Career Inclination of University Students in Taiwan Gregory S. Ching1, a and Pei-Ching Chao 2, b 1 Fu Jen Catholic University, Graduate School of Educational Leadership and Development, Xinzhuang District, New Taipei City 24205, Taiwan 2 National Cheng-Chi University, Department of Education, Wenshan District, Taipei City 11605, Taiwan a [email protected]; [email protected], [email protected] Keywords: career assessment, employability, personality, behavior, competence, EFL students Abstract. Current changes in the business industry have forced job markets to become even more stringent in their employee selection. Such processes are already quite visible even within the universities. With this in mind, this study is focused on understanding university students’ career potentials. Using the Career Anchor Assessment Inventory, the study aims to look into the how and why students are geared towards certain career development. In addition, this study also uses the Big Five Personality Inventory to determine the participants’ personality and compared them to their career inclination. A total of 132 volunteer participants from the English as Foreign Language (EFL) course program are surveyed. Statistical analysis shows that most students scored highest with respect to their Managerial Competence dimension. While the dimension Autonomy as the lowest. Furthermore, there seems to be no gender differences among their personality and career assessment factors. However, there are positive implications brought about by participants who have current or previous working experiences. In sum, the career anchor assessment is able to serve as an eye opener for both teachers and students on the factors that influence future employment opportunities. Implications suggest that additional counseling is needed to provide further guidance, which ultimately help the students’ future career development. 1. Introduction With the current hard economic times, both parents and educators are much concern on the students’ future career. With the transformation in our society and economic spheres occurring in a very fast; jobs are getting harder and harder to come by. Job applicants need to prepare themselves and become competitive. Most studies have shown that a persons’ career is mostly focused on outside motivators such as organizational dimensions and monetary incentives [1]. However within a school setting, educators are focused more on the internal career development. It is hypothesized that it is quite important to match a persons’ career orientations (or inclination) with their future occupation. In Taiwan, educators are also very much focused on the students’ future employability. Being able to work in a competitive environment signifies that a person should be able to adapt with situations that are equally complex. The industry and society has started to place strong emphasis in an individual’s job fit. In other words, an individual should be able to perform and work adequately in an occupation. The role of higher education institutions now is to supply the appropriate workforce. For school administrators and teachers, the goal of satisfying both the industry and the society is quite important; hence, students must be trained and exposed early in their college years so as to adjust well in their future career. In light of these issues, this case study summarizes the findings of a project involved in the understanding of the students’ career inclinations. More specifically, this study uses Schein [2] 72 Career Anchor Assessments Inventory to understand what career tendencies students possess. In addition, this study also uses the Big Five Personality Inventory to determine the participants’ personality and compares them to their career inclination. 2. Career Anchor Assessment Career Anchor Assessments is developed by Edgar Schein [2]; an organizational psychologist and professor. Schein [2] suggests that there are two ways of looking into careers; internal and external. External careers refer to the actual steps that are required by a job to progress through that occupation. While internal career is said to have come from a person’s self-image of one’s competencies, motives, and values [2]. As early as 1978, career anchor has been defined as the description of group of self-perceived attitudes, values, needs and talents that develops over time, and which when developed, outlines and guides career selections and directions [3]. With this in mind, one can say that career anchor assessment is picturing one’s internal career. Career anchors is said to influence an individuals’ career choices. In addition, career anchors affects the an employees’ decisions to move from one job to another, determines what an employee inspired for, and influences the selection of specific occupations and work settings, which affects their reactions to work experiences [4]. Ultimately, when career anchors are properly used; work motivation increases. Hence, gradually defines an individuals’ career success. Schein [5] pointed out that all people develop some kind of picture of their work life and their own role in