticated, they have also become increasingly less useful to practitioners. Abrahamson (1996; in Rynes, Bartunek & Daft, 2003) are among those who believe that this disconnect is one reason that practitioners may be turning to private consulting firms, which limits the funding available to academics. In colloquial terms, this could be compared to cutting off ones nose to spite one’s face. But the issue goes even beyond funding – to the generation of knowledge itself, which is where academics have vested interest. Amabile et al., (2001; in Rynes, Bartunek and Daft, 2003) suggest that practitioner involvement fast-tracks and enhances the quality of research. In fact, Bartunek (1988; in Rynes et al, 2003) says that practitioners’ alternative-view insights often lead to new theoretical breakthroughs. Rynes et al (2003) also suggest the “creative tension” between differing perspectives speeds the creation of knowledge.

If academics might benefit from acknowledging practitioners’ needs for prescriptive approaches to change, then we must also ask whether practitioners’ have some ownership in not paying enough attention to the academic perspective – i.e. the value of descriptive approaches to change – i.e. understanding what “did” happen instead of trying to figure out what “should” happen. Referring again to “peril,” Macchiavelli (1532; in Bartlett, 1992) pointed out that there is always a great deal of it in trying to introduce a new order of change. To this, we might add a couple of other popular colloquialisms: “The past is prologue” and “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” If practitioners are not relying on evidence-based research, which can only come from studying “why” and “how” outcomes occurred, then are they not at risk to repeat the mistakes of the past? Abrahamson (1996; in Rynes et al) is among those who say that practitioners seeking to develop management strategies and practices do not typically consult researchers. This sounds like an invitation for at least a measure of peril.

Finally, we can go beyond the question of what the two perspectives have to offer one another and question whether it’s really an artificial distinction to separate method and outcome at all. Here, we find support in characterizations of organizational change that seem to blend method (process) and outcome. Lewin’s (1947) well-known three-stage theory of change – unfreeze, stabilize, refreeze – prescribes a process and implies that it pauses at a place where outcome must be recognized. Etzioni (1961; in Zaltman & Duncan, 1997; in Davey, 2003) built upon that by introducing ideas of equilibrium and force, solidifying the presence of both process and outcome in approaches to change.

And so, the conclusion here is that academics and practitioners need one another – not only for the greater good of knowledge creation and transfer – but also in service of meeting their own needs.


Primary References
Allyn & Bacon. (2000). Science and Research. In W.L. Neuman (ed), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Needham Heights, MA.

Davey, K. (2003). Organizational change subject guide. The University of London Press: London.

Rynes, S, Bartunek, J, Daft, R. (2003). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 340-355.

Sutton, R. & Staw, B. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 371-384.



Secondary References
Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management fashion. Academy of Management Review, 21: 254-285.

Macchavelli. M. (1532). The Prince. Remainder of reference unavailable.
Amabile, T, Patterson, C, Mueller, J. Wojcik, T, Odomirok, P, Marsh, M, Kramer, S. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 418-431.

Bartunek, J. (1988). The dynamics of personal and organizational reframing. In R.E. Quinn & K.S. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management: 137-162. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Bartlett, J. (1992). Kaplan J (ed). Familiar Quotations. Little, Brown and company: Boston, Toronto, London.

Daft, R. (1987). Organization theory and design. St. Paul: West Publishing.

Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Huczynski, A & Buchanan, D. (1991). Organizational Behavior: An Introductory Text (2nd ed). Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Legge, K. (1984). Evaluating Planned Organizational Change. London: Academic Press.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. In D. Cartwright (ed.), (1952) Field theory in social science. London: Social Science Paperbacks.

Statt. (1991). Reference unavailable.

Susman, G, & Evered, R. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23: 582-603.

Van Maanen, J. (1989). Some notes on the importance of writing in organization studies. Harvard Business School Research Colloquium: 27-23. Boston: Harvard Business School.

Weick, K. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14: 516-531.

Zaltman, G, Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for planned change. New York: Wiley.

Hello, everyone:

Staying with the issue of the academic-practitioner divide, I'd like to build on areas touched upon in last week's post, starting with where practitioners might take more responsibility. That was a little weak as I was still searching through the literature.

My impression is that the peer-reviewed literature is not lacking in critiques of academics for their failure to research and communicate what practitioners want to know. (e.g. Thyer, 2001; in Munro, 2002). Acknowledging that this may be the case, we must still ask where practitioners and organizations are losing out by not following evidence-based practices and what they might do to try to bridge the gap from their side.

As Hambrick 1994; (in Rynes, Gulick & Brown, 2007) and others point out, there really ARE research findings that have been positively correlated with employee productivity and financial performance. What's more, the research findings that practitioners could apply are not obvious to them. (Rynes et al, 2007). That is, they are not observations likely to arrived at through managers' own thinking. (Pardon the digression, but going the other way, it’s necessary to acknowledge somewhere that in the social sciences, as in the hard sciences, the evidence does sometimes reverse itself (Rynes, et al, 2007); so there can also be peril in relying too much on the evidence.)

