پیش بینی چندگانه و معیارهای موفقیت جستجوی کار
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|26687||2006||16 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Vocational Behavior, Volume 68, Issue 3, June 2006, Pages 400–415
The purpose of this study was to examine the combined and differential effects of five job search behaviors (informal sources, formal sources, preparatory search intensity, active search intensity, job search effort) on five criteria of job search success (job interviews, job offers, employment status, person-job fit, and person-organization fit) as well as the direct and moderating effects of job search self-efficacy. Data based on a sample of 225 recent university graduates found that active job search intensity was positively related to job interviews and offers, and informal job sources was negatively related to job offers and employment status. The results also support an unfolding process of job search success in which active job search intensity predicts job interviews; job interviews predict job offers; and job offers predict employment status. In addition, job search self-efficacy was a significant predictor of interviews, offers, employment status, and PJ fit perceptions, and moderated the relationship between job offers and employment status. The relationship between job offers and employment was stronger for job seekers with low job search self-efficacy. The implications of these results for job search research and practice are discussed.
Job search involves gathering information in the pursuit of potential job opportunities, generating and evaluating job alternatives, and choosing a job from the alternatives (Barber, Daly, Giannantonio, & Philips, 1994). The consequences of job search have been shown to include proximal outcomes such as being invited for job interviews and receiving job offers as well as more distal outcomes like obtaining employment and the quality of employment (Saks, 2005, Schwab et al., 1987 and Van Hooft et al., 2004). The importance of job search for job seekers and organizations has dramatically increased over the past decade. In the United States, workers are expected to engage in over a dozen job changes over the course of their work lives making job search an integral aspect of American work-life (Kanfer, Wanberg, & Kantrowitz, 2001). At the same time, there has been a considerable increase in job search research including a recent meta-analysis (Kanfer et al., 2001). As a result, we know a great deal more about the antecedents and consequences of job search since Schwab et al. (1987) reviewed the literature almost twenty years ago. However, there remain a number of shortcomings of previous studies that limit our understanding of job search success. For example, although we know that job search intensity predicts employment status (Kanfer et al., 2001) we do not know which job search behaviors are more or less effective relative to other job search behaviors. We also do not know if some job search behaviors are more effective for certain criteria of job search success. Along these lines, the main objective of this study was to examine the combined and differential effects of five job search behaviors on several criteria of search success. In addition, the relationships between job search success criteria is examined as well as the moderating effects of job search self-efficacy in the relationship between job interviews and job offers and between job offers and employment status. In the following section, these objectives are described in more detail along with the study hypotheses.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The results of this study contribute to the job search literature in a number of ways. First, the relationship between job search behavior and success depends on the type of job search behavior and the success criteria. Active job search intensity was the best predictor of the number of job interviews and offers obtained. This is consistent with the general finding that job search intensity predicts job search success (Kanfer et al., 2001). The use of informal job sources, however, was negatively related to the number of job offers and employment status. Because informal sources was no longer a significant predictor of employment status once job offers was entered into the regression equation, job offers can be considered a mediator of the relationship between informal sources and employment status. In other words, job seekers who used informal sources received fewer job offers and as a result, they were less likely to find employment. Although the effect size for this relationship was small, it is contrary to the general belief that informal sources result in better employment (Granovetter, 1995 and Schwab et al., 1987). While one can only speculate, it is possible that informal sources are not as effective today for several reasons. In particular, both the job search and selection process have become more rigorous and extensive over the years. As a result, job seekers need to devote much more time and energy in their job search than they might have in past decades. Similarly, the selection process has advanced over the years and many organizations now use a battery of valid selection techniques. Thus, an over reliance on informal sources such as personal contacts may no longer be sufficient for obtaining employment. In other words, job seekers need to do much more than simply rely on informal sources when searching for employment and they also need to perform well on selection tests and in structured interviews. Interestingly, Wanberg, Glomb, Song, and Sorenson (2005) recently found that reading the newspaper, internet postings or other publications (all formal sources) was consistently the most popular job search method over time. Clearly, more research is needed on the use of job sources and search success as the significance of the findings of this study merits replication. A second contribution is the finding that the relationship