Journal of Vocational Behavior 54, 335–349 (1999) Article ID jvbe.1998.1665, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
Effects of Individual Differences and Job Search Behaviors on the Employment Status of Recent University Graduates Alan M. Saks Department of Administrative Studies, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
and Blake E. Ashforth Department of Management, Arizona State University This study examined the effects of individual difference variables (self-esteem, job search self-efficacy, and perceived control over job search outcomes) and job search behaviors (preparatory and active job search behavior, and job search intensity) on the employment status of recent university graduates at the time of graduation and 4 months later. The results indicate that only job search self-efficacy predicted the three job search behaviors. Job search self-efficacy also predicted employment status at graduation, and perceived control predicted employment status at both time periods. Active job search behavior and job search intensity predicted employment status at graduation, and preparatory job search behavior predicted employment status 4 months after graduation. Implications for the design and measurement of future job search research are discussed. © 1999 Academic Press
Research on job search has received a considerable amount of attention in the past several years. This research has examined the relation between job search behavior and turnover (Blau, 1993, 1994; Bretz, Boudreau, & Judge, 1994; Kirschenbaum & Weisberg, 1994; Kopelman, Rovenpor, & Millsap, 1992), job loss and reemployment (Kanfer & Hulin, 1985; Prussia, Kinicki, & Bracker, 1993; Wanberg, Watt, & Rumsey, 1996), job search training programs (Caplan, Vinokur, Price, & van Ryn, 1989; Eden & Aviram, 1993; Vinokur, van Ryn, Gramlich, & Price, 1991), and the effects of job loss and unemployment on mental health and psychological well-being (Caplan et al., 1989; Feather, 1992; Vinokur et al., 1991). This study was supported by a research grant from the Fonds pour la Formation de Chercheurs et l’aide a` la Recherche (94-NC-0894), Province of Quebec, Canada. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1997 Academy of Management meetings. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Alan M. Saks, Department of Administrative Studies, Atkinson College, York University, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3. E-mail:
[email protected]. 335 0001-8791/99 $30.00 Copyright © 1999 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
336
SAKS AND ASHFORTH
However, much less research has examined the antecedents and outcomes of the job search process. In fact, relatively little progress has been made in understanding and predicting job-seeking behavior and employment (Wanberg et al., 1996). Wanberg et al. (1996) recently conducted one of the few studies in this area. They combined a number of demographic, personal, and situational variables based on Schwab, Rynes, and Aldag’s (1987) job search model into a coherent framework to predict job-seeking behavior and reemployment following job loss. They reported that conscientiousness and job-seeking support positively predicted job-seeking behavior, and age and job-seeking support predicted reemployment. The purpose of this study was to examine the antecedents and outcomes of job search behaviors among recent university graduates. Job search is particularly important among this sample of job-seekers because one’s first job following postsecondary education is a critical factor in determining future career status and earnings (Steffy, Shaw, & Noe, 1989). In fact, Richards (1984a) reported that graduates’ occupational position 1 year after graduation predicted outcomes 2 years later and future occupational directions. In the present study, we examined the relations between three individual difference variables (self-esteem, job search self-efficacy, and perceived control over job search outcomes), three job search behaviors (preparatory and active job search behavior, and job search intensity), and employment status. In addition, while most research on job search has been cross-sectional (Barber, Daly, & Giannantonio, 1994; Wanberg et al., 1996), the present study includes both cross-sectional and longitudinal data on employment status. INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AND JOB SEARCH BEHAVIORS Individual differences figure prominently in the job search literature as predictors of job search behaviors and outcomes (Ellis & Taylor, 1983; Kanfer & Hulin, 1985; Schwab et al., 1987; Steffy et al., 1989). However, only a few studies have examined the relation between personality variables and job search behavior (Breaugh, 1992). Three psychological variables that are particularly relevant to the job search process are self-esteem, job search self-efficacy, and perceived control over job search outcomes. Self-Esteem In their model of job search, Schwab et al. (1987) argued that job search intensity depends on high self-esteem. Ellis and Taylor (1983) concluded that global self-esteem related to social job search behaviors, such as the use of job sources and interview evaluations, as well as search outcomes. Schmit, Amel, and Ryan (1993) reported that self-esteem positively related to assertive jobseeking behavior. Thus, self-esteem appears to be an important individual difference variable in job search theory and research.