But moving on, managers face multiple obstacles if they actually do want to try to find out what current research says. Anyone who has ever done a literature search knows what a daunting, time-consuming task that can be -- even if one does have costly access to the databases. (Rynes et al, 2007). From personal experience, it can take months to research just one personality variable – with no guarantee that it will pay off in the end. Such little immediate return on investment is just not compatible with what employers expect. So, rather than consult the academic literature themselves, what managers typically do is try to find an expert who does know the literature in a particular area of study. (Rynes et al, 2007) However, they really have no way of knowing how well the particular academic they've consulted knows or keeps up with the literature. And that's assuming that managers actually try to ferret-out research-based practices. More typically, they just ask other managers (Brown & Duguid, 2002; in Rynes et al. 2007).

Then, what can be done?

Well, one possibility is alluded to by Rynes, Bartuek & Daft (2001). They make the point that socialization between academic and practitioner camps is necessary if the two groups are to stop seeing one another as adversarial. Drawing more on personal observation rather than the literature, I would venture that this is an area where practitioners might excel in taking the lead. They have the experience; it's what businesses must do in order to reach their target audiences and, to some degree, bring their employees on board. I have read (but do not have a copy of the reference) that the work of Myers & Briggs (1995) in developing the MBTI (Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) looked at occupations in terms of their types. I would need to confirm this, but it seems logical to me that the Public Affairs, Sales and Marketing functions within an organization would have more E's (extroverts) who would actually enjoy planning and delivering a practitioner-academic party than would academia. I have witnessed two events of this nature, and they were delightful. For the organization, it was only a minor staging challenge compared with the national product launch meetings it had produced in the past. And it was obvious that the academics were not used to having that much respect and attention lavished upon them. What better opportunity for both parties to explore common ground – at the very least, to get a dialogue going?

Finally, returning to what academics might do to help bridge the academic-practitioner divide, we consult a recent article by the esteemed researcher, editor and writer Denise Rousseau (2007) of psychological contract fame. She calls for an Evidence-Based Management Collaboration and suggests how it might work. One feature would be the summarizing by academics of their research into reader-friendly language. She also believes that consultants should be introduced into this new collaborative community. This is personally exciting to me, because as a former newspaper reporter covering social issues, a current writer of employee and customer communications for organizations, and current master’s student of organizational psychology, I dare to hope that this combination of experience might represent a career opportunity at some point.

Finally, to anyone who has access to academic databases, both the Rousseau (2007) and Rynes et al (2007) articles are well worth a read. (I promise that one of these days, I will actually get around to discussing career theory).

Till next time...

Jan


Primary References
Munro, E. (2002). The role of theory in social work research: A further contribution to the debate. Journal of Social Work Education. 38: 461-470.

Myers, I. (1995). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type. Mountain View. CA. Davies-Black.

Rynes, S, Bartunek, J, Daft, Richard. (2001). Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Academy of Management Journal. 44: 340-355.

Rousseau, D. (2007). A sticky, leveraging and scalable strategy for high-quality connections between organizational practice and science. Academy of Management Journal. 50: 1037-1042.

Rynes, S, Giluk, T, Brown, K. (2007). The very separate worlds of academic and practitioner periodicals in human resource management: Implications for evidence-based management. Academy of Management Journal. 50: 987-1008.

Secondary References

Brown, J. & Duguid, P. (2002). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Hambrick, C. 1994. Presidential address: What if the academy actually Mattered? Academy of Management Review, 30: 96-112.

Thyer, B. What is the role of theory in social work practice? Journal of Social Work Education, 37: 9-25.

Hello, everyone:

This week, we get down to the business of career theory – more specifically, occupational choice – and, even more specifically, John Holland's theory of vocational choice. (Holland, 1997; in Kidd, 2008) This post is written primarily for guidance counselors, parents, high school and college students, and also individuals who wish to explore new career alternatives. I'll be directing you to some tools you can put to practical use – but, first, let’s set the stage by giving you a bit of background from an academic perspective.

First off, I am a huge fan of this theory and the tools developed around it because I think it offers insights into career problems and choices and believe that, if its limitations are acknowledged, it can be valuable. I have certainly found it to be helpful personally ... and will expand on that a bit later. But speaking of limitations, we must first acknowledge that Holland's theory may well be much more applicable in the U.S., where it was developed, than in the U.K. Our Life Career Development subject guide at Birkbeck does not treat the theory with great praise (Kidd, 2008); and along the same lines, some of the students (most of whom are from Europe and Asia) who participated in our on-line conferencing during the course last year didn't seem to be huge fans of it either, which is understandable. So please keep that in mind, particularly since Bizface readership seems to be primarily U.K.

