Trait-Factor Counseling

History

Conceptually, the origins of trait-factor approaches to career counseling can be traced to Frank Parsons's pioneering efforts to better match individuals with jobs. This matching process involved using an accurate understanding of an individual's work-relevant attributes (skills, aptitudes, interests, etc.) and a thorough knowledge of both jobs and the employment market to optimize job choice. Parsons proposed that once self-knowledge was coupled with knowledge about jobs, a rational decision could be made regarding the best match between the two for a given individual. One of the greatest challenges to this approach, then and now, involves how to best define individuals and jobs.

It was not until the 1930s that statistical applications and psychometric methods had advanced to the point that the matching dimensions could be empirically derived and quantitatively evaluated. The Minnesota Employment Stabilization Research Institute [Page 1664]was established at the University of Minnesota to assist workers who had lost their jobs due to the Great Depression. The Minnesota researchers operationalized Parsons's basic concepts using the research methods of differential psychology to develop psychometric instrumentation and occupational classification systems. During this decade, Edmund G. Williamson was appointed director of the University of Minnesota Testing Bureau (now the University of Minnesota Counseling and Consulting Center). Williamson successfully adapted the methods developed by the Minnesota Employment Stabilization Research Institute to address the career development concerns of college students. Williamson wrote so prolifically and influentially on this approach that it is sometimes referred to as the Minnesota point of view.

Within a decade, the methods and technologies developed at Minnesota were applied to the monumental task of classifying armed forces recruits and assigning them to appropriate positions as the U.S. military rapidly expanded during World War II. Following the war, these approaches were adopted by both vocational rehabilitation counselors in the Veterans Affairs Medical Centers and by college counselors struggling to cope with the influx of returning veterans needing assistance with their transition to civilian employment. It is not coincidental that John Holland, whose theory of vocational personalities and work environments is the most widely used trait-factor model, spent his war years conducting military classifications and later become a University of Minnesota graduate. It is also not coincidental that another very influential trait-factor approach, the theory of work adjustment, was also the product of University of Minnesota researchers.

Criticisms

Trait-factor counseling has been widely criticized on a number of fronts. Its harshest critics have labeled trait and factor counseling as “test and tell” and “three sessions and a cloud of dust.” Because assessment and interpretation require high levels of counselor expertise and input, the knowledge and power differential between counselor and client tends to be highlighted. This has led some to argue that trait-factor approaches are too prescriptive and too directive. A fundamental assumption of trait-factor models is that given good information, individuals will make good (or rational) decisions. Consequently, much of the counseling effort is aimed at providing clients with objective information about self and jobs. In response, critics have charged that trait-factor approaches place undue emphasis on testing, that they ignore counseling processes and represent techniques rather than theory. Another major criticism of trait-factor counseling takes aim at the foundational assumption that given good information, individuals will make rational decisions. These critics argue that in addition to factual information, decisions are also influenced by factors such as affective considerations, one's personal history, and the opinions of significant others.

...