The relationship between core self evaluations and employability

Internal Internal

University of Amsterdam

Master Thesis

The relationship between Core Self Evaluations and Employability

Executive Programme in Business Studies

31-01-18

Kay Zwemmer 10998403

First supervisor: Stefan Mol Second supervisor: Sofija Pajic

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student K.A.J. Zwemmer who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents

Content

2.2.1 Linking the constructs 16

2.3 Core self-evaluations 16

2.4.1 Self-esteem 17

2.4.2 Internal Locus of control 19

2.4.3 Emotional stability (Neuroticism) 20

2.4.4 General Self-efficacy 21

2.4.5 Core self-evaluations and Employability. 23

2.4.5 Explorative approach to Core Self Evaluation 23

3 Method 24 3.1 Data collection 24 3.2 Search strategy 25 3.3 Study selection 25 3.4 Analysis 26 4. Results 29 4.1 Self-esteem 29

4.2 General Self efficacy 30

4.3 Internal Locus of control 30

4.4 Emotional Stability (Neuroticism) 30

4.5 Core Self Evaluation 31

5.1 Discussion 32

5.2 Theoretical Implications 34

5.3 Practical Implications 35

5.4 Limitations 37

5.5 Recommendation for future research 38

5.6 Conclusion 39

Abstract

In this paper, a meta-analytical research has been done between Core Self Evaluation as a construct and the lower level constructs, Self-esteem, General Self-efficacy, Internal locus of control and low Neuroticism as lower level constructs on Employability. Of the 54 study’s findings show that Core Self Evaluation (ES=.3259) is a predictor of Employability. And on the basis of twelve studies, results show that Self-esteem (ES=.2745), Low Neuroticism (ES=.2241), Internal locus of control (ES=.3086) and General Self-efficacy (ES=.2867) are predictors of employability. Not only do these outcomes show the influence of descriptive traits on employability it shows that Core Self Evaluation concept can be used not only job performance and satisfaction, but also is applicable to more subjects.

Keyword: Core Self Evaluation, Self-esteem, Neuroticism, General Self-Efficacy, Locus of control, Emotional stability, Personality traits, Descriptive Traits, Employability.

1. Introduction

Early in the twentieth century it was generally believed that jobs had a streamlined and fixed content that could be mapped (Savickas,Nota, Rossier,Dauwalder,2009). Careers developed according to a specific pattern; build, stabilize and lastly retire (Tijs & Vianen, 2016). This pattern often took place with a single employer who was responsible for the careers of his/her staff. Employers offered job security, and determined how staff was deployed, and in return employees were dedicated and loyal. Overall, there was a long-standing working relationship between employers and workers, and mutual expectations were clear to both parties. The disappearance of traditional careers which were characterized by vertical or upward mobility with the same employer (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996) is one of the key themes in the

contemporary social, work and organizational psychology literature. The contemporary turbulent economic environment is forcing organizations, and their staff, to be more flexible in order to be able to stay competitive. Recent examples of this can be found in the financial sector, where, among other developments, changing consumer behavior, advancing

technology, effects of the financial crisis and a rapidly growing government influence has resulted in a more negative change in these organizations for employees. Specifically, when compared to the years prior to the financial crisis in 2010. The financial crisis resulted in the loss of a lot of secondary and tertiary benefits. This change is particularly noteworthy as previously the financial sector has always been seen as a good employer where employees could stay their entire life (Hartgers, 2014; Tijdens, 1997). Because of the way companies behave with regards to layoffs and reorganizations nowadays, employees themselves have become increasingly responsible for their employability. This has increased the need for other competencies, education, flexibility and career paths in the financial sector. This fits the quote from Hillage & Pollard (1998, p. 12), who define employability as the “capability to move self-sufficiently within the labor market to realize potential through sustainable

employment”. The problem the financial industry faces now is that employability for the

company has become extrinsic, in the sense that employability is centered at the employee in the way that his or her knowledge, skills and other characteristics are within him/her, and that by using employees’ intrinsic value the employee may have value for the company.

Employees may change to another employer or when the time comes retire. Herein lays the employability paradox, which Gaspersz and Ott (1997) have coined: you bind your workers to your company by increasing their mobility opportunities.

A reasonable balance must exist between the different interests of the employee and employer. Strictly taken a high degree of employability in a company can cause problems, where the employer can no longer retain skilled employees. A low degree of employability could lead to a contrast in which insufficient growth and opportunities are available for the company in the advancing world, which ultimately will also lead to problems. Increasing the employability of employees is sometimes associated with severance and outplacement. If the employees see severance and outplacement as the primary argument when they receive training or other options to grow, then increasing employability is an extremely difficult matter because they are not open to change and growth. However, the enhanced employability of employees leads to a smooth transfer, both internally and externally. When there is no proper balance between the interests of the employer and the interests of the employee problems can arise.

Schnabel (2000) states that being in control, being a professional, and keeping up a desired level of expertise is a hard task. The employees’ capacity to develop, enrich and maintain necessary qualifications must meet certain standards to be able to compete with others. The requirements of a job are constantly changing. Due to the growing research on employability in the last decades, which has resulted in a variety of contexts in which the

word is used, employability has gotten the reputation of being “an attractive but confusing buzzword” (Thijssen, Van der Heijden, & Rocco, 2008, p. 167).

The responsibility for the development of human capital lies within the human resource department, which means that the human resource department can ensure that qualified and motivated staff is available in all positions not just now but also in the future. This includes the development of competencies which are necessary to the business so that it can achieve its strategic objectives. Usually the development of human capital is called competency or talent management (Sharma & Bhatnagar, 2009). When a company balances the desired competencies against existing competences, then a strategy can be developed where the so-called competence gap can be closed. This means that in extreme cases certain employees, because they don’t have the needed qualities, cannot close the competence gap. This results in the employer’s need to attract new employees, with additional qualities. A

company may choose in the first case that those who no longer have a future within the company can go through a training program so that they can leave in a socially responsible manner to prepare for a job elsewhere. This matches the theory of Core Self Evaluation in which the organization can hire and then focus on the individuals who can stay employed who, when the company needs to downsize they have the right people, who have a high level of employability. The shift from the organization to the individual is the main focus of this research because it shows that Core Self Evaluation theory can become important for

companies to consider when hiring personnel, because it shows the traits that are evaluations of the self that communicate self-worth. Judge and Bono (2001) suggested that traits that are evaluations themselves are likely more straightforward and have a stronger relation to job satisfaction and job performance than descriptive traits. The concept of core evaluations emerged to cater an integrative framework that sought to address the effect of employee’s personality on their level of job satisfaction and job performance. Judge, Locke &

