Here’s my simple answer first, then I’ll dig deeper. The Strong Occupational Scales compare respondents with typical workers in the occupations and generates scores that indicate the degree of similarity. The authors of the SDS materials coded the occupations by tasks performed and then assigned a code to each one. The code overlap between the Strong and SDS is about 75%.

This is a pretty important difference, since work satisfaction is much more related to work environment than tasks performed. People create work environments, not tasks. So if you have a bunch of Artistic-Social people performing Realistic-Investigative engineering tasks, their work environment will appeal more to Artistic-Social individuals than to Realistic-Investigative individuals. In fact the typical RI/IR engineer will feel like a fish out of water in that department.

The SDS addresses a very simple career exploration scenario: I like doing these tasks. What job titles (and majors, leisure activities, etc.) include these tasks?

The Strong addresses career exploration from several different directions: This is WHO I am and what I value (GOTs); this is WHAT I like doing (BISs); and this is WHERE–in terms of work environments–that I would find the most career satisfaction (composite Occupational Scales code). When the GOTs, BISs, and OSs all line up with the same code, career exploration is pretty straightforward. When they don’t, important clues to what’s going on with respondents isthe respondent is right there in the data. What’s really interesting to me is that in over 40 years of using the Strong, I’ve seen a LOT more profiles where the themes don’t line up than I have those that do. I kind of suspect that those with consistent themes tend to figure it out on their own–what Holland calls “self-directed.” People seek career counseling because they can’t figure it out on their own. If they could, there wouldn’t be a job market for career counselors!!

• Investigative = 64 (very high)
• Realistic = 57 (very high)
• Social = 64 (high)

The colored bar for the Realistic theme is much shorter than the colored bar below it, Social. It looks like the computer listed the themes in the wrong order. Can you help?

A lot of people wonder about this. The scores compare respondents to the combined General Representative Sample of men and women, and the interpretive comments (very high-high-etc.) compare respondents to just their gender. The General Occupational Themes are rank ordered by gender, so on this profile the two “very high” themes are listed first, followed by the “high” Social theme. The key here is that women tend to score much lower on the Realistic theme than they do on the Social theme, so it takes a much lower score for a women to be considered “very high” — in this case, 57. You will see this most often with women who have R in their theme codes and with men who have A in their theme codes.                                                    –JG

A really good question. It takes a lot of questioning — if the person was previously able to access judgment (T) and is now having trouble making decisions, it could very well be an emerging judging function (F). If the person has always had trouble making decisions–accessing judgment–then judgment (T or F) may never have developed in the first place. There is even one more scenario — the person who develops an “adaptive” function. This might be a natural Thinking type who develops Feeling judgment in childhood and is now in adulthood discovering his or her true preference for Thinking. This is such a good example of why people can’t just be “typed.” Type is best used as a tool to explore whatever might be going on with respondents.

For instance, on the report, Computer & IS Manager is coded RIC yet, online it is coded ECI.  Which is it?  Another example: Emergency Medical Technician is coded RI on the report and SIR online.

Is it just a matter of looking at the pattern of skills, tasks and knowledge?  For the EMT, I’d be more likely to go with SIR since the main priority is to help others but I wouldn’t know this if I hadn’t looked it up online.

Any guidance you can provide would be greatly appreciated. 

You may remember from the certification program that work environments are formed by the workers who do the job, not by the tasks that are done. This is the underlying concept of the Strong–matching people and work environments, not matching people and tasks. OS codes are determined empirically — workers are tested, and the OSs are assigned the codes of the workers. O*Net codes are determined rationally — assigned according to the typical tasks of the work. Together, they give you the whole picture, and both are usually addressed in career counseling. You determine the client’s overall OS code first, using the method that we covered in certification and/or that is described in the User’s Guide. Then you consider tasks of specific jobs (if you want to, although not really necessary) either in the DHOC or on O*Net.

