Managing Career Ecosystems: Thriving in Decentralized Career Centers

I have worked in career services for a really long time. However, during my “seasoned” work history, I have never worked in a fully centralized career center ecosystem. Ever! At my previous institutions, five total, these external career advisers worked with several offices within the institution, operating parallel to the career centers. Even if my earlier career center was centralized at the time, academically embedded career advisers would pop up in different areas of the college and were not a part of the main career center. Even now, I would comically describe the model at my current institution as “super” decentralized. We are a university with multiple career centers that are embedded in each academic college, reporting through academic deans. There are even a few additional career staff who do not report to the career centers.

This is not atypical for today’s career center operations. The 2025 NACE Career Services Benchmarks survey  found that career centers are “mostly” centralized, meaning, my experience of having ad hoc career staff or career adjacent staff is not in any way unique. Although one can appreciate the value of having additional support at an institution, we can all agree that the “career everywhere” model can add a layer of complexity to the coordination of services. So how do career centers thrive in models that are partially or fully siloed? In this article, I hope to provide a brief reflection of the history of career center models, highlight the benefits and disadvantages of decentralized models, and provide strategies for success in career ecosystems (decentralized or not).

The Evolution of the Career Center

Career development has drastically evolved from vocational counseling, where specialists focused on matching job seekers with employment that aligned with their skills. In fact, the very first job center was a centralized unit that dedicated its operations to supporting immigrant and urban populations with finding jobs.¹ Colleges and universities eventually saw the value in adopting career-ready practices and institutionalized career centers, making them a central unit focused on job placement for graduates. Since then, career centers have transitioned to very complex operations that require a fully functional team that can support student development, liaise with new external partners, manage operations, and evaluate outcomes.

Although early career models were formally centered around a specific office, institutions quickly saw the value in specialization. As companies grew, the demand for students who were trained in industry skills and knowledge became quite commonplace, and the need for talent outgrew the capacity of smaller, “localized” centers. The concept of “career everywhere” was increasingly logical considering the growing demand for prepared talent pipelines. Other student success areas had growing interests in cultivating programs that were attuned to the needs of their industry. Faculty, career adjacent, and other staff could create staff roles that would address the needs of their niche. Currently, some career centers have managed to find a sweet spot, designating one career center as the main hub for career planning activities and university-wide career advisers having synergistic relationships with the central office.

Benefits of Decentralization...

Of course, there are benefits to creating a decentralized model. Specialized career centers typically denote smaller cohorts with dedicated advisers and, consequently, innumerable benefits for students.

For starters, career advisers become subject matter experts in their industry and can advise students, staff, and faculty on employment trends and other specific requirements for that field. These specialists can manage their own career programming, are keyed into the needs of employers, and typically have a strong understanding of changes in the curriculum that can impact their enrolled students.

Career advisers in decentralized models are primed to work with their development office to create opportunities for sponsorships and long-term donor development. These closer relationships between institutional stakeholders mean greater care for students, who receive individual attention.

Career outcomes and data are also easier to manage when they are segregated for specific and smaller cohorts. Additionally, it is easier to collect student engagement and outcome data, identify success indicators and opportunities for growth, and create customized reports that are useful for institutional partners that depend on them to justify their needs.

...And Disadvantages

Despite the advantages of building cohort-specific career operations, the disadvantages to decentralized models can sometimes require intention and a long-term strategy to overcome.

At the student level, seeking out alternative career paths may require seeking another adviser and building a rapport with someone entirely new. This can severely disrupt students’ progress if they are interested in finding information about a major or career outside of their chosen path.

Additionally, students from opposing cohorts may also have varying experiences of career development depending on resource allocation at their respective career center. One career center may have more funding and access to support than others, which can lead to better outcomes for students in that group. This inconsistency in student support can ultimately impact the equity in student career outcomes.

In addition, there are concerns about the duplication of efforts caused by the unintended silos created by decentralization. At the university level, the coordination of development and fundraising efforts becomes complicated as colleges usually “own” their partnerships and may be hesitant to divulge that information or share the benefits from partners resulting from relationships they worked hard to establish. Employers also suffer from fragmented models. Staff and faculty may unknowingly engage with the same partner, making it difficult for the employer to determine the best entry point to college partnerships.

Of course, institutions will naturally gravitate to the career models that work for their students and partners, and many career centers will have limited input on how these models develop. Nevertheless, there are techniques and strategies that are proven to alleviate some of the challenges that may unintentionally arise with “career everywhere” models. Some are simple practices that can be incorporated into any setting (e.g. asset mapping & building communities of practice, creating third spaces), while others require additional resource allocation that may entail a long-term strategy (e.g. building shared vision and re-envisioning staff lines). It is also worth noting that these can be useful for any career center, regardless of the institutional model. They prioritize community building and strategic relationship building, which can amplify the goals of the career centers.