Durham(1997) had the idea that: ‘attributes of dispositional traits determine the degree to which they affect job satisfaction’ (p 155). The range of these personality traits affect attitudes

that are work-based related, these traits are measured by three criteria: Fundamentality, scope and evaluation-focus. It is important to mention that the traits of Core Self Evaluation are focused on evaluation, instead of being descriptive traits. According to Judge et al (1997) the effects of the descriptive traits on attitudes and outcomes are always indirect. For example, a personality trait is (e.g., cooperative) shows how a person would behave (e.g., helpful, team player) while the one that are in the Core Self Evaluation are evaluations of self-worth. The influence of evaluative traits is more direct, because these evaluative traits directly influence a person’s own perceptions and attitudes, as well as his/her environment. An example of this is

Self-Efficacy; individuals with high Self-Efficacy tend to have higher job performance because they feel that they can do the tasks that are set out for them (Judge et al, 2001). High Self-Efficacy has a direct effect on all other attitudes, rather than the descriptive traits where they are mediated by external processes to the person. For example, in the case of a

descriptive trait like cooperation the individual will need others to cooperate with.

Core Self Evaluations is a significant predictor of job satisfaction and job performance and since its introduction it has been subject to a lot of research. It is the personality trait

responsible for our attitude, how we feel, how happy we are with our job, and how well we do our job. Core Self Evaluations is regarded as a latent, higher order personality characteristic which includes four traits: locus of control, Self-esteem, Neuroticism, self-efficacy. People with high Core Self Evaluations have in general a more positive attitude and overall are more confident in their abilities, have higher job satisfaction and perform better than those with low Core Self Evaluations. People with low Core Self Evaluations have a negative attitude, do not like their jobs and feel that they are not in control (Johnson, Rosen, & Levy, 2008, Hiller & Hambrick, 2005). Judge et al (2001) conducted a meta-analysis on the four personality traits

and their effect on job performance and job satisfaction, which are definitions that are being used for employability in this meta-analysis research but not on employability as an outcome, off course not only Judge et all (1997) did research but Johnson et al (2008) and others did as well so a conclusion can be drawn that there are enough areas of employability linked to Core Self Evaluation.

Herein lays the research gap in which this thesis focuses on. There is a lot of research in which the Core Self Evaluations constructs (e.g. Self-esteem) are linked to multiple outcomes all related to employability like job performance but not as the specific definition of

employability this meta-analysis handles. Core Self Evaluations will help organizations and individuals in the management of employability, since people high on Core Self Evaluations are likely the very people that the organization will want to hire because they have a high level of internal and external employability according to Judge, Bono, Erez & Locke (2005). Core Self Evaluation can be an antecedent of internal and external employability. For

example, on the one hand Core Self Evaluation can be used for internal employability because the companies hire the people who believe they can do the tasks and will work to achieve their goals. And on the other hand, the employability paradox as mentioned by Gapersz et al (1997) is something that comes up. Because the companies do not have to be as worried if they hire people with high scores on Core Self Evaluation. Because when they have to lay off people during reorganizations, the people with Core Self Evaluation will score high on external employability, but they can also move easier if they want to make an external move without the employer wanting this.

Therefore, this study will try to find a link between Core Self Evaluations and its sub dimensions (emotional stability, locus of control, self-esteem and self-efficacy) and employability. The main research question will be how does Core Self Evaluation and its lower level constructs affect employability. This study has chosen for a meta-analysis because

on the subject of employability there is a huge amount of information yet a lot of the times there are different significant outcomes and interpretations of employability. Williams, Dodd, Steele & Randall (2016) state that employability benefits from a meta-analysis because there are a large number of studies available, and those studies have multiple different outcomes and interpretations of the data. Another reason would be that Judge et all (2001) also did a meta-analysis based on Core Self Evaluations and although they did a meta-analysis on the relationship between Core Self Evaluations and job satisfaction, job performance and job satisfaction, there is not a meta-analysis on the relationship between Core Self Evaluations and employability, despite many studies having been conducted. Williams et al (2016) did a meta-analysis specifically on Self-Efficacy and employability and the other constructs also have a analysis on employability, so to test the model and the constructs in meta-analysis makes sense.

The lower level constructs might have correlation with each other but they might not all have the effect on employability. This way it becomes clear, if what judge et al (2001) argues is true, al constructs should represent Core Self Evaluations and should have a significant effect on employability.

To close the introduction chapter, the framework of the study will be explained. This thesis will begin with an analysis of the literature needed for this study. Multiple ways of describing the subject are explained and compared to make clear what is being discussed. Also in this chapter the hypothesis is developed. Then the meta-analysis is explained, as well as the way the raw collection data which came from the coding to SPSS file. Afterwards this paper discusses the results of the meta-analyses and followed by that is the discussion part, which also includes limitations and of course the implications. The thesis will end with the

conclusion which will answer the research question and clearly state the results as well as recommendations.

2. Literature review

In this paragraph we will look at the existing literature on employability and discuss the most relevant findings. First, we will examine the concept of employability and provide a

foundation for this research based on the theories of employability. Afterwards this section will go into defining the Core Self Evaluations construct and its four constituent personality traits so there is a clear view of what is being measured and how the literature goes into combining them. Every construct of Core Self Evaluations in the literature review will result in a hypothesis; these are Self-esteem, Neuroticism, Self-efficacy and locus of control. Furthermore, we will develop a hypothesis for the relationship of the overall Core Self Evaluations construct with employability

2.1 History of Employability

Employability has come a long way as a construct as it dates back to 1909 (Komine, 2001). On an academic level, the interest has been growing in the first part of this century. This mostly came thanks to the changing nature of careers and the uncertain labor market (Forrier & Sels, 2003; McQuaid & Lindsay, 2005; Pool & Sewell, 2007; Rothwell & Arnold, 2007). Grip, Loo, and Sanders (2004) state that originally the phrase employability was used to classify individuals into two categories; individuals looking for work, which makes them employable, and those with no job such as pensioners who don’t need one.

Magnum (1976) also states that when an individual was employed by a company the chance to get fired was rather low, thanks to fact that there was a powerful culture of staying at the same company for the rest of your life. A half century ago, the concept was thus used in a less broad and less diverse way then it is today.

Authors in the 1960 till the end of seventies did not deal with the movements of employees because this was not an issue yet either in the internal or external labor markets. Instead, they focused on the problems of unemployed persons and the difficulties these people encountered

in accessing the labor market. The baby boomers wished for more liberty, in the sense that they wanted full control of their career plans, their own selection of work and to handle their own lives (Hall & Hall, 1976).

