Journal of Employment Counseling| March 01, 2007 | Ganske, Kathryn H.; Ashby, Jeffrey S. |
This study investigated the relationship between perfectionism and career decision-making self-efficacy. Participants completed the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (R. B. Slaney, K. G. Rice, M. Mobley, J. Trippi, & J. S. Ashby, 2001) and the Career Decision-Making Self-Efficacy-Short Form (N. E. Betz, K. L. Klein, & K. M. Taylor, 1996). Adaptive perfectionists had higher levels of career decision-making self-efficacy than did maladaptive perfectionists and nonperfectionists. There was no difference between maladaptive perfectionists and nonperfectionists in career decision-making self-efficacy. Findings add to a growing body of research that suggests perfectionism has adaptive and maladaptive components. Implications for counseling and limitations are discussed.
**********
Although researchers have recently given considerable attention to the construct of perfectionism (e.g., Chang, Watkins, & Banks, 2004), little attention has been paid to the relationship of perfectionism to careers and career development. In a limited number of studies, perfectionism, which is typically understood to include the pursuit of high standards, has been shown to correlate with career decision making (Emmett & Minor, 1993; Leong & Chervinko, 1996) and with work exhaustion (Mitchelson & Burns, 1997). Although many other connections between perfectionism and career concerns have been suggested (e.g., Post, 1989; Slaney, Ashby, & Trippi, 1995), there is currently a gap in the literature investigating the relationship of perfectionism to individuals' career paths.
Conceptualizations of perfectionism have evolved considerably in recent years. Early conceptualizations of perfectionism framed the construct as invariably both unidimensional and pathological. For instance, Pacht (1984) noted that perfectionists set personal standards "so unrealistically high that they [perfectionists] cannot possibly succeed" (p. 387). Horney (1950) noted that perfectionists suffer under "the tyranny of the shoulds" (p. 65). Burns (1980) maintained that perfectionists' high standards and self-critical evaluation lead to lower levels of self-efficacy. "Stated simply, the higher the standard of success, the less likely it is that a successful result will be perceived as a probable outcome. Thus, the perfectionist minimizes outcome efficacy by setting over-ambitious goals and nearly inaccessible goals" (Burns, 1980, p. 38).
In contrast to these early conceptualizations of perfectionism as unidimensional and pathological, others have developed models representing perfectionism as a multidimensional construct composed of both adaptive and maladaptive components. This conceptualization is based largely on the work of Hamachek (1978), who identified two groups of perfectionists he referred to as normal and neurotic. He identified individuals who set high personal standards, tend to judge their performance harshly, and find it difficult to accept situations in which their performance fails short of their exacting standards as neurotic perfectionists. The consistent perception of failure, dug to exacting self-judgments, often results in psychological distress. In contrast, Hamachek described normal perfectionists as individuals with high personal standards who judge themselves more flexibly and accept the fact that their standards might not be met consistently. These individuals generally feel pleased and satisfied with their attempts to achieve their own high standards, and they are motivated by a desire to maximize their capabilities.
