Jim Bright and Robert Pryor – Chaos Theory of Careers

Group: Denis Dervisevic & Shani Hadid

What QUESTION/s or career ISSUE/s – PROBLEM/s does this theory try to answer?

The theory states that there is a chaotic nature to career development and career
development is much more complex than former theories suggest and therefore this theory
came about. This is a Career issue as the chaotic nature and elements described in this
theory make is hard for advisors and people to make long term Consider what the theory, or
theorist MIGHT say in response to the common ‘idea’ that “doing what you love means
you’ll never have to work a day in your life”** The idea of doing what you love is not
necessarily consistent with this theory. This theory focuses on events of change and their
effect on the career paths of individual. Therefore, what a person may love now may change
and have severe reactions to his career path. Based on this “doing what you love now” may
not be what you love in a few year’s time and therefore “never working a day in your life” is
not achievable.

What ANSWER or ‘ARGUMENT’ does the theory give to this QUESTION?

This theory suggests the 4 main factors that affect the chaos in career development. The
Factors include Complexity, Change, Chance and Construction (Bright & Pryor, 2011).
Complexity refers to multiple influences on a person that affect their career choices in
unpredictable ways (Bright & Pryor, 2011). Change refers to reactions to change and how
these reactions affect career development, many prior theories ignore the effect of change
and therefore their theories have some shortfalls (Bright & Pryor, 2008). Chance refers to
the complexity of the reactions of change and their effect on the system and its interactions
with other systems. Lastly, Construction refers to the opportunity for individuals to become
more active participants in their career goals rather than follow prescribed guidelines
(Bright & Pryor, 2011).

Consider what the theory, or theorist MIGHT say in response to the common ‘idea’ that
“doing what you love means you’ll never have to work a day in your life”**

Bright and Pryer (2011) articulate a nuanced and multifaceted view of career theory. Their
perspective on complexity, change and chance in career decision-making suggests that they
would contend the idea that “doing what you love means you’ll never have to work a day in
your life”. This is because Chaos Theory involves recognizing the dynamic nature of career
development, as well as fluctuating ‘fractal patterns’, that suggest a career condition that is
not ‘black and white’. A career, suspect to the dynamics of change, chance and complexity,
will not always allow for the feeling of ‘never [having] to work a day in your life’, despite
choosing to ‘do what you love’.

Reflect on the theory – [how could it apply to your situation? do you agree with the theory
or not? why?]?
I agree with Bright and Pryer’s Chaos Theory as it acknowledges the complexity and
intricacies of career development in a way that many other models neglect. Careers are often
unpredictable in nature; they are subject to non-linear change, so our approach should reflect
this. Applying this to my situation, I think the construction element is very actionable and
helpful. My current career goals are multi-focused, building foundations of marketing,
musicianship and my online brand as an events performer/creative. Because of this, it is
important to consistently recognize complexity, chance and change as actively participating
parts in career development. According to the theory, an individual has the power to build his
own career, regardless of the dynamical factors; the lack of total control allows individuals to
become 'active participants in the creation of their futures'.

References:

Bright, J. E. H., & Pryor, R. G. L. (2008). Shiftwork: A Chaos Theory of Careers agenda for
change in career counselling. Australian Journal of Career Development, 17, 63–72.

Bright, J. E. H., & Pryor, R. G. L. (2011). A Chaos Theory of Careers. Australian Journal of
employment counselling, 48, 163-166