It took me 1 hour to actually finish the test, but I am a career professional. It should probably take you a bit more time.

This would be counterproductive to describe every part or aspect of the test, as obviously it would take forever, so I decided, rather than report every step, to focus on what really matters.

This review is to be considered as a humble critical analysis.

If you want to get a complete overview of what a career test is and it’s limits beforehand, I encourage you to stop right here and read my book “Career Guidance or The Art of Not Failing” available on Google play and amazon, of which I will provide some extracts or concepts here and there in this review.

I will start with my conclusion, then let the reader explore my experience in depth to deepen the understanding and basis for this conclusion and especially think about some of the key questions that emerged down the line. I will also provide the screenshots of my results.

Before checking the conclusion let’s quickly take a look at some of their statements about the Career Explorer test that you can find on their website, and let’s read between the lines.

“Using advanced machine learning, psychometrics, and career satisfaction data, we’ve reimagined what a career test can be."

“Our machine learning models train on millions of data points, constantly improving the reliability and validity of our career test results.”

“We provide career matches based on your interests, goals, history, workplace preferences, and personality.”

So it’s unclear how the test is really constructed at that point and to what extent it is validated, and finally they do not include in the list of what the test provides: what you want or makes sense to you.

“We continuously tweak our algorithms and update our datasets to provide industry-leading match accuracy."

Given the fact that any change may impact the results provided and that it should be validated by empirical scientific testing each time, this is scary knowing “they” are continuously tweaking the AI.

Another huge statement from the career explorer website at the time I wrote this article: “Whether you’re pursuing education, in the early career stages of your career, pivoting to a new path, or just looking for answers, we’re here to help you discover where you’ll find happiness in the world of work.”

Happiness at work, nothing less. This is not even a bold statement but a foolish one as even psychology researchers have trouble defining and measuring it. I will let you check about that on your own.

In their “what makes us unique” section, they state the test is based on the Big 5 Model (I encourage you to read the Wikipedia page on this one and especially the “critique” chapter :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits), and that they mix it with the Holland codes (the RIASEC).

How they do that, how it works exactly, how their test and algorithm were validated remains a mystery at that point. But they take two different controversial models and concepts, which even taken separately have some flaws, that are about personality types at work and have nothing to do with a career choice, mix it up in an unknown way, then has an undocumented AI serves you a result of a career path or degree.

I can’t stress this enough: How this magic mix has been validated is the central question.

And at last we can read, “Our career test items were developed by a team of I/O psychologists with years of experience in the field of psychometrics.” and in the “about page” of the website you can read: “In 2012, Spencer founded Sokanu to solve this problem. He partnered with PhD career psychologists to reinvent the standard career test and launched what would become CareerExplorer—a world-class career platform powered by modern science and technology.”

So, please type in your preferred search engine “PhD career psychologists”, you will see that there is no such thing. Of course there are a couple of PhDs in psychology but as you just realized, not in the “career” field and the way it is written is highly misleading, influential.

So what is the type of results you can expect?

Here is my conclusion on this test:

There are a lot of really interesting steps, if only they were in a different format with open text field leaving the user to be able to express himself. Unfortunately, that would be impossible for a computer program to handle and it could still probably lacks context and meaning as if you don’t have someone to tell you it’s not clear enough or not thorough enough, you will be left with a lot of different types of deepening depending on the individuals.

Therefore, it’s based on the perception you have of yourself or the image you want to be considered as.

Someone, like me, having done psychoanalysis for more than 9 years and being a coach for the last 17 years has a deeper understanding of himself than common people. I guess the results should be more accurate.

Here are the actual results of my test.

Your discoveries (the characteristics that make me unique): Groundbreaker / feeling minded / maximizing

My top careers:

My degrees:

These careers are not much of a change! This is just activities as a full career that I already do as a Coach and Psychoanalyst right now. I won't even comment my top degrees results.

I have trouble saying they are way off on the personality aspects, but my next career ideas they provide are what I already do. There is a big part of the test that is about your current career, activities and what you like about it, so I don’t really understand what’s going on here. It’s interesting to note that I really like computer design, web design and UX design and that didn’t come up. Why?

It doesn’t get any better if you’re a student or first-time career chooser because you’re left with so many results that without professional help it can quickly become overwhelming. This is probably why they offer a premium package with professional coaches. Well, they do want and need to make money.

What happens is that without reflecting at every question, without having someone pointing out some truths about yourself to help bring the focus on what you are and what you like more closely to reality, your answers are not truthful as they should and therefore the results will be different than what it should be, conceptually. That’s the main problem, and not specific to this test.

People representations and thinking are usually biased. You want to answer a question in some way, OK, but do you have a clear view of yourself and what you really like? Usually it takes some real self-reflection to do. It is also important to take into account that some people have been highly influenced in their way of viewing themselves, especially by school, studies, parents, boss, co-workers, family members and close friends. There are usually many things to deconstruct in your beliefs but also some work to do on your mindset prior to thinking and setting any career goal.

