Holland's Theory of Personality and Work Environments

(1)

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265667871

9 Holland's Theory of Personalities in Work Environments

Article

CITATIONS

77

READS

30,251 3 authors, including:

Arnold R. Spokane Lehigh University

81PUBLICATIONS 2,692CITATIONS SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Arnold R. Spokane on 23 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

(2)

9

Holland’s Theory of Personalities in Work Environments

Arnold R. Spokane, Erik J. Luchetta, Matthew H. Richwine

We have come to realize that the old arguments about whether heredity or environment—nature or nurture—is the cause of human individuality are irrelevant. A human individual represents an interaction of unique genetic endowment with a unique course of development. It is a complex, non-additive process.

Leona Tyler, 1995, p. 2

Most social scientists would agree that major features of the physical and social environment affect the behavior of inhabitants. These environmental characteristics mediate not only the behavior of individuals but the behavior of subcultures and societies over long time periods (Diamond, 1999). That the larger physical world affects behavior has been obvious for some time to environmental psychologists (Altman, 1975; Garling, 1998; Proshansky, Ittelson, & Rivlin, 1976), colleagues in environmental health (Moeller, 1997), geogra- phy (Diamond, 1999), architecture (Gallagher, 1999; Hall, 1966;

Nasar, 2000; Sommer, 1969), urban planning (Duany & Plater- Zyberk, 1992), and engineering (Zmeureanu & Marceau, 1999). The reader would readily acknowledge that behavior in a bustling urban neighborhood differs substantially from that on a sun-drenched beach or in a serene mountain setting. When we study an individual, we also study the context in which that individual lives and interacts.

373

(3)

374 CAREER CHOICE AND DEVELOPMENT

Much of psychology’s theory and systems research in the study of human environments traces to Kurt Lewin (1936), whose topo- logical model of behavior broke new ground for psychologists. Roger Barker, Lewin’s primary student, demonstrated that in large environments, as well as in smaller, more encapsulated, environments such as schools (Barker & Gump, 1964), behavior and social roles differ, depending on essential characteristics of the environment (for example, big school versus small school). This general area of inquiry has been called ecological psychology. Interest in ecological psychology or person-environment interaction has increased with ad- vances in environmental measurement (Szapocznik et al., in progress) and research methodology (Edwards & Rothbard, 1999), as well as with renewed appreciation for the richness of person-environment transactions (Tyler, 1995).

In a more-or-less parallel universe, the longstanding tradition of individual differences (Dawis, 1992; Lubinski, 2000; Lubinski &

Dawis, 1995), bolstered by behavioral genetics (Betsworth et al., 1994;

Gottfredson, 1999; Plomin and DeFreis, 1998), assures us that stable dispositions such as values, interests, personality, and the behavioral repertoires associated with these dispositions can be readily identified and studied. Indeed, such dispositions may dictate which environments individuals select, thereby multiplying their effects. Individual diversity, in this view, dictates the lion’s share of human behavior. As Rene Dawis (1992) reminds us, we have a rich and enduring individual differences tradition on which we can build future research.

Broader definitions of the nature of interests (Savickas, 1999; Silva, 1999; Hogan & Blake, 1999) are examples of recent developments in the area of individual differences and vocational behavior.

In vocational psychology, as in other areas of social science, it is a continuing struggle to study human interactions at the level of com- plexity warranted by the phenomena under study and at a level of parsimony necessary to be able to understand the findings. Whether we choose to emphasize those aspects of behavior that are stable or those that are fluid, we cannot escape the simultaneous study of individual and environmental contributors to behavior in our theory and research. Person-environment interaction is a fundamental

(4)

concept in the study of human behavior (Stokols, 1995; Tinsley, 2000; Tyler, 1995; Walsh, Craik, & Price, 2000). As the quote from Leona Tyler’s insightful and perhaps final writing effort (Tyler, 1995) reflects, then, person-environment interaction involves the interplay of a diverse but limited set of stable personalities with the nature and demands of the environments they inhabit.

