The big five personality traits and employability : a meta-analysis

(1)

The Big Five Personality Traits and Employability:

A Meta-analysis

A. Izekor (10873430)

University of Amsterdam

Faculty of economics and Business

Department: Leadership & Management

MSc Business Administration

Specialisation – Leadership and Management Academic year: 2015-2016

Supervisor: Stefan T. Mol and Sofija Pajic Amsterdam, June 24th_{, 2016}

(2)

1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to offer my sincere gratitude to my supervisors, Stefan T. Mol and Sofija Pajic. They were a great support and guide throughout the whole thesis process. Without their initiatives, knowledge and full support, I would not have had such a tremendous learning experience of conducting a meta-analysis. It was a great privileged working with and learning from them.

Also, I use this opportunity to express my appreciation towards my fellow team members, who were involved in the meta-analysis project: Kirsten de Haas, Gian lee, Leroy Klein and Joao Pedro Diogo. Your dedication, support and knowledge were of great value in pushing the project forward. A special thanks to Gian Lee, who also took time to supported me with setting up my SPSS dataset.

(3)

2 STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

This document is written by Angel Izekor, who declares to take full responsibility for the content of this document.

I declare that the text and the work present 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 and completion of the work, not for the contents.

(4)

3

Employability is not only of concern to individual, but also to organisations and the economy at large, especially in todays’ volatile and knowledge driven economy (cf. Brown, Hesketh, & Wiliams, 2003; Hillage, Pollard, & others, 1998). Employability research has long been used to inform public policy, including education and employment policy (Hillage, Pollard, & others, 1998).

More than 40 years ago, employability was originally regarded as important for graduates and the unemployed, and to make the labour market more inclusive for disadvantaged groups (Feintuch, 1955). However, today, employability is critical in dealing with the changing dynamics of individual career (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Hall, 2002). With rapid technological changes, global trade competition and on-going government deregulation of industries, the labour market condition is in constant state of flux, and organisations are prone to prompt restructuring, layoff, delayering and downsizing (Hesketh, 1999; Worrall, Parkes, & Cooper, 2004). Employees, on the other hand, need to ensure that they remain employable to both current and prospective employers (Van der Heijde & Van der Heijden, 2006). Consequently, employability has recently attracted renewed interest as a way to secure sustainable employment against volatile economic realities. This has led to a proliferation of studies on employability studies, attesting to the importance of employability for both the employed and unemployed (Thijssen, Van der Heijden, & Rocco, 2008) and in both the internal and the external labour market (Rothwell & Arnold, 2007). However, with a large number of studies, from different perspectives and different levels

(individual, organisations, economy), there are sometimes conflicting findings. As a result, it is difficult to gain an overview of the state of art.

In the past, employability studies have mainly focused on human capital attributes and demographic factors (Wille, De Fruyt, & Feys, 2013). However, employability is not only determined by the knowledge, skills, and abilities an individual possesses, but also requires other latent, higher-order personality trait that facilitates an individual’s ability to adapt to changing work environment and career patterns

(Fugate et al., 2004). This means that in addition to one’s ability to adapt reactively to demands that are known, through the development of human capital skills,

(7)

6

employable individuals possess the inherent personality traits that allow them to have a continuous readiness for change in the internal or external labour market (Ashford & Taylor, 1990). Consequently, more recent work has started to address the

dispositional nature of employability. Much research has been done on the

relationship between proactive personality and employability (Williams et al., 2015), and has even triggered a meta-analyses on the topic (Fuller & Marler, 2009; Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010). Likewise, the Big Five personality trait has become a frequently examined typology of personality in the field of organisational behaviour, due to their effects on job performance (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991) and job

satisfaction (e.g. Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998). Investigating the big five personality traits and employability is crucial, because today’s turbulent work environments make examining personality traits (as other dispositional approach) relevant. The constant change inherent in the workplace, as well as in the external labour market is symptomatic of high levels of uncertainty (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008), and individual dispositions are more likely to come to the fore and considerably influence behaviours and performance (Mischel, 1977).

However, to our knowledge, there is currently no meta-analysis with specific focus on examining the relationship between each of the big five personality traits and employability. A meta-analysis is important, because a critical review and

synthesis of a body of research can play an important role in construct development and theory building (Reichers & Schneider, 1990). In the employability arena, this would be especially useful given the large number of studies, often with inconsistent findings across individual studies (cf. Williams et al., 2015; Forrier & Sels., 2003).

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to examine the relationship between the Big Five personality trait and employability, and controls for both sampling and

measurement errors.

The main research question that will be addressed is: How do the Big Five

personality traits associate with employability? The study aims to advance

employability research on depositional traits, and to contribute to careers and organisational behaviour literature.

(8)

7 Literature review

This chapter discusses the most relevant findings from the current literature on the Big Five personality traits and employability. First, it provides a theoretical foundation of the employability concept and how the Big Five personality traits may be an

important antecedent of employability. Next, the chapter develops hypotheses pertaining to the relationship between the Big Five traits and employability, and in concluding the chapter a research model is presented, graphically illustrating the stated hypotheses.

History of employability

The term employability started to emerge in both scientific and professional publications in 1955 (Feintuch, 1955). During this period employability was

essentially used in contexts that involved those who were new to the labour market (e.g. students) or those who had physical challenges in securing employment (e.g. the handicapped). Once employed with a company, the likelihood to remain

employed with the company for a very long time, if not until retirement, was rather high (Hall & Hall, 1976; Orr, 1973). Cultural norms within many organisations (if not all) were lifetime employment and job security for employees (Orr, 1973).