My opinion is that the results represent what I already do and therefore doesn’t help much considering a change of career. This test doesn’t solve the main problems all career test presents, it is influential and the results are biased by the representations of each individual that are not questioned making the results unreliable. The lack of context and meaning in all the types of answers you are asked to give is what makes a career test useless. A test supposed to work for everyone that could take into account such things with open answers just cannot be analyzed by a computer that will be able to give a sensible result. You can’t mass provide career choices, period. When you face even only five career choices, what do you do? Preferably you seek professional help, that’s why they have a premium package. So in the end, as usual, this is all made to hook you up with a plan and sell you some additional services as you will think their test is well made, that the results are interesting and by the time you spent 1 hour answering questions, you will be the subject of a well-known marketing manipulation. I encourage you to read Mr Cialdini and others, on the different marketing manipulation techniques.

For now, my advice is that you find another option. One that relies on your own thinking preferably and that will not influence you, of course.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, the resume of my experience with the test, step by step.

We will start with the first step as this is where we encounter the first problem.

The test asks you what activities you would like to do.

Great! But this format is problematic in two ways, first, the algorithm can’t deal and process easily open text input, second, I know that the majority of my clients have trouble answering quickly and without a doubt what it is they really like to do. Usually people need guidance with this step. The other aspect is that even if you and the system could overcome these problems no artificial intelligence will ever be able to know what is meaningful to you in those activities or what’s the most important one, without much more information.

And does it list all the activities in the world: NO. Of course It can’t. Therefore it steers (influence) you in some direction and doesn’t make you really think about what you like. Supposedly because the test makers can’t do anything else if they want to give you some result they can compile at the end. Those activities are in fact the reflect of a clear but general path, a field. The process here hasn’t changed much compared to other tests, it’s not so much about activities but more about finding a path.

Let’s take a look at some examples: Find support resources for families in need / repair farm equipment / research how genes function.

You are asked to choose between: Hate it / dislike it / neutral / like it / love it

How does this answer help define how much you like it really and why?

It’s like reviews on books. A 3-star rating for one will be a 5-star rating for another, it all depends on your representations, norms and experience. A “dislike it” for someone will be a “neutral” for someone else with the exact same representation on the activity. There is a deep lack of meaning here.

The second step asks you to rate careers, it’s called your personality archetype.

It doesn’t take into account the first answers given and how you responded to the activities you liked in the first step. They give you the name of a job like “marine biologist” with a short explanation of what it’s a bout.

I bet they do that because they suppose that you thought you like or disliked something in the first step but did so without knowing exactly what it was all about, and without context. So they double-check your answers providing some more details and you’re asked to rate it again with stars from 1 to 5. In this case I saw a direct link between step one and two.

So basically you do this step as in step 1 but this time with some more details. This is kind of smart but time consuming, obviously we all have misrepresentations of activities and jobs. They show you job titles as diverse as dog walker, flight engineer and detectives. You are then asked again to express your opinion using like / dislike on, information technology, law, mathematics, life science, music or nature and agriculture, given that this time your representations are more precise.

Next you’re asked to rate degrees. I really have a hard time understanding why this is relevant? Why do we care at that point what we think about degrees (with a short description), as we don’t even know what we want to do? The only logical explanation is that they want to provide you with specific degree matches (and they do). A relevant explanation for an exercise that is not relevant to a career choice, except for those who choose a degree and not a career, when they shouldn’t.

Examples of degree: Deaf Studies.

That degree (and some others I was asked to rate to be honest) made me wonder why I would be asked to rate such a specific degree that has nothing to do with what I already answered? Where does it come from? Is this asked to everyone? Have I missed something? Will they even provide sufficient information for me to be able to rate it? On what criteria? I’m lost.

Maybe I’m going further that I should here, but is it some marketing? Is this influential to make the individual think of a career path that needs applicants? You know, I’m talking about that kind of publicity that is induced like when the characters on your favorite TV show drink a brand of beer or soda making sure you clearly see it… Anyway, I hope I’m wrong.

Here’s the description of the degree: “A program that focuses on the sociological, historical and linguistic aspects of the deaf and hearing-impaired, and that prepares individuals to work with the deaf and hearing-impaired. Includes instruction in American Sign Language, deaf studies, American deaf culture, structure of American Sign Language, history of the American deaf community, and civil rights of deaf people.”

I may be wrong but I think that there is no clear link between my first answers and what is being asked during that step, given that it is offered to me to rate degrees in robotics, law, food science, physiology, etc.