The principal proponent of the person-environment interaction position in vocational psychology has been, and continues to be, John L. Holland. Holland’s unflagging devotion to creativity, integ- rity, empirical evidence, and practical application in revising his theory accounts for its unprecedented influence. Holland was awarded the American Psychological Association’s prestigious Award for Dis- tinguished Contributions to Professional Knowledge in 1995 in rec- ognition of his sustained work in vocational psychology.

Background of Holland’s Theory

Since its emergence more than forty years ago, Holland’s theory has become a major force in applied psychology. The first presentation of the theory in 1959 emphasized the “searching” aspects of person- environment fit: “The person making a vocational choice in a sense searches for situations which satisfy his hierarchy of adjustive ori- entations” (Holland, 1959, p. 35). In this early version, the importance of resemblance to all six of the types was evident. There was also an emphasis on the acquisition and processing of environmental information. “Persons with more information about occupational environments make more adequate choices than do persons with less information” (pp. 40–41). And there was strong focus as well on development through external influences such as parents and teachers. A precursor article on the Vocational Preference Inventory (VPI) in 1958 (Holland, 1958) describes the core of the theory—the projection of one’s personality onto the world of work:

The choice of an occupation is an expressive act which reflects the person’s motivation, knowledge, personality, and ability. Occupations represent a way of life, an environment

(5)

rather than a set of isolated work functions or skills. To work as a carpenter means not only to have a certain status, com- munity role, and a special pattern of living. In this sense, the choice of an occupational title represents several kinds of information: the S’s motivation, his knowledge of the occupation in question, his insight and understanding of himself, and his abilities. In short, item responsesmay be thought of as limited but useful expressive or projective protocols.[Holland, 1958, p. 336; italics added]

A remarkable series of research articles followed while Holland was at the National Merit Scholarship Corporation document- ing the characteristics of the types, their preferred activities, self- descriptions, and competencies. These studies, which were summarized in Holland (1997), reveal that the six types, when calculated using one of the several inventories available to measure them, show a reliable pattern of characteristics consistent with theoretical predictions. For example, Realistic types are hard-headed and conforming; they prefer industrial arts and agriculture as major fields and surveyor and mechanic as occupational choices, whereas Artis- tic types are imaginative, nonconforming, and emotional, prefer art and music as major fields and artist and writer as occupational choices (Holland, 1997).

In addition to the studies exploring the nature of the types, Hol- land collaborated with Alexander Astin (Astin & Holland, 1961) to study the nature of college environments. The Environmental Assessment Technique (EAT) involved a census of the type of ma- jors, courses, and students at a particular university as a means of characterizing the educational environment that resulted. The ini- tial work, especially that in college environments, was summarized in an important American College Testing monograph by W. Bruce Walsh (1973), a student of Holland’s at the University of Iowa.

The 1970s were characterized by an intense period of measurement research and development. The Self-Directed Search (SDS) emerged; there were revisions of the VPI; the Holland themes were added to the Strong-Campbell Interest Inventory (Campbell &

(6)

Holland, 1972), and Bolles (1998) introduced the theory to the lay public. Throughout this period, Holland was director of the Center for Social Organization of Schools at Johns Hopkins University. During this same period, the work on the classification of higher education environments gave way to classification of work environments, and intense attention turned to gender questions in interest measurement.

A significant advance in our understanding of the nature of interests was occasioned by the discovery of the structure that is revealed in Holland’s hexagon (Holland, Whitney, Cole, & Richards, 1973;

see Figure 9.1), the full heuristic impact of which is only now being appreciated (Rounds, 1995; Day & Rounds, 1998).