In the 1980s employability was defined as the optimization process of employees within organizations, or, stated more precisely, the continual development of fit between employee and organization (Forrier and Sels, 2003).These careers do not have closely defined

boundaries as they used to have, in the way that during a career of an individual more boundaries are crossed such as those between divisions, companies, and countries in

comparison to earlier and more predictable hierarchical careers (Evans, & Jalland, 2000). The effect of careers becoming less predictable is that there has to be a new analysis of

employability as this is an essential starting point for all career policy activities (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006). In an effort to adapt to these present economic matters, more organizations are apt to fire, restructure, and downsize. That also brings the effect that employees have to change, adapt and continue learning so they can stay either in their own job or find a new one (Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006).

2.2 Defining Employability

The Confederation of British Industry (1999) defined employability, as being ‘the possession by the individual of the qualities and competencies required to meet the changing needs of employers and customers’. Or as Thijssen et al. (2008) state it is the ability to survive in the

internal or external labor market. Definitions of employability have changed during the last 30 to 40 years. And even if you compare the definitions of the Confederation of British Industry (1999) and Thijssen et al. (2008) which are only 9 years apart, they are different in the sense that the latter is focused on the individual him or herself. This is also the definition that is adopted for this thesis. This definition has implications for company policies developed to cope with employability-related problems. There are instances where the term employability

has a less positive connotation, most often among individuals with a low level of career self-management, such as factory workers. But more often than not, employability and job mobility have a positive implication, which is mostly related to self-management in the job market, in comparison with the denunciation of high turnover and the fact there are not many full-time jobs (Nauta, Vianen, Heijden,Dam & Willemsen,2009). Through the years,

employability is critical for employment, yet employment is not a goal or objective that has one singular definition.

Appropriately, employability has different perspectives according to the approach that is taken. During the last three decades, three views have been of peculiar importance; (1) society, (2) the company, and (3) the individual (Versloot et al., 1998).

Source: Employability-Related Developments Across Three Historical Periods (Versloot, Glaudé, & Thijssen, 1998)

For the purposes of this thesis, we define employability at the individual level. Definitions of employability at the individual level are plentiful, and each has a focus on different career aspects in an employee or a potential employee, but all definitions have in common that they define employment as the outcome.

Even at the individual level, multiple conceptualizations and definitions of

employability exist in the extant literature, which provides irregular descriptions or lists of employability traits with broadly changeable emphasis because there just is not one which fits all. To have some definitions for individual employability and to lead into the variables we will be examining, we adopt Grip et all’s definition of employability as a “psychosocial

construct that embodies individual characteristics that foster adaptive cognition, behavior, and affect, and enhance the individual-work interface” (De Grip et al, 2004 p.15). Fugate et al (2004) state that employability encompasses individual characteristics that bridge the

individual–environment gap. Raemdonck (2006) states that it has a focus on self-management aspects in regard to individual and organizational events on future job market chances.

At the individual level, the personal adequacy for work is currently receiving a lot of emphasis. Also, in some research, authors argue that an important component of the

employability definition is not government assistance, which is just a small part, and not the part needed to be able to keep up in the labor market (Fugate et al., 2004). Some authors, for example Gasperz et al (1996), see employability as the assortment of jobs that employees can do well enough, in the sense that their current skills and knowledge are enough for the needed flexibility at their own company or outside of their company. The problem with this definition is that multi skilled workers are equal to employable workers because their current

employability radius is relatively larger.Most researchers concur with the view that a broad set of occupational qualifications is an important component of employability.

2.2.1 Linking the constructs

Core Self Evaluation is a dispositional trait that characterizes how people evaluate themselves and the contact with their jobs (Hiller et al, 2005). At a basic level, the high-CSE person is characterized by self-confidence, self-worth, self-potency, and freedom from anxiety, which are all positive evaluative traits. While these four constructs are not the same, they share noteworthy theoretical similarities. Within this space of similarity there is the basic

fundamental assessment a person creates of him or herself. In this space there is also a lot of overlap with employability, because as stated by De Grip et al. (2004), employability is a psychological construct that focuses on a person’s core traits, which stimulates behavior,

flexible cognition and influences as well as improve the individual in their work.

And this is where the link between employability and Core Self Evaluation comes in, namely because of the fact that Judge et al (2001) discusses that evaluative traits such as the construct of employability, are stronger antecedents of job performance then descriptive traits such as agreeableness or conscientiousness that are in the big five. This research therefore sees more value in the focus on Core Self Evaluation as an antecedent to employability then other traits.

2.3 Core self-evaluations

Core self-evaluations pertains to people making fundamental evaluations about themselves and their functioning, it is composed of multiple personality traits which are mostly intended to explain evaluative traits of the person in question.

Those who have high Core self-evaluations have a better view of themselves, feel more in control and feel worthier of the job they’re hired to do. The Core self-evaluations construct was initially conceived as an antecedent of job satisfaction, and studies that were done have supported this (Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Bono, & Locke, 2000; Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998). While it started as an explanatory variable of personality traits which have a

significant effect on job satisfaction other relations also exist. Life satisfaction (Judge, Locke et al., 1998) job performance (Judge & Bono, 2001) and lastly motivation have been

hypothesized and supported as outcomes of core self-evaluations (Erez & Judge, 2001). The Core self-evaluations construct may thus be seen as a predictor of objective job satisfaction and other positive behavioral and attitudinal outcomes.

According to Judge et al. (1997), the higher-order core self-evaluations construct is indicated by four specific lower-order traits: the first is self-esteem, which is how people make a key assessment of their self and the general value a person places on himself. The second, locus of control, describes the level of control people feel on events in their lives. The third, neuroticism, describes how the person shows poor emotional adjustment and how they cope with negative feelings such as fear. Finally the fourth, generalized self-efficacy can be used to evaluate a person’s essential ability to cope with constraints, to perform and to

succeed.

Some studies have used emotional stability to describe the third core trait of

neuroticism (Judge & Bono, 2001), in the sense that a person with low neuroticism will have high emotional stability. Yet for this research both are used since emotional stability is the polar opposite of neuroticism, after all: someone who is neurotic is not emotionally stable. The first three of these evaluative personality traits are the traits that are the most researched in psychology (Johnson, Rosen, & Levy, 2008). In this research, first we shall examine the four traits and develop hypotheses about their relationships to employability, before we develop our last hypothesis which is based on the overall Core self-evaluations construct.

2.4.1 Self-esteem

Self-esteem is an important construct in Core self-evaluations mainly because it is a central component of a person’s day to day routine. It is one of the driving personality traits of the

the value a person gives him/herself starts with self-esteem. The productivity of employees with low self-esteem is lower due to their indecisiveness and fear of making mistakes, and if they fail and their goal is not achieved, it leads to frustration more than for someone with a higher level of high self-esteem (Pool & Sewell,2007).

