Is There a Correct Answer for Your First Career?

The new fiscal year is almost here. I imagine that all of you who are becoming new members of society this spring have graduated from school with a mix of anticipation and anxiety.

In this article, I would like to write about "how to choose your first career," incorporating both academic knowledge and experience, for those of you who are about to embark on your careers as working professionals.

Young people seeking the "correct answer" to their career

When I receive career-related consultations from young professionals and students, I often get questions like the following.

"What is the correct way to choose my first job?"
"Is this company really okay?"
"How should I go about evaluating a company?"

I believe these questions usually stem from anxiety.

What if I ruin my life by choosing the wrong first job? Don't I have to join a 'white' (reputable) company? Wouldn't it be safer to choose a stable, large company if possible, considering the eyes of friends and parents? Such concerns dominate the judgments of young people.

To begin with, there is something I would like to say frankly as a conclusion.

That is, there is actually not that much difference in the "job type" or "company size" of your first job. Rather, who you meet in that workplace and what kind of community you place yourself in will have an immeasurable impact on your life thereafter.

Looking back on my own experience of leaving Niigata for other prefectures, what brought about my career turning points was not the judgment that "this company was the right answer," but rather the relationships and environment I encountered with the people at those workplaces.

Where should you spend your life's "impressionable years"?

In classical social psychology research, there is a concept called the "impressionable years hypothesis."

It suggests that a person's values and beliefs are formed particularly between the ages of 18 and 25, and tend to remain relatively stable throughout the rest of their life.

Analysis of American voting behavior has shown that the political environment experienced between the ages of 18 and 25 continues to influence voting behavior for decades afterward (Jennings & Niemi, 1981). In other words, the experiences during this period are not "temporary memories," but the foundation of a person's identity.

Supporting this is the concept of "emerging adulthood," proposed by developmental psychologist Jeffrey Arnett (Arnett, 2000).
He positions the ages of 18 to 25 as a "transitional stage that is neither adolescence nor full adulthood," and points out that this is the most active period for self-exploration and role experimentation.
In other words, the people you meet and the environment you are in during this period are the critical points that determine the foundation of your career and life views.

The importance of the perspective of "situated learning"

Here, I would like to add an important shift in perspective.

Conventionally, we tend to think of "learning skills" as "stuffing knowledge into our heads". However, the latest thinking in learning theory is completely different.

The "Activity Theory" proposed by Finnish educational researcher Yrjö Engeström views learning not as "an individual acquiring knowledge," but as "a process of participating in practical activities within a community" (Engeström, 1987). In other words, learning is always "situated," and the interaction with people who share that situation is the true dynamism of learning.

https://www.jil.go.jp/institute/zassi/backnumber/2023/04/pdf/054-057.pdf

In other words, what you learn at your first company is heavily influenced by who you work with at that company.

Even in the same sales job, a young person raised by a growth-oriented manager and one who is left to their own devices will have completely different career perspectives a year later. This is not due to a difference in the amount of knowledge, but because the community of practice they are participating in is different.

A "learning space" called a community of practice

A learning researcher named Etienne Wenger further developed these ideas. He proposed the concept of a "Community of Practice" and argued that people learn by participating in a group of people who share common interests or practices (Wenger, 1998).

There are three characteristics of a community of practice. The first is "shared enterprise" (what to do), the second is "mutual engagement" (how to interact), and the third is "shared repertoire" (what is valued).

Let's re-examine the site of your first job from this perspective.

A young person assigned to the sales department of a so-called "white company" versus a young person who joined a small startup team. Which one grows depends on the quality of the community of practice in that department. The former might belong to a community of practice for routine tasks, while the latter might belong to one for trial and error and creative ingenuity.

The important point is not "which is the right answer," but what kind of learning is possible in that place. If you are a young person with a high desire for growth, you should choose a community of practice where you can participate in various trials and errors and learn from failure. Conversely, if you are a young person who wants to solidify your foundation, a community of practice that deepens expertise through routine tasks might be more appropriate.

In my previous note, I pointed out that for people living in the Tokyo metropolitan area who left jobs at companies within Niigata Prefecture, "problems with workplace relationships" was cited by about 23%, which is almost the same rate as the 24% who cited "salary/annual income did not meet expectations."

This suggests that it may stem from a gap felt when comparing the experience in the community of practice they belonged to after choosing a Tokyo-based company for their first career. It is also possible to imagine that

even young people who quit may have thought of returning to their local Niigata to contribute by utilizing their work experience in the Tokyo metropolitan area, but the workplace environment—the human relationships and organizational culture—was not one where they could utilize that desire.