JOB SEARCH BEHAVIORS
337
Job Search Self-Efficacy Another individual difference variable that is reported to be an important predictor of job search behavior and employment status is job search self-efficacy (i.e., one’s confidence in performing tasks that are important in the job search process) (Bandura, 1997). Ellis and Taylor (1983) reported that a measure of task-specific self-esteem akin to job search self-efficacy related to job search behaviors and outcomes that involved job seekers’ motivation and search satisfaction. Kanfer and Hulin (1985) reported that job search self-efficacy related positively to job search behaviors, and individuals who found employment 4 weeks after job loss had higher job search self-efficacy compared to those who remained unemployed. Eden and Aviram (1993) reported that the initial level of general self-efficacy among unemployed job-seekers related positively to job search behavior and reemployment. Job search self-efficacy has also been found to be positively related to assertive job-seeking behaviors (Schmit et al., 1993). Perceived Control A third individual difference variable that has been recommended for job search research is job-seeker’s perceived control over job search outcomes (Wanberg, 1997). In terms of job search, perceived control is likely to be important in today’s competitive and difficult labor market where job-seekers might sense that their likelihood of finding employment is beyond their control. In fact, Feather (1992) suggested that perceived control might predict job-seeking behavior, and Wanberg (1997) reported that higher levels of perceived situational control with regard to obtaining a job related to increased job-seeking behavior. Thus, perceived control appears to be an important predictor of job search behaviors and outcomes. In sum, based on the theoretical literature and empirical findings, three individual difference variables are predicted to be related to job search behaviors and employment status. Therefore, we tested the following hypotheses: HYPOTHESIS 1. Self-esteem is positively related to (a) job search behaviors and (b) employment status. HYPOTHESIS 2. Job search self-efficacy is positively related to (a) job search behaviors and (b) employment status. HYPOTHESIS 3. Perceived control over job search outcomes is positively related to (a) job search behaviors and (b) employment status.
JOB SEARCH BEHAVIORS AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS In their model of job search, Schwab et al. (1987) predicted that success in generating job alternatives and employment outcomes is a function of the sources used to acquire information about job opportunities and the intensity of the search or the pursuit of such information. Various indicators of job search intensity have been reported to be related to job search outcomes, although much
338
SAKS AND ASHFORTH
less is known about the factors that influence job search intensity (Breaugh, 1992; Schwab et al., 1987). Research on job search has typically measured use of job sources, job search intensity, or specific job search behaviors (Blau, 1993). According to Blau (1993), measures of job search should emphasize behaviors that represent the specific activities in which job-seekers place their time and effort. Unfortunately, many previous studies used single-item measures of job search, often with a dichotomous response scale (yes/no), to measure job search behavior (Barber et al., 1994; Kanfer & Hulin, 1985; Kopelman et al., 1992). Furthermore, all measures of job search have failed to distinguish between preparatory and active job search behaviors (Blau, 1993, 1994). This distinction is important because job search models clearly indicate different stages in the job search process as well as specific job search activities associated with each stage (Barber et al., 1994). Preparatory job search behaviors involve gathering job search information and identifying potential leads during the planning phase of a job search. Active job search behaviors involve the actual job search and choice process such as sending out resumes and interviewing with prospective employers (Blau, 1993, 1994). To improve upon previous measures of job search behavior, Blau (1994) designed two six-item scales to measure preparatory and active job search behavior. Based on confirmatory factor analyses across three diverse samples, he concluded that preparatory and active job search behavior are related but distinguishable job search dimensions, thus providing empirical support for a two-dimensional measure of job search behavior. He also found empirical support that a measure of general effort or job search intensity is a related but distinguishable job search measure (Blau, 1993). Blau (1993, 1994) was most concerned with the role of preparatory and active job search behavior for better understanding the turnover process rather than employment outcomes. To date, research has not used Blau’s scales to examine employment status. As noted by Blau (1994), research is needed to link the dimensions of job search behavior to the employment outcome stage in the Schwab et al. (1987) model as well as on the predictors of preparatory and active job search behavior. In sum, both theory and research (Eden & Aviram, 1993; Kanfer & Hulin, 1985; Schmit et al., 1983; Schwab et al., 1987) suggest that job search behaviors predict employment status. Therefore, we tested the following hypotheses: HYPOTHESIS 4. Preparatory job search behavior is positively related to employment status. HYPOTHESIS 5. Active job search behavior is positively related to employment status. HYPOTHESIS 6. Job search intensity is positively related to employment status.