Consequently, the employed developed and realised their career within a single or a limited number of organisation(s) ( cf. Arthur & Rousseau, 2001; DeFillippi & Arthur, 1994; Fugate et al., 2004). Also, the company determined employees’ career growth, which mostly took the form of promotion and higher pay. By 1976, Hall & Hall

speculated on a transformation from the bounded career to a protean career (Hall & Hall, 1976). This means that the person, not the organisation, is in charge of

managing his or her career progression (DeFillippi & Arthur, 1994; Gunz, Evans, Jalland, & others, 2000). The protean career centres on psychological success

resulting from the self-management of one’s career. Here, the underlying assumption is that the protean career is primarily driven by personal-values or self-directed choices that may or may not result in inter- or intra-organisational mobility (Briscoe, Hall, & DeMuth, 2006; Sullivan & Arthur, 2006). The boundarlyless career, another

(9)

8

concept that explains the changing career landscape, is very similar to the protean career. However, it is predominantly centred on both physical and psychological mobility, within and across organisations (Briscoe et al., 2006; Sullivan & Arthur, 2006). Physical mobility refers to movements between jobs, industries, and/or employers. Psychological mobility, on the other hand, refers to the capacity to make the transition as perceived by the career actor ( Arthur & Rousseau, 1996). This means that human needs and priorities change over time, and this consequently influences career choices made at any point in time. These transformations in career patterns were partly the result of the rapid revolution that started to take place within organisations during the 1970s. The post-war baby boomers wanted freedom of choice at work and wanted to regain control of their lives and career plans (Hall & Hall, 1976). Inherent to the concept of the protean (Hall & Hall, 1976), and

boundryless career (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; DeFillippi & Arthur, 1994) is

employees’ ability to adapt to changes if one was to become successful career-wise. Moreover, rapid technological changes, global trade competition and on-going government deregulation of industry contributes to the volatility of a nation’s

economic condition, including that of the labour market (Hesketh, 1999, 2000;

Worrall et al., 2004). In reaction to these current economic realities, corporations are prone to prompt restructuring, layoff, delayering and downsizing. Employees, on the other hand, need to adapt to the changing economy and ensure that they remain employable to both current and prospective employers (Van der Heijde & Van der Heijden, 2006). Consequently, employability has recently attracted renewed interest as a way to secure sustainable employment against volatile economic realities. This has led to a proliferation of studies on employability, attesting to the importance of employability for both the employed and unemployed (Thijssen, Van der Heijden, & Rocco, 2008) and in both the internal and the external labour market (Rothwell & Arnold, 2007). Consequently, the conceptualisation of employability is a multifaceted concept studied from different perspectives (e.g. contextual vs. individual) and at different levels (individual, organisational and industrial). While some scholars see employability as an outcome in terms of person's subjective or objective chances to acquire a job on the labour market (e.g. Berntson, 2008; Fugate & Kinicki, 2008; Fugate et al., 2004; Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006; Hillage et al., 1998), others have

(10)

9

focused on employability as a set of individual and contextual antecedents of sustainable employment (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008; Fugate et al., 2004; Hillage et al., 1998; Thijssen et al., 2008; Van der Heijde & Van der Heijden, 2005; Williams, Dodd, Steele, & Randall, 2015). As a result the debate on employability lacks clarity and has become a confusing professional buzzword (Thijssen, Van der Heijden, & Rocco, 2008). This being the case, insights from different studies is hard to integrate into a comprehensive and internally consistent picture of the state of art. The following section addresses some conceptual issues in redefining employability and the research gap in employability research that will be addressed in this meta-analysis.

Definition of employability

There are numerous definitions and synonyms of employability. While there are different levels (e.g. individual, organisation and economy) at which employability is studied and conceptualised, the majority of definitions describe employability at the individual level, also known as the person centred typology of employability (Mel Fugate et al., 2004). Table 1 provides an overview of some of the main definitions of employability at this individual level perspective, and furthermore, brings into light the variety in employability conceptualisations. A commonality between these definitions is that employability is considered a matter of individuals’ capabilities and prospects in finding and maintaining suitable employment. Another shared aspect is that

employability has shifted from its initial meaning (i.e. an individual’s chance of finding a job at a single point in time) to a more dynamic description of one’s ability to

proactively adapt to changes in the labour market environment (cf. Williams, Dodd, Steele, & Randall, 2015; Fugate et al., 2004; Ashford & Taylor, 1990). In this study, employability is conceptualised as adaptability (Ashford & Taylor, 1990; Mel Fugate et al., 2004). Fugate et al. (2004) and Ashford and Taylor (1990) conceptualise

employability as career adaptability. Ashford and Taylor (1990) argue that employees must actively adapt to a changing work environment and must be willing and able to change behaviours, cognitions, and affect. Fugate et al (2004) build on and extend the work of Ashford and Taylor (1990), asserting that employability embodies proactive adaptability in the work domain, and that people who are flexible, open to

(11)

10

new experiences and change are adaptable. In addition, they argue that adaptable individuals are ultimately more employable, even in the face of flux. In line with this view, Savickas (1997) posits that career adaptability is the ability of individuals to cope with the predictable tasks of preparing for and participating in work roles, as well as coping with the unpredictable adjustments impelled by changes in work and working conditions. Moreover, McArdle, Waters, Briscoe, and Hall (2007) in their longitudinal study of the unemployed population, provide additional support of the positive relationship between the proxy measures of career adaptability with measures of employability. Additionally, they found support that employability actually leads to (re)employment. Similarly, studies exploring the boundaryless career mind-set (e.g., Briscoe and Hall 2006) emphasise a fluid approach to employability that goes beyond current job roles, and incorporate the ability to navigate and adapt to the changing work landscape (Sullivan & Arthur, 2006).

Besides the use of adaptability as a proxy for employability, numerous studies have also used flexibility as a proxy for employability (e.g., Fugate et al., 2004;

Ashford & Taylor, 1990; GRIP et al., 2004; Hillage et al., 1998; Heijde & Van Der Heijden, 2006). For example, according to Heijde and Van Der Heijden (2006), employability facilitates both the individuals’ long- and short-term career goals, as well as the company’s results. In their paper personal flexibility is used as a proxy of adaptability. They argued that employees who are flexible are able to passively adapt to changes occurring in their work and labour market environment. In addition,

flexibility entails the capacity for smooth transitions between jobs and between organizations (Heijde and Van Der Heijden, 2006). Likewise, flexibility also requires flexible goal adjustment, i.e. the ability for individuals to adapt to opportunities as they are presented and optimize limited resources in attaining career goals (Meeus & Oerlemans, 2000). In other words, a person must also have accommodative coping functions so as to adapt to unfavourable situations in the labour market (Patel & Thatcher, 2014), manage stress (Park, 1998) and engage in adaptive learning (Riediger, Li, & Lindenberger, 2006). Therefore, in the meta-analysis that is

presented below, we conceptualize employability as career adaptability, flexibility and boundaryless career behaviours.

(12)

11 Table 1: Sample definitions of the employability construct

References Definitions

(Hillage et al., 1998) "Employability is the capability to move self-sufficiently within the labour market to realise potential through sustainable employment." (Lefresne, 1999 p. 465-466) “The probability, for a given group, at a given

time, of finding a job or emerging from unemployment.”

