a function-centered model of interest assessment for business careers

A Function-Centered Model of InterestAssessment for Business Careers

Timothy ButlerHarvard University

James WaldroopPeregrine Partners

The authors argue that an effective way to describe the manifestation of interestpatterns within a particular work domain is through a nuanced description ofinterests in terms of the essential functional activities common to that domain.Focusing on the domain of business work and studying a large sample of businessprofessionals over a 15-year period, the authors derived an eight-factor businesscore function model representing the way interest patterns are manifested in actu-al business work. This model is the basis for a business interest assessment instru-ment, the Business Career Interest Inventory (BCII), which has been used bymore than 75,000 business professionals and business students and has becomethe career interest assessment tool of choice at more than 200 of the leading busi-ness schools around the world. This article describes the rationale for the corefunction model and presents basic psychometric information on the BCII.

Keywords: psychometric method, interest assessment, business careerassessment, function-centered model

The definition of interests as essentially purposive activity has been describedas a functionalist approach, and Savickas (1999) traced the championing of thisposition to Dewey (1913), Thorndike (1935), Kitson (1925), and Strong (1943).The functionalist approach provides the background for the authors’ utilizationof a function-centered model of interest assessment in the realm of businesscareers. A function-centered model would suggest that for the career decisionmaker, it is the activities that comprise a specific work role opportunity that havemeaning in terms of a choice as to whether or not taking a particular employ-ment opportunity is in the best interests of his or her career development. Theconstruct of work role opportunity is deliberately chosen over the more tradition-al construct of job. Similar to environment, a job is in fact a rather abstract con-struct composed of clusters of activities that may change substantially over evenshorter periods of time. In this sense, a job is often confused in the minds ofcareer decision makers and researchers alike with a position title. An individual

DOI = 10.1177/1069072703261545DOCTYPE = ARTICLE

JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT, Vol. 12 No. 3, August 2004 270–284DOI: 10.1177/1069072703261545© 2004 Sage Publications

270

Butler, Waldroop / A MODEL OF INTEREST ASSESSMENT 271

hired as, let us say, an assistant brand manager in a consumer product companymay retain the same title and job but be engaged in substantially different activ-ities after being in the position for a year.

The intent of the function-centered model is to portray the congruence thatexists between the emerging interest patterns of an individual and the salientactivities that characterize those patterns as they are expressed in a particularwork role opportunity. This congruence is expressed in terms of core work func-tions common to a specific vocational domain. For more than 15 years, theauthors have been studying the core functions for the business domain. Based onan analysis of interviews and a battery of psychological inventories given to morethan 650 business professionals over a 10-year period of time and working withan expanding database that now includes testing data on more than 75,000 busi-ness professionals and business students, they have developed a working modelof eight business core functions.

These core functions are defined briefly in Table 1. Each of these dimensionsexpresses a basic interest theme expressed in terms of its functional manifestationin the business domain. For example, the quantitative analysis dimension repre-sents the interests in pragmatic numerical reasoning and analysis as they areexpressed in the business activities such as data analysis, computer modeling,company valuation, budget forecasting, and so on. An individual’s score on ameasure of the quantitative analysis dimension is thus simultaneously a measureof an underlying, general (i.e., not related exclusively to one vocational domain)interest theme and a measure of the expression of this theme in activities partic-ular to the business domain.

Table 1Business Core Function Definitions

Application of technology: the general use of technology to accomplish business objectives; theuse of engineering-like analysis to solve business problems

Quantitative analysis: business problem solving that relies on mathematical analysis and in partic-ular financial analysis

Theory development and conceptual thinking: activities involving broadly conceptual approach-es to business problems

Creative production: the broad exercise of imagination in the early phase of a business project,such as creating an idea, product, or strategy where none existed before

Counseling and mentoring: developing relationships as an integral part of business work, such ascoaching, training, mentoring, and customer relationships

Managing people and relationships: working directly and consistently with groups of people inthe roles of manager, director, or supervisor

Enterprise control: exercising ultimate strategic and decision-making authority for complete operations

