1
To hire or not to hire overqualified people in order to achieve proactive work behaviours
Author: Anne van de Wolfshaar Student number: 10751130
Date of submission: 29-06-2015 (final draft) First supervisor: MSc. Renske van Geffen Second supervisor: MSc. Inge Wolsink
2
Statement of originalityThis document is written by Anne van de Wolfshaar 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.
Abstract
Research about over-qualification is contradictory, on the one hand it is beneficially for individual and organizational performance, but on the other hand, hiring overqualified employees is not advantageous for organizations since over-qualification has a negative influence on employee’s subjective well-being,
satisfaction, affective organizational commitment (AOC) and nevertheless overqualified employees have more intentions to quit their job. To investigate the paradox, there is more research needed between
over-qualification and other organizational outcomes. For instance, the influence of over-over-qualification on proactive behaviours which this research accomplishes by investigating the effect of over-qualification on personal initiative and taking charge behaviours. The results of regression-analyses indicate that there is no
relationship between over-qualification and personal initiative but over-qualification has a positive effect on taking charge behaviours. Hiring overqualified employees appears to improve taking charge behaviours of employees at work, which leads to more innovation, change behaviours and organizational adaptation, three extremely important capabilities for today’s organizations to survive in the rapid changing environment.
3
Table of contents1. Introduction p.4-6
2. Literature review
2.1 Over-qualification p.7-8
2.2 Person- job fit p.8-9
2.3 Proactivity at work p.9
2.4 Personal Initiative p.9-10
2.5 Taking Charge p.11
2.6 Over-qualification and personal initiative p.12
2.7 Over-qualification and taking charge p.12
2.8 Affective organizational commitment and personal initiative p.13
2.9 Affective organizational commitment and taking charge p.14
2.10 Job-autonomy and personal initiative p.15
2.11 Job-autonomy and taking charge p.16
3. Method
3.1 Sample, population and survey p.17-18
3.2 Description of measures p.18-20 3.3 Analysis p.20 4. Results 4.1 Descriptive analysis p.21-22 4.2 Analyses of hypotheses p.23-24 5. Discussion
5.1 Over-qualification and personal initiative p.25
5.2 Over-qualification and taking charge p.26-28
5.3 Theoretical and practical implications p.28-29
5.4 Limitations p.29
5.5 Future research p.30
6. Conclusion p.31
7. References p.32-35
4
1. IntroductionHiring overqualified employees is according to a lot of researchers a ‘risky practice’. ‘Over-qualification has been considered harmful to organizations, organizations and managers often screen out overqualified applicants’ (Hu, Erdogan, Bauer, Jiang, Liu & Li, 2014, p.8 ). However, other researchers state that over-qualification has positive outcomes, for example, better organizational performance. Existing research about over-qualification is not in line with each other. It appears that there is a paradox between the positive effects and negative effect of over-qualification (Büchel & Mertens, 2004). This research contributes to research that attempt to resolve the paradox by examining the effects of over-qualification on proactive work behaviour. The outcomes of this research will provide a broader picture of over-qualification. Besides, the outcomes of this study can in the end serve today’s organizations by selecting people for jobs were proactivity is needed. Research about over-qualification is of great importance. The extensive influence of the economic crisis, started in 2007, is still visible in the western society, for instance the increased amount of unemployment under European employees. Since the increase of unemployment in western society and the fact that there are fewer jobs available, people are willing to take jobs that do not match their qualities (Thompson, Shea, Sikora, Perrewé & Ferris, 2013). This results in a lot of employees, who perceive themselves as overqualified, which means: employees feel like they are too highly educated or have more expertise than needed for their function/job. According to O'Connell (2010) 21 percent of Dutch workers perceived themselves as
overqualified. This high percentage of over-qualification in Dutch society shows the importance of investigating the effects of over-qualification.
Employee’s proactive behaviour is an important organizational outcome to investigate, because of the rapid changing environment, decentralisation of organizational structures and dynamic surroundings proactive behaviour of employees is more important than ever before for achieving organizational success (Crant, 2000). To adapt to the fast changing environment, today’s organizations have to invest in employees that are able to think creative, innovative and are willing to adapt or change. Because proactive employees ‘create a future outcome that has an impact on the self or environment’ (Grant & Ashford, 2008, P.9.), proactive
behaviour can contribute to the creative, innovative, adaptive and change behaviours (McKee-Ryan & Harvey, 2011). The two types of proactive behaviour constructs this research uses are personal initiative and taking charge. The following paragraph will discuss the importance of the two proactivity constructs.
Higher levels of personal initiative are necessary for jobs in today’s organizations, companies are dependent on the personal initiative capacity of their employees to obtain organizational success (Crant,
5
2000). To obtain a competitive advantage, employees have to take initiative continuously by improving and adapting their knowledge skills and abilities (Frese & Fay, 2001). Besides, the ‘new production concept’ increased the responsibility of employees on the work floor, now they have to make their own decisions and show initiative instead of just listening to their managers (Frese & Fay, 2001, p.138). Nevertheless, nowadays people do not have a function for the rest of their life, employees work more frequent on projects and when the project is finished they have to switch to another project. Personal initiative is of great importance for working in projects, because project work increases the level of responsibility of employees, they have to look after their own decisions and cannot rely on supervisors anymore (Frese & Fay, 2001).The other proactivity construct, taking charge, is important to investigate because taking charge behaviours encompass behaviours that lead to better execution of procedures and more effort to improve or change certain procedures. Taking charge behaviours result in more innovation, adaptation and change behaviours of employees (Morrison & Phelps, 1999), those behaviours are important for organizational success, ‘organizations in the long run require innovation and change, it is often valuable for employees to reject and redefine aspects of their work roles’ (Morrison & Phelps,1999, p. 403-404). In conclusion, taking charge behaviours and personal initiative behaviours lead to more innovation, change behaviours and organizational adaptation, three extremely important capabilities for today’s organizations to survive in the rapid changing environment (McKee-Ryan & Harvey, 2011).