Self-esteem is a way to note how people feel about themselves, which shows and influences a person’s ongoing proceedings with their surroundings and the people they meet (Kernis, 2003). People’s scores on self-esteem can range from high to low. The former feel they are

good people who deserve to be respected and liked and the latter feel like that have no reason to be liked and deserve contempt. Self-esteem as described by Battle (2002) is the perception that people have of their self-worth. It evolves in stages and becomes more differentiated in adulthood because of interaction with their community and the people they meet in it.

Self-esteem is a predictor of human behavior and an indication of how people react to certain events. Self-esteem also provides an indication of psychological wellbeing (Gray-Little and Hafdahl 2000). To improve people, helping them and sustaining a healthy and positive self-esteem is an efficient use of the expertise that is available about it. Therefore, identifying, measuring, improving, and sustaining high self-esteem is important for educators, teachers, trainers, and career counsellors (Coetzee, 2005).

Human capital is the amount of expertise, interpersonal and personality characteristics, for example creativity, which is used to perform new ways of working to generate more value (Benhabib & Spiegel, 1997). Human capital variables can also contribute to one’s wellbeing

during unemployment (McKee-Ryan, Song,, Wanberg, & Kinicki, 2005). For example, individuals who have a higher education may expect that they have higher re-employment, suppressing the fear they feel during unemployment (Price & Fang, 2002). The cultural capital that identifies a person’s educational status may also reinforce the self-esteem of

skills and training (Lamont & Lareau,1988). This affects social mobility which is the change in social position of a person or group within social stratification. Self-esteem is good for an individual when it comes to employability, people with high self-esteem are more up to date with the latest developments in their area of employment and are able to function on their own, make choices on their own and are confident about reaching their career goals

(Potgieter, 2012). According to Potgieter (2012) self-esteem has a significant effect on many of the aspects we describe as essential to employability, such as proactivity (r = .36)

management of their own career (r = .32) and career entrepreneurship (r = .28). This means that in the literature there are signs this construct has a positive relation with the definition of employability that is being used in this research. This makes individuals with high self-esteem more interesting for employers as they function better then individuals with low self-esteem. Considering all the arguments above we can state that Self-esteem will have a positive effect on employability, leading to the first hypothesis.

H1. Self-esteem is positively related to employability 2.4.2 Internal Locus of control

The second lower level construct in core self-evaluations is Locus of control. Locus of control can be seen as a dimension ranging from high internal locus of control to high external locus of control. People with high Internal locus of control believe they control their own futures and are therefore more satisfied with their work. People with high external locus of control are more deterministic, and might believe in fate and superstition. There are phases in

between internal and external. Research shows that people with external locus of control have a harder time performing well and are generally less happy (Phillips & Gully, 1997).

Locus of control is a personality trait which shows the degree to which a person in general perceives events to be under their control (internal locus) or under the control of powerful others (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003). External locus of control has been shown to be

related to lethargy and feelings of helplessness (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997). Internal locus of control can be seen as a powerful tool for the persons who have it because they feel they are in control of their future. Internal locus of control can reflect the way they look at education, as they feel that they will not make it because of somebody else or a higher power. Individuals, who educate themselves more, have higher levels of employability. For example internal locus of control will help with their study because the person will feel they are the only factor that gets in the way of studying and success and no external factors will stop them (Green & Turok, 2000). People with an internal locus of control are more likely to keep going when faced with obstacles, and are therefore more likely to have higher levels of

employability. Because individuals will always have setbacks in work and their life in general and these setbacks the fault of other persons but it might be the individual itself (McKee-Ryan, Song, Wanberg, & Kinicki, 2005). This leads us to the second hypothesis; a high locus of control has a positive influence on employability.

H2. Internal (vs. external) locus of control is positively related to employability 2.4.3 Emotional stability (Neuroticism)

Those with a habit of more easily experiencing negative emotions have high neuroticism, and as such stress will be harder on them than on those with low neuroticism. Emotionally, they are less stable and far more prone to anxiety, depression, and despair. Persons high on Neuroticism are characterized by an enduring habit to experience negative emotional moods and to understand situations in a pessimistic way (Coetzee & Potgieter, 2014). Research investigating the relationship between neuroticism and job satisfaction, for example, has consistently found a negative correlation (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003). The levels of emotional intelligence of people with high neuroticism are lower, and as a reaction to this their ability to relate to others, grasp, and sway them is severely damaged (Bowling, Burns, Stewart & Gruys, 2011). For social tasks, emotional stability and therefore low neuroticism as

mentioned above, is a key contributor to performance, especially for more socially oriented tasks such as managing teams or motivating others. For those in leadership positions, the need for emotional stability is even stronger, as they are a key factor in morale and are the public face of the company. Individuals with high neuroticism hardly seek any solutions to help manage demands from outside factors, when they experience conflicts from work and non-work-related needs (Michel, Clark& Jaramillo,2011). Neuroticism is something an employer will not want because the employability of an employee would be low, mainly because neuroticism influences emotional reactions to the experience of strain, and this means that an employee cannot handle high levels of stress. Persons with high neuroticism when subjected to negative stimuli have a stronger response to these stimuli as research by Zellars et al (2001) has shown, this leads to them to experience more job and family stress in general, resulting in lower employability (Zellars & Perrewe, 2001). Research has also found a negative

relationship between Neuroticism and the use of effective coping strategies (Wayne, Musisca, & Fleeson, 2004) which means that even if an employee scores high on neuroticism an

employer can’t train him in the use of coping strategies. In the research done by Rothman &

Coetzer (2003) there is a high relationship between employability and low neuroticism (r=0.49) and Nelis, Delphine, Quoidbach (2011) also add to the research that there is a high correlation (r=.37). If we take all the arguments above we can conclude that low neuroticism is positively related to employability. This leads us to the third hypothesis:

H3. Emotional stability (low neuroticism) is positively related to employability 2.4.4 General Self-efficacy

Self-efficacy is defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands” (Wood &

Bandura, 1989, p. 408). Self-efficacy is the personality trait responsible for how likely a person is to succeed with current goals and tasks, take on a challenging assignment or to claim

a given assignment is impossible. For example, if a person can follow and finish a strict education at a good university, there is a high level of self-efficacy in this person. Generalized self-efficacy, the “individuals’ perception of their ability to perform across a variety of

different situations” (Judge, Erez, et al., 1998, p. 170), is less studied than the other three traits

according to Judge, Erez, and Bono (1998). Yet they did include it in their analysis because the evaluation of successfulness as a person should be highly related to self-esteem and locus of control. So, there is a difference between self-efficacy and general self-efficacy. This is because of the wording of Wood et al. (1989) “given situational demands” have given

self-efficacy a limited focus, and most researchers have narrowed their study, seeing self-self-efficacy as a concept and research of self-efficacy as a job or state-like model. Judge et al. (1997) focuses more on the trait-like generalizable (situation a-specific) element of self-efficacy, which has been coined general self-efficacy.

