Welcome to The Debate. Today we're turning our
attention to something that consumes the vast
majority of our waking lives, yet remains surprisingly
difficult to pin down. The career. It's the engine
of modern existence, but nobody seems to agree
on how to tune it, or even where it's supposed
to take us. Well, it's the thing everyone wants,
but half the time it feels like it's trying to
kill us. A cheerful start as always, but I want
to anchor us in the history of the word because
I think it tells a story we've forgotten. Career
ultimately derives from the Latin carus, which
means a chariot. Later, in Middle French, it
became carrière, referring to a race course.
Implicit in that origin story is a structure,
a defined track, a vehicle you control, and forward
momentum toward a finish line. The question we're
wrestling with today is whether that race course
even exists anymore. Is a career a calculated
climb that can be navigated with precision, or
has the track itself just crumbled beneath our
wheels? It's a beautiful metaphor. I love the
image of the chariot. But if we're being honest,
I think that metaphor belongs to a different
century. For most people today, the chariot is
missing a wheel, the forces are spooked, and
the race course is actually a demolition derby.
I come at it from a different way. We have these
conflicting definitions right in front of us
in the material. On one hand, you have the traditional
view. A career is a profession requiring specific
training, a life work. On the other hand, organizational
behavior researchers now define it simply as
a unique pattern of experiences, both inside
and outside organizations over a lifespan. Right.
A pattern. Exactly. And I think we're seeing
the death of the life work and the messy reality
of the pattern. Whether the world is chaotic,
it always has been, but whether it's possible
to manage one's trajectory through it. I argue
that the concept of career management is more
vital than ever. We're not just drifting leaves.
We are capable of utilizing models like the Blueprint
model used across the U .S., Canada, Australia,
or the seven C's of digital career literacy.
Those sound like wonderful seminar titles. They
aren't just buzzwords, they're systems. They
suggest that a career is a construct we can build,
maintain, and direct. When you look at the blueprint
model, it's all about mapping your competencies
to market needs. It's engineering your own life.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that we have
that much control. You're describing a world
where planning is the primary variable. You're
sounding like the rational planner. But the evidence
suggests that external forces, scarcity, downsizing,
huge economic shifts, are the real authors of
our resumes. The idea of a job for life which
allowed for that kind of long -term strategic
planning is a relic. It actually hinders our
understanding of what work is today. Then let's
lay out our positions clearly. I stand on the
side of the rational planner. I believe that
despite all the economic noise, a career remains
a distinct manageable journey. When we look at
theories like the objective factor theory, we
see that applicants are rational actors. They
assess tangible benefits, salary, location, opportunities
for advancement, and they make choices. It's
a logical process. Furthermore, with the accumulation
of human capital, your demonstratable abilities,
your qualifications, one can still achieve that
traditional linear career stage model that Donald
Super described. We move up hierarchies. We seek
extrinsic rewards. The latter is still there
if you have the skills to climb it. And I'll
take the position of the adaptive realist. What
you're describing is the 1950s and 60s. That
model where you worked for one or two firms and
success was measured by promotions inside that
stable structure is, well, it's obsolete. Donald
Super's linear model assumes a stable organizational
structure that just doesn't exist for the modern
worker. Today, professional identities are hyphenated
or hybridized. Hyphenated? Yes. We're not just
teachers or engineers anymore. We're consultants
slash developers or writers slash drivers. We're
shifting entities, adapting to a fluid market.
Look at the data from the U .S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics. It shows individuals hold, what is
it, over 10 jobs between the ages of 18 and 38.
That's not a climb. That is a series of jumps.
often sideways or even backwards. Planning isn't
an illusion because our choices are severely
skewed by job scarcity. People don't choose careers.
They accept what's available to survive. I think
that's a grim and overly deterministic view.
10 jobs by 38 could just as easily prove high
ambition and rapid upward mobility as it could
instability. But let's get into the core of the
debate. You mentioned choice, or the lack thereof.
I want to challenge this idea that workers are
merely victims of circumstance. Go ahead. Prove
to me we have a choice when the market crashes.
When we analyze career choice, we have these
robust theoretical frameworks that explain how
and why people make decisions. I mentioned objective
factor theory, the rational assessment of benefits.
If job A pays more than job B, I take job A.
But we also have subjective factor theory, which
accounts for social and psychological factors
like status and reputation. And there's critical
contact theory, which I find particularly interesting.