METHOD Participants and Procedure The participants consisted of senior level undergraduate business, computer science, and engineering students attending a large university in a major city.
JOB SEARCH BEHAVIORS
339
Questionnaires were mailed to 952 students in the term prior to their graduation. Participants were asked to complete the questionnaire as part of a study designed to better understand how graduates find jobs and to return it to the researchers in the enclosed self-addressed and postage-paid envelope. After removing questionnaires from individuals who indicated that they were already employed, continuing their education, or taking a summer break, a total of 384 (40%) usable surveys were retained for this study. Of these 172 (45%) were from students who indicated that they had accepted a job offer (Time 1 employment status). Four months later, a questionnaire was sent to the 212 participants who had not found a job at Time 1 to determine their employment status. A total of 121 responded (57%) of which 75 indicated that they had accepted a job (Time 2 employment status). The average age of the participants was 24.5 years (SD 5 3.4); 47% were female. Participants had on average 2 years of full-time and 4 years of part-time work experience. Measures Individual difference variables. Following previous research on self-esteem and job search (Blau, 1994; Ellis & Taylor, 1983; Wanberg, 1997), global self-esteem was measured by Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item self-esteem inventory. Participants responded to a 5-point Likert-type scale with the anchors 1 5 Strongly Disagree to 5 5 Strongly Agree (coefficient a 5 .83). Job search self-efficacy was measured by a 10-item scale based on items used in previous research (Ellis & Taylor, 1983; Kanfer & Hulin, 1985). Sample items include: “Prepare resumes that will get you job interviews” and “Find out where job openings exist.” Participants responded to a 10-point scale with the anchors 1 5 Not at all Confident to 10 5 Totally Confident (coefficient a 5 .87). Perceived control over job search outcomes was measured by the following 5 items designed for this study: “Finding a job is totally within my control,” “My ability to find a job is controlled by the labor market” (reverse scored), “I can influence the outcomes of my job search,” “I do not have very much control when it comes to finding a job” (reverse scored), and “Finding a good job depends on things I can’t control” (reverse scored). Participants responded to a 5-point Likert-type scale with the anchors 1 5 Strongly Disagree to 5 5 Strongly Agree (coefficient a 5 .74). Job search behaviors. Preparatory and active job search behavior were measured using the two six-item scales developed by Blau (1994). Because Blau used these scales to predict the turnover of employed individuals, we made several changes to adapt the scales to our sample of recent graduates. First, Blau (1993) suggested that the effectiveness of job-seeking behavior can be more closely analyzed by using shorter time frames. Therefore, we measured job search behavior during the past 3 months rather than the 6-month time frame used by Blau (1993, 1994). Second, Blau (1993) suggested that additional items might be needed to more fully represent the job search dimensions. Therefore, we
340
SAKS AND ASHFORTH
added the following two items based on the counseling and training that were being given to students by the university’s career counseling office: “Conducted information interviews to find out about careers and jobs that you are interested in pursuing” and “Analyzed your interests and abilities to determine the best job for you.” Because both of these items deal with information gathering during the planning phase of the job search process, they were used as part of the preparatory job search behavior scale. Following Blau (1993, 1994), participants were asked to indicate the frequency with which they have performed each task on a 5-point scale where 1 5 Never (0 times), 2 5 Rarely (1 or 2 times), 3 5 Occasionally (3 to 5 times), 4 5 Frequently (6 to 9 times), and 5 5 Very Frequently (at least 10 times). As noted by Blau (1994), this type of scale allows for job search behaviors to be measured more precisely than when measured by a dichotomous “Yes/No” response scale. The coefficient a for the eight-item preparatory job search behavior scale was .74 and .75 for the six-item active job search behavior scale. Job search intensity was measured by Blau’s (1993) four-item general effort job search scale. Participants were asked to respond to each item using the same 3-month time frame that was used to measure preparatory and active job search behavior. Sample items include: “Spent a lot of time looking for job opportunities” and “Devoted much effort to looking for a job.” Participants responded using a 5-point Likert-type scale with the anchors 1 5 Strongly Disagree to 5 5 Strongly Agree (coefficient a 5 .94). Employment status. Employment status was measured by a question that asked participants if they have accepted a job offer (0 5 No, 1 5 Yes). Control variables. Several demographic and background variables have been shown to be related to job search behavior and employment outcomes (Richards, 1984b; Steffy et al., 1989; Wanberg et al., 1996). Three such variables include gender, age, and grade average. However, in the present study only grade average related to any of the study variables. Therefore, grade average was used as a statistical control in the multiple regression analyses. RESULTS Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of the variables. First, grade average related positively to all three individual difference variables, preparatory and active job search behavior and Time 1 employment status. Second, self-esteem and job search self-efficacy related positively to the three job search behaviors. Perceived control, however, related only to preparatory job search behavior. In addition, all three individual difference variables related positively to employment status at both time periods. Third, preparatory job search behavior related to employment status at Time 2, and active job search behavior and job search intensity related to employment status at Time 1.