People with high general self-efficacy are more tenacious and unrelenting when dealing with hardships, and more likely to consider challenges as opportunities for growth. The greater a person’s belief in their own power to influence an outcome the more likely they are to

succeed with a new challenge. General self-efficacy is different between individuals in their habit to view themselves as able of meeting job demands in a wide dimension of contexts. For example, when two individuals with different levels of general self-efficacy are given a difficult task, the one who scores low will quit sooner than the person who scores high.

There is a significant relation between Self-efficacy and employability (r= .3) (Nauta, Vianen, Heijden, Dam, & Willemsen, 2009). Also, Nauta et al. (2009) state that employees with higher self-efficacy showed higher levels of other dimensions pertinent to what we defined as employability, such as open to job and task related changes compared to employees with lower self-efficacy. Thus, leading us to the fourth hypothesis:

2.4.5 Core self-evaluations and Employability.

According to Judge et al. (1997) Self-efficacy, Self-Esteem, Locus of control and neuroticism all seem to be distinct but there are high correlations between the traits (r>.60) (Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2003). The core self-evaluations construct was conceived to illustrate correlations among the personality traits, providing some assimilation of personality in the relation of disposition to motivation, satisfaction, and thinking. The definition we use for employability in this research is that employability is a “psychosocial construct that embodies individual characteristics that foster adaptive cognition, behavior, and affect, and enhance the individual-work interface” (De Grip et al, 2004 p.15). If we link that to Core self-evaluations in the relation of disposition to motivation, satisfaction, and thinking (Judge, Locke, & Durham, 1997), it seems that the constructs of higher order core self-evaluations construct should have a connection with employability. And if the model of Judge is correct the

constructs should be highly correlated indicators of Core self-evaluations. Thus, it is expected that Core self-evaluations has a positive effect on employability leading to the last hypothesis:

H5. ore self-evaluations is positively related to employability

2.4.5 Explorative approach to Core Self Evaluation

Finally, in this research there is going to be a section which will be explorative. If Core Self Evaluation shows a correlation to employability in the way this research sees employability, a discussion point then becomes whether the strength of the relationships of the sub dimensions with employability vary or not. There is enough evidence that all the four constructs load profoundly on Core Self Evaluation, it has been shown that the higher-order factor is the main factor in predicting a range of job behaviors and outcomes in regards to the four constructs (Judge et al, 2003, Simsek et al, 2010, Johnson et al, 2008). If for example you look to the research on Core Self Evaluation done over the years, Core Self Evaluations has proven itself

to be more related to job performance, satisfaction, motivation and other measurements than the other four constructs. (Erez & Judge, 2001; Judge, Erez, Bono, & Thoresen, 2002; Judge et al., 2003, Johnson, Rosen & Levy, 2008; Hiller & Hambrick,2005). In the current research it seems that Core Self Evaluation is a stronger antecedent of outcomes than the other four constructs. In some of the newer papers it is shown that Core Self Evaluation is stronger on Inter-role conflict and enrichment, vocational identity, team effectiveness and leader-member exchange than the four lower levels constructs ( Hirschi, 2011, Sears & Hackett, 2011, Zhang & Peterson, 2011, Westring & Ryan, 2011). So it is interesting to see how the higher level construct applies to the definition of employability used in this thesis and to see if there if the lower level constructs score lower.

3 Method

This paragraph gives insight on how the hypotheses will be tested.

3.1 Data collection

This meta-analysis has been developed as a piece of a bigger meta-analysis on employability and to this, a group of five students at the University of Amsterdam and two supervisors was created. And they conceived a theoretical framework of the extensive meta-analysis on employability (Kleijn, 2016). They used this data to write their master thesis on the subject and used it to test different relationships to employability. They created documentation on Google drive, where they made documentation and the conceptualization of employability, antecedents, and consequences. Also the coding sheet that was used and the way the data was analyzed can also be found there. On this information which was made available to the author, the meta-analysis will be based.

3.2 Search strategy

The search strategy is critical in study where a meta-analysis is done, because if the inclusion isn’t done correctly it might lead to a bias or an incomplete result. After the decision of which

concept and theory would be used to define employability for the data set and meta-analysis, they created a list of variables and linked these to employability and then put them in

categories of predictor, proxies and correlations (Haas, 2016). After these steps a librarian who has knowledge in literature research for meta-analysis reviews, created search queries on basis of the list of variables.

3.3 Study selection

After the search strategy was concluded, a study selection was made. Included are the studies which are quantitative, and which quantify the relationship between employability and Core Self Evaluation. Disadvantaged populations such as those with disabilities and studies of criminal offenders and their rehabilitation are excluded. Studies that are done on the

population of adults older than 18 is our main focus, this includes individual who either study, have a job or don’t have a job. To make this research work the research team only used papers

that gave correlation coefficients, also the papers with correlation coefficients included longitudinal, field experimental studies and cross-sectional studies (Kleijn,2017). After these rules were established the research group found 12764 studies using the electronic databases, the database used and the amount of studies from that particular database can be found in the matrix below (figure 1). There were 3823 duplicates found and deleted, so 8491 studies were left and of those 4960 studies were deleted also because they did not meet the criteria of not reporting on correlation coefficient, the population sample weren’t adults nor were they healthy and were qualitative studies (Izekor, 2016)

Database studies

PsycINFO 2779 results

Business Source Premier 1.619 results

ERIC 1.179 results

Medline 649 results

Web of science 2.571 results

Sociological 622 results

Scopus 3.345 results

Figure 1. Database and results

Afterwards there was another round and from the 3981 studies, 2780 articles were thrown out because the variables weren’t of interest for the meta-analysis. That left the research team

with 1,201 articles of which 240 articles were coded due to time constraints (Haas, 2017). Of the 240 articles that were coded 54 were used for this study.

3.4 Analysis

The Meta analyses will be conducted using IBM SPSS software. This software program will be used to conduct the meta-analyses that will provide information for the conclusions. For the meta-analysis this research used the SPSS macros from Lipsey & Wilson (2001) that analyze the data that was collected based on effect size and inverse variance weight for each individual study. The estimated effect in the population is a weighted mean of the effect sizes, called inverse variance weight meta-analysis. Lipsey & Wilson (2001) developed this method to help sampling accuracy of effect size. In this research only one macro was used meanes.sps while the set of macro also includes mefa.sps and metareg.sps. This meta-analysis used Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) as a sign of effect size (ES). There is an amount of

transformation and adjustment needed to analyze the data because of related factors before the use of the macro, a reason for this is because effect sizes that were extracted from different articles do not have the same sample size, might use varying techniques for the participation selection and have a diverse reliability. These transformations were done step by step and the first one is a reliability adjustment on the raw correlation coefficients (Hunter & Schmidt,

1990) The formula below is to correct the unreliability in the independent and dependent variable.