it. Schein [2-4] provided a total of eight distinct categories for his Career Anchor Assessments. These are Technical/Functional Competence (TF), General Managerial Competence (GM), Autonomy/Independence (AU), Security/Stability (SE), Entrepreneurial Creativity (EC), Service/Dedication to a Cause (SV), Pure Challenge (CH), and Lifestyle (LS). The following are the description of the eight categories [2]: Technical/Functional Competence (TF) is associated with the motivation for the challenge of a technical field, functional area, or content of the work (excluding the managerial process). General Managerial Competence (GM) represents the need to be competent in the activities associated with management. Such as problem analysis skills, emotional stability, and interpersonal competence. Autonomy/Independence (AU) encompasses an individuals’ need to be free of constraint to pursue their professional and/or technical competence. Security/Stability (SE) means the desire to work in an organization that provides long-run stability, good benefits, and basic job security. Entrepreneurial Creativity (EC) means the need to create something, or the need to participate in new projects. Service/Dedication to a Cause (SV) is concern with helping others and seeing changes that reflects from previous efforts. Pure Challenge (CH) demonstrates the general contention with regards to the value of competition and challenge as essential ingredients of success. Lifestyle (LS) recognizes the way people value the importance of balancing work and family responsibilities. Several studies have used the Career Anchor Assessments Inventory (CAAI) as a tool in analyzing career developments. Within the business arena, several studies have shown that both corporate managers and consultants scored quite high in the dimension Managerial Competence, Technical/Functional Competence, Pure Challenge, and Autonomy [6, 7]. While, Autonomy, Pure Challenge, and Service/Dedication to a Cause are found to be high within officers of the law [8]. Furthermore, Service/Dedication to a Cause are found to be the most prominent for educators [9]. While, Pure Challenge and Entrepreneurial Creativity for dentists [10]. In essence, to fully understand an individuals’ career anchor, studies should look into the greater details of each anchor and how people with different anchors differ from one another. 73 Several studies were seen with regards to personality and an individuals’ career. Larson and her associates [11] in a meta-analyses of 12 studies with 24 sampled data; mentioned that there is a link between an individuals’ interest and personality. For instance an individual who is an entrepreneur (Enterprising-type interest) tends to be more extraverted (Extraversion), while an artist (Artistic-type interest) would more likely to be more open to experiences (Openness). Within a recent study, Sheare [12] survey a total of 82 university students. Adapting the multiple intelligences inventory and career details; results show that students who have low intrapersonal intelligence scores possess moderate to high levels of career confusions. Furthermore, results also show that intrapersonal intelligence is highly related to future career planning and decision making. In summary, career anchor assessments simply helps an individual effectively manage their own career. An analysis of one’s career will undoubtedly makes one more conscious of their future work (employment) choices that are being made. In essence, better understanding of oneself is the key to successful work integration. 3. Methodology A total of 132 volunteer English as Foreign Language (EFL) students of a science and technology university in Taiwan participated in the study. Among the participants there are 103 or 78% female students and 29 or 22% male students. There average age is around 27 years old. The high average age is due to the diverse nature of participants. Within the 132 participants, there are 35 or 26.50% freshmen (1st year), 53 or 40.20% junior (3rd year), and 44 or 33.30% senior (4th year) students. With regards to the students study program, the participants are composed of 59 or 44.70% from the morning (regular classes) session, 23 or 17.40% from the evening session, and 50 or 37.90% from the weekend (extension education) session. In addition, 92 or 69.70% of the participants are already working, while only 13 or 9.80% are living in the campus dorm. The current study is accomplished during the 2012 to 2013 school year. After the literature review and formation of the survey questionnaire, the survey was administered to 150 students with an effective return of 132 participants. For the survey validity, the overall Cronbach Alpha reliability is computed to be at .893, which is considered highly reliable [13]. Table 1 shows the various alpha reliabilities of the various CAAI factors ranging from .752 to .909. Table 1. Alpha reliability for the Modified Career Anchor assessment dimensions (N=132) Dimension Cronbach Alpha Technical/Functional Competence (TF) .752 General Managerial Competence (GM) .871 Autonomy/Independence (AU) .846 Service/Dedication