Where I mix career information and career decision making in a test tube and see what happens

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Reduced Prospects for Young Saudis

Last week, The New York Times reported that young people in Saudi Arabia are having a tough time finding jobs. The Saudi government has long been a major employer of its citizens but now is forced to spend less lavishly as the price of oil declines. I had a foretaste of this situation 15 years ago, when I was doing research in the Kingdom.

In 1999, I was engaged by King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals to develop a computer-based system for career assessment and information. Eight years before, Saudi Arabia had financed the first Gulf War to the tune of $50 billion. But the Kingdom was not recouping its investment, because the price of oil had been on a generally downward slope ever since the end of that war, and in the previous year the inflation-adjusted price had reached an all-time low. Students at the technology-oriented college paid no tuition and were actually receiving stipends. Therefore, the government was eager to find a way to get students to declare a major that they could complete reasonably fast rather than change majors several times and delay graduation.

I drew on my experience as one of the developers of the SIGI PLUS system at Educational Testing Service in writing my proposal for the system.  Like SIGI PLUS, the Career Oasis system would use work-related values as one of the ways students could identify potentially suitable occupations. But it seemed likely that the SIGI PLUS set of work-related values, which had worked well with American and Australian students, might not be a good fit in the Kingdom. So, as part of the development plans, I included on-site research into the values of Saudi students.

With a committee of faculty and staff, I worked out a set of values to test, based mostly on the content model of O*NET, the career information database developed for the U.S. Department of Labor. For these values, the O*NET database provided ratings for hundreds of occupations. But we decided to add a value that might be important to people growing up in the conservative Islamic culture of the Kingdom. After some discussion we defined the value as “not being in situations that break with norms, customs, or traditions,” and eventually we settled on the name “Conventionality.”

I had a very lively discussion with the committee about whether, in the Saudi context, the value “Conventionality” occupied a conceptual space different from the O*NET-derived “Moral Values.” The latter was defined by O*NET as “not being pressured to do things that go against your sense of right and wrong.” Contributing to the controversy was the fact that the only Arabic words we could settle on to translate “right” and “wrong” were the religious terms “halal” and “haram.” In the end, we decided to let my research clarify whether students perceived a difference, and in fact they did give different levels of support to these two values. On questionnaires that asked the students to weight the importance of the values, they gave Moral Values considerably higher weightings than Conventionality.

What is particularly interesting, however, in light of last week’s Times article, is what the students’ highest-weighted values said about their career ambitions. I surveyed two types of students: those in the orientation year at the (all-male) university, and the children of faculty and staff in the (all-male) high school within the university compound. Here are the top 10 values of the high school students:

Rank
Value
Mean
Weight
Standard
Deviation
1
Social Status
4.8
1.0
2
Achievement
4.7
1.0
3
Advancement
4.6
0.9
4
High Income
4.6
0.8
5
Moral Values
4.5
1.2
6
Security
4.5
1.0
7
Co-workers
4.2
1.2
8
Creativity
4.1
1.3
9
Social Service
4.1
1.5
10
Conventionality
4.1
1.6


And here are the top 10 of the orientation-year college students:
Rank
Value
Mean
Weight
Standard
Deviation
1
Moral Values
4.6
0.9
2
Achievement
4.6
0.8
3
Social Status
4.6
0.9
4
Security
4.5
0.9
5
Creativity
4.4
0.9
6
Advancement
4.4
1.1
7
High Income
4.3
1.0
8
On-the-job Training
4.0
1.0
8
Working Conditions
4.0
1.4
10
Conventionality
3.9
1.3

What I concluded from these responses was that—apart from the fairly high ranking of Creativity for both groups—the job that seemed to best fit their preferences was the well-paid, not-very-demanding job of a government functionary. “All they want is a diploma and a job in government,” comments a political science professor at King Saud University quoted in Saudi Arabia: Its People, Past, Religion, Fault Lines--and Future, by Karen Elliott House (Vintage, 2012).

