The influence of core self-evaluations on employability and their moderating effect on the relationship between both job security and organizational tenure with employability : a meta-analysis

(1)

The Influence of Core Self-Evaluations

on Employability and their Moderating Effect on

the Relationship Between both Job Security and

Organizational Tenure with Employability:

A Meta - Analysis

Coen Stapel

10901868

March 31st, 2018 Msc Thesis University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Business School Executive Program in Management Studies - Leadership and Management Track

First Supervisor: Dhr. Dr. S.T. Mol

Second Supervisor: Mw. S. Pajic

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by student Coen Stapel who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Acknowledgements

I would like to say a special thanks to my supervisors, Stefan T. Mol and Sofija Pajic for their guidance during the writing of my thesis. They gave me critical feedback, which helped me to find more structure in my thesis. I am very grateful for their effort and time which resulted in this thesis.

A special thanks to Enid Wolters, Han van Bree, and Ruben Faas for their mental-, and textual support.

(4)

Abstract

In this research the purpose is to meta-analytically review the link between core

self-evaluations and employability. Furthermore, the link between both organizational tenure and job security with employability will be meta-analytically reviewed. Finding showed that self-esteem (ES = .3583), emotional stability (ES = .3689), core self-evaluations (ES = .3974), job security (ES = .1979), and organizational tenure (ES = -.1288) are predictors of

employability. The review of the link between generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and the moderator analyses could not be test

(6)

1. Introduction

Over the last twenty to thirty years the interest in employability research has increased and the concept of employability has evolved. Before that period employability research first only included the supply-side; the availability of employees (McQuaid & Lindsay, 2005), and later also the demand-side became a subject of interest within the concept of employability

(Froehlich, Beausaert, Segers & Gerken, 2014). In that time the labour market was focused on organizational success and employment security (Baruch, 2001; De Vos, de Hauw & van der Heijden, 2011), work was characterized by a finite and fixed set of tasks and competences or skills acquired for one job (Bridgstock, 2009). Life-long labouring for one (or two)

employer(s) (Fugate, Kinicki & Ashforth, 2004) was the standard. Today employability is career-based concept and is applicable to career building, business settings and reason for organizational concern (Bridgstock, 2009). Employability - as it is defined in current times - , is the extent to which individuals possess (Rothwell & Arnold, 2005; Froehlich et al., 2014) and (are able to) improve their capabilities and competencies (Fugate et al., 2004; De Vos et al., 2011; Hillage & Pollard, 1998; McQuaid and Lindsay, 2005) in order to continuously meet the requirements of jobs (Van der Heijde & Van der Heijden, 2006; Forrier & Sels, 2003). Overall, recent literature defines the concept employability to be a coherent concept consisting of multiple dimensions (Fugate et al., 2004). These dimensions are human capital, social capital, self-awareness, adaptability, and perceived-employability. And thus, the better someone scores on these dimensions, it will be more likely this person possesses those necessary capabilities and competencies and will be able to improve them if needed. Consequently, the individual’s employability will most likely improve.

The evolution of the employability concept parallels the pace of developments in (mass) digitization and related changing standards of world society (Keeley, Pikkel, Quinn &

(7)

Walters, 2013) in this same period. This made organizations change and innovate in the interests of a sustainable existence and/or- growth in a faster and more demanding market. At the same time, it brought along challenges for organizations in managing, attracting and retaining employable employees more than before this time. In this more competitive business environment, human resources have become more important to firm success (Wright &

McMahan, 2011). Therefore, in this same recent period, employers have developed an increased attention for the need to effectively attract, motivate, develop and retain talent, and keep them sustainably employable (Wright & McMahan, 2011), because talented employees will not join or commit to a firm if the conditions are insufficient (Keeley et al., 2013). This human capital can be acquired, and if necessary transformed, by practices that focus on high-order capabilities and competencies (Jackson, Schuler & Jiang, 2014) and/or with value creation. Value creation is the process through which an organization attracts, acquires and accumulates valuable and unique talent resources and exploits their potential to create value (Sparrow & Makram, 2015). This means a realization towards competence-based person-related HRM (van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006). More specifically, this refers to the importance of the available employee competences and capabilities as a resource for

organizational performance and -advantage. (Wright, Dunford & Snell, 2001). This is one of the dimensions of the resources-based view of the firm (Boxall & Purcell, 2000) which serves as a unique internal resource configuration to realize a competitive advantage (Wright & Mcmahan, 1992). Those competences and capabilities are important for the strategic value of the human capital of an organization. It enhances the possibilities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the firm, exploit market opportunities, and/or neutralize (potential) threats (Lepak & Snell, 2002).

(8)

employability skills and traits are the basics that any employer expects an (potential)

employee to have. Possessing and developing these skills and qualifications may be the key to making oneself stand out from the crowd and get onto the careers ladder (Newlove, 2014). Moreover, individuals should be able to meet the demand of employers, and thus be aware of what and when it is asked from them (Keeley et al., 2013). It is expected from them, that they will be able to keep up the pace of (market) developments with continuous learning. In a world where knowledge and intellectual capital are now critical for organizational success, individuals are expected to enhance their general or transversal competences (Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999) opposed to merely focussing on the development of specialist technical skills (Schipper & Manz, 1992). The framework of Lepak and Snell (1999) adds to this latter observation. In their framework they distinguish the level of uniqueness and value of an employee to an organization by four different employment modes. In how far employee groups differ based on these two elements, these different employee groups should be

managed and employed differently. Some employment modes can better be outsourced, while others are viewed as core to the firm and represents the knowledge base around which firms are most likely to build their strategies (Lepak & Schnell, 2002). It is important for employees to consciously know whether they possess the skills that are needed to be of value for the organization they work for. It helps to take necessary actions by means of skill development and/or job seeking activities.

