WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.140 Welcome to The Debate. Today we're turning our 00:00:03.140 --> 00:00:06.759 attention to something that consumes the vast 00:00:06.759 --> 00:00:10.300 majority of our waking lives, yet remains surprisingly 00:00:10.300 --> 00:00:14.519 difficult to pin down. The career. It's the engine 00:00:14.519 --> 00:00:16.920 of modern existence, but nobody seems to agree 00:00:16.920 --> 00:00:20.300 on how to tune it, or even where it's supposed 00:00:20.300 --> 00:00:23.579 to take us. Well, it's the thing everyone wants, 00:00:23.640 --> 00:00:26.300 but half the time it feels like it's trying to 00:00:26.300 --> 00:00:29.230 kill us. A cheerful start as always, but I want 00:00:29.230 --> 00:00:31.670 to anchor us in the history of the word because 00:00:31.670 --> 00:00:34.850 I think it tells a story we've forgotten. Career 00:00:34.850 --> 00:00:37.829 ultimately derives from the Latin carus, which 00:00:37.829 --> 00:00:40.990 means a chariot. Later, in Middle French, it 00:00:40.990 --> 00:00:43.670 became carrière, referring to a race course. 00:00:44.429 --> 00:00:47.189 Implicit in that origin story is a structure, 00:00:47.369 --> 00:00:51.469 a defined track, a vehicle you control, and forward 00:00:51.469 --> 00:00:54.640 momentum toward a finish line. The question we're 00:00:54.640 --> 00:00:57.060 wrestling with today is whether that race course 00:00:57.060 --> 00:01:00.640 even exists anymore. Is a career a calculated 00:01:00.640 --> 00:01:03.679 climb that can be navigated with precision, or 00:01:03.679 --> 00:01:06.640 has the track itself just crumbled beneath our 00:01:06.640 --> 00:01:09.239 wheels? It's a beautiful metaphor. I love the 00:01:09.239 --> 00:01:11.579 image of the chariot. But if we're being honest, 00:01:11.760 --> 00:01:13.620 I think that metaphor belongs to a different 00:01:13.620 --> 00:01:16.879 century. For most people today, the chariot is 00:01:16.879 --> 00:01:19.459 missing a wheel, the forces are spooked, and 00:01:19.459 --> 00:01:21.680 the race course is actually a demolition derby. 00:01:22.159 --> 00:01:24.459 I come at it from a different way. We have these 00:01:24.459 --> 00:01:26.799 conflicting definitions right in front of us 00:01:26.799 --> 00:01:29.060 in the material. On one hand, you have the traditional 00:01:29.060 --> 00:01:31.700 view. A career is a profession requiring specific 00:01:31.700 --> 00:01:35.599 training, a life work. On the other hand, organizational 00:01:35.599 --> 00:01:38.200 behavior researchers now define it simply as 00:01:38.200 --> 00:01:42.140 a unique pattern of experiences, both inside 00:01:42.140 --> 00:01:44.879 and outside organizations over a lifespan. Right. 00:01:44.920 --> 00:01:47.780 A pattern. Exactly. And I think we're seeing 00:01:47.780 --> 00:01:51.159 the death of the life work and the messy reality 00:01:51.159 --> 00:01:53.370 of the pattern. Whether the world is chaotic, 00:01:53.709 --> 00:01:56.349 it always has been, but whether it's possible 00:01:56.349 --> 00:01:59.269 to manage one's trajectory through it. I argue 00:01:59.269 --> 00:02:01.670 that the concept of career management is more 00:02:01.670 --> 00:02:04.409 vital than ever. We're not just drifting leaves. 00:02:04.670 --> 00:02:07.849 We are capable of utilizing models like the Blueprint 00:02:07.849 --> 00:02:10.610 model used across the U .S., Canada, Australia, 00:02:10.930 --> 00:02:13.729 or the seven C's of digital career literacy. 