At the time, I had doubts about how well the students’ values could be satisfied by the opportunities available to them. Now, 15 years after I completed my research, one of the main points of the Times article is that although “70 percent of working Saudis are employed by the government,” this kind of job is now much less available to young people than it has been in the past. “With oil revenues crashing and the numbers of young people reaching the work force growing by the day, those jobs have become harder to get as the government cuts costs and pushes Saudis toward the private sector, where job security and salaries are lower on average.”

This economic trend raises troubling questions about the future stability of the Kingdom. Seventy percent of the population is under age 30, and 250,000 reach working age each year. Some workplace conventions are changing–it is now easier for women to enter the work force—but at the same time, it is questionable whether young people have developed a better work ethic than the older generation. As a result, some private-sector employers have resisted the government’s pressure to hire Saudis rather than guest workers.

The social contract that underpins the Kingdom is that the rule of the royal family will not be questioned so long as they enforce a very conservative strain of Islam and keep the citizenry economically secure. The Islamic State now holds out an example of a different model for an Islamic society, and the Kingdom now is draining its deep reserves of cash to prop up the economy. If the values of young Saudis increasingly go unfulfilled, what will become of this key American ally?

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

My Generic Career Decision-Making Advice

Every so often, I get an unsolicited e-mail from a total stranger, asking me for advice with career decision making.  Following is my response to such messages. If you know someone who is facing a career decision (maybe you), the following suggestions may be helpful:

Thank you for your interest in my work. I’m not a counselor, but I can recommend the exercise that I personally used 35+ years ago when I needed to make a career change. (The exercise is modified from one that was in What Color Is Your Parachute? in the late 1970s.) Set aside about an hour for this exercise.

On a piece of lined paper, draw three vertical lines to create three columns. In the leftmost column, list any role you have played that is at all like work. This can include academic programs and hobbies, because they involve some work tasks. In the middle column, list the major tasks for each role that you played. Put a star next to each task that you enjoyed and were good at. Then, in the rightmost column, try to identify the skills that were required for each starred task. You should start to see patterns emerging: skills that you’ll want to use in your work.

This list of skills may already suggest certain occupations that are worth investigating. But you may also want to visit http://www.myskillsmyfuture.org/. Although it asks you to enter an occupation name, it also works well if you enter the name of a skill. It will suggest occupations to explore. On the other hand, you may want to keep your options open and not narrow down your thinking to an occupation title. Perhaps there’s a niche job out there that isn’t listed in any reference book. I didn’t know there was such a thing as occupational information expert, but that’s what I became.

There are many excellent books and websites, such as the Occupational Outlook Handbook, for exploring occupations and for learning where the economy is growing. However, once you start getting a clearer idea of your goals, there is no substitute for speaking with actual working people. Ask them what a good day is like on the job and what a bad day is like. Ask them how they got into their field and what they would recommend for someone starting now. Ask them where their field is offering the best opportunities.

A lot of career advice also is available from education and training providers, but you must be wary of recruitment pitches, which may be deceptive. Working people can steer you toward the best entry routes and away from the programs that run up debt with little payoff.

If you are shy or introverted, it can be difficult to do the networking that I am suggesting, but you must force yourself to overcome your hesitation. Set a goal of x number of contacts per day. If you make it clear that you are only after information, not a job opening, people will usually be very open and helpful.

Good luck with your career decision making. I hope you’ll write back sometime in the future, when you have made some progress.

Cheers,
Laurence Shatkin, PhD

Thursday, January 14, 2016

This Year’s Biggest Changes in Outlook

Early last month, the Employment Projections office at the Department of Labor released its projections for the decade from 2014 to 2024. Later in the same month, the BLS released the text of the Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), which was based in part on those projections. Both of these resources are updated every two years, and I thought you’d be as interested as I am in seeing which occupations have the forecasts that are the most greatly revised from the previous update.