The level of one’s employability, and how it is affected, is valuable for both employers, and employees or organizations, and individuals. Many studies, which measure antecedents, outcomes, and predictors of employability, have been published. This has resulted in a broad range of available employability research with reported effects on what does, either positively or negatively, and what does not, have influence on someone’s employability. More

(9)

specifically, the effect of individual- and work-related characteristics and -traits on the dimensions (human capital, social capital, self-awareness, adaptability and perceived-employability) of the concept employability, have been repeatedly studied. Overall, these published studies show (quite) stable effects of several individual behavioural characteristics (1), work-related characteristics (2), and individual personality traits (3) on employability. For behavioural characteristics (1) this applies for the effect of proactive behaviour, flexibility, and work engagement. For work-related characteristics (2), it applies for the effect of job autonomy and feedback giving. For individual personality traits (3) this applies for most of the Big Five individual personality traits (Barrick & Mount, 1991), like extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. All these characteristics and traits were mostly reported with a significant positive effect on the dimensions of

employability (e.g. Zacher, 2014; Patel, 2014; Griffin & Hesketh, 2013; Uy, Sam, Ho & Chernvshenko, 2015; Brenninkmeijer & Koning, 2015; van Emmerik, Schreurs, De Cuyper, Jawahar & Peeters, 2011). This is in contrast with two other work-related characteristics and their relationship with dimensions of the concept employability. The relationship of one’s job (in)security, and one’s organizational tenure with employability both separately show variable results (e.g. de Cuyper, Notelaers & de Witte, 2009; de Cuyper, Baillien & de Witte, 2009; Kalyal, Berntson, Baraldi, Naswall & Sverke, 2010; Kim, Kim & Lee, 2014; Nauta, van Vianen, van der Heijden, van Dam & Willemsen, 2009) . Moreover, the effect of these

variables on employability differ from each other, while logically reasoned this does not seem to fit with expectations. Organizational tenure refers to the number of years working for one and the current employer. While job security refers to the probability of one keeping the job in the (near) future (OECD, 2002). It seems reasonable that when job security is higher, an employee will be employed for the same employer for more years than someone with less job security. It seems that those two characteristics at least should be partly related, but studies

(10)

report next to comparable results, also many opposite results related to the effect on

dimensions of employability. Additionally, other remaining individual personality traits, like: self-esteem, emotional stability, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy are often reported with a significant effect on the dimensions of employability (e.g. Rusu, Hojbota, Gherasim, Gavriloaiei, 2015; Fugate & Kinicki, 2008; van Vianen, Klehe, Koen & Dries, 2012; Akkermans, Brenninkmeijer, Huibers, & Blink, 2012) and therefore likely to add to one’s own objective judgement and improvement of one’s employability. The definition of Judge, Locke, Durham and Kluger (1998) amplifies this supposition, by describing core self-evaluations as an individual’s judgement of their own qualities, relatively compared with the world. Although the effect of core self-evaluations is often reported to have a significant effect on dimensions of employability, the effect sizes diverge widely within one construct, but also compared with other constructs.

The enhancement of an individual’s capabilities, competencies and adaptability, likewise the attributions by which one can add to organizational performance is frequently researched in relation with employability. These examinations focus on descriptive traits of individuals. Opposite is the focus on evaluation traits, like self-esteem, emotional stability, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy which are part of one construct, the core self-evaluation (CSE) trait. These evaluation traits are frequently examined in relation with one’s career development and -organizational (potential) attributions. Moreover, the CSE trait is mostly reviewed as one concept (Bono & Judge, 2003; Johnson, Rosen & Levy, 2008; Judge et. al, 2002; Judge, Erez, Bono & Thoresen, 2003, Judge, van Vianen & de Pater, 2004) and examined with a significant positive effect on job satisfaction (Judge, Locke & Durham, 1997; Judge, et al. 1998; Wu, 2010) and job performance (Bono & Judge, 2003; Erez & Judge, 2001; Grant & Wrzesniewski, 2010; Ferris, Rosen, Johnson, Brown, Risavy & Heller,

(11)

2011; Kacmar, Collins, Harris & Judge, 2009; Judge, 2009). Reviewing the core

self-evaluation traits in relation with employability is relevant in the current labour market where the influence of competence-based person-related HRM in organizations is predominant. Evaluation traits can predict behaviour and performance in specific (organizational) situations -and environments. This is relevant, from organizational perspective to attract and retain employable employees, and from individual perspective this could add to the awareness of their level of employability and thus their current state on the labour market, which effects one’s career development. Reviewing these relationships is important, because of the current divergent reported effect sizes both within each trait as compared with the other traits on employability. In addition, specific job/demographic characteristics of individuals exhibit inconsistent results in relation with employability. Job security is often reported with a

significant effect on employability, but several times reported with no significant relationship. This relationship is interesting for employers in their question if offering job security will contribute to one’s attributions to an organization or have effect on one’s employability. While employees cannot count on their employer to ensure job security anymore (Baruch, 2001), because of the new climate of job insecurity (Martin, Staines & Pate, 1998), it will be relevant for individuals if these depreciates their level of employability and thus change in their possibility in meeting requirements of current or future jobs. Those current effects are reversed for the relationship between organizational tenure and employability, with a frequently reported negative relationship, but also often with no significant effect of organizational tenure on employability. For both employers and individuals this would be relevant if job retainment is in favour of one’s employability and an individual’s likelihood of career development and -opportunities within or outside the current organization, because or despite of the number of years spent in the current organization. As for as known, a meta-analysis with the focus on the relationship between both each of the CSE traits separately and

(12)

the core self-evaluations as one trait with employability and on the between relationship between job security, and organizational tenure with employability, is not available yet. By meta-analytically reviewing these relationships, results of various studies will be compared and corrected on bias (Chatzisarantis& Stoica, 2009), to be able to summarize findings from several studies. In the employability field of research, many studies are available and is therefore suitable for a meta-analysis, which realizes a critical review and combines available research to further add to the concept development and theory building (Reichers &

Schneider, 1990) of employability. The purpose of this study is to meta-analytically test the relationships between each of the CSE traits, the core self-evaluations trait as one concept, job satisfaction, and organizational tenure with employability. Furthermore, the two latter

relationships will also be tested with a possible moderating role of the CSE trait. This study could add to the current employability-, career building-, and organizational behaviour literature, by summarizing and combining earlier published studies to test which individual- or work-related characteristics and/or -traits, and to what extent, have impact on one’s employability.

2. Theoretical background

In this section of the study the current literature and most relevant understanding of the concept employability will be reviewed. After providing a theoretical framework of the concept employability and an explanation how the core self-evaluation trait, job security, and organizational tenure are important predictors of employability, hypotheses will be

(13)