00:02:14.090 --> 00:02:18.330 Those sound like wonderful seminar titles. They 00:02:18.330 --> 00:02:20.689 aren't just buzzwords, they're systems. They 00:02:20.689 --> 00:02:23.189 suggest that a career is a construct we can build, 00:02:23.310 --> 00:02:25.969 maintain, and direct. When you look at the blueprint 00:02:25.969 --> 00:02:28.509 model, it's all about mapping your competencies 00:02:28.509 --> 00:02:31.789 to market needs. It's engineering your own life. 00:02:32.050 --> 00:02:34.830 I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that we have 00:02:34.830 --> 00:02:37.530 that much control. You're describing a world 00:02:37.530 --> 00:02:40.530 where planning is the primary variable. You're 00:02:40.530 --> 00:02:43.389 sounding like the rational planner. But the evidence 00:02:43.389 --> 00:02:47.310 suggests that external forces, scarcity, downsizing, 00:02:47.509 --> 00:02:50.710 huge economic shifts, are the real authors of 00:02:50.710 --> 00:02:53.629 our resumes. The idea of a job for life which 00:02:53.629 --> 00:02:55.669 allowed for that kind of long -term strategic 00:02:55.669 --> 00:02:58.889 planning is a relic. It actually hinders our 00:02:58.889 --> 00:03:01.569 understanding of what work is today. Then let's 00:03:01.569 --> 00:03:04.330 lay out our positions clearly. I stand on the 00:03:04.330 --> 00:03:07.250 side of the rational planner. I believe that 00:03:07.250 --> 00:03:10.069 despite all the economic noise, a career remains 00:03:10.069 --> 00:03:13.639 a distinct manageable journey. When we look at 00:03:13.639 --> 00:03:17.000 theories like the objective factor theory, we 00:03:17.000 --> 00:03:19.620 see that applicants are rational actors. They 00:03:19.620 --> 00:03:23.259 assess tangible benefits, salary, location, opportunities 00:03:23.259 --> 00:03:25.860 for advancement, and they make choices. It's 00:03:25.860 --> 00:03:29.060 a logical process. Furthermore, with the accumulation 00:03:29.060 --> 00:03:31.960 of human capital, your demonstratable abilities, 00:03:32.180 --> 00:03:34.919 your qualifications, one can still achieve that 00:03:34.919 --> 00:03:37.819 traditional linear career stage model that Donald 00:03:37.819 --> 00:03:41.360 Super described. We move up hierarchies. We seek 00:03:41.360 --> 00:03:44.000 extrinsic rewards. The latter is still there 00:03:44.000 --> 00:03:45.840 if you have the skills to climb it. And I'll 00:03:45.840 --> 00:03:48.639 take the position of the adaptive realist. What 00:03:48.639 --> 00:03:52.280 you're describing is the 1950s and 60s. That 00:03:52.280 --> 00:03:55.000 model where you worked for one or two firms and 00:03:55.000 --> 00:03:58.020 success was measured by promotions inside that 00:03:58.020 --> 00:04:01.919 stable structure is, well, it's obsolete. Donald 00:04:01.919 --> 00:04:04.719 Super's linear model assumes a stable organizational 00:04:04.719 --> 00:04:07.759 structure that just doesn't exist for the modern 00:04:07.759 --> 00:04:12.469 worker. Today, professional identities are hyphenated 00:04:12.469 --> 00:04:16.250 or hybridized. Hyphenated? Yes. We're not just 00:04:16.250 --> 00:04:19.170 teachers or engineers anymore. We're consultants 00:04:19.170 --> 00:04:22.569 slash developers or writers slash drivers. We're 00:04:22.569 --> 00:04:25.170 shifting entities, adapting to a fluid market. 00:04:25.410 --> 00:04:27.930 Look at the data from the U .S. Bureau of Labor 00:04:27.930 --> 00:04:30.670 Statistics. It shows individuals hold, what is 00:04:30.670 --> 00:04:34.069 it, over 10 jobs between the ages of 18 and 38. 00:04:34.430 --> 00:04:37.050 That's not a climb. That is a series of jumps. 00:04:37.439 --> 00:04:40.939 often sideways or even backwards. Planning isn't 00:04:40.939 --> 00:04:43.160 an illusion because our choices are severely 00:04:43.160 --> 00:04:46.759 skewed by job scarcity. People don't choose careers. 