between job search behavior and employment status is not as direct as has been suggested in the job search literature. The findings of this study suggest an unfolding process in which job search behavior leads to job interviews, job interviews lead to job offers, and job offers result in employment. The job search behaviors explained the most variance in job interviews, the most proximal criteria of success and explained the least variance in employment status and fit perceptions, the most distal success criteria. The results suggest that job search behavior has an indirect effect on employment status through job interviews and offers, and the best predictor of employment status is the number of job offers that a job seeker receives. The results failed to support the predictions for fit perceptions. In fact, only job search self-efficacy predicted PJ fit perceptions. Although job interviews explained significant variance in PO fit perceptions, the relationship was not significant in the final regression equation (p < .10). It was expected that job search behaviors as well as the number of interviews and offers would predict perceptions of fit. The findings of this study are inconsistent with several studies that found job search behavior and job sources to be related to PJ and PO fit perceptions ( Saks and Ashforth, 1997 and Saks and Ashforth, 2002). On the other hand, Wanberg et al. (2002) did not find a significant relationship between job search intensity and job-organization fit, and Saks and Ashforth (1997) failed to find a significant relationship between the number of job offers and PJ and PO fit perceptions. Thus, the relationship between job search and fit perceptions remains inconclusive. In the case of the present study, it may be that recent graduates are so focused on finding employment upon graduation that they place less emphasis on job and organization fit. It is also possible that job and organization fit are not a priority for young workers who are more concerned about being promoted quickly and immediate payoffs from the workplace (Loughlin and Barling, 2001 and Smola and Sutton, 2002). Given the importance of fit perceptions for work attitudes and behaviors (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005), research on how job seekers can obtain employment that is a good fit is needed. A third contribution of this study stems from the findings for job search self-efficacy. As expected, job search self-efficacy was a significant predictor of search success. More importantly, however, was that it moderated the relationship between the number of job offers and employment status. The relationship between the number of job offers received and employment was stronger for low self-efficacy job seekers. This supports the contention that job seekers who have low job search self-efficacy are more likely to accept a job offer rather than to continue their search. On the other hand, high self-efficacy job seekers who are more confident in their ability to search for and obtain employment, are less likely to accept the first job offer but rather, to continue their search perhaps to maximize their success. This finding also sheds light on the positive relationship between job search self-efficacy and PJ fit. Because of their propensity to accept an early job offer rather than continue to search, low self-efficacy job seekers are more prone to accept a job with a poorer PJ fit compared to high self-efficacy job seekers. Thus, low self-efficacy job seekers appear to be willing to accept a job offer even if the job is a less than perfect fit. Contrary to expectations, job search self-efficacy did not moderate the relationship between the number of job interviews and job offers. Following Moynihan et al. (2003), it was expected that job seekers with high job search self-efficacy would be more likely to convert interviews into offers due to their ability to perform better in an interview. The lack of support might stem from the fact that confidence in job search is not the same as confidence in employment interviews. Clearly, a job seeker might have high job search self-efficacy but low self-efficacy for employment interviewing. Perhaps an interview-specific self-efficacy measure would be more likely to moderate the relationship between job interviews and job offers (see Stumpf et al., 1984). A number of other factors might also be important for converting interviews into offers. One possibility is grade average, a factor that interviewers often consider when hiring university and college graduates. Job interviews might be more likely to result in job offers for job seekers with higher grades. To test this possibility, an additional moderated regression analysis was conducted with job interviews and self-reported grade average entered in step one of the regression and the interaction term between interviews and grades entered in step two. The results indicated that indeed the interaction term explained an additional three percent of the variance (p < .01) over and above the 39% of the variance explained by grade average and number of job interviews. Calculation of the correlations between job interviews and job offers resulted in a much higher correlation for job seekers with higher grades (r = .70, p < .001) compared to job seekers with lower grades (r = .47, p < .001). Thus, the number of job interviews was more likely to result in more job offers for job seekers with higher grades compared to those with lower grades. 