Job Fit, Underemployment Attributions, and Hiring ... - SSRN

International Journal of Selection and Assessment

Volume 23 Number 3 September 2015

Employment Qualifications, Person–Job Fit, Underemployment Attributions, and Hiring Recommendations: A three-study investigation *** Katina W. Thompson*, David M. Sikora**, Pamela L. Perrewe and Gerald R. Ferris*** *Illinois State University, Department of Management & Quantitative Methods, 341 State Farm Hall of Business, Campus Box 5580, Normal, IL, 61790-5580, USA. [email protected]; [email protected] **Georgia Southern University, College of Business Administration, Department of Management, P.O. Box 8151, Statesboro, GA, 30460, USA ***Florida State University, Department of Management, 821 Academic Way, P.O. Box 3061110, Tallahassee, FL, 32306-1110, USA

Using an experimental design across three studies and four samples, we investigated the effects of employment qualification level (i.e., underqualified, adequately qualified, or overqualified) on hiring recommendations, and how the relationship was influenced by person–job (P-J) fit and underemployment attributions. In Study 1, we tested and found support for the strength and effectiveness of the employment qualification level manipulation. In Study 2, the results demonstrated that overqualified applicants received higher ratings on objective P-J fit, subjective P-J fit, and hiring recommendations than underqualified applicants. Also, overqualified applicants were rated higher on objective and subjective P-J fit than adequately qualified applicants. However, the results indicated no significant differences between adequately qualified and overqualified applicants on hiring recommendations. Finally, P-J fit was found to fully mediate the employment qualification level–hiring recommendation relationship, but only subjective P-J fit (i.e., and not objective P-J fit) was a significant mediator. In Study 3, we assessed the potential effects of underemployment attribution (i.e., internal-controllable vs. external-uncontrollable) on interviewer hiring recommendation. Results demonstrated that applicants who made an external-uncontrollable attribution for their overqualification were perceived negatively and received lower ratings on hiring recommendations than applicants who made an internalcontrollable attribution for their underemployment. Furthermore, the underemployment attribution-hiring recommendation relationship was found to be fully mediated by subjective (but not objective) P-J fit. Contributions of these results to theory, research, and practice, strengths and limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.

1. Introduction n almost every conceivable market (e.g., housing, automobile, stocks, etc.), the buyer seeks to obtain the greatest amount of resources or the greatest value at the lowest possible cost. Why does the model of acquiring human resources in organizations deviate from this model? We assert that this deviation in the acquisition of talent in the labor market is due to long perpetuated, yet largely unfounded, assumptions about

I

underemployed individuals. Underemployment is a multidimensional phenomenon where individuals are unable to obtain adequate employment as measured by their education or experience level, wages, job status, job field or knowledge, skills, abilities, and other attributes (KSAOs) (Feldman, 1996; McKee-Ryan & Harvey, 2011). Overqualification is a form of underemployment that encompasses the education, experience, and KSAOs dimensions (Maynard, Joseph, & Maynard, 2006; McKeeRyan & Harvey, 2011).

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd, V

9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA, 02148, USA

248

Katina W. Thompson, David M. Sikora, Pamela L. Perrewe and Gerald R. Ferris

Intuitively, we believe that underemployed individuals (i.e., the resource that offers the greatest value) exhibit lower job performance, organizational commitment, and job involvement (Maynard, Taylor, & Hakel, 2009), and higher turnover (e.g., Erdogan & Bauer, 2011) than those who are adequately employed. Bewley (1999) argued that employers resist hiring the underemployed because they operate under the assumption that they will leave the organization when adequate employment becomes available. Although these myths permeate human resource management, Maynard et al. (2009) noted that empirical evidence in academic research does not support it. Yet the underemployed are commonly considered the pariahs of the applicant pool, and the popular press touts the avoidance of underemployed job candidates as ‘a mantra of human resources managers’ (Luo, 2010: para. 3). How, then, shall we explain the incongruence between what extant research demonstrates about underemployment, and our assumptions about how practitioners perceive it? Given the practitioners’ incorrect assumptions regarding underemployed employees’ job performance, organizational commitment, job engagement, and turnover intentions (Adams, 2014; Luo, 2010; Porter, 2009; Wells, 2004), perhaps incorrect assumptions also have occurred regarding the manner in which practitioners actually regard underemployed job candidates (e.g., Bewley, 1999). That is, just as factors (e.g., psychological empowerment) (Erdogan & Bauer, 2009) exist that improve the behaviors and attitudes of the underemployed, we propose the existence of factors that may influence hiring managers’ willingness to hire underemployed job candidates. The overall goal of this research was to examine the employment qualifications–hiring recommendation relationship. In Study 1, we tested the strength of our manipulations and the adequacy of our research design. In Study 2, we sought to determine whether underemployed job candidates received lower hiring recommendations than underqualified and/or adequately qualified job candidates. The research also incorporated the person–job (P-J) fit framework, employed by Maynard, Thorsteinson, and Parfyonova (2006) in their study of underemployment and turnover, and as suggested by Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, and Johnson (2005), who categorized underemployment as a form of misfit. Lastly, Study 3 investigated whether applicants’ attribution regarding underemployment influenced the employment qualifications–hiring recommendation relationship. Taken together, these studies will provide empirical evidence to advance theory within underemployment, P-J fit and attribution theory and also inform human resources (HR) decision making within a selection interview context.

2. Theoretical foundation and hypothesis development For this study, the scope of employment qualification level broadly includes three categories: underqualified, qualified,

International Journal of Selection and Assessment Volume 23 Number 3 September 2015

and overqualified. Therefore, the comparisons we make in the study design include all three categories in an effort to avoid range restriction. The literature review on fit perceptions refers to adequately qualified or just-qualified individuals unless otherwise noted. We did not find sufficient literature to warrant a review of underqualified individuals with regard to any variables.1 We propose that individuals who are clearly underqualified rarely are considered for hiring if they are considered at all. In support, we offer research by Bills (1992) and Maynard et al. (2009), which found that human resource managers expressed refusal to consider applicants whose education level was more than two levels below that which was required by the job.

2.1. Employment qualification level There is clear evidence that the concepts of underemployment have received considerable research attention in the organizational sciences in recent years (e.g., Bluestein, Kozan, & Connors-Kellgren, 2013; Erdogan, Bauer, Peiro, & Truxillo, 2011; Feldman & Maynard, 2011; Fine & Nevo, 2011; Luksyte, Spitzmueller, & Maynard, 2011; Maynard & Feldman, 2011). As stated previously, underemployment denotes the inability to secure employment that is congruent with several underlying dimensions (e.g., education, experience, prior wages, desired field of employment, job status) (Feldman, 1996; McKee-Ryan & Harvey, 2011). Researchers have proposed that underemployment adversely affects psychological well-being, social relationships, and socioeconomic status (Burris, 1983; Feldman, 1996; McKee-Ryan & Harvey, 2011). The popular press (Wells, 2004) categorized underemployed individuals as high risk hires, suggesting the existence of a negative categorization of the underemployed among practitioners. Blenkinsopp and Scurry (2007) referred to younger underemployed individuals as GRINGOs (i.e., graduates in nongraduate occupations) who, due to their excess educational qualifications, were characterized as a ‘conundrum . . . and potential disadvantage’ (p. 628) for potential employers. Their research suggests that the underemployed are an unwanted liability and high turnover risk. The categorization is not unfounded as research has linked underemployment to poor work attitudes and behaviors (see McKee-Ryan & Harvey, 2011 for review). Underemployed individuals typically report higher turnover intentions (Maynard, Thorsteinson et al., 2006) and lower job satisfaction (Khan & Morrow, 1991), organizational commitment (Leana & Feldman, 1995; Maynard, Joseph et al., 2006), and organizational trust (Feldman, Leana, & Bolino, 2002). Understanding that underemployment research has provided support for a negative categorization of underemployed individuals, we ask whether this assessment is fair and consistent. A review of the underemployment literature (McKeeRyan & Harvey, 2011) also revealed mixed results for

C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd V

A Three-Study Investigation work outcomes (i.e., self- and supervisor-reported job performance, and turnover) where adverse relationships may be assumed. Further, Maltarich, Nyberg, and Reilly (2010) found that employees with excess cognitive ability who possessed jobs with low cognitive demands did not voluntarily turnover or report low job satisfaction. Other research (Erdogan & Bauer, 2009) has shown that moderating factors (i.e., empowerment) also served to decrease the negative consequences (i.e., low job satisfaction, low intentions to remain, and high voluntary turnover) of underemployment. These results are counterintuitive to the assumptions noted earlier, and they prompted our evaluation of the underemployment–work outcome relationship as we investigated whether participants’ perceptions of applicant P-J fit or of the applicant’s underemployment attribution would account for variations in hiring recommendations.