Furthermore, research about the relationship between over-qualification and proactive behaviour does not exist. Thus it can be stated that this study might create new opportunities in the proactively behaviour research field. If this research proves that over-qualification is related to proactivity, it creates opportunities to investigate whether proactivity is the link between over-qualification and better organizational performance. (Crant, 2000). Moreover, proactivity is a complex concept, more research about mediating and moderating processes is useful to explain the tendency of an employee to behave proactive (Crant, 2000). The outcomes of the study of Farzaneh, Dehghanpour Farashah & Kazemi (2014) indicate a mediating role of organizational commitment in the relationship between over-qualification and proactivity. This is the reason why this research investigates the mediating effect of affective organizational commitment (AOC) on over-qualification and proactivity (personal initiative and taking charge). AOC is an emotional attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the organization and continuance commitment denoting the perceived costs associated with leaving the organization ’ (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch & Topolnytsky, 2002, p.21). Moreover, existing proactivity research conclude that job-autonomy increases the likelihood of proactive behaviours (Hackman &
6
Oldham, 1980; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006;Wu, Luksyte & Parker, 2014). This is the reason why this study investigate the moderation effect of job-autonomy on over-qualification-proactivity (personal initiative and taking charge). Job-autonomy ‘refers to the degree to which employees are provided with the freedom and discretion to determine how to conduct their job’ (Park & Searcy, 2012, P.305). Following research question is central in this study: Should company’s hire overqualified people in order to achieve personal initiative and taking charge behaviours, and what is the role of job-autonomy and affective organizational commitment? (model 1)Model 1: Research model
To answer the research question this research first explains the theoretical constructs: over-qualification, proactivity in general, personal initiative and taking charge. Besides, this research will outline the hypotheses and explain the proposed mediator affective organizational commitment and moderator job-autonomy. After explaining the theories and hypotheses this study will continue with method, results, discussion and finally the conclusion.
7
2. Literature review2.1. Over-qualification
Over-qualification is an aspect of underemployment that has not got much attention (Johnston, Khattab & Manley, 2015). According to the review of McKee-Ryan and Harvey (2011) there are a lot of different
definitions and types of underemployment. ‘Underemployed workers are labelled as: inadequately employed, underutilized, underpaid, overeducated, over-skilled, and overqualified or as having low skill utilization or reemployment quality’ (McKee-Ryan & Harvey, 2011, p. 964). The constructs of underemployment this study uses are: ‘over-education’ and ‘over-qualification’ (McKee-Ryan & Harvey, 2011.,p.964). Over-education is an employee’s highest obtained education minus the education level needed for their job. To measure over-qualification, this study uses over-education together with a common construct, perceived over-qualification (POQ). POQ is ‘the extent to which an employee feels that she or he has surplus education, experience, and/or KSAs (knowledge, skills, and abilities), relative to the requirements of his or her position’ (Maynard, Joseph, & Maynard, 2006, p.518).
Over-qualification is most of the time seen as a construct that brings out negative outcomes, for instance, a negative effect on employee’s subjective well-being at work. ‘ A person-job fit perspective
suggests that overqualified people have negative work experiences because of a lack of similarity between the individual and their environment. This type of person-job misfit will results in negative feelings such as a sense of deprivation’ (Wu et al., 2014, p.920). Moreover, over-qualification has a negative influence on job satisfaction and AOC of employees (Feldman, Leana & Bolino, 2002). ‘Based on relative deprivation theory ( Crosby 1976), over-qualification denotes a condition in which an individual has not obtained the expected job that they think they could have attained with their given qualifications. This can result in a feeling of being deprived of utilizing one’s skills or being under-valued, thus leading to negative work experiences such as job satisfaction or organizational commitment’ (Wu et al., 2014, p.920). Moreover, overqualified employees are more likely to leave the company (Wu et al., 2014). Companies should be mindful because overqualified employees will leave the certain function if they find a job/function which does match with their qualities (Johnston et al., 2015). In conclusion, over-qualification appears negative for employees subjective well-being, job-satisfaction, AOC and overqualified employees are more likely to leave the company.
However, some companies are still hiring overqualified personnel, this paragraph will outline why this is understandable. Human capital (knowledge, skills and ability of employees) determines individual job performance and in the end organizational performance. ‘As the global economy becomes increasingly
8
knowledge based, the acquisition of superior human capital appears essential to firms viability and success’ (Crook, Todd, Combs, Woeh, & Ketchen, 2011, p.453). When companies can choose between different levels of educated and skilled candidates and their main purpose is determining future performance, choosing the participant with the highest KSA’s (knowledge skills abilities) is logical (Wright, McMahan, & McWilliams, 1994; Johnston et al., 2015). If the circumstances allow a company to hire higher educated/skilled employees for a function, why should they not do this? If their human capital is higher educated or skilled this contributes towards organizational performance.The outcomes of over-qualification are contradictory, on the one hand it appears beneficially for individual and organizational performance, but on the other hand it is not advantageous for organizations because of the negative influence on employee’s subjective well-being, satisfaction, AOC and overqualified employees have more intentions to quit. To investigate the paradox, there is more research needed between over-qualification and other organizational outcomes. This study wants to accomplish this by investigating the influence of over-qualification on proactive behaviours. The question remains whether over-qualification has a positive or negative impact on employee’s proactive behaviour.
2.2 Person-job fit
Over-qualification is a mismatch between the employee and the work environment of the employee. The best way to measure whether an employee fits into the work environment is by measuring person-environment fit (P-E fit). This type of fit encompasses person-job fit (P-J fit) and person-organization fit (P-O fit). Because over-qualification includes the mismatch between job or function and the employee and not includes mismatch between the organization and the employee, this research will only outline person-job fit. This is in line with the research of Maynard and colleagues (2006), that point out the relatedness between P-J fit and over-qualification. P-J fit can be divided into two main categories: Job demands-worker abilities fit and workers need-job supplies fit. ‘Job demands-worker abilities fit refers to the match between the requirements of the job and the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) of the employee. A second type of P-J fit is worker needs-job supplies fit, or the extent to which the goals, values, or desires of the employee are satisfied by the qualities of the job’ (Maynard et al., 2006, p.510.). According to Maynard and colleagues (2006) over-qualification is more a misfit of job demands-worker abilities fit then a mismatch worker’s needs-job supplies fit. Over-qualification is ‘the extent to which an employee feels that she or he has surplus education,
9
is exactly what Job demands-worker abilities fit measures.This study will discuss PJ-fit because it is strongly related to over-qualification and there is more research available about PJ-fit than about over-qualification. To set up the hypotheses, P-J fit will be used as underlying literature. However, before this study will outline the hypotheses, the proactivity constructs are discussed in following paragraphs.
