Theory-Theorist Overview

October 3, 2017
Deirdre Musser
Concordia University Ann Arbor

Vocation is and has never been an easy or quick decision for many individuals to make.

In this paper, Dr. John L. Holland’s theory of vocational choice will provide an explanation and

a method for making a vocational choice. Dr. Holland’s background is very important to the

formation of his theory and will be a part of the methods within this paper to explore vocational

choice. The main tool Holland created to explain and aid in vocational choice is Holland’s

Hexagon that has six personality types and environments that contribute to the vocation

selection. This paper will explore Holland’s Hexagon and the personality types and

environments as well.

Holland was born in 1919 in Omaha, Nebraska to three other siblings and his Mother and

Father (Hansen, 2011). According to Hansen (2011), Holland went to the Municipal University

of Omaha for his undergraduate education within psychology, mathematics, and French, which

he earned in 1942. Instead of continuing right away onto a graduate program Holland entered the

forces and served within the army after college where he gained experience as a classification

interviewer, test proctor, psychological assistant, and a Wechsler Intelligence Test administrator

(Hansen, 2011). Three and a half years later Holland attended University of Minnesota for

graduate school and earned his Master’s in 1947 along with his PhD in 1952 both of which were

in psychology (Hansen, 2011). Hansen (2011), stated that after completing his PhD he went on to

gain practical experience at the Western Reserve University counseling center, the National

Merit Scholarship Corporation, and the American College Testing Program for about 19 years

and then moved to The Johns Hopkins University for the remainder of his career.
 Holland’s Hexagon theory regarding vocational choice is his most remarkable and is used

widely within many areas of business and education. Holland’s Hexagon has six different

environments and personalities attached to the hexagon, which include realistic, investigative,

artistic, social, enterprising, and conventional (Thompson & Smart, 1999). According to

Thompson & Smart (1999), the Hexagon includes three essential components that contribute to

the theory including people, environments, and the congruence between the two. The realistic

environment and personality is associated with practical activities such as machines, tools, and

materials and competencies such as mechanical and technical (Thompson & Smart, 1999). The

investigative environment and personality emphasizes analytical or intellectual activities and

competencies such as analytical or mathematical (Thompson & Smart, 1999). The artistic

environment and personality has a connection to ambiguous, free, and unsystemized activities

while being associated with innovative and creative competencies (Thompson & Smart, 1999).

The social environment and personality includes activities that consist of mentoring, treating,

healing, or teaching of others and links to interpersonal competencies (Thompson & Smart,

1999). The enterprising environment and personality involve activities that manipulate others to

attain organizational goals or economic gain and are associated with leadership, interpersonal,

speaking, and persuasive competencies (Thompson & Smart, 1999). The conventional

environment and personality highlight activities such as explicit, ordered, systematic

manipulation of data to meet predictable organizational demands or specific standards and align

with clerical, computational, and business system competencies (Thompson & Smart, 1999).

Holland’s Hexagon is not an intuitive theory just from viewing the hexagon or

understanding the definitions of the six environments and personalities. Understanding the

vocational choice theory through Holland’s Hexagon takes an exploration of how the various
environments and personalities fit together and how they interact with one another. The first

distinction that Gottfredson and Duffy (2008) point out is the difference between the

environment and the person. The environment is what is around the person such as an

occupation, job, college, other places, or other people, the person is the individual that displays

certain competencies and values (Gottfredson & Duffy, 2008). By design, the theory explains the

interaction or fit between the environment and the person and how that contributes to a person’s

vocational choice (Gottfredson & Duffy, 2008). When a certain personality is placed into a

certain environment, it does not always fit and may not always have a positive interaction that

leads to positive results. When an environment and personality match and fit well together, the

level of congruence is high. The congruence is how well an environment and personality

resemble the model, for example, a social environment will attract and retain individuals that

also resemble the social personality (Gottfredson & Duffy, 2008). The level of congruence

depends upon how close each model is to each other on the hexagon; therefore, social and

realistic have a very low level of congruence as they are on opposite sides of the hexagon

(Thompson & Smart, 1999). On the other hand, social and artistic would offer a high level of

congruence, as they are adjacent to one another on the hexagon.

The ultimate goal and or result of Holland’s Hexagon of vocational choice is that an

individual will seek out and eventually end up in an environment congruent with their values and

interests (Gottfredson & Duffy, 2008). Therefore, as long as an individual is within an

environment that identifies and rewards their values, competencies, and preferred activities,

complete congruency is the result. The act of finding this perfect congruence is a challenge that

many college students face after graduation. Implementation of Holland’s Hexagon can be a

resource for college graduates as they go through the process of finding a vocation. A student
can identify with an environment and a personality and explore careers attached to those. If the

first trial does not work and the level of congruency is low, a student can turn to the adjacent

models on the hexagon. An individual is going to have some sort of resemblance to each of the

models on the hexagon but needs to find the one that offers the highest level of congruency.

Many factors went into the creation of Holland’s Hexagon but the most notable

influencers are some of Holland’s past life experiences. The first being his military experience

and working side by side many young soldiers during their transition into the military or into

outside careers (Hansen, 2011). By seeing and assisting these young men in many different

psychological capacities he was able to find patterns and realize that individuals do succeed in

different environments depending upon their personalities. The second factor that his daughter

explained was that Holland was one of the youngest in his grade school class and this created

difficulty for him in adjusting to school (Hansen, 2011). Holland’s first grade teachers noticed

this and suggested to his parents that it may be helpful if he were to repeat first grade, his parents

agreed (Hansen, 2011). This very experience contributed to Holland’s desire to assist others in

finding their potential in ways that may not be obvious to the average person (Hansen, 2011).

Holland was able to find his vocational passion through his experiences and use his

experiences to teach others how to go about finding their own vocational passions. Hansen

(2011) stated, “He also is one of the most influential psychologists of the 21st century” (p. 1212).

As students grow and change generation to generation Holland’s Hexagon can be a useful tool

for students struggling with the task of vocational choice. As many work environments and

generations change the hexagon may need updates to reflect these changes in order to serve

individuals in their vocational search. Holland’s Hexagon will continue to be a fantastic theory
not only for higher education professionals but for many other individuals as well throughout

century’s to come.
 References

Gottfredson, G. D., & Duffy, R. D. (2008). Using a Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work

Environments to Explore Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Career Assessment, 16(1),

44-59. doi:10.1177/1069072707309609

Hansen, J. C. (2011). Remembering John L. Holland, PhD. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(8),

1212-1217. doi:10.1177/0011000011423553

Thompson, M. D., & Smart, J. C. (1999). Student Competencies Emphasized by Faculty in

Disparate Academic Environments. Journal of College Student Development, 40(4), 365-

376. Retrieved September 22, 2017.