After that, you’re asked about your previous experiences and then to fill some information about yourself, part of this information is your ethnicity, this is what they claim it is for: “We use demographic data like ethnicity to reduce discrimination and bias in our algorithms, as well as contextualize some of your results in line with peers of your age group, sex, and location. Your answers are transmitted and stored securely, and never shared with third parties.”

Why this should have anything to do with what you want to do as your next job? How does their algorithm compute that data? What does that mean exactly :“contextualize some of your results in line with peers of your age group, sex and location”? It looks to me they want to classify you in some groups, and therefore that may have an impact on the results you’re given. Not totally unbiased or uninfluential if that’s the case.

Next they ask you your actual degrees and where you got them, what is your current career and finally what is the highest level of education achieved by your parents. Is this to corroborate what social studies showed a long time ago that high-achieving parents tend to have high-achieving kids, because of the environment in which they are educated? Is this for their own statistics? Is this related to the point above to also help classify you to some groups? Why should it be relevant to a new career choice.

Next, they ask you if your actual career gives you purpose and fulfillment.

Interesting, but the main question is again: what do they do with it? What impact can it have on the results?

Once you’ve answered those questions they ask you to give your opinion on different statements about your job:

“Being a Coach gives you control over the direction of your work."

"There is a competitive work environment as a(n) Coach."

"Being a Coach requires frequent time pressure to complete tasks.”

As you can see, even if you’re not a coach, your representation of the work and type of tasks that a coach handles on his day-to-day routine should be clear enough to be able to tell if those questions are relevant. It looks like the algorithm just add the name of the job in a pre-written question. Therefore, it’s pretty useless and totally meaningless.

In the next step, you will have to define what would bother you in a job: dealing with customers, unpredictable work schedules, Working more than 40 hours a week…

Is this a fully exhaustive list of all aspects of all jobs? No, therefore, in that format I think this step is influential. Asking you to tell what exactly would bother you in a job, making a list of all the bad aspects of all the jobs you know or can imagine without help wouldn’t be influential. It would be your responsibility to do the exercise as thoroughly as possible, considering this is useful.

There is another hidden problem here. You’re asked to tell what’s important to you. This is based on your beliefs and given the fact that no one tells you / help you to question those beliefs and to rethink them, you’re in trouble because you will mislead yourself. What you think is the result of a combination of so many things. You may think that working more than 40 hours a week is an absolute nightmare, but this is given a certain context. You would certainly think differently if what you were doing had a deep meaning for you, for example.

There are usual beliefs that career professionals know are important to you and rather than explaining why it shouldn’t be a criterion for a choice, they prefer to reinforce them, for lack of understanding the problem or for influential purposes: you tend to like and trust people that tell you that what you think is smart. But, as I said in my latest book, if you go to the DIY store for a tool to handle a problem in the house, you expect the professional to tell you it’s the right one or steer you to the right tool for the job, preventing you from other problems. As an example, try to remove a nail with a screwdriver…

These are the kinds of beliefs I’m talking about: Earning a lot of money. Getting recognized for the work I do. Good working conditions. Having co-workers that are easy to get along with. Job prestige (i.e., career is admired and respected in society). Variety, something different every day.

You will think I am crazy to say that, because I’ve never seen anybody state that but all these are pretty much based on bullshit beliefs and shouldn’t be taken into account without deep questioning to understand exactly and precisely what it is you really mean, want, why and if, it is under your control. I can’t get into the nitty-gritty here, as this is far beyond the subject of this article, so please, read my other articles on influence, and if you’re planning on a career change and you feel I’m crazy, that you want to get deep into these aspects for a full-depth analysis and explanation, and if one of those aspects is one of your criteria, here is a little bit of self-promotion, please check my latest book: “Overcome Influence and Thrive”.

Let’s move on to the next step, you’re asked to define if some statements sound like you. For example “I… Am always prepared”.

What does that even mean? Prepared for what? Anything? The problem with all those questions you will have to answer, like the one above, is that they are out of context; therefore their meaning is missing. This is why some people think their psychic are always right, they add any context necessary so it makes some sense to them. Here, you are also the one creating the context, creating meaning, an image, a story, in order to be able to answer. And because it’s a yes or no exercise and you can’t type and add any context to your answer, this exercise is totally useless and meaningless.

I can’t reveal here all the questions of the test and some questions are a bit strange but I must admit that after all it can probably help get a pretty rounded but incomplete image of your personality. The only problem is, your personality is used to MATCH you with a job. If you read “Career Guidance or The Art of Not Failing” then you understood right away what I meant, for the rest of you here is an example so you understand what I mean as quickly as possible: Do you think you need a specific personality to become a cab driver? Yeah, you don’t. They trick you. They present it in a way that looks like what you are looking for, close enough: to be matched with a job, because this is the only thing they can really provide with a test. When in fact, what you usually want is to know how to pin-point what could be your next adventure, what you would really love to do, maybe what you need to do in order to enjoy life, find what you want to do, figure out your purpose, whatever you think is what you want and know all the reasons you do, whatever your reasons.