2.2. Person–job fit The concept of fit has impacted organizational research tremendously. The broadest conceptualization of fit in the management literature, person–environment (P-E) fit, has been defined as ‘the compatibility between an individual and a work environment that occurs when their characteristics are well matched’ (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, p. 281), and includes four categories: person–organization, person– group, person–supervisor, and person–job. The category that is most relevant to the present investigation is person– job (P-J) fit as Higgins and Judge (2004) suggested that person–job fit is the best predictor of intent to hire. Defined as the extent to which individuals’ KSAOs are congruent with the requirements of the job (Higgins & Judge, 2004), P-J fit is an integral part of personnel selection. P-J fit has been shown to decrease work stress and turnover intentions (Cable & Judge, 1997), and to increase job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). These findings make P-J fit particularly important within the employee selection processes where researchers (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) posited that the relationships between P-J fit, job performance, and intentions to hire are complex. Kristof-Brown et al. (2005) found that P-J shared a higher correlation with intent to hire than other fit indices (i.e., person–environment fit, person-group fit). The concept has been delineated further between the objective and subjective nature of P-J fit. Objective P-J fit is an assessment of the compatibility between the person and the job when that judgment is made using different sources (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). That is, objective P-J fit conceptualizes actual similarities between the person and the job requirements. To assess objective fit accurately, the two sources should be independent and ‘free from human bias’ (Caplan, 1987, p. 251). Although Cable and DeRue (2002) categorized objective fit as a more distal predictor of work attitudes and behaviors


249 than subjective fit, the influence of objective fit remains valuable in understanding its influence on various outcomes. Subjective P-J fit has been defined as the interviewers’ ‘holistic interpretations of how well [applicants’] personal characteristics match [job] characteristics’ (Judge & Cable, 1997, p. 368). Whereas objective fit relies on independent assessment, interaction theorists (Chatman, 1989; Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995) implied that organizational attraction and applicant fit arise from a primordial interplay and exchange of information between the applicant and the organization. That is, subjective P-J fit encompasses clues from the contextual environment that rely on gut feelings and instincts. In some situations, an interviewer who seeks to maximize P-J fit might prefer a candidate whose qualifications meet, but do not exceed, job requirements. However, if we seek to hire the best and most qualified candidates, this view may not always be appropriate. For example, in high growth organizations, hiring overqualified candidates may be suitable because it can add organizational bench strength and talent depth (Thompson, Shea, Sikora, & Ferris, 2013). Consequently, we propose that ratings of objective and subjective P-J fit have not been addressed adequately within the context of employment qualifications when qualifications exceed the job requirements. Given that underemployment is a form of ‘misfit in only one direction’ (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, p. 285) and extant research that suggests managers may evaluate underemployed applicants favorably in certain instances (Maynard et al., 2009), we assert that there is a degree of misfit that may be deemed acceptable. We suggest that managers apply a criterion that candidates must meet to ‘fit’ the job requirements, and that interviewers will penalize underqualified candidates for failing to meet the criterion, whereas adequately qualified and underemployed candidates will receive favorable P-J fit ratings. We further suggest that underemployed candidates will be rewarded for their accomplishments, and will receive P-J fit ratings that are more favorable than adequately qualified candidates. That is, interviewers may not necessarily disregard the abundance of qualifications, nor will they categorize them as inherently negative. We offer that interviewers will rate underemployed candidates highly on objective and subjective fit, indicating that underemployed candidates indeed have the requisite credentials and the capacity for success. However, given the tendency to anticipate poor work attitudes and behaviors from underemployed job candidates, we expect low hiring recommendations to reflect this bias. Thus, we offer the following hypotheses. Hypothesis 1a: Overqualified2 applicants will elicit higher ratings of objective person–job fit than underqualified applicants. Hypothesis 1b: Overqualified applicants will elicit higher ratings of objective person–job fit than qualified applicants.


250


Hypothesis 2a: Overqualified applicants will elicit higher ratings of subjective person–job fit than underqualified applicants. Hypothesis 2b: Overqualified applicants will elicit higher ratings of subjective person–job fit than qualified applicants. Hypothesis 3a: Overqualified applicants will receive higher hiring recommendations than underqualified applicants. Hypothesis 3b: Overqualified applicants will receive lower hiring recommendations than qualified applicants. In an effort to expose the phenomenology of P-J fit, many fit researchers (Higgins & Judge, 2004) have positioned perceptions of fit as an effective mediator in explaining variance between predictors and work-related outcomes. We also expect objective and subjective P-J fit to mediate the employment qualification level–hiring recommendation relationship. Hypothesis 4a: Objective P-J fit will mediate the qualification level–hiring recommendation relationship. Hypothesis 4b: Subjective P-J fit will mediate the qualification level–hiring recommendation relationship.

2.3. Attribution theory Researchers have defined an attribution as ‘a causal ascription for a positive or negative outcome’ (Martinko, Harvey, & Douglas, 2007, p. 562). Heider (1958) developed attribution theory after characterizing individuals as amateur psychologists, who seek to explain outcomes related to the environment, others, and themselves. Assessing the environment in this manner affords individuals a plausible causal explanation for their outcomes, and a basis for adapting behavior to maintain or to change those outcomes (Martinko et al., 2007). Attribution theory has five underlying dimensions (i.e., locus of causality, stability, controllability, intentionality, and globality), and researchers (Kent & Martinko, 1995) routinely investigate subsets of the dimensions as they relate to different situations. We suggest that attribution theory is appropriate for an examination of underemployment, because individuals’ attributions regarding their underemployment ‘strongly influences their perceptions and feelings toward their predicament’ (Feldman, 2011, p. 282). In this study, we utilized the locus of causality and controllability as was previously employed in other studies of attributions within the employment interview context (Silvester, 1997; Silvester, Anderson-Gough, Anderson, & Mohamed, 2002). In Weiner’s (1985) attributional model, the locus of causality dimension focuses on the extent to which individuals ascribe responsibility for the outcome as internal or external to themselves. That is, the locus of causality


dimension asks who or what is to blame for a negative outcome, or to whom should one attribute a successful one. An internal locus of causality suggests that the applicant assumes responsibility for being underemployed as opposed to an external locus of causality where the applicant views the economy, the organization or other external factors as being responsible. The controllability dimension assesses whether the outcome was voluntarily or involuntarily derived (Weiner, 1985). A controllable attribution for an outcome is perceived as having been attained through the actor’s willful volition. Taken together, an internal-controllable attribution (e.g., voluntary underemployment) suggests that the applicant assumes responsibility for the outcome and is viewed more favorably (Silvester, 1997). The fundamental question in Study 3 involves whether making internal-controllable attributions regarding the applicant’s underemployment influences hiring recommendation. We offer voluntary underemployment as an internal-controllable attribution, where individuals seek an underemployed employment situation of their own willful volition. Contrarily, involuntary underemployment is presented as an external-uncontrollable attribution, where individuals are forced into underemployment due to actions of some other person or thing (e.g., organization, economy, etc.). Research on employee selection demonstrates that interviewers’ attributions regarding applicant behavior and responses influence interviewers’ hiring recommendations (Herriot, 1989; Tucker & Rowe, 1979) and expectations of future success (Pradez de Fraria & Yoder, 1997). Maynard et al. (2009) indicated that managers’ hiring recommendation may vary due to applicants’ reason for being underemployed, and Erdogan et al. (2011, p. 224) suggested that volitional underemployment may influence work outcomes favorably ‘when the person makes a positive choice to take the position rather than doing so solely for reasons of extreme need or economic desperation’. For instance, prior research (Maynard, Thorsteinson et al., 2006) demonstrated that the voluntary or involuntary nature of one’s underemployment produced different work outcomes finding more job satisfaction and fewer turnover intentions among voluntary part-time employees than involuntary part-time employees. The aformentioned research suggests that the cognitive processes that are activated in an effort to ascribe a causal explanation for one’s own outcomes and the outcomes of others represent an important determinant in attitudes and behaviors toward that outcome. Thus, we assert that the attributions that applicants give during the interview process serve to inform the interviewers’ perceptions of the applicants’ propensity for success as a future employee. Research on attributions and the employment interview determined that internal attributions are viewed more favorably regardless of whether the outcome was positive or negative (Martinko, Douglas, & Harvey, 2006;