341
JOB SEARCH BEHAVIORS TABLE 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Study Variables Variable 1. Grade average 2. Self-esteem 3. Job-search self-efficacy 4. Perceived control 5. Preparatory job search behavior 6. Active job search behavior 7. Job search intensity 8. Employment status, Time 1 a 9. Employment status, Time 2 a
M
SD
1
2
3
4
3.67 1.45 4.02 .59 6.12 1.48
— .14** — .15** .47**
3.29
.71
.10*
2.77
.72
.15** .21** .37**
.15**
2.36
.81
.12*
.05
3.12 1.14 2.01
6
.17** .28**
8
9
—
.26** 2.06
— .62**
—
.53** .62**
.45
.50
.14** .15** .27**
.26** .06
.62
.49
.17
.28** .27** .14
.19*
7
—
.34** .53**
.12*
5
.17*
—
.20** .17** — .13
— —
Note. Due to missing data, Ns ranged from 370 to 384 at Time 1; N 5 121 for employment status at Time 2. a 0 5 no, 1 5 yes. * p , .05; ** p , .01.
Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Job Search Behaviors To examine the relations between the individual differences and job search behaviors (Hypotheses 1a, 2a, and 3a), we conducted multiple regression analyses for each of the three job search behaviors. The three job search behaviors were first regressed on grade average followed by the three individual difference variables. As indicated in Table 2, grade average explained a small but significant amount of the variance in preparatory job search behavior (R 2 5 .02, p , .01) and active job search behavior (R 2 5 .01, p , .05). As a group, the individual difference variables explained a significant amount of the variance in preparatory 2 2 job search behavior (R change 5 .13, p , .01), active job search behavior (R change 5 2 .08, p , .01), and job search intensity (R change 5 .12, p , .01). Hypothesis 1a predicted a positive relation between self-esteem and the job search behaviors. However, none of the regression coefficients for self-esteem was significant. Therefore, Hypothesis 1a was rejected. Hypothesis 2a predicted a positive relation between job search self-efficacy and the job search behaviors. Job search self-efficacy was a significant predictor of preparatory job search behavior (.39, p , .01), active job search behavior (.32, p , .01), and job search intensity (.41, p , .01). Thus, Hypothesis 2a was supported. Finally, Hypothesis 3a predicted a positive relation between perceived control and the job search
342
SAKS AND ASHFORTH TABLE 2 Multiple Regression Analyses for Job Search Behaviors Job search behaviors PJSB
Step 1 Grade average Step 2 Self-esteem Job-search self-efficacy Perceived control Multiple R 2 R change F change
AJSB
JSI
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
.15**
.10*
.12*
.08
2.01
2.04
.15 .02 8.64**
.02 .39** 2.08 .39 .13 18.23**
.12 .01 5.38*
.05 .32** 2.15** .31 .08 11.27**
.01 .00 .02
.01 .41** 2.28** .35 .12 17.05**
Note. N 5 367–369. PJSB 5 preparatory job search behavior; AJSB 5 active job search behavior; JSI 5 job search intensity. Entries represent standardized regression coefficients. * p , .05; ** p , .01.