2.3. Proactivity at work
The past decade proactivity research transformed itself from a new construct that was just a side issue for organizations to something that is extremely necessary for today’s organizations to survive. Today’s rapid changing environment with all the new technology advances requires employees that are flexible and
adaptable (Pulakos, Arad, Donovan & Plamondon, 2000). To cope with these challenges of the fast changing environment and technological developments, employees have to act proactive to bring out proactive
solutions to accomplish organizations goals (Thomas, Whitman & Viswesvaran, 2010). Although there is a lot of research done on proactive behaviour, studies are not congruent with each other. The most general and accepted conceptualization of proactivity behaviour and personality is: ‘whether the employee anticipates, plans for, and attempts to create a future outcome that has an impact on the self or environment’ (Grant & Ashford, 2008, p.9). There are a lot of constructs that comprise proactive behaviours, this research measures personal initiative and taking charge. The reason for choosing those two construct in particular is because research of Tornau and Frese (2013) indicates that proactive personality, personal initiative, voice and taking charge are the most complete constructs to comprise proactivity. For the reason that this study wants to investigate only two construct of proactivity, otherwise the questionnaire and research would be too long, two of the four construct were chosen. This study uses personal initiative and taking charge for the reason that the constructs most differ from each other, to prevent measuring the same construct (Tornau & Frese, 2013).
2.4. Personal initiative
Personal initiative is all about employee’s tendency to commit to a couple of organizational strategic and goal relevant behaviours. The arising of the personal initiative construct resulted in an increase of understanding of proactivity, because not only proactive personality was taking into account but also proactive behaviours. The behavioural aspects of typical personal initiative behaviour consist of five criteria: ‘ self-starting, long term focus, goal and action directed, consistent with organizations mission and persistent in the face of barriers
10
and setbacks ’ (Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempe, 1996, p. 38). Following paragraph will outline these criteria in more detail.First of all, self-starting, self-starting contains extra-role behaviour that is not being part of the job or function. Personal initiative ‘ is the pursuit of self-set goals in contrast to assigned goals’ (Frese & Fay, 2001.p.139). For instance, if a call centre employee has a target of getting 20 new clients a day and she recreate this assigned goal into her own goal of being the best seller of the month. She is not just doing what she has to do, but she does something extra. This example is in line with the second criteria, goal directed and action oriented. The self-set goals contribute towards the organizational performance but are not set by company. Employees transform their organizational task description in their own set up goals, also called the ‘redefinition process’ (Frese & Fay, 2001.p.145). The third criteria, long-term focus, employees who act with personal initiative have a term focus. Employees with a long term focus are continually aware of the long-term needs of the organization and this is necessary for organizational performance. A long-long-term focus encompasses that employees do not wait to action is necessary, but they take decisive action in advance, sometimes this behaviour leads to solving problems that did not emerged yet (Frese & Fay, 2001). ‘The long-term focus on work enables the individual to consider things to come (new demands, new or reoccurring problems, emerging opportunities) and to do something proactively about them.’ (Frese & Fay, 2001.p.140). To give an example, an employee of Nintendo figures out that the upcoming trend in the game industry is virtual reality gaming, the employee starts a project for creating this new demand in game industry. Employees are only taking personal initiative if their behaviours are in line with organizational mission. Initiatives that works counterproductive for organizational strategy is not part of the personal initiative behaviours. For example when an employee has a great idea about how to steal money together with his fellow colleagues and takes initiative to accomplish this, this is absolutely not the type of initiative that is meant by the construct of that personal initiative, this is the reason why they include the criteria ‘consistent with organization’s mission’ (Frese et al., 1996, p. 38). Last but not least criteria, persistent in the face of barriers and setbacks. An employee can have set up a great self-set goal, however if this particular goal is not being fully achieved it does not have a contribution towards organizational success, this is the reason why persistence is of great importance. Persistence is important to overcome barriers that hinder the
accomplishment of goals. Most of the time personal initiative leads to a certain change and in general people are not really content with changes. Persistence is needed to convince the people who are not willing to change and to vanquish other obstacles that may interferer achieving the goal, for instance technical barriers.
11
2.5. Taking chargeNext to personal initiative, another aspect of proactive behaviour is taking charge, this is a type of extra-role behaviour. Extra-role behaviour encompasses job behaviour present besides normal job tasks, which contributes to organizational performance. Extra-role behaviour is extremely relevant ‘ because managers cannot foresee all contingencies or fully anticipate the activities that they may desire or need employees to perform’ (Morrison & Phelps,1999. P.403). Taking charge has not got as much attention as other extra-role behaviours for instance organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB). According to Organ (1988), OCB is defined as ‘work-related behaviours that are discretionary, i.e. not related to the formal organizational reward system, and, in aggregate, promote the effective functioning of the organization’ (Farzaneh et al., 2014, p.675). The difference between taking charge and other extra-role behaviours is the change oriented and willing to improve procedures part. Taking charge has specifically conceptualized and defined by Morrison and Phelps (1999) as: ‘voluntary and constructive efforts by individual employees to affect organizationally functional change with respect to how work is executed within the context of [individuals’] jobs, work units, or organizations’ (Morrison & Phelps, 1999, p. 403). In other words, taking charge behaviours encompass behaviour that leads to better execution of procedures and putting effort to improve and change certain procedures, which all result in more effectiveness (Morrison & Phelps, 1999).
The main difference between the two proactivity constructs, taking charge and personal initiative, is that the definition of taking charge is general and the certain behaviours are broad outlined and personal initiative contains a couple of specific behaviour that are way more concrete. Besides, personal initiative requires persistence and taking charge does not (Tornau & Frese, 2013). Morrison and Phelps (1999) state that taking charge is more a variable construct that is dependent of a certain situation and personal initiative are more stable behaviours over time. Some details of taking charge and personal initiative are overlapping, for instance, addressing of problems. However, taking charge encompasses mostly behaviour related to changing procedures and this is no part of personal initiative. Discussed differences between the two constructs results in different hypothesis, following paragraphs comprise the hypotheses of this study.
