The Careers We Choose: Gender, Personality and Occupational Interests

“Why join the Navy if you can be a pirate?”
Steve Jobs

For over 40 years, one robust theory of career choice has been based on the idea that choice of vocation is really an expression of personality (Holland, 1973).  A person can be described as having interests associated with each of six personlity types in a descending order of preference (a person might have a mix of many of these).  The six personality and work environment types described by Holland are generally described as follows (RIASEC):

• Realistic – practical, physical, hands-on, tool-oriented
• Investigative– analytical, intellectual, scientific, explorative
• Artistic – creative, original, independent, chaotic
• Social – cooperative, supporting, helping, healing/nurturing
• Enterprising – competitive environments, leadership, persuading
• Conventional– detail-oriented, organizing, clerical

A recent meta-analysis of over a half a million participants examined gender differences in vocational interests and found surprising differences by gender ((Su, R. et al. (2009).  Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex interests in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859-884)).  Men showed significantly stronger preferences for occupations that are referred to as “Realistic” (jobs requiring physical activities involving tools, machines or animals) and “Investigative” (jobs that involve thinking, analysis and organizing prevalent in such occupations as science and medicine) than women although the authors did not speculate as to why these differences emerged.

There seems to be quite an established literature showing consistent relationships between personality traits and occupational environments ((Judge et al. (2009). The big five personality traits, general mental ability and career success.  Personnel Psychology, 52, 621-652)). 

For example, significant negative correlations have been found between the “Big Five” personality factors of Openness to Experience and “Conventional” occupations requiring work with data, filing records and other rule regulated behavior (r = -.31), between Extraversion and “Investigative” occupations (r = -.16), and positive correlations between Conscientiousness and “Investigative” occupations such as scientists (r = .33) and between Emotional Stability and “Realistic” careers such as fitness trainers, opticians, policemen, and fire Fighters (r =.18).  So, it’s not surprising that “risk taking” entrepreneurs might find jobs with low complexity, high structure and lots of rules and procedures less stimulating. 

New research exploring predictions of adult occupational environments from childhood personality traits rated by teachers found ((Woods, S. & Hampson, S. (2010).  Predicting adult occupational environments from gender and childhood personality traits.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 1045-1057)) the following:

1. Only two personality traits, Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness, were significantly associated with adult occupational environments.
2. Openness to Experience was most strongly associated with “Investigative” and “Artistic” occupations (i.e., those that are scientific and artistically oriented, respectively).
3. Conscientiousness was associated with all of the major occupations (i.e., those who are achievement oriented, dependable and diligent are correlated to some extent with all vocations although recent research suggests that for low complexity jobs having too much conscientiousness might actually hinder job performance).

My own research work suggests that men in leadership roles aren’t always seen as effective as their women counterparts despite an equal interest to pursue (but not always obtain) managerial and leadership positions ((Nowack, K. (2006). Gender Differences in Leadership Practices. Unpublished manuscript)). In fact, in our own 360-feedback studies, men report being significantly stronger in such competencies as listening, conflict and problem solving (no, this isn’t my attempt at humor). In our studies and others, women appear to be rated significantly higher in overall leadership and communication competence and effectiveness by both internal and external customers (e.g., direct reports and peers). 

A new theoretical model of how we respond to stress might actually provide a clue about why women and men might differ in their approach to leading individuals and teams — particularly in times of crisis, challenge, and conflict.  It might also explain why women have genetic predispositions to prefer conventional (e.g., accounting), social (e.g., nursing, teaching) and artistic occupations relative to their male counterparts.

The model, called “tend-and-befriend” by UCLA health psychologist Shelley Taylor and her colleagues, won’t replace the classic “fight or flight” stress response ((Taylor, S. E., Klein, L.C., Lewis, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., Gurung, R. A. R., & Updegraff, J. A. Female Responses to Stress: Tend and Befriend, Not Fight or Flight” Psychol Rev, 107, 41-429)).

In particular, Taylor proposes that women respond to challenging and stressful situations at work and home by protecting themselves and their young through nurturing behaviors — the “tend” part of the model and expressing emotions and socializing, particularly among women — the “befriend” part of the model. Males, in contrast, show less of a tendency toward tending and befriending, and emphasize the classic “fight-or-flight” response, they suggest.

Indeed, women under stress may have a biological predisposition (mediated by pro-social peptides such as oxytocin) to become more affiliative, caring, nurturing and emotionally expressive compared to men.

Taylor’s theory and current research seems to support the idea that women are likely to express more participative, collaborative and transformational displays of communication and  leadership particularly under stress relative to their male counterparts. Like every individual factor, not all of us will find this biological disposition equally distributed.

The “tend and befriend” effect might help to explain an interesting finding about gender differences in leaders as well as providing some biological clues about how our personality and interests impact our ultimate career decisions for men and women…..Be well…

Ken Nowack

Kenneth Nowack, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist (PSY13758) and President & Chief Research Officer/Co-Founder of Envisia Learning, is a member of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations. Ken also serves as the Associate Editor of Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. His recent book Clueless: Coaching People Who Just Don’t Get It is available for free for a limited time by signing up for free blog updates (Learn more at our website)