Ah, I've heard of this. This is the first date
theory. In a way, yes. Critical contact theory
suggests that a candidate's observations while
interacting with the organization during the
hiring process play a vital role. How prompt
is the recruiter? Do they treat you with respect?
The theory posits that candidates project these
small interactions onto the entire company culture.
If the recruiter is rude, The candidate assumes
the company is toxic and walks away. This proves
active selection. The worker is evaluating the
employer just as much as the other way around.
That is a compelling argument. If, and it's a
massive if, you assume a balanced market. These
theories, objective, subjective, critical contact,
they all rely on a fundamental assumption that
candidates have the luxury of saying no. In reality,
strong competition for desirable jobs severely
skews that whole process. You can have all the
subjective factors you want, but if there's only
one offer on the table, you take it. Critical
contact theory falls apart when you have bills
to pay and only one callback. But is there only
one offer? Or is that a narrative of helplessness
we tell ourselves to excuse a lack of preparation?
Let's look at why people actually move. You talk
about rational choice. I'm looking at the right
management survey regarding reasons for career
changing. Do you know what the number one reason
was? It wasn't a rational assessment of benefits.
It wasn't because the recruiter was rude. It
was the downsizing or the restructuring of an
organization. 54 % of respondents cited that.
Over half. Over half. That is not a choice. That's
an eviction. The chariot driver didn't decide
to turn left. The road fell into the ocean. Okay.
I am familiar with that survey, but you are cherry
-picking the data a little bit to suit the narrative
of chaos. Yes, 54 % cited downsizing. But look
at the next line. The second highest reason at
30 % was new challenges or opportunities that
arise. That is literally the definition of upward
mobility and ambition. Furthermore, 21 % move
for the improvement of work -life balance, and
17 % for better alignment with personal values.
These are deeply intentional moves. Even if a
transition is forced by downsizing, the subsequent
move is often an exercise in resilience and strategic
realignment. Strategic realignment is a very
polite way of saying scrambling for safety. But
let's pivot to what we're actually scrambling
toward. You mentioned the linear model earlier
where success is verifiable. I think that definition
of success is another area where the old maps
fail us. You seem to think success is just a
number. I disagree. Success needs to be measurable
or it's meaningless. We have objective criteria
of success. Earnings, for example. Status. These
are factually verifiable. They're not matters
of opinion. and there's a direct correlation
between investment in oneself and these objective
outcomes. Research shows that adding one year
of schooling beyond high school increases wages
by 17 .8 % per worker. That's a hard number.
It proves that human capital, your qualifications,
directly converts into economic capital. The
system works if you feed it the right inputs.
I see why you think that. But let me give you
a different perspective on those numbers. Relying
on objective metrics like salary creates a trap.
Early career success, especially when it's tied
to earnings or rapid promotion, can breed disappointment
later. If a person's self -worth is all tied
up in their career or achievements, what happens
when the curve flattens? And it always flattens.
Which is why one continues to manage the career.
You reskill, you pivot. But the definition of
success itself is shifting away from your objective
metrics. Because the job for life is gone. The
responsibility has fallen on the individual,
yes. But that has led to an emphasis on subjective
criteria. Job satisfaction. A sense of personal
achievement. Work -life balance. These are the
new currencies. And they are highly relative.
Relative implies they aren't real. They are very
real to the person feeling them. A person's assessment
of their success is now influenced by social
comparisons. How well are my friends doing? How's
my cousin doing? It is not just about the paycheck
anymore. The economist Richard Florida talks
about the creative class. Their professional
identities are far more hybridized and fluid
than the rigid structures you're defending. They
value autonomy and creativity over the mere climb.
But even the creative class needs to eat. You
cannot pay rent with hybridized identity. You
can't tell the bank I have high subjective success
when the mortgage is due. No, but you can endure
a lower salary if the subjective rewards, the
autonomy, the lack of a toxic boss, are higher.
Let's talk about that preparation then. Because
if we're to accept your view that the world is
complex and fluid, surely that argues for more
rigorous preparation, not less. I champion career
education and career counseling. The DOTS framework
is a brilliant example of how we can structure
this. I always hear about DOTS. Break it down
for me. Sure. It stands for decision learning,
opportunity awareness, transition learning, and
self -awareness. It's a comprehensive method
taught in schools to help individuals understand
themselves and the market. Self -awareness helps
you know what you're good at. Opportunity awareness
helps you see where the jobs are. It is a logical
sequence to prepare a student for the race course.