(Harvey, 2001, p. 100) “Employability is the ability of the graduate to get a satisfying job.”

(Forrier & Sels, 2003, p. 106)

“An individual’s chance of a job in the internal and/or external labour market.”

(Mel Fugate et al., 2004) “psychosocial construct that embodies individual characteristics that foster adaptive cognition, behavior, and affect, and enhance the individual-work interface”

(GRIP, LOO, & Sanders, 2004)

“capacity and willingness of workers to remain attractive for the labour market”

(Rothwell & Arnold, 2007, P. 25)

“The individual’s ability to keep the job one has or get the desired job”

(Fugate & Kinicki , 2008) Dispositional employability is a constellation of individual differences that predispose employees to (pro)actively adapt to their work and career environments

(13)

12 The Big Five personality traits and employability

Personality theory proposes that the dynamic organisation of mental structures and coordinated mental processes determines individuals’ emotional and behavioural adjustments to their environments (Allport, 1961;1937; James & Mazerolle, 2001). In addition, this theory posits that there are recurring regularities in a person’s

psychological features (attitudes, emotions, thoughts and feeling) that exist inside a person, which explains the recurring tendencies in a person’s behaviour (Hogan, 1991). In other words, an individual possesses a predisposition to behave, think, and feel in a relatively consistent manner over time and in different situations.

Over recent decades, the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM) or the Big Five has become a frequently examined typology of personality in the field of

organisational behaviour, due to their effects on job performance and job satisfaction (e.g. Barrick & Mount, 1991; COSTA JR, 1996). The Big Five personality traits are Emotional stability, Extraversion, Openness to experience, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Investigating employability and the big five personality traits is important because today’s turbulent work environments make examining personality traits (as other dispositional approach) relevant. The constant change inherent in the workplace, as well as in the external labour market is symptomatic of high levels of uncertainty (Fugate & Kinicki, 2008). In such labour market environments with constant flux, individual dispositions are more likely to come to the fore and

considerably influence behaviours and performance (Mischel, 1977). It, thus, makes sense to investigate how personality traits influence people chances of finding a job in an uncertain labour market environment. According to Fugate et al. (2004), employability is not only determined by the knowledge, skills, and abilities an

individual possesses, but also requires other latent, higher-order personality trait that facilitates an individual’s ability to adapt to changing work environment and career patterns. This means that in addition to one’s ability to adapt reactively to demands that are known, employable individuals possess the inherent personality traits that allows them to have a continuous readiness for change in the internal or external labour market (Ashford & Taylor, 1990). In the past, employability studies have

(14)

13

& Feys, 2013). More recent work, however, has started to address the dispositional nature of employability, with personality traits receiving a great deal of attention. The main focus of this research has been on the relationship between proactive

personality and employability (for a recent review see Guilbert, Bernaud, Gouvernet, & Rossier, 2015; Williams et al., 2015).

When looking at the Big Five personality traits, the validity of these traits for predicting occupational outcome criteria has now been well recognised by a number of research, including meta- analytic surveys (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991; De Fruyt, Wille, & John, 2015). Furthermore, the Big Five personality trait has shown potential utility for judging the employability of job applicants (Dunn, Mount, Barrick, & Ones, 1995; De Fruyt, Wille, & John, 2015), as well as for predicting objective and/or subjective career success, job performance, organisational learning and development (cf. Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2007; Ng et al., 2005; Ng et al., 2008).

However, to our knowledge, there is currently no meta-analysis with specific focus on examining the relationship between each of the big five personality traits and employability. A recent meta-analysis by Jasmer (2015) examined employability as a set of dispositional traits, yet only included conscientiousness. This study

contributes to research on the dispositional antecedents of employability, focusing on the big five personality traits and their relationship with employability. The main

question the thesis tries to answers is how do personality traits associate with

employability? To answer this research question, different hypotheses were

developed, in the following section.

Hypothesis development

Conscientiousness is a personality trait that describes individuals who are

hardworking, persistent, achievement oriented and have high motivation for goal directed behaviour (Bateman & Crant, 1993). Conscientious individuals are also known to be very good in future career planning (Prenda & Lachman, 2001; Rogers, Creed, & Glendon, 2008). Likewise, Digman (1990) posits that conscientious

(15)

14

to engage in proactive adaptation. Conscientiousness was also found as a valid predictor of job proficiency pooled across criteria and occupations (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Salgado, 1997)

Extroverted individuals are assertive, ambitious, social, expressive, and show initiative. They have also been found to use vigorous and effective coping (McCrae et al., 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1986). Similarly, research indicates that extroversion is a valid predictor of various criteria for occupations involving social contact, such as managerial roles and sales positions (e.g., Barrick and Mount, 1991)

Agreeable people are likeable, flexible, trusting, cooperative, tolerant, and show social conformity (McCrae et al., 1999). Agreeableness was found to be a significant performance predictor (Tett et al., 1991) and to be related to training proficiency (Salgado, 1997).

People with high Openness to experience are seen as intellectually curious, perceptive, creative, imaginative, tolerant, and social and inquisitiveness (McCrae et al., 2002; Wood & Robert, 2006). McCrae and Costa (1986) found that openness was positively related to the utilization of effective coping strategies in dealing with

stressful life events. Whitbourne (1986) showed that openness to experience was positively associated with identity flexibility in the workplace. Given that individuals who are open to experience are tolerant and inquisitive when confronted with novel situations, they also cope more effectively with organizational change (Oreg, 2003, 2006; Costa, McCrae, & Zonderman, 1987).

Emotional stability is used describe the personality trait of confidence, self-esteem, sound psychological adjustment (McCrae & Costa, 1986). Research has found a positive association between Emotional Stability and the use of effective coping strategies (e.g. McCrae & Costa, 1986), since emotional stability is a necessary condition for individuals to exhibit adequate and effective adaptation.