A Three-Study Investigation Silvester et al., 2002). Therefore, we posit that applicants’ who are voluntarily underemployed and make an internalcontrollable attribution for their employment situation will receive higher ratings for person–job fit and hiring recommendations than applicants who are involuntarily underemployed and make an external-uncontrollable attribution. We also expect that the relationship will be mediated by P-J fit as described above. Hypothesis 5a: Voluntarily overqualified (i.e., internalcontrollable attribution) applicants will elicit higher ratings of objective person–job fit than overqualified applicants who make no attribution. Hypothesis 5b: Voluntarily overqualified (i.e., internalcontrollable attribution) applicants will elicit higher ratings of objective person–job fit than involuntarily overqualified (i.e., external-uncontrollable attribution) applicants. Hypothesis 6a: Voluntarily overqualified (i.e., internalcontrollable attribution) applicants will elicit higher ratings of subjective person–job fit than overqualified applicants who make no attribution. Hypothesis 6b: Voluntarily overqualified (i.e., internalcontrollable attribution) applicants will elicit higher ratings of subjective person–job fit than involuntarily overqualified (i.e., external-uncontrollable attribution) applicants. Hypothesis 7a: Voluntarily overqualified (i.e., internalcontrollable attribution) applicants will receive higher hiring recommendations than applicants who make no attribution. Hypothesis 7b: Voluntarily overqualified (i.e., internalcontrollable attribution) applicants will receive higher hiring recommendations than involuntarily overqualified (i.e., external-uncontrollable attribution) applicants. Hypothesis 8a: Objective P-J fit will mediate the underemployment attribution–hiring recommendation relationship. Hypothesis 8b: Subjective P-J fit will mediate the underemployment attribution–hiring recommendation relationship.

3. Overview and plan of the research We employed P-J fit and attribution theories to examine the employment qualification–hiring recommendation relationship in a series of three studies. First, recognizing the importance of effective manipulations in experimental designs, Study 1 seeks to evaluate the efficacy of our employment qualification manipulations. In Study 2, we investigate how mean differences across employment qualification groups (i.e., underqualified, adequately qualified, or overqualified applicants) might affect objective and subjective P-J fit and hiring recommendations across two samples. Finally, in Study 3, we evaluate how mean differences across employment qualification and attribution


251 groups (i.e., underemployed with voluntary/internal-controllable attribution, underemployed with involuntary/ external-uncontrollable attribution) might affect objective and subjective P-J fit and hiring recommendations. In Studies 2 and 3, we tested whether P-J fit mediated the employment qualification–hiring recommendation relationship. Noting that Popper (1959) encouraged replication and careful examination of scientific observations, we utilized a three-study design with four samples in an effort to achieve replication as suggested by several scholars (e.g., Lykken, 1968; Schmidt, 2009). In this multistudy research package, we establish the rigor of our experimental manipulations, and then test a model regarding person– job fit as mediator of the relationship between employment qualifications and hiring recommendations. Finally, we extended the model tested to include attributions about underemployment. We posit that the consistency of findings across the studies should increase confidence in the validity of the results, and demonstrate a more meaningful theoretical contribution to the field through conceptual and empirical extension (Hochwarter, Ferris, & Hanes, 2011).

4. Study 1: Method Highhouse (2009, p. 554) suggested that ‘randomized experiments are the most potent research designs for determining whether or not x causes y’. Understanding the arguments regarding the generalization of controlled laboratory experiments to the relevant population, we assert that a quasi-experiment (i.e., Study 1) and randomized experiment (i.e., Studies 2 and 3) are appropriate research designs for our research questions. Although random assignment is heralded as the quintessential remedy for avoiding systematic differences that are unrelated to the treatment condition (Perdue & Summers. 1986), demonstrating strength within the manipulation is equally important (Highhouse, 2009). The experimental nature of this multistudy investigation requires the operationalization of latent variables where participants’ perception of the treatment variable is paramount to the success or failure of the manipulation. In the Studies 1 and 2, we sought to employ techniques outlined by Cook and Campbell (1979), where they suggested that the strength of the manipulation be assessed through measurement convergence with a variable that is similar to the treatment variable. Perdue and Summers (1986, p. 318) described this technique as ‘the most widely reported form of manipulation check’. Thus, we selected perceived competence as a proxy to assess the strength of the manipulation and its measurement convergence with our treatment variable (i.e., employment qualification level). Researchers have defined perceived competence as an individual’s KSAOs that pertain to the full scope of the requirements of a particular


252


job (Molleman & van der Vegt, 2007). Perceived competence is an important determinant of job performance, and is influenced greatly by expectations (Wanous, Poland, Premack, & Davis, 1992). Recognizing that perceived competence does not assess the experience level or prior salary level, we suggest that the overlap within the conceptualization of perceived competence and qualification level is sufficient to determine the strength of our manipulation.

4.1. Sample and participants Participants were attendees at an annual conference for sustainability and environmental protection professionals in predominantly urban areas. The conference targeted directors or assistant directors of nonprofit organizations that specialized in agriculture, natural resources, and conservation efforts within urban communities. The conference was held in a large metropolitan city in the Midwestern United States. A paper survey was distributed with attendees’ registration materials, and the conference organizer offered a verbal invitation for attendees to complete the survey for a chance to win one of two iPod Shuffles (valued at $99 each). The surveys were distributed in the conference registration packets and collected in a box at the conference registration desk. A total of 67 people participated voluntarily in the survey. The participants were on average 43-year old with 10.45 (SD 5 1.49) years of organizational tenure, 69% female, and 82% African-American. Thirty-one percent of the participants reported an average salary between $25,000 and $50,000 per year, and 74.3% (SD 5 1.49) earned a bachelor’s or graduate degree. Respondents on average supervised 8.25 (SD 5 29.05) subordinates, and 69% held director or assistant director status which afforded them experience in recruiting and selecting employees for their organizations.

4.2. Design and procedures A between-subjects design was utilized in this study. Three employment qualification levels (i.e., underqualified, qualified, and overqualified) were manipulated. The first step in the procedure involved creating the job description and the treatment resumes for the manipulation. Following the design of other underemployment researchers (Athey & Hautaluoma, 1994), we manipulated employment qualification level (i.e., underqualified, qualified, or overqualified) using three resumes. Employing the techniques of employee selection researchers (Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Mishra, 2011), we developed a job description and crafted applicant resumes using job analysis methods by consulting O*NET Online (http://online.onetcenter.org) to create a job description for a Human Resource (HR) Specialist,3 the position for which we were hiring. We also utilized the O*NET Online database to create treatment resumes


with relevant work experience and salaries for each applicant’s current position. For the underqualified treatment, we created a resume that utilized entry-level sales and banking experience, which was irrelevant for the HR Specialist position for which we were hiring. The HR Specialist job description was used to craft the resume for the qualified treatment. We used a job description for an HR Director from O*NET to create the resume for the overqualified treatment. Although the HR Director’s experience was related to the position for which we were hiring, the resume clearly conveyed that the applicant had served as an HR Specialist earlier in her career, and that her current salary exceeded the salary range for the HR Specialist position.

4.3. Measures 4.3.1. Perceived competence Perceived competence was assessed using a four-item measure by Williams and Deci (1996). A sample item was ‘I feel confident in the candidate’s ability to perform the job’. We used a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 5 strongly disagree to 5 5 strongly agree. Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.89. 4.3.2. Manipulation check The manipulation check was measured by asking ‘How would you describe this applicant’s qualifications?’ The responses were 1 5 much less than the job requires or underqualified, 2 5 exactly enough for the job requirements or qualified, 3 5 much more than the job requires or overqualified. We also solicited an open-ended response (i.e., ‘Please explain why you would OR would not hire this applicant’) to probe the reason for the recommendation to hire or not to hire the applicant.

