Gati and Asher's PIC framework

Gati and Asher's PIC framework (2001) is a three step career decision-making process. The three steps are pre-screening, in-depth exploration, and choice. Based on decision theory, the framework is designed to help us to be more systematic in working through complex career choices, particularly when there are many alternatives to be evaluated (Gati & Asher, 2001).

Aiming to better filter the piles of information we need to process in order to reach an optimal decision that suits us, we then work through the "three" steps, as follows (Gati & Asher, 2001):

1. Readiness: However, even though they say it is three steps, there is a pre-step. I think that makes this a FOUR step process which is another 'P': the preliminary phase. Before we start PIC, we must assess our readiness to begin (and perhaps that makes it an 'R'?). This involves us (a) evaluating how indecisive we are feeling, (b) trying to identify and put aside any dysfunctional career thoughts - being the naive inquirer (read more here), and (c) the career practitioner explaining the PIC framework process to the client (Gati & Asher, 2001).
   
   
2. Pre-screening. Here we narrow down the "universe" of potential career options to a small, manageable set of "promising" alternatives. This step has three sub-steps:
1. Preparation: where we identify relevant career attributes such as our work values and interests, ranking these by how important they are to us
2. Sequential Elimination: gather our options, then compare them to - in decreasing order of importance - to our most important career attributes; one at a time. We eliminate options as we go until only a few - fewer than seven - remain (p. 144)
3. Testing Sensitivity: this is a 'what if' step. We review our results, asking ourselves if we changed our preferences, would we have kept some "almost-promising" options? If yes, then add them back in (Gati & Asher, 2001, p. 157).
   
   
3. In-Depth Exploration. Now we take our "promising" options and consider if they are "suitable" options by focusing on one at a time and collecting intel. We testing four "suitability conditions" which means we check the option fits us: in important ways; in less important ways; with our "core" job requirements (e.g. not working shifts); and considering if we have the wherewithal to enter a career (i.e. do we meet entry standards) (p. 157). If any of these fail we re-examine other previously eliminated options, checking the information that led to elimination so we don't discard a good option due to a single factor which might be open to compromise (Gati & Asher, 2001). 
   
   
4. Choice. Now we choose our most suitable option from those that have made the cut thus far. We compare and evaluate using a "compensatory approach" (p. 149) to weigh up advantages and disadvantages of our options. We might be adding back in discards here if our first choice is too uncertain; a "second best" or even "third best" backup option. And we should reflect here, thinking back over the process to feel our confidence when we make an optimal decision (Gati & Asher, 2001).
   
   
5. Action. This last step is planning and actioning all the specific tasks - implementing our decision - that we need to make our choice real. This might mean submitting applications, scholarship applications, or conducting informational interviews (Gati & Asher, 2001).

And here we are saying this is a three step framework: but then the process ends with actioning our decision! So it is REALLY a framework of FIVE steps. Maybe this should be RPICA, instead. OK, so I am spitting hairs a bit, but this really isn't a three step model. All the steps have multiple stages. 

Regardless of my nit-picking, this PIC framework does seem quite flexible. On reading about it, the implication is that we could/should move back and forth between steps as we gain more information about our preferences. Or if things change during the process; such as if we encounter an entry standard that knocks out a main choice (Gati & Asher, 2001). BUT in saying that, I am not convinced that Gati and Asher offer anything that Krumboltz & Hamel (1980; read more here), or Peterson et al. (1996; read more here) don't. 

Perhaps I might do a three-way comparison at some point. 

Sam

References:

Gati, I., & Asher, I. (2001). Prescreening, in-depth exploration, and choice: From decision theory to career counseling practice. The Career Development Quarterly, 50(2), 140–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2001.tb00979.x

Krumboltz, J. D., & Hamel, D. A. (1980, August). The Effect of Decision Training on Career Decision-Making Competence (No. ARITR487). US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA124139.pdf

Peterson, G. W., Sampson, J. P., Jr., Reardon, R. C., & Lenz, J. G. (1996). A cognitive information processing approach to career problem solving and decision making. In D. Brown, L. Brooks, & Associates (Eds.), Career Choice and Development (3rd ed., pp. 423–475). Jossey-Bass.

 * NotebookLM was used to create the claymation images in the graphic accompanying this post