behaviors. Contrary to Hypothesis 3a, perceived control was a significant but negative predictor of active job search behavior (2.15, p , .01) and job search intensity (2.28, p , .01). Thus, Hypothesis 3a was rejected. Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Employment Status Because employment status is a dichotomous variable, it may violate some of the assumptions of ordinary least-squares regression. The use of ordinary least squares regression is most problematic when the dichotomous split deviates from an optimal range between .25 and .75 (Blau, 1993). In the present study, the categorical splits fall within this range (employment status at Time 1: 45/55 and at Time 2: 62/38), making ordinary least-squares regression less problematic. Therefore, we performed multiple regression analyses to predict employment status. However, to check our findings we also performed logistic regression analyses and replicated the results. Separate regression analyses were conducted to predict employment status at Time 1 and Time 2. In each regression, grade average was entered in the first step, followed by the three individual difference variables in the second step, and the three job search behaviors in the third step. As indicated in Table 3, grade average explained a significant amount of the variance in employment status at Time 1 (R 2 5 .02, p , .01) and Time 2 (R 2 5 .03, p , .05). The individual difference variables explained a significant amount 2 of additional variance in employment status at Time 1 (R change 5 .07, p , .01) and 2 Time 2 (R change 5 .09, p , .01). In step 3, the job search behaviors explained 2 additional variance in employment status at Time 1 (R change 5 .06, p , .01) and 2 2 Time 2 (R change 5 .08, p , .01). Overall, the total R for employment status was .15 at Time 1 ( p , .01) and .20 ( p , .01) at Time 2.
343
JOB SEARCH BEHAVIORS TABLE 3 Multiple Regression Analyses for Employment Status Employment status, Time 1
Step 1 Grade average Step 2 Self-esteem Job-search self-efficacy Perceived control Step 3 Preparatory job search behavior Active job search behavior Job search intensity Multiple R 2 R change F change
Employment status, Time 2
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
.13**
.09
.11*
.18*
.15
.13
.01 .16** .15**
.00 .14* .20**
.09 .00 .26**
2.25**
.22* 2.01
.19**
.13 .02 6.44**
.30 .07 9.86**
.15* .39 .06 8.18**
.08 2.14 .35**
.18 .03 3.65*
.34 .09 3.68**
.16 .45 .08 3.70**
Note. N 5 366 for employment status, Time 1; N 5 116 for employment status, Time 2. Entries represent standardized regression coefficients. * p , .05; ** p , .01.
The regression coefficients in the two regression equations indicated that self-esteem was unrelated to employment status (Hypothesis 1b); job search self-efficacy related positively to employment status at Time 1 (.14, p , .05) but not Time 2 (Hypothesis 2b); and perceived control related positively to employment status at Time 1 (.20, p , .01) and Time 2 (.35, p , .01) (Hypothesis 3b). These results provided support for Hypothesis 3b, partial support for Hypothesis 2b, and no support for Hypothesis 1b. The regression coefficients for the job search behaviors indicated that, contrary to Hypothesis 4, preparatory job search behavior related negatively to employment status at Time 1 (2.25, p , .01). However, as predicted by Hypothesis 4, preparatory job search behavior related positively to employment status at Time 2 (.22, p , .05). As predicted by Hypotheses 5 and 6, active job search behavior and job search intensity related positively to employment status but only at Time 1 (.19, p , .01 and .15, p , .05, respectively). Thus, these results provided only partial support for Hypotheses 4, 5, and 6. DISCUSSION Although job search models have been an important part of the job search literature, relatively few empirical studies have examined the predictors and outcomes of the job search process (Wanberg et al., 1996). The present study examined the effects of individual differences and job search behaviors on the
344
SAKS AND ASHFORTH
employment status of recent university graduates. The results indicated that some of the individual differences are related to job search behaviors and employment status, and all three of the job search behaviors predict employment status but at different time periods. Individual Differences Among the individual difference variables, only job search self-efficacy predicted all three job search behaviors as well as employment status at graduation. This finding coincides with the growing evidence that a job-seeker’s job search self-efficacy is an important predictor of job search behavior and outcomes (Eden & Aviram, 1993; Kanfer & Hulin, 1985; Schmit et al., 1993). Although self-esteem has received a considerable amount of attention in job search models and research (Ellis & Taylor, 1983; Schwab et al., 1987), it was not found to be a significant factor in the regression analyses predicting job search behaviors or employment status. As indicated earlier, Ellis and Taylor (1983) reported that global self-esteem is a better predictor of job search variables that are dependent on a job seeker’s social skills, whereas task-specific measures are a better predictor of job search behaviors and outcomes that involve the job seeker’s motivation and search satisfaction. Furthermore, according to Bandura (1997), much more than self-esteem is required for success in various pursuits and, unlike