{"id":6000,"date":"2013-06-12T12:31:15","date_gmt":"2013-06-12T12:31:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sidewaysthoughts.com\/blog\/?p=6000"},"modified":"2015-02-15T07:33:13","modified_gmt":"2015-02-15T07:33:13","slug":"did-you-inherit-your-career-gottfredsons-theory-of-circumscription-and-compromise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sidewaysthoughts.com\/blog\/2013\/06\/did-you-inherit-your-career-gottfredsons-theory-of-circumscription-and-compromise\/","title":{"rendered":"Did you inherit your career? Gottfredson\u2019s theory of circumscription and compromise"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\"Circuits<\/span><\/p>\n

I grew up in a family business. From age six to fourteen, my weekends were spent at first sweeping floors and then assisting in the manufacture of printed circuit boards. I returned nine years later as an Environmental Compliance manager following high school in Canada and a five-year stint in the U.S. Navy. As a then 23-year old, I recall a very distinct feeling of \u201cWhy me?\u201d<\/p>\n

Why should I be the one to be in this position? From a relative perspective, why are others around me in their positions compared to my own role? Am I here solely due to my position as the owner\u2019s son? Do I have some genetically embedded propensity for electronics manufacturing that secures for me this role? Or am I the right person for the job?<\/p>\n

Close to two decades on, I hear these same sentiments from those around me. I often hear the narrative that \u201cI fell into it\u201d or the more despondent \u201cI never chose this\u201d. Some even convey jealousy for others who they perceive as being content without needing career options. Even for those who say their career was planned, there are questions about what \u201cmight have been\u201d given a different configuration of circumstances and choices.<\/p>\n

Gottfredson\u2019s theory<\/h2>\n

Linda Gottfredson <\/a>shares a rational for our career directions in her theory of circumscription and compromise. In her theory<\/a>, Gottfredson seeks to answer \u201cWhere do interests, abilities, and other determinants of vocational choice come from?<\/i>\u201d\u00a0 Essentially, why do we choose to do what we do?<\/p>\n

The proposed answer lies in first understanding how we develop our self-concept<\/b>.\u00a0 We then consider how we eliminate occupational alternatives that conflict with this self-concept through a process called circumscription<\/b>. Finally, we look at the remaining options and compromise<\/b> based on the certain criteria.<\/p>\n

1. Defining our self-concept<\/b><\/h3>\n

We are complex creatures, made up of personalities, strengths, interests, skills, talents, and beliefs. This identity is defined by our genetic make-up, our environment and surrounding culture and relationships, and our experiences. But to what extent are we truly in control of defining who we are?<\/p>\n

Gottfredson cites research that indicates our self-concept is culturally contingent<\/i> and experience dependent<\/i>. On the one hand, our interests, attitudes, and particular skills are strongly influenced by shared environments. On the other hand, we remain active agents of our own creation within the constraints of our genetic inheritance.<\/p>\n

Our genetic compass urges, not commands, us in some directions rather than others. Our genetic inclination competes with culture, operating like a gyroscope guiding us towards one path over another. Our path is constrained by choices available in our culture and past choices we have made.\u00a0 For example, nothing in my genetic make-up or cultural environment would lead me to be a reggae singer and my past career choices preclude me from an easy transition into engineering.<\/p>\n

This is not to say we are powerless to our genetic make-up and cultural influences. We become who we are through experience, and come to know ourselves through engaging with the world. Through these experiences, we find ways to reflect, reinforce, and better resonate with our personal tendencies.<\/p>\n

You often hear of people who begin to redefine who they are one small experience at a time, creating a new self-image that is the sum of these new experiences. These redefining moments can come at different stages in our lives as our genetic makeup changes as we age.<\/p>\n

In the classic debate of nature versus nurture, nature trumps<\/a> in defining our self-concept. Socialisation theory, which proposes we are defined largely by our environment, has proven to be false. The older we get, the more our self-concept aligns with our genetic pre-disposition. We also become more familiar with who we are and adapt at working within our environment to suit who we are.<\/p>\n

2. The process of circumscription<\/b><\/h3>\n

\"Gottfredson's<\/p>\n

Our genetics, environment and experiences frame a circumscription<\/i> (limiting or restriction) process where we eliminate occupational alternatives that conflict with our self-concept.<\/p>\n

I considered this in my recent research into gender inequality<\/a>. One of the contributing factors in the gender inequality debate is the fact that 60% of primary carers in Australia are female and over half of women with children under the age of two are not employed in the workforce. Another factor is that all but two of the top nine industries by earning potential are male-dominated.<\/p>\n

When I raise these statistics to my female friends, a response I get back is \u201cYes, but what if I want<\/em> to stay home with the children?\u201d or \u201cI want<\/em> to work in my female-dominated industry\u201d. I do not disagree with their preference, but ask why do you want it? Is it really your choice, or is it what you have chosen based on cultural influences?<\/p>\n

These influences start early. \u00a0Gottfredson \u00a0proposes four stages of circumscription:<\/p>\n