A relational theory of working

Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 1–17

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / j v b

A relational theory of working David L. Blustein Department of Counseling, Developmental, and Educational Psychology, Boston College, Campion-315, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 3 September 2010 Available online 13 October 2010 Keywords: Relationships and work Relational theory Psychology of working Work-based transitions

a b s t r a c t Building on diverse influences from critical perspectives in vocational psychology and the relational movement in contemporary psychological discourse, this article introduces the relational theory of working. Attending to the full array of people who work and who want to work, the relational theory conceptualizes working as an inherently relational act. A relational theory provides a framework for understanding ways in which working is embedded in external and internal relational contexts. To establish the conceptual infrastructure for the relational theory, several propositions are advanced, which summarize observations and inferences about the intersection of working and relationships and highlight the inherent relational context of working. The article concludes with implications for practice, policy, and research. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The field of vocational psychology has done a commendable job of explicating and facilitating the work lives of people who have some degree of choice in their lives. As reflected in the major career choice and development theories (e.g., Brown, 2002; Brown & Lent, 2005; Savickas & Walsh, 2005), considerable research, assessment, and intervention strategies have been constructed to help people sort out their educational and occupational options. For the most part, existing theoretical perspectives have articulated a vision of individuals who are fairly autonomous and who intentionally seek to manifest their goals, interests, values, and abilities in the world of work. From a metaphorical perspective, the image that emerges from the existing literature is of individuals interacting with work and managing work-related decisions in a relational vacuum. In this article, I propose a radical shift in our thinking about working that, in my view, more accurately and comprehensively portrays vocational behavior as an inherently relational act. Conceptualizing working as a relational act underscores that each decision, experience, and interaction with the working world is understood, influenced, and shaped by relationships (Flum, 2001; Gergen, 2009; Richardson, 2010). Over the past few decades, critiques of the existing conceptual infrastructure of vocational psychology have been advanced from various perspectives, including feminism (Betz & Fitzgerald, 1987; Fassinger, 2008; Harmon & Farmer, 1983), multiculturalism (Helms & Cook, 1999; Helms & Piper, 1994; Leong, 1995), and classism (e.g., Diemer & Ali, 2009), as well as integrative critical perspectives (e.g., Blustein, 2006; Richardson, 1993, 2010). A key element of these critiques is the identification of a discourse that privileges the work lives of individuals with human and social capital who have a relative degree of choice in their work lives. The career choice and development theories were designed for those individuals who experience a degree of choice in their lives; in this context, the theories have been quite successful, informing the work of counselors and psychologists who have been charged with helping clients manage their decision-making. However, the reality of working for many people is that self-determined choices about the direction of one's working life are not possible (Blustein, 2006; Richardson, 1993; Sachs, 2005; Savickas et al., 2009). When considering these critiques collectively, a common theme is the identification of the decontextualized focus of the career choice and development process in existing theories. There are, however, notable exceptions to this decontextualized perspective, as reflected in the work of Collin and Young (2000), Richardson (2000, 2010), Savickas (2005), Savickas et al. (2009), Vondracek, Lerner, and Schulenberg (1986), among others. When considered collectively, the existing contextual perspectives have conveyed a compelling argument that work-based decisions, transitions, and experiences are not simply the expression of individual agency, but are rooted in interactions with a broad array of external influences. E-mail address: [email protected]. 0001-8791/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.10.004

2

D.L. Blustein / Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2011) 1–17

While these contextually informed views have helped to advance a more inclusive view of vocational psychology, the general assumption of many of the existing positions, even among the newer contextualized models, is that individuals have some degree of choice in their work lives. In addition, the context is often defined in ways that diminishes or neglects the role of others in developing and adapting to a meaningful working life. Moreover, the vast majority of scholarship on work, career, and vocational behavior has focused on market work, with little attention to care work (Richardson, 2010). Taken together, these observations suggest that existing theoretical frameworks are limited in their capacity to explicate the complex, interrelated aspects of work life that characterize the 21st century. The theoretical framework proposed in this article builds on and expands contextually informed perspectives, especially those that have explored relational contexts (e.g., Flum, 2001; Richardson, 2010; Schultheiss, 2003, 2007). In effect, the relational theory presented herein is constructed on the foundation of the innovative conceptual contributions that have begun to map the landscape of the relational contexts of working. For example, Flum (2001) applied a relational taxonomy, developed by Josselson (1992), to the career choice, exploration, and decision-making processes, culminating in important insights about the relational matrix in which working exists. Schultheiss (2003, 2007) has applied a social constructionist analysis to the relational understanding of work and career; in her contributions, she has developed a compelling argument that working is rooted in relationships and culture. As detailed later in this article, several other scholars have advanced creative and innovative ideas about the relational context of working. These contextualized views tend to highlight the role of families, peers, social networks, and cultural factors in the work lives of people (Blustein, Schultheiss, & Flum, 2004; Flum, 2001; Richardson, 2000, 2010; Schultheiss, 2003, 2007). To date, however, an integrated theoretical statement that builds on the relational context of work-related behaviors has not been developed. Unlike traditional theories of career choice and vocational development, the present theory relates to the lives of individuals with less than optimal choice in their educational and occupational lives as well as those with more choices. Examining the common element for all people who work – the relational context – we have an opportunity to create an integrative theoretical perspective that addresses working people across the spectrum of work-based privilege and volition. Until recently (e.g., Blustein, 2001, 2006; Flum, 2001; Phillips, 1997; Richardson, 1993, 2010; Schultheiss, 2003), the notion that others were involved in the career development process was considered an afterthought or a minor influential factor. Indeed, the major career choice and development theories throughout the 20th century, for the most part, were rooted in an individualistic ethos, based on an assumption that the work-based plans and choices that people established were relatively isolated from other people in their lives and communities (see, for example, Holland, 1997; Super, 1990). In contrast, a close examination of the work lives of the full spectrum of people around the globe reveals that even among individuals who have been able to manifest their work-related dreams, the career choice and development process is rarely unpacked from one's proximal relational and distal community contexts (Blustein et al., 2004; Greenhaus & Parasuraman, 1999; Hall et al., 1996). In my view, new theoretical positions are needed for the 21st century that encompass an expanded vision of working along with an integrative understanding of the complex, reciprocal relationships between work and other life domains. A theoretical framework is also needed that explores how people make meaning of their interactions with others and with the broader social world. The present theoretical statement concentrates on the centrality of relationships, which has become one of the major intellectual motifs of 21st century psychology (Gergen, 2009; Jordan, 2009; Mitchell, 2003; Siegel, 1999; Wachtel, 2007). I also explore how relational influences (both historic and contemporary) are internalized, with implications for the ways in which individuals experience aspirations, interests, values, and motivation. What makes this theory unique is the focus on how relationships form the fundamental basis for experience, including work-based experiences (cf. Gergen, 2009). As Gergen (2009) noted, “what we call thinking, experience, memory, and creativity are actions in relationships. Even in our private reveries, we are in relationship” (p. 63). Mapping the range of the relational theory of working Developing a theory, naturally, forces one to reckon with the question of generalizability and universality, and ultimately, the nature of organizing knowledge. One of the major questions that needs to be considered is to what extent is a given theory generalizable beyond a given time frame and context? Moreover, to what extent is a theory considered universal? These issues underscore a major debate in the intellectual realm pertaining to questions about how we know and understand the world (Blustein et al., 2004; Gergen, 2001). While I affirm the critique that universal theories are highly questionable given the complexity of cultural forces and changes in historical, political, and social circumstances (Gergen, 2001; Stead, 2004), I also believe some core processes may be relatively consistent across similar cultural contexts. My view is that a careful and critical lens that evaluates the relevance and generalizibility of a given set of ideas will help to generate a broad-based theory that can then be evaluated in relation to diverse contexts, cultures, and historical periods. As detailed in developmental systems theories (Lerner, 2002, 2006), much of the psychological discourse in the 20th century has been constructed around conceptual splits between aspects of human nature and experience that are actually fused. For example, considerable theory and research has been devoted to examining nature and nurture as dialectically opposite causes of behavior, when in fact, they are inextricably linked in dynamic and recursive ways. Building on the need for theories that bind life experiences, a major objective of this theoretical project is to eliminate the artificial splits that exist in the relationship and work interface. The relational theory presented here seeks to delete the artificial hyphen that has existed in the study of relationships and working, with the goal of binding these essential domains of life in psychological discourse, much as they are in the lived experiences of people (Blustein, 2006; Bowe, Bowe, & Streeter, 2000). The overarching scope and objectives of this theoretical project is on the relational context of working, which is manifested in two interrelated ways. First, the space shared by working and relationships is considerable, with each domain of life affecting the