00:04:46.920 --> 00:04:50.240 They accept what's available to survive. I think 00:04:50.240 --> 00:04:52.680 that's a grim and overly deterministic view. 00:04:53.079 --> 00:04:56.060 10 jobs by 38 could just as easily prove high 00:04:56.060 --> 00:04:58.540 ambition and rapid upward mobility as it could 00:04:58.540 --> 00:05:00.980 instability. But let's get into the core of the 00:05:00.980 --> 00:05:03.819 debate. You mentioned choice, or the lack thereof. 00:05:04.269 --> 00:05:06.189 I want to challenge this idea that workers are 00:05:06.189 --> 00:05:09.550 merely victims of circumstance. Go ahead. Prove 00:05:09.550 --> 00:05:11.529 to me we have a choice when the market crashes. 00:05:11.889 --> 00:05:14.430 When we analyze career choice, we have these 00:05:14.430 --> 00:05:17.029 robust theoretical frameworks that explain how 00:05:17.029 --> 00:05:19.769 and why people make decisions. I mentioned objective 00:05:19.769 --> 00:05:22.769 factor theory, the rational assessment of benefits. 00:05:23.089 --> 00:05:25.970 If job A pays more than job B, I take job A. 00:05:26.189 --> 00:05:29.389 But we also have subjective factor theory, which 00:05:29.389 --> 00:05:31.589 accounts for social and psychological factors 00:05:31.589 --> 00:05:34.370 like status and reputation. And there's critical 00:05:34.370 --> 00:05:37.110 contact theory, which I find particularly interesting. 00:05:37.629 --> 00:05:40.250 Ah, I've heard of this. This is the first date 00:05:40.250 --> 00:05:43.709 theory. In a way, yes. Critical contact theory 00:05:43.709 --> 00:05:46.730 suggests that a candidate's observations while 00:05:46.730 --> 00:05:48.670 interacting with the organization during the 00:05:48.670 --> 00:05:51.870 hiring process play a vital role. How prompt 00:05:51.870 --> 00:05:54.009 is the recruiter? Do they treat you with respect? 00:05:54.170 --> 00:05:56.810 The theory posits that candidates project these 00:05:56.810 --> 00:05:59.550 small interactions onto the entire company culture. 00:05:59.889 --> 00:06:02.610 If the recruiter is rude, The candidate assumes 00:06:02.610 --> 00:06:05.689 the company is toxic and walks away. This proves 00:06:05.689 --> 00:06:08.410 active selection. The worker is evaluating the 00:06:08.410 --> 00:06:10.310 employer just as much as the other way around. 00:06:10.490 --> 00:06:14.709 That is a compelling argument. If, and it's a 00:06:14.709 --> 00:06:18.170 massive if, you assume a balanced market. These 00:06:18.170 --> 00:06:20.569 theories, objective, subjective, critical contact, 00:06:20.790 --> 00:06:24.069 they all rely on a fundamental assumption that 00:06:24.069 --> 00:06:27.389 candidates have the luxury of saying no. In reality, 00:06:27.550 --> 00:06:31.069 strong competition for desirable jobs severely 00:06:31.069 --> 00:06:33.910 skews that whole process. You can have all the 00:06:33.910 --> 00:06:36.269 subjective factors you want, but if there's only 00:06:36.269 --> 00:06:39.389 one offer on the table, you take it. Critical 00:06:39.389 --> 00:06:41.250 contact theory falls apart when you have bills 00:06:41.250 --> 00:06:44.029 to pay and only one callback. But is there only 00:06:44.029 --> 00:06:46.889 one offer? Or is that a narrative of helplessness 00:06:46.889 --> 00:06:49.209 we tell ourselves to excuse a lack of preparation? 00:06:49.629 --> 00:06:52.189 Let's look at why people actually move. You talk 00:06:52.189 --> 00:06:54.800 about rational choice. I'm looking at the right 00:06:54.800 --> 00:06:57.040 management survey regarding reasons for career 00:06:57.040 --> 00:06:59.279 changing. Do you know what the number one reason 00:06:59.279 --> 00:07:02.240 was? It wasn't a rational assessment of benefits. 00:07:02.540 --> 00:07:05.079 It wasn't because the recruiter was rude. It 00:07:05.079 --> 00:07:07.779 was the downsizing or the restructuring of an 00:07:07.779 --> 00:07:11.519 organization. 