Two changes occurred during the 1980s. Gary Gottfredson initi- ated a complex reanalysis of occupational description data that resulted in the Dictionary of Holland Occupational Codes(Gottfredson

& Holland, 1996; Gottfredson, Holland, & Ogawa, 1982). This reanalysis stimulated a revision of the Occupations Finder using job activities. Whereas in the theory initially, environments were defined by the number of individuals of a certain type inhabiting that environment (for example, a social environment consisted of

Note:R-person in an R-environment = 4; in a C- or an I-environment = 3; in an E- or an A-environment = 2; and in an S-environment = 1.

Realistic Investigative

Enterprising

Conventional Artistic

Social

FIGURE9.1. The Holland Hexagon

(7)

individuals with similar social codes and who solved problems by interacting socially), environments were now defined not only by the census of their inhabitants but by an analysis of data (level of data, people, items from job analysis data) concerning what those individuals actually did in their environments. This change was aptly described as a shift from “incumbent-based” to “public-record- based” environmental measurement (Gottfredson & Richards, 1999). A second change in the 1980s was a shift in emphasis from theory construction to vocational intervention (Holland, Magoon,

& Spokane, 1981). This change paralleled the success of the SDS (Holland, Fritsche, & Powell, 1994) and the change of hands to its present publisher, Psychological Assessment Resources—an innov- ative and consumer-driven publisher devoted to enhancing and expanding the intervention capabilities of the SDS.

The 1990s showed a renewed interest in the theory and its revision, as well as in the question of convergence among career theories (Savickas & Lent, 1994)—a surprisingly vigorous research program on the underlying structure of vocational interests with an increasing emphasis on the cultural validity of the theory (Day & Rounds, 1998) and an equally vigorous debate on the complex nature of interests (Hogan & Blake, 1999; Savickas & Spokane, 1999). Recent research reviews examined the large, accumulated research literature on person-environment congruence in Holland’s theory (Devinat, 1999; Spokane, Meir, & Catalano, 2000; Tinsley, 2000), increasingly with an interest in the cultural context of the theory (Spokane, Fouad, & Swanson, 2001). That work continues unabated on the theory, instruments, and research paradigms popularized by Holland is a tribute to the theory’s enormous heuristic value.

A Practical Model of Person-Environment Interaction Holland’s theory describes the nature or disposition of the individual worker. He uses six basic personality-interest types and classifies the composition of the work environments in which those individuals function, according to a parallel set of constructs. The interaction of certain types (and subtype combinations) with specific environ-

(8)

ments predicts and explains the behavior and interactions that occur in those environments (satisfaction, stability, performance, and so on). This model of person-environment fit implies some change and adjustment in people and in the environments in which they work (Holland, 1997; Spokane et al., 2001). The individual is viewed as a relatively stable entity (Costa, McCrae, &

Holland, 1984; Tyler, 1995) who moves in and out of environments rationally when the perceived fit is no longer optimal.

The organizing system described in this chapter has been applied to the construction and interpretation of interest inventories, to the organization and classification of occupational information in libraries, to the construction of self-help materials, books, and computer programs, and especially to research on nearly every as- pect of vocational and counseling psychology.

Formal Statement of the Theory

The following statements from Holland’s book (1997) provide an overview of the model:

1. In our culture, most persons can be categorized as one of six types: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enter- prising, or Conventional.

2. There are six model environments: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, or Conventional.

3. People search for environments that will let them exercise their skills and abilities, express their attitudes and values, and take on agreeable problems and roles.

4. Behavior is determined by an interaction between personality and environment. [Holland, 1997, p. 4]

Holland Personality Types

An interest type is a theoretical organizer for understanding how individuals differ in their personality, interests, and behaviors. Types originate in heredity and in direct activities that yield interests and

(9)

competencies; they culminate in a disposition or propensity to act in certain predictable ways (repertoires). Types are measured using interest items but are expressions of personality (Holland, 1997).

