The Career Guidance Assessment IS NOT a Scientific Process for Choosing a career

Yes, there is a mystery: why does no one explain the foundations of the career guidance assessment? How do you know it's not based on astrology?

No, but don't read too fast! Take a moment to think, do you know what it's based on?

And what's inside it? The exact type of test? Well, like the ingredients in your favorite cake box, basically! But it's not explained anywhere. They don't want you to know, do you think?

They found a way to respond practically, economically, and quickly to your request, by distorting it into: "What jobs are you suited for?"

I thought it was very important to feel aligned in your job with your values.

One way to clarify this is to read what follows, then think for yourself and decide if you believe an assessment will allow you to be aligned...

And if this topic really matters to you, look for a career transition or skills assessment pro on LinkedIn, and ask them, under a post, or rather in a DM, they will feel less uncomfortable...

Then come back and compare with what I'm going to explain here... Based on easily verifiable facts if you take the trouble.

The basis of a career guidance assessment is the career test.

Let's define orientation: it's "Guiding... someone in choosing their future profession" according to Larousse.

The career test is constructed at best via the RIASEC model, at worst via the MBTI.

Let's talk only about the RIASEC, which is a personality stereotyper applied to the professional context, designed to help identify work environments corresponding to individuals' psychological types. It does not directly measure the ideal orientation for the individual, but rather makes an "estimate" of preferences in terms of work environment. The words and their order have meaning.

John L. Holland, an American psychologist, developed this model in the 1950s and 1960s to categorize the matches between personality and work environment.

His goal? To create a typology allowing individuals to better understand their relationship with work and to optimize their career choices according to their natural inclinations. His goal was to categorize job types according to individuals' psychological preferences, not to predict their academic success or engagement.

It was designed in an academic and research framework in work psychology. It was published in 1959 and then structured in the Self-Directed Search (SDS).

It is a self-assessment test...

Parenthesis, I repeat: self-assessment? Do you know how to self-assess? Not really, according to neuroscience. You are full of contradictions, emotional, then, you don't know yourself inside out (that's why you like personal development, right?) and you often overestimate or underestimate your qualities or skills. A self-assessment is inherently subjective, and moreover, in this context, there is no standard.

Would you say there is a "standard" personality for an artist? Someone who likes to create is not necessarily an "artist," they could be an entrepreneur or an engineer...

This self-assessment classifies individuals into six types:

• Realistic (R)
• Investigative (I)
• Artistic (A)
• Social (S)
• Enterprising (E)
• Conventional (C)

The problem? It's the application error. You don't put a bandage on a muscle tear. It won't be effective.

The RIASEC does not take into account transversal skills, nor motivation, nor the ability to evolve, nor values, nor alignment, nor many other things. It gives a trend on a preferred work environment, not a reliable projection of a desired academic or professional future linked to a concrete work activity. It does not "reveal" what you really want. It pigeonholes an individual into categories without considering the evolution of their interests or desires and without questioning them.

👉 Therefore, we can consider it a misuse of the test: what was a flawed typology tool is today used as a "scientifically validated" shortcut to define careers.

But it's an abuse, the RIASEC is not a "scientifically validated career test."

Studies validating the RIASEC show a correlation between RIASEC types and certain career choices. But no robust study proves that the RIASEC is a reliable tool for determining academic orientation.

It is validated in work psychology, but NOT as an orientation tool. 😊

It can provide food for thought, but it does not guarantee a good decision because it does not measure motivation, skills, adaptability, or your desires, and does not question them.

But the assessment pros will explain to you that it's scientific, and that above all, the important thing is the interview phase after the test, that's what changes everything ;)

In mathematics, when you make a mistake from the start, generally, what is the effect on the result?

Why do all these career guidance assessment sellers make you believe it's a scientific way to orient yourself?

Here is a detailed bibliography that supports the points previously mentioned regarding the RIASEC model and its use:

• Holland, J. L. (1959). "A Theory of Vocational Choice." Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6(1), 35-45.
• Holland, J. L. (1997). Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
• Walsh, W. B., & Osipow, S. H. (1995). Handbook of Vocational Psychology: Theory, Research, and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Gottfredson, G. D., & Johnstun, M. L. (2009). "John L. Holland's Contributions to Vocational Psychology: A Review and Evaluation." Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(1), 15-40.
• Careers NZ. "Holland's Theory."