3

other, often in profound ways. Second, this theory builds on the social constructionist perspective (detailed later in this article), which proposes that people learn about themselves, their social world, and culture via relationships. As such, an explicit use of a relational lens has the potential to explicate how people understand work, develop their educational and work-based plans and preferences (in cases where some degree of volition exists), adjust to their work tasks, attach meaning to work, cope with workbased challenges, and manage the work and relationship nexus. In effect, this theory represents an extension of vocational psychological theories of the 20th century in that it encompasses the typical scope of career choice and development models, yet it also expands the range to encompass all people who work and who want to work. This theory has been constructed to stand on its own as a set of ideas and propositions about the essential relational context that frames and, in many cases, defines a wide array of work-based experiences and behaviors. At the same time, the relational theory can inform and analyze other vocational psychological theories, many of which have been limited by their relatively circumscribed focus on career choice and development. As such, the relational theory, in addition to its own unique contributions to the psychology of working, provides a tool for integrating conceptualizations that can enhance theories of career choice, vocational development, family–work interactions, occupational health, vocational rehabilitation, and other work-based theories in psychology. I envision that this theory will be useful for scholars who can advance their work by examining the influence of relationships in their formulations. In addition, this theory has direct applicability to practitioners, who generally report close connections between working and relationships (Axelrod, 1999; Blustein et al., 2001). By detailing the ways in which people can maximally provide emotional and instrumental support for each other, a relational theory may inform the development of community-based programs and systems for individuals facing work-based challenges (such as unemployment, bullying, dissatisfaction, occupational health issues, etc.). Finally, by detailing the connections among working, relationships, and community life, scholars and practitioners may be able to formulate recommendations for policy makers who are faced with daunting challenges about the availability and quality of work (cf. Reich, 2010). At the outset, I initially articulate the contexts for the theory, which center around the psychological experiences of working and relationships. This is followed by the conceptual framework for this theory, wherein I present the major propositions derived from a relational analysis of working. These propositions are followed by an examination of how culture, race, gender, and social class intersect with the relational theory of working. The article concludes with a discussion of future research, theory development, counseling practice, and potential public policy recommendations emerging from scholarship informed by the relational theory of working. Working: a 21st century view For the most part, traditional career choice and development theories are based on various notions of the term “career”. Savickas (2005) states that “careers…are constructed as individuals make choices that express their self-concepts and substantiate their goals in the social reality of work roles” (p. 43). This definition captures the self-determination that is evident in most traditional theories of career choice and development. At the root of nearly every major theory articulated in the mid to later part of the 20th century is the notion that individuals can implement their self-concepts in the world of work (see the theoretical summaries in Brown, 2002; Brown & Lent, 2005; Sharf, 2009). The notion of self-concept implementation (Super, 1990), for the most part, presupposes a degree of choice. Moreover, this assumption presents work-based transitions and decisional challenges in a relatively autonomous fashion, without attention to the relational matrix that frames vocational life, and, indeed, nearly all of life. Working, as defined in this article, entails “effort, activity, and human energy in given tasks that contribute to the overall social and economic welfare of a given culture” (Blustein, 2006, p. 3). Blustein also proposed that working provides sources of identity for people as well as means of interpersonal connection, social contribution, and optimally, opportunities for self-determination (cf. Savickas, 2005). In addition, working can be located in the market place as well as in caregiving contexts (Richardson, 2010). This conceptual view of working is not meant to replace the notion of career; rather, working is viewed as set of activities that, under optimal circumstances, may yield greater volition levels in educational and work-based options, culminating in a career. The psychology of working: an alternative perspective A number of recent initiatives have sought to shift the focus from individualistic and somewhat deterministic views of vocational behavior to more context-bound perspectives (cf. Savickas, 2005; Richardson, 2010; Young, Valach, & Collin, 2002). With an explicit focus on the lives of all people who work and who want to work, the psychology-of-working perspective, as articulated by Blustein (2006) and others (e.g., Fassinger, 2008; Fouad & Bynner, 2008; Juntunen, 2006; Richardson, 1993), has been constructed on a contextual foundation with the intention of expanding the purview and impact of vocational psychology. The psychology-of-working perspective is based on the notion that working encompasses volitional careers as well as the full spectrum of work that people do to survive (Blustein, 2006). For example, we can consider that a counseling psychologist has a volitional career that represents her values, abilities, and interests. At the same time, the psychologist also works as a means of fulfilling various responsibilities for pay, connecting to others at work, and seeking self-determination. Let us also consider the work life of a janitor: while one can argue that janitors also have careers, it is harder to imagine that the janitor has sought his/her job to fulfill interests inherent in janitorial work and that this job functions as a vehicle for self-concept implementation. (Naturally, this is an empirical question, but research and narrative vignettes from individuals with unskilled jobs suggest a notable lack of choice. See, for example, Blustein, 2006; Bowe et al., 2000; Wilson, 1996 for preliminary evidence supporting this inference.) As such, in order to include all people who work in contemporary theory

4


development efforts, I argue for a focus on working, which includes volitional careers, yet is not limited to the work lives of individuals with moderate to extensive degrees of choice. Building on a systematic critique of career development theories, the psychology-of-working framework seeks to explore the impact of intrapsychic, relational, social, economic, political, and historical factors in people's work lives. Another key attribute of the psychology of working is the identification of three human needs that working optimally can fulfill: the need for survival and power, the need for social connection, and the need for self-determination. Furthermore, the psychology-of-working perspective highlights the ways in which work and non-work aspects of human experience are closely interconnected in the natural course of daily life. In addition, the psychology-of-working perspective presupposes that work is a key component of psychological health and human welfare (Blustein, 2008). Furthermore, the psychology-of-working perspective has been applied to career counseling and psychotherapeutic practices (Blustein, Kenna, Gill, & DeVoy, 2008; Richardson, 2010) and has generated implications for preventive efforts and public policy reforms regarding work, education, training, and psychological health (Blustein, 2008, Debell, 2006; Fassinger, 2008; Fouad & Bynner, 2008). The expansive vision of the psychology of working also has sought to incorporate major shifts in the landscape of the world of work (Blustein, 2006). One essential aspect of the working context is the flattening of work organizations (Friedman, 2005) coupled with massive changes due to globalization (Coutinho, Dam, & Blustein, 2008; Reich, 2010; Savickas et al., 2009). These changes have led to considerable uncertainty for nearly all workers around the globe. In effect, the lack of stability in the world of work is leading to decreasing volition for many well-educated workers (who had heretofore had more choices in their lives), thereby expanding the need for inclusive work-based theories and practices that will embrace all people who work and who want to work (Arthur & Rousseau, 2001; Friedman, 2005). The changes in the world of work have created a sense of instability that is likely to become a pervasive aspect of the occupational landscape for the foreseeable future (Guichard, 2009; Reich, 2010). This shifting context will require different conceptual and practice tools that can help individuals find support, meaning, and resources to cope with uncertainty and stress. A relational theory optimally can yield new counseling and prevention tools that are designed for a radically different work context in comparison to the context that has framed most 20th century career development theories. Moreover, a relational theory of working, optimally supported by discovery-oriented projects and theory-testing empirical research, can inform the development of community-based strategies for supporting individuals as they grapple with an occupational context that is uncertain, at best. The relational theory of working also is very relevant for individuals with fewer, if any, work-based choices. As opposed to many traditional theories of career choice, which have viewed the decision-maker as a relatively autonomous agent (Holland, 1997; Lent, Brown, & Hackett, 2002), relational theories embed people in their natural contexts—surrounded both literally and psychologically by people. For people without as much choice, I argue that the relational connections are profoundly important for the development of a work life that is dignified, matters, and has meaning. For example, poverty, unemployment, and economic hardship often encourage people to bind together to support each other, and to advocate for each other (Paul & Moser, 2009; Sennett, 1998). Moreover, the relational theory places interventions and public policy recommendations into a community context, highlighting our individual and collective commitment to healthy and equitable communities. As such, the relational theory is a logical extension of the psychology of working with its focus on the full gamut of working people, its emphasis on the psychological experience of working, and its affirmation of the relational and community framework that defines the nature of working.

Outcomes of working: a relational perspective As suggested by Prilleltensky (1997), psychologists need to be clear about their views of a good life and a good society. Given the broader focus of this theory on all people who work and who want to work, I offer a conceptualization of optimal outcomes of working that is grounded in the belief that working, ideally, should provide some degree of meaning, matter, and dignity (cf. Savickas et al., 2009). These outcomes, derived from a relational analysis of working, are intended to supplement the traditional outcomes in career development. In this light, I concur with vocational psychologists in advocating for a working life that is intrinsically satisfying and that entails tasks that are congruent with one's interest, abilities, and values (Holland, 1997; Super, 1990). However, the reality of working has been, and will likely continue to be (at least for the foreseeable future), that not all individuals will have an opportunity to select work that is consistent with their interests and that provides an outlet for their self-concepts (Reich, 2010; Savickas et al., 2009). As I have detailed elsewhere (Blustein, 2006, 2008), I strongly endorse changes in public policies in education, training, and the economic structure that will enhance access to jobs that are congruent and satisfying. Indeed, I believe that increasing access to volitional working lives ought to be one of the hallmarks of contemporary social justice efforts; as such, I argue that survival, from an economic and security perspective, is essential and, indeed, is a human birthright (Blustein, 2006). That said, I believe that vocational psychologists need to articulate a broader vision of a good working life given the reality that so many individuals do not have access to work that is interesting and/or reflective of their values. The concepts of meaning and mattering are derived from contemporary narrative approaches to vocational psychology (e.g., Flum, 2001; Savickas, 2005; Schultheiss, 2007, 2009). Savickas (2005) noted that “rather than choose among attractive options, some individuals may have to take the only job that is available to them, often a job that grinds on the human spirit because its tasks are difficult, tedious, and exhausting. Nevertheless, the work that they do can be meaningful to them and matter to their community” (p. 44). The notion of meaning in relation to working includes one's sense of purpose in working and the way in which one understands his/her work life. According to Richardson (2010), meaning is given shape in social interactions in which one's own constructions of working are embedded in relational understandings.