5. Study 1: Results We evaluated the strength of the manipulation in three ways: the degree to which the treatment variable (i.e., employment qualification level) predicted the manipulation check, the degree to which the treatment predicted perceived competence, and the degree to which the manipulation check predicted perceived competence. The treatment variable shared a bivariate correlation of 0.96 (p < .01) with the manipulation check variable. The treatment variable and manipulation check variable correlated with perceived competence at 0.74 (p < .01) and 0.76 (p < .01), respectively. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that employment qualification level significantly predicted the manipulation check, F(2,63) 5 338.27, p < .001; g2 5 .92. Bonferroni comparisons demonstrated statistically significant differences between all pairs of underqualified (M 5 1.04, SD 5 0.20; p < .001), qualified (M 5 2.00, SD 5 0.01; p < .001; d 5 6.78 (with underqualified)), and


A Three-Study Investigation overqualified treatments (M 5 2.86, SD 5 0.36; p < .001; d 5 6.25 [with underqualified]; d 5 3.38 [with qualified]). A second one-way ANOVA showed that employment qualification level significantly predicted perceived competence, F(2,60) 5 42.68, p < .001; g2 5 0.59. Bonferroni corrections revealed statistically significant differences between the underqualified treatment (N 5 23; M 5 2.57, SD 5 0.97; p < .001) and the qualified (N 5 19; M 5 4.05, SD 5 0.50; p < .001; d 5 1.92 [with underqualified]) and overqualified treatments (N 5 21; M 5 4.5, SD 5 0.57; p < .001; d 5 2.43 [with underqualified]). The analysis did not show significant differences between the qualified and overqualified treatments. Last, findings from a one-way ANOVA also indicated the significant prediction of perceived competence by manipulation check, F(2,60) 5 51.76, p < .001; g2 5 .63. Multiple comparisons which utilized Bonferroni corrections exposed statistically significant differences between the underqualified treatment (N 5 22; M 5 2.49, SD 5 0.92; p < .001) and the qualified (N 5 23; M 5 4.07, SD 5 0.50; p < .001; d 5 2.13 [with underqualified]) and overqualified treatments (N 5 18; M 5 4.57, SD 5 0.55; p < .001; d 5 2.74 [with underqualified]). No statistically significant differences on perceived competence were found between the qualified and the overqualified treatments. Aronson and Carlsmith (1968, p. 50) indicated that in the assessment of a manipulation’s strength and effectiveness, ‘the best solution is to observe some other behavior which we expect to covary directly with our theoretical variable and see whether it does’. The results from Study 1 indicated that our manipulation of employment qualification level covaried with perceived competence, a similar variable. We present the results where the treatment and the manipulation check significantly predicted perceived competence as evidence of measurement convergence between the treatment and the manipulation check. Purdue and Summers (1986, p. 321) suggested that ‘whenever a large portion of the variance in a particular manipulation check is “explained” by the related manipulation . . . it is apparent that the manipulation check was sufficiently reliable to detect that a meaningful variance in the intended independent variable was achieved’. Thus, the amount of variance in the manipulation check variable that was explained by the treatment variable offers additional confidence in the treatment’s intended effect. In addition to the quantitative results of Study 1, the answers to the open-ended question that probed participants’ reasons for their recommendation revealed additional support for the success of the manipulation. Sixty-two participants answered the open-ended question. Overall, 50 respondents (underqualified treatment: N 5 20; qualified treatment: N 5 13; overqualified treatment: N 5 17) cited the applicant’s educational level, experience level, and/or job skills within their response. Therefore, considering the results of Study 1, the job


253 description and the treatment resumes were retained. Responses from the open-ended question also indicated a desire to interview the applicant as a way to increase confidence in the respondents’ hiring recommendation. Thus, the validated manipulation allowed us to use the job description and the applicant resumes to create a videotaped interview session between the applicant and an offcamera interviewer to be used in subsequent studies.

6. Study 2: Method 6.1. Research participants Participants in Sample 1 were 66 senior undergraduate students who were majoring in human resource management at a large public university in the southeastern United States. The sample consisted of 38 women (58%) with an average of 2 years of work experience, and an average age of 21. The students received extra credit for their voluntary participation. In Sample 2, participants were 69 part-time, online MBA students at a large public university in the southeastern United States, who were full-time employees working in various occupations in the southeastern United States. The sample was predominantly female (N 5 38; 55%), and the participants were, on average, 32 years of age with 6.6 years of work experience. The students’ names were entered into a raffle for an iPod Shuffle ($50 value) in exchange for their participation in the research, which was voluntary. To increase the power of our analysis, we tested for significant differences between the samples and none were detected. The combined sample of 135 respondents was 56% female with an average organizational tenure of 4.8 years and 26.8 years of age. Sixty-nine percent were Caucasian, 38% earned $25,000 or more, and 52% earned a bachelor’s degree or higher.

6.2. Design and procedures We utilized the employment qualification level (i.e., underqualified, qualified, or overqualified) manipulation created in Study 1 (i.e., using three resumes that were created in Study 1), in a between-subjects ANOVA design. In response to qualitative comments from Study 1 that requested a visual representation of the applicant, we also created a videotaped interview session to strengthen the manipulation, and to provide a more holistic and realistic contextual environment for the participants. Using the job description that we developed using O*Net Online, we developed four questions that assessed the critical job tasks that were identified from the job analysis. We wrote the candidate response scripts such that the script was relevant for each treatment. The scripts were evaluated by five experts in the field who were asked to pair each script with the appropriate treatment resume. The inter-


254


rater reliability was 1.0 as all scripts were successfully paired by all raters. We recorded the interviews using a professional actress in her late-twenties as the applicant, and the second author on this article (i.e., former HR consulting firm owner with several years of experience in interviewing and hiring) served as the off-camera interviewer. To ensure consistency, the applicant and the interviewer were instructed to use the same volume, speed, and intonation when speaking across all treatments. The applicant was instructed to use similar facial expressions across all treatments. Each videotaped interview lasted approximately 3 min. We administered manipulation checks using a structured Q-sort technique (Block, 1978). As a homework assignment, undergraduate business students were asked to sort the treatment videos into one of three categories to ensure the validity of our manipulation (Highhouse, 2009). Twenty-eight undergraduates4 from a class of 35 participated and correctly categorized the videotaped interviews as underqualified, qualified, or overqualified 89% of the time.

6.3. Measures 6.3.1. Objective person–job fit Objective P-J fit was assessed using a selection matrix. All nine items from the HR Specialist job description were listed on the survey, and the participant was asked to rate the degree to which the candidate possessed each job requirement. We used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 5 does not meet job requirement(s) to 5 5 clearly exceeds job requirement(s). Coefficient alpha was 0.95. 6.3.2. Subjective person–job fit Subjective P-J fit was evaluated using a 2-item scale from Higgins and Judge (2004). The items were ‘This applicant possesses the KSAOs necessary to perform the duties of this specific job’, and ‘I believe this applicant can achieve a high level of performance in this particular job’. Our response format was a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 5 strongly disagree to 5 5 strongly agree. Reliability estimates for subjective P-J fit was 0.86. 6.3.3. Intent to hire Intent to hire was assessed using a 2-item measure from Higgins and Judge (2004). The items are: ‘I would recommend extending a job offer to this candidate’, and ‘Overall, I would evaluate this candidate positively’. We asked one additional item which stated ‘It is likely that I would hire this applicant’. We used a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 5 strongly disagree to 5 5 strongly agree. We also included an open-ended question that asked ‘Please explain why you would or would not hire this applicant’. Coefficient alpha for this scale was 0.92.


6.3.4. Manipulation check question The manipulation check was measured by asking: ‘How would you describe this applicant’s qualifications?’ The responses were 1 5 much less than the job requires or underqualified, 2 5 exactly enough for the job requirements or qualified, 3 5 much more than the job requires or overqualified. The manipulation check was successful 92% of the time.

