Enhancing employability activities through employability
orientation: employability orientation as the underlying mediating
mechanism that links contextual and personal factors to
employability activities.
KAREN VENINGA Student number: 1808737
University of Groningen
Msc, Faculty of Economics and Business, Human Resource Management Spirealaan 62 9741 PD Groningen Telephone number: + 31 623 830 265 E-mail: u.a.g.veninga@student.rug.nl Graduation professors: Prof. Dr. O. Janssen Dr. F. Walter Report November 2010
By order of Fresenius Kabi Ms. A. Renting
HR advisor Runde ZZ 41
ABSTRACT
On account of fast technological changes, the globalization of the economy, and increased customer demand, many organizations need to be more flexible. These developments require that workers need to be increasingly adaptable to changes and able to manage change. Within such a situation workers need to be open minded to changes in their work and able to maintain employable for the organization. Therefore, the aim of this research was to propose and test a research model in which work contextual and personal factors enhance employability activities through employability orientation. Based on findings of previous research, this study focused on three contextual factors (employability culture, development opportunities and career-related supervisory support) and four personal factors (dispositional employability, organizational tenure, job tenure and career stage). Results showed that the main determining factor of employability development was dispositional employability.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ... 4
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES ... 6
The Impact of Contextual Factors on Employability Orientation and Employability Activities . 6 The Impact of Personal Factors on Employability Orientation and Employability Activities .... 9
INTRODUCTION
On account of fast technological changes, the globalization of the economy, and increased customer demand, many organizations need to be more flexible. This applies also for Fresenius Hemocare Netherlands B.V. (FHCN), an international manufacturing company which produces and sells products for fluid and blood volume replacement. Nowadays, their workers have to meet very high requirements: they need to produce increasingly faster and highly efficient. Moreover, within the coming years there will be changes in the production process, because some functions will be mechanized and automated. As a result, some workers will loose their current function and need to fulfill a different function within or outside the organization. These developments at FHCN require from their workers to be increasingly adaptable to changes and able to manage change. Within such a situation workers need to be open minded to changes in their work and able to maintain employable for the organization (Van Dam, 2004). Employees’ willingness to develop themselves and to adapt to changing requirements refers to employability orientation (Nauta, Van Vianen, Van der Heijden, Van Dam & Willemsen, 2009). More specific, employability orientation refers to ‘attitudes of employees towards interventions aimed at increasing the organization’s flexibility through developing and maintaining their employability for the organization’ (Van Dam, 2004, p. 30). Thus, the focus of employability orientation is on the attitude of employees towards personal development and adaptation within their work.
For individuals to actually be or become employable, they need to adapt to changes in their work roles, jobs, or departments, or participate in training and development programs (Van Dam, 2003). By engaging in such employability activities, workers continually develop their knowledge, skills, and abilities, thereby staying employable and attractive in the labor market (Hallier, 2009). Moreover, employability orientation among employees can have a strategic value because it is likely to promote employees’ employability activities which serve the organization’s flexibility (Van Dam, 2004). Thus, a positive employability orientation can be beneficial, for both an organization and its workers, as it stimulates employees to develop themselves and undertake activities which increase their opportunities in the organization`s internal and external labor market.
employability improvement (Van Dam, 2004). By taken this into account the question raises which factors in the person and the work environment influence employees’ employability orientation, and can employability orientation mediate this influence in relation to employees’ employability activities? Finding answers to these questions may give managers the opportunity to take appropriate actions. Van Dam (2004) suggested and found that both individual characteristics (i.e., commitment or tenure) and perceptions of the work situation (i.e., support or training opportunities) are important antecedents of workers’ attitudes toward changes and employability activities. In addition, viewed from a dispositional perspective, Fugate and Kinicki (2008) highlighted that employability may relate to a disposition that consists of several trait-like characteristics such as openness to changes at work, career resilience, and pro-activity.
Taken together, the aim of this research is to propose and test a research model in which work contextual and personal factors enhance employability activities through employability orientation (see figure 1). The concept of employability orientation differs from concepts like those of career commitment (Arnold, 1990) and career motivation (London, 1983, 1993) in an important way. Employability orientation is about attitudes toward interventions and changes that aim to enlarge the organization’s flexibility (Van Dam, 2004). The drive for employee development thus lies in the organization`s goals. In contrast, career motivation and career commitment accentuate the individuals’ ambitions as the starting point for development. However, a relationship may exist as individuals who are more interested in their personal development may also have more positive attitudes towards employability interventions (Van Dam, 2003). In spite of the popularity of the concepts of organizational flexibility and employability, employees’ attitudes toward employability development have received little attention (Cordery et al., 1993; van Dam, 2003, 2004; van den Berg & van der Velde, 2003). As such, this study extends previous research by combining and testing the relative influence of dispositional and work contextual factors and by implicating employability orientation as the underlying mediating mechanism that links these antecedents to employability activities. As such, our model may provide managers with valuable and useful information about how employability activities among employees are related to organizational practices and personal factors.
linkages. Then in the method section information will be given on how the research is executed. Next the findings will be reported in the result section. Finally, a discussion part will address the theoretical and practical implications and provide some recommendation for future research.