5

Consistent with the Savickas (2005) position, I also consider mattering to be central in a consideration of work-based outcomes. Mattering is an inherently interpersonal process in which people learn about their efforts and accomplishments via relational and cultural discourses (Marshall, 2001). Savickas further elaborated by noting that mattering has both internal and external attributes in that a given set of work-based tasks can matter to individuals and also can matter to one's community. Optimally, working can provide a sense of mattering that can help to give purpose to one's life, even in cases in which one's work is not congruent with one's interests, abilities, or values, as reflected in the example that concludes this section. The grinding aspects of tedious and disinteresting work can be enhanced to some degree by a work context that offers dignity. A dignified working context is defined as providing access to safe and healthy working conditions, relationships that are characterized by affirmation of diversity, respect for human rights, occupational safety, respectful supervisors, and access to humane policies on work– family life (Blustein, 2006). While many of these attributes of a job had been addressed by labor unions and government regulations in recent decades (Clawson & Clawson, 1999; Putnam, 2000), the advent of globalization and the keen competitive climate has forced considerable changes in these support systems, thereby evoking the need for a more explicit statement about the importance of dignified working conditions in a 21st century theory of working (Friedman, 2005). In order to understand how meaning, mattering, and dignity can function in a work life that is not necessarily constructed on volitional choices, let us once again consider the aforementioned janitor. As noted earlier, it is likely that she does not intrinsically enjoy her tasks and may find the work dull and physically draining. However, she may derive meaning and a sense that her work matters, which may not make the job any less dispiriting, but may add some richness to her overall experience of working (Savickas, 2005). The sense of meaning and mattering may be derived from her perception that her work provides a clean space for others who work or live in the building. In addition, social interactions with peers and family members who value her efforts in sustaining the family and community may convey deep respect for her work, thereby providing further meaning and underscoring that her work matters to herself and others. The degree to which the janitor's job offers dignity depends to a significant extent on the affordances provided by the employer and the community at large. A work environment that offers fair wages, safe working conditions, humane supervisors, and other resources may enhance the sense of dignity that is essential for a comfortable working environment. A close examination of these three attributes of working underscores the ways in which working is a relational act. Meaning, mattering, and dignity all occur in a relational matrix in which individual perceptions are shaped by social expectations and cultural understandings. Moreover, access to the resources that support meaning, mattering, and dignity at work is contingent, to a large extent, on colleagues and supervisors as well as communities that value everyone's contribution to the social welfare. The addition of meaning, mattering, and dignity to the lexicon of adaptive outcomes of working provides a relationally oriented perspective with broad relevance to the full gamut of working people. The foundation of a relational theory of working In this section, I develop the infrastructure for the relational theory of working. The rationales detailed here are embedded in a broad conceptual landscape that seeks to map the fluid space shared by relationships and working. As a means of providing structure to the complex and overlapping connections between working and relational life, several propositions are offered later in the article, which serve to summarize, organize, and specify the conceptual connections detailed in this section. As I argue in this section, interpersonal relationships as well as internalized relational objects play essential roles in the development of a viable and meaningful work life. (The term “objects”, developed in psychoanalytic theory, denotes internalized psychic structures that represent internalizations of important people and interactions from one's past; see Brickman, 2009; Mitchell, 2003; Wachtel, 2007, for further details.) These relational influences are viewed as not only aspects of the context that shape access to opportunity; they also help to shape the resilience that is necessary for individuals to manage the ever-increasing complexity of work challenges. Moreover, relationships and working provide the focal points for life experience for many individuals across the globe (Richardson, 1993, 2010). In addition, scholars from the social constructionist perspective (e.g., Gergen, 2009; Stead, 2004) have argued compellingly that meaning is derived to a great extent in relational and cultural discourse. In short, our interactions with others provide us with a means of understanding our experiences and relating our experiences to external demands. The relational revolution and working Within the past few decades, psychologists and other social scientists have critiqued one of the hallmarks of Western culture— namely, that autonomy and individualism are the essential attributes of maturity and mental health (Flum, 2001; Gilligan, 1982; Jordan, 2009; Josselson, 1992; Kohut, 1977; Mitchell, 2003). The essence of this argument is that the autonomous standard is an artifact of a male-dominated discourse in psychology that has been rooted in the relatively affluent culture of industrial and postindustrial life in Western communities (Gergen, 2009). In contrast, the relational perspectives affirm natural human strivings for connection, which have been articulated in feminist thought (e.g., Jordan, 2009; Miller, 1987), attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988), contemporary psychoanalytic thought (Mitchell, 2003; Wachtel, 2007), multicultural perspectives (e.g., Ponterotto, Casas, Suzuki, & Alexander, 2009), and critical psychology (e.g., Prilleltensky, 1997). In this article, I adopt a view of relational perspectives that has been described by Blustein et al. (2004). Blustein and colleagues proposed that the relational perspectives serve as a meta-framework for a wide array of theories and propositions that cohere along a number of assumptions. One of the key tenets is that people are hard-wired to connect to other people (Bowlby, 1988). Another major characteristic is that people strive to be in connection with others—in short, relational connections serve as the oxygen in our psychological lives, providing emotional resources throughout diverse life experiences

6


(Kohut, 1977). The relational perspectives have been applied to working (Flum, 2001), psychotherapy (Mitchell, 2003), personality theory (Kohut, 1977), and broader social and community contexts (Putnam, 2000). The importance of relationships also has been explicated in research on neurobiology. Siegel (1999) integrated literature from developmental psychology, neurobiology, psychodynamic thought, and attachment theory to explore the ways in which relationships and brain structure are related. His critical review of the literature revealed that “relationship experiences have a dominant influence on the brain because the circuits responsible for social perception are the same as or tightly linked to those that integrate the important functions controlling the creation of meaning, the regulation of body states, the modulation of emotion, the organization of memory, and the capacity for interpersonal communication” (1999, p. 21). Siegel's review, which has been echoed by Schore (1994), provides compelling evidence that relationships and brain structure have a recursive quality. Moreover, Siegel noted that these neurobiological imprints are mutable by external events and relationships throughout life. Establishing the foundation of the relational theory of working The core premise of this theory harkens back to Freud's (1930) famous dictum about work and love as the hallmarks of mental health. In short, the essence of human existence has been and continues to be one in which people are nested in relational contexts (Bowlby, 1988; Gergen, 2009; Josselson, 1992; Mitchell, 2003); equally fundamental to our survival is working, which is needed to ensure access to food, shelter, and safety as well as a sense of contribution and meaning (Blustein, 2006). In addition, working is an inherently relational phenomenon (Blustein, 2006; Hall et al., 1996; Richardson, 2000, 2010) in that working contexts are located, for the most part, in social environments and place people into direct contact with others and their communities. Even when individuals are working alone, they are shaped by their internal representations of others and social expectations regarding the nature of working, both of which provide meaning to their experience. One of the antecedents of the burgeoning relational movement in psychology was the work of Bakan (1966) on agency and communion. Foreshadowing the relational perspectives that emerged a few decades later, Bakan argued that psychology had overly focused on agency to the detriment of communion. As defined by Flum (2001), “agency refers to the striving to separate, to master the environment, to assert and expand the self. Communion refers to contact, connection, union, and a sense of being at one with others” (p. 1). Building on Bakan's work, Flum (2001) proposed that work and relationships, reflecting agency and communion, respectively, ought to be bridged, thereby reducing an artificial split that has impeded progress in theory development, research, practice, and public policy. To date, the relational perspectives, when considered within the working realm, have informed the development of innovative conceptual ideas (Flum, 2001; Schultheiss, 2007) and counseling practices (Schultheiss, 2003). Furthermore, Hall et al. (1996) presented compelling arguments that relational supports at work and within one's community function to provide a powerful counterbalance to the growing sense of disaffection that has permeated the corporate work world of well-educated managers and professionals. Sennett (1998) summarized the substantial loss of relational connections as automation and insularity increasingly define the contemporary working context, which he believes are reshaping the very nature of human experience. Putnam (2000) noted that workplace connections are less available as the labor market becomes increasingly unstable; yet, he also observed that relational connections at work are integral to rebuilding a sense of community and civic engagement that has diminished in recent decades. In the analyses by Sennett (1998) and Putnam (2000), the importance of relational connections is underscored by noting the impact of its absence. Schultheiss (2007) developed a compelling analysis applying relational–cultural theory (Jordan, 2009) to vocational psychology. Relational–cultural theory, originally developed as a clinically oriented perspective, has integrated relational ideas, feminism, psychodynamic theory, and cultural psychology (Jordan, 2009; Miller, 1987). As Schultheiss (2007) summarized, four basic tenets of relational cultural theory are relevant to vocational psychology: “a) the influence of the family as critical to understanding the complexities of vocational development, b) the psychological experience of work as embedded within relational contexts (e.g., social, familial and cultural), c) the interface of work and family life, and (d) relational discourse as a challenge to the cultural script of individualism” (pp. 192–193). Her application of relational–cultural theory places relationships and culture at the forefront of conceptualizations of working, as opposed to the backdrop. The relational–cultural analysis, coupled with other conceptual analyses (e.g., Flum, 2001; Richardson, 2000, 2010), provides a firm foundation for the construction of the present theoretical enterprise. One of the observations that has emerged in recent scholarship is that relationships and work have complex and reciprocal interactions (Blustein, 2001, 2006; Hall et al., 1996; Schultheiss, 2003, 2007). As an example, the work and family literature has detailed the recursive interactions between work and family stress, underscoring the reciprocity of these life domains (e.g., Barnett & Hyde, 2001; Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007; Schultheiss, 2006). Another complication in the relationship/work linkage is the observation that relational influences can be aversive as well, as reflected in the growing literature on bullying at the workplace (e.g., Baillien, Neyens, DeWitte, & DeCuyper, 2009; Lee & Brotheridge, 2006). In addition, relational influences can be further traumatizing when manifested by racist attacks, sexual harassment, and discrimination based on sexual orientation, age, ability status and the like. Another essential attribute of the relational theory of working is the role of relationships and culture as lenses by which meaning is constructed. As detailed in various social constructionist analyses (e.g., Flum, 2001; Gergen, 2001, 2009; Josselson, 1992; Richardson, 2010; Schultheiss, 2007; Stead, 2004), relationships provide people with a way of deriving meaning about their interactions with others and with life tasks. The language that is used and the meaning that others attribute to actions are framed in relational contexts (Schultheiss, 2007). For example, family members and loved ones may help an individual who is laid off from her information technology job understand the loss as a reflection of the economic downturn. This interpretation can help to buttress the self-doubt and internal criticism that often result from job loss.