54 % of respondents cited that. 00:07:11.779 --> 00:07:15.139 Over half. Over half. That is not a choice. That's 00:07:15.139 --> 00:07:17.439 an eviction. The chariot driver didn't decide 00:07:17.439 --> 00:07:20.540 to turn left. The road fell into the ocean. Okay. 00:07:21.120 --> 00:07:24.180 I am familiar with that survey, but you are cherry 00:07:24.180 --> 00:07:26.839 -picking the data a little bit to suit the narrative 00:07:26.839 --> 00:07:31.540 of chaos. Yes, 54 % cited downsizing. But look 00:07:31.540 --> 00:07:34.319 at the next line. The second highest reason at 00:07:34.319 --> 00:07:38.240 30 % was new challenges or opportunities that 00:07:38.240 --> 00:07:41.139 arise. That is literally the definition of upward 00:07:41.139 --> 00:07:45.300 mobility and ambition. Furthermore, 21 % move 00:07:45.300 --> 00:07:47.779 for the improvement of work -life balance, and 00:07:47.779 --> 00:07:50.699 17 % for better alignment with personal values. 00:07:50.920 --> 00:07:54.279 These are deeply intentional moves. Even if a 00:07:54.279 --> 00:07:57.339 transition is forced by downsizing, the subsequent 00:07:57.339 --> 00:08:00.399 move is often an exercise in resilience and strategic 00:08:00.399 --> 00:08:03.699 realignment. Strategic realignment is a very 00:08:03.699 --> 00:08:08.060 polite way of saying scrambling for safety. But 00:08:08.060 --> 00:08:10.620 let's pivot to what we're actually scrambling 00:08:10.620 --> 00:08:14.040 toward. You mentioned the linear model earlier 00:08:14.040 --> 00:08:17.759 where success is verifiable. I think that definition 00:08:17.759 --> 00:08:20.639 of success is another area where the old maps 00:08:20.639 --> 00:08:24.040 fail us. You seem to think success is just a 00:08:24.040 --> 00:08:28.139 number. I disagree. Success needs to be measurable 00:08:28.139 --> 00:08:31.180 or it's meaningless. We have objective criteria 00:08:31.180 --> 00:08:35.100 of success. Earnings, for example. Status. These 00:08:35.100 --> 00:08:37.659 are factually verifiable. They're not matters 00:08:37.659 --> 00:08:40.039 of opinion. and there's a direct correlation 00:08:40.039 --> 00:08:42.919 between investment in oneself and these objective 00:08:42.919 --> 00:08:46.100 outcomes. Research shows that adding one year 00:08:46.100 --> 00:08:48.860 of schooling beyond high school increases wages 00:08:48.860 --> 00:08:52.600 by 17 .8 % per worker. That's a hard number. 00:08:52.779 --> 00:08:56.299 It proves that human capital, your qualifications, 00:08:56.759 --> 00:08:59.700 directly converts into economic capital. The 00:08:59.700 --> 00:09:01.360 system works if you feed it the right inputs. 00:09:01.600 --> 00:09:04.039 I see why you think that. But let me give you 00:09:04.039 --> 00:09:07.250 a different perspective on those numbers. Relying 00:09:07.250 --> 00:09:10.090 on objective metrics like salary creates a trap. 00:09:10.450 --> 00:09:13.710 Early career success, especially when it's tied 00:09:13.710 --> 00:09:16.789 to earnings or rapid promotion, can breed disappointment 00:09:16.789 --> 00:09:20.409 later. If a person's self -worth is all tied 00:09:20.409 --> 00:09:23.129 up in their career or achievements, what happens 00:09:23.129 --> 00:09:26.029 when the curve flattens? And it always flattens. 00:09:26.330 --> 00:09:28.509 Which is why one continues to manage the career. 00:09:28.690 --> 00:09:31.690 You reskill, you pivot. But the definition of 00:09:31.690 --> 00:09:34.730 success itself is shifting away from your objective 00:09:34.730 --> 00:09:38.899 metrics. Because the job for life is gone. The 00:09:38.899 --> 00:09:40.919 responsibility has fallen on the individual, 00:09:41.220 --> 00:09:45.120 yes. But that has led to an emphasis on subjective 00:09:45.120 --> 00:09:49.279 criteria. Job satisfaction. A sense of personal 00:09:49.279 --> 00:09:52.340 achievement. Work -life balance. These are the 00:09:52.340 --> 00:09:54.879 new currencies. And they are highly relative. 