FIGURE 1
Conceptual Model of Employability Orientation
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
The Impact of Contextual Factors on Employability Orientation and Employability Activities
The first part of the model concerns the effect of contextual factors on employability activities via employability orientation. Reviews of relevant literature suggested that perceptions of the work environment might affect employability orientation and activities. Therefore, three divergent contextual factors are incorporated into this study to examine their effect on employability orientation and employability activities. The first factor is employability culture, because culture can guide the behavior and attitudes of employees (Schneider, Brief & Guzzo, 1996). Furthermore, development opportunities provided by an organization is included, as organizations may promote a positive employability orientation through the development of its employees. The final contextual factor is career-related supervisory support, since a supervisor is for many employees a very important and influential person within their work environment. It appears that supervisor may influence change-related behavior among employees by providing them with specific career-relevant support (Weisbord, 1976). Below, first explanation of the
contextual factors and their proposed linkages with employability orientation and employability activities will be described.
Organizations can stimulate the employability orientation of their workers by creating a culture that supports development (Schneider, Brief & Guzzo, 1996). Organizational culture refers to the shared values, beliefs, assumptions, and patterns of behavior within an organization (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996). As such, shared values, beliefs, assumptions, and patterns of behavior related to a culture of employability are directed at individuals’ self-development and their adaptation to changing work requirements (Ostroff, 1993). Previous research (Nauta et al., 2009; Ostroff, 1993) has shown that employability culture is significantly related to employability orientation and to work related attitudes and behavior. Furthermore, organizations with an embedded employability culture stimulate employees to develop themselves and to learn new things, inside and outside their jobs (Nauta et al., 2009). On that account, employability culture stimulates employees’ to engage in job changes and development opportunities (Nauta et al., 2009). Moreover, workers react more positively to changes when they perceive that the organizational culture is development oriented (Tierney, 1999; Van Dam, Oreg & Schyns, 2008), because culture is an important contextual component for shaping employee change-related behavior (Litwin & Stringer, 1968; Burke & Lewin, 1992). As such, it is expected that employability culture is positively related to employability orientation. Because, when employability opportunities are part of the organization`s culture employees will feel stimulated to orient themselves on their employability (Nauta et al., 2009).
their value to future employers, but they will also strengthen their current organization (Hallier, 2009).
Hypothesis 1a: Employability culture will be positively related to employability orientation.
Hypothesis 1b: Employability culture will be positively related to employability activities. Hypothesis 1c: The relationship between employability culture and employability activities will be mediated by employability orientation.
Many people desire growth and personal development (Schneider et al., 1996), which can be stimulated by an organization by providing development opportunities. Development opportunities refer to the extent to which the employees’ job provides opportunities to develop knowledge and skills (Noe et al., 1988). Examples of development opportunities are job enrichment, the extent to which a job enhances personal growth and development or an opportunity to follow formal training programs. Workers who take steps to enlarge their skills and knowledge are better able to handle changes than those who keep only skilled in a few things (Howard, 1995) and it makes workers more employable within the firm (Groot & Maasen van den Brink, 2000). On that account, it is expected that development opportunities offered by an organization will increase an individual’s employability orientation. Subsequently, with an increased employability orientation a person will also undertake more employability activities.
Hypothesis 2a: Development opportunities will be positively related to employability orientation.
Hypothesis 2b: Development opportunities will be positively related to employability activities.
Hypothesis 2c: The effect of development opportunities on employability activities will be mediated by employability orientation
their careers and develop themselves (Van Dam, 2004). Such support can consist of career guidance and information, feedback or work activities that promote development (Greenhaus, Parasuraman & Wormley, 1990). By giving support a supervisor can be very influential and stimulate the employability orientation and development activities of their subordinates (Noe et al., 1993). Therefore, it is expected that a positive relationship exist between career-related supervisory support and employability orientation, which in turn promotes employability activities. On that account, it is expected that career-related supervisory support is positively related to employability activities through employability orientation.
Hypothesis 3a: Career-related supervisory support will be positively related to employability orientation.
Hypothesis 3b: Career-related supervisory support will be positively related to employability activities.
Hypothesis 3c: The effect of career-related supervisory support on employability activities will be mediated by employability orientation.