to a Cause (SV) .909 Lifestyle Integration (LS) .883 Entrepreneurial Creativity (EC) .845 Pure Challenge (CH) .789 Organizational Stability (OS) .879 Geographical Security (GS) .816 4. Results and discussions This study is focus on the understanding of the students’ career potentials in a science and technology university in Taiwan. Using the Career Anchor Assessment Inventory, the study aims to look into the how and why students are geared towards certain career development. In addition, this study also uses the Big Five Personality Inventory to determine the participants’ personality and compares them to their career inclination. Results are presented into three sections: 1.) the career anchor assessment dimensions of the students; 2.) factors that influence the students’ career anchor dimensions; and 3) the relationship between the students’ personality and their career anchor dimensions. 74 4.1 The career anchor assessment dimensions of the students The data collected from the 132 participants is analyzed using the statistical software SPSS. Results in table 2 show that among the career anchor assessment dimensions, the highest is General Managerial Competence (GM) with a mean of 4.09. The results implied that EFL students are quite suitable for managerial positions. However, besides GM, students also ranked quite high with regards to Pure Challenge (CH) and Technical/Functional Competence (TF). Table 2. Participants’ Career Anchor Assessments scores (N=132) Career Anchor General Managerial Competence (GM) Technical/Functional Competence (TF) Autonomy/Independence (AU) Organizational Stability (OS) Geographic Security (GS) Service/Dedication to a Cause (SV) Lifestyle Integration (LS) Entrepreneurial Creativity (EC) Pure Challenge (CH) Note. 1Highest mean score. Minimum 1.60 1.80 1.20 2.00 1.33 1.80 2.00 1.60 1.80 Maximum 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 Mean 4.091 3.79 3.06 3.50 3.10 3.38 3.49 3.33 3.83 SD 0.71 0.69 0.78 0.93 0.83 0.89 0.81 0.79 0.76 For the various career anchor dimensions, at a glance, the highest dimension is General Managerial Competence (as mentioned earlier) with a mean of 4.09. However, if further comparison is accomplished on each of the items provided. The participants scored highest on the item “To build my career around some specific functional or technical area” with a mean of 4.16. Such results suggest that participants are very much interested in building their expertise on a specific field. As for the EFL students, learning and becoming an expert in a certain foreign language would be that goal. In order to further analyze the background demography of the participants, the Big Five Personality Inventory is used to gather the participants’ characteristics and traits. Table 3 summarizes the results of the personality analysis. Results suggest that most EFL students are able to relate better with the personality trait Openness. This would suggest that the students are willing to take on new challenges and or to try on new experiences. Table 3. Participants’ Big Five Personality scores (N=132) Personality Extroversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Note. 1Highest mean score. Minimum 10 14 1 5 15 Maximum 36 40 39 33 45 Mean 23.98 27.66 25.59 20.35 29.821 SD 4.79 4.34 4.99 4.63 5.86 Further analyzing the data shows that female participants scored higher in Extroversion and Neuroticism; suggesting that they are both sociable and emotional than their male counterparts. For the male participants, they scored higher in the traits Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness. With respect to the students program of study, regular class (morning session) students tend to be more emotional than the rest of the participants. While, the evening session students shows much potential in their Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness. With respect to year level, year 1 students scored highest in Neuroticism, while the senior students scored highest on the rest of the different personality traits. These results suggest that personality is somewhat related to a persons’ age. Further analysis in the following sections shall provide an even deeper explanation among the correlations of the career dimensions and personality (please see table 4). 75 Table 4. Participants’ year level and their Big Five Personality scores (N=132) Items Freshmen (n=35) Extroversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Junior (n=53) Extroversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Senior (n=44) Extroversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness Note. 1Highest mean score. Minimum Maximum Mean SD 15 18 15 12 16 35 40 33 30 44 23.54 27.66 24.51 21.661 29.37 4.54 4.41 4.05 4.25 6.19 10 14 18 13 15 36 38 39 33 43 23.04 27.17 25.70 21.15 29.25 5.08 4.70 4.77 4.59 6.49 15 17 1 5 24 34 39 39 27 45 25.451 28.251 26.321 18.34 30.861 4.33 3.82 5.83 4.38 4.66 4.2 The factors that influence the students’ career anchor dimensions To understand more deeply the factors that influence the students’ career anchor dimensions statistical analysis are accomplished. Independent sample T-test results show that there are no significant differences between the participants’ gender and their career anchor dimensions. Similarly, there are also no significant differences between the participants’ gender and their personalities. However, the independent sample T-test results does show significant difference in participants who are working. Results show that there exists a significant difference in the personality factor extroversion for students’ who are either working (M=24.72, SD=4.81) or not (M=22.28, SD=4.33) with t(130)=2.76, p=.007. Furthermore, significant difference is also found on the participants’ career anchor factor Pure Challenge for students’ who are either working (M=3.61, SD=0.91) or not (M=3.93, SD=0.66) with t(130)=2.02, p=.048. 