7

While other domains of life are no doubt important for a satisfying life, as Freud argued, work and relationships represent core experiences that have both historical and contemporary meaning across many contexts. From an evolutionary perspective, working and relationships are directed toward our survival (Blustein, 2006; Donkin, 2001). The ancient human legacy has been structured around the development of clans and communities to foster greater cooperation in survival and in child-rearing. In developing and sustaining communities, early humans devoted their efforts toward survival, which included gathering food, searching for protection from extreme weather, and developing tools to ease the challenges of survival. While contemporary life has added countless layers to this quilt of survival, the centrality of work and relationships has been and continues to revolve around human beings' natural strivings for connection, caregiving, creativity, and contribution. Research evidence of the connections between working and relationships Empirical research (both qualitative and quantitative) also has underscored the intersection of work and relationships. The connections that have been identified include, but are not limited to, relationships at work, relationships that support people as they manage work-based challenges, and relationships outside of work, which impact upon work in a wide array of ways. For example, Schultheiss, Palma, Predragovich, and Glassock (2002) reported that siblings function as viable sources of support for individuals as they negotiate career development tasks. The line of research by Phillips and her colleagues (e.g., Phillips, Christopher-Sisk, & Gravino, 2001) has identified the complex ways that adolescents and young adults receive and use relational support from others as they grapple with complex educational and work-based decisions. Additional research emerging from Bowlby's (1988) attachment theory has demonstrated that secure attachment to significant others is associated with career exploration, progress in career decision-making, and greater adaptation to work-based challenges (see Blustein, Prezioso, & Schultheiss, 1995, for a review of this literature). One particularly important finding is that differentiation of college students from their parents was not associated with progress in career decision making; however, when attachment measures were added, the relationships that emerged were both significant and meaningful (Blustein, Walbridge, Friedlander, & Palladino, 1991). In effect, it is not necessarily adaptive to differentiate from one's family in late adolescence without a corresponding sense of attachment and connection. A rich and extensive literature on the interface of family life and working has been documented with the findings pointing to the complexity of these relationships (see Ford et al., 2007; Whiston & Keller, 2004; Schultheiss, 2006, for reviews). While much of this literature has focused on the stresses of balancing work and family responsibilities, Greenhaus and Powell (2006) proposed that family and working can enrich each other. For example, individuals who are struggling at work may find that their family lives offer a buffer from the vicissitudes of a challenging job situation or unemployment. In research examining the family–work enrichment theory, Greenhaus and his colleagues (Chen, Powell, & Greenhaus, 2009; Weer, Greenhaus, & Linnehan, 2010) have found that family–work conflict and family–work enrichment co-exist, depending on the context and nature of specific family and work roles. This literature parallels the assumptions of the present relational theory, which is also framed around recursive and multidirectional assumptions about work and relationships. In the realm of work, per se, studies on mentoring have identified the importance of supportive and helpful colleagues in the negotiation of often unpredictable work environments (see Ragins & Kram, 2007, for a review). In addition, vocational rehabilitation counseling scholars have identified the importance of family, peers, and community members in facilitating one's adjustment to disability at work (see Szymanski & Parker, 2003, for a review). Research on counseling and psychotherapy has documented the complex ways that relationships and work function in treatment, with both domains weaving in and out of each other in the natural discourse of a client (Blustein & Spengler, 1995). A number of psychoanalytic scholars also have written thoughtfully about the role of work in human behavior and more specifically, in psychotherapy (e.g., Axelrod, 1999; Socarides & Kramer, 1997). However, as Blustein (2006) noted, the psychotherapy literature is notably missing a systematic understanding of the role of work in treatment and in people's lives more broadly. In my view, the relational theory of working can be instrumental in fostering the conceptual innovations needed to construct a framework for a truly inclusive psychological practice. While the connections between working and relationships are clearly noted in the literature (and also conveyed in the narratives that people describe about their lives—see Blustein, 2006), the relational nature of working is not well understood. Moreover, the findings that have been obtained are not easily integrated due to the lack of a cohering theoretical framework. In addition, critical aspects of the interface of individual psychological experience and relationships, such as internalization, have not been incorporated into the nascent scholarship in this area. Internalization of relationships As a means of advancing the growing body of literature on relational perspectives in vocational psychology, I present the notion of internalization, which further explicates how relationships shape individual functioning, and optimally, enhance resilience in both work and non-work settings. The concept of internalization, which originally grew out of psychoanalytic theory (Freud, 1930; Mitchell, 2003; Wachtel, 2007), refers to the process whereby individuals create internal psychological structures that represent the salient individuals and the dynamics of one's relational life, both historically and currently. Several relationally oriented theorists have developed specific constructs to denote internalized psychic structures, such as Bowlby's (1988) working model and Jordan's (2009) relational images. While these constructs each have unique attributes, the general theme is that relational experiences, psychologically vivid events (such as traumatic incidents), and thematic relational processes become internalized and subsequently influence one's constructions and emotional reactions to interpersonal interactions, life experiences, and internal mood states across diverse contexts (Mitchell, 2003; Wachtel, 2007). Internalization also has been described in the Deci and Ryan (2000) motivational theory, reflecting the process by which individuals develop internal structures that help to sustain effort for

8


extrinsically motivating tasks. Moreover, internalizations can be constructed from external messages about one's phenotype and identities, as reflected in racial identity (Helms & Cook, 1999), sexual orientation identity (Worthington, Savoy, Dillon, & Vernaglia, 2002), social class (Liu, Soleck, Hopps, Dunston, & Pickett, 2004), and ethnic identity (Phinney & Ong, 2007). Taken together, these theoretical strands yield a definition of internalization that denotes internal constructions (also known as psychological structures) that function to organize individuals' experience of relationships, both contemporary and historical as well as other important life experiences (such as geographic locations, sense of place, home, etc.). Internalized experiences can range along a continuum from soothing to anxiety-provoking and even recapitulating psychological abuse. These internal structures have both cognitive and affective components, and culminate in the creation of relational patterns (Brickman, 2009). The patterns create echoes of affect and cognition about earlier relational experiences, which play a role in how people construct and react to relationships and other life experiences (Brickman). The internalized patterns may be characterized by ambivalence, which is a hallmark of many familial and intimate relationships (e.g., Mitchell, 2003). In effect, internalizations represent the introjection of others into our psyches, replete with the attributes and characteristics of the relationship. Internalizations may not necessarily represent an accurate portrayal of a set of experiences; temperament, affective states, cognitive distortions, and various other individual difference factors may shape the nature and impact of internalizations (cf. Siegel, 1999). Internalizations include both affective and cognitive elements, which are shaped throughout one's life. As detailed in the psychotherapy and developmental psychology literatures (Ainsworth, 1989; Bowlby, 1988; Mitchell, 2003; Wachtel, 2007), internalizations are inherently mutable. Life experience and/or psychotherapy can transform internalizations, often dramatically (Mitchell, 2003; Siegel, 1999). In this context, work experiences and psychological internalizations are recursive in that each can influence the other. Positive working experiences, particularly those that have clear relational dimensions (such as having a constructive, caring supervisor) can facilitate changes in how individuals experience authority figures. In the same vein, internalizations can influence working in a number of ways. As an illustration, an individual who has had support and affirmation from a parent may be able to construct an internalized image of relational support that can be invoked throughout many of the vicissitudes of working. This internalized structure of relational support would be particularly useful in facing work-based challenges in which one's self-confidence is being threatened by an unpredictable labor market. In contrast, individuals who have experienced inconsistent or traumatizing relationships in childhood, adolescence, or adulthood may struggle to invoke soothing images as they face difficult challenges in life. As such, internalizations function as a regulating mechanism, providing both support and vulnerability in relation to various life experiences and challenges. In the realm of working, internalizations affect perceptions of relational experience at work as well as of working, per se. For example, individuals who have experienced bullying at a past job may perceive supervisory feedback as a recapitulation of the bullying, even though the actual process is clearly discrete from bullying. Internalizations, therefore, represent the relational experiences of life, imprinted, albeit in a mutable fashion, into one's psyche, affecting a wide array of work-based experiences. Care work and market work While vocational psychology has focused on market work (working for money), most people around the globe also devote considerable effort in caring for others (Richardson, 2010; Schultheiss, 2009). Richardson (1993, 2010) has developed a compelling argument that care work should be an integral part of vocational psychological discourse. Care work, which includes taking care of children, other family members, aging parents, and loved ones, represents an activity that shares some parallels with market work. However, as Richardson (2010) noted, “there are two different contexts of work in which most people participate to varying degrees over the life span. Each is significant, both for individuals, as the contexts through which they construct their lives, and for our culture, which needs to more fully acknowledge the importance of both economic production and social reproduction in the construction of lives worth living and of sustainable societies” (p. 32). The relational theory of working is constructed on a foundation of affirming the centrality of care work in contemporary life and of stimulating research and theory development on the relationship between care work and market work. Moreover, examining the recursive nature of work and relationships will help to explicate how work in the family/relational contexts and in the market place contexts is mutually influential. Following Richardson's (2010) argument, care work and market work represent historically gendered activities that function to reify economic resource allocations, social power, and privilege. Examining the relationship between working in both the caregiving and market sectors may help to develop research that can inform public policies devoted to reducing the diminished status, pay, and access to resources of care work. A relational analysis of self-knowledge, exploration, and career decision making A number of studies have demonstrated that relational support is important in facilitating career exploration and progress in decision making (e.g., Blustein et al., 1995; Ketterson & Blustein, 1997; Phillips et al., 2001). A close examination of this literature in light of relational theory provides important insights into the processes by which relationships influence how people explore themselves and the world of education, training, and work. The diverse literature on the construction of self-knowledge reveals that one of the most important ways that people learn about themselves is in their interactions with others (Gergen, 2001; Hartung & Subich, 2011). In the social constructionist perspective, constructions of self and others are thought to be fundamentally embedded in relationships and culture (Gergen, 2009). The relational connection to self-knowledge is based on a recursive feedback loop in which the meaning for various experiences and social behaviors is constructed via social contexts and cultural influences (Gergen, 2009). For example, an early adolescent who plays with other children and provides nurturance to those who are the victims of teasing may not know how to understand his interactions and values. A parent may provide feedback to the