The Impact of Personal Factors on Employability Orientation and Employability Activities
Dispositional employability refers to ‘individual characteristics that foster adaptive behaviors at work and positive employment outcomes’ (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008). In order to be adaptable at work there are several requirements: individual differences that foster adaptive behavior, and the ability to learn and change to meet demands (Ashford & Taylor, 1990). Dispositional employability is a multidimensional construct and manifests itself in openness to changes at work, work and career resilience, work and career pro-activity, career motivation, optimism at work, and work identity (these dimensions will be described in detail below). Dispositional employability relates to active adaptability at work and comprises both reactive and proactive personal characteristics (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008). Fugate and Kinicki (2008, p. 505) explain that ‘in addition to the ability to adapt reactively to known demands, employable people tend to have a perpetual readiness for change’. So, people not only engage in their job in order to meet the demands of the organization but they also pro-actively create and realize opportunities for themselves. On that account, dispositional employability facilitates a proactive orientation towards adaptability. In other words, dispositional employability supports an individuals’ employability orientation.
This study will focus on the composite variable of dispositional employability, because research has shown that the six dimensions of dispositional employability are inter-related (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008) and that the dimensions together are additive to dispositional employability. Nevertheless, to obtain better understanding of the concept each dimension of dispositional employability and their proposed influence towards employability orientation and employability activities will be discussed.
Work and career resilience is the ability to adapt effectively to changing work and career circumstances, even when circumstances are discouraging (Day & Allen, 2004). It includes openness to job and organizational changes, looking forward to working with new and different people, having self-confidence and being willing to take risks (London, 1993). Resilient employees are optimistic (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik & Welbourne, 1999) and have the ability to recover quickly from change. Resilient individuals have also positive expectations about the future (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992). Thus, workers who own work and career resilience are likely to sense opportunities in their work and consider job changes as a challenge and opportunity to learn, and thereby enhancing their employability orientation.
Work and career pro-activity refers to a pro-active career orientation, both within and outside a persons’ current organization, which may affect their job and career opportunities (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008). Employees with this characteristic often obtain information related to their personal career interest (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008), like acquiring information about job alternatives. By gathering such information, work and career pro-activity supports identification and realization of career opportunities, which should promote a positive employability orientation.
Career motivation refers to ‘individuals who make specific career plans and strategies’ (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008). Career motivation applies motivation theory to understand career plans, behaviors and decisions (London, 1993). It builds on the concept of learning goal orientation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). A learning orientation at work facilitates planning for an employee’s future, aspires learning and training opportunities (Cron, Slocum, Vandewalle & Fu, 2005), and a willingness to change (Ames & Archer, 1988). London (1983) has found that career motivation influences career decision and behaviors, because people cognitively combine information to determine alternatives (i.e another work assignment or job) and then direct their behavior in a way most likely to derive those alternatives (Staw, 1981). Another research (Noe, Noe, & Buchhaber, 1990) has shown that career motivation was significantly related to career-related decision making and career success Thus, individuals with career motivation tend to make career plans, take control of their own career management and set goals (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008). On that account, individuals with career motivation are more employability oriented.
challenge (Fugate et al., 2004). In other words, a learning experience that is intrinsically valuable for a person (Stokes, 1996, p76). Individuals who are optimistic have positive expectations about future events and show confidence in their ability to handle challenges (Peterson, 2000). Optimistic workers will view career changes as a challenge. Thus, optimism supports an adaptive career orientation and foster employability orientation (Fugate et al., 2004).
The final dimension of dispositional employability is work identity, that is, the extent that a person defines himself by their work (Day & Allen, 2004). People who define themselves as employable show behaviors consistent with this self-view (Ashforth & Fugate, 2001, in: Fugate & Kinicki, 2008) and will affect personal goals. Research has shown (Fugate et al., 2004) that work identities directs and regulates career-related efforts and support employability interventions.
To conclude, dispositional employability is a constellation of individual differences that facilitates proactive behavior towards adaptability, specific to work and careers (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008). Therefore, it is expected that dispositional employability has a positive relationship with employability orientation which, in its turn, promotes employability activities.
Hypothesis 4a: Dispositional employability will be positively related to employability orientation.
Hypothesis 4b: Dispositional employability will be positively related to employability activities.
Hypothesis 4c: The effect of dispositional employability on employability activities will be mediated by employability orientation.
orientation and activities. Furthermore, organizational tenure has been found to negatively relate to development activities (Kozlowsky & Hults, 1987) and the willingness to accept job mobility activities (Landau & Hammer, 1986). Because, the longer an employee has remained in an organization the less positive attitudes he will have toward participating in employability interventions and job changes (Van Dam, 2003).