2.1. Development of the employability concept

In the last twenty to thirty years, employability gathered more (empirical) attention

concerning research on the concept of what it includes and what it affects. The reason for this is the current pace in recent years and decades of rapidly changing information- and

knowledge-intensive economy, business environments, and labour market. (Bridgstock, 2009; Brouwer, 2015; Keeley et al., 2013). These changes are the result of an increasing rate of innovation accelerations of business worldwide (Froehlich et al., 2014). In order to be able to anticipate changes in business, which will lead to a constant adaptation of job descriptions (Froehlich et al., 2014), organizations need to attract employers with the right competences. Competences being a specific category of resources to achieve organizational performance (van der Heijde & van der Heijden, 2006). This also means that individuals should possess certain competencies (Froehlich et al., 2014) in order to be able to self-manage a career building process, and thus proactively navigating the world of work (Bridgstock, 2009). Possessing the needed competencies is of importance because employment security (Baruch, 2001; De Vos et al., 2011), work characterized by a finite and fixed set of tasks, competences or skills acquired for one job (Bridgstock, 2009) and life-long labouring for one (or two) employers (Fugate et al., 2004) cannot be taken for granted anymore. Individuals need to be able to maintain employment and therefore, need to obtain generic skills and not only maintain and develop knowledge and skills that are specific to their own discipline. By developing the skills, dispositions, and attributes that are transferable to many occupational situations and areas they will enhance their attractiveness to current and prospective employers (Bridgstock, 2009). Individuals should be willing and able to adapt to different- and changing environments (Fugate et al., 2004). This development is a movement from lifetime employment of an individual (within the same organization) (Forrier & Sels, 2003), towards a (lifelong) enhancement of employability by that individual (van der Heijden, Boon,

(14)

van der Klink & Meijs, 2009). Concluding that employability nowadays is a concept that enables workers to identify and realize career opportunities by providing and steering towards specific active adaptability, what results in an individual likelihood of gaining employment and/or movement between jobs, both within and between organizations (Fugate et al., 2004). In the next section an overview of several views on the current understandings on the

employability concept will be analysed and refinements of the concept in relation with this study will be addressed.

2.2. Understanding the employability concept

The employability concept is researched from different angles and perspectives and research is done on behalf of different purposes and varied stakeholders. This results in a tangled, varied and overwhelming availability of definitions and constructs of what employability includes. Before continuing this study, it is needed to bring nuance in the broad range availability on the concept employability.

Employability could be viewed from the one-sided, supply-side of the concept and then is explained as “the ability to keep the job one has or to get the job one desires” (Rothwell & Arnold, 2005, p. 25), specific competencies individuals should possess to allow them to get, keep or create work for themselves (Froehlich, et al., 2014), and where “the onus is on employees to acquire the knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics valued by current and prospective employers” (Fugate, et al., 2004, p. 15). From this perspective a responsibility of individuals to gain and retain or improve skills and abilities, so as to be able to meet the changing demands of the labour market, is suggested. Another view includes the perspective of supply-side, demand-side, and authorities. To depict this view, a connection of several definitions and content on this view from different authors will be summed up. The

(15)

first one is from De Grip, van Loos & Sanders (2004). They indicate employability as the involvement of a worker’s capacity and willingness to remain attractive to the labour market. Remaining attractive refers to adapting to possible future changes in tasks and/or work environment. This should partly be supported by the current organization by offering development activities to employees. An alternative comes from De Vos, et al. (2011) who “incorporate the organizational perspective by comprehending employees’ perceptions of the organization’s support for competency development as well as the individual perspective by addressing their actual participation in the initiatives offered by the organization” (De Vos et al., 2001: 439; McQuaid and Lindsay (2005). The last example is the framework of McQuaid and Lindsay (2015). Additional to individual factors, such as job search and employability skills and -attributes, they take personal circumstances and external factors into account as factors which influence the whole concept of employability and the extent to which an individual is responsible for his or her own employability. Examples of personal

circumstances are work culture, within family or among peers, access to transport, financial- or social capital, and household circumstances, such as caring responsibilities or costs for housing. Those circumstances will affect the ability of individuals to seek and benefit from opportunities on the labour market. External factors are mostly macro-economic and/or nationally bounded. These examples of the external factors are the current state of the labour market, environmental economic conditions, and support factors. In a broader sense these three perspectives refer to a small or large picture on the concept employability and point towards the question who responsibility it is to enhance employability. This ranges from a responsibility of an individual, to a very broad concept where the answer of enhancing employability is more associated with aspects of the environment of an individual.

(16)

the effect of individual- and work-related characteristics and -traits on one’s employability. These are measures of the individual or employee; the supply-side of employability, affecting their employability level. Moreover, core self-evaluations are abilities, perceptions, actions or developments from one’s self, which also support the supply-side perspective. Besides, individuals could hardly change external factors sufficiently. With the importance of oneself in one’s employability, the next part of the study will discuss the antecedents of both the employability concept, and the core self-evaluation trait. Moreover, the role of the evaluation traits in relation with employability will be discussed.

2.3. Employability and core self-evaluations

The concept employability contains dimensions which are all referring to enhancing or maintain the right abilities to have the attitude or qualities that facilitates individual’s capacity, capability and willingness to realize or retain a valuable position on the labour market. As discussed in the introduction, research in the field of employability conclude the concept employability to be a coherent concept consisting five dimensions (Fugate et al., 2004). These dimensions are human capital (1), social capital (2), self-awareness (3), adaptability (4), and perceived-employability (5). Human capital (1) refers to the extent to which an individual can meet the expectations of performance of a given task and activity (Fugate et al., 2004). Hereby individual characteristics such as education, work experience, training skills, and knowledge, elements that affect an individual’s career advancement (McArdle, Waters, Briscoe & Hall, 2007), are taken into consideration. It makes sense this is one of the dimensions of the concept employability. When an individual (continuously) invests in skill improvement, this will lead to a greater value in the marketplace (Becker, 1964) and development of their human capital (McCardle et al., 2007), and therefore will enhance employability as analysed. Another dimension of employability, social capital (2), is - besides a dimension of the concept

(17)

employability - also a dimension of career building skills. Social capital could be realized by engaging in (strategic) personal- and professional relationships, like personal and family support networks and (in)formal community support networks, which might provide job opportunities and serve as important career enhancing resources (Bridgstock, 2009; McQuaid & Lindsay, 2005). For an individual these resources are important to gain specific insights

(Forrier & Sels, 2003), such as access to career-related networks, information resources, and

social support during job search processes (Fugate et al., 2004). The third dimension is

adaptability (3) and, can also be referred to as personal adaptability, as such employability is

being viewed from an individuals’ perspective. It is an indicator for the level of the willingness or capacity to change personal factors (Fugate et al., 2004). Not only adopting changes such as

for example changing the content of work or organizational restructuring or downsizing, but

also the ability and acceptance of changes in favour of job seeking qualities, such as wage,

working hours, occupations, sector and (geographical) mobility (McQuaid & Lindsay, 2005).