DOTS is a nice acronym, but does it actually
deliver a return on investment? You cited that
17 .8 % wage increase for the first year of schooling
beyond high school. That's a great statistic
for a university brochure. But you conveniently
left out the other part of that data. Additional
years of schooling, specifically beyond 9 or
10 years, have little effect on workers' wages.
There's a point of diminishing returns. Well,
that depends entirely on the field and the quality
of the education. It also depends on the relevance
of the education. Higher education is often criticized
for being too narrow or too research -based.
It lacks the deep understanding needed for actual
careers. So we have a system where people take
on massive debt. The cost of education has to
be weighed against the career's ability to pay
it off. To enter a market that might not even
value the degree they just bought, that's not
a calculated climb. That is a bad gamble. It
is an investment, not a gamble. And like any
investment, it requires due diligence. This is
where career information comes in. Labor market
information, or LMI. Salaries, employment rates,
current openings. We have the data. If a student
chooses a degree with no ROI, that's a failure
of research, not a failure of the concept of
career management. You're placing a lot of blame
on the individual for systemic opacity. But let's
look at what happens when they're actually in
the workforce. We talked about downsizing, but
let's talk about the daily reality of just holding
a job. The reality is that people are constantly
looking for better, and I view that as a positive.
A survey from Time .com back in 2008 noted that
one out of three people currently employed spends
about an hour per day searching for another position.
Think about that. One hour a day. Every single
day. I don't see that as disloyalty or chaos.
I see that as career management in real time.
That's proactive ambition. They're scanning the
horizon for the next leg of the race. They are
optimizing. I'm not convinced by that line of
reasoning because it ignores the emotional driver
behind the search. People aren't spending an
hour a day on job boards because they're ambitious
managers of their destiny. They're doing it because
they're miserable. That's an assumption. It's
supported by the data. Go back to the right management
survey. Look at the other reasons people leave.
Poor or ineffective leadership was 25 percent.
Having a poor relationship with a manager, 22
percent. Lack of recognition, 21 percent. These
aren't strategic moves. These are escape attempts.
People are fleeing toxic environments. But they're
fleeing to something. They are fleeing to anything.
And this constant churn, this instability. is
why I argue the race course metaphor is broken.
If you're constantly jumping off the chariot
because the driver next to you is trying to run
you off the road, or because your wheel just
fell off, you aren't racing, you're surviving.
I think we need to synthesize this. You see survival,
I see the accumulation of career capital. Whether
a move is forced by a bad boss or chosen for
a higher salary, the individual takes something
with them. What do they take other than stress?
They take four specific things. We call it career
capital. First, social capital, their personal
contacts and networks. Second, human capital,
their skills and experiences. Third, economic
capital, money and resources. And fourth, cultural
capital, the know -how to operate in a social
context. This is the safety net. This is the
engine. Even in your chaotic world, the person
with the most career capital wins. Wins what?
That's the question. If the prize is just another
job that might be downsized in two years, is
that winning? The prize is sustainability. The
prize is options. Let's bring this to a close,
because I think we're circling the core philosophical
difference here. I maintain that while the race
course has undoubtedly become more complex, more
hazardous, and perhaps less clearly marked, the
principles of career management remain the most
reliable way to navigate it. Developing skills,
researching the labor market, accumulating capital,
these are the levers of control. The chariot
still requires a driver. If you take your hands
off the reins because you believe the track is
chaotic, you will crash. And I conclude that
we must abandon the linear view of success entirely.
The modern career is less about climbing a ladder,
where you're always looking up at the next rung,
and more about navigating a landscape. Downsizing
is more common than promotion for many demographics.
Success is now defined internally, not by the
organization. We need to focus on subjective
fulfillment and hybrid identities because the
external structures, the corporations, the ladders,
they just don't care about us. A somber thought,
but perhaps a liberating one for some. Indeed.
Ultimately, both of us can agree that the definition
of career has irrevocably expanded. It's no longer
just a single life work. It is a unique pattern
of experiences. A pattern we weave, even if we
don't always get to pick the colors. Precisely.
So we leave you, the listener, to consider. Are
you driving the chariot or are you just holding
on while the track changes beneath you? And is
it time to stop racing and start exploring? Thank
you for joining us on The Debate.