7. Study 2: Results We conducted a one-way ANOVA to examine the effect of applicant employment qualification level on objective and subjective P-J fit and hiring recommendation. The three treatment groups were underqualified, qualified, and overqualified applicants. The descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1, and the means and standard deviations by treatment are presented in Table 2. The Levene’s test for equality of variances was met for objective P-J fit but indicated a violation of the assumption for subjective P-J fit and hiring recommendation, therefore, we evaluated an asymptotically distributed F-statistic. Results for the one-way ANOVA for Sample 1 are reported in Table 3. Overall model results were significant for objective fit, F(2,126) 5 62.03, p < .001, subjective fit (Welch’s, F(2,81) 5 52.43, p < .001), and hiring recommendations (Welch’s, F(2,81) 5 37.11, p < .001). Estimates of the effect size for objective fit (g2 5 .50), subjective fit (g2 5 .46), and hiring recommendations (g2 5 .31) were measured using partial eta-squared. The significant overall model results allowed us to conduct additional analyses for each individual dependent variable to test a priori hypotheses. Planned comparisons using a Bonferroni correction indicated several statistically significant differences. Comparisons between overqualified and underqualified showed that the overqualified applicant was rated higher than the underqualified applicant on objective fit (p < .05; d 5 2.34), subjective fit (p < .001; d 5 2.16), and hiring recommendations (p < .001; d 5 1.58). Therefore, Hypotheses 1a, 2a, and 3a were supported. We also found that the overqualified applicant was rated higher on objective fit (p < .001; d 5 0.86) and subjective fit (p < .001; d 5 1.10) than the qualified applicant, thus demonstrating support for Hypotheses 1b and 2b. We did not find any significant differences between the overqualified and qualified applicants with regard to hiring recommendations. Hypothesis 3b was not supported. We tested the mediation hypotheses by conducting an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to evaluate the employment qualification level–P-J fit–hiring recommendation relationships. Muller, Yzerbyt, and Judd (2008) offered that testing mediation using ANCOVA was suitable when only one independent variable was manipulated, and other researchers (Hayes & Preacher, 2012) acknowledged that


A Three-Study Investigation

255

Table 1. Variable means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and reliability estimatesa (Study 2)

1. Objective P-J Fit 2. Subjective P-J Fit 3. Hiring Recommendations

N

M

SD

1

2

3

130 131 129

3.14 3.77 3.61

1.14 1.03 0.97

0.95 0.70*** 0.59***

0.86 0.83***

0.92

Reliability estimates are presented on the diagonal. ***p < .001.

Table 2. Summary of means and standard deviations by treatment (Study 2) Objective P-J Fit

Study 1 Underqualified Qualified Overqualified

Hiring recommendation

Subjective P-J Fit

N

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

43 43 43

2.09 3.28 4.05

0.65 0.78 1.15

2.87 3.86 4.58

0.96 0.73 0.57

2.88 3.78 4.16

0.95 0.81 0.64

Table 3. ANOVA results for underqualified, qualified, and overqualified treatments (Study 2)

Objective Fit Subjective Fita Hiring Recommendationa

df

SS

MS

F

g2

2/126 2/81 2/82

83.80 63.36 37.11

41.90 31.68 18.55

62.03*** 52.43*** 26.36***

.50 .46 .31

a

Welch’s F-statistic reported due to significant Levene’s test. ***p < .001.

this approach was appropriate when the manipulated independent variable was dichotomous. The results of the ANCOVA analyses appear in Table 4. Tests for the homogeneity of regressions slope assumption for ANCOVA revealed no significant interactions between the treatment variable and the covariates. The results demonstrated that the employment qualification level–hiring recommendation relationship became nonsignificant in the presence of objective and subjective P-J fit as mediators, thereby denoting a fully mediated model. Further, we also found that the extent of the mediation was accounted for by subjective P-J fit, F(1/119) 5 82.45, p < .001; g2 5 .41, and that objective P-J fit was not statistically significant in the mediation model. Thus, Hypothesis 4b was supported, but Hypothesis 4a was not.

8. Study 3: Method 8.1. Research participants Eighty-one senior and executive-level managers in the utilities division of city government in a midsized city in the southeastern United States participated voluntarily in Study 3. Twelve of the surveys were incomplete, and therefore excluded. Results of analysis of the demographics between participants who completed the survey and those who did not complete the surveys revealed no significant differences between the groups, increasing confidence that the obtained sample was a representative of


the population. Thus, the effective sample size was 69. The sample was 59% male and 76.5% Caucasian. The participants shared an average organizational tenure of 15.38 years and an average age of 50.28 years. The participants also managed 43.57 subordinates on average, and 50.6% held graduate or professional degrees.

8.2. Design and procedures In this study, we applied a between-subjects ANOVA design to assess the potential effects of underemployment attribution on interviewer assessments of intent to hire. We utilized the job description that was created for Studies 1 and 2. We manipulated the attribution for the applicant’s overqualified employment situation for this study. We offered two treatments and a control group, with each applicant applying for a position that would result in an overqualified employment situation. In our control group, the applicant offered no reason for the overqualified employment situation. In the treatment groups, the first treatment offered an internal-controllable attribution which cited a desire for greater work-life balance, and thus a voluntary reason (i.e., Reason A) for reasons for the overqualified employment situation. The second treatment was an external-uncontrollable attribution which cited organizational restructuring and downsizing, and thus an involuntary reason (i.e., Reason B) for reasons for the overqualified employment situation. The same overqualified applicant resume that was created for the


256


Table 4. ANCOVA results for underqualified, qualified, and overqualified treatments using objective fit and subjective fit as covariates (Study 2)

Qual Level 3 Objective Fita Qual Level 3 Subjective Fita Qual Level Objective Fit Subjective Fit

df

SS

MS

F

g2

2/119 2/119 1/119 1/119 1/119

0.18 0.26 0.53 0.22 25.51

0.09 0.13 0.27 0.22 25.51

0.30 0.42 0.86 0.73 82.45***

.01 .01 .01 .01 .41

a

Results for test of ANCOVA’s assumption of independence between treatment and covariate. ***p < .001

Studies 1 and 2 was utilized in the control and the treatment conditions. As in Study 2, we utilized a video-taped interview session to strengthen the manipulation, and to enhance the study’s contextual environment. We also used Study 2’s video-taped interview session from the overqualified treatment for our control group. In an effort to maintain consistency and to reduce potential confounds, we employed the identical video-taped footage for all three groups except where the treatment question was asked at the end of the interview session.

8.3. Measures 8.3.1. Objective person–job fit Objective P-J fit was assessed using a selection matrix. All nine items from the HR Specialist job description were listed on the survey, and the participant was asked to rate the degree to which the candidate possessed each job requirement. We used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 5 does not meet job requirement(s) to 5 5 clearly exceeds job requirement(s). Coefficient alpha for this scale ranged from 0.93. 8.3.2. Subjective person–job fit Subjective P-J fit was evaluated using a 2-item scale from Higgins and Judge (2004). The items were: ‘This applicant possesses the KSAOs necessary to perform the duties of this specific job’ and ‘I believe this applicant can achieve a high level of performance in this particular job’. Our response format was a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 5 strongly disagree to 5 5 strongly agree. Reliability estimates for subjective P-J fit was 0.91 in both samples. 8.3.3. Intent to hire Intent to hire was assessed using a 2-item measure from Higgins and Judge (2004). The items are: ‘I would recommend extending a job offer to this candidate’, and ‘Overall, I would evaluate this candidate positively’. We asked one additional item which stated ‘It is likely that I would hire this applicant’. We used a 5-point Likert scale that ranged from 1 5 strongly disagree to 5 5 strongly agree. We also include an open-ended question that asked ‘Please explain why you would or would not hire this applicant’. Coefficient alpha for this scale ranged from 0.89.


8.3.4. Manipulation check question At the end of the survey for the two treatment groups, the manipulation check was measured by asking: ‘The applicant is applying for a position for which she is overqualified. Why do you think she is seeking a position that requires fewer qualifications?’ The responses were 1 5 it is her choice, 2 5 it is not her choice. The manipulation check was successful 100% of the time.