The six Holland personality types and their characteristics, drawn from repeated empirical investigations of the correlates of the types, are presented in Table 9.1. Work environments, according to the theory, are characterized by the same six types. The theory implies that many people resemble more than one, and in most cases all, of the types to a degree. An individual’s personality is a composite of all of the types; each individual has a unique combination. These types reliably show characteristic repertoires of behavior and patterns of likes and dislikes, hold specific values, and endorse unique self-descriptions (Holland, 1997).

Subtypes. An individual may resemble one, two, or all six of the Holland types. The pattern of scores and resemblance is called a subtype. For example, a computer programmer might have a full code of IRCA. Typically, however, the highest three letters of the type code (IRC; called the three-letter code or summary code) are used in assessment and intervention. The diagnostic signs describe the relationships among types within a subtype or the relationship between the subtype of an individual and the subtype of the environment that individual inhabits.

The Hexagon and Diagnostic Signs. A detailed theoretical- empirical calculus, or diagnostic system, has been logically derived from the theory using the hexagon and is periodically undergoing empirical test. An understanding of the indicators in this system (congruence, consistency, differentiation, and identity) is essential to a complete understanding of Holland’s organizing system.

Congruence. Congruence taps the degree of fit between an individual’s personality and the type of work environment in which he or she currently resides or anticipates entering. An example of a highly (though not completely) congruent person would be an individual who had a three-letter code on the SDS of SEI and is considering a

(10)

TABLE9.1.Descriptors Associated with the Six Holland Types RealisticInvestigativeArtisticSocialEnterprisingConventiona TRAITSHardheadedAnalyticalAloofCapableAggressiveContent Self-RatingsMechanicalIntellectualArtisticEnthusiasticDominantNot Artistic ScientificCuriousBroad InterestsFriendlyEnterprisingNot Idealistic QuietMechanicalCarelessGood LeaderExtrovertedNormal ReservedScholarlyDisorderlyKindGood LeaderPractical-min UnassumingScientificDreamyPersuasiveNot QuietShrewd Highly Trained Broad InterestsIdealisticNot ScientificNot ScientificSpeculative Low Self-PreciseImaginativeSincerePersuasiveConforming UnderstandingThoroughIntellectualTrustingPleasure-seekingConventiona IntrospectiveUnderstandingPopularNot Original IntuitiveGenerousPower-seekingConscientious Not ConformingReceptivePractical-mindedRebellious OriginalSociableShrewdNeat RadicalWarmSociable RebelliousSpeculative SensitiveStriving SophisticatedVersatile UnconventionalConfident UnusualEnergetic Verbal Witty

Complicated Power-seeking StereotypesSkilledScientificCreativeImportantAmbitiousPrecise of TypesMechanicallyIntelligentImaginativeInfluentialAggressiveMathematical InclinedStudiousTalentedHelpfulLeadersMethodical TrainedScholarlyExpressiveDevotedShrewdMeticulous BuildersBrilliantSensitivePatientBusyUnimaginative PracticalInventiveInterestingUnderstandingResponsibleInvaluable Well PaidIntrovertedUnconventionalFriendlyStatus SeekingDull RespectedTemperamentalDynamic

(11)

TABLE9.1.Descriptors Associated with the Six Holland Types, Cont’d. RealisticInvestigativeArtisticSocialEnterprisingConventional InventoryMechanicalOpenOpenExtrovertedExtrovertedConservative and ScalesDogmaticAcademic TypeNonconformingSociableSociableDogmatic AnalyticalFeminineEnthusiasticDominantVocational Type CuriousIntrovertedLiking to HelpEnthusiastic MechanicalOriginalOthersAdventurous ScholarlyExpressiveFeminineDependent (Group) ScientificNonconformistDependentLeadership Broad InterestsTypeUnderstandingSociability of OthersSelf-confidence Cooperative(Social) Interest inPopularity ReligionCollegiate Type Collegiate Type VALUESInstitutionalSelf-Self-expressionService to OthersControl of OthersInstitutional RestraintDeterminationSocialEconomic/PoliticalRestraint ChristianTheoreticalFriendly InterestDominant/StrivingChristian ConservativeAdolescentConservative DocilityRevolt Economic/Political Docility