12
2.6. Over-qualification and personal initiativeThe following paragraph will examine the relationship between over-qualification and personal initiative, by making an assumption. The research of Erdogan and Bauer (2005) introduces an interesting fact; high level of person-job fit (PJ-fit) can enhance the positive outcomes of proactive personality, their study emphasizes the relevance of PJ-fit in relation to proactivity. Their results indicate that PJ-fit and proactive personality have a positive relation. The assumption this research makes is that over-qualification (low or neither PJ-fit) has a negative relation with proactive personality. Personal initiative and proactive personality are strong related (Tornau & Frese, 2013), thus, over-qualification should have a negative influence on personal initiative as well.
Hypothesis 1: There is a negative relationship between over-qualification and personal initiative behaviours
2.7 Over-qualification and taking charge
The following paragraph will examine the relationship between over-qualification and taking charge. There is existing research about PJ-fit and organization citizenship behaviour (OCB). According to Farzaneh and colleagues (2014), PJ-fit has a positive effect on OCB. For the reason that people who perceive
over-qualification by all means have low or none P-J fit. It appears that over-over-qualification (low PJ-fit) result in less OCB. This is in line with the research of Bashshur, Hernández & Piero (2011), they argue that
over-qualification leads to a decrease in OCB. Because taking charge and OCB are both extra-role behaviours and nevertheless, sometimes taking charge is seen as the change oriented part of OCB behaviour, this study assumes that over-qualification has a negative influence on taking charge as well. (Jiao, Richards & Hackett, 2013 ; Belschak & Den Hartog, 2010).
13
2.7 Affective organizational commitment and personal initiativeAffective organizational commitment (AOC) is an interesting mediating variable in the over-qualification-personal initiative relationship. ‘Research suggests that the effect of the work environment on initiative is mediated by individual variables such as commitment, because contextual factors of the work environment might foster commitment, which, in turn, then stimulates personal initiative’ (Hartog & Belschak, 2010, p. 604). Over-qualification is a contextual factor of the work environment, thus in this research AOC is an interesting mediator between over-qualification and personal initiative.‘ Existing research indicates that over-qualification has a strong negative influence on AOC (Thompson et al., 2013; Maynard et al.,2013). The research of Farzaneh and colleagues (2014) declares this negative influence. Their results imply ‘ that the fit which an employee perceives between his/her needs and capabilities and the benefits the job/or organisation offer induce the individual to become a member of the organisation and perform the expected tasks ‘ (Farzaneh et al.,2014, p. 683-684). Thus, over-qualification (mis-fit) results in less AOC. However, AOC has a positive effect on personal initiative (Thomas et al., 2010). The research of Den Hartog and Belschak (2007) explains why AOC has a positive influence on personal initiative; ‘when employees care about, feel involvement and identification with a given part of their work environment, they will be more likely to embrace its goals and invest effort to attain them. Taking initiative comprises achieving goals, thus employees initiative taking at work may be related to organizational affective commitment’ (p. 602). In conclusion, existing research makes it logical to use AOC as a mediator between over-qualification and personal initiative. Over-qualification leads to less AOC and AOC has a positive effect on personal initiative (model 2).
Hypothesis 3: AOC is a mediator between over-qualification and personal initiative, over-qualification has a negative effect on AOC and AOC has a positive effect on personal initiative.
14
2.8 Affective organizational commitment and taking chargeThe outcomes of the study of Farzaneh and colleagues (2014) support a ‘mediating role of AOC in the relationships between P-J and OCB’ (p. 683-684). The fact that AOC is a mediator between PJ-fit and OCB assumes that AOC is a relevant mediator between over-qualification and taking charge. To explain this in more detail, over-qualification (low PJ-fit) reduces likelihood of a ‘individual to become a member of the organisation and perform the expected tasks’ (Farzaneh et al.,2014, p. 683-684), resulting in less AOC. The question remains whether AOC has an influence on taking charge, there is no existing research that
investigate the relationship between AOC and taking charge (Tornau & Frese, 2013). However, AOC has a positive impact on OCB and taking charge is just like OCB a part of extra-role behaviour or a part of OCB, thus AOC should have a positive effect on taking charge as well. In conclusion over-qualification results in less AOC and AOC has a positive effect on taking charge (model 3).
Hypothesis 4: AOC is a mediator between over-qualification and taking charge, over- qualification has a negative effect on AOC and AOC has a positive effect on taking charge.
Model 3: hypothesis 4
15
2.9 Job-autonomy and personal initiativeA moderation effect of job-autonomy on over-qualification-personal initiative relationship is logical. According to Grant and Ashford (2008) proactive researches should concentrate on dynamic aspects that might be present in proactive behaviours. One of the situational antecedents of the proactivity dynamic framework of Grant and Ashford (2008) is autonomy. Grant and Ashford (2008) propose ‘that proactive behaviour is more likely to occur in situations of autonomy, or freedom and discretion regarding what to do, when to do it, and how to do it’ (Grant & Ashford, 2008, p.16). In this case this implies that more job-autonomy will reduce the negative effect of over-qualification on personal initiative. Another reason why job-autonomy is a relevant moderator is the fact that job-autonomy increases the likelihood of employees to take personal initiative. The ‘autonomy that is granted by an organization or by managers increases efficacy by signalling to employees that they have the ability and opportunity to take initiative’ (Grant & Ashford, 2008, p.16). This study thus present the following proposition: because proactive behaviour, in this case personal initiative is more common in situations with more autonomy, the variable job-autonomy will reduce the negative effect of over-qualification on personal initiative (model 4).
Hypothesis 5: Job-autonomy is a moderator between over-qualification and personal initiative; job-autonomy reduces the negative effect of over-qualification on personal initiative.
16
2.10 Job-autonomy and taking chargeA moderation effect of job-autonomy on over-qualification-taking charge relationship appears relevant.