Influence through language and ideas: exercising influence through the skillful use of writtenand spoken language; using the acquisition of information and persuasion to affect busi-ness decisions

272 JOURNAL OF CAREER ASSESSMENT / August 2004

Characteristic core function patterns may be expected to emerge in specificcareer paths due to the fact that certain paths offer greater opportunity for theexpression of some core functions and less of an opportunity for the expression ofothers. This is consistent with Holland’s (1973) view that specific work environ-ments reflect the personalities and interests of the people that choose to work inthose environments. Figure 1 represents the mean business core function profilesfor samples of business professionals in investment banking, human resourcesmanagement, sales and sales management, and production and operations man-agement who report significant satisfaction with those career areas. In the invest-ment banking sample, quantitative analysis and enterprise control are dominantwhile managing people and relationships and application of technology have lowmean scores. A strong contrast is found in the human resource management sam-ple where counseling and mentoring and managing people and relationships are

45

51

T Score

AT QA TD CP CS MP EC IN

Production and Operations N= 133

45

51

57

T Score

AT QA TD CP CS MP EC INBusiness Core Function

Human Resources Management/Corporate TrainingN=283

Business Core Function

45

52

59


Investment BankingN=249

45

51

T Score


Sales and Sales ManagementN=304

Figure 1. Relative mean business core function profiles for professionals from four business careerroles who report satisfaction with role choice.Note. AT = application of technology, QA = quantitative analysis, TD = theory development andconceptual thinking, CP = creative production, CS = counseling and mentoring, MP = manag-ing people and relationships, EC = enterprise control, IN = influence through language andideas. Scale scores are T scores based on a general business sample (N = 8,600). The first refer-ence line is the mean of all business core functions for each sample group.


the dominant core functions and quantitative analysis has a very low mean score.The representation of career interest information in this fashion portrays the dif-ferences between these career areas in terms of the functional activities that areactually valued and pursued by individuals who derive satisfaction from that par-ticular career area. The authors have developed the Business Career InterestInventory (BCII) to measure an individual’s strength of interest in the eight busi-ness core functions.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE BCII

Model Building

Over a period of 12 years, the authors collected a database of a broad range ofstandard psychological testing and interview data on a group of business profes-sionals from a wide range of functions and industries. The individuals in thissample included clients from a large executive outplacement firm, business pro-fessionals in career transition seeking assessment assistance from the authors, andexecutives from the authors’ organizational development work. At later stages inthe research, data were also collected from employees of a large multinationalcorporation participating in a pilot study with the BCII and from the readers of aleading business professional journal. The final general business sample (N ≈14,400) used for BCII normative purposes was composed of individuals estab-lished in their careers (mean age = 38) from a broad spectrum of industries andfunctions. The sample was approximately two thirds men and one third women;gender-specific norms were developed. In the 8 years of research since the initialscale development, the database has grown to more than 75,000 business profes-sionals, including business professionals from corporations using the assessment,MBA students from more than 200 MBA programs, and individuals using theinstrument for personal career development.

Testing and interview data were examined in the light of the authors’ extensiveclinical experience in the business realm in an attempt to determine meaningfulclusters of business core functions or fundamental activities of business work thatallowed for expression of underlying interest patterns. The goal was to create aparsimonious model of business core functions that would represent the bedrockof business work activities. John Holland’s (1973) model of career interest themeswas a guiding heuristic in the investigation. It became clear that althoughHolland’s theory was comprehensive for careers broadly, it did not provide thelevel of detail or nuance for describing the subtleties of the full array of businessactivities. Neither was the standard taxonomy of business functions (sales, mar-keting, corporate finance, banking, production and operations, advertising, com-munications and public relations, human resources, etc.) adequate to describe


basic business activities that were observed to exist across these standard func-tional categories. For example, a definite pattern of elevation in scores thatincluded elements of both Holland’s artistic and enterprising themes was foundamong individuals who enjoyed roles in functions as diverse as public relations,business development, marketing, and deal-intensive financial services. Thisdiscrete pattern of scores became the basis for the influence through lan-guage and ideas business core function. Individuals who score high on thisdimension enjoy positions of influence “at the boundary” of business organiza-tions where interaction with customers or other organizations offers a “high inter-personal transaction” role, regardless of their job title according to standard busi-ness nomenclature.