Asset Mapping: A Strengths-Based Approach

Asset mapping is the process of identifying the current resources, people, structures, and tools that already exist within an institution that can support proposed projects or initiatives. I personally love facilitating asset mapping exercises with groups because it is a strengths-based approach—as one might assume so from the name—that challenges staff to think strategically about relationship building.

While it might be more expedient to work independently and forgo an asset mapping activity, career centers may run the risk of alienating potential allies who can co-lead and help by launching services with their respective groups. Locating the people and resources that can serve as partners is a crucial step in developing sustainable relationships at an institution. Rather than simply asking, “What do we need to do?,” career centers should also ask, “Who can be partners in this work?”

To complete a basic asset mapping exercise, career staff can identify and visually represent the partners who can aid, who are already engaging in some of the work, who can provide resources, and who will be end-users of the final product. (See Figure 1.) Asset mapping is best conducted with a group as it inspires teams to share their institutional knowledge and ideas.

Figure 1: Identifying partners using an asset mapping exercise

Communities of Practice Share Interests and Goals

Communities of practice (COPs) are intentionally created groups of people who have a shared interest in a common goal. Unlike ad hoc committees, communities of practice are committed to creating a shared pedagogical approach to understanding and solving institutional challenges. Members typically come from interdisciplinary fields that can offer diverse perspectives on problems. COPs are marked by long-term and sustained collaboration with individuals who commit to creating knowledge caches that are embedded in the institution’s foundation. That way, any developed solutions, revisions, and best practices are archived and shared, regardless of staff turnover and/or other transitions.

An asset mapping practice can be a great entry point for career centers to identify partners who can serve in communities of practice. Employers, foundation developers, advisers, faculty, and students can offer practical takes on preparing students for employment and will be helpful additions to a student career outcome COP.

It is important to note that COPs should start with clear goals, which include a problem of practice and a long-term vision for what constitutes success. Particularly for decentralized career models, having outlined tasks for the group can be essential for building trust and lasting relationships across the institution.

Third Spaces Can Blend Career Centers and the Wider Campus Community

Third spaces are defined as an amalgamation of two primary, cultural, or social spaces. They are separate from our main social environments, such as school and work. Third spaces provide a place for communication, shared understanding, and connecting with the values that are essential to a group. It is a place, physical or virtual, that allows for the blending of two very distinct cultures or thoughts. 

Although the concept of third spaces is rooted in sociological theories, their foundation of building a place where people can share thoughts without obligation to commit to additional tasks can be a boon for career center relationships. In the case of career centers, one can conceptualize the career center as the first main space, the wider institution as the second space, while an alternative meeting ground for all interested partners is the third space. Unlike communities of practice, third spaces are informal and free from constraints caused by organizational hierarchies or positions.

Their relative informality and focus on learning mean that third spaces can consist of a variety of methods for bringing people together and enhancing learning. Community listening sessions, email listservs, newsletters, meet ups, and student career clubs provide an avenue for communication and idea sharing. These low stakes, informal techniques can provide mechanisms to share and gather career information that would otherwise be lost within large organizations.

Creating a Shared Vision

Creating a shared vision for student career success is an important step for building partnerships and ensuring buy-in from community members.

A unified vision can become a belief that stakeholders can get behind and promote within their respective areas. It may involve specific targets, an ideological approach to career success, or simply principles for career practices that stakeholders can support.

Third space feedback and communities of practice can inform the direction of the career center and help with creating a plan that is representative of partners that are invested in the unit’s success. People are more likely to help drive missions forward when they are a part of building that idea. Of course, creating a shared vision may take a longer time to create. Partners will want to share feedback, provide input, and request revisions. However, cultivating a shared strategy will prove essential for long-term success.

Reenvisioning of Staff Lines

I recently had the pleasure of hiring a data manager and reclassifying another team member to  a communication and engagement manager role. Our data manager supervises the collection and operationalizing of student career data (first destination, student employment outcomes, experiential education engagement), and our communication management is responsible for increasing career center engagement and strengthening community around experiential education. These two roles work in tandem to share updates to our changes in policies and practices, share outcomes, and build support for our collaboratively created vision.

Understandably, not all centers have resources to hire or shift current staff lines. However, having dedicated staff lines for data and the communication of those outcomes can be completely revolutionary for sharing the progress toward career center vision.

If allocating staff lines for this is not possible, other alternatives include working with faculty to create data analytics projects in courses that are focused on giving students the opportunity to analyze career outcomes and create recommended solutions and/or creating communication internships within the career center itself.

*****

Although some of these strategies may not work for every center, they are specifically designed to function in subparts. Some of their components can be incorporated into our preexisting practices and can work regardless of the current career center model. The key is for career centers to maximize the power of relationships and to build strength-based approaches to include the opportunities that already thrive within the larger organization.

Endnotes

¹ Sensoy-Briddick, H. (2009). The Boston Vocation Bureau’s First Counseling Staff. Career Development Quarterly, 57(3), 215–224.