It is a combination of willingness and ability “to change behaviours, feelings and thoughts in

responses to environmental demands” (McArdle et al., 2007, p. 248). The fourth dimension of the concept employability is self-awareness (4). This is the reflection about past and present careers in favour of providing direction in future career opportunities (Fugate et al., 2004), which will be possible with the ability of an individual to identify one’s knowledge, abilities, skills, interests, values, personality, strengths and weaknesses (Hawkins & Winter, 1977). Overall it is the extent to which individuals are aware of their strengths, weaknesses, competencies, interests, goals and values and being able to use this awareness for career development. The fifth dimension is the rating of one’s own employability (5), thus (self-) perceived employability, which is different from (objective) employability. When comparing those two, the latter is the one of which several definitions have already been discussed and is an objective measure of employability and in contrast with self-rating of abilities and traits. The

(18)

former one refers to someone’s own belief or expectation about their own level of employability and is someone’s belief or perception in possibilities of finding a new job in another organization (Eby, Butts & Lockwood 2003; Kirves, Kinnunen & De Cuyper, 2014), in employment opportunities that are readily available for an individual (van den Broeck, De Cuyper, Baillien, Vanbelle, Vanhercke, de Witte, 2014). Self-perceived or perceived employability are no objective measures. Rothwell and Arnold (2005) concluded that self- perceived employability is distinguishable from employability. Moreover, they defined self-perceived employability as a “current assessment of one’s capacity to navigate the world of work in the future (especially short-term)” (Rothwell & Arnold, 2005, p. 26). All the variables which are included in the scale they developed, serve to some extent the image and/or self-belief of an individual’s occupations, experience and qualities. A high level of self-perceived employability is positively related with career satisfaction, perceived marketability (De Vos et al., 2011), handling job insecurity (Forrier & Sels, 2003), performance and productivity (Fugate et al., 2004). Overall this would suggest a positive effect of (support for) competence development on self-perceived employability. Thus, increasing one’s self-perceived employability would ultimately result in an actual improvement of one’s (objective) employability. Altogether, the five dimensions of employability influence one another (Fugate, 2004). Moreover, social- and human capital provide employability with a market-interfacing dimension. More specifically these two dimensions enable individuals to be active on the labour market in favour of personal gain, enabling employers to evaluate potential candidates and are often important elements of an individual’s self-definition (Fugate et al, 2004).

Core self-evaluations or core evaluations of the self is one the three elements of the concept core evaluations, proposed by Judge et al.. The concept defines a base of how individuals mentally determine views about themselves, about the world, and about other people. They

(19)

argue that individuals can differ quite a lot from each other within these views which can have divergent effects on their reactions to many different (non-) job situations. Moreover, they propose the extent of three specific attributes of dispositional traits which can have a different impact on several job situations, other traits, attitudes and behaviours. The first are traits which differ from involving evaluations (for example self-esteem as an evaluation of the self) to descriptions (for example introversion as how one acts). The second are traits which differ from basic- or more underlying traits (for example dominance) to surface traits (for example arrogance). Source traits are causes of surface traits. The third is the wideness of the scope of a trait and can differ from cardinal- (broader, for example one’s evaluation of oneself) to secondary traits (for example one’s evaluation of one’s artistic ability). Actions taken by individuals, because and based on (the extent of) one’s specific traits, lead to the determination of one’s core evaluations and thus impacts one’s job situations, other traits, attitudes, and behaviours in a specific way. So, Judge et al. (1997) proposed a model of core evaluations from the perspective of the individual and argued that one’s acting and dealing depends on these views, and differences in associated traits. To zoom in to their core self-evaluations, the most important of the three domains (the world, others and the self) (Judge et al., 1998), they proposed the inclusion of three components, which are self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, and neuroticism and considered them individually, because they all three got separately researched (Judge et al. 1997). They did not include locus of control, because they reviewed locus of control as related but distinct concept from efficacy. Their reason is that self-efficacy is the ability to do what is necessary to perform, while locus of control is steered towards the outcomes of performance. In contrast, Judge et al. (1998) and Judge et al. (2002) involve locus of control as part of the core self-evaluations concept. The substantiation for this is that locus of control, just like generalized self-efficacy, is the belief in oneself acting and performing relating it with one’s environment (Judge et al., 1998). Another justification for this

(20)

is the connection, overlap, and similarities with characteristics of self-esteem and neuroticism. In a meta-analytic research, Judge et al. (2002) reviewed that scores on self-esteem have corresponding outcomes as those same scores of locus of control has on those outcomes. For example, individuals with a low self-esteem are susceptible to self-relevant social cues, while individuals with an external locus of control were more likely to change their attitudes. Moreover, they reviewed that the principle of the element neuroticism, which is anxiety, is also an outcome of external locus of control and overall suggested that both traits have similar effects in terms of their effect on relevant other variables. Overall, the core self-evaluations trait is best defined by Judge et al. (1998) as ‘fundamental premises that individuals hold about themselves and their functioning in the world’ (p. 161).

This study will contribute to the study of the role of evaluation traits, more specifically the core self-evaluations traits, on the individual’s employability. The main question of the study relates to how these traits relate directly with employability and how the core self-evaluation trait moderates the relationship between both job security, and organizational tenure with employability. In the next part of the study the influences and effects of the traits will be reviewed. Moreover, these traits, job security, and organizational tenure will be discussed in relation with employability, followed by a hypothesis development after each discussion.

2.4. Hypothesis development

Both the concept employability, as a coherent concept of multiple dimensions (Fugate et al., 2004; Judge et al., 2002), and core self-evaluations (CSE) is considered as one concept and with inclusion of measures of four indicators: self-esteem, neuroticism (opposite of emotional stability), locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy. CSE is mostly reviewed as one concept (Bono & Judge, 2003; Johnson et al. 2008; Judge et. al, 2002; Judge et. al, 2003,

(21)

Judge et al., 2004) and researched in relation to job satisfaction (Judge et. al, 1997; Judge et. al, 1998; Wu, 2010) and job performance (Bono & Judge, 2003; Erez & Judge, 2001; Grant & Wrzesniewski, 2010; Ferris et al., 2011; Kacmar et al. 2009; Judge, 2009), and to a lesser extent in relation to life satisfaction (Judge et. al, 1998). Or sometimes same all of these are combined (Chang, Ferris, Johnson, Rosen & Tan, 2012; Judge, Bono, Erez & Locke, 2005). The relation of CSE with employability seems likely, partly because of the overlap between the two concepts and because of the relations of the three aspects (job satisfaction, job performance and life satisfaction) with CSE. The including dimensions of the concept employability are relatable to these three aspects.

First, as discussed in the previous section, employability is a concept which contains relevant aspects which are overall referring to enhancing or maintain abilities to have the attitude or qualities in favour of willingness, capacity, and capability, to realize or retain a valuable position on the labour market. Next, core self-evaluations are premises that individuals hold about themselves and their functioning in relation to the rest of the world and act based on (the extent of) their specific traits, what impacts one’s job situations, other traits, attitudes and behaviours in a specific way. To make a comparison, these two concepts are overlapping in the extent of one’s acting towards enhancing or maintaining qualities to perform in a way of what is asked from them in their environment to meet expectations and requirements.