The goal was to produce a model that would account for all observed business-specific activity clusters that would also be comprehensive in that it addressed allbusiness-relevant themes suggested by Holland’s (1973) global model. It isinformative to compare Holland’s six occupational themes with the eight busi-ness core functions that emerged from the model building. A direct analog isapparent in the business core function of creative production and Holland’s artis-tic theme, but three of the business core functions (applied technology, quanti-tative analysis and theory development, and conceptual thinking) would be the-oretically subsumed as business-specific regions within Holland’s investigativetheme. The counseling and mentoring business core function would be expect-ed to have (and subsequently was found to have) a significant correlation withHolland’s social theme but represents a business-specific subrange of the interestscovered by that theme.

Managing people and relationships, if mapped onto the Holland (1973)model, would straddle the border between the social and enterprising themesand once again represent a business-specific manifestation of interests commonto that region. Enterprise control, although having a significant correlation withmeasures of Holland’s enterprising theme, represents not an interest in businessendeavors generally but rather specific interests in strategic decision making andcontrol of operations. The influence through language and ideas business corefunction, as mentioned earlier, contains elements from the enterprising, artistic,and social themes of Holland’s model. Elements of a subregion of Holland’srealistic theme associated with action-oriented direct management (e.g., militaryofficers) were also represented in the managing people and relationships corefunction, but otherwise the realistic and conventional themes are not uniquelyrepresented in this core function paradigm that is defined as a model of profes-sional business careers. A number of the core functions have significant correla-tions with these two Holland themes as business is generally an action-orientedand highly pragmatic field. The actual correlations between the eight BCII busi-ness core functions and Holland’s themes, as measured by the GeneralOccupational Theme Scale scores from the Strong Interest Inventory are report-ed in Table 2.

Tabl

e 2

Cor

rela

tions

of t

he B

usin

ess

Car

eer

Inte

rest

Inv

ento

ry (B

CII

) Cor

e B

usin

ess

Fun

ctio

nsW

ith th

e G

ener

al O

ccup

atio

nal T

hem

es o

f the

Str

ong

Inte

rest

Inv

ento

ry (N

= 21

3)

Rea

listic

Inve

stig

ativ

eA

rtis

ticSo

cial

Ent

erpr

isin

gC

onve

ntio

nal

Appl

icat

ion

of te

chno

logy

.68*

.56*

.07

.11

.07

.43*

Qua

ntita

tive

anal

ysis

.28*

.30*

–.02

.08

.25*

.50*

The

ory

deve

lopm

ent a

nd c

once

ptua

l thi

nkin

g.3

7*.6

0*.3

2*.2

6*.0

5.2

8*C

reat

ive

prod

uctio

n.2

2*.2

6*.7

4*.1

5.0

9.0

4C

ouns

elin

g an

d m

ento

ring

.08

.14

.17

.63*

.31*

.25*

Man

agin

g pe

ople

.23*

–.07

–.04

.40*

.27*

.08

Ent

erpr

ise c

ontro

l.3

9*.1

6–.

08.1

5.3

2*.1

1In

fluen

ce th

roug

h la

ngua

ge a

nd id

eas

.08

.06

.27*

.34*

.38*

.12

Not

e.C

orre

latio

ns s

igni

fican

t at t

he p

< .0

1 le

vel a

re in

dica

ted

by a

n as

teri

sk.