The second step is the use of Fisher’s Zr transformation, mainly because raw correlations are not fitting as a method of effects size.

After this a correction is made, because samples of studies differ in size. For example, the higher a sample population is, the accuracy is estimated higher than a lower sample

population. For this reason, in meta-analysis studies with a higher sample population should weigh higher the studies with lower sample size. This is called the inverse variance weight as suggested by Lipsey and Wilson (2001).

After these adjustments and corrections were made the Wilson Macro “meanes.spss” was run, which calculates mean effect size, z-test, homogeneity test and confidence intervals. The calculation includes a fixed and a random effect model. A choice was made to use the random effects size, because the homogeneity analyses was done to see if the effect sizes were

constant in each research paper and this was the case.

Two other arguments outside of the data outcome of the effect size can be made based on the area of Human Resource management and organizational behavior area the meta-analysis is in. Because Hall & Brannick (2002) argue that in these areas, the random effect model is more dominant, and the tendency is to use the random effect model in this area. And both employability and Core Self Evaluation are in this field, so it is more relevant to use.

effect models affirm that there are random factors that have not yet been pinpointed. This fits the lack of a narrow and clear definition of employability. And makes way for the second argument, namely that there is no expectation of a single population effect size. And the relationship between the Core Self Evaluation and employability will not differ between multiple samples.

Field & Gillet (2010) state that the random effect model includes a true variability across effect sizes, sampling error, and accepts population heterogeneity. With the Fixed effect model, it is the opposite where there are homogenous sample effect sizes across studies. So, the research involved in the meta-analysis comes from the same population with an average effect that is fixed.

Afterwards the I² statistic was calculated to give a clearer view of the results.

The I² statistic was also included to complement the Cochran’s Q-test. For the heterogeneity testing the Cochran’s Q-test was used and is a chi-square statistic distribution with (k-1) degrees of freedom. Yet this has some downsides, Firstly the Cochran’s Q-test shows if there is a presence of heterogeneity and nothing more. Secondly, a high I² indicates a larger

heterogeneity an if it is < 75% then it is recommended to use moderator analyses because the variance in effect sizes is thanks to the sampling error (Hunter et al,1990) and the Cochran’s Q-test doesn’t show that. Lastly, Cochran’s Q-test doesn’t bide well when the sample size is small (Field et al , 2010).

4. Results

This paragraph shows the results of the SPSS analyses, and will include the interpretation of the outcomes. The results will be displayed for each hypothesis table 1 and further in this chapter each individual effect size and heterogeneity test will be discussed.

Variable K N ES Z -95%CI +95%CI _I² p

Self-esteem 12 7818 .2745 24.3328 .2524 .2966 87.20% .000 General Self-efficacy 12 6372 .2867 22.8792 .2620 .3113 73.44% .000 Internal Locus of control 12 6372 .3086 20.7234 .2794 .3378 53.50% .006 Low Neuroticism 12 10462 .2241 22.8792 .2049 .2433 95.16% .000

Core Self Evaluation 54 34951 .3259 15.0571 ,3154 ,3364 94.87% .000

Table 1 Note: This is the result of the meta-analysis for the effect size in which: K is the

number studies; N: the total sample; ES: sample weighted mean effect size, Z: the weighted Z

statistics; CI: lower (-95%CI) and upper (+95%CI) bound of the Confidence interval; I² = %

of variance due to heterogeneity; P: P-value significance level.

The meta-analysis will follow Cohen (1988) as a guideline to analyze the effects size with the standards being size r=.10 for small effect r=.25 for medium effect size and r=.40 for large effect size.

This analysis involved 55 studies, and the total sample size is 34951. These studies show the effect sizes between the constructs of Core Self Evaluation, Core Self Evaluation and the effect on employability. No exclusion has been made based on country and other variables except for age and all participants were older than 18.

4.1 Self-esteem

First, the effect between Self-esteem and employability has been analyzed. A total of 12 studies were obtained and the total sample size was 7818. The homogeneity analysis is useful

because when heterogeneity is observed it shows that there is a possibility that there is an existence of moderators. As seen in table 1 the homogeneity hypothesis is rejected (p < 0.05), and the I2 score is 87, 2%, which indicates that there is a large heterogeneity. The ES is .2745 so according to Cohen (1988) the conclusion is that there is a medium effect size between self-esteem and employability, so it can be concluded that H1 self-esteem is positively related to employability.

4.2 General Self efficacy

Secondly, there is the link between General Self-efficacy and employability. In chapter 2 it was predicted that the relationship between General Self efficacy and employability was positive. The mean effect size of General Self-efficacy is .2867 which shows that there is a significant relationship between General Self-efficacy and Employability. The homogeneity analysis is rejected (p<.05) and I² index (I² =73.44%) implies that there is heterogeneity. This confirms the H2 that General Self-efficacy is positively related to employability.

4.3 Internal Locus of control

The meta-analytical testing of Internal locus of control resulted in the strongest effect size of all the lower level constructs (ES=.3086) with 12 studies and a total sample size of 6372. The I² index (I² = 53.50 %;) implies that there is medium heterogeneity, but the homogeneity hypothesis is rejected (p < 0.05). This confirms that H3 that Internal locus of control has a positive effect on employability.

4.4 Emotional Stability (Neuroticism)

The last lower level construct is Emotional stability or low neuroticism. Like the other lower level constructs, it had 12 studies, but the total sample size was bigger than the rest

(N=10462). There is a significant effect between Emotional Stability and employability (SE=.2241,) and it is the lowest of the lower level constructs. The I² index implies large heterogeneity and the homogeneity analysis is rejected (I² = 95, 16%; p < 0.05). So it can be

concluded that H4 Emotional Stability is positively related to employability and H4 can be accepted.

4.5 Core Self Evaluation

The final part is the testing of Core Self Evaluation as a whole with the lower level constructs combined and some findings that were just the Core Self Evaluation. If the model of Judge is correct then Core Self Evaluation should also have positive effect on employability because it should be stronger and as shown in the previous chapters, the constructs are correlated

indicators. The results of this meta-analysis are in line with other findings and shows a significant effect (ES=.3259). The total sample size was 34951 from 54 studies. The

homogeneity test should be rejected (p < .05) and the high I² index value (I² = 94, 87%) shows a high level of heterogeneity.