4.3 The relationship between the students’ personality and their career anchor dimensions To determine the various relationships among the students’ personality and their career anchor dimensions, correlation analysis was accomplished using the statistical software SPSS. Results show that Technical/Functional Competence (TF) is correlated with General Managerial Competence (GM) with 0.480 (p<.000). This suggests that when the value for TF increases, GM also increases. Further analysis of the correlations of the career anchor dimensions, data shows that within these factors they are quite positively correlated to each other. This can be explained as since these are all internal traits, it is the matter of which characteristics is the strongest. Looking into the relationship among the personalities and career anchor dimensions, results show that extraversion is correlated positively with all of the dimensions. This suggest that EFL students are quite extrovert and there career inclination are much focused on their being able to express themselves. Furthermore, Openness is positively correlated with Entrepreneurial Creativity (EC) with 0.245 (p<.005) and Pure Challenge (CH) with 2.64 (p<.002). These results suggest that EFL students are quite into having their own business. They perceived these as a challenge. An added finding is that the personality neuroticism is negatively correlated with the participants’ age and year level of study. These show that as the student mature they become less emotional. 76 5. Summary The current study exemplifies the use of the Career Anchor Assessment Inventory and Big Five Personality Inventory to understand EFL students’ career inclination in Taiwan. This case study, though limited to the sample coming from a science and technology university, shows that EFL students are more geared towards challenges. They possess the creativeness in preparation for becoming an entrepreneur. Results also show that there are no significant gender differences among the career anchors, while some minor difference are found on the participants’ who are already working. In sum, an individuals’ career would be successful if their competencies (including career inclination) are provided early in their university education. In this way, students would be able to adjust their course selections and even their internship directions, hence, effectively preparing for their future career. Acknowledgements This work is supported in part by the Taiwan National Science Council under grant number NSC 102-2410-H-262-012-SS2. References [1] M. B. Arthur, S. N. Khapova, and C. P. M. Wilderom, Career success in a boundaryless career world, Journal of Organizational Behavior, vol. 26, pp. 177-202, 2005. [2] E. H. Schein, Career anchors: Participant workbook, 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer, 2006. [3] E. H. Schein, Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1978. [4] E. H. Schein, Career anchors: Discovering your real values. San Diego, CA: University Associates, 1985. [5] E. H. Schein, Career anchors: Discovering your real values, Revised ed. Sydney: Pfeiffer and company, 1993. [6] R. J. Burke, Career orientations of Type A individuals, Psychological Reports, vol. 53, pp. 979-989, 1983. [7] M. R. Applin, A study of the careers of management consultants, Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1982. [8] R. J. Burke and G. Deszca, Changes in career orientations in police officers: An exploratory study, Psychological Reports, vol. 61, pp. 515-526, 1987. [9] T. J. DeLong, Career orientations of rural educators: An investigation, The Rural Educator, vol. 4, pp. 12-16, 1982. [10] T. J. DeLong, Dentists and career satisfaction: An empirical view, Journal of Dentistry for Children, vol. May-June, pp. 179-185, 1983. [11] L. M. Larson, P. J. Rottinghaus, and F. H. Borgen, Meta-analyses of big six interests and big five personality factors, Journal of Vocational Behavior, vol. 61, pp. 217-239, 2002. [12] C. B. Sheare, Exploring the relationship between intrapersonal intelligence and university students' career confusion: Implications for counseling, academic success, and school-to-career transition, Journal of Employment Counselling, vol. 46, pp. 52-61, 2009. [13] L. Cohen, L. Manion, and K. Morrison, Research methods in education. New York: Routledge, 2007. 77
© Copyright 2025 ExpyDoc