Hypothesis 5a: Organizational tenure and job tenure will be negatively related to employability orientation.
Hypothesis 5b: Organizational tenure and job tenure will be negatively related to employability activities.
Hypothesis 5c: The effect of organizational tenure and job tenure on employability activities will be mediated by employability orientation.
The final personal-related factor of this study is career stage. Career stages are ‘job sequences or career patterns that individuals pass through during the course of their working lives’ (Super, 1957). A three-stage career pattern of Slocum and Cron (1985) is feasible; the initial career stage (age 25-30), individuals in advancement stage (age 31-44), and the maintenance stage (age 45-65). During the initial stage (trial stage) individuals are interested in exploring different types of jobs and evaluating their personal competences in different areas. Therefore, it is likely that employees during this stage are more employability oriented and undertake more activities to be employable. The next career stage (31-44) is characterized by more establishments in a job. Mostly, these employees have build up more experience in their job and have invested more time in completing firm specific training. So, during this stage the employability orientation and activities of an individual will decrease. On that account, their willingness to accept any kind of work change will decrease because an employee derives fewer benefits from changing a job (Schniper, 2005). Within the final career stage, work involvement and motivation in general of employees decreases. It is expected that also their employability orientation decreases and therefore their employability activities also decreases.
Hypothesis 6c: The effect of career stage on employability activities will be mediated by employability orientation.
METHOD
Procedure
The study took place at the manufacturing company Fresenius HemoCare Netherlands B.V. (FHCN). Their product portfolio includes a broad range of infusion technologies as well as disposables for the delivery of medication for all pharmaceuticals administered via the vein. The company also provides the transfusion technology blood banks and blood donation units use to produce blood products. FHCN is located all over the world, and the headquarter is located in Germany. The organization where the research was carried out is located in Emmer-Compascuum and has about 550 employees.
The target population of this study were the manufacturing workers of FHCN. These workers were informed by their supervisor about the study and asked to fill in a questionnaire. Participation was voluntary and individual confidentiality of responses was emphasized. In order to increase the response rate, respondents received a voucher of €10,- if they handed in the questionnaire. The questionnaire contained of 62 questions. The first part of the questionnaire contained some general questions, whereas the second part contained questions about employability orientation, employability culture, training opportunities, career-related supervisory support, dispositional employability, organizational and job tenure, career stage and employability activities.
Respondents
of job tenure between 6 and 10 years, 15% between 11 and 15 years, 7% between 16 and 20 years and finally 17% had a length of job tenure of 21 years or longer.
Measures
Employability culture was measured using six items (e.g., ‘My organization encourages employees to broaden their skills’) developed by Nauta et al. (2009). A 7-point response scale was used with 1= ‘totally disagree’ to 7 = ‘totally agree’. Cronbach`s alpha was .73
Development opportunities was measured using 4 items (e.g., ‘I learn new thing in my work’) from a Dutch scale developed and validated by Van Veldhoven and Meijman (1994). The response format was a 7-point scale ranging from 1= ‘totally disagree’ to 7 = ‘totally agree’. Cronbach`s alpha was .80
To measure career related supervisory support, nine items assessing career related supervisory support were taken from Greenhaus et al., (1990) (e.g., ‘My supervisor keeps me informed about different career opportunities for me in the organization’; ‘My supervisor cares about whether or not I achieve my career goals’). The respondents answered the items on a 7-point scale with 1= ‘totally disagree’ to 7 = ‘totally agree’. Cronbach`s alpha was .94
Dispositional employability was measured using the 25-item scale developed and validated by Fugate and Kinicki (2008). The response format was a 7-point response scale ranging from 1 = ‘totally disagree’ to 7 = ‘totally agree’. Regarding the specific dimensions, openness to changes at work was measured with five items (e.g., ‘I feel changes at work generally have positive implications’), work and career resilience also measured with five items (e.g., ‘I am optimistic about my future career opportunities’), work and career pro activity with three items (e.g., ‘I stay abreast of development in my company’), career motivation with three items (e.g., ‘I have a specific plan for achieving my career goals’), optimism at work with three items (e.g., ‘In uncertain times I usually expect the best’), and work identity with six items (e.g., ‘I am involved in my work’). Cronbach`s alpha for the composite variable was .89
Tenure, both job and organizational, were measured using a five point scale with 1 = ‘≤ 5’ to 5 = ‘ ≥ 21’. Career stage was determined by the age time frame established by Slocum and Cron (1985). Career stage was coded as ‘1’ if participants were 30 years old or less, ‘2’ if they were between 31 and 45 years old, and ‘3’ if they were 46 years or older.