Moreover, it could be argued that some dimensions of the concept employability, as reviewed before, and the three related aspects with the concept CSE, like just mentioned, are

overlapping or have some interfaces. Human capital refers to performance of given tasks and activities and thus is relatable to job performance. Social capital refers to engaging in

personal- and professional relationships and could be related to life satisfaction. Adaptability is the willingness and capacity to change personal factors and could possibly relate to (future)

(22)

job satisfaction. Self-awareness and perceived employability both engage in one’s reflection to provide direction towards the future and both could be related to both (future) job

satisfaction and (future) job performance. Thus, the three measures which are often reported to have positively been influenced by CSE, are precisely those three measures that seemingly are overlapping with the dimensions of the concept employability. When those measures, job satisfaction, job performance and life satisfaction partly measure the same as the dimensions human capital, social capital, adaptability, self-awareness, and perceived employability, then CSE could be expected the same effect on employability. But, while core self-evaluations have been linked to higher job performance, research has shown variability in the strength of this relationship. These are two of the reasons to meta-analytically review the effect of each of the core self-evaluations traits, separately from each other, on employability. Those four traits are self-esteem (1), emotional stability (2), locus of control (3), and generalized self-efficacy (4).

Self-esteem (1) is the appraisal of an individual’s self and the overall value of a rating of oneself as a person (Harter, 1990). This is instantly considered as the most fundamental indicator of core self-evaluations (Judge et al., 1997). High self-esteem individuals, compared to low self-esteem individuals, tend to be more job-satisfied (Callahan & Kidd, 1986;

Brockner, 1988), find greater satisfaction in achievements (Locke, 1976), and have more task success and task satisfaction (Korman, 1968). The reason that individuals with low self-esteem are more likely to show less job satisfaction is because their jobs do not suit them (Brockner, 1988), which can be clarified by the addressing that high self-esteem individuals, in comparison with low self-esteem individuals, more often chose occupations that

correspond with their abilities, personalities, and self-perceived traits (Tharenou, 1979). Moreover, individuals with low self-esteem, have lower aspirations and expectations of

(23)

success and exhibit poorer social skills and less sociability (Tharenou, 1979). In turn,

individuals with strong social support, have higher self-esteem, because they are more likely to feel valued (McIntosh, 1991). These mentioned outcomes of self-esteem on job-/task satisfaction and -achievement, self-perceived traits, characteristics and qualities, and social activities are possibly related with the dimensions human capital, adaptability and self-perceived employability, dimensions of the concept employability. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed and will be tested:

H1: Self-esteem is positively related to employability.

Emotional stability, or low neuroticism, is the extent of the level of one’s confidence, security and steadiness (Judge & Bono, 2001). Just like Judge et al. (1998), it is frequently indicated or measured as the negative pole, which is neuroticism. High neuroticism is reviewed by them as the degree of one’s insecurity, guilt and modesty. Individuals with high neuroticism are more prone to fear towards new or adapted situations and to feel dependent and helpless.

Neuroticism is defined by Costa and McCrae (1987) as “a broad dimension of individual differences in the tendency to experience negative, distressing emotions, and to possess associated behavioural and cognitive traits" (p. 301) and is negatively correlated with job satisfaction (Furnham & Zacherl, 1986). High measures of stress, anxiety, and uncertainty are characteristics of neuroticism. To cope with stressful situations or -events, such as

unemployment, social support can help (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; McArdle et al., 2007). Neuroticism is often an outcome of low self-esteem. Individuals with low self-esteem exhibit anxiety, depression and neurotic behaviours, perform less effectively under stress and failure (Tharenou, 1979), and are more emotionally affected by criticism, and experience more feelings anxiety on the job (Locke, 1976). The mentioned effects of the negative pole of emotional stability, neuroticism, like social capital and low self-esteem, realises the likelihood

(24)

of a negative relation with employability. Therefore, with using the positive pole, the following hypothesis is proposed and will be tested:

H2: Emotional stability is positively related to employability.

Locus of control, can vary between an internal- or external locus of control. With an internal locus of control individuals believe that they control events that are occurring in their lives (Judge et al., 1998) and thus is focused on control over the outcomes to which performance leads (Judge et al., 1997). Which means that the opposite, an external locus of control, is the belief of someone that events occur because of the environment and others and they don’t have a grip on situations or events (Judge et al., 1998; Spector, 1982). Moreover, when individuals with an internal locus of control are faced with their inadequate or below average execution of tasks, they are increasing their efforts to increase their actual performance to the asked standards (Weiss & Sherman, 1973). Judge et al. (2002) reviewed that measures of locus of control and self-esteem are overlapping and that locus of control is negatively related to anxiety. Moreover, they reviewed an almost as strong relationship between locus of control and stress, as the relationship between neuroticism and anxiety. Because of the mentioned relations between self-esteem and neuroticism with locus of control, and the expected corresponding effects of those traits on employability, and furthermore the expected actions undertaken by individuals with an internal locus of control on job dissatisfaction and

insufficient job performance, the following hypothesis is proposed and will be tested: H3: Locus of control is positively related to employability.

Generalized self-efficacy is the last self-evaluation of the trait and is characterised by one’s actions. Measures of generalized self-efficacy differ from measures of locus of control. Where locus of control is related to the confidence in being able to control outcomes, generalized self-efficacy refers to the actions and behaviours (towards these outcomes) (Judge et al.,

(25)

1998). Moreover, generalized self-efficacy is defined as “one's estimates of one's capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to exercise general control over events in one's life” (Judge et al., 1998), and is an appraisal of how well one can handle life’s challenges (Locke, McClear & Knight, 1996). Generalized self-efficacy differs from self-efficacy, which is the same as task-specific self-efficacy (Judge et al., 1998) and a distinct construct (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Where the former refers more to the mobilization of capabilities needed to perform, the latter one refers to the perception of possessing the right abilities needed to perform specific challenges (Judge et al., 1998) and - so - it is more of an internal condition (Taylor, 2009). Individuals with high self-efficacy, should be more likely to attain valued outcomes, to realize job satisfaction (Judge et al., 1997), because they will deal effectively with difficulties and have perseverance (Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Generalized self-efficacy represents a core self-evaluation, because it can be viewed as the reflection of an individual’s perception of one’s ability to cope with needs and desires (Judge et al., 1998). Additionally, general efficacy is one of the components of self-esteem (Locke et al., 1996). Overall, generalized self-efficacy indicates an individual’s tendency to view oneself capable of meeting task demands in all kind of contexts and

therefore general self-efficacy is expected to positively influence specific self-efficacy across tasks and situations (Chen, Gully & Eden, 2001; Eden, 1988). Moreover, general self-efficacy is positively related to learning goal orientation and other motivational traits, such as the need for achievement and conscientiousness (Chen, Gully & Eden, 2000). While general- and specific self-efficacy are distinct constructs, general self-efficacy moderates the impact of external influences, such as performance feedback, training and experimental treatments, on several dependent variables including specific efficacy. Therefore, high general self-efficacy can help against (potential) adverse events and circumstances (Chen et al., 2001). This is profitable in the need of enhancing generalist competences (Pfeffer & Veiga, 1999),