5.1. Implications for research and practice The results of this study have a number of implications for research and practice. In terms of research, the results suggest that obtaining job interviews is fundamental for job search success. Thus, future research might focus more on interviews as an outcome rather than employment or reemployment. Along these lines, future research might consider search techniques that are specifically geared towards obtaining interviews as well as interventions that are designed to improve both the number and type of interviews that a job seeker obtains. It would also be worthwhile for future research to measure interview performance (see Crossley & Stanton, 2005) in addition to the number of interviews obtained given that interview performance is ultimately what is most important and predictive of interview outcomes (Stumpf et al., 1984). Another area worthy of research stems from the significant interactions found in this study. In particular, it would be useful to learn more about the factors involved in the conversion of job interviews into offers, and job offers into employment. As indicated earlier, interview self-efficacy might be more likely to moderate the relationship between job interviews and offers than job search self-efficacy. Another potential moderator might be interview anxiety. A recent study by McCarthy and Goffin (2004) found that interviewees with higher interview anxiety performed more poorly in employment interviews. Future research might consider interview anxiety as a moderator. It would seem that job interviews would be less likely to result in job offers for job seekers with higher interview anxiety. Wanberg et al. (2002) also suggested the importance of nonverbal skills, vocal characteristics, and physical appearance as factors that are associated with interview outcomes and therefore, might also moderate the relationship between job interviews and offers. In terms of practice, the results of this study suggest that career counselors and job search training programs should emphasize job interviews as a critical job search outcome as well as the ability to convert job interviews into offers. This means that job search training programs might focus on getting interviews at preferred organizations as well as interview performance. This would also require an explicit distinction between proximal and distal job search goals. Job seekers should be instructed on how to set goals for their job search and in particular, setting goals for interviews as a distinct and more immediate goal than the more distal goal of obtaining employment. Given the importance job interviews for obtaining job offers, interview skills are especially critical for job search success. Therefore, job seekers should receive extensive training on interviewing and this should probably involve boosting their interview self-efficacy and lowering their interview anxiety. Further, previous research has shown that career exploration activities predict interview readiness, and both career exploration and interview readiness predict interview performance and interview outcomes (Stumpf et al., 1984). Therefore, job search interventions should focus on enhancing career exploration activities and developing interview readiness given the critical role that interviews play in linking job search behavior to employment. Thus, from a practical standpoint, job seekers need to learn how to obtain interviews as well as how to perform well in interviews. As noted by Kanfer et al. (2001), “how an individual presents himself or herself during the employee selection process may be as important to employment success as job search” (p. 851). 5.2. Study limitations and conclusion A number of limitations of this study require caution in the interpretation of the results. Because all of the data was self-report, common method variance could have inflated the relations among the variables. While this cannot be ruled out, there are a number of reasons to suggest this is not a serious problem. First, the relationships between the variables were consistent with their temporal proximity even though they were all measured at the same time. In other words, the job search behaviors predicted job interviews better than job offers and job offers better than employment status and fit perceptions. Second, although the success criteria were measured by self-report, in theory job interviews, job offers, and employment status are objective outcomes and should be less susceptible to perceptual distortion (Wanberg, Watt, & Rumsey, 1996). The fact that the job search behaviors were not related to the most perceptual outcome, fit perceptions, suggests that common method bias was not a serious problem. Third, recall bias was minimized by asking respondents about their job search over the past three months rather than the six month time frame used by Blau, 1993 and Blau, 1994. It should also be recognized that although the results suggest a temporal causal flow from job search behavior to interviews, interviews to offers, and offers to employment, the cross-sectional design of this study does not allow one to make causal conclusions. Therefore, future research that employs a longitudinal design in which each variable in the model is measured prior to the subsequent variable is required in order to fully test the causality implied by the model. Finally, the generalizability of the results to older and more experienced job seekers should be made with caution given that the job seekers in this study were graduating university students who differ in many ways from older and more experienced job seekers (Barber et al., 1994 and Schwab et al., 1987). However, it is worth noting that Kanfer et al. (2001) found a stronger relationship between job search behavior and employment among laid-off individuals compared to new entrants as well as employed job seekers (Kanfer et al., 2001). Thus, it is possible that the magnitude rather than the nature of the relationships reported in this study might differ from other samples of job seekers. In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that the effectiveness of job search depends on the job search behavior and the criteria of search success, and that job search success involves an unfolding process in which proximal outcomes give way to more distal outcomes. Therefore, future research should focus on how job seekers can improve their ability to obtain job interviews and how they can convert job interviews into job offers.