275


Item Selection and Scale Construction

The authors, drawing on their experience as business consultants and psy-chologists at a business school, interviewed more than 2,000 business profession-als and MBA students over a 12-year period and developed a range of items thatrepresented the full range of activities that occur in business organizations. Thestandard taxonomy of business functions mentioned earlier (sales, marketing,corporate finance, banking, production and operations, advertising, communica-tions and public relations, human resources, etc.) was used heuristically to cre-ate a general frame for item generation. Within each functional area, items werewritten that would cover the functional activities typically found in larger corpo-rate settings and smaller, less typical, and entrepreneurial environments. To thesebusiness activity items were added general items not related to specific businessactivities that would represent a range of general, underlying interests expressedin nonbusiness arenas. This was done to provide a base of less transparent itemsand to provide for items that would fill any holes in the initial theoretical map-ping of the business activity domains. The 280 items were classified and pre-sented in the following four groupings: occupations, subjects for study, personal-ity attributes, and work activities. Some sample items are provided in Table 3.Each item required a response on a 4-interval (0 through 3) scale, with eachinterval labeled appropriately for the particular section of the inventory (e.g., forthe activities section, the intervals were labeled as follows: 0 = I would not likethis activity, 1 = I would like this activity somewhat, 2 = I would like this activity,and 3 = I would very much like this activity).

Scales were constructed by identifying an initial core scale composed of itemswith high face validity to the identified business core function. Correlationalanalyses then identified more subtle items, including both business-specific andnonbusiness items, with high correlations to the initial core scales. These itempools were then reduced to (a) maximize internal consistency and (b) decreaseinterscale correlation. Factor analysis of the entire item pool was used to bothcheck for validity of the overall model and in the case of two scales (enterprisecontrol and managing people and relationships) to further refine item content ofthe scales. Factor analysis was able to further differentiate the constructs of thesetwo scales, and items were identified that enhanced this differentiation. Theresulting scales contained from 19 (quantitative analysis) to 52 (managing peo-ple and relationships) items.

Reliability

Measures of internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) for the eight businesscore function scales are reported in Table 4. Measures of scale stability interms of test-retest correlation coefficients over a 6-month period are reported inTable 5.


Validity

Construct Validity

Convergent and discriminant validation. Extensive studies of predicted corre-lations with scales measuring interest patterns in thematically related areas ongeneral career interest surveys were highly confirmatory of the business corefunction constructs. Examples of the highest positive and negative correlationsbetween the business core function scales and thematically related scales on theStrong Interest Inventory (Campbell, 1971; Harmon, Hansen, Borgen, &

Table 3Business Career Interest Inventory Sample Items

Occupations1. Computer programmer2. Novelist7. Manager at a manufacturing plant

31. Advertising account executive64. Venture capitalist66. Logistical planner82. Marketing brand manager

Personal attributes91. Assertive95. A good team player

105. Methodical114. Enjoy routine131. Artistic

Subjects for study137. Accounting138. Debate143. Computer science161. Statistics175. Poetry

Activities182. Play strategy games183. Perform a business loan credit analysis189. Give speeches to large audiences192. Develop an advertising campaign for a product197. Manage a regional sales team202. Analyze financial reports221. Negotiate a complex deal to acquire a business222. Lead the board of directors of a large charitable organization


Hammer, 1994) are provided in Table 6. The sample for this validity study was213 MBA students who completed both the BCII and the Strong InterestInventory. A full report on scale correlations with widely used general careerinterest inventories is available from the authors.

Factor Analysis

Factor-analytic studies were conducted to examine the factor structure of allbusiness activity items on the BCII. (Business activity items are those items thatdescribe a specific activity that is unambiguously related to business.) These stud-ies were deliberately conducted on a post hoc rather than an a priori basis as the

Table 4Measures of Internal Consistency for

Business Core Function Scales (N = 5,300)

Business Core Function Cronbach’s Alpha

Application of technology .93Quantitative analysis .93Theory development .88Creative production .88Counseling and mentoring .90Managing people .83Enterprise control .90Influence through language and ideas .92

Table 5Stability Over 6-Month Time Period forBusiness Core Function Scales (N = 39)