00:09:55.240 --> 00:09:57.779 Relative implies they aren't real. They are very 00:09:57.779 --> 00:10:01.600 real to the person feeling them. A person's assessment 00:10:01.600 --> 00:10:04.519 of their success is now influenced by social 00:10:04.519 --> 00:10:08.049 comparisons. How well are my friends doing? How's 00:10:08.049 --> 00:10:11.610 my cousin doing? It is not just about the paycheck 00:10:11.610 --> 00:10:15.190 anymore. The economist Richard Florida talks 00:10:15.190 --> 00:10:18.409 about the creative class. Their professional 00:10:18.409 --> 00:10:21.029 identities are far more hybridized and fluid 00:10:21.029 --> 00:10:24.289 than the rigid structures you're defending. They 00:10:24.289 --> 00:10:27.070 value autonomy and creativity over the mere climb. 00:10:27.720 --> 00:10:30.639 But even the creative class needs to eat. You 00:10:30.639 --> 00:10:33.539 cannot pay rent with hybridized identity. You 00:10:33.539 --> 00:10:35.799 can't tell the bank I have high subjective success 00:10:35.799 --> 00:10:38.879 when the mortgage is due. No, but you can endure 00:10:38.879 --> 00:10:42.019 a lower salary if the subjective rewards, the 00:10:42.019 --> 00:10:44.659 autonomy, the lack of a toxic boss, are higher. 00:10:45.000 --> 00:10:47.820 Let's talk about that preparation then. Because 00:10:47.820 --> 00:10:50.179 if we're to accept your view that the world is 00:10:50.179 --> 00:10:53.440 complex and fluid, surely that argues for more 00:10:53.440 --> 00:10:56.860 rigorous preparation, not less. I champion career 00:10:56.860 --> 00:11:00.259 education and career counseling. The DOTS framework 00:11:00.259 --> 00:11:02.500 is a brilliant example of how we can structure 00:11:02.500 --> 00:11:05.740 this. I always hear about DOTS. Break it down 00:11:05.740 --> 00:11:08.899 for me. Sure. It stands for decision learning, 00:11:09.159 --> 00:11:12.720 opportunity awareness, transition learning, and 00:11:12.720 --> 00:11:15.120 self -awareness. It's a comprehensive method 00:11:15.120 --> 00:11:17.299 taught in schools to help individuals understand 00:11:17.299 --> 00:11:20.519 themselves and the market. Self -awareness helps 00:11:20.519 --> 00:11:22.679 you know what you're good at. Opportunity awareness 00:11:22.679 --> 00:11:25.710 helps you see where the jobs are. It is a logical 00:11:25.710 --> 00:11:27.929 sequence to prepare a student for the race course. 00:11:28.330 --> 00:11:31.070 DOTS is a nice acronym, but does it actually 00:11:31.070 --> 00:11:34.190 deliver a return on investment? You cited that 00:11:34.190 --> 00:11:38.110 17 .8 % wage increase for the first year of schooling 00:11:38.110 --> 00:11:40.809 beyond high school. That's a great statistic 00:11:40.809 --> 00:11:43.470 for a university brochure. But you conveniently 00:11:43.470 --> 00:11:46.549 left out the other part of that data. Additional 00:11:46.549 --> 00:11:48.789 years of schooling, specifically beyond 9 or 00:11:48.789 --> 00:11:51.509 10 years, have little effect on workers' wages. 00:11:51.830 --> 00:11:54.600 There's a point of diminishing returns. Well, 00:11:54.620 --> 00:11:57.320 that depends entirely on the field and the quality 00:11:57.320 --> 00:11:59.559 of the education. It also depends on the relevance 00:11:59.559 --> 00:12:02.539 of the education. Higher education is often criticized 00:12:02.539 --> 00:12:05.299 for being too narrow or too research -based. 