In developing the hypotheses for this study, we build our argument based on the following conclusions drawn from previous research. In summation, meta-analytic findings have found the Big Five personality traits to have a positive impact on

organisational changes and task challenges (Oreg 2003), career challenges (e.g. Prenda & Lachman, 2001; Rogers, Creed, & Glendon, 2008), and job performance (Barrick and Mount 1991). Additionally studies have, likewise, found a positive

(16)

15

association between the big five and career adaptability (Teixeira, Bardagi, Lassance, de Oliveira Magalhães, & Duarte, 2012; Zacher, 2014), as well as career success (e.g. Ng et al., 2005). Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience in particular have been shown to have the highest correlation with the ability to adapt (r= .48 and r= .47, respectively) than emotional stability (r= .36) and extroversion (r= .32)

(Teixeira, Bardagi, Lassance, Magalhães, & Duarte, 2012). Also important to note is that, literatures on job search and employment (e.g. Kanfer, Wanberg, & Kantrowitz, 2001) have found a positive relationship between conscientiousness and

self-regulated job behaviour, shorter unemployment period, and a great likelihood of receiving job offers. Moreover, openness to experience and agreeableness have been shown to have positive relationship with training proficiencies, job performance and job search behaviour that require new learning (Teixeira, Bardagi, Lassance, Magalhães, & Duarte, 2012). Based on the existing evidence of the relationship between the Big Five personality trait and employability, the following hypotheses are developed.

H1: it is expected that Agreeableness is positively related to employability. H2: it is expected that Conscientiousness is positively related to employability. H3: it is expected that Emotional stability is positively related to employability. H4: it is expected that Extroversion is positively related to employability. H5: it is expected that Openness to experience is positively related to

(17)

16 Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Extroversion Openness Employability Research Model

In prior sections five hypotheses were established to examine the relationship between the Big Five traits and employability. Figure 1 below presents the research model, illustrating the hypothesised relationships.

(18)

17 Research Methods

This section provides information on the meta-analysis strategy and steps.

Search terms and documentation. A comprehensive literature review was

conducted to identify search terms: related keywords and/or proxies used to describe employability, its dimensions, correlates and predictors. A

conceptualisation sheet was used to organise and document all terms and their definitions, including the literatures sources.

Literature search. The search strategy was to search for studies conducted

between 1980 and 2016. The databases that were used to search for literatures are: PsycINFO, Business Source Premier, ERIC, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, sociology abstract, Google scholar and University of Amsterdam e-library. These databases were selected because they include peer-reviewed journals and empirical research. They also cover a wide range of studies conducted in various disciplines, and moreover, some of these databases include both published and unpublished studies. Please see the list of search terms and search result per database in Appendix 3 and 4.

Inclusion and exclusion of studies. We included studies that are quantitative,

and quantify the relationship between employability (or at least one of its dimensions) and at least one predictor or outcome. Please see appendix 2 for a summarised conceptualisation table of variables used in this study, also on which the literature search queries were based. We excluded studies on disadvantaged population (e.g. the handicapped) and studies focusing on the rehabilitation of criminal offenders. We only included studies conducted on generally healthy population of adults (≥18 years of age), including students, the employed and unemployed. We also excluded

studies that did not provide information on correlation coefficients, to make the thesis work. Furthermore, the search included cross sectional, longitudinal or field

experimental studies that provide information on correlation coefficients.

Study selection. The project team consists of five students, who are also

writing their MSc thesis on employability, as well as a PhD student/co-supervisor, making six team members. Literature search results were checked on eligibility by the six researchers, by scanning the titles and abstracts. First we conducted a

(19)

18

training session with 50 randomly chosen articles on eligibility criteria for including studies. This was to ensure clarity and agreement concerning study selection.

Regular meetings were also held, to discuss disagreements or uncertainty whether to include studies or not. As depicted in the flow diagram below (figure 2), 12764

studies were founded through database search. The duplicates found were 3823, which were deleted, and 8491 studies made it to the scanning phase. From this number 4960 studies were excluded during the first round of scanning, because they either did not report on correlation coefficient, were qualitative studies, or the

population sample did not meet our set criteria of generally healthy adult population. In the first round, we mainly focused on abstracts and title. In the second round, we additionally checked the full text eligibility, but opening the article to ensure that it met the inclusion criteria set for the meta-analysis. From the 3981 studies that made it to the second round, 2780 additional articles were excluded that did not report correlation coefficient of the variables of interest of the meta-analysis. Unfortunately, we were unable to code all the eligible studies (1,201 articles) selected for the meta-analysis due to time constraints. We therefore agreed that each researcher would code 50 randomly chosen articles with ten overlapping with two other researchers (five articles overlap per person). This was to facilitate the evaluation of inter-rater reliability, which reached 100%. The total number of articles coded for the meta-analysis was 240 (see figure 2). However, from the 240 articles coded, only ten studies examined the variable of interest to the author of this thesis.

Coding. After collecting relevant studies, the next step was to code each

article. Using a Microsoft excel sheet, the coding scheme included: study level, sample level, as well as coding variables and measures. Please refer to appendix 6 for details on how the studies found were coded. For example, we coded

employability as follows: Employability Definitions (including proxies e.g. career adaptability was coded as a dimension of employability), Employability Label (stating the specific name of the variable as used in the original article e.g. career

adaptability), Employability Measure (how employability or a proxy was measured e.g. for career adaptability Savickas, 2012 measurement scale), Measure Reference (e.g. savickas, 2012), Number of Items, Number of Scale Points, Reliability

(20)

19

employability predictor/correlates (e.g. personality traits) and outcomes (e.g. career success). However, there were additional coding criteria for the predictors and outcomes, namely: coding for the correlation between the predictor and/or outcome and employability, the significance level, if the relationship had been hypothesized or not and the page number where the correlation table was found. The researchers were all trained for every process involved in the meta-analysis. In addition to the training for coding the literatures, we carried out a trial session where 25 randomly selected articles were coded individually. Afterwards, the result on how we coded the predictors and outcomes of employability found in literature was compared with each researcher’s work to measure the level of agreement, and to discuss any concerns or questions.

Meta-analytic approach. The main function of a meta-analysis is to estimate

the direction and magnitude of effects in the population, by combining the effect sizes from a variety of studies (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001). However, Meta-analyses require numerous decision rules during coding and analysis, besides study selection and inclusion criteria. These decision rules and judgment calls ultimately affect the quality of the methodology and the interpretability of the meta-analytic findings. Some of these important decision rules or judgement call involve (1) which meta-analytic methods to use and correcting for study artefacts (sampling and

measurement error) (2) how to deal with missing data (3) how to handle outliers and (4) moderator analysis (Hunter & Schmidt, 2000). For informed interpretation of findings, clear criteria were set for such judgment calls, as will be discussed in detail below.