Existing research indicates that proactive behaviour is more common in situations that facilitate autonomy and taking charge is a part of proactivity (Grant & Ashford, 2008). Taking charge behaviours encompasses
behaviour that leads to effort to improve and change certain procedures (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Job-autonomy can increases the behaviours that lead to improvement and change of certain procedures because ‘job-autonomy allows employees to change things at work, and therefore increases action and change orientation’ (Tornau & Frese, 2013). Another explanation about why job-autonomy increases taking charge behaviours is the fact that job-autonomy increases problem-solving and idea implementation, which are ‘voluntary and constructive efforts by individual employees to affect organizationally functional change’ (Morrison & Phelps, 1999, p. 403). Taking charge behaviours comprise ‘voluntary and constructive efforts by individual employees to affect organizationally functional change’ (Morrison & Phelps, 1999, p. 403). Thus, job-autonomy increases the likelihood of taking charge behaviours and reduces the negative effect of over-qualification on taking charge.
Hypothesis 6: Job-autonomy is a moderator between over-qualification and taking charge; job-autonomy reduces the negative effect of over-qualification on taking charge.
17
3. Method3.1 Sampling, population and survey
The collected data of this study was aggregated by an online questionnaire tool, recommended by University of Amsterdam called: ‘Qualtrics: Online Survey Software & Insight Platform’. The reason why this research used a survey to conduct data is because the fact that using survey saved time to collect data. Another reason for using survey research was the fact that research of Maynard and colleagues ( 2006) showed that POQ is better for measuring over-qualification than objective over-qualification scales are. Someone’s feelings about a certain situation, in this case over-qualification, are more predictable for behaviour than objective measures. Since the dependent variable of this study is a behavioural outcome, proactive behaviour, perceived over-qualification is the best way to encompass over-qualification (Lobene & Meade, 2010), since POQ is a questionnaire, using a survey-design was a logical choice.
The results of this study are based on one sample voluntary response group that should be representative for the working population in Dutch society. The population used for this research is people who are employed for more than eight hours a week. This research attempted to receive 200 completed surveys. Data was collected by social media and by using the snowball effect method. This means that people who meet requirements ask other people they know with the required characteristics. Because the
questionnaire was written in Dutch the population should understand Dutch language. The sample did exists of employees from different companies. Participants received a link with the website to fill in the survey. Next to the link was a thank you message, the reason why research about over-qualification in relation with
proactive behaviour is important (21 percent of Dutch society feels overqualified), that the survey will only take 3, 45 minutes and of course a special note about the fact that the whole survey is anonymous. The survey had 9 pictures that introduce a new theme of questions. For example a photo of a cartoon with the text of: ‘following four questions will encompass the subject job-autonomy’ (7.0 appendix). Moreover at the end of every question there was a little part that mentioned how many questions of the particular theme were left for example: ‘statement 4 taking charge ’ (4/10), this meant that the participant needed to do six more questions about taking charge. Another aspect of conducting data was the personal aspect, I personally approached acquaintances with the message: ‘help me to receive my master diploma’ in Dutch. Research of Sánchez-Fernández, Muñoz-Leiva, and Montoro-Ríos (2012) showed that this is a good way to improve retention rate of surveys. 205 of the 205 participants who started the survey completed the survey. Not filling in a question was not possible because survey could only be submitted when everything was fil in properly. The sample of
18
this study encompassed 205 participants in total, including 86 male respondents (42%) and 119 female responses (58%). The youngest participant was 17 years old and the oldest participant was 64 years old. The mean age of the sample group was 35.3.2 Descriptions of measures
Dependent variable
The dependent variables of this research were taking charge and personal initiative. First, personal initiative was measured with the scale Frese and colleagues (1996); the seven statements were translated from English to Dutch language. To give an example, the first statement was: ‘I address problems actively’. The response categories were: 1: fully disagree ,2: disagree,3: neutral ,4: agree and 5: fully agree. This questionnaire of Frese and colleagues (1996) shows the impressive internal consistency of .84. Cronbach alpha measured in this research was .80, which is good according to Cronbach (1951).
The taking charge part of the questionnaire was copied from the research of Morrison and Phelps (1999) and translated from English to Dutch language. This questionnaire showed the impressive internal consistency of .93 of taking charge scale; this is according to Cronbach (1951) perceived as excellent. Cronbach alpha measured in this research was.89, which is almost excellent according to Cronbach (1951). To give an example of one of the ten statements encompassing taking charge: ‘To improve my activities I often use better procedures’. The response categories were: 1: fully disagree, 2: disagree, 3 = neutral, 4: agree and 5: fully agree.
Independent variable
This study measured over-qualification by measuring over-education and perceived over-qualification. Over-education was measured by asking the level of Over-education of an employee (highest completed Over-education) and the minimal level of thinking required for job (displayed in vacancy). The employee’s highest obtained
education minus the education level needed for their job over-education was the over-education score. The second part of qualification, perceived qualification, is measured by the Scale of perceived over-qualification (SPOQ) from Maynard and colleagues (2006), this scale had an internal consistency of .89.Cronbach alpha measured in this research was for 1 item of over-education, calculated by highest education- education needed for job and the 9-item questionnaire of perceived over-qualification together .92.
19
disagree 7= strongly agree. One example of the nine statements is: ‘The work experiences I have a not related to my current function/work. The Scale of perceived over-qualification (SPOQ) is the main measurement for measuring perceived over-qualification. The reason for measuring perception of theemployees instead of measuring objective over-qualification is really clear. Maynard et al. ( 2006) argued that POQ is better for measuring over-qualification than objective over-qualification scales are. Someone’s feelings about a certain situation, in this case over-qualification, are more predictable for behaviour than objective measures. Since the dependent variable of this study is a behavioural outcome, proactive
behaviour, perceived over-qualification was the best way to encompass over-qualification (Lobene & Meade, 2010). This is the reason why this study measured qualification by perceived qualification and over-education together.
Mediating variable
The mediating variable of this research is affective organizational commitment (AOC). Research of Allen and Meyer (1990) showed the impressive internal consistency of .87 of their AOC scale (ACS). Cronbach alpha measured in this research was.87. This research will use the scale with eight statements from the research of Allen and colleagues (1990) to measure affective organizational commitment. The response categories were: 1 = strongly disagree 7= strongly agree. An example of one of the eight statements is: ‘ It would be extremely happy to continue my career at current company for the rest of my life.’’