00:12:05.500 --> 00:12:08.379 It lacks the deep understanding needed for actual 00:12:08.379 --> 00:12:10.960 careers. So we have a system where people take 00:12:10.960 --> 00:12:13.879 on massive debt. The cost of education has to 00:12:13.879 --> 00:12:15.899 be weighed against the career's ability to pay 00:12:15.899 --> 00:12:18.500 it off. To enter a market that might not even 00:12:18.500 --> 00:12:21.120 value the degree they just bought, that's not 00:12:21.120 --> 00:12:24.610 a calculated climb. That is a bad gamble. It 00:12:24.610 --> 00:12:27.230 is an investment, not a gamble. And like any 00:12:27.230 --> 00:12:30.009 investment, it requires due diligence. This is 00:12:30.009 --> 00:12:32.809 where career information comes in. Labor market 00:12:32.809 --> 00:12:36.049 information, or LMI. Salaries, employment rates, 00:12:36.169 --> 00:12:39.690 current openings. We have the data. If a student 00:12:39.690 --> 00:12:42.470 chooses a degree with no ROI, that's a failure 00:12:42.470 --> 00:12:44.870 of research, not a failure of the concept of 00:12:44.870 --> 00:12:48.289 career management. You're placing a lot of blame 00:12:48.289 --> 00:12:52.769 on the individual for systemic opacity. But let's 00:12:52.769 --> 00:12:54.570 look at what happens when they're actually in 00:12:54.570 --> 00:12:57.190 the workforce. We talked about downsizing, but 00:12:57.190 --> 00:13:00.210 let's talk about the daily reality of just holding 00:13:00.210 --> 00:13:03.830 a job. The reality is that people are constantly 00:13:03.830 --> 00:13:06.730 looking for better, and I view that as a positive. 00:13:07.009 --> 00:13:11.429 A survey from Time .com back in 2008 noted that 00:13:11.429 --> 00:13:14.029 one out of three people currently employed spends 00:13:14.029 --> 00:13:17.250 about an hour per day searching for another position. 00:13:17.450 --> 00:13:20.990 Think about that. One hour a day. Every single 00:13:20.990 --> 00:13:24.200 day. I don't see that as disloyalty or chaos. 00:13:24.360 --> 00:13:27.700 I see that as career management in real time. 00:13:27.860 --> 00:13:30.799 That's proactive ambition. They're scanning the 00:13:30.799 --> 00:13:33.179 horizon for the next leg of the race. They are 00:13:33.179 --> 00:13:35.960 optimizing. I'm not convinced by that line of 00:13:35.960 --> 00:13:38.879 reasoning because it ignores the emotional driver 00:13:38.879 --> 00:13:42.120 behind the search. People aren't spending an 00:13:42.120 --> 00:13:44.960 hour a day on job boards because they're ambitious 00:13:44.960 --> 00:13:47.879 managers of their destiny. They're doing it because 00:13:47.879 --> 00:13:50.399 they're miserable. That's an assumption. It's 00:13:50.399 --> 00:13:53.100 supported by the data. Go back to the right management 00:13:53.100 --> 00:13:56.000 survey. Look at the other reasons people leave. 00:13:56.159 --> 00:13:59.519 Poor or ineffective leadership was 25 percent. 00:13:59.740 --> 00:14:02.600 Having a poor relationship with a manager, 22 00:14:02.600 --> 00:14:06.419 percent. Lack of recognition, 21 percent. These 00:14:06.419 --> 00:14:09.879 aren't strategic moves. These are escape attempts. 00:14:10.220 --> 00:14:13.539 People are fleeing toxic environments. But they're 00:14:13.539 --> 00:14:16.320 fleeing to something. They are fleeing to anything. 00:14:16.679 --> 00:14:20.919 And this constant churn, this instability. is 00:14:20.919 --> 00:14:23.980 why I argue the race course metaphor is broken. 00:14:24.480 --> 00:14:26.779 If you're constantly jumping off the chariot 00:14:26.779 --> 00:14:28.899 because the driver next to you is trying to run 00:14:28.899 --> 00:14:31.179 you off the road, or because your wheel just 00:14:31.179 --> 00:14:33.799 fell off, you aren't racing, you're surviving. 