FreedomWisdomWorld of BeautyEqualityFreedomComfortable Life TrueFamilyEqualityMature Love (−)World of Beauty (−)Self-respect (−) Friendship (−)Security (−)Exciting Life (−)World of Beauty (−) True Friendship (−)True Friendship (−) AmbitiousIntellectualImaginativeHelpfulAmbitiousAmbitious Self-controlledLogicalCourageousForgivingForgiving (−)Polite Forgiving (−)AmbitiousObedient (−)Capable (−)Helpful (−)Obedient Cheerful (−)Capable (−)Logical (−)Imaginative (−) Responsible (−)Intellectual (−)Forgiving (−) Clean (−) Logical (−)

(12)

Life GoalsInventingInventing Valu-BecomingHelping OthersBeing Well DressedExpert in Finance Apparatus orable ProductFamous inin DifficultyBeing Communityand Commerce EquipmentTheoreticalPerformingMaking SacrificesLeaderProducing a Lot Becoming Out-Contribution toArtsfor OthersInfluential inof Work standingSciencePublishingCompetentPublic Affairs AthleteTechnicalStoriesTeacher orExpert in Finance ContributionOriginal PaintingTherapistand Commerce to ScienceInstrumentalBeing Religious Musician orPerson SingerBeing Good Parent MusicalLeader in Church CompositionContributing to Played orHuman Welfare Published APTITUDES ANDIntelligenceMusical TalentInterpersonalLeaderless GroupClerical COMPETENCIESMechanical(Seashore)Problem SolvingDiscussionAptitudes ComprehensionArt JudgmentAssessment(Minn Clerical) Arithmetic(Meier) AbilitySpatial Visual TechnicalScientific(MPFB) CompetenciesCompetenciesArt CompetenciesSocial andLeadership andBusiness and Cleri MechanicalMath AbilityForeign LanguageEducationalSales CompetenciesCompetencies AbilityResearch AbilityCompetenciesCompetenciesSocial andClerical Ability Scientific AbilityArtistic AbilityLeadership andEducational SalesCompetencies CompetenciesBusiness and Clerical InterpersonalCompetencies CompetencyInterpersonal Competency Greatest AbilityMechanicsScienceArtsHuman RelationsLeadershipBusiness Lies in Area of IDENTIFICATIONSThomas EdisonMadame CurieT. S. EliotJane AddamsHenry FordBernard Baruch Admiral ByrdCharles DarwinPablo PicassoAlbert SchweitzerAndrew CarnegieJohn D. Rockefelle

(13)

career as a hospital administrator (classified as SER). Congruence has been calculated using first-letter codes, three-letter codes, and six-letter codes but requires the use of one of several mathematical indexes (Brown & Gore, 1994; Camp & Chartrand, 1992) of the degree of fit between the code of the person and the code of the environment.

Consistency. Consistency is a measure of the internal coher- ence of an individual’s type scores. Consistency is calculated by examining the position of the first two letters of the three-letter code on the hexagon. The closer the position, the more consistent the code and individual. Types that are adjacent to each other on the perimeter of the hexagon (for example, Realistic and Inves- tigative) are more common and, therefore, harmonious than types that are opposite each other on the perimeter of the hexagon (for example, Enterprising and Investigative). An individual with an I-E type might experience a chronic discomfort or “dis-ease” between Enterprising and Investigative interests, which are not often found together and require nearly mutually exclusive repertoires of behavior.

Differentiation. Differentiation is a measure of the crystalliza- tion of interests and provides information about the relative defin- ition of types in an individual’s profile. Typically, differentiation is defined as the highest minus the lowest score among the six types or among the three scores making up the three-letter code. The highest differentiation possible would be a high level of resemblance to one type alone, whereas the lowest would be a perfectly flat profile with identical scores on all six types. As Holland indi- cates: “My purpose was to create a concept that would capture what clinicians mean by a well-defined profile” (Holland, 1997, p. 26).