The next step is about the skills you want to use in your career: this is something really interesting!

But again, we are faced with a problem: will you be able to tell and describe those skills you want to use or will you have to choose from a list and if so are all skills listed? You guessed it, you’ll have to choose from a list and they are not all there. Here are some examples of the skills: Learning new things / programming / negotiating.

So again we have an influential exercise that lacks in context, details and meaning.

The last step is also interesting I must say, it’s called: Does this sound like you?

There are many statements, a pretty good round up, but many questions seem redundant and we are again in a “matching” principle obviously…
An open text field should be mandatory on such exercises.

So here I am at the end of the Career Explorer test, with the feeling that if I didn't write an article about it, it would be a waste of time and I would miss a good opportunity to prevent many failures.

I'm faced with an overwhelming ton of results, so I'll refer you to the conclusion I placed in the introduction to satisfy the more hurried among you.

At the end, you are left with two options the first one is to pay to have the “full results”, clearly I do not recommend doing so.

So here are the “Members benefits”:

• Your compatibility with over 1,000 careers and degrees
• Personality and trait reports
• Special curated offers
• Access to coaching, career training, and more

Let me get this straight: you’re looking for your next step in life and they offer you a “compatibility” list of more than 1000 careers and degrees? What will you do with that, how does that help you? This is way more confusing than helping if you ask me. Unbelievable.

Next, a “personality and trait reports”, as we have previously discussed you don’t need one to know what job you want to do next. Useless.

Special curated offers: so they will offer you some more paid services via coaching and online courses. We can ask ourselves why on earth you already spent 1h30m or more on that test if it finally comes down to getting help from a career coach you can find and select yourself based on your own criteria. Commercial add-on is not a benefit.

So now, let’s see after 1h30 of quizzes what you get out of it:

So as I said, I took the test as a professional coach which I am, wanting a career change without any specific idea of what I would like. This state of mind is approximately 90% of career change seekers, they want change but don’t know what they want and they are faced with multiple dilemmas about time, finances, and their own capabilities to name a few. I’m pretty sure this test “as is” will generate more trouble than help.

I’ll leave the reader circle back to the beginning to read again the conclusion that was given in introduction to this review article.

Today, June 21, 2021, the first Grand Oral du Bac takes place for the students of the terminale.

Here is what it says about time 3, related to orientation and professional project:

"Time 3: You discuss your career plan with the jury (5 minutes)

You explain how the question dealt with is useful for your study project, and even for your professional project.

You talk about the different steps that have enabled you to advance in your project (meetings, commitments, internships, international mobility, interest in common courses, choice of specialties, etc.) and what you will do with it after your baccalaureate.

The jury pays attention to the way you express your personal thoughts and your motivations.

Please note: for the general track, if your question concerns the specialty "Foreign and Regional Languages, Literatures and Cultures", you can take the first two parts of the Grand Oral in a foreign language."


You surely understand it as I do, so it is important here to have a professional project and to argue it while knowing how to create links with one's experiences to demonstrate the logic and relevance of one's choices and actions.

I recently spoke with a journalist from Le Monde, a specialist in education, and a few fundamental points of questioning emerged.


First of all, not all professional projects are the same and then there are those that are made up to disguise one's uncertainty and those that have really been thought out and built for a long time.

And it is not easy to argue correctly and to be convincing when yours is rather part of the first type.

The first question concerning this exercise therefore stems from the need to have a well thought-out professional project built upstream.

Of course, it is a matter of pushing students to think about their professional project and to prepare it earlier.

Because the identified problem faced by our educational system is that school does not prepare students to define and choose a career.

In 2018, in the study by the National Center for Evaluation of the School System (CNESCO), "Helping young people better identify their personal tastes and motivations: A lever for improving guidance", Cnesco, 2018, it was identified that 43% of students had no career plans after the Bac. That's almost one in two students!

To remedy this, they have introduced more hours of support for the creation of the professional project and a globalized supervision. On the government website https://www.ih2ef.gouv.fr/orientation here is what it says in 2021:

"54 hours are planned, as an indication, depending on the needs of the students and the modalities of guidance support put in place for guidance choice support ;

...

The autonomy that is recognized to the different actors (parents, students, educational teams) in the construction of pathways, in the organization of time volumes, and in the time devoted to this activity opens up a wide range of possibilities in terms of innovation.
Managers must encourage and promote all actions that will boost the ambition of all students:

    - compare their tastes and their knowledge of professional activities ;
    - confront their projects and their values;
    - confronting their projects and their skills.