Now to your question. JP is all about the external environment — how we want to be perceived by others. In theoretical terms, it is about the mental process that we extravert (P types extravert S or N, and J types extravert T or F). The reason that it can be challenging in groups is that J and P don’t stand alone. People SP or NP and TJ or FJ. If we try to explain any of the letters in isolation, people will identify with both, because we all use one of the functions in the external environment and the other in our internal world.

The key point about J-P is that J types organize their external environments through their decision making, and P types experience their external environments through their perception.

• TJ types take charge and make decisions that result in order, getting things done right, and outcomes that demonstrate competence or efficiency.
• FJ types encourage collaboration and make decisions that result harmony, productive relationships, and outcomes that provide practical assistance or empower others.
• NP types expand their experience through brainstorming, conceptualizing, and broadening of ideas.
• SP types expand their experience through the senses by actively participating in anything physical.

The work of Cynthia Stengel Paris is integral to interpreting type through the eight functions–what I’m referencing here when I talk about the mental function that we extravert. I have way over simplified, to be sure, but the central concept is that the letters can’t stand alone. When I’m interpreting for groups I almost always start with a living type table, especially if I only have an hour. This gets them putting the letters together right away, and engages everyone. It also gives participants permission to move around. There are many variations, but for a career focus I like:

• Lay a strip of masking tape on the floor, dividing the space horizontally. Have the Is go above the line and the Es go below. Ask them to talk among themselves about something that has to do with E-I. They have their results or ITT or some other handout with the E-I definitions. I like to ask them to describe their ideal work environment in terms of E-I or study environment. A few minutes of discussion, and then sharing with the larger group.
• Divide the line vertically so that you have quadrants. Have participants remain in their E-I positions, but move to the left for Sensing and right for Intuition. Have each quadrant talk among themselves about how they like to learn and share with the larger group.
• Then divide the quadrants into columns — the hearts of type. Have them talk with each other again about what they want most from work–what they want to contribute to the world through work.
• Then divide into rows so that you now have the 16 types — they are now with their own, and have them read the full type descriptions together from ITT or their reports. If you have an extra hour, you can have each type produce something that demonstrates their type — “Show us your type” is my favorite.

I hope this gives you some ideas. The last part of this activity when you are dividing into the final rows of the type table gives you a great opening to talk about J vs. P. The J rows provide the structure to the type table, just as they provide the structure for life. The Ps live within the structure with flexibility and spontaneity.

This particular occupation has been particularly difficult for me to explain to students, and I am eager to be able to provide a more informative explanation to them. 

Just to clarify, the Profile is the same for all Strong reports. The college “version” just means that four additional pages are attached to the standard profile.

Production Worker shows up on profiles for the same reason that any occupation shows up — the student answered the questions on the Strong the same way that production workers answered them when they took the Strong. The code for this occupation is CES for females and RCE for males. It will come up for many people with those codes. Think of it as using hands-on skills and concrete data in a manufacturing setting. Just because someone is attending a university doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t want to do these things, especially at a more technical university such as yours.

The occupational scales really aren’t meant to be taken as isolated scales. In the certification program we teach how to compute composite Occupational Scale codes that fill in the blank, “I would be most productive in work environments that are _____.” It is more understandable for students when occupational titles are presented with accompanying task descriptions. You find those in the Interpretive Report, or if you aren’t using that, show them the descriptions in the Manual Appendix or have them download the descriptions from O*Net. I’m looking at the Production Worker description in the Manual, focusing on the verbs, and I see ” . . .operate machinery, assembling products for distribution, inspecting for quality.” Almost all manufacturing engineering students will identify with the task statements listed above.

This is at the root of how the Strong is constructed. The Law BIS is homogeneous. All of the items correlated with each other and have to do specifically with law. The BIS is then correlated with each GOT — see table 4.5 on page 70 in the Manual. The highest correlation at .46 is with Enterprising, although it is not huge. So the Law BIS is coded Enterprising. Scores on this BIS come from how many times the respondent says “Like” or “Strongly Like” to the items on the scale compared to people in general. There are only 7 items on the scale.