(21)

20 Figure 2: Flow diagram of included studies

Meta-analytic procedure. The meta-analytic procedure followed the

step-by-step instructions from (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) SPSS macros that perform meta-analysis based on an effect size and the inverse variance weight for each study. This is also known as inverse variance weight meta-analysis, where the estimated effect in the population is a weighted mean of the effect sizes. This method helps to ensure sampling accuracy of effect sizes (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). The set of macros comprises “meanes.sps”, “metaf.sps”, and “metareg.sps”. Effect sizes in our meta-analysis were all coded as Pearson correlation coefficients (r). The Pearson

correlation, r, is a standardized form that measures the strength of the relationship between two inherently continuous variables (Rosenthal, 1991).Different studies may

(22)

21

have different characteristics, e.g. effect sizes might come from studies with different features, sample sizes of the original studies may vary, techniques for selecting participants might differ and studies use various measures that might have diverse reliability. We need to take this variability across studies into account through transformations and adjustments. Some standard set of transformation and

adjustments applied in the meta-analysis are: First, correcting for unreliability of the predictor and outcome, as proposed by Hunter and Schmidt (1990). This correction is applied on the raw correlation coefficients (r). Correcting correlations for

unreliability, results in a more precise estimate of the population effect size (Ng et al., 2005). Subsequently, r was transformed with the use of the Fisher transformation ((Hunter & Schmidt, 2000) Zt). Moreover, studies generally vary in effect sizes. An effect size based on a large sample is assumed to represent a more “precise” estimate of the population effect size than those provided by studies with a small sample size (Lipsey and Wilson, 2001). Therefore, larger studies should carry more “weight” in the analyses than smaller studies. The best approach to handle this, as proposed by Lipsey and Wilson (2001) is to compute an inverse variance weight for each study, (which happens to work out to weight = N-3). Then, the step that

followed was computing the meta-analytic mean effect size, adjusted for the reliability of the measures. This was done with the Wilson macros “meanes.sps”, which

performs basic central tendency statistics, such as mean effect size, confidence intervals, z-test, and homogeneity test. It also calculates both fixed and random effects models. See appendix 11 for SPSS syntax and steps followed for the meta-analysis. The meta-analytic result was analysed using a random effects model (Hunter & Schmidt, 2000). The random effects model assumes population heterogeneity in effect sizes, and incorporates both sampling error and true variability across effect sizes (Field & Gillett, 2010). The fixed effect model, on the other hand, assumes that sample effect sizes are homogenous across studies; meaning that, the studies included in the meta-analysis derive from the same population with a fixed average effect. The present study assumes population heterogeneity, because each study provides information about an effect size in a different population, and the meta-analysis aims to estimate the mean of a

(23)

22

distribution of effects and control for both sampling and measurement error. For this reason, the random effect model was used.

Missing Data. Studies that did not report a correlation matrix were excluded

from the thesis. Other missing data, for example, where the percentage of men in the sample population were not provided, this was coded not applicable (NA). In SPSS, however, missing values were labelled /recoded with 999. In addition, in some of the studies included (e.g. Zacher, 2016; Kaspi-Baruch, 2015) the big five dimension Neuroticism is framed as Emotional stability. In order to ensure unified direction of the relationship between this dimension and employability we needed to recode these relations. Namely, where a study included an effect size for Neuroticism, the direction of the relation was reversed.

Outlier analysis. Analysis for outliers is an important step in meta-analysis

since outliers can distort results. An outlier in the meta-analytic framework would be a primary study coefficient that does not appear to be consistent with the other study coefficients, either because of errors in data collection, or some very unusual feature of the study design or the study subjects (Huffcutt & Arthur, 1995). Moreover,

according to Hunter and Schmidt (2004), extreme values may result in significant within-group heterogeneity of individual effect sizes that may not exist in reality. Moreover, the weighted averages given to large sample size studies may force the overall effect size to be influenced by a relatively few studies. Some common methods to search for extreme value are to use stem and leaf plots, box-plot or histogram, using the effect size and the sample size value. One method for handling outliers is to simply eliminate them, if it is believed that these outliers are not

representative of study findings (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Huffcutt & Arthur, 1995). However, due to the limited number of studies included for this meta-analysis, discarding data is not a desirable solution. Instead where there is presence of an outlier, a sensitivity analysis will be carried out (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). This means that the meta-analysis will be conducted with and without the outlier, and their influence on the result will be noted. Based on the influence of outliers on study results, we will decide on the best possible way to handle them, and provide a report in the result section of the thesis.

(24)

23 Results

Table 2: Meta-analytic result for the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and employability

Variables K N ES Z CIL CIU I2 P Openness 10.00 6761 .41 10.07 .3266 .4844 88% .000 Conscientiousness 10.00 6971 .45 7.30 .3316 .5748 93% .000 Extroversion 10.00 3129 .36 10.52 .2905 .4235 70% .000 Emotional Stability 10.00 3129 .30 7.29 .2198 .3815 80% .000 Agreeableness 10.00 6761 .25 5.52 .1618 .3396 91% .000 Note:

This is the meta-analytic result for the effect size adjusted for reliability, and excluding outliers. K: number of validity coefficient from independent samples; N: the total sample size across meta-analysed correlation; ES: weight mean effect size, Z: the weighted Z statistics; CI: Confidence interval of the lower (CIL) and the upper (CIU) bound; P: P-value significance level

The total sample size of the study is 26751, from an aggregate of 11 studies. The effect sizes represent the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and employability. Participants in the research were from differing demographic

backgrounds (e.g. age, country of origin and occupation). For interpreting the meta-analytic finding, (Cohen, 1988) criteria for describing effect sizes are used: effect sizes around r = .10 are considered as small, r = .25, medium and r = .40, large.

Agreeableness and employability. H1 states that Agreeableness is positively

related to employability. Appendix 6 presents a stem and leaf plot for a graphical illustration of the distribution of the sample size and effect size between

Agreeableness and employability, simultaneously. Figure 3 show a graphical illustration of the distribution of the sample size, only. The outlier analysis of the distribution of sample sizes between Agreeableness and employability showed presences of an outlier. In investigating the study features that might have played a role here, it appears that StudyID 151 has a very large sample size of 2839, which appears to be significantly higher than other studies in the meta-analysis. Comparing the meta-analytic result with and without outliers, the findings were both significant in support of H1. With the outlier, we found a medium and significant overall effect of r

(25)

24 = 0.24 (z = 6.14, p < .000, CI .1604< r < .3107). Without outliers, the result remained

significant with a medium and significant overall effect of r = 0.25 (z = 5.52, p < .000,

CI .1618< r < .3396), which is stronger than when outliers were included.