Encourage the conditions for the emergence of the student's personal project

Disseminate information to users

Students and their legal representatives must have the information they need to make informed choices about their future.
This is the first condition for becoming an actor in the construction of their educational pathway:

    - know where and from whom to obtain information ;
    - know and consult the ONISEP's "Mon orientation en ligne" site, which offers a personalized service and where you can consult frequently asked questions. Also consult the orientation guides on the ONISEP website;
    - Be able to search for relevant and necessary information;
    - discover and understand how the professional world works
    - find out about the different training courses.

Setting up time to discover careers and higher education courses

This is an important dimension of the students' reflection, who too often project themselves into professions that are familiar to them.
Time spent in the school (forums, conferences, etc.), during visits to companies or training organizations, or during internships, should encourage variety and diversity.
The student's project must be constructed and chosen; to this end, the management staff must encourage actions and organizations that :

    - allow the student to discover the economic and professional world ;
    - develop the student's sense of commitment and spirit of initiative
    - enable students to develop their educational and professional orientation project;
    - allow students to compare their tastes and knowledge of professional activities and university courses.

The use of the FOLIOS application can be useful. It is a tool to help build the project; it allows traceability within the framework of the Parcours Avenir.

We can see that in 2021 we are still in an orientation linked to knowledge of professions, training, skills (grades), where it would be important to encourage an orientation linked to introspection, desire, pleasure and meaning. In short, the individualization of the process remains insurmountable for the institution.

Reading between the lines, it is clear that it is a question of conforming the individual to the needs of society and companies, rather than helping him or her understand and identify his or her own desires.

It is at this point that we can begin to wonder about the notion of citizen today, seen by the school and seen by the company, to evaluate the question of the needs of each one and the art of making it all work without a hitch, but this is not the subject anymore.

To come back to the question of orientation within the school, I may sound pessimistic, but I consider that given the education system in place and the means it has, they will not have the money nor the temporal and professional capacities to offer what I think is necessary. A system that would base learning on interest, autonomy and meaning.
There is a chance, however, that the problem of equal opportunities (among others) cannot be solved in such a reality.

To conclude, I think we can say that a professional project framed solely by the national education system will only be flawed by the influential nature of the proposed framework, via the advice or opinions of professors, even if they are aware of the issues of orientation and the subtle art of questioning, and the absence of personal development and the search for what makes sense for the individual.

We are therefore faced with a paradox: we have a guidance system that is conceived in terms of grades, jobs and training mainly and that requires that the result be in the form of motivation, eloquence and argumentation with regard to the choices of students who go through this mill. This is deeply inconsistent.

How do grades motivate you to do anything other than have better grades (eventually), how does the catalog of jobs and training allow you to know yourself and to identify in a world that has deeply influenced you so far, to define what you really like or want? How can you develop a relevant argument on such a non-existent basis to explain your choices, which are not really yours?

Finding out about jobs and training courses without any ideas or prior reflection is like deciding to browse through the redoubt catalog simply fuelled by the desire to buy something, anything, that we might like. It is to sink, then, in a symptomatic behavior which, in my opinion, needs to be clarified.

It is, in my opinion, a confusing collapse of meaning.

I like this formula which I have already used in this exact context, it describes the situation perfectly for me.

I have no statistical idea, but I can assume that it puts a lot of students in a great deal of inner turmoil to have to undergo such an ordeal (with a double meaning, of course).


As a result, if the quality of the argumentation is low during the test, there will have to be a leveling down to save the honor of this new vintage of the Bac and this will be at the expense of the interest of the exercise, which does exist, but not according to these premises.

Of course, they are trying to find solutions to the problems of the failure or drop-out rate in bachelor's degrees, which is close to 40% (Source: CNESCO), which is logically linked to the percentage of students who do not have a professional project at the end of the baccalaureate, and this by ensuring that the students are motivated for the specialties they have chosen and that they have a well thought-out professional project.

I don't believe in this at all, but I sincerely hope for all the students who did not have the chance to be intelligently accompanied in their choice, that the future will prove me wrong.

The book Find Your Why by Simon Sinek is the follow-up to his first book, which attempts to explain how to find one's "why" (purpose, passion, etc.). In the first book, he didn’t explain the process for discovering this, instead focusing on explaining and arguing his theory, a somewhat debatable approach as we discussed in a previous article.

Sinek's first book, Start With Why, was primarily aimed at business leaders and entrepreneurs, encouraging them to inspire their employees and improve communication with consumers to boost engagement and sales. While this is an interesting endeavor that certainly can’t hurt, I too found the concept captivating at first glance, but soon started to question it.

Clearly, the general public was taken by this speaker and his very simple concept, so much so that demand grew for him to clarify the method for discovering one’s "why" and explain how individuals could apply it to their own careers or businesses. His concept also applies to him: he isn’t trying to make money but rather explain his "why."

Let’s begin by separating the form from the substance and addressing his speaking abilities, as seen in the many videos that helped make his message viral. Here, I’m only referring to the promotional talks for his book and theory—not his other videos, which I haven’t watched and which may indeed be of quality and inspiring, based on their titles.