00:14:34.519 --> 00:14:38.080 I think we need to synthesize this. You see survival, 00:14:38.320 --> 00:14:41.539 I see the accumulation of career capital. Whether 00:14:41.539 --> 00:14:44.320 a move is forced by a bad boss or chosen for 00:14:44.320 --> 00:14:46.840 a higher salary, the individual takes something 00:14:46.840 --> 00:14:49.659 with them. What do they take other than stress? 00:14:50.279 --> 00:14:53.539 They take four specific things. We call it career 00:14:53.539 --> 00:14:56.659 capital. First, social capital, their personal 00:14:56.659 --> 00:14:59.720 contacts and networks. Second, human capital, 00:14:59.899 --> 00:15:03.240 their skills and experiences. Third, economic 00:15:03.240 --> 00:15:07.159 capital, money and resources. And fourth, cultural 00:15:07.159 --> 00:15:09.700 capital, the know -how to operate in a social 00:15:09.700 --> 00:15:12.899 context. This is the safety net. This is the 00:15:12.899 --> 00:15:16.019 engine. Even in your chaotic world, the person 00:15:16.019 --> 00:15:19.220 with the most career capital wins. Wins what? 00:15:19.850 --> 00:15:22.549 That's the question. If the prize is just another 00:15:22.549 --> 00:15:25.629 job that might be downsized in two years, is 00:15:25.629 --> 00:15:29.009 that winning? The prize is sustainability. The 00:15:29.009 --> 00:15:32.269 prize is options. Let's bring this to a close, 00:15:32.429 --> 00:15:34.610 because I think we're circling the core philosophical 00:15:34.610 --> 00:15:37.429 difference here. I maintain that while the race 00:15:37.429 --> 00:15:40.389 course has undoubtedly become more complex, more 00:15:40.389 --> 00:15:43.409 hazardous, and perhaps less clearly marked, the 00:15:43.409 --> 00:15:45.929 principles of career management remain the most 00:15:45.929 --> 00:15:48.870 reliable way to navigate it. Developing skills, 00:15:49.419 --> 00:15:51.899 researching the labor market, accumulating capital, 00:15:52.019 --> 00:15:54.899 these are the levers of control. The chariot 00:15:54.899 --> 00:15:57.620 still requires a driver. If you take your hands 00:15:57.620 --> 00:15:59.759 off the reins because you believe the track is 00:15:59.759 --> 00:16:02.980 chaotic, you will crash. And I conclude that 00:16:02.980 --> 00:16:06.460 we must abandon the linear view of success entirely. 00:16:06.980 --> 00:16:10.240 The modern career is less about climbing a ladder, 00:16:10.399 --> 00:16:12.940 where you're always looking up at the next rung, 00:16:12.940 --> 00:16:16.519 and more about navigating a landscape. Downsizing 00:16:16.519 --> 00:16:18.960 is more common than promotion for many demographics. 00:16:19.399 --> 00:16:22.639 Success is now defined internally, not by the 00:16:22.639 --> 00:16:25.500 organization. We need to focus on subjective 00:16:25.500 --> 00:16:28.299 fulfillment and hybrid identities because the 00:16:28.299 --> 00:16:31.740 external structures, the corporations, the ladders, 00:16:31.840 --> 00:16:34.860 they just don't care about us. A somber thought, 00:16:35.000 --> 00:16:38.639 but perhaps a liberating one for some. Indeed. 00:16:39.200 --> 00:16:41.580 Ultimately, both of us can agree that the definition 00:16:41.580 --> 00:16:44.820 of career has irrevocably expanded. It's no longer 00:16:44.820 --> 00:16:48.340 just a single life work. It is a unique pattern 00:16:48.340 --> 00:16:51.620 of experiences. A pattern we weave, even if we 00:16:51.620 --> 00:16:54.159 don't always get to pick the colors. Precisely. 00:16:54.159 --> 00:16:56.779 So we leave you, the listener, to consider. Are 00:16:56.779 --> 00:16:59.120 you driving the chariot or are you just holding 00:16:59.120 --> 00:17:01.940 on while the track changes beneath you? And is 00:17:01.940 --> 00:17:04.900 it time to stop racing and start exploring? Thank 00:17:04.900 --> 00:17:07.000 you for joining us on The Debate.