In an article published on my blog, “3 Frameworks to Figure Out What to Do with Your Career,” I wrote that most of us wrestle with two broad categories of questions in our careers — what to do and where to do it. I concluded that what to do is the more demanding of the two.

Except from the article:

In my application essay for my Master’s in Finance programme, I wrote that one of my primary motivations for applying was to explore two questions: what to do next and where to do it. In my mind, there were two paths:

  • continue doing what I am currently doing, but change where I do it; or
  • change what I am doing and remain open to wherever that new path may take me.

After speaking with many people on campus — and reflecting on my own experience — I realised these considerations were not unique to me. They are, in fact, a fair representation of what many people in business school are quietly trying to resolve.

This article is my attempt to explain how I think about the issue, particularly the “what”, which I believe is the harder question to answer.

Figuring out what to do is both existential and painstaking. In my experience, there is no universal answer. In that piece, I outlined three frameworks that I have found helpful.

In this newsletter, I revisit the question — but with less emphasis on frameworks and more on evidence. If the “what” feels difficult, perhaps it is because our decisions are not as deliberate as we think. Perhaps they are shaped by experiences, reinforcements and assumptions we rarely examine.

John Krumboltz’s Theory of Career Decision Making – The Core Idea

Krumboltz’s Theory of Career Decision Making begins from a deceptively simple claim: career choices are not primarily acts of discovery; they are products of learning. We do not uncover a pre-existing professional identity buried somewhere inside us. Rather, we accumulate experiences, interpret them, and gradually construct beliefs about what we can and should do.

This shifts the emphasis from “finding your passion” to understanding how preferences are formed. In Krumboltz’s model, interests, ambitions, and perceived competencies emerge from repeated interactions with environments that reward some behaviours and discourage others. What feels like inner clarity may, on closer inspection, be the residue of reinforcement.

The theory therefore challenges the romantic assumption that there is a single, latent vocation waiting to be revealed. Instead, it proposes that our career trajectories are shaped by patterned exposure, feedback, and interpretation over time.

The Four Determinants of Career Decisions

Krumboltz identifies four broad categories that shape career decisions: genetic endowment and special abilities, environmental conditions and events, learning experiences, and task-approach skills.

  1. Genetic endowment and abilities refer to the baseline characteristics we do not choose — cognitive capacities, temperament, physical traits. These do not determine a career outright, but they influence which experiences are more likely to be accessible or rewarding.
  2. Environmental conditions and events include factors such as socioeconomic context, educational access, labour market conditions, family expectations, and even chance occurrences. A mentor appearing at the right time, a company restructuring, an unexpected scholarship — these are not planned, but they alter available paths.
  3. Learning experiences sit at the centre of the theory. These are the direct and indirect encounters through which we form beliefs about ourselves and the world of work. Success in a quantitative subject, criticism during a public presentation, watching a respected figure thrive in a certain profession — each contributes to an internal map of possibility.
  4. Finally, task-approach skills refer to the habits and cognitive styles we bring to decision-making itself: problem-solving strategies, persistence, emotional regulation, risk tolerance. These influence not just what options we consider, but how we evaluate and pursue them.

The four determinants interact. Abilities influence experiences; environments shape opportunities for reinforcement; learning experiences build beliefs; task-approach skills determine how we respond to all of it.

The Psychological Mechanism

The engine beneath the theory is learning theory — specifically instrumental and associative learning.

Instrumental learning operates through consequences. We perform an action, receive feedback, and adjust accordingly. If taking initiative leads to recognition, we are more likely to repeat it. If speaking up leads to embarrassment, we may withdraw. Over time, these reinforcement patterns narrow or expand our behavioural repertoire.

Associative learning works more subtly. We form connections without necessarily acting. Observing who is promoted, who is admired, which roles command prestige, and which appear burdensome creates mental pairings: leadership with status, academia with security, entrepreneurship with risk. These associations influence aspiration long before we test them ourselves.

From repeated instrumental and associative experiences emerge self-observation generalisations — beliefs such as “I am good at analytical work” or “I am not suited to creative roles.” These statements feel descriptive, even objective. Yet they are conclusions drawn from limited data, often in specific contexts, sometimes early in life. They solidify into identity.

In this way, career choice is not a single decision but the cumulative outcome of reinforced interpretations.

What This Means Practically

Practically, the theory suggests that when someone struggles to decide “what to do,” the difficulty may not stem from a lack of options but from the weight of accumulated reinforcement.

A person may gravitate toward a path not because it is inherently meaningful, but because it is the domain in which they have consistently received validation. Another path may be avoided not because it lacks potential, but because early experiences in that domain were discouraging.

This matters in moments of transition — for example, considering further study, a role change, or a shift in direction. The question becomes less about identifying a hidden calling and more about examining the origins of one’s confidence and hesitation. Which preferences are grounded in repeated evidence? Which are products of narrow or outdated experiences? Which fears are protective, and which are merely conditioned responses?

The theory does not deny agency. Rather, it relocates it. Agency lies not in discovering an essence, but in interrogating the learning history that shapes perceived possibility.

The Quiet Power of the Theory

The quiet power of Krumboltz’s framework lies in its demystification of career development. It removes the pressure to identify a singular, preordained path and replaces it with a dynamic process view.

If interests and competencies are learned, they can be expanded. If beliefs about suitability are formed, they can be revised. If chance events influence trajectories, then openness to unplanned experiences becomes strategically valuable rather than destabilising.

The theory also legitimises uncertainty. A lack of immediate clarity does not indicate personal deficiency; it may simply reflect limited exposure. New experiences generate new data. New data reshape belief structures. Careers evolve accordingly.

In this sense, identity is iterative rather than fixed.

How to Apply It

Applying the theory begins with reflection, but not in the abstract sense of “what do I feel drawn to?” Instead, it asks: what experiences have most strongly shaped my current preferences? Where have I consistently received reinforcement? Where have I consistently withdrawn?

It then moves to experimentation. If beliefs are built from learning experiences, then deliberately designing new experiences becomes a rational strategy. Short projects, courses, conversations, shadowing, side commitments — these generate fresh reinforcement patterns that can either confirm or challenge existing assumptions.

Finally, it involves examining task-approach skills. Do you avoid certain options because they are misaligned with your values, or because they trigger discomfort with uncertainty? Are you evaluating opportunities through evidence, or through inherited associations?

Seen through this lens, career decision-making becomes less about locating a fixed “what” and more about consciously shaping the experiences that will inform the next iteration of that answer.