(26)

which comes along with the development of jobs, tasks, and roles in organizations are becoming increasingly broad, complex, and demanding (Keeley et al., 2013). This is

underlined by Chen et al. (2001) stating that “high general self-efficacy is a valuable resource for organizations because it can maintain employees’ work motivation throughout rapidly changing and stressful job demands and circumstances and buffer them from the potentially demotivating impact of failure” (p. 64). Because of this expectation of employees, the mentioned relation with self-esteem and job satisfaction and the possible positive effect on self-awareness, adaptability and perceived employability, dimensions of the concept employability, the following hypothesis is proposed and will be tested:

H4: Generalized self-efficacy is positively related to employability.

All four traits of the core self-evaluation construct are separately hypothesised to be positively related to employability. As reviewed, the four traits together are markers of one, and even the higher order concept core self-evaluations (Judge et al., 2002). Together with the first four hypotheses and the reviewed effects of the effect of the construct on e.g. job satisfaction, job performance, and other job-related outcomes the following hypothesis is proposed and will be tested:

H5: Core self-evaluations trait is positively related to employability.

Next to testing the relationship between core self-evaluations and employability, the effect of an individual’s job security on one’s employability will be valuable knowledge. It is one of the purposes of this study to test this relationship to prove the relevance for both employers and employees. From organizational perspective it will be worthwhile to know if investing in offering employee job security will serve specific organizational goals concerning employee- or performance outcomes. The study measures the impact on employee employability. Just as discussed before, this benefits the employer by employee possession and ability to improve

(27)

the necessary capabilities and competencies to meet requirements of jobs, which are competence-based to act as a resource for organizational performance and -advantage. Therefore, employee employability as an outcome is favourable for organizations to serve performance outcomes. From an individual’s perspective it is relevant to know if they should demand for and dedicate to job security at their employer to maintain or improve one’s employability and thus if it influences their attractiveness for their current or future

employers. Job security is often defined as an employee who remains employed with the same organization (Meltz, 1989) and is offered by organizations by providing stable employment (Herzberg, 1968). The opposite, job insecurity, is the perception and concern of involuntary losing one’s job (de Witte, 1999). The reported effects of the relationship between job (in)security and employability vary over several earlier studies. The effects were reviewed earlier in the present study. Many earlier studies reported a significant positive effect of job security on employability. But often no significant effect was reported as well. With a meta-analytic review this relationship is subject to control and order will be created in the current ample availability. Job insecurity is often reported with several negative work attitudes, lower performance (Kalyal et al., 2010), job satisfaction (de Cuyper et al., 2009), and organizational commitment (Ashford, Lee & Bobko, 1989). Silla, de Cuyper, Gracia, Peiro & De Witte (2008) published a study about the relationship between job insecurity and well-being with moderation of employability. They reviewed employee feelings of job security as something which is decreasingly present in their jobs because of earlier discussed fundamental changes in the labour market. For that reason, they discuss the need for a sufficient level of one’s employability as replacement of job security and social protection or as a tool to reduce unfavourable consequences of job insecurity. Furthermore, they stated that job insecurity together with low perceived employability is resulting in a low sense of control. The results of the study concluded a negative relationship between job insecurity and life satisfaction, while

(28)

this relationship is moderated by one’s employability. Higher measures of individual employability weaken the negative relationship. Moreover, the study reported a significant negative relationship between job insecurity and employability. In another study from Kalyal, et al. (2010) again the moderating role of one’s employability in the effect of job insecurity was found. In their study higher measures of employability weakens the negative effects on individuals’ commitment to change, while that in turn reduces negative effects of job

insecurity. With these reviews and the knowledge of the relationship of job performance, job satisfaction, and life satisfaction to employability the following hypothesis is proposed and will be tested:

H6: it is expected that job security is positively related to employability.

In these earlier referring’s, job (in)security is indicated as a fixed indicator, mostly based on employment contracts and organizational developments. However, after a qualitative research of Ferrie, Stansfeld, and Marmot (2002), they are not only addressing the potential job loss. They additionally reported job insecurity as a threat or removing of valued features of one’s job and on being assigned unwanted tasks and responsibilities, which results in feelings of increased vulnerability. Therefore, job insecurity is often reported as a stressor in relation to negative effects in individuals psychological sphere. Several studies discussing and reporting the relationship of job insecurity with (self-reported) measures of irritation, psychosomatic complaints (Bussing, 1999), anxiety, depression, strain (Silla et al., 2008), uncertainty (Hartley, 1991), work stress (de Cuyper et al., 2009) lack of control (DiFonzo & Bordia, 1998), psychological morbidity, and physical health (Ferrie et al., 2012). When measures of (perceived) employability are involved in the research model, these effects were reduced or not present for individuals with higher measures of employability. This effect could possibly be comparable for the effect of core self-evaluations on the negative relationship between job insecurity and effects in the psychological sphere. This suggestion is based on the review of

(29)

the core self-evaluation trait so far. Evaluation traits of individuals have different impact on several (non-) job situations, attitudes and behaviours. Therefore, an effect on the relationship between difference in one’s measure on the core self-evaluation construct is expected.

Moreover, the effects of antecedents of the trait reinforces this suggestion. First, individuals with high self-esteem, the most fundamental indicator of the trait, are more likely to feel valued and more often choose for occupations corresponding with their abilities, personalities, and self-perceived traits. Both, but especially the former one, will be able to undermine

stressors caused by job insecurity. Second, generalized self-efficacy is the extent to which one can handle life’s challenges. As job insecurity is a (continuous) challenge to handle in one’s life it is likely generalized self-efficacy have effect on job insecurity itself, it’s coherent stressors and how these relates to one’s employability. The effect on employability for an individual with low job security, but can cope with this challenge, will possibly diminish. Third, both measures of emotional stability and locus of control foster psychological stressors accompanied with job insecurity. Low measures of emotional stability (high neuroticism) are characterised by stress, anxiety, and uncertainty. And thus, high measures of emotional stability could mitigate those feelings. Locus of control is related with measures of anxiety, and stress. Moreover, locus of control refers to the extent to which one believe they can control events. When one believes their possibility to influence the (negative) effect(s) of job insecurity, one will act in their favour, what impacts the relationship between job (in)security and employability. This discussion is mostly done with the notion to diminish effects of job insecurity on employability. In this study the focus is on the effect of positive measures of antecedents and therefore these suggestions will be reversed to the positive, which results in proposing and testing the following hypothesis:

H6a: it is expected that the relationship between job security and employability is moderated by core self-evaluations of the individual, so that this relationship is

(30)

stronger for higher scores on core self-evaluations and weaker for low scores on core self-evaluations.