9

child, highlighting his capacity to be caring. By naming the experience and providing affirmation (or any other sort of input), people learn about themselves and are able to give their behavior, thoughts, values, and attitudes meaning. The process of exploring the external environment is equally embedded in relational contexts. Research emerging from Bowlby's (1988) attachment theory has demonstrated that secure attachment provides a foundation of support for individuals as they venture into new environments (Ainsworth, 1989; Cassidy & Shaver, 2008). In the realm of career exploration, a secure base provides a mooring for individuals as they venture into new contexts and activities that may evoke anxiety. Similar to the process described previously with self-exploration, interactions with others provide a way for individuals to construct meaning about their exploration experiences. Culture, relationships, and working Essential in any theoretical endeavor in contemporary psychology is an examination of the role of culture. According to Stead (2004), culture refers to “the historical nature of a group of people, and reflects on their norms, beliefs, symbols, and traditions (Bauman, 1999). Culture is not a static phenomenon but alters and adjusts to increasing contact with people from other cultures” (p. 393). From this perspective, culture is understood as a dynamic aspect of the context that is formed by, and informs, relational experience. On one level, relationships with family members and people within communities function to define salient aspects of culture. Similarly, culture represents an internalization of collective and individual representations of people, their values, and their characteristic ways of responding to life events. In effect, culture may be understood as providing the lens through which we understand relationships and working. At the same time, relationships and working help to create our sense of culture. In light of the objectives of this theoretical project, I argue that culture shapes how people experience working and relationships. One of the ways in which culture frames relational and working experiences is in its role as a holding environment (Winnicott, 1965) for people as they negotiate work-based challenges. According to Winnicott, a holding environment is an adaptive aspect of early parent–child relationships in which the caregiver provides a sense of security and safety for the child. In extrapolating from Winnicott's construct, I suggest that culture can serve as a holding environment for people throughout the life span. Culture may “hold” the collective memory and values of one's community, which are internalized and become part of one's identity and one's relational supports. As such, culture may provide a broader form of a secure base for people as they cope with diverse working experiences. Summary In sum, the relational revolution has clearly impacted vocational psychology with both creative conceptual statements (e.g., Flum, 2001; Schultheiss, 2007) and innovative empirical research (e.g., Phillips et al., 2001; Schultheiss et al., 2002), underscoring the inherent nature of working as a relational act. To facilitate further progress in the relational perspectives of working, I offer a set of theoretical propositions, that when considered collectively, create a conceptual scaffolding for a relational theory of working. Theoretical propositions about relationships and working In contrast, though, to the prevalent career development theories, I am constructing the relational theory of working so that it is relevant to those who work with little to no volition in their choice of market-based work. With this objective in mind, I offer the following propositions as a means of advancing the relational theory of working: Proposition 1. Work and relationships share considerable psychological space in our internal worlds and in our lived experience, with each context of life impacting on and shaping the other. I propose that complex relationships exist in our working and relational lives in which each aspect of life experience affects and is affected by the other. Central to this proposition is the assumption that work and relational life are intertwined, yet not entirely congruent, aspects of our lives. For example, individuals who lose their jobs often experience greater stress in their relationships (Paul & Moser, 2009). At the same time, individuals who are engaged in a meaningful working life may be able to use this aspect of their lives as a buffer against relationship disappointments and loss (Blustein & Spengler, 1995; Richardson, 2010). Evidence supporting this assumption has been derived from theoretical analyses (e.g., Blustein, 2006; Richardson, 2000, 2010) as well as empirical research (e.g., Paul & Moser, 2009). The nature of the influence of work and relationships is complex and can be both linear and non-linear. In the sub-propositions that follow, I explore some of the possible connections between work and relationships: Proposition 1a. Relational life has the capacity to influence working experiences in both adaptive and maladaptive ways. As detailed in previous research and theory on relational supports, family members, counselors, and other valued people can provide a source of support – a secure base in the attachment theory lexicon (Bowlby, 1988) – that can have a significant effect on one's capacity to negotiate work-based tasks (e.g., Blustein et al., 1995; Ketterson & Blustein, 1997). Research conducted using the attachment theory framework has indicated that relational support can foster career exploration, progress in decision-making, and adaptive work-based adjustment (Blustein et al., 1995; Kenny, 1987). At the same time, research on bullying (e.g., Lee & Brotheridge, 2006) as well as the work–family literature (e.g., Ford et al., 2007; Schultheiss, 2006) has indicated that relational influences can, at times, present considerable challenges to individuals negotiating work-based tasks. The impact of bullying in the workplace is particularly noteworthy in underscoring the centrality of relationships at work and the potential for such relationships to exert aversive, and often traumatizing, influences on one's well-being (Lee & Brotheridge, 2006).

10


Proposition 1b. Working life has the capacity to influence relational experiences in both adaptive and maladaptive ways. Research from various sectors of psychology, such the work–family literature (e.g., Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Whiston & Keller, 2004) as well as from vocational rehabilitation (e.g., Szymanski & Parker, 2003), documents how working life influences, shapes, and buffers relational, psychological, and physical challenges. Literature in psychotherapy further reveals that working can provide sources of resilience that can bolster people during times of relational loss (Axelrod, 1999; Blustein & Spengler, 1995). Working that offers some degree of meaning, mattering, and dignity may provide a source of distraction and/or accomplishment that can be therapeutic for people dealing with intense interpersonal crises, bereavement, and other sorts of life challenges. Proposition 1c. Recursive relationships exist between relational life and working such that each domain of life experience overlaps and impacts on each other. This sub-proposition supplements the first two sub-propositions by adding a systemic, non-linear component, highlighting the recursive connections between relational experiences and working. Consistent with systems theory and developmental contextualism (McMahon & Patton, 2006; Vondracek et al., 1986), relationships and work impact upon each other, with changes in one sector often (but not always) influencing the other sector of life. Thus, the linear relationships detailed in sub-propositions 1a and 1b co-exist with the systemic aspects of the shared space of relational life and working life. Proposition 2. The internalization process, whereby individuals differentiate and incorporate core themes, patterns, and experiences from early and contemporary relationships, plays a major role in one's experience of, and adaptation, to working. This proposition seeks to capture the processes by which individuals incorporate relational objects (including family members from one's past, loved ones, and other important people in one's life) into their psychic structures. Internalized relational objects are manifestations of historical and contemporary relationships and exert a pervasive influence on the ways in which individuals interact with others and the ways in which they experience the world (Brickman, 2009; Mitchell, 2003; Wachtel, 2007). These internalized structures, therefore, provide a lens that shapes one's perceptions, cognitions, and emotions, including work-based experiences. Proposition 3. Work and relationships take place in both the market place and in caregiving contexts. Working and relationships, as central aspects of life, cut across boundaries and contexts. As detailed by Richardson (2010) and Schultheiss (2009), working involves the market place and the relationship domain. The essence of this proposition is that working crosses boundaries and needs to be understood as a process as opposed to an activity that one does solely to earn money (Richardson, 2010). Using the psychology-of-working framework of needs fulfilled by working, I propose that survival, relational, and self-determination needs can also be met via care work. Proposition 4. The process of making decisions and exploring work and training options is facilitated and/or inhibited by, and influenced by relational experiences. In contrast to the typical view of the autonomous individual negotiating work-based challenges, I propose that the view of an individual as a singular agent of life choices does not capture the internalized and external relational influences that shape each aspect of adaptation to work-based challenges (Flum, 2001; Gergen, 2009; Jordan, 2009). In addition to the overt influence of others in one's work-based transitions and decisional points, individuals are influenced by internalized relational objects, which can play overt or covert roles in one's construction of work-based challenges and opportunities. Individuals facing work-based transitions also may derive support from others both emotionally and instrumentally. The sources of support can provide people with important resources as they negotiate the many transition points that characterize the contemporary world of work (Fouad & Bynner, 2008). Proposition 5. The content of work-based decisions is facilitated by and/or inhibited by relationships, which function as a source of influence in the nature and expression of work-based interests and values in conjunction with individual difference factors and socialization. The fundamental role of vocational interests in career development theory represents the manifestation of an aspiration that individuals will be able to choose their livelihoods to some degree based on their interests (Savickas & Spokane, 1999). The psychology-of-working perspective also endorses the notion that work optimally provides a means for individuals to express their interests in their work lives (Blustein, 2006). That said, many individuals around the globe do not have the opportunity to implement their interests in their work lives. As a means of expanding the focus on interests in work-based self-determination, Super (1990) and others (see Brown, 2002, for summaries of other theories on career choice and development) have articulated the importance of values in driving volitional decisions. This premise is based on the notion that individuals may find meaning in their work lives if their values are congruent with the attributes and values of a given work setting. I propose that the expression of interests and values in decision-making occurs in an explicit relational context. From a theoretical perspective, the formation of interests is influenced by parents, peers, and the broader community (Holland, 1997; Savickas & Spokane, 1999). As individuals explore themselves and their environment, their experience is mediated by the input of others, who provide meaning and structure (Gergen, 2009). This meaning-making process is inherently relational, thereby underscoring the essential role that other people and internalizations play in interest formation and expression. In effect, we learn about how our


11

personality and interests interface in the world via the discourses that we create with others (Gergen, 2009). This influence may be even more pronounced in individuals from collectivist cultures who are expected (or explicitly asked) to pursue specific interests to meet the needs of a given community. As such, the development and expression of interests and values within the working context is nested in relationships as well as in the wide array of other factors identified in person–environment fit theory (Holland, 1997), career construction theory (Savickas, 2005), and social cognitive career theory (Lent et al., 2002). Proposition 6. Individuals derive meaning from their work in relational discourse and in cultural contexts. As indicated earlier, the social constructionist critique of traditional psychological discourse has focused on the role of relationships and culture as the medium by which individuals understand and make meaning of their lives (Gergen, 2009; Stead, 2004). In the work realm, relationships may provide a means for individuals to receive feedback on their work-based experiences as well as support. Qualitative research has presented narratives that have conveyed some of the complex ways that relationships have framed the meaning that individuals derive from their work lives (Blustein et al., 2001; Hall et al., 1996; Phillips et al., 2001; Young et al., 2002). For example, an individual who works in a department store selling cosmetics may find the work to be very arduous when considered solely as a set of tasks. However, the relational context of the work, in which the sales clerk interacts with colleagues and customers, may create a discourse about the job that influences the clerk's constructions. In this particular example, the cosmetics position may be understood as a coveted job in the department store, offering opportunities for positive feedback from others who value the impact of cosmetics in their lives. When considering this literature in light of the social constructionist perspective on meaning making, relationships function as the medium by which we understand our interactions with the working world (Blustein et al., 2004). Proposition 7. Culture functions as a form of a holding environment for individuals as they cope with work-based challenges. The importance of culture in both relationships and working has been well-documented (Gergen, 2009; Leong, 1995; Stead, 2004). I propose that culture provides a form of security and connection for individuals that can serve as an essential relational resource as they cope with work-based transitions. The cultural aspects of internalizations have the potential to soothe and nurture people throughout the various vicissitudes of working life. The role of culture as a holding environment is particularly important for people who transition among different cultures and communities. Summary I have intentionally sought to construct propositions that are sufficiently general to fit further contextual factors into the mix. These propositions and the conceptual framework underlying this initiative have been directed toward creating the roots of a metaphorical tree, with the branches that emerge from these core ideas bending in relation to the shifts in culture, historical time period, economic conditions, and other contextual factors. In the material that follows, I identify some of the branches that are needed to obtain a clearer view of the propositions and their potential to explicate work-related experiences and behaviors. Building on the relational scaffolding The propositions offered in this contribution provide the initial statements that optimally will fuel new scholarship, critique, and intellectual considerations for a more inclusive psychology of working. To create a theory that has depth and nuance, I propose that culture, social class, and gender need to be considered explicitly in this theory-building enterprise. (Other social barriers, such as disability/ability status, age, and sexual orientation are also essential, but space considerations prohibit a fuller discussion of these factors. See Blustein, 2006, for some initial thoughts on how these social barriers influence the course of working.) Cultural and racial influences As detailed earlier, culture serves as a powerful influence in how people understand and make sense of their life experiences (Gergen, 2009; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Stead, 2004). Building on the ideas presented in Proposition 7, I believe that culture has the potential to serve as a means framing the relational context of working, writ large. We know, for example, that some cultures affirm the importance and overt expression of relational connections more than others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Ponterotto et al., 2009). Collectivist cultures openly affirm the nesting of individual decisions in a relational context, whereas individualistic cultures may devalue the collectivist nature of work-based decision-making. As indicated earlier, for some individuals, the choice of a work direction may be a reflection of the community's needs as opposed to individual self-determination (Leong, 1995). Consider, for example, a very talented student in math and science in a country with considerable poverty. The leaders of the country realize that they need engineers to design the infrastructure needed for 21st century industries and jobs. As such, the student may earn a scholarship to study in Europe or North America with the financial support of government grants. While at a university with more choices and an affirming view of individualistic decisions about work, he may decide against engineering, thereby creating a conflict about loyalty to her own aspirations and to her community. While I view the propositions on work and relationships as having some degree of applicability to diverse cultural contexts, I am aware that the ideas presented above may not have as much relevance for some communities. As such, I encourage further research to discern the ways in which diverse cultures influence both work and relationships and the space between the two.