The economic models that BLS uses are not foolproof. Sometimes new data comes in that makes the economists at BLS realize they have significantly overestimated or underestimated the growth an occupation can expect. The outlook may change for many reasons, such as new developments in technology, international trade, consumer tastes, or the formulas Medicare uses in reimbursing health-care providers. For an understanding of what may have changed, I find it useful to look at the “Job Outlook” section text of the OOH statement (article) about an occupation, comparing the wording in the previous edition to the wording that appears there now. (You can make the same comparisons by looking at the previous OOH edition stored in the Wayback Machine site.) But often it’s hard to find a good explanation of what accounts for the revised forecast.

A useful example is Wind Turbine Technicians. This is the occupation with the greatest increase in its projected growth: from a formidable 24 percent growth projected for 2012–2022 to an amazing 108 percent projected for 2014–2024. However, the OOH outlook wording has changed very little between the previous edition’s statement and the current edition’s. The major difference is that only the previous edition has this wording: “In addition, the Renewable Electricity Standard calls for 25 percent of U.S. electric power generation to come from renewable sources by 2025, which should further drive employment growth.” Although the new edition doesn’t mention the Renewable Electricity Standard, presumably this commitment is continuing to drive growth, but it’s interesting to note that the number of states with this standard in place has not increased over the past three years—both then and now, it came to 29 states, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories. A change that may be more relevant to the revised forecast appears in the wording regarding offshore wind turbines. The current edition lacks a cautionary sentence that appears in the previous edition: “However, the high cost of building wind towers in the ocean may inhibit new offshore projects from being approved.” Still, I wonder whether the cost of building offshore turbines has fallen enough to make this sentence no longer necessary.

I don’t want to make too much of this apparent disconnect between the greatly changed numbers and the mostly unchanged prose. The outlook section notes that this is a very small occupation (in fact, employing only 4,400 workers in 2014), so the sextupling of projected new job openings, from 800 to 4,800, still does not represent a large number of new opportunities.

Something similar seems to have happened with another small occupation, Forensic Science Technicians. In the past two years, its ten-year job-growth projection has soared upward from 6 percent to 27 percent. However, the OOH outlook section has changed little from the previous edition. In fact, the main difference is that only the latest edition offers this advisory sentence: “Larger police departments will be more able to staff full-time forensic science technicians, but they, too, may face budget constraints.” Again, both editions note that this is a very small occupation (with 14,400 workers in 2014), so relatively small changes in the economy can cause a large change in outlook without actually creating a comparably large number of new jobs.

Not all the occupations with greatly changed forecasts were those with small workforces. For example, Personal Care Aides (1.8 million workers) had its growth projection cut almost by half: from 49 percent to 26 percent. Yet, again, the text of the OOH outlook section shows almost no revision, except for the removal of the word “companionship” (as one of the functions of the occupation) in two places and the removal of this paragraph: “Clients often prefer to be cared for in their own homes, rather than a home care facility or hospital. Studies have found that home treatment is frequently more effective than care in a nursing home or hospital.”

Another large occupation with a big change in forecast is Market Research Analysts, which was projected to grow by 32 percent for 2012–2022 but only by 19 percent for 2014–2024. In the wording of the OOH outlook section, there is one hint of a reason for this change. The following sentence was cut from the current OOH: “Rapid employment growth in most industries means good job opportunities should be available.” This deletion reflects the overall downward forecast for job growth: The projection for all occupations changed from 10.8 percent to 6.5 percent. I compared the old projections with the new ones and found a mean (unweighted) change of -5.5 percentage points.

Nevertheless, for occupations that had greatly changed forecasts, I would appreciate a better indication in the OOH outlook section of what factors have changed expectations.

Here is a list of the 20 OOH occupations that had the greatest revisions (either upward or downward) in their projections for job growth.