Moderating variable
Job-autonomy was measured by four items of Thompson and Prottas (2006), with an internal consistency of .71, which is according to Cronbach (1951) perceived as good. Cronbach alpha measured in this research was .88.The response categories were: (1 =strongly agree to 4 = strongly disagree) with four statements for example: 1). “I have the freedom to decide what I do on my job” .
Control variables
The used control variables in this study were age, and years of working at current company (tenure), highest education of employee, education needed for job, gender, working hours a week. The research of Erdogan and Bauer (2009) indicated that age and tenure were important control variables. Education level is an important control variables because research of McKee-Ryan and Harvey (2011) indicated that ‘highly
20
educated workers are more likely to experience higher levels of underemployment because these workers are apt to be employed in jobs that are not commensurate with their education’ (McKee-Ryan & Harvey, 2011, p.976). Besides, according to Erdogan and Bauer (2009) education is an important control variable in over-qualification research. Finally, according to Boon, Den Hartog, Boselie, and Paauwe (2011) gender and contract hours are important control variables because they may influence AOC and P–J fit. All this existing research explains the reason behind the chosen control variables.3.3 Analysis
The data was exported from Qualtrics and inserted in SPSS 20.0 (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 20.0). The obtained data has been controlled for extraordinary data. The independent variables; POQ and OE were centred around zero by subtracting their mean. It was not possible that values were missing, since participants had to fill in everything in order to submit the questionnaire. Reliability was checked for the five subscales. In order to test the hypotheses of this research, linear regression analysis is used (Baron & Kenny, 1986). To test the first and second hypothesis a linear regression analysis is used. SPSS macro of Hayes (2012) was used to examine whether AOC is a mediator between over-qualification and personal initiative and over-qualification and taking charge. Hayes (2012) state that bias corrected data bootstrap is a good way to examine mediation. To test hypothesis 5 and 6 SPSS macro of Hayes (2012) was used. Control variables were included in all the analyses.
21
4. Results4.1 Descriptive analyses
De mean, standard deviations and correlations
The mean standard deviations and Pearson correlation of this research are shown in table 1 and 2. Outstanding is that woman score higher on over-qualification (r =, 18, p <.01) and younger people score higher on over-qualification than older people (r = -34, p <.01). People who work more hours a week scored lower on qualification (r = -41, p <.01). There is a negative relationship between job-autonomy and over-qualification (r = -42, p <.01). There is a relationship between taking charge and personal initiative (r = .50, p <.01). Hours work a week is related to over-qualification (r = -41, p <.01) and to taking charge (r = .37 p <.01). Nevertheless there is a negative relationship between AOC and over-qualification (r = -43, p <.01).
22
Table 2: Pearson correlations23
4.2 Analysis of hypothesesHypothesis 1: There is a negative relationship between over-qualification of the employee and the level of proactive personal initiative behaviour of the employee.
A regression analysis with POQ as independent variable and personal initiative as dependent variable showed that there is no relationship between the two variables. (β =-.52, p = ns.), moreover there was not a relationship between OE and personal Initiative. (β=-.06, p = ns.). Using OE+POQ as independent variable and personal initiative as dependent did not show a relationship (β =.00, p = ns.).
Hypothesis 2: There is a negative relationship between over-qualification of the employee and the level of proactive taking charge behaviour of the employee.
To test the second hypothesis a regression analysis is used. The regression analysis showed that there was a marginally significant positive relationship between POQ and taking charge (β =.17, p = <.1, R2
= .18). Moreover the POQ and OE both together had also a positive marginally significant effect on taking charge. (β =.24, p = <.1, R2= .18). Interesting is that when control variables were not used in regression analysis
outcomes were complete different. Over-education had a negative influence on taking charge (β =-14, p = < 0.5, R2= .02) and over-qualification in total had a negative marginally significant effect on taking charge. (β =-.13, p = <.1, R2= .18).
Hypothesis 3: AOC is a mediator between over-qualification and personal initiative, over-qualification has a negative effect on AOC and AOC has a positive effect on personal initiative.
The first step of a mediator analysis is a significant effect of independent variable on dependent variable (Baron and Kenny, 1986), over-qualification had no effect on personal initiative. However, continuing with the mediation analysis was possible because some researchers, for instance Shrout and Bolger (2002), stated that it is not always necessary to quit the analysis when step 1 is not accomplished. Step 2: A significant relationship between independent variable and mediator. In this case, the effect of over-qualification on AOC was strong (β =-.65, p <.01, R2
= .24). Step 3: a significant effect of mediator on dependent variable, AOC had a marginally positive effect on personal initiative (β =.21, p= <.01, R2
= .06). To check step 4, The SPSS macro of Hayes (2012) was used to examine whether AOC is a mediator between over-qualification and personal initiative. For personal initiative the bias-corrected (1000) bootstrap interval (BCa95 = [-.1509, -.0226]) excluded zero, this means that AOC fully mediates the relationship between over-qualification and personal initiative.
24
Hypothesis 4: AOC is a mediator between over-qualification and taking charge, over-qualification has a negative effect on AOC and AOC has a positive effect on taking charge.
Following Baron and Kenny (1986) steps, step 1: significant relationship between independent and dependent variable, over-qualification had a positive effect on taking charge (β =.24, p = <.1, R2
= .18). Step 2: A significant relationship between independent variable and mediator. In this case, the effect of
over-qualification on AOC is strong (β =-.65, p <.01, R2
= .24). Step 3: a significant effect of mediator on dependent variable, AOC had no effect on taking charge (β =.07, p= ns). To check whether AOC mediates the
relationship between over-qualification and taking charge SPSS macro of Hayes (2012) is used, bias-corrected (1000) bootstrap interval (BCa95 = [-.1408, .0035]) included zero, this means that AOC do not mediates the relationship between over-qualification and taking charge.
Hypothesis 5: Job-autonomy is a moderator between over-qualification and personal initiative; job-autonomy reduces the negative effect of over-qualification on personal initiative.