5.1 Discussion

There were three goals in this study. The first was to determine whether each of the individual constructs that are subsumed in the Core Self Evaluations meta-construct had a relationship to employability. The second goal was to discover whether the higher order personality

characteristic Core Self Evaluation has a relationship with employability. The final goal to find out it is to see if the strength of Core Self Evaluation namely that Core Self Evaluation is shown to have better relation to job performance, satisfaction and job finding persistence than the four other constructs that have been tested in Core Self Evaluation research. (Judge et al., 2001; Judge et al., 2002; Judge et al., 2003, Johnson, et al., 2008; Hiller et al.,2005) is also applicable to the definiton of employability used in this research. So that it can be seen that the higher level order construct is better related to employability then the lower level constructs.

The constructs all show a considerable relationship between employability; the findings are in line with research of the constructs done by the Core Self Evaluation researchers. It could have been possible that the research done in this thesis would differ because the testing of the constructs was also done outside the Core Self Evaluation papers. However, there is a difference between the findings of this research and the research done by other Core Self Evolution researchers, namely the analysis has shown which of these

constructs have greater influence on employability; internal locus of control (ES= .3086) has the largest influence and general self-efficacy (ES= .2876) the second largest. This is in disagreement with earlier studies which show that of the four lower levels constructs it should be the other way around (Judge et al., 2001) this is because the other Core Self Evaluation researchers did not use the same definition as this thesis but focused on job performance, satisfaction and job searching persistence. While in this research the three are incorporated there are also other factors and this may very well explain the difference in results, as the

other constructs are still in the same order. It can be argued that because Core Self Evolution scores high on job performance, satisfaction and job persistence it can also be applied to Employability as a whole. Because it’s a relatively new construct and new directions are being added like the relation between Core Self Evaluation and performance management behavior (Tasa, Sears & Schat, 2011), or Economic Success (Judge & Hurst, 2007) and even strength training in adults ( Baker, Kennedy, Bohle & Campbell, 2011). So it isn’t farfetched

that Core Self Evaluations and its constructs should also have the same effect on employability. The fact that Internal locus of control has a high relationship with

Employability (ES= .3086) is in line with research done solely on internal locus of control outside the Core Self Evaluation research (Tseng, 1970; Ng, Sorensen, & Eby, 2006; Fugate et al.,2004) and also inside the Core Self Evaluation construct research. An individual that consequently scores high on the internal locus of control dimension, is an employee or job seeker who believes that they can influence events around them, has a positive effect on employability, so it can be said that Internal locus of control is a good predictor of employability. The second construct, General Self-efficacy (ES= .2876), also displays a moderate and significant relationship with employability, so the conclusion can be drawn that individuals who persist, set higher goals and who believe in their own capabilities and

competence (Berntson, Näswall, & Sverk,2008) so General Self-efficacy is a good predictor of employability. The Individual, that scores high on the construct of Self-esteem, are more assertive and have more self-worth. These individuals who score high on self-esteem have also tend to score higher on employability (ES=.2745) so the hypothesis on this part was also true. The last construct also supports its prediction, that there is a positive and significant relationship between Emotional stability also known as low neuroticism (ES=.2241) and employability. So, it can be concluded that the lower an individual scores on neuroticism, the more an individual is not subjected to feeling negative emotions and don’t respond to

stressors the same as those who do score high, and are less likely to see normal situations as a threat and small frustrations as an obstacle, are also the one who most likely score high on employability. All the four constructs have a positive significant effect on employability, and the research therefore also concludes that Core Self Evaluation must have a positive effect on areas that have been defined as a part of employability. So, the high effect it has on

employability (ES=.3259) in this research is in line with earlier research done by Judge et al (2001). As such it can be said that individuals who score high on Core Self Evaluation, are individuals that have a better view of their selves, feel more in control, and feel worthier, and as a result, score high on employability.

And as the last point, the explorative part of this meta-analysis was to find out if Core Self Evaluation as proposed by Judge et al (1997) about Core Self Evaluation to be a stronger antecedent on job performance and satisfaction or as Hiller et al (2005) said on job find persistence could also be applied on the definition of employability used in this research and that Core Self Evaluation is a stronger antecedent than the other constructs. The score of Core Self Evaluation (ES=.3259) was higher than the other constructs so the statement of Judge et al (1997) can be said is true for the definition of employability as stated in this research. So this is in line with current research that Core Self Evaluations (Tasaret al, 2011, Judge et al, 2007,Baker et al,2011) that it can be used for more than a predictor for job satisfaction, performance and job persistence.

5.2 Theoretical Implications

Due to a broad range of differing definitions surrounding the term employability, there is no clear core concept which delineates the term. This then, has opened up a research gap for this thesis to fill, as the focus of this research was done solely on evaluative traits on

employability. While this was done before by Judge et al. (2001) he only used job

the first meta-analysis that examines whether there is a relationship between Core Self Evaluation and employability, where employability is seen as a “psychosocial construct that embodies individual characteristics that foster adaptive cognition, behavior, and affect, and enhance the individual-work interface” (De Grip et al, 2004 p.15). The growing literature of Core Self Evaluation shows that it is a popular theory, and many researchers consider it a useful measurement, to use a valid predictor of job performance and satisfaction and it has no negative impact on older employees or minority groups (judge et al, 1998).

So this meta-analysis adds knowledge to not only a new and growing pool. So not only does this research add insight into the effect of Core Self Evaluation on employability, it also shows that the evaluative traits might be an antecedent of employability. So the Core Self Evaluation seems to be as mentioned before, a potential base of researching because there might be antecedents of employability because all of the constructs show a significant effect in this research and Core Self Evaluation as a whole does too.

5.3 Practical Implications

The focus of this research was done solely on evaluative traits, as the higher order personality characteristic Core Self Evaluation consist of construct that are evaluative traits. This meta-analysis is an example that shows that the influence of these evaluative traits does not begin when the individual starts working. As mentioned in the introduction the usage of Core Self Evaluation in companies and its core constructs can help employers hire people who are generally more employable. The results in this research shows the value in using Core Self Evaluations for employers to see if their potential hires are persistent (Wanberg, Glomb, Song & Sorenson, 2005). Another argument is that individuals use the information of their own Evaluation to steer certain kind of behavior, such as high neurotic individuals who steers clear of situations where this could play a role. A manager could use Core Self Evaluation to

themselves. So the value of Core Self Evaluation is clear for individuals who are currently job seekers, companies who want to hire personnel who want to move upward or horizontal in the work environment. And individuals who wish to learn more about their own evaluative traits. Another point which came up is that while individuals already have certain evaluative

personality traits and they cannot be trained on those(Sanders et al, 2004), Core Self

Evaluation is rooted in personality and this is difficult to change. While this statement is true, individuals can be trained to understand their shortcomings by seeing in which situations of their work these shortcomings show up. So if a person with external locus of control comes in a situation where he blames people for his own shortcomings a trainer can point these

problems out and train the person to see the situation better. This information is important for companies because if there is a culture within a company which supports development of the individual, the employability of the individual goes up (Johnson et al, 2008).