response format was a 5 point scale with the anchors 1 = ‘I strongly disagree’ to 5 = ‘I strongly agree’. Cronbach`s alpha was .79
Employability activities were measured using four items (e.g., ‘I make sure to be informed about internal job vacancies’) from the research by Van Dam (2004). A 7-point scale was used with 1 = ‘totally disagree’ to 7 = ‘totally agree’. Cronbach`s alpha was .78
Data Analyses
To research how contextual and personal factors influences employability activities through employability orientation, different types of data analysis were applied with the statistical program SPSS. First a correlation analysis was conducted to provide insight in the strength and direction of the correlations between the variables. Next to that, a multiple regression analyses were applied to test the relations between the independent variables (contextual and personal related factors), the mediator (employability orientation) and the dependent variable (employability activities). To test for the mediating effects, three sets of analyses were performed (cf. Baron & Kenny, 1986). In the first regression analysis we tested the effect of the independent variables on the mediating variable of employability orientation, that is, we tested separately the effects of the contextual and personal factors on employability orientation. In the second regression analysis we separately tested the effects of the contextual and personal factors on the dependent variable of employability activities. In the third and final regression analysis we tested the complete mediation model. It was tested whether the independent variables affect the dependent variable through the mediator of employability orientation. Within each regression analysis two control variables were included, namely gender and educational level. When the regression analysis showed a mediation effect a complementary analysis, the Sobel test (Sobel, 1982), was executed. The Sobel test performs a statistical test to see if the indirect path from the independent variable to the dependent variable is significantly different from zero.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
contextual factors. Remarkable is that significant positive relationships were found between development opportunities and dispositional employability (r = .26, p = < .05) and between career-related supervisory support and dispositional employability (r = .48, p = < .01), while no relationships were expected between these variables. No significant correlations were found between the contextual factors and employability orientation, whereas significant positive relationships were expected between these variables. Finally, a significant positive relationship was found between dispositional employability and employability orientation (r = .35, p = < .01) and with employability activities (r = .55, p = < .01). The other personal factors had no significant relationships with employability orientation or with employability activities.
Regression Analyses
Contextual factors.Table 2 presents the results of the multiple regression analyses. First,
a regression analysis is executed on the contextual factors to test their relationship with employability orientation. The second analysis tested the effect of the contextual factors on employability activities. The third and final analysis tested whether the effect of the contextual factors on employability activities diminishes or disappears after employability orientation is included in a third block in the regression analysis.
The results of table 2 show that not one of the contextual factors has a significant relationship with employability orientation. Hypothesis 1a, 2a and 3a were not supported; because employability culture, development opportunities and career-related supervisory support were all not significantly related to employability orientation. It was not specified which of the control variables would be significantly related to employability orientation. However, both control variables do not significantly influence employability orientation.
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of the Variables
TABLE 2
Results of Regression Analyses Testing the Mediation Model in which Employability Orientation Mediates the Relationship between Contextual Factors and Employability Activities
Employability Orientation Employability Activities
Model and variables entered 1 2 1 2 3
Control variables Gender .04 .01 -.35* -.47** -.47** Education -.02 -.02 .04 .08 .08 Contextual factors Employability culture -.02 .00 .01 Development opportunities .04 .06 .04
Career-related supervisory support .12 .52** .47**
TABLE 3
Results of Regression Analyses Testing the Mediation Model in which Employability Orientation Mediates the Relationship between Personal Factors and Employability Activities
Employability Orientation Employability Activities
Model and variables entered 1 2 1 2 3
Furthermore, as employability culture, development opportunities, and career-related supervisory support are not related to employability orientation no evidence is found for hypothesis 1c, 2c and 3c predicting that the relationships between these contextual factors and employability activities are mediated by employability orientation.
Personal factors.First the multiple regression analysis is executed on the personal factors
to test their relationship with employability orientation. The second analysis tested the effect of the personal factors on employability activities. The third and final analysis tested whether the effect of the personal factors on employability activities diminishes or disappears after employability orientation is included in a third block in the regression analysis. The results are presented in table 3.
The results of table 3 show that, of the personal factors, only dispositional employability has a significant relationship with employability orientation (b = .23, p = < .01). This provides evidence that supports hypothesis 4a. Hypothesis 5a and 6a were not supported; organizational and job tenure and career stage were both not significantly related to employability orientation. It was not specified which of the control variables would be significantly related to employability orientation. However, both control variables do not significantly influence employability orientation.