9. Study 3: Results We conducted a one-way ANOVA to examine the effect of applicant’s attribution for underemployment on objective and subjective P-J fit and hiring recommendation. We evaluated a control group which offered No Reason, and two treatment groups which cited Reason A: Work-Life Balance (voluntary underemployment/internal-controllable attribution) or Reason B: Downsized (involuntary underemployment/external-uncontrollable attribution). The descriptive statistics are presented in Table 5, and the means and standard deviations by treatment are presented in Table 6. The homogeneity of variance assumption was tested using Levene’s test, and the assumption was not met for subjective P-J fit. Results for the one-way ANOVA are reported in Table 7. Overall model results were statistically significant for hiring recommendation, F(2,66) 5 5.98, p < .01. Estimates of the effect size for hiring recommendation (g2 5 .15) were measured using partial eta-squared. The overall model results were nonsignificant for objective and subjective P-J fit, and therefore, Hypotheses 5a, 5b, 6a, and 6b were not supported. The significant overall model results for hiring recommendation allowed us to examine additional analyses for our a priori hypotheses. Using a Bonferroni correction, planned comparisons between the control group (i.e., No Reason), the voluntarily overqualified/internal-controllable attribution treatment (i.e., Work-Life Balance), and the involuntarily overqualified/external-uncontrollable attribution treatment (i.e., Downsized) showed that the internalcontrollable attribution was rated significantly higher than the control group (p < .05; d 5 0.87) and the externaluncontrollable attribution on hiring recommendation (p < .05; d 5 0.98). Therefore, Hypotheses 7a and 7b were supported.


A Three-Study Investigation

257

Table 5. Variable means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and reliability estimatesa (Study 3)

Objective P-J Fit Subjective P-J Fit Hiring Recommendations

N

M

SD

1

2

3

69 69 69

4.04 4.45 4.01

0.72 0.61 0.79

0.93 0.43** 0.22

0.91 0.46**

0.89

a

Reliability estimates are presented on the diagonal. **p < .01.

Table 6. Summary of means and standard deviations by treatment (Study 3)

Control – No Reason Reason A – Work/Family Balance Reason B – Downsized

Objective P-J Fit

Subjective P-J Fit

Hiring Recommendation

N

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

21 25 23

4.00 4.20 3.91

0.85 0.61 0.69

4.38 4.55 4.42

0.71 0.46 0.66

3.78 4.43 3.80

0.92 0.53 0.74

Table 7. ANOVA results for no reason, reason A, or reason B treatments (Study 3)

Objective Fit Subjective Fita Hiring Recommendation

df

SS

MS

F

g2

2/66 2/40 2/66

34.79 25.11 42.42

0.52 0.18 3.26

1.02 0.55 5.98**

.03 .01 .15

a

Welch’s F-statistic reported due to significant Levene’s test. **p < .01.

Table 8. ANCOVA results for no reason, reason A, or reason B treatments using objective fit and subjective fit as covariates (Study 3) Variables

df

SS

MS

F

g2

Treatment 3 Objective Fita Treatment 3 Subjective Fita Reason Objective Fit Subjective Fit

2/60 2/60 2/60 1/60 1/60

1.66 0.58 0.92 0.11 4.58

0.83 0.29 0.46 0.11 4.58

1.89 0.66 1.05 0.24 10.43**

.06 .02 .03 .01 .15

a

Results for test of ANCOVA’s assumption of independence between treatment and covariate. **p < .01.

The mediation hypotheses were tested by conducting an ANCOVA to examine the reason for underemployment–P-J fit–hiring recommendation relationships. The ANCOVA results are presented in Table 8. Tests for ANCOVA assumptions found no significant interactions between the treatment variable and the covariates. The results demonstrated that the underemployment attribution–hiring recommendation relationship became nonsignificant after the addition of objective and subjective P-J fit as mediators, thereby denoting a fully mediated model. We also found that the extent of the mediation was accounted for by subjective P-J fit, F(1/60) 5 10.43, p < .01; g2 5 .15, and that objective P-J fit was not statistically significant in the mediation model. Thus, Hypothesis 8b was supported, but Hypothesis 8a was not.

Discussion Research on underemployment is gaining momentum (e.g., Feldman, 2011). Increased attention in the popular


press highlighted the tendency of scholars and practitioners to rely on assumptions regarding the underemployed and how they are perceived by hiring managers. Employing a quasi-experimental design, this three-study, four-sample research package attempted to address this limitation by evaluating how P-J fit perceptions and underemployment attributions factored into the employment qualification–hiring recommendation relationship within an employment interview context. Study 1 was designed to test the efficacy of our manipulations, which it established strongly. The results of the Study 2 indicated that although hiring underemployed applicants often has been deemed risky, no significant differences were found between underemployed and adequately qualified applicants. Further, underemployed applicants were rated consistently higher on objective and subjective P-J fit than underqualified or adequately qualified applicants, and there were no significant differences between adequately qualified and underemployed applicants on hiring recommendation. Finally,


258


subjective P-J fit (i.e., but not objective P-J fit) fully mediated the employment qualification level–hiring recommendation relationship. The results of Study 3 demonstrated that applicants’ attributions about their underemployment matters to hiring managers when applicants were asked for an explanation. The applicants who made an external-uncontrollable attribution, or who offered no reason for being underemployed, were perceived negatively and received lower ratings on hiring recommendation than the applicant who made an internal-controllable attribution. Our findings support Erdogan et al. (2011) assertion that underemployment can prove beneficial when it is portrayed as a personal choice. Thus, our results offer empirical evidence that hiring managers recognize an internal-controllable attribution for underemployment, or voluntary underemployment, as more favorable than an external-uncontrollable attribution, or involuntary underemployment.

10.1. Contributions to theory and research This series of studies contribute to the literature in several ways. Our investigation builds on prior research by Maynard et al. (2009), who investigated the manner in which managers define underemployment and their perceptions of underemployed applicants. Their results concluded that although managers consider underemployed job applicants for employment, they expressed their reservations about hiring them. Our results support their research by demonstrating that underemployed applicants were not penalized regarding objective and subject fit perceptions and that managers’ decision to hire varies due to applicants’ reason for underemployment (i.e., underemployment attribution). Responses to the qualitative portion of the studies indicate that the benefits that are gained from hiring underemployed candidates may outweigh the risks of an early departure from the organization. We contribute to the P-J fit literature by empirically demonstrating that a certain level of misfit, in the form of underemployment, is acceptable. Our mediation hypotheses demonstrate that the objective P-J fit comparisons that can be made between an applicant’s employment qualification level and the job requirements are less important than the subjective P-J fit comparisons in the overall context of personnel selection/hiring decisions. Although the results for the main effects showed a significant relationship between employment qualification level and fit (i.e., objective and subjective), when both were entered into the mediation model, objective fit was rendered inconsequential. Thus, our findings support other fit researchers (Higgins & Judge, 2004) who also demonstrated the superior influence of subjective P-J fit perceptions over objective ones in the personnel selection/hiring decision process. Moreover, the mediation hypotheses are promising for the employment qualification literature. Research on


excess employment qualifications (i.e., underemployment and overqualification) most often focuses on the negative implications of the phenomenon (Erdogan & Bauer, 2009). Our demonstration that excess employment qualifications are regarded favorably is encouraging for individuals with this type of employment situation. The results also provide a more accurate depiction of managers’ perceptions of applicants with excess qualifications. The findings of the mediation analyses should serve as a catalyst to reassess the assumptions associated with excess employment qualifications. We began by highlighting work by Maynard et al. (2009) that found no consistent evidence supporting our assumption that underemployed individuals have lower job performance, organizational commitment, and job involvement. Results from the present study also do not support the notion that the underemployed should be labeled as pariahs of the applicant pool who should be avoided at all costs. Our experimental design also attempted to assign causality to the relationship between underemployment, objective and subjective P-J fit, and hiring recommendation. We manipulated the applicant employment qualification level using treatment resumes and videotaped interview sessions, and those treatments were randomly assigned. The statistically significant differences between treatments on the dependent variables support the idea of a causal relationship. This causal relationship is theoretically and practically significant as it is antithetical to previous assumptions about the underemployed, which assumed that excess education and experience are deleterious to the applicant. Our underemployed applicant would clearly realize education, experience, skill, and wage underemployment by accepting this job. Nonetheless, the underemployed applicant was consistently judged as having better P-J fit than the qualified applicant. The lack of differences for hiring recommendation between underemployed and adequately qualified treatments is particularly interesting. Finally, the results of Study 3 demonstrated that hiring managers are influenced by applicants’ attributions about their underemployment status. Our results provide empirical evidence that hiring managers recognize an internal-controllable attribution for underemployment, or voluntary underemployment, as more favorable situations for hiring than an external-uncontrollable attribution, or involuntary underemployment. The applicants who made an external-uncontrollable attribution, or who offered no reason for the underemployment employment situation, were perceived negatively and received lower ratings on hiring recommendation than the applicant who made an internal-controllable attribution. These results seem to provide support for Erdogan et al.’s (2011) suggestion for the potential beneficial effects of overqualification when individuals make those decisions proactively rather than settling for them reactively. As such, the results of our investigation contribute to theory and research on causal


A Three-Study Investigation attribution consequences and on HR decision making with a selection interview context.