What might be the biggest practical implication of this research is that the growing research of Core Self Evaluation in combination with the results of this research shows the dominance of the big five personality test commonly used by companies to test the job applicants (John & Srivastava,1999). The big 5 components are not automatically traits in and of themselves, but they are components where many characteristics and closely related traits fit. So the downfall is that the big five has not a solid underlying theory, it is just an empirical find where some core descriptors are clustered together under factor analyses, and so the causes that lay

underneath are still unknown (Eysenck, 1992). Also Block (2010) states that a problem is that researchers continue to have discussions about the understanding of the five factors and cannot consent on these. Block (2010) continued to suggest that observed higher order constructs that are above the big five traits could show deeper understanding. While Block (2010) did not state that Core Self Evaluation was one, Core Self Evaluation is named a higher order construct by multiple researchers.

Another argument to shift to the use the Core Self Evaluation, because the influences of evaluative traits are more direct then the descriptive traits of the big five. The evaluative traits directly influence persons own perceptions and attitudes of the environment. This makes it more effective for the companies that use personality assessment tools to test the job applicants to predict whether they are employable or not.

5.4 Limitations

The main problem of this research is the definition of employability. As mentioned before there was a clear-cut definition of what this research used as a definition for employability. This translates to both the view of employability as a concept and as a search factor for the data used for this meta-analysis. A meta-analysis, while a powerful tool is only as good as the data used. A complete data set would not only include review published studies but also the ones that aren’t published, such as reports by organizations and governments or papers that are presented at conferences. A publication bias is always one of the main concerns of a meta-analysis (Taylor et al,2004) these problems translate themselves into the fact that the published outcomes in academic literature do not always have to be representative of every research available. The way this study gathered the data was mostly through published studies and some conference papers and this could lead to the results having a bias.

The second problem was that, while this was a meta-analysis the size of the project could have been bigger. This Meta-analysis collection of the data has been done by other students of the track the author is following and they all had concerns about the time which was available to gather the data. The author himself also coded data but it was too late to incorporate this into the research itself.

5.5 Recommendation for future research

The logical step after the limitations have been discussed, it should be said that when

individuals want to replicate this thesis, future research should include all studies in the field, including unpublished research in order to avoid the aforementioned publication bias. The studies that remain after the inclusion criteria mentioned in chapter three should be collected by a bigger team than just the three students of the University and should probably also include the authors coding, and more review should be done to make sure that the different coders can be more relied upon. While this thesis is about Core Self Evaluations which

including the four descriptive traits, future research could look into more evaluative traits than the four already in and might add them to Core Self Evaluations to see if scope could broaden. These evaluative traits that score high in relationship to employability, could be a good

starting point if these could possibly score high as an antecedent to employability. If the newly added evaluative traits score high on employability and also score as high as the other four constructs on inter correlation (Judge et al,2001) it could be added to Core Self

Evaluation to five or maybe more lower level constructs.

The research could also be broadened to gain a deeper understanding of evaluative personality traits on employability in more contexts then being used in this thesis. As shown in in this research all low-level constructs and the higher-level order score high on employability, yet more research would be needed to see what drives this effect. The research has been done without any moderators or mediators, so it would make sense that future research would also include different moderators to identify contextual influence on the strength of Core Self Evaluation on employability relationships. The mediators could be used to understand the process and by which means to Core Self Evaluation is related to employability.

The moderators should not only be in the gender of the individual or the country of origin but also between the education of the individuals and the unemployed because a lot of research on

the constructs and Core Self Evaluation has been focused on job searching persistence (Hiller et al, 2005). Another argument for using gender is that there is a minor to medium negative impact to women (Laschinger, Purdy & Almost, 2007)

5.6 Conclusion

One of the first statements in this research was that career paths nowadays aren’t as

predictable as they used to be thanks to contemporary developments, an increase in disruptive technologies and changes which are constantly and rapidly being implemented and applied. Individuals change jobs now more often than they did before, a change that has occurred both horizontally and vertically. This is not only because the individual demands have changed, but also due to changes in the demands of the work environment. In these uncertain times with disruptive technologies it is important that individuals have high levels of employability, so they can stay competitive. Core Self Evaluation can be used both by employers and

individuals to see which evaluative personality traits give them an advantage to stay highly employable. All the constructs show high significance and the higher-level order Core Self Evaluation could be an antecedent of employability. So, it can be concluded that Core Self Evaluation and its constructs show signs of being a predictor of employability.

References

Abrami, P. C., Cohen, P. A., & d’Apollonia, S. (1988). Implementation problems in meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 58(2), 151-179.

Alderlieste, B. (2015). Het Belang van Erkende Kwalificaties voor de Interne en Externe Employability van Werknemers (Master's thesis).

Alicke, M. D. (1985). Global self-evaluation as determined by the desirability and

controllability of trait adjectives. Journal of personality and social psychology, 49(6), 1621. Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, Self‐Efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned Behavior1. Journal of applied social psychology, 32(4), 665-683.

Arthur, M.B. & Rousseau, D.M. (1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era. New York: Oxford University Press.

Baker, M. K., Kennedy, D. J., Bohle, P. L., Campbell, D., Wiltshire, J. H., & Singh, M. A. F. (2011). Core self-evaluation as a predictor of strength training adoption in older

adults. Maturitas, 68(1), 88-93.

Battle, J. (2002). Culture-Free Inventories Examiner’s Manual. (3rd edn.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Beveridge, W.H. (1909). Unemployment: a problem of industry. London: Longmans, Green & Co

Bowling, N. A., Burns, G. N., Stewart, S. M., & Gruys, M. L. (2011). Conscientiousness and agreeableness as moderators of the relationship between neuroticism and counterproductive work behaviors: A constructive replication. International Journal of Selection and

Assessment, 19(3), 320-330.

Bridges, W. P., & Villemez, W. J. (1991). Employment relations and the labor market: Integrating institutional and market perspectives. American Sociological Review, 748-764. Chang, C. H., Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., & Tan, J. A. (2012). Core self-evaluations: A review and evaluation of the literature. Journal of management, 38(1), 81-128. Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new generalized self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62–83

Coetzee, M., & Potgieter, I. L. (2014). The relation of cognitive learning strategies to psychosocial employability attributes amongst black adult learners in the economic and management sciences field. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(1), 1. Coetzee, M. (2008). Psychological career resources and subjective work experiences of working adults: a South African survey. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 34(2), 32–41.

Dacre Pool, L., & Sewell, P. (2007). The key to employability: developing a practical model of graduate employability. Education+ Training, 49(4), 277-289.