self-esteem, self-efficacy beliefs predict individual goals and performance attainments. Thus, the findings of this study, along with those of Ellis and Taylor (1983), suggest that specific job search measures of self-efficacy and self-esteem are better predictors of job search behaviors and outcomes than are more general or global measures. Therefore, it would be unwise for future research to measure global self-esteem or general self-efficacy without also including task-specific job search measures. The results of the multiple regression analyses indicated that perceived control over job search outcomes related negatively to active job search behavior and intensity. This was contrary to expectations and inconsistent with the nonsignificant correlations between these variables. Therefore, we conducted several partial correlations to better interpret the nature of the regression coefficients. When job search self-efficacy was partialed out of the perceived control correlations, the partial correlations with active job search behavior and job search intensity were in fact negative (r 5 2.12, p , .05, and r 5 2.24, p , .01, respectively). This should not be surprising, as job search self-efficacy correlated significantly with perceived control and the job search behaviors. Thus, with the variance shared between perceived control and job search self-efficacy removed, job-seekers with low perceived control were more likely to engage in an active and intense job search. This finding is difficult to interpret and requires some speculation. On the one hand, those with low perceptions of control might engage in a more active and intense job search as a compensatory response, trying to secure control where they in fact feel little. On the other hand, job-seekers with high perceptions of control might conduct a more calculated and thoughtful
JOB SEARCH BEHAVIORS
345
search that is less active and intense. That perceived control was significantly correlated with preparatory job search behavior is consistent with this notion. This also provides some insight into the positive relation between perceived control and employment status. Job seekers with high perceived control might limit their search to jobs and organizations where they believe their chances of success are greatest while those with low perceptions of control cast a much broader net. Perhaps those with higher perceptions of control feel that they can afford to restrict their search to the most desirable opportunities, while those with low perceived control actively search for whatever employment they can secure. Future research is required to explore these possibilities. In contrast to the findings for job search behaviors, perceived control was the only individual difference variable that related positively to employment status at both time periods. Thus, it appears to be an important predictor of job search success that has not been reported previously. Given that this finding is new to the job search literature, future research is needed to explore the role of perceived control in the job search process. This is particularly important, given that perceived control does not appear to influence employment status through job search behavior. Future research should also consider other individual difference variables such as financial need, conscientiousness, and personality measures, which have been reported to be important predictors of job search behaviors (Schmit et al., 1993; Schwab et al., 1987; Wanberg et al., 1996). Job Search Behaviors Consistent with previous research (Schwab et al., 1987), job search intensity related positively to employment status at the time of graduation. Job-seekers who devoted more effort to their job search in the term prior to their graduation were more likely to find employment by the end of that term. This finding supports the important role of job search intensity in the job search process. The results for preparatory and active job search behavior extend previous research on job search, which has not distinguished between these two dimensions of job search behavior. We concluded that active job search behavior related positively to employment status at Time 1. Thus, as was the case for job search intensity, an active job search during one’s final term related to finding employment at graduation. The results for preparatory job search behavior, however, were quite different. The multiple regression analyses indicated that preparatory job search behavior related negatively to employment status at graduation and related positively to employment status 4 months later. This requires some explanation. First, the results suggest that obtaining employment at the time of graduation is a result of active job search behavior or “pounding the pavement” during one’s final term rather than preparatory job search activities. The negative regression coefficient between preparatory job search behavior and employment status at graduation suggests that job-seekers who devote their job search activities during their final term to preparatory search behavior to the exclusion of active search behavior are less likely to have a job at
346
SAKS AND ASHFORTH