Occupation
Projection for 
Job Growth
(Percent)
2012–
2022
2014–
2024
Wind Turbine Technicians
24.5
108
Diagnostic Medical Sonographers 
and Cardiovascular Technologists 
and Technicians, Including Vascular 
Technologists
38.8
0.2
Market Research Analysts
31.6
0.2
Nurse Anesthetists, Nurse Midwives, 
and Nurse Practitioners
31.4
0.3
Geographers
29
-1.6
Mental Health Counselors and 
Marriage and Family Therapists
29.1
0.2
Skincare Specialists
39.8
12.1
Insulation Workers
37.6
13.3
Medical Equipment Repairers
30.3
6.1
Political Scientists
21.3
-2.3
Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners
33.2
9.9
Personal Care Aides
48.8
25.9
Software Developers
21.9
0.2
Health Educators and Community 
Health Workers
21.5
0.1
Surveying and Mapping Technicians
13.5
-7.6
Radiologic and MRI Technologists
21.2
0.1
Pest Control Workers
19.7
-1.2
Forensic Science Technicians
5.8
26.6
Nursing Assistants and Orderlies
20.9
0.2
Bill and Account Collectors
14.7
-5.6

Thursday, January 7, 2016

Winners and Losers in the New Occupational Outlook Handbook


This week I sent in the manuscript of the 2016–2017 edition of the Occupational Outlook Handbook for JIST Career Solutions. Before you can lay your hands on it, the book still needs to go through editing, page layout, printing, and distribution—unless you’re content to peruse it on the website of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (Note that the online version lacks some bonus chapters that are available exclusively from JIST.)

Now that I’ve had a chance to look at the contents in detail, I thought it would be interesting to observe the differences between this edition and the one of two years ago. These differences provide insights into important changes in our economy.

One important change is the selection of occupations to be profiled in the OOH. The book has never tried to cover in full detail every occupation in the workforce. Occupations are excluded (apart from a table with a handful of facts) when they have very few workers. So, for example, you will not find a profile of Hearing Aid Specialists, even though it is projected to grow by an impressive 27 percent, because it employs only about 5,900 workers. In some cases, two or more relatively small occupations are lumped together under a single umbrella term. For example, the OOH profile on Police and Detectives actually covers four law-enforcement occupations: Detectives and Criminal Investigators; Fish and Game Wardens; Police and Sheriff’s Patrol Officers; and Transit and Railroad Police.

Therefore, if an occupation gets dropped between one edition and the next, you could reasonably assume that the occupation has shrunk—or is expected to shrink—to the point where it is not significant in the economy.

But some instances surprised me. Among the occupations that have been dropped from the new edition is Printing Workers. This occupation employed 276,000 workers in 2012. By 2014 it had shrunk to 260,700 workers, and it is projected to employ only 223,100 in 2024—but that is still a very large number. Compare that to Podiatrists, which employs only 9,600 in 2004 and is projected to reach only 11,000 by 2024.

Even more surprising was the omission of Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners. This occupation has a huge workforce: 1,457,700 employed in 2014, with 1,569,400 projected for 2024. I think possibly this occupation was dropped because it is associated with one sex only. It might have been lumped together with Janitors in the profile called Janitors and Building Cleaners—but it wasn’t.

Some blue-collar occupations that occupied their own profiles in the previous edition are now lumped together into a single profile. For example, Cement Masons and Terrazzo Workers got lumped together with Brickmasons, Blockmasons, and Stonemasons under the title Masonry Workers. It’s easier to create these big-tent occupations when the work tasks and preparation routes for the component specializations are reasonably similar.

Conversely, some occupations have broken free of a partnership in the previous edition and now have separate profiles of their own. This happened to Athletic Trainers and Exercise Physiologists; Human Resources Specialists and Labor Relations Specialists; and Purchasing Managers, Buyers, and Purchasing Agents. The last of these has been split at the first comma, and it makes sense to separate out the managerial specialization and move it alongside other managerial occupations (such as Sales Managers).

No completely new occupations were added to the current edition in the way that Solar Photovoltaic Installers and Wind Turbine Technicians were added in 2014. Will we see Drone Pilot or Genome Editor in the 2018 edition?

In my next blog, I’ll discuss how the outlook has changed for certain occupations.