Identity. Identity is an indicator of the degree of clarity of the

“picture of one’s goals, interests and talents” (Holland, 1997, p. 5).

Identity is related to differentiation and consistency in defining the strength of personalities and environments. Measurement of identity is done with the Vocational Identity (VI) scale from My Vocational Situation (Holland, Gottfredson, & Power, 1980). A comprehensive

(14)

review of the psychometrics and uses of the VI are contained in Hol- land, Johnston, & Asama (1993).

The relationships among these four diagnostic-theoretical indicators (congruence, consistency, differentiation, identity) and their use as interpretive ideas, as well as organizing or theoretical constructs, is described in detail in Table 9.2. Here again, we are just beginning to understand how and why some individuals develop a sharp spike in one type, whereas others develop strong interests in three or four types. All things being equal, however, an individual with high identity who is congruent, consistent, and differentiated should be more predictable and better adjusted than one who is incongruent, inconsistent, and undifferentiated. “For example, a conventional-enterprising person whose personality pattern is consistent and differentiated and who enters a conventional-enterprising environment with a high degree of differentiation will probably do com- petent work, be satisfied and personally effective, and engage in appropriate social and educational behavior” (Holland, 1997, p. 40).

Application of the Holland Organizing Schema to Occupational Environments. Occupational environments are classified in a manner similar to the classification of personality types. A census can be conducted of the percentage of employees of a given type in an organization (Holland, 1997), thus characterizing its “personality pattern.” Consistency and differentiation can be calculated by examining the three-letter code that results from the census. Iden- tity of a work setting is calculated by estimating the number of different occupations present. A large number of different occupations would result in a diffuse identity, whereas a small number of occupations would result in a focused identity (Holland, 1997). For example, a small or medium-sized accounting firm might consist of eight to ten accountants whose codes would cluster around C (CIS, CES, and so on), and five or six accounting clerks whose codes would also cluster around C (CIS, CIE, and so on), and perhaps several secretaries whose codes would also cluster around C (CSA).

(15)

TABLE9.2.Summary of Interpretive Ideas and Indices. Basic Interpretive Ideas QuestionDiagnostic ConstructIndices or InformationSource Degree of Fit Between:CongruencyZener-Schnuelle Index (7-Step–SDS Manual, Tables 16 or 18, p. 43 Current Aspiration orNo Calculation Necessary; Use Occupation and SDS Code?Simple Table) Iachan Agreement Index (28 StepsSDS Manual Supplement; See Current Occupation and —Simple Arithmetic Calculation)Table 6 for How to Calculate and Alternative Occupation? Table 5 for Norms Any Pair of Occupations, Aspirations, People? Interest PersonalityPersonality Type andDescriptions of the TypesSDS Manual Supplement; See Interests. Traits.SDS ProfileTables 1 and 28 or Holland (1985a) Life Goals. Values. Secondary Interpretive Ideas Persistence, Tenure, or Stability ofCoherence of VocationalSummary Code of AspirationsSDS Manual Supplement (pp. 8–11) Vocational Aspiration, Choice,Aspirations(Weighted or Unweighted) or Career Summary Code of Work HistorySDS Manual Supplement (Same as Above) Consistency of Two-LetterHexagonal Model (AdjacentSDS Manual, p. 4 or Holland Code or Entire ProfileTypes = Very Consistent, Every(1985), pp. 26–28 Other Type = Moderately Consistent, Opposite Types = Inconsistent) Differentiation of Entire ProfileHighest Summary Score MinusSDS Manual, Tables B-1, B-2, Lowest Summary Scorepp. 65–66 for Norms Iachan Differentiation IndexSDSManual Supplement. See Table 8 for How to Calculate and Table 7 for Norms Visual Inspection: Does the Profile of Summary Scales Have High Peaks and Low Valleys or Is It Relatively Flat? Common or Rare One- Two-,Common Codes Associated with Stability;SDS Manual, Tables B-14 to B-19, or Three-Letter CodeRare Codes with Changepp. 71–75

(16)

Clearly, this accounting environment would be highly differentiated, with reasonable consistency and a clear identity. One might expect the behavior and interactions to be relatively homogeneous, stable, and predictable. Contrast this accounting environment with a moderate-sized automobile dealership that contains enterprising sales personnel, mechanics, and secretaries with different skills, repertoires of behaviors, and ways of solving problems.

