To examine the impact of evaluating one's transferable skills on subsequent employment experiences, a follow-up study compared past participants in Columbia University's Deep Investigation of Growth (DIG) program with a group of non-participants and a pre-program group. The program guides participants through a self-analysis process to identify personal success factors (skills) on which they are then encouraged to base career directions and job-seeking efforts. Data were collected on three principal measures of (1) extent to which skills were being utilized in present employment (Skill Utilization Index), (2) satisfaction with use of abilities, and (3) general job satisfaction--the latter two measures of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ). Findings indicated no statistically significant differences between post- and non-participants but appreciable differences between the pre- and post-groups on all measures. This indicates that those who elected the program were helped by it, but that the program may not benefit everyone equally. Those who elected the program did not appreciate their own versatility and skill marketability, and the composite of their skills were different from their peers. A weakness of the approach is that although transferable skills of an individual are identified and make the focus of job-finding activities, no mechanism exists for describing jobs in the same way. (A summary report is available as CE 024 679.) (YLB)