Human relationships influence learning—the mentoring effect

Within a community of practice, it is said that "the presence of a mentor" is extremely important.

Organizational psychology research shows that when young employees are blessed with a good mentor, not only does their job satisfaction increase, but their career adaptability and resilience also improve significantly (Allen et al., 2004). This is not just about "feeling at ease because there is a kind boss," but rather that learning up close how that boss approaches work and deals with difficulties is what is important.

As I myself am involved in organizational development for small and medium-sized enterprises in rural areas, I feel that what determines a young person's growth boils down to one point: "not how wealthy the region is, but whether there is an adult (a role model) nearby who can show them the way." In terms of community of practice theory, everything is decided by whether that adult becomes a "scaffolding" that guides the young person from "peripheral participation" to "full participation."

Conversely, young people who belong to a bad community of practice lose learning opportunities, no matter how excellent the company is. For example, in an organization with a power-harassment culture or an organizational culture that values only personal advancement, young people only suffer negative learning, such as "learning the inhumanity of the organization." The possibility that regional cohesion and homogeneity are fueling this cannot be ruled out.

Learning from bad examples is also a form of learning

It has also been pointed out that negative experiences are also a form of learning.

Albert Bandura, who proposed social learning theory, pointed out that humans not only "imitate good models" but also "learn by avoiding bad models" (Bandura, 1977). Witnessing the response of a power-harassing boss and deciding, "I will not become that kind of manager." Experiencing an organizational culture steeped in formalism and thinking about "what true human relationships are." Such experiences are what clarify and hone a person's values.

In being involved in youth development in Niigata, I noticed that young people who have "experienced a large company in an urban area once and jumped in after realizing its limitations" have more resolve for work in the region than "young people who only know a limited workplace environment" in a local city. As was the case with me, because I have touched upon the logic and absurdity unique to large companies, it becomes a motivation to steel myself and work in the region.

So, what criteria should you use to choose your first job?

Based on the discussion so far, the criteria for choosing your first job will likely be as follows.

The first is whether there are 'relationships that promote learning' in that workplace. This does not necessarily mean only 'good bosses.' Sometimes, including unreasonable experiences, it is important to have
'interactions that force you to re-examine your own values'. Unreasonableness can also sometimes be a factor that promotes learning.

The second is whether that place provides 'participation in practical activities'. It is not about classroom learning, but whether there are opportunities to learn through trial and error in actual work and from failure. It is about whether you can truly participate in the core practices of that industry or job type. This includes not only within the company but also opportunities to cross boundaries outside the company.

The third is whether there is a 'learning-oriented community' in that organization. This has nothing to do with the size or fame of the company. Even in a small team of a few people, if there is mutual engagement to 'grow together,' it functions as a community of practice.

Even in large companies called 'white companies' (good workplaces), there are departments buried in routine tasks without mentoring. On the other hand, even in a small local factory, a young person training while watching the back of a master craftsman belongs to a deep community of practice and is experiencing authentic learning.

In other words, the reason there is no 'absolute correct answer' for your first job is that it is not the name or size of the company, but how you learn there is entirely dependent on 'the quality of the relationships and practices in that place'.

Conclusion: There is no such thing as a wasted encounter

It may sound like a cliché, but the conclusion I want to convey is that there is no need to overly seek a 'correct answer' for your first job.

That company does not necessarily have to be your 'lifelong workplace.' Since it is not the era of lifetime employment, job changes, entrepreneurship, and career changes are all possible in this day and age.

However, no matter what workplace you choose, the interactions with the people you meet there will definitely shape the pattern of your subsequent learning and growth. Good encounters, as well as experiences with people who serve as negative examples, will become the foundation of your outlook on life and career.

Psychology and learning theory consistently show the same thing. What you, as a person in your 20s reading this, learn at your place of employment depends less on the content of the work and more on what kind of people you interact with and what kind of practices you participate in at that place.

And what is required there is your own attitude.

Even if there is a wonderful community of practice in the workplace that promotes learning, if you are passive in receiving it, it will be difficult to gain good experience. Even if you cannot choose your job, anyone can choose their attitude.

There is no such thing as a wasted encounter; all that exists is the choice of how you face that encounter.

I don't know what kind of encounters await you from April, but even if you encounter a 'placement gacha' or a 'boss gacha,' don't be pessimistic; please try to find a community of practice yourself.

References

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with mentoring for protégés. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127–136.

Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469–480.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall.

Casey, B. J., Tottenham, N., Liston, C., & Durston, S. (2005). Imaging the developing brain: what have we learned about cognitive development? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(3), 104–110.

Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit.

Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1981). Generations and politics: A panel study of young adults and their parents. Princeton University Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press.