graduation. The negative regression coefficient appears to be the result of the removal of the effects of active job search behavior and intensity. In fact, the correlation between preparatory job search behavior and Time 1 employment status was negative (r 5 2.11, p , .05) when active job search behavior and intensity were partialed out. However, the positive relation between preparatory search behavior and employment status 4 months later suggests a potential long-term benefit of job search preparation. Thus, there appears to be a time lag between preparatory job search behavior and subsequent employment. This coincides with a sequential model of job search in which preparatory or extensive job search behavior precedes an active or intensive job search (Barber et al., 1994). It also suggests that preparatory job search behavior might have long-term benefits that extend beyond the immediate time frame, whereas active job search behavior appears to have more immediate benefits. While these results extend previous findings on job search behavior, they also raise some troubling questions about the interpretation of previous job search research that did not distinguish between preparatory and active job search behaviors. For example, if we had not used separate measures in this study, the results and conclusions would be different and perhaps misleading. Therefore, some caution is required when interpreting the results of previous job search research that combined preparatory and active job search behaviors into one job search measure. The results also suggest the utility of using separate measures of preparatory and active job search behavior in future research. Employment versus Reemployment Research on job search has most often focused on the reemployment of laid-off workers (e.g., Caplan et al., 1989; Eden & Aviram, 1993; Kanfer & Hulin, 1985; Wanberg et al., 1996). As a result, it is not known if the job search process for those seeking reemployment differs from those seeking employment. This is an important distinction because it is fairly clear that those seeking reemployment differ in important ways from first-time job-seekers (Barber et al., 1994; Schwab et al., 1987), and this might in part explain some differences between studies. For example, the significant results reported for job search self-efficacy and job search behaviors in the present study stand in stark contrast to the null findings reported by Wanberg et al. (1996). This might stem in part from the fact they were predicting the reemployment of laid-off workers while the present study focused on the employment of recent graduates. It is possible that the predictor set for reemployment is not the same as for employment. A similar argument might also be made with respect to the age and experience of the job-seekers. As noted by Wanberg et al. (1996), their findings might have resulted from the use of an older and more experienced sample, whereas our study sampled relatively young and inexperienced recent graduates. Thus, future research needs to consider potential differences involved in predicting reemployment versus employment as well as any differences that might exist among different groups of job-seekers.
JOB SEARCH BEHAVIORS
347
Practical Implications Research on the predictors of job-seeking behaviors and employment outcomes can provide important information to assist job-seekers and career counsellors in improving the speed and quality of employment (Wanberg et al., 1996). This is particularly important for recent graduates to the extent that one’s first job following graduation relates to future career success and occupational outcomes (Richards, 1984a; Steffy et al., 1989). Based on our results, job-seekers are most likely to benefit in the short-term by a job search that emphasizes active job search behaviors and a high level of job search effort and intensity. Longer-term success is more likely to result from preparatory job search activities. Job search interventions that are designed to increase job-seekers’ job search self-efficacy and perceived control over job search outcomes are also likely to result in a more successful job search. The need for job search training that strengthens jobseeker’s job search self-efficacy (Caplan et al., 1989; Eden & Aviram, 1993; Vinokur et al., 1991) is supported by the results of this study. Increasing job-seekers’ sense of control is also likely to be effective. In addition, students with low grade averages need not be discouraged that their job search efforts will be less successful than their peers with higher grades. Although the results do indicate that grade average related to finding employment, the results also indicated that job search self-efficacy and perceived control as well as job search behaviors were stronger predictors of employment success. This is encouraging for students and career counsellors because it suggests that job search counselling and training interventions can help job-seekers with lower grades compensate by improving their job search self-efficacy, perceived control, and job search behaviors. Study Limitations One of the limitations of this study was the reliance on self-report data. As a result, the findings might reflect some common method variance. While we cannot rule this out, the longitudinal measurement of employment status 4 months after participants completed the study questionnaire enhances our confidence in the findings. Further, the use of Blau’s (1993, 1994) measures of preparatory and active job search behavior and the use of a frequency response scale should also improve the accuracy of participants’ responses. As well, although the measure of employment status is self-report, in theory such information is objective in nature (Wanberg et al., 1996). A second limitation stems from the timing of the measurement of the job search behaviors. While we attempted to capture participants’ job search behavior during the most active period of their job search, we might have inadvertently missed out on their earlier search behavior during the period that preceded the 3-month time frame. This might explain why active job search behavior was a stronger predictor of employment status at graduation than was preparatory search behavior. If we had measured job search behavior in the preceding 6