10.2. Strengths and limitations A few strengths of the study warrant mention. Previously, we cited the experimental design as a contribution of our research. We must acknowledge that the design can be considered both a strength as well as a limitation. The experimental design allows greater control over the independent variable, which is a strength. This level of control increases our confidence in the causal relationships. However, while the results support causality between the employment qualification level–outcome relationships, the design also imposed a fictitious employment interview context from which the participants were asked to make important personnel selection and hiring decisions. Thus, the generalizability of the results to actual employment interviews remains questionable. We should also note research which highlights the exaggerated nature of the condemnation of experimental designs within the social sciences (Highhouse, 2009). We attempted to address this limitation by testing the strength of our manipulation by dedicating a study to that purpose, and by using individuals who were not involved in the subsequent studies. Our replication procedures also served to increase confidence in the strength and validity of our manipulations and obtained results. While randomized experiments may be the appropriate research design to test causal effects, candidate selection is also an applied science. As a result, it is often impacted by other factors beyond the scope of an experimental situation. For example, while the use of candidate videos increased the authenticity of our job candidates, other issues such as a candidate arriving late for the interview or the informal candidate–interviewer interactions that occur prior to, or after, the actual interview, cannot be reflected in an experimental situation. Despite this potential limitation, experimental designs have successfully been used in other studies designed to assess the evaluation and selection of job candidates (Podsakoff et al., 2011; SegrestPurkiss, Perrewe, Gillespie, Mayes, & Ferris, 2006). Another potential limitation is how well the candidate evaluation situations in this article reflect real world conditions. For example, in some firms, a single individual interviewer may not make final job candidate selection decisions. In some hiring processes, there are several interviewers along with multiple selection hurdles such as personality tests or the evaluation of previous work samples. In these situations, this paper’s candidate evaluation scenarios may have lower generalizability. However, we believe that the candidate evaluation process used in this paper accurately mirrors the role played by the hiring manager in most interview processes. In these cases, while the hiring manager may be part of a larger interviewer team, they typically receive feedback about the


259 candidate from other interviewers, and reserve the final hiring decision to themselves. A final limitation of the study is the utilization of convenience samples instead of applying random sampling techniques. We offer arguments put forth by Caplan (1987) to undergird our methodology. Caplan (1987) asserted that participants who are involved in decisionmaking processes and possessed relevant knowledge about the job and employee were deemed appropriate for such analysis.

10.3. Directions for future research Because underemployment has been categorized as a form of misfit (Kristoff-Brown et al., 2005), perhaps we should consider the individual differences that prompt applicants with a higher qualification level than the job requires to apply for jobs. Instances of voluntary underemployment may be of particular interest to extending our knowledge on applicants’ perceptions of P-J fit. This type of attention to individual differences would build on the work of Ehrhart (2006) who examined the influence of personality on applicants’ perception of P-J fit. Secondly, in light of the influence of interviewers’ perceived similarity-to-applicant on fit perceptions (Garcia, Posthuma, & Colella, 2008), we should consider whether underemployed individuals are perceived as more similar given their excess qualifications. Further, excess employment qualifications (i.e., underemployment/overqualification) most often are evaluated from the employees’ perspective (Maynard et al., 2009), and researchers (Maltarich, Reilly, & Nyberg, 2011) surmised that this method is best for subjective underemployment. However, we need more studies that evaluate the issue from the organizations’ perspective. Economic research (Hersch, 1991) suggests that organizations may hire applicants with excess employment qualifications to decrease initial training costs. Other researchers offered that hiring these applicants builds organizational bench strength (Thompson et al., 2013), as a pool from which to promote thereby decreasing selection and recruitment costs (Hersch, 1991). Studying employment qualification level from the organization’s perspective could provide insight into these issues. New research of this nature also could quantify the benefit of using this practice. Future research also might look beyond the hiring or selection of the underemployed, and examine the implications of underemployment for other human resources management (HRM) issues. For example, Erdogan and Bauer (2011) developed a conceptualization regarding how they saw underemployment being related to turnover and career advancement and trajectories. Erdogan and Bauer’s framework refutes the simple and direct anecdotal relationships between underemployment, turnover and career advancement, proposing instead a series of moderator propositions. As such, their focus (i.e., at least


260


their interest in turnover) characterizes more of the exit of employees from organizations, whereas our selection research here examines more of the entry implications. However, future research might investigate how the underemployed perform their jobs, engage in citizenship behavior, and are able to compete for promotions, pay raises, and other internal HRM outcomes that transpire during their time as employees within organizations. Indeed, Feldman (2011) has appealed for much more research on the underemployed in these (and more) needed areas. Furthermore, organizations might be able to provide additional latitude to underemployed employees by permitting them the discretion to ‘job craft’ (e.g., Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001) by taking on more duties, responsibilities, and assignments in ways whereby they essentially can mold an expanded (and enriched) job. Research in this area might investigate whether such efforts can increase the underemployed employees’ job satisfaction and attachment to the organization while also providing new and interesting ways to view career development considerations for this special group of employees.

college graduates and the accessibility to a global labor force will continue to stretch the limits of labor markets. It is incumbent upon research to extend our reach to include labor market issues such as employment qualifications. Examining underemployment with regard to objective and subjective P-J fit and hiring recommendations may provide valuable insight to understanding this phenomenon. We encourage scholars to continue to pursue important issues in this area of inquiry.

Notes 1.

2.

10.4. Practical implications This series of studies offers practical implications as well. First, practitioners should view hiring underemployed applicants as beneficial to the organization and not risky. Underemployed applicants should be viewed as a source of human capital that provides an opportunity to promote from within and to control potential senior management succession gaps. Hiring managers also should inquire about the applicants’ reason for applying for a position where they would be underemployed, and should seek to hire the voluntarily, not involuntarily, underemployed applicants in an effort to assuage lingering concerns with turnover intentions and organizational commitment. Lastly, forward thinking organizations should harness the opportunity to partner with underemployed applicants in job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Finding noncompensatory methods of utilizing and rewarding the excess qualifications may serve to decrease turnover intentions, and to increase organizational commitment and job involvement.

10.5. Conclusion Research in employment qualifications (of which underemployment and overqualification are specific examples) has theoretical and practical implications across situations. One might easily assume that the excess employment qualifications issue will fade once the global economic crisis subsides. However, the timing of this three-study investigation is somewhat inconsequential considering research (Scurry & Blenkinsopp, 2011) that examined the phenomenon among college graduates using a timeframe of 30 years before the Great Recession. The steady increase of


3.

4.

Although we did not find literature within the academic journals to support a literature review on underqualified applicants, we included a treatment for an underqualified applicant in our research design in an effort to avoid range restriction. Understanding that organizations are likely to receive applications from underqualified individuals, we also felt that a treatment for an underqualified applicant also improved the generalizability of the study. We believe that applicants are commonly regarded as underqualified, qualified, or overqualified. So, although underemployed and overqualification are not synonymous, we elected to utilize the term overqualified for the hypotheses in an effort to improve readability and to ease interpretation of the results. Please contact this study’s first author for detailed information regarding job description and job candidate resume examples. The undergraduates from the class exercise were from a different class than the undergraduates in Sample 1. The authors checked the class rosters to ensure that the classes had no overlapping students.