To test hypothesis 5 SPSS macro of Hayes (2012) is used. The analysis with job-autonomy,
over-qualification and over-over-qualification * job autonomy showed that job-autonomy is related to personal initiative (β =.15, p <.10, R2
= .03). Over-qualification is not related to personal initiative (β=-.00, p = ns.). However, the interaction job-autonomy* over-qualification had an effect on personal initiative (β=-.07, p < .10).
Hypothesis 6: Job-autonomy is a moderator between over-qualification and taking charge; job-autonomy reduces the negative effect of over-qualification on taking charge.
To test hypothesis 6 SPSS macro of Hayes (2012) is used. The regression-analysis indicated that job-autonomy was strongly related to taking charge (β =.27, p <.01, R2
= .22) and over-qualification is related to taking charge (β =.24, p = <.1, R2
= .18). The interaction job-autonomy* over-qualification is not related to taking charge (β=-.01, p = ns.). Since job-autonomy is not a moderator, mediation-analysis is done. To check whether job-autonomy is a mediator of over-qualification and taking charge SPSS macro of Hayes (2012) was used. For taking charge the bias-corrected bootstrap interval (BCa95 = [-.1882, - .0319]), excluded zero, this means that job-autonomy mediates the relationship between over-qualification and personal initiative. The mediation was partially because the effect of over-qualification on taking charge is still present when putting job-autonomy (β =.33, p <.01, R2= .26) and over-qualification (β =.39, p <.01, R2
25
5. Discussion5.1 Over-qualification and personal initiative
The outcomes of this study reveal a non-existing relationship between over-qualification and personal initiative. A clarification for the non-existing relationship between over-qualification and personal initiative is that personal initiative is strong related to personality. This is in line with the study of Crant (2000), Crant (2000) argues that proactive personality is related to personal initiative because both of the constructs are personal aspects of proactivity. Since PJ-fit is not direct related to personality traits and this study assumes that over-qualification is low PJ-fit (Ehrhart, 2006), the non-existing relationship between over-qualification and personal initiative is logical.
Interesting is that although the non-existing relationship between over-qualification and personal initiative, AOC is the mediator between over-qualification and personal initiative. The results indicate that over-qualification has a negative effect on AOC and AOC a small positive effect on personal initiative. Overqualified people are less likely to affectively commit to their organization and AOC has a small positive effect on personal initiative. Which indicates that committed employees are more likely to take personal initiative (or show their proactive personality).
Furthermore, outcomes of this study indicate a small moderator effect of job-autonomy on over-qualification-personal initiative relationship. Although over-qualification has no direct effect on personal initiative, overqualified employees who perceive job-autonomy at the workplace appear more likely to show personal initiative. This is logical when looking at earlier research, the research of Grant and Ashford (2008) state that personal initiative (or proactive personality) is ‘ more likely to occur in situations of autonomy’(p. 16).Thus, without job-autonomy, over-qualification had no effect on personal initiative behaviour. However, because of the amount of job-autonomy the personal initiative behaviours are increased and thus visible. In order to achieve personal initiative behaviours from employees, this study indicate that companies should only hire overqualified personal when they facilitate job-autonomy.
26
5.2 Over-qualification and taking chargeOver-qualification has a positive influence on taking charge behaviours, overqualified employees of this study are more likely to take charge. This is the most important outcome of this study. The positive effect of over-qualification on taking charge is hard to clarify, for the reason that there is no research available that found a positive effect of over-qualification on proactivity behaviours (McKee-Ryan & Harvey 2011). The assumption; because over-qualification leads to a decrease in OCB, over-qualification leads to less taking charge as well appears not correct. Assumed was that OCB is strong related to taking charge because both are extra-role behaviours. However, according to the meta-analysis of Tornau and Frese (2013), this assumption is doubtful because they did not include OCB as proactivity construct in their meta-analyis. Another explanation for the negative effect over over-qualification on OCB and positive effect of over-qualification on taking charge is the difference between taking charge and OCB. The difference between the two constructs is the specific change and willingness to improve procedures part of taking charge, which is not part of OCB. It might be that over-qualification has a positive effect on willingness to improve procedures but a negative effect on ‘other work-related behaviours that are discretionary,’ (Farzaneh et al., 2014, p.675).
This study will facilitate two different possible explanations for the positive effect of over-qualification of taking charge. The first clarification could be that overqualified people seek for more challenges because the current job is not challenging enough (routine work), they take charge to challenge themselves and to change their environment by performing specific change and improving procedures. This is in consultation with Fritz and Sonnentag (2007), who conclude that routine work leads to more proactive behaviours.
‘Employees have time available to think about the task and to develop new ideas, a prerequisite for creativity. Therefore, routine work may be positively related to creativity. The idea that resources are spared during practice and can be used for other tasks is consistent with the resource allocation theory (Kanfer & Ackerman, 1989)’ (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2007.p 259-260). Overqualified employees have more time available to think about what of the completed tasks could be improved and their increased amount of creativity can lead to a
development of new procedures. The second clarification is the fact that ‘employees are more likely to take charge to the extent that they have a high level of efficacy’ (Morrison & Phelps 1999, p.514). General self-efficacy is the ‘beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands’ (Gist & Mitchell, 1992, p. 184). In other words, self-efficacy is the believe of an employee that they can meet the demands in the workplace. For the reason that over-qualification is measured with perceived over-over-qualification, the overqualified employees think they have more
27
knowledge skill abilities than needed for the current job. Therefore, they would think they can meet to the demands of the jobs, and should have a large amount of self-efficacy, which results in more taking charge behaviours. In addition, ‘perceptions that tasks are complex may depress self-efficacy levels’ (Tierney & Farmer, 2002, p. 1139), overqualified employees think task are easy because their perception is that they are too high educated and skilled for the job (tasks). Therefore, the ‘simple tasks’ executed by overqualified employees result in higher efficacy which results in more taking charge behaviours. Summarised: there is a positive relationship between over-qualification and taking charge, which can be explained by saved time, creativity and general self-efficacy.Job-autonomy is, instead of a moderator, a mediator between over-qualification and taking charge. The interaction of job-autonomy and over-qualification had no effect on taking charge. This outcome is unexpected because earlier research indicates that situations that facilitate autonomy increase the likelihood of proactive behaviours. However, job-autonomy does not influences the positive effect of taking charge but is related to over-qualification and taking charge. Despite over-qualification has a negative effect on
job-autonomy and job-job-autonomy has a positive effect on taking charge, the effect on over-qualification on taking charge is positive (model 6). This proves the strong positive effect of over-qualification on taking charge. For company’s it might be beneficially to hire overqualified employees in order to achieve taking charge
behaviours, increasing the amount of job-autonomy results in even more taking charge behaviours.