348
SAKS AND ASHFORTH
months, we might have found that preparatory search behavior predicted employment status at graduation. This would be consistent with a sequential model of job search (Barber et al., 1994). Thus, when interpreting the results of this study, it is important to keep in mind that some of the participants might have been in the later stages of their job search. In summary, the results of this study indicate that job search self-efficacy predicts job search behaviors, and job search self-efficacy and perceived control predict employment status. Active job search behavior and search intensity were found to predict employment status at graduation, and preparatory job search behavior predicted employment status 4 months after graduation. Future research is needed to examine the job search process over longer time periods and to measure other important outcomes such as the speed and quality of employment as well as job and organization fit. REFERENCES Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Barber, A. E., Daly, C. L., Giannantonio, C. M., & Philips, J. M. (1994). Job search activities: An examination of changes over time. Personnel Psychology, 47, 739 –765. Blau, G. (1993). Further exploring the relationship between job search and voluntary individual turnover. Personnel Psychology, 46, 213–330. Blau, G. (1994). Testing a two-dimensional measure of job search behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 288 –312. Breaugh, J. A. (1992). Recruitment: Science and practice. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent. Bretz, R. D., Boudreau, J. W., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Job search behavior of employed managers. Personnel Psychology, 47, 275–301. Caplan, R. D., Vinokur, A. D., Price, R. H., & van Ryn, M. (1989). Job seeking, reemployment, and mental health: A randomized field experiment in coping with job loss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 759 –769. Eden, D., & Aviram, A. (1993). Self-efficacy training to speed reemployment: Helping people to help themselves. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 352–360. Ellis, R. A., & Taylor, M. S. (1983). Role of self-esteem within the job search process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 632– 640. Feather, N. T. (1992). Expectancy-value theory and unemployment effects. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 315–330. Kanfer, R., & Hulin, C. L. (1985). Individual differences in successful job searches following lay-off. Personnel Psychology, 38, 835– 847. Kirschenbaum, A., & Weisberg, J. (1994). Job search, intentions, and turnover: The mismatched trilogy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 17–31. Kopelman, R. E., Rovenpor, J. L., & Millsap, R. E. (1992). Rationale and construct validity evidence for the job search behavior index: Because intentions (and new year’s resolutions) often come to naught. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40, 269 –287. Prussia, G. E., Kinicki, A. J., & Bracker, J. S. (1993). Psychological and behavioral consequences of job loss: A covariance structure analysis using Weiner’s (1985) attribution model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 382–394. Richards, E. W. (1984a). Early employment situations and work role satisfaction among recent college graduates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24, 305–318. Richards, E. W. (1984b). Undergraduate preparation and early career outcomes: A study of recent college graduates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 24, 279 –304. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
JOB SEARCH BEHAVIORS
349
Schmit, M. J., Amel, E. L., & Ryan, A. M. (1993). Self-reported assertive job-seeking behaviors of minimally educated job hunters. Personnel Psychology, 46, 105–124. Schwab, D. P., Rynes, S. L., & Aldag, R. J. (1987). Theories and research on job search and choice. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 5, pp.129 –166). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Steffy, B. D., Shaw, K. N., & Noe, A. W. (1989). Antecedents and consequences of job search behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 254 –269. Vinokur, A. D., van Ryn, M., Gramlich, E. M., & Price, R. H. (1991). Long-term follow-up and benefit-cost analysis of the jobs program: A preventive intervention for the unemployed. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 213–219. Wanberg, C. R. (1997). Antecedents and outcomes of coping behaviors among unemployed and reemployed individuals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 731–744. Wanberg, C. R., Watt, J. D., & Rumsey, D. J. (1996). Individuals without jobs: An empirical study of job-seeking behavior and reemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 76 – 87. Received: March 27, 1998