Hypothesis 4b, concerning the relationship between dispositional employability and employability activities, was supported. We found a significant positive relationship (b = .75, p = <.01). Furthermore, a significant negative relationship is found between job tenure and employability activities (b = -.23, p = < .05). This provides evidence that partly supports hypothesis 5b, because it was expected that organizational tenure and job tenure both had a significant negative relationship with employability activities. Furthermore, we found no support for hypothesis 6b; career stage was not significantly related to employability activities. It was not specified which of the control variables would be significantly related to employability activities. However, we found that gender has a significant negative relationship with employability activities (b. -.47, p = < .01).
is equal to 1.19, with standard error 0.05. The statistical significance is equal to 0.004. This provides evidence that supports hypothesis 4b. Finally, no evidence is found for hypothesis 5c and 6c; the effect of organizational and job tenure and career stage on employability activities is not mediated by employability orientation.
DISCUSSION
The aim of this research was to propose and test a research model in which work contextual and personal factors enhance employability activities through employability orientation. The main question of this research was: ‘which factors in the person and the work environment influence employees’ employability orientation, and can employability orientation mediate this influence in relation to employees’ employability activities?’. Based on findings of previous research, this study focused on three contextual factors (employability culture, development opportunities and career-related supervisory support) and four personal factors (dispositional employability, organizational tenure, job tenure and career stage). Results of this research should lead to a better insight in how employability activities among employees is related to organizational practices and personal factors. Knowledge of influencing factors and outcomes of employability orientation should help organizations to better understand employees’ reactions to changes in the work situation.
Findings
The results supported the prediction that a positive relationships would exist between dispositional employability and employability orientation and between dispositional employability and employability activities. Moreover, the effect of dispositional employability on employability activities was mediated by employability orientation. Thus, employees who have individual characteristics that foster adaptive behaviors at work are more employability oriented and therefore more willing to undertake development activities. This finding suggests that, workers that posses the individual traits of dispositional employability will be able to identify and realize opportunities within the internal and external work environment (Fugate, 2006). The results also showed a significant positive relationship between career-related supervisory support and employability activities, although the relationship between career-related supervisory support and employability orientation was not found. Other studies also found that organizations can influence employability activities by supporting workers in their careers (Birdi et al., 1997; van Dam 2003, 2004). This finding suggests that, by offering career-related supervisory support, organizations can support their workers to perform necessary activities for enhancing their employability. In addition, the results of the correlation analyses showed a significant positive relation between development opportunities and employability activities, however, this relation was not confirmed by the regression analysis. Finally, the regression results did show that a negative relationship exists between job tenure and employability activities. This finding indicates the longer employees’ remain in a job the less interest they will show in employability development.
mediates the relationship of contextual factors, tenure (both organizational and job), and career stage with employability activities.
Theoretical Implications
A new model of employability orientation and activities and its antecedents was developed, to give insight in the process by which employability orientation might be influenced. We tried to provide new insights about how employability activities among employees are related to organizational practices and personal factors. We focused on employees` attitudes toward developing and maintaining their employability, in order to enhance the organizations flexibility. In spite of the popularity of the concepts of organizational flexibility and employability, employees’ attitudes toward employability development have received little attention (Cordery et al., 1993; van Dam, 2003, 2004; van den Berg & van der Velde, 2003). Besides taking the viewpoint from the organization, we also focused on employability from the individual perspective. Other studies mainly focused on demographic variables, like age or tenure. We also paid attention to the psychological variable of dispositional employability. In this study dispositional employability was measured in terms of individual characteristics that foster active adaptability at work. We add to the literature by demonstrating the positive impact of dispositional employability on employability development. These implications suggest that individuals who are willing to develop their own employability will react positively to interventions aimed at increasing organizational flexibility.
Practical Implications
pro-activity, career motivation, optimism at work, and work identity - of dispositional employability. Adaptable individuals are better able to change personal behavior to meet the demands of the situation (Ashford & Taylor, 1990). This finding has several implications for organizations and managers who want to enhance the employability of their workers. First of all, managers should create awareness by their subordinates that they have responsibilities for managing their own career. Within today`s turbulent environment the employer-employee relationship has changed. We live in a world that constantly changes, in which employees should continually update their knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA). There will be no career when one is not employable. Thus, managers should stimulate and motivate their employees to develop themselves by providing personal feedback.
Like said before, the six characteristic of dispositional employability are essential in order to be or become employable. Employees could be trained to get aware and use with the six individual characteristics of dispositional employability. It should be acknowledged that it is hard to change an individual’s personality. However, employees could be trained to get aware of their strengths and limitations. Individuals will learn important information about themselves and their career prospects (Fugate, 2006). Individuals will invent and evaluate their personal career interest, for instance what are desirable characteristics of a job. Those person`s are likely to identify opportunities better that are consistent with and motivated by their career identities (Fugate, 2006). Within large organizations it is recommend to first train those group of employees who needed most.