Test-Retest Correlations Over a 6-Month Period

Application of technology .66Quantitative analysis .85Theory development .82Creative production .83Counseling and mentoring .86Managing people .77Enterprise control .74 Influence through language and ideas .81Mean test-retest correlation over 6-month period .79


test construction model was based on a reconciliation of an array of empiricaldata with a theoretical heuristic (Holland’s [1973] model) rather than on a math-ematical abstraction of factors. The scree plot generated for a principle compo-

Applied technologyMechanical activities

BIS .74Realistic GOT .68Science BIS .68Medical technologist .68Systems analyst .66Navy officer .64Engineer .63R&D manager .58

Quantitative analysisMath BIS .50Conventional GOT .50Credit manager .44Systems analyst .43Accountant .40Fine artist –.31Public relations

director –.27Broadcaster –.20

Theory development and conceptual thinkingInvestigative GOT .60Science BIS .57Sociologist .56Science teacher .44College professor .40Florist –.48Agribusiness manager –.35Buyer –.33Bus driver –.29

Creative productionArtistic GOT .74Art BIS .71

Music BIS .62Writing BIS .60Photographer .53Musician .49English teacher .48Commercial artist .46Farmer –.56Agribusiness manager –.51Accountant –.42Banker –.35

Counseling and mentoringSocial services BIS .68Social GOT .63Speech pathologist .60YW/YMCA director .60Special education

teacher .60Guidance counselor .59Geologist –.45Mathematician –.39Physicist –.33R&D manager –.30

Managing people and relationshipsBusiness management

BIS .48Recreation leader .47School administrator .45Nursing home

administrator .45YMCA director .44Executive housekeeper .42Social GOT .40Personnel director .39

Public official .36Chamber of

Commerce executive .34Enterprise control

Adventure BIS .54Realtor .51Army officer .49Chamber of

Commerce executive .37Navy officer .36Public speaking BIS .35Recreation leader .34Enterprising GOT .32Elected public official .33Military activities BIS .33Law/politics BIS .30Personnel director .30

Influence through language and ideasPublic speaking BIS .66Elected public official .64Personnel director .60Public administrator .56School administrator .56Insurance agent .56Law/politics BIS .56Public relations director .55Lawyer .44Writing BIS .44Recreation leader .43Horticultural worker –.42Farmer –.39Mathematician –.38

Table 6Highest Significant Positive Correlations (p ≤≤ .001) and Selected NegativeCorrelations (p ≤≤ .001) Between Business Career Interest Inventory Core

Function Scales and Strong Interest Inventory Scales (N = 213)

Note. BIS = Basic Interest Scale; GOT = General Occupation Theme Scale.


nents extraction did indeed indicate that an eight-factor solution would be themost parsimonious. A varimax rotation was used to identify independent dimen-sions (a promax rotation yielded highly similar results).

The analysis revealed that seven of the eight business core functions had adominant loading on seven of the extracted and rotated factors. These loadingsare reported in Table 7. This loading was unambiguous (clearly higher than allother core function loadings for that factor) for five factors. In addition to thedominant loading of creative production on Factor 4, there was a secondary load-ing (.33) of the influence through language and ideas business core function,suggesting that the pure factor represents that aspect of creativity in business thatis linked with an attempt to influence the environment (rather than creativity forits own sake). In addition to the dominant loading of influence through languageand ideas on Factor 6, that factor has a secondary loading (.32) of enterprise con-trol, suggesting a factor that represents the use of language and ideas with a biastoward power and control. In all of these cases, the business core function nameand attendant definition would be an accurate label for the pure factor itself.

The theory development and conceptual thinking business core function didnot have a dominant loading on any of the extracted factors. It had modest load-ings on Factor 2 (.35), Factor 6 (.27), and Factor 1 (.24), suggesting that this moreacademic dimension of theory, ideas, and imagination is dispersed in the busi-ness world among functions that are more directly focused on finance, technol-ogy, and intellectual persuasion. Although this is the one factor that did not findcorroboration in the abstract methodology of factor analysis, the authors, withtheir many years of business career counseling experience, see the value ofincluding a dimension that echoes in business terms the essence of Holland’s