12


The social construction of race also plays a major role in understanding the relational context of working. As detailed in Helms and Cook's (1999) contribution, race is best understood as a socio-cultural construction that derives meaning from interactions that people have with others and with prevailing cultural messages and myths. The pernicious impact of racism likely plays a significant role in the relational understanding of working (Blustein, 2006). As reflected in the history of working for many African Americans in the United States, the support of family and community has been particularly important as workers have faced (and continue to face) racism in education, work, and within social relationships. In addition, racism has made the instrumental support of others and of the broader community perhaps even more salient for individuals from oppressed groups. Social class One of the key attributes of the psychology of working is its attempt to embrace diversity in social class and socio-economic status (Blustein, 2006; Diemer & Ali, 2009). Given that most people do not have much, if any, volition in their work lives, the relational theory may need some modification as it is applied to poor and working class populations, especially in light of the propositions that imply choice (i.e., Propositions 4 and 5). Similar to the experiences of individuals of color, as noted above, relational support may be particularly important for individuals with little access to the opportunity structure (cf. Wilson, 1996). The lack of access to the resources that are associated with volitional choices in one's educational and occupational life very likely affects the full spectrum of one's working experiences, including the way in which relationships and work intersect. In addition, classism, which is transmitted by others in social interactions, plays a complex role in the working lives of individuals across the globe (Blustein, 2006). The use of subtle and not-so-subtle cues (like accents, educational background, dress, etc.) conveys messages that are interpreted via relational discourse. Recent theoretical innovations in the study of social class in psychology have identified the social and interpersonal contexts in which individuals understand their social and economic position (Liu et al., 2004). A comprehensive relational theory of working, therefore, needs to encompass the reality of social and economic stratification and the social meaning that is ascribed to these distinctions in affluence and privilege. Gender The relational revolution emerged, in part, from the feminist revolution in the mid to later part of the 20th century (Jordan, 2009; Josselson, 1992). Early relational scholars (e.g., Gilligan, 1982; Miller, 1987) initially viewed strivings for connection as a primarily gendered experience, with a particular emphasis on women's needs for connection and their capacity to grow in connection. More recent formulations (e.g., Jordan, 2009; Richardson, 2010) have viewed the need for relationships as an inherently human attribute, with gendered differences emerging in how these needs are expressed and understood. Given that relationships are understood in gender-based ways, it would seem likely that men and women might experience the connections between work and relationships somewhat differently, and have different expressions of their relationships at work and at home (Bergman, 1995). The impact of gender is difficult to unpack from culture, race, age, and social class; however, I believe that gender may function as a powerful mediator of the propositions detailed earlier. One of the ways that gender may mediate these propositions is based on the observation that many women in Western cultures are relatively comfortable in expressing their needs for connection. In contrast, men, whose strivings for connection are equally important, often mask their relational needs (Addis & Mahalik, 2003), and may evoke somewhat more nuanced understandings of the impact of relationships on their working behavior. Further research, though, is needed in order to understand more fully how gender intersects with race, culture, and social class in the relational theory of working. Research trajectories While some empirical research (both qualitative and quantitative) on the interconnections between work and relationships has been conducted (e.g., Blustein, 2006; Blustein et al., 1995; Hall et al., 1996; Phillips et al., 2001; Schultheiss et al., 2002), far more scholarship is needed. Indeed, the intention of this article is to fuel programs of research and further theory development that will examine the viability of the propositions and the ways in which diverse contexts influence the relationships embedded in the propositions. In the material that follows, I outline a few promising research directions: Understanding the experience of relationships and work The fact that this theory is informed, in part, by a social constructionist framework suggests that a first step is in developing the tools for understanding how individuals experience work and relationships. Recent scholarship emerging from social constructionist thinking and related paradigms (e.g., Blustein et al., 2004; Richardson, 2010; Savickas et al., 2009; Young et al., 2002) has emphasized the importance of capturing the ways in which people make meaning of their relationships and work experiences. Some forays into these questions have been initiated (e.g., Blustein, 2006; Young et al., 2002), yielding informative insights about the nature of the relational context of working. For example, in the Blustein et al. (2001) examination of the case reports in the “Getting Down to Cases” series in the Career Development Quarterly, significant relational themes emerged, despite the stated focus on career and work-related issues. Further research is needed to understand specific aspects of the relational context of working. One particularly compelling agenda would be to understand how individuals understand the loss of work, via unemployment or illness, and the ways in which relationships function at these critical junctures. Richardson (2010) suggests that relationships and care work can provide an important source of support and achievement during periods of non market work. Another important research trajectory would be to identify how individual internalizations function throughout the various trajectories in their working lives. The methodological tools


13

for these studies may include such qualitative approaches as grounded theory, consensual qualitative research, and narrative methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). The role of relationships in providing instrumental support The nature of work life across the globe has become increasingly challenging in recent years; moreover, most scholars predict that this state of flux will become the norm as reflected in unemployment, underemployment, and changing skill demands (Guichard, 2009; Reich, 2010; Richardson, 2000, 2010; Savickas et al., 2009). While most of the existing literature on the relational perspectives has focused on emotional support, empirical research also has identified the importance of instrumental support (e.g., providing connections for skillbuilding options; helping in the job search process; linking to role models and other important resources). For example, Kenny and Bledsoe (2005) identified the role of instrumental support in urban youths' preparation for their post-high school transitions. In addition, the importance of instrumental support at work, as reflected in the literature on mentoring (e.g., Ragins & Kram, 2007), provides further evidence of the role of others in providing explicit advice, training, and adaptive connections with others. If we assume the relevance of the adage that it takes a village to raise a child, we will need to understand how people can help each other in tangible ways as they grapple with the challenges of obtaining education, training, and access to work. Empirical research that examines the role of instrumental support, particularly in the lives of poor and working class individuals, is essential in building a knowledge base for the relational theory of working. Theory-driven scholarship that can identify how instrumental support can be maximally accessed from both proximal relational and more distal community vantage points would be particularly informative in shaping public policies and counseling interventions. Care work and market work Richardson's (2010) argument about the need to affirm both care work and market work represents a clarion call for a sustained research program. One direction that is worth exploring is in unpacking the relationships among gender, relational influences, and the distribution of market and care work. In addition, documenting the economic impact of care work, especially in light of insufficient public supports for caregiving and its impact in family and community relationships, would be highly informative to policy makers. Within the psychological realm, the costs to individual well-being of balancing market and care work requires sustained study. In addition, the interface of care and market work, as reflected in the increasing trend of paying others to manage and deliver care work, represents a significant research direction. Family supports for adaptive work-based transitions A considerable body of research has been conducted on the optimal configuration of family support structures for adolescents and young adults who are negotiating educational and work-based transitions (Blustein et al., 1991; Keller & Whiston, 2008). Despite considerable research in this area, questions still remain about the way in which family members can be most helpful to individuals facing work-based transitions (Keller & Whiston, 2008). By infusing an explicit relational perspective, the literature on family systems and vocational behavior may be clarified. For example, in addition to focusing on self-reports of family influence, scholars can explore the role of internalized objects as mediators in understanding how families can help and/or hinder their children. Given the recent interest in facilitating family communications about work-based decisions (Lapan, 2004; Young et al., 2002) and the reality that people will increasingly need support in a challenging labor market, clarifying optimal family support structures in light of cultural and racial differences, represents a timely research direction. Enhancing relational supports to facilitate adaptive working experiences The overarching argument presented here is that relationships are important and, indeed, central in understanding the nature of working life. Given the essential role of relationships in working, a question that emerges is how can societies structure micro and macro contexts to nurture relational support, which is essential to psychological health in work and non-work contexts. This research question points to a wide array of specific research trajectories, including the identification of ways to enhance relational supports at school, in the workplace, and in communities. For example, close studies of interventions such as welfare-to-work, retraining programs for unemployed workers, and dropout recovery programs, would be instrumental in understanding the role of relational support (and barriers) in promoting a working life that has meaning, matters, and offers dignity. These research questions also foreshadow a significant direction for practice, prevention, and advocacy that can emerge from scholarship building on the relational theory of working. Individual differences in relational functioning and working Lest we lose sight of one of the core elements of vocational psychology, I am advocating sustained research to examine how individual differences in relational functioning are predictive of various aspects of working behavior. A number of the early studies emerging from the relational perspectives employed attachment styles (Blustein et al., 1991; Ketterson & Blustein, 1997) as a means of exploring how relational functioning might be associated with career development constructs. A further examination of the relational psychology literature reveals several relational indices that have the potential to inform the relational theory of working. For example, the relational health indices, developed by Liang et al. (2002), might be a viable predictor of