Our Birkbeck study guide acknowledges that in the U.S., we have more of an "every child can grow up to be president mentality" where greater personal choice is perceived; while in the U.K., societal factors, such as socioeconomic status, may be far more limiting for career opportunities. Other limitations may also exist in collectivist societies where family and societal pressures weigh more heavily. Holland’s theory is also does not directly consider issues such as where you are in your life at the moment, what roles you may be juggling, what options career are actually available to you, or what forces may be shaping all of these things for the future. So, take that as you will...

Here's a bit about the theory and what it suggests.

Within organizational psychology, Holland's theory of vocational choice falls into a set of theories that are categorized as "differentialist," also sometimes referred to as "person-environment fit." Basically, these frameworks address what type of job or career an individual might be suited for based on his or her interests. (Note that we are talking about "interests" not "abilities.") Holland called this fit "congruence" and basically proposed that people would be happier in jobs/careers that were more congruent with their interests and the rewards they expected.

He devised a typology that categorizes these interests, which he plotted on a hexagon. There are six categories, and the ones directly across from one another are considered to be somewhat oppositional. They are: realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional. I'm not going to define them here because you can get develop your own general idea from the terms themselves and get more specific definitions if you use the tools at the end of this post.

There are some well-recognized instruments that have been developed based on Holland's RIASEC, such as the Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI) (Holland, 1985b), the Self-Directed Search (SDS) (Holland, 1985c) and the Strong Interest Inventory (Harmon, Hansen et al., 1994). (All in Kidd, 2008). However, you may have to consult a qualified, credentialed professional, such as a psychologist, to take one of these tests and have it interpreted.... which means there may be significant costs issues to be considered. My friend, Pam, a clinical psychologist who has been in practice here in the U.S. for some 25 years, particularly likes the Strong Interest Inventory. Interestingly, she also says that in therapy sessions with clients, it's not at all unusual to find that job incongruence is an underlying problem related to the client's reason for seeking therapy.

If the services of a qualified professional are not available or practical for you, there are some other resources available via the Web.

Rutgers University in New Jersey, in the U.S. makes a Holland type tool available at Rutgers Pre-College Career Planning Site - Interests. It’s positioned for high school students. I don't know what kind of validity/consistency it has; but I took it, and my results were compatible with those from a pencil and paper tool provided in our Birkbeck study guide (Hopson & Scally, 1984).

The Rutgers tool is a quick Web-based resource. There's a more comprehensive alternative at the U.S. Department of Labor's Website.
O*NET Resource Center - Interest Profiler (IP). You'll need to download this one. I haven't looked at it, but it appears to be composed of a number of elements, including interpretive materials.

But here's the link of real value:
After completing whichever Holland-type instrument you choose to take, you'll end up with a three-letter code -- and you can plug it in here (Interests Search) for a list of jobs that match. Or if you don't get a match with three letters, you can try just two. In addition, there's a wealth of information about what the job is, what it encompasses, how much education it requires, whether it's in demand -- and more. Limitations acknowledged, this is a wealth of information to be able to access from your keyboard.

Since I’m the only one here, we’ll illustrate with my career. I tested CIA... conventional, investigative, artistic without much difference in weighting among the three codes. What's problematic about this combination is that "C" for "conventional" and "A" for "artistic" are opposite from one another on the hexagon. You would expect jobs offering both to be rare; and at least in my own mind, that goes a long way toward explaining the career frustrations as well as career choices I'e made and encountered. ("I" is “investigative.”)

When I plugged the three-letter code “CIA” into the site above, the result was zero. Not a huge surprise.

Next I tried a two-letter combination -- "C/I -- conventional/investigative." There were lots of choices here -- 68 of them, in fact, and many were “in demand.” However, except for "fire investigator," they all seemed too routine, too monotonous, too technically focused, too confining with not much opportunity for self-expression.

Next, I tried "C/A" -- Conventional/Artistic." Here there were only three choices: architectural drafter, court reporter, librarian. No, I don't think so. There's some appeal, but I'm not mathematically inclined enough to be a drafter, and don't see anything particularly artistic about being a court reporter or a librarian. (FYI: In case the term is unfamiliar, a court reporter is not a journalist. He/she takes notes in court or in depositions and transcribes them).

Next, I tried "I/A" -- Investigative-Artistic." Here we have something. There were a few jobs I've explored, held or currently hold: teacher, reporter, copywriter, technical writer. There are also some I think would be great fun (interpreter, translator, curator, anthropologist) -- but the interest isn't quite sufficient to justify the educational requirements at mid-life.

But guess what else is there: Organizational Psychologist! Bingo! I am currently in the second year of Birkbeck's Msc in Organizational Psychology Progamme -- and love it. The site also reveals that in the U.S., organizatio