Table 7Principle Loadings of the Eight Business Core Function Scales on

Factors Derived From a Factor Analysis of All Business Activity BusinessCareer Interest Inventory (BCII) Items With a Principle Components

Extraction of Eight Factors and Varimax Rotation (N ≈≈ 7,500)

Core Function Factor Factor Loading

Application of technology 1 .84Quantitative analysis 2 .79Theory development and conceptual thinking N/A N/ACreative production 4 .43Counseling and mentoring 8 .68Managing people and relationships 7 .60Enterprise control 3 .69Influence through language and ideas 6 .52


investigative theme and often finds realization in areas such as business teachingand research, strategic planning, and management consulting.

Criterion Validity

Discriminant studies of occupational groups. Business core function profiles ofhighly experienced and satisfied individuals in specific business career areas dis-criminate in a predictable fashion between these occupational groups. Examplesof these business career area profiles are given in Figure 1. The production andoperations managers sample was composed of 133 individuals who had manage-ment responsibility in either manufacturing production environments or serviceoperation environments who reported that they liked their work and had been inthat role for a minimum of 3 years. The human resources and corporate trainingsample was composed of 283 professionals who worked in human resourcesdepartments of corporations or worked as organizational development trainerseither internally for a human resources department or with an organizationaldevelopment consulting organization. They met the same criteria for length oftime in role and enjoyment of their function as the production and operationsmanagers. The sales and sales manager sample was composed of 304 individualswho were employed (for a minimum of 3 years) either as direct line sales repre-sentatives or as managers of sales teams from a variety of business organizations.They as well were included in the sample only if they indicated enjoyment ofrole. The investment banking sample included 249 individuals employed orrecently employed (some were investment bankers who had recently enrolled inan MBA program) in typical investment banking service areas (e.g., corporatefinance, mergers and acquisitions, sales and trading, etc.) mostly in large WallStreet investment banks. They all met the criteria of minimum employment of 3years and satisfaction with their functional roles. Data on the business core func-tion profiles for more than 20 different business career areas are available fromthe authors.

Discriminant studies of predicted differences in general occupational samples.Studies of selected business core function differences between four general occu-pational samples (students from a leading business school; a general business pro-fessional sample; administrators in education, government, and human services;and nonbusiness workers) indicate significant differences in the predicted direc-tions. For example, the general business professional sample (this is the samesample, N ≈ 8,600, described earlier) has significantly higher mean scores onenterprise control and quantitative analysis compared to administrators in edu-cation, government, and human services (a sample of 577 administrators fromeducational settings, government agencies, and human services organizations)and the nonbusiness workers (secretarial and administrative support personnel,N = 390). The administrators in education, government, and human services


have a higher mean score on the counseling and mentoring business core func-tion than either the general business professionals sample or the students from aleading business school (several thousand MBA students currently enrolled inthe school). The students from a leading business school, known for launchingthe careers of top executives, have higher mean scores on the enterprise controland influence through language and ideas dimensions when compared to thegeneral business professional sample. All three administrative groups have signif-icantly higher scores on enterprise control when compared to the nonbusinessworker sample.

DISCUSSION

As stated earlier, the intent of the function-centered model is to portray thecongruence that exists between the emerging interest patterns of an individualand the salient activities that characterize those patterns as they are expressed ina particular work role opportunity. The utility of the model in its application tothe vocational domain of business has proven to be significant. Since its intro-duction in 1996, the Business Career Interest Inventory has been adopted bymore than 200 business schools throughout the world. In a recent survey ofassessments among its member schools, the Graduate Management AdmissionsCouncil found this instrument to be the leading career assessment tool (alongwith the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) used by member schools. It was listed inthe top three assessments used for any purpose by the more than 130 schools inits governing membership. The enthusiasm with which it has been met can beexplained by the business-specific relevance of its constructs and the conceptualaccessibility of the core function model. Business students and business profes-sionals intuitively relate to the idea of a profile of business core functions thatmeasure the specific business activities that have the potential to actualize under-lying interest patterns.