Stem Leaf Box Plot 0 0 1 1 2 Stem width Each leaf Extremes: (>=2839) 111222 66 7 4 1000 1 case(s)

Figure 3: Stem and leaf plot of sample sizes for the relationship between Agreeableness and

employability

Conscientiousness and employability. H2 states that Conscientiousness is

positively related to employability. As the stem and leaf plot show (Appendix 7), StudyID 151, again, appeared as an outlier and was deleted. Figure 4 show a graphical illustration of the distribution of the sample size, only. The test of the relationship between conscientiousness and employability showed a large and significant overall effect of r = 0.43 (z = 6.21, p < .000, CI .2918< r < .5608). This result is for when outlier were included. Without outliers, the result remained

significant with a large and significant overall effect of r = 0.45 (z = 7.30, p < .000, CI

(26)

25

Figure 4: Stem and leaf plot of sample sizes for the relationship between Conscientiousness and

employability

Emotional stability and employability. For H3, it was hypothesised that

Emotional stability is positively related to employability. Three outliers were deleted from the study (Appendix 8). Figure 5 show a graphical illustration of the distribution of the sample size, only. There was statistical support for H3, with a medium and significant overall effect of r = 0.30 (z = 5.98, p < .000, CI .1997 < r < .3946), outliers included. After outliers were deleted, there was still a medium and significant overall effect of r = 0.30 (z = 7.29, p < .000, CI .2198< r < .3815). The overall effect size of the study that included outliers was initially 0.297, and was rounded up to 0.30.

(27)

26

Stem Leaf Box Plot 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stem width Each leaf Extremes: (>=1723) 459 0167 5 55 100 1 case(s)

Figure 5: Stem and leaf plot of sample sizes for the relationship between Emotional stability and

employability

Extroversion and employability. H4 states that Extroversion is positively

related to employability. There was a statistical support for H4, with a medium and significant overall effect of r = 0.35 (z = 8.89, p < .000, CI .2751 < r < .4307),

including outliers. Three outliers were deleted from the study (Appendix 9). Figure 6

show a graphical illustration of the distribution of the sample size, only. Without

outliers, there was still a medium and significant overall effect of r = 0.36 (z = 10.52, p

< .000, CI .2905< r < .4235). This effect size is larger for when outliers are excluded

(28)

27

Stem Leaf Box Plot 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stem width Each leaf Extremes: (>=1723) 459 0167 5 55 100 1 case(s)

Figure 6: Stem and leaf plot of sample sizes for the relationship between Extroversion and

employability

Openness to experience. H5 hypothesised that Openness to experience is

positively related to employability. Statistical support was found for H5, with a medium and significant overall effect of r = 0.38 (z = 8.06, p < .000, CI .2892 < r <

.4751), including outliers. One outlier was deleted from the study (appendix 10).

Figure 7 show a graphical illustration of the distribution of the sample size, only. The findings still showed a medium and significant overall effect of r = 0.41 (z = 10.07, p <

(29)

28

Figure 7: Stem and leaf plot of sample sizes for the relationship between Openness to experience and

(30)

29 Discussion

This meta-analysis examined the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and employability. The findings are consistent with recent writing that employability does not only depend on the human capital skills individuals possess, but also requires other latent, higher-order personality traits that facilitates a person’s ability to adapt to changing work environment and career patterns (Fugate et al., 2004; Ashford and Taylor, 1990).

Likewise, conscientiousness showed the largest effect size (r = 0.45), followed by Openness to experience (r = 0.41) and Extroversion (r = 0.30), which

corroborates previous evidence indicating these personality often have a larger correlations with employability than the other Big Five personality traits (Teixeira et al., 2012; FRUYT & Mervielde, 1999). Additionally, the meta-analysis findings can be extended to real life experience, as reported by Dunn et al., (1995), Van Dam (1996) and FRUYT & Mervielde (1999). They reported that conscientiousness is indeed seen as the most important predictor of employability across different occupations. This is also in line with Barrick and Mount (1991) and Salgado (1997) findings. In addition, Ones & Viswesvaran (1997) developed a general theory of

“conscientiousness at work”, defining five reasons why Conscientiousness predicts job performance, and thus why employers consider it as an important factor for evaluating the employability of applicants. According to Ones & Viswesvaran (1997, p. 2), “conscientious individuals: (a) spend more time on the tasks they are assigned (rather than daydreaming and engaging in other unproductive activities), which results in greater productivity; (b) spend more time on the task, allowing them to acquire more job knowledge; (c) go beyond role requirements in the work place; (d) set goals autonomously and persist in following them; and (e) avoid

counterproductive behaviour”.

As well, job candidates themselves may approach and scan the labour market in different ways, depending on their individual personalities. It can be argued that, extraverted and/or conscientious individuals, for example, adopt specific strategies to search for a job. They may adopt a more assertive behaviour in approaching

(31)

30

selection interviews, and may achieve more in assessment centres (cf. FRUYT & Mervielde, 1999). These combinations of characteristics may increase their chances of obtaining employment, compared to peers with similar academic background or comparable occupational tenure, but different personality trait scores. This

interpretation is supported by Caldwell and Burger (1998) and Kanfer et al., (2001) demonstrating that the Big Five personality traits affect preparation for job searching. They also found that both personality traits and preparation strategies were related to the number of job offers applicants received during their job searches.

Furthermore, it is also important to note the labour market environment may consider certain traits to be more important than others, and therefore hires

individuals displaying these traits (Dunn et al., 1995; FRUYT & Mervielde, 1999). For instance, FRUYT & Mervielde, 1999 found that emotional stability was significantly related to all types of work environment. This is not a surprise, as research has consistently noted that emotional stability is highly regarded for effectively adapting to changes in the labour market in general. Extraversion was related to employment in enterprising, and to a lesser degree, conventional environments. Openness to experience was positively correlated to employment in social, artistic, and

enterprising environments. Agreeableness was negatively related to working in jobs with social characteristics. And, Conscientiousness was negatively related to artistic jobs, but correlates positively with employment in enterprising, conventional, and realistic environments.

Moreover, depending on the job type, certain traits may also be considered more important than others, as indicated by e.g., Barrick & Mount (1991) and Salgado (1997). They showed that Conscientiousness was a valid predictor of job proficiency pooled across criteria and occupations. Extroversion was a valid predictor of various criteria for occupations involving social contact, such as managerial roles and sales positions.