Moreover, when organizations have to recruit personnel they can select individual`s who possess the personal characteristics of dispositional employability. Furthermore, organizations can provide career advice to their employees. If an organization want to implement career advice, there are several demands for such a policy (Sels & de Winne, 2005): career advice has to discuss the aim and direction of the career, with attention for self-examination; career advice should be interactive; it should lead to obtaining new KSA`s; and career advice should have a time perspective.
development will reduce external labor market chances even more. However, our finding suggested that a supervisor could play an important role in employability development by paying attention to their employees` career preferences and by providing development support. For example, a supervisor can encourage their employees to work on their career and personal development by giving information about job openings or by providing feedback. By doing so, organizations will be better able to align organizational and individual needs and objectives.
Limitations
Despite the contributions of this research, it is suitable to mention the limitations. For this study all the data have been gathered from one and the same source. Using one source of information may have caused common-method bias (Doty & Glick, 1998). For future research it is recommended to use more sources, like supervisor assessment, because it has been found that supervisors and employees differ regarding employability and development issues (Van der Heide & Van der Heiden, 2006). Moreover, employability orientation was investigated within one organization only, which may limit the generalization of our results. Therefore, it is important for future research to also study organizational characteristics, because research has shown that human resource practices (Tsui, Pearce, Porter & Tripoli, 1997) are related to employability and mobility activities. The final limitation of our study is the low number of respondents.
Future Research
REFERENCES
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.
Arnold, J. (1990). Predictors of career commitment. A test of three theoretical models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 285-302.
Ashforth, B.E., & Fugate, M. (2001). Role transition and the life-span. In: Fugate, M. & Kinicki, A.J. 2008. A dispositional approach to employability: development of a measure and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational change. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 503-527.
Ashford, S.J., & Taylor, M.S. (1990). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24, 19-36. Aspinwall, L.G., & Taylor, S.E. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation: A longitudinal
investigation of the impact of individual differences and coping on college adjustment and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 989-1003.
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator – mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job-performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Birdi, K., Allan, C., & Warr, P. (1997). Correlates and perceived outcomes of four types of employee development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 845-857.
Brett, J.M., & Reilly, A.H. (1988). On the road: Predicting the job transfer decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(4), 614-628.
Burke, W.W., & Litwin, G.H. (1992). A causal model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18, 523-45.
Carey, M. (1990). Occupational tenure, employer tenure and occupational mobility. Occupational outlook quarterly, 34(2)
Cordery, J., Sevastos, P., Mueleer, W., & Parker, S. (1993). Correlates of employee attitudes toward functional flexibility. Human Relations, 46, 705-723.
negative emotions and goal setting when initial performance falls short of one’s performance goal. Human Performance, 18, 55-80.
Day, R., & Allen, T.D. (2004). The relationship between career motivation and self-efficacy with protégé career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 72-91.
Doty, D.H., & Glick, w.H. (1998). Common method bias: Does common methods variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1, 374-406.
Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Forbes, J.B. (1987). Early intra-organizational mobility: Patterns and influences. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 110-125.
Fourage, D. C., Grim, G., Kerkhofs, M., Román, A., & Wilthagen, T. (2004). Trendrapport aanbod van arbeid 2003. Tilburg: Organisatie voor Strategisch Arbeidsmarktonderzoek. Fugate, M. (2006). Employability in the new millenium. In J.H. Greenhaus & G.A. Callanan
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Career Development. SAGE
Fugate, M., & Kinicki, A.J. (2008). A dispositional approach to employability: development of a measure and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational change. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 503-527.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A.J., & Ashford, B.E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applicants. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 14-38.
Fugate, M., Kinicki, A.J. & Ashford, B.E. 2004. Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applicants. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 14-38.
Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W.M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences, job performance evaluations and career outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33(1), 64-86.
Griffith, R.W., Hom, P.W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the
millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463-488.
Groot, W., & Maassen van den Brink, H. (2000). Education, training and employability. Applied Economics, 32, 573-581.
Hall, D.T. (1996). Proteen careers of the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 8- 16.
Hallier, J. (2009). Rhetoric but whose reality? The influence of employability messages on employee mobility tactics ad work group identification. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(4), 846-868.
Holbecke, L. (1995). Peering into the future of careers. People Management, 31, 26-28.
Howard, A. (1995) The Changing Nature of Work Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA: in Hallier, J. (2009). Rhetoric but whose reality? The influence of employability messages on employee mobility tactics ad work group identification. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(4), 846-868.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 107-122.
Kozlowsky, S.W. & Hults, B.M. 1987. An exploration of climates for technical updating and performance. Personnel Psychology, 40, 539-563.
Landau, J., & Hammer, T.V. (1986). Clerical employees’ perceptions of intra organizational career opportunities. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 385-404.