14


such outcomes as meaning making, mattering, satisfaction, and the like. Furthermore, variations in types of social support may prove to be an important variable in understanding the nature of working (Cutrona, Cole, Colangelo, Assouline, & Russell, 1994). Implications for systemic interventions and counseling practice The underlying implication of the relational theory is characterized by a dramatic shift in the figure/ground relationship of the individual and his/her context. Rather than individual difference constructs, cognitive beliefs systems, and other internal dimensions providing the focus of practice and public policy, the figure emerging from this theoretical framework is the community, writ large (including relationships with others in one's proximal relational orbit as well as relationships with the broader community). This would not obviate the importance of individual difference constructs; rather, this focus places these factors into an embedded context. In effect, the implications of this theoretical shift yield a view that is analogous to the Blustein and Fouad (2008) notion of self-in-relation, wherein individuals are best understood in terms of their relationships to others, their culture, and to the broader social world. The propositions presented earlier underscore the critical role that others play in the instrumental aspects of preparing for and adjusting to working. As we move the locus of attention away from intrapersonal constructs, the scope of the relational context engenders a broader perspective that implicates the community in helping to build meaningful working lives. The community scaffolding The underlying assumption that guides this theoretical position is that working has the potential to be an inherently social and community-centered enterprise (Blustein, 2006; Hall et al., 1996; Putnam, 2000; Schultheiss, 2003). In general, we tend to work with others, which places working into an explicit social context; moreover, people throughout the life span and across the life space give working life meaning and context (Blustein et al., 2004; Super, 1990). In addition, the availability of work and access to training and education occurs within a context in which communities are making important decisions that can facilitate and/or inhibit the meaning, rewards, and dignity of one's working life. In relation to the working focus of this article, community refers to formal and informal institutions (schools, one-stop career centers, colleges and training programs), structured and informal support networks (places of worship, friendship networks and cultural institutions), and working environments (Gergen, 2009). Taking the notion of community to an even broader perspective would encompass government and public policy, which, at their best, help to organize and lead community-based resources, while attempting to reduce barriers to meaningful training and work (cf. Wilson, 1996). As an illustration of the interface of communities, relationships, and working, the study by Wilson (1996) of the impact of job loss in inner-city Chicago documents the complex interface of working, individual experiences, and community welfare. In Wilson's qualitative and quantitative study, the move of factories and other sources of consistent work to the suburbs (and then to other countries) led to greater fragmentation of family life as adult workers increasingly felt inadequate and disengaged. The loss of work also affected the community in that the lack of structure provided by work was associated with a corresponding deterioration of neighborhoods, leading to greater poverty, crime, drug use, mental health problems, and family violence. The study by Wilson (1996) points to the importance of relationships, both proximal and distal, in the work lives of individuals. In addition, this study provides compelling evidence that working (and the lack thereof) impacts substantially on community life. As relational influences are examined from a broader lens, the role of community supports and barriers becomes evident, pointing to important directions for future scholarship. The relational theory and systemic interventions The advent of relational theory has the potential to create knowledge that can inform systemic interventions and prevention in relation to the risks and challenges of working life. As detailed in research on the loss of work, unemployment has been causally associated with declines in mental health (Paul & Moser, 2009) and the loss of community cohesion (Wilson, 1996). Research emerging from the relational theory of working, therefore, has the potential to document the complex interface of relationships, community welfare, and working, thereby providing further evidence of the essential role that work plays in supporting physical and mental health, and the welfare of communities. While modest empirical support has been obtained regarding the role of relationships in various aspects of one's life (Blustein et al., 1995; Phillips et al., 2001; Schultheiss et al., 2002), the relational theory advanced in this article has the potential to facilitate significant progress in understanding the role of relationships at work. New research emerging in this field also can inform efforts to advance policies that support training, education, legislation, and economic policies devoted to full employment and meaningful work. By documenting how the loss of work affects families and communities, government and corporate leaders may find the will and resources to enhance training and employment opportunities for the increasing number of people around the globe without work. Another direction that may emerge from relational theory is the identification of specific ideas about community supports that are efficacious in promoting adaptive working lives. By adapting the aforementioned propositions for communities, it may be possible to document how communities can best support individuals in their working lives. For example, a relational analysis of welfare-to-work programs may reveal serious gaps in how care work and market work are understood and negotiated. In addition, relationally oriented studies may provide guidance for educational professionals on the design of career development education programs that are linked to proximal relational supports and broader community programs (Kenny et al., 2007; Lapan, 2004). Furthermore, the structure of retraining programs may be best designed in a manner that builds on the propositions detailed earlier, ideally drawing on relational support to enhance individual learning and facilitating work-based transitions.


15

From a broader perspective, the relational theory of working has the potential to inform community practices designed to foster adaptive working lives via preventive initiatives (cf. Kenny, Horne, Orpinas, & Reese, 2008). One of the most important ways that relational theory can inform prevention and public policy is to fully document the interface of working, relational health, and community welfare, thereby helping to create a case for full employment and access to supportive working conditions. Relational theory and counseling practice Given that much of the impetus for relational theory grew out of psychotherapy practices (Jordan, 2009; Mitchell, 1988; Wachtel, 2007), a natural implication of a relational theory of working is in fueling the intellectual framework for a truly inclusive psychological practice (Blustein, 2006). As Blustein argued in the psychology-of-working perspective, inclusive psychological practice refers to a mode of intervention that integrates work and non-work issues in a seamless and conceptually coherent manner. (An analogous movement is evident in the life design model advanced by Savickas et al., 2009, which also advocates an integrative approach to work-based interventions.) Rather than treating psychotherapy and career counseling as discrete enterprises, Blustein argued in favor of psychological practice that dignifies the full range of client issues and concerns that emerge in counseling and psychotherapy. Further discussion of this approach (e.g., Blustein & Fouad, 2008; Juntunen, 2006) has reinforced the importance of developing integrative practices. A challenge in developing integrative and inclusive psychological practice is the absence of a cohering theoretical framework to drive the needed theory development efforts. The relational theory developed in this article provides the framework for research and further theory construction that can inform inclusive psychological practice. For example, one of the challenges in integrative practice is in delineating how relationships and work affect each other and how these domains can be used to buffer stress from the other domain. In short, an inclusive psychological practice paradigm necessitates a theoretical framework that offers a clear linkage between relationships and working, as presented in this article. Conclusion One of the challenges in developing a theoretical statement for the 21st century work context is that the target of this effort (understanding people as they negotiate work-based challenges) is like walking on quicksand. The context of work is changing so rapidly that the design of a theory with the detail and inherent structural integrity of the 20th century theories may not seem possible or fruitful. As such, the framework and propositions detailed here are necessarily fluid to incorporate the consistent changes that will emerge in the labor market coupled with the need to relate to variations in culture, economics, history, and political policies. That said, this theory joins the other major 21st century theory (career construction; Savickas, 2005) in defining sufficiently flexible frameworks that can inform practice, public policy, and social advocacy. As suggested in the prescient life-career rainbow theory by Super (1980), this theory joins together domains of life experience that are far more integrated in the natural flow of life than in existing vocational psychological theories. The relational theory detailed here represents the first theoretical initiative to emerge from the psychology of working, thereby further reframing the focus of attention toward the more inclusive notion of work. The goal of this article has been to develop the foundation for a 21st century of working that is inherently integrative, inclusive, and affirming of cultural and economic differences. In keeping with the relational theme that has driven this effort, I encourage readers to join this journey in developing a theory that can reshape scholarship, public policy advocacy, and counseling practice in vocational psychology. Acknowledgments I would like to thank Faedra Backus, Maureen Kenny, Mary Sue Richardson, and Donna Schultheiss for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. References Addis, M. E., & Mahalik, J. R. (2003). Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking. American Psychologist, 58, 5−14. Ainsworth, M. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709−716. Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (2001). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era. New York: Oxford University. Axelrod, S. D. (1999). Work and the evolving self: Theoretical and clinical considerations. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston: Beacon Press. Baillien, E., Neyens, I., DeWitte, H., & DeCuyper, N. (2009). A qualitative study on the development of workplace bullying: Towards a three-way model. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 1−16. Barnett, R. C., & Hyde, J. S. (2001). Women, men, work, and family: An expansionist theory. American Psychologist, 56, 781−796. Bauman, Z. (1999). Culture as praxis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd. Bergman, S. J. (1995). Men's psychological development: A relational perspective. In R. F. Levant, & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 68−90). NY: Basic Books. Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. (1987). The career psychology of women. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, Inc. Blustein, D. L. (2001). The interface of work and relationships: A critical knowledge base for 21st century psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 179−192. Blustein, D. L. (2006). The psychology of working: A new perspective for career development, counseling, and public policy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Blustein, D. L. (2008). The role of work in psychological health and well-being: A conceptual, historical, and public policy perspective. American Psychologist, 63, 228−240. Blustein, D. L., Fama, L. D., White, S. F., Ketterson, T. U., Schaefer, B. M., Schwam, M. F., et al. (2001). A qualitative analysis of counseling case material: Listening to our clients. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 240−258. Blustein, D. L., & Fouad, N. A. (2008). Changing face of vocational psychology: The transforming world of work. In W. B. Walsh (Ed.), Biennial review of counseling psychology (pp. 129–155). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