(32)

31 Research Implication

The meta-analysis findings advocate that the influence of personality does not begin the day a person starts work. Rather, personality traits also have an influence on how a person prepares for his or her entrance into the job market, and the kind of

personal impression made during recruiting process (cf. Caldwell & Burger, 1998; Van Dam, 2003). For example, van Dam (2003) and Caldwell and Burger (1998) indicated that perception of conscientiousness and emotional stability were significantly correlated with employment recommendation. Therefore, it is

recommended that potential job candidates or recent graduates take this trend into consideration when applying for jobs. Job candidates may want to demonstrate their personality traits that fit the job they are being interviewed for, or in cover letter to obtain a job. For example, to demonstrate conscientiousness and emotional stability may increase the opportunities to get recommended for a job (e.g., FRUYT &

Mervielde, 1999). Furthermore, job candidates can also adapt their resumes better to fit with potential jobs, by stating both the work-related human capital skills they have, as well as their personality traits.

Similarly, it is imperative for employees to understand how their personality traits fit with their career identity and jobs they may be interested in. It can be argued that personality traits and career identity (i.e. one’s self-definition in the career

context) go hand in hand, as indicated by Fugate et al. (2004). To explicate, the identification and realization of career opportunities demands that employable individuals procure information regarding the environment and one’s personal qualifications. When a person understands how their personality traits (besides human capital skills) fits with certain jobs, he or she is able to identity his or her personal strengths and weaknesses in the career context. This aids the individual in making wiser career decision in relation to their unfolding career identity (e.g. Fugate et al., 2004). At the same time, the ability to adapt in the work environment

necessitates that people know their personal strengths and weakness towards specific job types.

Furthermore, organisations find it important to retain high performance employees (e.g. Tracey & Hinkin, 2008), and employee turnover can be costly. As

(33)

32

indicated by Tracey & Hinkin (2008), cost that are incurred as a result of recruitment, selection, orientation and training sum up for the majority of turnover cost. Hiring the most suitable candidate for a job by assessing candidates based on both the human capital skills required for the job and the necessary personality skills needed for the work can help mitigate costly turnover. This is also important because personality traits are seen as relatively stable traits, and may be hard to train (e.g., Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000). For instance, a sales position may not only require high product knowledge, but also require individuals who are extrovert (Barrick and Mount, 1991).

Additionally, it is highly recommend for managers to create a work environment where employees have the opportunity to display their personal strengths and/or allow employees to have job resources and autonomy to exercise traits that contribute to performance. For example, people who score high on Openness to experience are highly innovative and can bring innovative ideas that can be beneficial for the organisation as well as their team/department (McCrae et al., 2002; Wood & Robert, 2006). As such, job enrichment by involving them in

innovation projects or job crafting may become useful for people with high openness to experience. Such organisational consideration could not only reduce turnover, but also improve employee development and well-being at work (e.g., Tims, Bakker, & Derks, 2013; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001; McEvoy & Cascio, 1985).

(34)

33 Limitations and future research

This meta-analysis stands some limitations. First, it was difficult to gather studies that address the big five personality trait and employability. And, considering time constraint in conducting the meta-analysis, we were only able to code 240 articles, from which only ten studies examined the variable of interest to the author of this thesis. Even though meta-analysis can be performed with as few as two studies (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990), the cumulated effect sizes are more stable when the number of cumulative studies increases.

Second, because of insufficient information, it was not possible to test for moderators. For example, not all studies reported fully on the characteristics of the participants or measurement design (e.g. level of education, employment status). Although this limitation is common in meta-analytic research (Rhoades &

Eisenberger, 2002), the variability in obtained effect sizes suggests that there are probably multiple moderating factors present.

Third, it is also important to note that a potential bias that can arise in a meta-analysis is known as the publication bias, a result of file-drawer problems (Rosenthal, 1979). Meaning that, meta-analysis results could draw conclusions that are biased towards significance. To minimise the bias a manual search of conference

programmes was planned in search for unpublished studies on: SIOP, AOM,

EAWOP, WAOP, HRM Network, ICAP and EURAM. Additionally, we planned to draft letters to practitioners and researchers with expertise to provide leads on

unpublished work and data. Unfortunately, we could not add any unpublished studies to the analysis, again due to time constraint.

Fourth, it is possible that we did not include a comprehensive examination of the proxies of employability.

Therefore, we invite studies to replicate this meta-analysis with a large amount of studies, and to search for moderators that could provide more information on the nature of the relationship between personality trait and employability. Considering the number of studies on employability, we recommend a more comprehensive integrating employability research across different domains and levels (e.g. broader contextual and individual antecedents of employability). It might also be interesting to

(35)

34

include other dispositional traits (e.g. proactive personality, willing and ability) that have been examined in previous research, and to measure the predictive power of these traits (including the Big Five) in relation to employability. Hence, a larger and more heterogeneous set of predictors should be identified in future research. Finally, caution needs to be taken when interpreting the findings of this meta-analysis.

Although we have provided meta-analytic evidence of the positive relation between the Big Five personality traits and employability, the predictive power of personality traits with employability may also depend on the type of job. For instance, Mount and Barrick (1991) found that Extroversions, for example, fits sales job well than other traits, and this may then have higher predictive value for an individual that is perceived as an extrovert, than for individuals who are agreeable, in this regard.

Conclusion

Despite the limitation of this study, overall, the results of the meta-analysis show that the Big Five personality traits have a positive relationship with employability. This answers the main question of the research: how do the Big Five personality traits

relate to employability? This meta-analysis contributes to current research on the

(36)

35 References

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality. Holt New York. Retrieved from

http://s3.amazonaws.com/prealliance_oneclass_sample/e5kKbwawRE.pdf Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. Retrieved from

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1962-04728-000

Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). The boundaryless career. Oxford University Press.

Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (2001). The boundaryless career: A new

employment principle for a new organizational era. Oxford University Press.

Retrieved from

https://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=yona3e7k5GIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9

&dq=boundaryless+career&ots=RoTE-U2kHT&sig=xuFH101pzWtP63F5gRYDnVnytoU

Ashford, S. J., & Taylor, M. S. (1990). Adaptation to work transitions: An integrative approach. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 8, 1– 39.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1–26.

Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103–118.

Berntson, E. (2008). Employability perceptions: Nature, determinants, and implications for health and well-being. Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:198489

(37)

36

Briscoe, J. P., Hall, D. T., & DeMuth, R. L. F. (2006). Protean and boundaryless careers: An empirical exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(1), 30– 47.