Sinek’s skills as a speaker include some habits that make a big difference. You may have noticed how he often repeats key beliefs or ideas he’s trying to instill, without offering any demonstration. For example, the famous line: “People don't buy what you do, they buy why you do it!” This technique aligns with what I’ve been teaching my clients for over fifteen years in public speaking training: no matter the content, what counts is the speaker’s confidence and conviction—both in their gestures and tone of voice. It’s not detrimental to the audience’s perception of the speaker’s credibility, even if they make mistakes, hesitate, or say something completely off base. As long as they do so with confidence and repetition, most of it will go unnoticed.

If you revisit Sinek’s videos and interviews, you’ll notice he does this constantly. It’s worth exploring the concept of anaphora in rhetoric. As Wikipedia puts it, “repetition of an idea influences the individual. Repeating a word over and over will anchor it in the person’s mind, eventually influencing their perception. This is the principle behind propaganda. An idea repeated multiple times will come to appear true to the individual.” This is also used in advertising.

If this subject interests you, there are psychological studies that have highlighted this phenomenon. After all, many marketing concepts are derived from psychological discoveries.

I’m particularly interested in this phenomenon because it’s been marketed so effectively that it’s now widely popular and has even evolved into a method for career guidance. In a live LinkedIn conference in early June 2021, I heard Sinek express his wish that his concept be implemented for American high school and college students.

Now, I don’t typically write articles on every new career guidance method that emerges, nor do I consider myself an authority on regulating the field of career guidance, but this is a concept with widespread influence and the potential for harm. If you haven’t already, I recommend reading my article A Quick Critical Analysis of Simon Sinek’s "Start With Why" before continuing, as I won’t revisit the critiques made there in detail.

Regarding Find Your Why, this book doesn’t expand on the concept already explained in Start With Why, but instead explains the process and provides steps for concretely finding one’s "why" or purpose.

We won’t delve into an in-depth evaluation of the method in terms of life changes or career transitions here. To thoroughly evaluate a method, we would need to create controlled experiments, with different groups of individuals facing similar challenges and sharing the same goals, then objectively measure their satisfaction with the results over time—2 years, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? Does that seem feasible? Scientifically, it's impossible. Too many uncontrollable variables are at play, especially when trying to compare life choices over such long timeframes.

Therefore, I’ll limit my critique to the theoretical and operational aspects of the method, which involves one central requirement: you can’t do this alone. You need someone else to help you—someone who isn’t a close friend or family member, and who can dedicate 4 to 6 hours for discussion. The authors say this is to ensure objectivity. Then, ideally, your "why" needs to be validated by those around you.

For Sinek and his co-authors, discovering your purpose depends on how others perceive you and your experiences. This follows the logic of Sinek’s own journey. In an interview, he mentioned that his theory emerged from helping others find their "why" and, as demand around him grew, he started organizing gatherings to help others. This process was then adapted into a system where someone else plays the role of Sinek in helping you find your purpose. In essence, it closely resembles group coaching, though it lacks the ethical considerations that usually come with such a profession.

Considering this central point, there’s no need to review all the issues in the book. I’ll focus on one crucial aspect: you need someone else to help you interpret your life and experiences and uncover your purpose.

This is essentially coaching without the theoretical foundations. In coaching, it’s up to the client to find their own answers, without the coach imposing their interpretation. The aim is to avoid the coach influencing the client’s decisions. Psychologists and coaches spend their lives honing their listening and questioning skills, and even they can make mistakes or influence you despite their best efforts.

Giving someone this role, especially if they lack the sensitivity, skills, or expertise to guide you, seems not only unrealistic but also dangerous—especially when it comes to career choices and life changes.

Furthermore, this method requires someone else to find meaning in your story and experiences. The authors insist that it’s impossible to find your "why" alone. Consider the implications of that statement.

In my view, there’s no higher level of influence over a career choice than relying on someone else to tell you what has meaning for you. That’s a significant red flag.

This issue becomes even more concerning when we think about how this method could be adapted for students. Will Sinek suggest that students confide in another classmate they barely know and reveal intimate details of their lives?

Consider the complications this could cause, beyond the method's effectiveness.

Sinek also introduces a bizarre belief to justify his method: the idea that you must avoid involving someone who knows you, in order to guarantee the other person’s objectivity. Where did this idea come from? Does it form part of his theory? What evidence supports this?

Even if we accept that someone who doesn’t know you is more objective, what about their sincerity? Can you truly trust someone you don’t know well to guide you in finding your purpose? How can we ensure their objectivity will lead to uncovering your "why"?

Ultimately, all of this rests on unclear, scientifically unverified foundations. We’re simply expected to trust it.