What applies for the effect of job security on employability is opposite to the relationship between tenure and employability. Current available studies often reported a significant negative effect of tenure on employability. But several studies report no significant effect. One of the purposes of this study is meta-analytically review earlier research reporting this relationship. This is valuable for employers if one’s employability increases or decreases, the longer the person is working for the organization and could impact their employee selection- and retention tactics. For individuals this is relevant in relation to their aspirations in relation with their attractiveness for their current or future employers. Tenure is measured as the number of years an employee is present in the current organization (organizational tenure) or in the present job (job tenure) (Yousef, 1997). Tenure is a fixed indicator and thus not subject for discussion of interpretation or meaning. Van Dam (2004) found that how longer an employee is present in the organization, the more their attitudes toward the organization and their career change. She discussed that more-tenured employees are facing decreased

multiskilling and higher pay expectations, which results in fewer opportunities on the external labour market. Even more dependence on the present organization is increasing, because of the resulting lack of interest in employability development, what reduces the attractiveness on the labour market even more. The finding of Yousef (1997) adds to this discussion, because he found that job security increases with tenure in present job, with tenure in present

organization and monthly income. Which implies it is increasingly difficult or less likely possible for an employee to make a shift between organizations. Furthermore, other studies report outcomes of which support this suggestion. Earlier studies report a negative effect of organizational tenure on mobility behaviour (Campion, Cheraskin, & Stevens, 1994; Krecker, 1994), the willingness to accept mobility opportunities (Landau & Hammer, 1986)

(31)

development activities (Kozlowski & Hults, 1987; McEnrue, 1989), and career-related activities (Cleveland & Shore, 1992). While opposite, employees with low-tenure have more positive attitudes towards participating in employability developments (van Dam, 2003b), get more opportunities for mobility, and have higher mobility expectations (Campion et al., 1994). Therefore, it seems favourable for both employees and employers not to allow too much organizational tenure in favour of individuals employability. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed and will be tested:

H7: it is expected that organizational tenure is negatively related to employability.

To mitigate this effect of organizational tenure Van Dam (2004) suggested to let organizations stimulate their employees to participate in development activities to work on their career, participate in development activities, adopting a learning culture to offer career support in favour of one’s employability development. Personality traits could also have effect on these activities and therefore possibly on the relationship between organizational tenure and employability. The relevance of core self-evaluations traits in relation of one’s employability is emphatically discussed and could also serve the evaluation and awareness of individuals towards these needed activities. The review of the employability concept and the

corresponding developments of the need of organizations to have employees who have the competences and qualities for changing work settings also add to this suggestion. Personality traits openness and initiative were already reported with a significant positive effect on employability orientation- and activities (van Dam, 2004). In line with this, there may also be a role of evaluation traits in this model, because of their effect on attitudes and behaviours towards job situations. Measures of the positive evaluation traits of individuals (high esteem, high emotional stability, high internal locus of control, and high generalized self-efficacy) were already reviewed to have comparable effects on attitudes and behaviours. While low-tenure employees exhibit positive attitudes towards activities developing one’s

(32)

employability, one’s high measures on core self-evaluation traits could buffer this contrarian movement for higher-tenure employees. Therefore, the following hypotheses is proposed and will be tested.

H7a: it is expected that the relationship between job tenure and employability is moderated by core self-evaluations of the individual, so that this relationship will be weaker for higher scores on core self-evaluations and stronger for low scores on core self-evaluations.

3. Method & Data

In this section, information about the details of the research method of the current study and corresponding steps will be provided. With a meta-analysis the relation between all four core self-evaluations; self-esteem (H1), emotional stability (H2), locus of control (H3) and

generalized self-efficacy (H4), with employability will be separately reviewed. Furthermore, the comprehensive core self-evaluation trait in relation with employability will be reviewed (H5). Besides the review of individual personality traits, the relationship between job security (H6) and organizational tenure (H7) both with employability, will be reviewed. For the two latter relationships a moderation effect will be reviewed. More specifically, with core self-evaluation as a moderating effect on both the relationship between job security (H6a) and organizational tenure (H7a) with employability. The purpose of a meta-analysis is to estimate the direction and impact of effects in the population, by combining effect sizes of multiple earlier studies (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).

(33)

3.1. Research method

This study is related with a potential large comprehensive study on employability; it’s predictors, outcomes, and antecedents. For the potential study an already comprehensive database of published studies, reporting those details, is established. The database is managed by the supervisors of this thesis. Search activities have been carried out in the interest of support and add to the magnitude of the potential study. More specifically, these search activities were focused on detecting unpublished studies as to be able to expand the database. Meanwhile, this database is available for the current study to perform a meta-analysis. In the database all collected studies are encoded based on guidelines of Lipse and Wilson (2001). Because of this encoding, all relevant reported statistical details of the employability concept, predictors, and outcomes, reported by the included studies, are retrievable in the database. These details compromise employability, predictor, and outcome definition, dimensions, -label, -measure, measure reference, number of items, number of scale points, reliability coefficient, mean, and standard deviations. For both predictors and outcomes additional details were provided: correlation with employability, the page number where the correlation table is presented, significance level, and if it concerns a hypothesis. (Izekor, 2016).

3.2. Sample of studies

The database with earlier studies reporting antecedents, outcomes and/or predictors of

employability was obtained as discussed in the previous section. Today, this database contains 191 studies. The focus of the current study is on the variables appointed in the proposed hypotheses. These are antecedents of employability, self-esteem, emotional stability, locus of control, generalized efficacy, job security, organizational tenure and the core

self-evaluation trait. For each of the predictor variables, studies were filtered out of the total amount of 191 studies. This selection process is based on certain characteristics of those

(34)

studies. For all hypothesized predictors the search strategy and selection process will be explained step by step, followed by an overview of the studies which will be used for the meta-analysis.