The Attorney OS is completely different. A representative sample of approximately 1000 attorneys was collected. When they took the Strong, Artistic came up as their top theme code almost 50% of the time. The other 50% was divided up among the other five Themes. No other theme was significant, and so the OS has a single letter Artistic code. There are 27 items on this scale — any item that differentiates the responses of attorneys from the responses of people in general is included–”Likes,” “Dislikes,” and “Indifferent.” I’ve studied this scale for 30 years, constantly looking at sub samples, new samples, samples from all over the world. It never changes. They keep popping up as Artistic. I have a theory that it’s because a lot of undergraduate students with liberal arts (general) interests go into law to become employable. Most liberal arts students code out as a variation of A, S, and I. Their personality doesn’t change when they become lawyers. The combination of these two scales is critical to your work. The BIS will tell you if the person likes the content of the field of law + other BISs that suggest specialties within the field. Their Attorney OS will tell you if they are typical of happy, successful, attorneys. If they don’t score >39 on the OS, and they score high on the BIS, you’ve got a person who will have to find a special niche within the field in order to find it satisfying as a career. That’s where you come in!

This sounds like an undifferentiated Strong Profile. The very first thing that you want to do is check the percentage of “Indifferent” responses in the Response Summary on page 9. If the percentage is higher than about 45%, the Profile isn’t going to be very useful. You will probably need to back up and approach your client’s concerns from another direction. The MBTI can be very helpful here. If the two middle letters of the person’s type are somewhat clear (ST-SF-NF-NT) you can suggest interest areas on the Strong that they would probably like if they knew about them. That’s the major difference between the two instruments — the Strong only picks up on what you know about; the MBTI can predict what you might like.

Assuming that the “Indifferent” response percentage isn’t out of bounds, you can approach the Strong through the Occupational Scales to suggest a Theme code. There is a worksheet in the User’s Guide that takes you through the process of generating an overall Theme code from the individual Occupational Scales.

If that doesn’t work, you can “backdoor” into the Strong through the Personal Style Scales, and at least get the discussion going from preferences indicated there.

The bottom line, though, is that if a personality isn’t differentiated, the Strong won’t do it for them. You might have to do some work over and above career assessments to sort that out. Keep in mind that Realistic and Social represent opposite personality characteristics. When two opposite Themes show up in the first two positions, they tend to cancel everything else out. Very often people with Strong results like this need some help in getting to know themselves better, prioritizing, values clarification, etc.–all a part of what career counselors and consultants do.

It sounds like the student’s MBTI type and RIASEC theme are very different–something like ENFP + CRI or ISTJ + ASE. You wouldn’t expect these results from the same person, but it’s very possible. As a discussion starter, a verified MBTI type represents a genetic predisposition–the person’s natural personality preferences. Strong responses come from what respondents have experienced–they are socialized. When the two match up, such as ENFP + ASE or ISTJ + CRE, we can assume that respondents have been socialized in a direction consistent with their natural preferences. When they don’t match up, respondents have probably been socialized away from their natural preferences.

This frequently happens, for instance, when a type such as INFJ chooses accounting as a college major–because employment in accounting is pretty safe. They do well in the field (I__J), but somewhere along the way decide that they really don’t like the work. They take a Strong and an MBTI, and Accountant comes up on the Strong (they have developed a similarity to accountants), but their INFJ career list is much more about education, the arts, and social services–fields that are usually attractive to INFJ types.

The bottom line: The top occupations on the Strong come from answering the questions on the inventory the same way that people in the occupations do. The top career fields and most popular occupations on the MBTI Career Report come from frequency accounts — careers where the type is found most frequently. When they are different, the Strong’s Basic Interest Scales will often be the missing piece. These come from how often respondents say “Like” to items that describe certain career fields. Very often, the Basic Interest Scales will line up with MBTI Career Fields, even when the specific occupations listed are different.