As I concluded in my previous article, Sinek’s "Golden Circle" concept (the why/how/what model) is somewhat fragile, both in terms of the marketing concepts it’s based on and the arguments meant to support it, which lack scientific or empirical validity and often misrepresent historical events.

The more critically one examines the two books, the more one realizes there’s little substance behind them. Sinek is an excellent speaker who masterfully uses persuasive techniques, and his body language reinforces his message. But once the initial excitement fades and we dig into the content, a certain disillusionment sets in.

In my view, this method of discovering one’s "why" presents real dangers, especially for those using it to guide their career change or life direction. It’s particularly concerning if it were introduced to students, who are in a vulnerable and impressionable stage of life.

In summary, if it’s about inspiring leaders to hire motivated employees, that’s fine. But using this as a tool to define one’s career path or life purpose—danger ahead.

I also recommend checking out the 1- to 3-star reviews on Amazon, where you’ll find several insightful critiques.

The article appeared in a short format given the very specific subject matter regarding the burgeoning offer of coaching specifically labeled "Grand Oral du Bac" to ride the emotional wave created by this new exercise, but it was a discussion that led us to wonder how a system of guidance and orientation based on grades ends up requiring applicants to be convincing about their choice of orientation.

A confusing collapse of meaning.

How to justify a choice that is not really one's own, that one has been influenced to make, and that one has not given enough thought to. Quite a program.

It will also be a first for the examiners who will have to note an argumentation, it will thus be necessary to see what it will give, but it is very likely that this new BAC should not be a failure, it would not be glorious.
We can also wonder what the specific skills of these examiners will be, will they have HR training for example.
As a result, if the quality of the argumentation is low, there will have to be a levelling down to save the honour and this will be at the expense of the interest of the exercise. Having done job interview simulations at the Sorbonne about 17 years ago with students at the end of their studies, if one considers that this has an empirical value, there is every reason to believe that it will in fact be a fiasco. The only remaining question is whether it will be made public.

It is also to be put in relation with these statistics of the CNESCO (National Center of Evaluation of the School System):

43% of young people do not have a career plan when they choose their field of study
47% of the children of managers say that their parents pushed them to follow certain paths or tracks
54% gave up applying for a planned course of study when they were advised against it
37% of students do not continue in the field of study in which they were enrolled at the end of their Bachelor's degree

Of course, they are trying to find solutions to these problems, by ensuring that students are motivated for the specialties they have chosen and that they have a well-thought-out career plan.

Interesting on the form, but of a rare hypocrisy for a system which proposes only 4 hours of course on the orientation in class of second (for the moment).

Text written in May 2021.

I stumbled upon his TEDx talk “Start with Why” (https://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action) during one of my documentary watches. I then skimmed through his book, which essentially recaps what he explains in his talk. Everyone who has watched it would readily admit that he is a great speaker, very persuasive. In fact, his book sales are doing well, and this video on the TED website is soon about to surpass 55 million views.

The Concept

This concept was initially developed for entrepreneurs and business leaders to help them inspire: inspire their employees (because we never work better than when we share the mission of the company, among other things) and inspire consumers. But you might be wondering why I am interested in this, as it doesn’t seem to have much to do with career guidance. Well, think again! He used this concept to craft a method for guidance—or at least, a method that helps anyone find their “Why.”

For those unfamiliar with the principle he describes, it’s essentially about explaining that to inspire people, you need to be driven by a mission, not just trying to make money. Yet we are indeed dealing with a subject related to enhancing engagement and sales. We’ll then focus on the underlying issue of influence.

He breaks down his concept into three layers of three circles: at the center is the “Why,” the reason or purpose; next is the “How,” the method; and finally, the “What,” the product or outcome.

I won’t paraphrase the author word for word, but rather summarize the concept. He explains that most companies complain about not succeeding or not selling their products because they fail to communicate with our deep emotional center—this part of the brain that guides most people’s instinctive choices. On this point, various psychological studies have proven that many of our choices are influenced by emotion.

To influence emotions, according to Sinek, we must start with the “Why”—why I do what I do—rather than the “What”—look at how great my product is. Communicating from the “Why” ensures an emotional attachment to the cause, the desire in humans to belong to a group—a group that is formed based on shared beliefs or goals in this case.

To inspire, influence emotional choices, and sell products, you need to start with Why: why we offer or develop a particular product. This contrasts with everyone else who starts with their product, explaining why it’s better than others.

We could debate this idea at length, especially knowing that many marketing and business studies show that the key to selling is to communicate the customer benefit. Apple does this very well. When the iPod launched, the slogan was something like, “Over 30,000 songs in your pocket.” There are many other talks on the subject, notably from Harvard professors. But numerous psychological studies on commitment and how to foster it in individuals show that the most powerful driver is not knowing why we do something and communicating it, but rather playing on mimicry or conceptual adherence. Either we act because others are doing it, driven by a herd mentality, or we act because we buy into the speech or ideology of the person promoting it.