Work environments can be classified more formally using the Position Classification Inventory (PCI; Gottfredson & Holland, 1991)—an eighty-four-item assessment of the job requirements, skills, perspectives, values, personal characteristics, talents, and key behaviors performed in a particular job. The PCI yields nine vari- ables. Differentiation and consistency are also calculable from the PCI. The PCI grid or profile for counselor, based on twenty-two counselors in a variety of settings, is depicted in Figure 9.2. Although

FIGURE9.2. PCI Profile Grid for a Counselor

Score

13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

R I A S E C

Score

13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Note: N = 22; differentiation = 2.84.

(17)

their dominant profile is SAE, there is a distribution of subtypes within the group (SAE = 7, SAI = 4, SIA = 4, SEA = 3, SEC = 2, SCI = 2, SAC = 1, ASI = 1). Such a distribution is common when examining work environments and suggests that although many individuals resemble the dominant subtype (in this case SAE), some individuals will resemble variations of the code, and some will be incongruent.

People Interacting with Work Environments

The remaining theoretical propositions cover the interactions of persons and environments. These propositions are critical theoret- ically and practically but in spite of their importance have received only scant attention in the research literature (see Spokane, 1985;

Spokane et al., 2001, for reviews).

5. People find environments reinforcing and satisfying when environmental patterns resemble their personality patterns.

This situation makes for stability of behavior because persons receive a good deal of selective reinforcement of their behavior.

6. Incongruent interactions stimulate change in human behavior; conversely, congruent interactions encourage stability of behavior. Persons tend to change or become like the dominant persons in the environment. This tendency is greater, the greater the degree of congruence is between the person and the environment. Those persons who are most incongruous will be changed least.

7. A person resolves incongruence by seeking a new and congruent environment or by changing personal behavior and perceptions.

8. The reciprocal interactions of person and successive jobs usually lead to a series of success and satisfaction cycles.

[pp. 53–54]

(18)

The Family of Inventories and Diagnostic Measures Associated with the Holland Model

Among its most valuable contributions, Holland’s theory has gen- erated a substantial array of practical devices for assessing persons and environments, which are described next.

The Self-Directed Search. The Self-Directed Search (SDS; Hol- land, Fritzsche, & Powell, 1994), one of the most widely used interest inventories, consists of an Assessment Booklet, an Occupations Finder, and an Interpretive Guide titled “You and Your Career.”

Unlike its competition, the SDS was designed to be self-administered and self-scored. No sophisticated computer or mail in scoring is required. Originally published in 1971, the SDS has been revised several times, most recently in 1994 (Form R). Nearly a dozen studies examine the functional utility, or outcomes, accomplished when the SDS is properly used in a self-directing manner. The companion materials include the following:

• Technical Manual (Holland, Fritzsche, &Powell, 1994)

• Professional Users Guide (Holland, Powell, & Fritzsche, 1994)

• SDS Form E (Easy language) and SDS CP (Career Planning [Corporate] Version)

• SDS Career Explorer (Holland & Powell, 1994)

• Educational Opportunities Finder (Rosen, Holmberg, &

Holland, 1994)

• Alphabetized Occupations Finder

• Leisure Activities Finder (Holmberg, Rosen, & Holland, 1990)

Foreign language editions are available for some versions.

Figure 9.3 presents a description of the steps involved in using SDS (Form R). Included are directions for using the assessment