Littler, C.R., Wiesner, R., & Dunford, R. (2003). The dynamics of delayering: Changing management structures in three countries. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 225-256. Litwin, G.H., & Stringer, R.A. Jr. (1968). Motivation and Organizational Climate: in Tierney, P.
1999. Work relations as a precursor to a psychological climate for change: The role of work group supervisors and peers. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 120-133.
London, M. (1983). Toward a theory of career motivation. Academy of Management Review, 8, 620-630.
London, M. (1993). Relationships between career motivation, empowerment and support for career development. Journal of Occupational and Behavioral Psychology, 66, 55-69. McCartt, A.T., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1995). Managerial openness to change and the introduction of
GDSS: Explaining the initial success and failure in decision conferencing. Organization Science, 5, 569-584.
219.
Miller, V.D., Johnson, J.R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 59-80. Miller, A. (1978). Relocation: When employees say no. Personnel, 43-45.
Nauta, A., van Vianen, A., van der Heijden, B., van Dam, K., & Willemsen, M. (2009).
Understanding the factors that promote employability orientation: The impact of employability culture, career satisfaction, and role breath self-efficacy. Journal of Occupational Psycholoy, 82, 233-251.
Ng, T.W.H., Sorensen, K.L., Eby. T.L., & Feldman, D.C. (2007). Determinants of job mobility: A theoretical integration and extension. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 363-386.
Noe, R.A. (1987). Career and job attitudes and participation in mentoring relationships: A career stage analysis. Unpublished manuscript.
Noe, R. A., & Barber, A. E. (1993). Willingness to accept mobility opportunities: Destination makes a difference. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14: 159-175.
Noe, R. A., Noe, A. W., & Bachhuber, J. A. (1990). An investigation of the correlates of career motivation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 340-356.
Noe, R.A., Steffy, B.D., & Barber, A.E. (1988). An investigation of the factors influencing employees willingness to accept mobility opportunities. Personnel Psychology, 41, 559-580.
O`Reilly, C.A., & Chatman, J.A. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults and commitment. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 157-200.
Ostroff, C. (1993). The effects of climate and personal influences on individual behavior and attitudes in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processess, 56, 56-90.
Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American Psychologist, 55, 44-55
Rabinowitz, S., & Hall, D.T. (1977). Organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 265-288.
Schneider, B., Brief, A.P., & Guzzo, R.A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 6-9.
Seibert, S.E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M.L. (1999). Proactive personality and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416-427.
Sels, L. & de Winne, S. (2005). HRM in breedbeeld: Een toetsing van retoriek aan realiteit. Leuven: uitgeverij Acco.
Slocum, J.W., & Cron, W.L. (1985). Job attitudes and performance during three career stages. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 126-145.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1982 (pp. 290-312).
Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
Stokes, S.L. (1996). Managing your I.S. career: Coping with change at the top. Information System Management, 13(1), 76-78.
Staw, B.M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a course of action. Academy of Management Review, 6, 577-587.
Super, D. E. (1957). The Psychology of Careers, Harper and Row, New York.
Sutton, S. (1998). Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: How well are we doing? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1317-1338.
Tharenou, P. (1997). Managerial career advancement. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12, 39-93.
Tierney, P. (1999). Work relations as a precursor to a psychological climate for change: The role of work group supervisors and peers. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 120-133.
Trevelyan, R. (2008). Optimism, overconfidence and entrepreneurial activity. Management Decision, 46 (7), 986-1001.
Tsui, A.S., Pearce, J.L., Porter, L.W., & Tripoli, A.M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee – organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1089-1121.
Valverde, M. Tregaskis, )., & Brewster, C. (2000). Labor flexibility and firm performance. International Advances in Economic Research, 6 (4), 649-661.
Van Dam, K. (2003). Understanding experts’ attitudes towards functional flexibility. International Journal of Human Development and Management, 3, 138-154.
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 29-51.
Van Dam, K., Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. (2008). Daily work contexts and resistance to
organizational change: The role of leader-member exchange, development climate, and change process characteristics. Applied psychology, An International Review, 57, 313-334.
Van den Berg, P.T., & van der Velde, M. (2003). Functional flexibility of employees:
Relationships with personal and perceived work factors. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Van der Heijde, C.M., & Van der Heijden, B.I.J.M. (2006). A competence-based and
multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability. Human Resource Management, 45(3), 449-476.
Van Veldhoven, M., & Meijman, T. (1994). Het meten van psychosociale arbeidsbelasting (The measurement of psychosocial job demands). Amsterdam: NIA.
Weisbord, M.R. (1976). Organizational diagnosis: six places to look for trouble without a theory. Group and Organization Studies, 1, 430-447.