If we approached the concept from this angle, it would already start to waver...

But for Sinek: “People don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it!”—people don’t buy your product; they buy why you created it.

The Argument:

First, a question arises. Does the “Why” really act on emotions? What proves this to us? Taking Apple as an example, what is the main reason I personally choose an Apple product? Is it innovation, design, features, brand image, what I think of myself when buying it, or the Why (do I even vaguely know what it is, other than what Sinek mentions)? I haven’t found any scientific studies or theories, even loosely, supporting the idea that the reason why companies were founded and products developed plays on emotions and ensures product success and sales as the author suggests. It sounds true, it resonates, makes sense, even seems logical—but that doesn’t mean it’s true. In short, it could be a fallacy, even if the conclusion happens to be correct.

Let’s now address Sinek’s argument, which is that money is just the outcome, and it’s the reason why we do what we do that matters and drives sales.

He cites three examples: Steve Jobs, Martin Luther King, and the Wright brothers.

Apple’s boss, Steve Jobs, according to what Simon Sinek implies, didn’t have making money as his primary motivation when he began building his first computer in his garage. This claim would require research that I simply don’t feel like doing.

However, when we look at Apple’s economic history, we realize that there are certainly many other factors contributing to the success or turnaround of a company than merely starting with Why.

We can also look at it differently.

There are many successful companies around the world. Can we explain these successes using Sinek’s concept? He hasn’t ventured there...

Marketing experts know how to generate sales and even habits, or even addictions, without the company necessarily finding its Why. I’m thinking, for instance, of the pork industry, which surrounded itself with top-tier marketers to find the best way to influence the masses. They even hired doctors to publicly promote their products, turning bacon into a staple of the American breakfast and ultimately creating an emblem, even a cultural symbol. They succeeded in making people believe it was good for health.

Regarding Martin Luther King, Sinek merely points out that to rally people, King started with “I have a dream,” which is indeed impactful. Good. But does that really support his concept?

The example of the Wright brothers is even more surprising, as it is so fantastical, even blatantly historically inaccurate. I encourage you to read this well-documented resource, which, by the way, comes from American sources on the subject: http://wright-brothers.wikidot.com/.

I mention it because the issue still divides people despite historical evidence and deeply ingrained popular beliefs.

Sinek claims that the best example of his theory is the Wright brothers, who had no money, no grants, no engineers or “brains” helping them, and who weren’t driven by money but by something else. That’s what made them the first to create a motorized airplane and to fly. He compares this to Samuel Langley, who had all those resources at the same time but didn’t succeed and resigned when he heard the Wright brothers had flown, instead of offering his contribution. Sinek concludes that the Wright brothers succeeded because they were motivated by something deeper than money.

I’ll leave you to research the topic, but all of this is completely false.

The Wright brothers weren’t the first to fly a motorized airplane; they merely glided for 50 to 100 meters in a glider propelled by a sort of catapult from a sand dune. They were so attracted to money that they drew inspiration from the research of other builders at the time but didn’t share their progress. They immediately stopped developing their prototype to focus on selling their invention in Germany and France because the U.S. government wasn’t interested. But without making any demonstrations, they wasted so much time trying to monetize their invention that Louis Blériot ended up crossing the English Channel.

In short, his concept is ultimately based on rather thin arguments, if not nonexistent or built on debatable or false elements when you dig a little deeper.

The Limits:

Here we see the impact of the influence of a good speaker who seems passionate and convinced about what they’re saying. Your defenses drop, and the message gets through. What he says then integrates into you not as a belief but as knowledge.

Yet is this really new knowledge on this subject? A discovery?

Absolutely not. What he says has no basis, is not empirically tested, validated by other professionals, or scientifically proven, and the argumentation on which this edifice rests is vague, debatable, or outright false.

I have great respect for Simon Sinek, and I want to emphasize that he presents himself as a “leadership expert” and that many of his short videos on his YouTube channel are quite interesting. Wanting to “inspire” business leaders and employees by making them reflect on the Why of what they do seems beneficial for everyone. However, if we stop at the theory behind this message, it shows a number of weaknesses when we quickly dissect it, much to the dismay of his fans.

It’s important to note here that what is also interesting is that what he says seems to make “sense” to many people. He has managed to convince a lot of people.

I think the main reason is that he touches on the question of meaning. We are dealing with the theme of the meaning of our lives and what we will leave behind for future generations—something that leaves no one indifferent and is, of course, of crucial importance.

The search for meaning and the Why is fundamentally tied to human evolution and our understanding of the world.

That being said, it seems rather weak to attempt to adapt this to create a career guidance method—or perhaps even terribly problematic. I will try to delve deeper into this in a future article on Sinek’s next book “Find Your Why”, which is directly focused on the issue of career guidance and personal development.