Brown, P., Hesketh, A., & Wiliams, S. (2003). Employability in a knowledge-driven economy. Journal of Education and Work, 16(2), 107–126.

Caldwell, D. F., & Burger, J. M. (1998). Personality characteristics of job applicants and success in screening interviews. Personnel Psychology, 51(1), 119–136. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York:

Academic.

COSTA JR, P. T. (1996). of Personality Theories: TheOretical COntexts for the Five-Factor Model. The Five-Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives, 51.

DeFillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1994). The boundaryless career: A competency-based perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(4), 307–324. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model.

Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417–440.

Dunn, W. S., Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Relative importance of personality and general mental ability in managers’ judgments of applicant qualifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(4), 500.

Feintuch, A. (1955). Improving the employability and attitudes of“ difficult-to-place” persons. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 69(7), 1.

Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. British Journal of

(38)

37

Forrier, A., & Sels, L. (2003). Flexibility, turnover and training. International Journal of

Manpower, 24(2), 148–168. http://doi.org/10.1108/01437720310475402

FRUYT, F., & Mervielde, I. (1999). RIASEC types and Big Five traits as predictors of employment status and nature of employment. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 701–727.

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(3), 503–527.

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. http://doi.org/10.1348/096317907x241579

Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

65(1), 14–38.

Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

65(1), 14–38. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.005

Fuller, B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75(3), 329– 345. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.05.008

(39)

38

GRIP, A., LOO, J., & Sanders, J. (2004). The industry employability index: Taking account of supply and demand characteristics. International Labour Review,

143(3), 211–233.

Guilbert, L., Bernaud, J.-L., Gouvernet, B., & Rossier, J. (2015). Employability: Review and research prospects. International Journal for Educational and Vocational

Guidance, 1–21.

Gunz, H., Evans, M., Jalland, M., & others. (2000). Career boundaries in a

“boundaryless” world. Career Frontiers: New Conceptions of Working Lives, 24–53.

Hall, E. T., & Hall, E. (1976). How cultures collide. Psychology Today, 10(2), 66.

Harvey, L. (2001). Defining and Measuring Employability. Quality in Higher Education,

7(2), 97–109. http://doi.org/10.1080/13538320120059990

Heijde, C. M., & Van Der Heijden, B. I. (2006). A competence-based and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability.

Human Resource Management, 45(3), 449–476.

Hesketh, A. J. (1999). Towards an economic sociology of the student financial experience of higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 14(4), 385–410. Hesketh, A. J. (2000). Recruiting an elite? Employers’ perceptions of graduate

education and training. Journal of Education and Work, 13(3), 245–271. Hillage, J., Pollard, E., & others. (1998). Employability: developing a framework for

policy analysis. DfEE London. Retrieved from

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jim_Hillage/publication/225083565_Emplo yability_developing_a_framework_for_policy_analysis/links/0c96052b01b541c 139000000.pdf

(40)

39

Hogan, R. T. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1993-97200-013

Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 327.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2000). Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: implications for cumulative research knowledge. International Journal

of Selection and Assessment, 8(4), 275–292.

James, L. R., & Mazerolle, M. D. (2001). Personality in work organizations. Sage Publications. Retrieved from

https://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=MSx1AwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=P R9&dq=James+and+Mazerolle,+(2000)+personality+traits&ots=9C1ojYhW1E &sig=qik-ZX5tGCtbNSOMxKWUDh1u-6s

Johnston, C. S., Maggiori, C., & Rossier, J. (2016). Professional Trajectories, Individual Characteristics, and Staying Satisfied and Healthy. Journal of

Career Development, 43(1), 81–98. http://doi.org/10.1177/0894845315584161

Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Job search and employment: A personality–motivational analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86(5), 837.

Kaspi-Baruch, O. (2015). Motivational orientation as a mediator in the relationship between personality and protean and boundaryless careers. [Industrial & Organizational Psychology [3600]].

Lefresne, F. (1999). Employability at the heart of the European employment strategy.

(41)

40

Li, Y., Guan, Y., Wang, F., Zhou, X., Guo, K., Jiang, P., … Fang, Z. (2015). Big-five personality and BIS/BAS traits as predictors of career exploration: The mediation role of career adaptability. [Occupational Interests & Guidance [3610]].

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved from http://doi.apa.org/psycinfo/2000-16602-000

McArdle, S., Waters, L., Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. T. (2007). Employability during unemployment: Adaptability, career identity and human and social capital.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71(2), 247–264.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping, and coping effectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54(2), 385–404.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., de Lima, M. P., Simões, A., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., … others. (1999). Age differences in personality across the adult life span: parallels in five cultures. Developmental Psychology, 35(2), 466.

McCrae, R. R., Costa Jr, P. T., Terracciano, A., Parker, W. D., Mills, C. J., De Fruyt, F., & Mervielde, I. (2002). Personality trait development from age 12 to age 18: Longitudinal, cross-sectional and cross-cultural analyses. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1456.

McEvoy, G. M., & Cascio, W. F. (1985). Strategies for reducing employee turnover: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70(2), 342.

Meeus, M. T., & Oerlemans, L. A. (2000). Firm behaviour and innovative

performance: An empirical exploration of the selection–adaptation debate.

(42)

41

Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. Personality at the

Crossroads: Current Issues in Interactional Psychology, 333, 352.

Ng, T. W. H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of Objective and Subjective Career Success: A Meta-Analysis. Personnel

Psychology, 58(2), 367–408. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00515.x

Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1997). Personality determinants in the prediction of aspects of expatriate job success. Retrieved from

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1998-07315-002

Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: developing an individual differences measure.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 680.

Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73–101.

Orr, D. B. (1973). New Directions in Employability: Reducing Barriers to Full Employment. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED098319

Park, C. L. (1998). Stress-related growth and thriving through coping: The roles of personality and cognitive processes. Journal of Social Issues, 54(2), 267–277. Patel, P. C., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2014). Sticking It Out: Individual Attributes and

Persistence in Self-Employment. Journal of Management, 40(7), 1932–1979. http://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312446643

Prenda, K. M., & Lachman, M. E. (2001). Planning for the future: a life management strategy for increasing control and life satisfaction in adulthood. Psychology

and Aging, 16(2), 206.

Reichers, A. E., & Schneider, B. (1990). Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. Organizational Climate and Culture, 1, 5–39.

The big five personality traits and employability : a meta-analysis

The Big Five Personality Traits and Employability:

A Meta-analysis

Table of Contents