Self-esteem. The database was searched for studies based on keywords. ‘Self-esteem’ and ‘self-doubt’, the contrary of self-esteem, were used in searching the independent variables or predictors of employability. Twelve studies were found, corresponding to this search criteria. Studies measuring predictors of employability reported variables as esteem, implicit self-esteem, organizational based self-esteem and self-doubt. Implicit self-esteem is a constituent of self-esteem and not measuring the same as self-esteem. One study (Rusu et al., 2015) was reporting this variable. The effect of this variable is excluded for the analysis. This same study also reported about self-esteem as a predictor of employability and therefore the study is not excluded. One study (de Cuyper, Raeder, Van der Heijden & Wittekind, 2012) reported self-perceived employability as an antecedent of employability, but this is distinguishable from (perceived) employability (Rothwell & Arnold, 2005). Only this effect, and not the whole study, is excluded, because they measure other relevant outcomes. Another study reports about the effect of organizational based self-esteem (Kim et al., 2014). The study consciously measures this dimension, because of difference with global self-esteem. This study is

excluded from the review, because of the nature of self-esteem hypothesized in the present study. For the study of Wanberg (1997), optimism was coded as antecedent of employability. However, the author interprets this variable as a personality one, measuring it with the

measurement scale Life Orientation Test and therefore this study is excluded. Four studies (de Cuyper, et al., 2012; Gowan, 2012; Waters, Hall & Wang, 2014; Negru-Subtirica, Pop & Crocetti, 2015) measured effects over several timepoints. In a meta-analysis, only the first time-point will be included. Therefore, only the effects of the first timepoints of these studies

(35)

are included for the review. A total of ten studies remain applicable to perform a meta-analysis. An overview of the characteristics of these studies, relating with self-esteem, are summarized in table 1.

Emotional stability. For this variable the database was searched for studies based on the keywords ‘emotional stability and ‘neuroticism’, the contrary of emotional stability. Nine studies were found, corresponding to this search criteria. Studies measuring predictors of employability reported variables as neuroticism and daily emotional stability. Gunkel and Schlaegel (2010) uses two different country samples for their analysis. Both will be included to the meta-analysis. Two studies, Rusu et al. (2015) and van Vianen et al., 2012, reported both about self-esteem (previous variable) and neuroticism as predictors variables of employability. Again, both studies will be included to the meta-analysis. Rossier, Zecca, Stauffer, Maggiori & Dauwalder (2012) used two different measurement scales for two different samples. From the total sample, 283 participants completed the Zuckerman–

(36)

Kuhlman–Aluja personality questionnaire and 108 participants completed the NEO five-factor inventory revised questionnaire. Only the characteristics of the complete sample, 391

participants, were shared in the study. Nevertheless, these two samples are included to the review, because both reliability and correlation data were reported separately for each sample separately. A total of nine studies, with eleven samples, remain applicable to perform a meta-analysis. An overview of the characteristics of these studies, relating with emotional stability, are summarized in table 2.

Locus of control, Generalized Self-Efficacy, and Core Self-evaluations. For these three predictor variables, in total five studies were detected. Only the study of Onyishi,

Enwereuzor, Ituma, and Omenma (2012) is excluded for the meta-analysis. They measured self-perceived employability as a measure of employability. In the current study, the latter variable is reviewed as an antecedent of employability. The former variable is not. The

remaining four studies are included for the meta-analysis. Zacher (2014a) and Zacher (2015b) about emotional stability (or neuroticism) and core self-evaluations traits as predictor

variables of employability. Again, these same studies will be included to the meta-analysis. An overview of the characteristics of these studies, relating with locus of control, generalized self-efficacy, and core self-evaluation trait, are summarized in table 3.

(37)

Job Security. For this variable the database was searched for studies based on the keywords. ‘job security’ and ‘job insecurity’. Ten studies were found, corresponding to this search criteria. Studies measuring predictors of employability reported were labelled as (perceived-) (internal- and external-) employability. Maggiori, Johnston, Krings, Massoudi, and Rossier (2013) measured job security as both past- and future job insecurity. Because of difference in nature between their measurement and purpose of the current study, this study is excluded for the meta-analysis. They measured job security which refers to specific past- or future

(38)

timepoints, which were not applicable for the moment it occurs. In this study it is favourable to have the job (in)security statistic at the time of measuring. An overview of the

characteristics of these ten studies, relating with job security, are summarized in table 4.

Organizational Tenure. For this variable the database was searched for studies based on the keyword ‘tenure’. Eighteen studies were found, corresponding to this search criteria. Because many studies didn’t distinguish job tenure from organizational tenure in their labelling, all these studies were checked to which of these specifically was measured. Zacher (2015a) measured job tenure specifically. Van der Heijde and van der Heijden (2006) measured tenure both as total period of working experience and as period of working for the current

supervisor. Measures of these two studies are different from organizational tenure. Therefore, these two studies are excluded for the meta-analysis. In the remaining sixteen studies

employability was labelled as employability orientation, re-employment efficacy,

employability, job mobility, anticipation & optimization, personal flexibility, corporate sense, balance, occupational expertise, perceived employability, boundaryless mindset,

(39)

organizational mobility reference, self-directed career attitudes, value-driven predispositions, inter-organizational mobility, protean career orientation, boundaryless career orientation, social capital, career adaptability, employability culture, internal employability orientations, and internal employability activities. All these variables were checked if these measuring (dimensions of) employability like reviewed in the current study. The variable

inter-organizational, only refers to the number of shifts between organizations. This does not relate to the employability concept as reviewed in current study. Therefore, this study from

Innocenti, Sammarra and Profili (2012) is excluded for the meta-analysis. Neither, self-perceived employability is a measure of the employability concept, like discussed before. Therefore, also the study of de Vos et al. (2011) is excluded for the meta-analysis. An

overview of the characteristics of the remaining fourteen studies, relating with organizational tenure, are summarized in table 5.

(40)

With the discussed selection criteria, decisions for the benefit of this meta-analytic review, concerning including and excluding studies and specific relationships, were made. For each of the studies some additional decision criteria will be met (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). The sample of included studies for this meta-analysis measured and reported the relationship of a

predictor- or correlation variable with a measure of employability. For some of these studies, multiple relevant relationships within one sample were measured. More specifically, one predictor- or correlation variable relates with various dependent employability measures, which result in multiple effect sizes for one independent variable. All these effect sizes will not get involved in running the meta-analysis, because then the sample would be overvalued relatively compared with other samples. Instead, both the reliability scores (Cronbach’s alpha (α)) and the effect sizes of the independent variable, will be averaged to one single effect size

The influence of core self-evaluations on employability and their moderating effect on the relationship between both job security and organizational tenure with employability : a meta-analysis