Research Directions, Problems, and Limitations

The model in general and its specific application to the business domain pro-vide an opportunity for further research. In terms of the business domain, theauthors have employed large databases to map the mean business core functionprofiles of more than 25 business career paths. Other career paths await analysis.There is also a need to explore more specific career specialties within largercareer areas. For example, the investment banking profile could be analyzed intoconstituent groups such as mergers and acquisitions, corporate finance, munici-pal finance, and so on. It would be informative to study differences such as thosethat probably exist between sales professionals in business-to-business sales rolesand sales professionals in consumer-oriented sales roles. Are individuals interest-


ed in product development roles in high-technology industries different in termsof interests when compared to professionals in product development roles in low-technology companies? Is there a fundamental difference in the interests of gen-eral managers preferring small companies when compared to general managersin large corporate environments? The authors continue their investigations intoquestions of this nature, but the field of business careers is both large and dynam-ic; it calls for further study and analysis.

A challenge facing the developers and users of the BCII and any assessmentinstrument in the increasingly global world economy is the issue of cultural dif-ferences among test takers. The general business sample used for BCII scalescore comparisons is composed of a large (N ≈ 14,400) sample of business pro-fessionals from a broad spectrum of industries and functions who work in manycountries, but the large majority of the sample is drawn from professionals work-ing in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. Clinical experience hasshown that individuals from nations other than those most represented in thesample still find the model useful and the results meaningful. However, there isa strong case for developing and studying cultural differences on the eight busi-ness core functions. The BCII database has now reached sufficient size to makeavailable meaningful normative data for Latin American, French, Spanish,Chinese, and Japanese business students. (Separate Turkish norms have beendeveloped and are already in use.) This project is high on the authors’ researchpriority list.

The development of such norms however raises interesting issues for businessinterest assessment. In the global economy, which is dominated by models, man-agers, and business practice norms originating largely in American andEuropean countries and companies, to whom should non-American and non-European business students be compared when evaluating how their interestsapply to contemporary business career paths? Should the exceptional studentfrom rural Taiwan who has been educated at leading schools in America and whois building her career in New York and London compare her interests to gener-ally Western norms (the people who will largely be her peers for much of hercareer) or to the norms of Taiwanese professionals? One option of course is tomake both normative comparisons available, and this is the path that will mostlikely be chosen for future cross-cultural development of the BCII.

The function-centered approach as a general model of career interest assess-ment requires research to define the core work functions for any given vocation-al domain. In this regard, the construct of vocational domain is a fluid and mal-leable concept that may be posited at greater or lesser levels of specificity. Forexample, one could define the core functions of the teaching vocational domainas well as those of the engineering teaching domain. This applicability at differ-ent levels of analysis is another strength of the model itself. With this model, theresearcher has as an advantage with the ability to be more precise in terms of elu-cidating the actual activities that underlie a specific work role. This experience-near aspect of the model is thus well adapted for providing clinically useful


career assessment data that has a great deal of nuance. The model has a particu-lar advantage in career areas where work role definitions are characterized by ahigh degree of variability from setting to setting or are subject to ongoing redefi-nition as organizations restructure themselves to face the demands of accelerat-ed technological or social change.

REFERENCES

Campbell, D. P. (1971). Handbook for the strong vocational interest blank. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.

Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Harmon, L. W., Hansen, J. C., Borgen, F. H., & Hammer, A. L. (1994). Strong Interest Inventory:

Applications and technical guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Holland, J. L. (1973). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work envi-

ronments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Kitson, H. D. (1925). The psychology of vocational adjustment. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott.Savickas, M. L. (1999). The psychology of interests. In M. L. Savickas & A. R. Spokane (Eds.),

Vocational interests (pp. 19-56). Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.Strong, E. K., Jr. (1943). Vocational interests of men and women. Stanford, CA: Stanford University

Press.Thorndike, E. L. (1935). The psychology of wants, interests, and attitudes. Norwalk, CT: Appleton-

Century-Crofts.

a function-centered model of interest assessment for business careers

Documents