16


Blustein, D. L., Kenna, A. C., Gill, N., & DeVoy, J. E. (2008). The psychology of working: A new framework for counseling practice and public policy. Career Development Quarterly, 56, 294−308. Blustein, D. L., Prezioso, M. S., & Schultheiss, D. P. (1995). Attachment theory and career development: Current status and future directions. The Counseling Psychologist, 23, 416−432. Blustein, D. L., Schultheiss, D. E. P., & Flum, H. (2004). Toward a relational perspective of the psychology of careers and working: A social constructionist analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 423−440. Blustein, D. L., & Spengler, P. (1995). Personal adjustment: Career counseling and psychotherapy. In W. B. Walsh, & S. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 295−329). (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Blustein, D. L., Walbridge, M., Friedlander, M., & Palladino, D. (1991). Contributions of psychological separation and parental attachment to the career development process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 39−50. Bowe, J., Bowe, M., & Streeter, S. (2000). Gig: Americans talk about their jobs. New York: Three Rivers Press. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent–child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books. Brickman, A. (2009). Object: I object. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 26, 402−414. Brown, D. (Ed.). (2002). Career choice and development (4th edition). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (Eds.). (2005). Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work. New York: Wiley. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of attachment (2nd ed). NY: Guilford Press. Chen, Z., Powell, G., & Greenhaus, J. (2009). Work-to-family conflict, positive spillover, a boundary management: A person–environment fit approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 82−93. Clawson, D., & Clawson, M. A. (1999). What has happened to the US labor movement? Union decline and renewal. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 95−119. Collin, A., & Young, R. A. (Eds.). (2000). The future of career. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Coutinho, M. T., Dam, U. C., & Blustein, D. L. (2008). The psychology of working and globalisation: A new perspective for a new era. International Journal of Vocational and Educational Guidance, 8, 5−18. Cutrona, C. E., Cole, V., Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Russell, D. W. (1994). Perceived parental social support and academic achievement: An attachment theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 369−378. Debell, C. (2006). What all applied psychologists should know about work. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 325−333. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227−268. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Diemer, M. A., & Ali, S. R. (2009). Integrating social class into vocational psychology: Theory and practice implications. Journal of Career Assessment, 17, 247−265. Donkin, R. (2001). Blood, sweat, & tears: The evolution of work. NY: Texere. Fassinger, R. E. (2008). Workplace diversity and public policy: Challenges and opportunities for psychology. American Psychologist, 63, 252−268. Flum, H. (2001). Relational dimensions in career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 1−16. Ford, M. T., Heinen, B. A., & Langkamer, K. L. (2007). Work and family satisfaction and conflict: A meta-analysis of cross-domain relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 57−80. Fouad, N. A., & Bynner, J. (2008). Work transitions. American Psychologist, 63, 241−251. Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its discontents. Oxford, England: Hogarth. Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. Waterville, ME: Thorndike Press. Gergen, K. J. (2001). Psychological science in a post modern context. American Psychologist, 56, 803−813. Gergen, K. J. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. NY: Oxford University Press. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Greenhaus, J., & Parasuraman, S. (1999). Research on work, family, and gender: Current status and future directions. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 391−412). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. Greenhaus, J., & Powell, G. (2006). When work and family are allies: A theory of work–family enrichment. Academy of Management Review, 31, 72−92. Guichard, J. (2009). Self-constructing. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 251−258. Hall, D. T., et al. (1996). The career is dead—long live the career: A relational approach to careers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Harmon, L. W., & Farmer, H. S. (1983). Current theoretical issues in vocational psychology. In W. B. Walsh, & S. H. Osipow (Eds.), Handbook of vocational psychology, Vol. 1. (pp. 39−77)Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hartung, P., & Subich, L. (Eds.). (2011). Developing self in work and career. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Helms, J. E., & Cook, D. A. (1999). Using race and culture in counseling and psychotherapy: Theory and process. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Helms, J. E., & Piper, R. E. (1994). Implications of racial identity theory for vocational psychology. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 124−138. Holland, J. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: PAR. Jordan, J. M. (2009). Relational–cultural therapy. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Josselson, R. (1992). The space between us: Exploring the dimensions of human relationships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Juntunen, C. L. (2006). The psychology of working: The clinical context. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 342−350. Keller, B. K., & Whiston, S. C. (2008). The role of parental influences on young adolescents' career development. Journal of Career Assessment, 16, 198−217. Kenny, M. E. (1987). The extent and function of parental attachment among first-year college students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 16, 17−29. Kenny, M. E., & Bledsoe, M. (2005). Contributions of the relational context to career adaptability among urban adolescents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 257−272. Kenny, M. E., Gualdron, L., Scanlon, D., Sparks, E., Blustein, D. L., & Jernigan, M. (2007). Urban adolescents constructions' of supports and barriers to educational and career attainment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 336−343. Kenny, M. E., Horne, A. M., Orpinas, P., & Reese, L. (Eds.). (2008). Realizing social justice: The challenge of preventive interventions. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Ketterson, T. U., & Blustein, D. L. (1997). Attachment relationships and the career exploration process. Career Development Quarterly, 46, 167−178. Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of self. New York: International Universities Press. Lapan, R. (2004). Career development across the K-16 years: Bridging the present to satisfying and successful futures. Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association. Lee, R. T., & Brotheridge, C. M. (2006). When prey turns predatory: Workplace bullying as a predictor of counteraggression/bullying, coping, and well-being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15, 352−377. Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social cognitive career theory. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (pp. 255−311). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Leong, F. T. L. (Ed.). (1995). Career development and vocational behavior of racial and ethnic minorities. Mahwah, NJ: LEA. Lerner, R. M. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lerner, R. M. (2006). Developmental science, developmental systems, and contemporary theories of human development. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.) & R.M. Lerner (Vol. 1 Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1, Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 1–17). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Liang, B., Tracy, A., Taylor, L. A., Williams, L. M., Jordan, J. V., & Miller, J. B. (2002). The relational health indices: A study of women's relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 25−35. Liu, W. M., Soleck, G., Hopps, J., Dunston, K., & Pickett, T. (2004). A new framework to understand social class in counseling: The social class worldview and modern classism theory. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 32, 95−122. Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224−253. Marshall, S. K. (2001). Do I matter? Construct validation of adolescents' perceived mattering to parents and friends. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 473−490. Miller, J. B. (1987). Toward a new psychology of women (2nd ed.). Boston: Beacon Press. Mitchell, S. A. (1988). Relational concepts in psychoanalysis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Mitchell, S. A. (2003). Relationality: From attachment to intersubjectivity. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.


17

McMahon, M., & Patton, W. (2006). The systems theory framework of career development and counseling: Connecting theory and practice. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 28, 153−166. Paul, K. I., & Moser, K. (2009). Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 264−282. Phillips, S. D. (1997). Toward an expanded definition of adaptive decision making. The Career Development Quarterly, 45, 275−287. Phillips, S. D., Christopher-Sisk, E., & Gravino, K. (2001). Making career decisions in a relational context. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 193−213. Phinney, J. S., & Ong, A. D. (2007). Conceptualization and measurement of ethnic identity: Current status and future directions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 271−281. Ponterotto, J. G., Casas, J. M., Suzuki, L., & Alexander, C. M. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of multicultural counseling (3rd ed). . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Prilleltensky, I. (1997). Values, assumptions, and practices: Assessing the moral implications of psychological discourse and action. American Psychologist, 52, 517−535. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Touchstone Books/Simon & Schuster. Ragins, B. R., & Kram, K. E. (Eds.). (2007). The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory research, and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reich, R. B. (2010). Aftershock: The next economy and America's future. NY: Knopf. Richardson, M. S. (1993). Work in people's lives: A location for counseling psychologists. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 425−433. Richardson, M. S. (2000). A new perspective for counselors: From career ideologies to empowerment through work and relationships practices. In A. Collin, & R. A. Young (Eds.), The future of career (pp. 197−211). New York: Cambridge University Press. Richardson, M. S. (2010). Counseling for work and relationships. Unpublished manuscript. Sachs, J. (2005). The end of poverty: Economic possibilities for our time. New York: Penguin Press. Savickas, M. L. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (pp. 42−70). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Savickas, M. L., Nota, L., Rossier, J., Dauwalder, J. P., Duarte, M. E., Guichard, J., et al. (2009). Life-designing: A paradigm for career construction in the 21st century. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 239−250. Savickas, M. L., & Spokane, A. (Eds.). (1999). Vocational interests: Meaning, measurement, and counseling use. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black. Savickas, M. L., & Walsh, W. B. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of vocational psychology: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed). . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Schore, A. N. (1994). Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The neurobiology of emotional development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associate. Schultheiss, D. E. P. (2003). A relational approach to career counseling: Theoretical integration and practical application. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81, 301−310. Schultheiss, D. E. P. (2006). The interface of work and family life. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 324−341. Schultheiss, D. E. P. (2007). The emergence of a relational cultural paradigm for vocational psychology. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 7, 191−201. Schultheiss, D. E. P. (2009). To mother or matter: Can women do both? Journal of Career Development, 36, 25−48. Schultheiss, D. E. P., Palma, T., Predragovich, K., & Glassock, J. (2002). Relational influences on career paths: Siblings in context. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 302−310. Sennett, R. (1998). The corrosion of character: The personal consequences of work in the new capitalism. New York: Norton. Siegel, D. (1999). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are. NY: Guilford. Sharf, R. (2009). Applying career development theory to counseling (5th ed.) Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole. Socarides, C. W., & Kramer, S. (1997). Work and its inhibitions: Psychoanalytic essays. Madison, CT: International Universities Press. Stead, G. B. (2004). Culture and career psychology: A social constructionist perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 389−406. Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space, approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 282−298. Super, D. E. (1990). A life span, life space approach to career development. In D. Brown, & L. Brooks (Eds.), (2nd ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Szymanski, E. M., & Parker, R. M. (2003). Work and disability: Issues and strategies in career development and job placement (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Vondracek, F. W., Lerner, R. M., & Schulenberg, J. E. (1986). Career development: A life-span developmental approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Wachtel, P. (2007). Relational theory and the practice of psychotherapy. New York: The Guilford Press. Weer, C., Greenhaus, J., & Linnehan, F. (2010). Commitment to nonwork roles and job performance: Enrichment and conflict perspectives. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76(10), 306−316. Whiston, S., & Keller, B. (2004). The influences of the family of origin on career development: A review and analysis. The Counseling Psychologist, 32, 493−568. Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Random House. Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of emotional development. Madison, CT: International Universities Press. Worthington, R. L., Savoy, H. B., Dillon, F. R., & Vernaglia, E. R. (2002). Heterosexual identity development: A multidimensional model of individual and social identity. The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 496−531. Young, R. A., Valach, L., & Collin, A. (2002). A contextualist explanation of career. In D. Brown (Ed.), Career choice and development (pp. 206−252). (4th ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.