References Adams, S. (2014). How to get a job if you’re overqualified. Forbes. Available at http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/05/ 01/how-to-get-a-job-if-youre-overqualified-3/ (accessed May 13, 2014). Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1968). Experimentation in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 1–79). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Athey, T. R., & Hautaluoma, J. E. (1994). Effects of applicant overeducation, job status, and job gender stereotype on employment decisions. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 439–452. Bewley, T. F. (1999). Why wages don’t fall during a recession. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bills, D. B. (1992). The mutability of educational credentials as hiring criteria: How employers evaluate atypically highly credentialed job candidates. Work and Occupations, 19, 79–95. Blenkinsopp, J., & Scurry, T. (2007). "Hey GRINGO!" The HR challenge of graduates in non-graduate occupations. Personnel Review, 36, 623–637. Block, J. (1978). The Q-sort method in personality assessment and psychiatric research. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.


A Three-Study Investigation Bluestein, D. L., Kozan, S., & Connors-Kellgren, A. (2013). Unemployment and underemployment: A narrative analysis about loss. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82(3), 256–265. Burris, B. H. (1983). The human effects of underemployment. Social Problems, 31, 96–110. Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875–884. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers’ perceptions of person–organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 546–561. Caplan, R. D. (1987). Person–environment fit theory and organizations: Commensurate dimensions, time perspectives, and mechanisms. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 248–267. Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person–organization fit. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 333–349. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ehrhart, K. H. (2006). Job characteristic beliefs and personality as antecedents of subjective person–job fit. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 193–226. Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2009). Perceived overqualification and its outcomes: The moderating role of empowerment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 557–565. Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2011). The impact of underemployment on turnover and career trajectories. In D. C. Maynard & D. C. Feldman (Eds.), Underemployment: Psychological, economic, and social challenges (pp. 215–232). New York: Springer. Erdogan, B., Bauer, T. N., Peiro, J. M., & Truxillo, D. M. (2011). Overqualified employees: Making the best of a potentially bad situation for individuals and organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4, 215–232. Feldman, D. C. (1996). The nature, antecedents and consequences of underemployment. Journal of Management, 22, 385–407. Feldman, D. C. (2011). Theoretical frontiers for underemployment research. In D. C. Maynard & D. C. Feldman (Eds.), Underemployment: Psychological, economic, and social challenges (pp. 277–305). New York: Springer. Feldman, D. C., Leana, C. R., & Bolino, M. C. (2002). Underemployment and relative deprivation among re-employed executives. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 29, 453–471. Feldman, D. C., & Maynard, D. C. (2011). A labor economic perspective on overqualification. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4, 233–235. Fine, S., & Nevo, B. (2011). Overqualified job applicants: We still need predictive models. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4, 240–242. Garcia, M. F., Posthuma, R. A., & Colella, A. (2008). Fit perceptions in the employment interview: The role of similarity, liking, and expectations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 173–189. Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2012). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451–470. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.


261 Herriot, P. (1989). Attribution theory and interview decisions. In R. W. Eder & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice. London: Sage. Hersch, J. (1991). Education match and job match. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73, 140–144. Higgins, C. A., & Judge, T. A. (2004). The effect of applicant influence tactics on recruiter perceptions of fit and hiring recommendations: A field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 622–632. Highhouse, S. (2009). Designing experiments that generalize. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 554–566. Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., & Hanes, T. J. (2011). Multistudy packages in organizational science research. In D. J. Ketchen Jr. & D. D. Bergh (Eds.), Building methodological bridges: Research methodology in strategy and management (Vol. 6, pp. 163–199). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group. Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359–394. Kent, R., & Martinko, M. (1995). The development and evaluation of a scale to measure organizational attributional style. In M. Martinko (Ed.), Attribution theory: An organizational perspective (pp. 53–78). Delray Beach, FL: St Lucie Press. Khan, L. J., & Morrow, P. C. (1991). Objective and subjective underemployment relationships to job satisfaction. Journal of Business Research, 22, 211–218. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A metaanalysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342. Leana, C. R., & Feldman, D. C. (1995). Finding new jobs after a plant closing: Antecedents and outcomes of the occurrence and quality of reemployment. Human relations, 48, 1381–1401. Luksyte, A., Spitzmueller, C., & Maynard, D. C. (2011). Why do overqualified incumbents deviate? Examining multiple mediators. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 16, 279–296. Luo, M. (2010, March 29). Should you hire someone who is overqualified? The New York Times Economix. Available at http:// economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/should-you-hiresomeone-whos-overqualified/ (accessed September 20, 2011). Lykken, D. T. (1968). Statistical significance in psychological research. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 151–159. Maltarich, M. A., Nyberg, A. J., & Reilly, G. (2010). A conceptual and empirical analysis of the cognitive ability–voluntary turnover relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1058–1070. Maltarich, M. A., Reilly, G., & Nyberg, A. J. (2011). Objective and subjective overqualification: Distinctions, relationships, and a place for each in the literature. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 4, 236–239. Martinko, M., Douglas, S., & Harvey, P. 2006. Attribution theory in industrial and organizational psychology: A review. In G. Hodgkinson & J. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 127–187). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Martinko, M., Harvey, P., & Douglas, S. (2007). The role, function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership: A review. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 561–585. Maynard, D. C., & Feldman, D. C. (Eds.). (2011). Underemployment: Psychological, economic, and social challenges. New York: Springer.


262


Maynard, D. C., Joseph, T. A., & Maynard, A. M. (2006). Underemployment, job attitudes, and turnover intentions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 509–536. Maynard, D. C., Taylor, E. B., & Hakel, M. D. (2009). Applicant overqualification: Perceptions, predictions, and policies of hiring managers. In O. T. Chen (Ed.), Organizational behavior and dynamics (pp. 11–36). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science. Maynard, D. C., Thorsteinson, T. J., & Parfyonova, N. M. (2006). Reasons for working part-time: Subgroup differences in job attitudes and turnover intentions. Career Development International, 11, 145–162. McKee-Ryan, F. M., & Harvey, J. (2011). “I have a job, but . . .:” A review of underemployment. Journal of Management, 37, 962– 996. Molleman, E., & Van der Vegt, G. S. (2007). The performance evaluation of novices: The importance of competence in specific work activity clusters. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 459–478. Muller, D., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Judd, C. M. (2008). Adjusting for a mediator in models with two crossed treatment variables. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 224–240. Perdue, B. C., & Summers, J. O. (1986). Checking the success of manipulation in marketing experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 23, 317–326. Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Mishra, P. (2011). Effects of organizational citizenship behaviors on selection decisions in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 310–326. Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchison. Porter, J. (2009). The new resume: Dumb and dumber. Wall Street Journal. Available at http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/ SB124328878436252195 (accessed September 20, 2009). Pradez de Fraria, J. R., & Yoder, C. Y. (1997). The effects of interviewers’ attributional and reasoning styles on hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1195–1208. Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13(2), 90–100. Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747–773.


Scurry, T., & Blenkinsopp, J. (2011). Under-employment among recent graduates: A review of the literature. Personnel Review, 40, 643–659. Segrest-Purkiss, S. L., Perrewe, P. L., Gillespie, T. L., Mayes, B. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Implicit sources of bias in employment interview judgments and decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101(2), 152– 167. Silvester, J. (1997). Spoken attributions and candidate success in graduate recruitment interview. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 61–73. Silvester, J., Anderson-Gough, F. M., Anderson, N. R., & Mohamed, A. R. (2002). Locus of control, attributions and impression management in the selection interview. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 59–76. Thompson, K. W., Shea, T. H., Sikora, D., & Perrewe, P. L., Ferris, G. R. (2013). Rethinking underemployment and overqualification in organizations: The not so ugly truth. Business Horizons, 56(1), 113–121. Tucker, D. H., & Rowe, P. M. (1979). Relationship between expectancy, causal attributions, and final hiring decision in the employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 27–34. Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L., & Davis, K. S. (1992). The effects of met expectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 288–297. Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573. Wells, S. J. (2004). Too good to hire? Highly experienced applicants often get screened out right away, but they shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand. HR Magazine, 49, 48– 54. Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of selfdetermination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767–779. Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Academy of Management Review, 26, 179–201.