Model 6: Job autonomy as mediator between over-qualification and taking charge
Moreover, there is no effect of AOC on taking charge, which explains the non-mediation effect of AOC between over-qualification and taking charge. AOC is related to personal initiative and not related to taking charge, following part will explain this difference. ‘Extant research suggests that affectively committed employees’ feelings of personal investment in their organizations may inspire initiative-based goal striving’ (Thomas et al., 2010, p. 279). Initiative-based goal striving is related to personal initiative since personal initiative is according to Frese and colleagues (1996) goal and action directed, but not related to taking
28
charge. Taking charge encompasses mostly behaviour related to changing procedures and this is not the same as initiative-based goal striving. In conclusion, if obtaining high AOC of employees is an important aim in an organization, hiring overqualified people is not beneficially, overqualified employees have less AOC than non-overqualified employees have. Investing in AOC is only profitable for company’s who want to achieve more personal initiative behaviours, it does not have an effect on taking charge behaviours.5.3 Theoretical and practical implications
The findings of this study indicate that over-qualification has a positive effect on taking charge and since taking charge is of all the proactivity constructs the strongest predictor of organizational performance (Thomas et al.,2010), this study might open the black box between over-qualification and employee performance outcomes. Furthermore, the outcomes of this study contribute to research that attempt to resolve the paradox between de negative and positive outcomes of qualifications. This study reveals a positive effect of over-qualification on proactivity (taking charge). The outcomes of this research will provide a broader picture of over-qualification. The relationship between over-qualification (PJ-fit) with personal initiative and taking charge is never investigated before and the current research offers several implications for theory and practice. ‘Over-qualification has been considered harmful to organizations, organizations and managers often screen out overqualified applicants’ (Hu et al., 2014, p.8 ). Managers who are afraid of hiring overqualified employees because of the negative effects, should look on the bright side of over-qualification. The results of this study indicate that hiring overqualified employees might be a way to increase behaviours that leads to better execution of procedures, and more effort to improve and change certain procedures, which can result in more innovation, adaptation and change behaviours. If managers provide more job-autonomy the taking charge behaviours might increase even further. In line with the research of Thompson and colleagues (2013), this study state that organizations should consider the positive effects of overqualified employees and state that that overqualified people should ‘not be mass categorized as a group of undesirables to be avoided’ (Thompson et al., 2013, p.119). Indeed this study ‘suggest that overqualified employees represents a potentially valuable but underutilized resource base for organizations’ (Thompson et al., 2013, p.119). The outcomes of this research can in the end serves today’s organizations by selecting people for jobs were taking charge is needed. Investing in AOC and job-autonomy appears profitable for company’s who want to achieve more personal initiative behaviours. Finally, the review of Thomas and colleagues (2010) showed
29
Thomas and colleagues (2010) included also non-significant results in their meta-analysis. Therefore, the missing research between taking charge and AOC indicates that there is no existing research about taking charge and AOC. This research contributes to the proactivity literature because it shows that there is no relationship between AOC and taking charge.5.4 Limitations
This paragraph will discuss four limitations of this research. First of all, the design of this study, the design is correlational/regression and cross sectional, which makes it impossible to investigate causal effects. For instance, over-qualification appears to have a positive influence on taking charge, however based on this study a direct link cannot be proven. Second limitation of this research is the use of the personal initiative construct as dependent variable. The purpose of this study was to use personal initiative as personal tendency of proactive behaviour and not using proactive personality trait. This study indicates that personal initiative might be strong related to proactive personality, this can explain why neither of the control variables correlate with personal initiative but almost all control variables correlate with taking charge, because age, years of service highest education for example cannot explain personality. Another important limitation of this research is the use of survey to obtain the data. According to Tornau and Frese (2013) situational and behavioural personal initiative is mostly measured with interviews and the personality concept is mostly measured with questionnaire. For the reason that this research measured behavioural personal initative with survey, validity and reliability may be impaired. Lastly, research of Tornau and Frese (2013) indicates that peer or supervisor ratings are well-used measurements in taking charge research, in this study the variabale taking charge is measured with self-report, this can diminish the realiability and validity of this research. The risk of using self-report data is the increast chance of self-enhancement bias in the result section. Participants estimate their proactive behaviour more positive than actual is right (Pronin, Lin & Ross, 2002).
30
5.5 Future researchFor future research it is important to use other dependent proactivity variables than personal initiative, or measuring personal initiative with interviews. More research between over-qualification and other proactive or extra-role behaviours is interesting, for instance the effect of over-qualification on voice. Another important contribution to the proactivity literature might be a research that investigate why AOC is related to personal initiative, proactivity personality, voice and not to taking charge. Of course, it might be interesting to investigate which aspect of over-qualification determines the increase in taking charge behaviours. More research about mediating and moderating processes is useful to explain the tendency of an overqualified employee to take charge (Crant, 2000). Hereby, two interesting mediation and moderation variables are self-efficacy and routine. Research of Tornau and Frese (2013) can figure as foundation for further research about taking charge, their meta-analysis indicates possible mediators and moderators for further research (e.g. role breath self-efficacy, responsibility for change).
Research between under-qualification and proactivity might be relevant as well. Interesting would be to set up a research design that includes over-qualification and under-qualification. Since under-qualification is as actual and relevant as over-qualification. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2015) published an article, which argues that almost a quarter of Dutch employees state that they are missing important knowledge and skills, in other words, a quarter of Dutch employees appears underqualified. Person-job fit could be a relevant foundation for under-qualification research. However, first examine the exact difference between less person-job fit and over-qualification and less person-person-job fit and qualification is necessary before using under-qualification and over-under-qualification as constructs. Finally, it might be interesting to investigate the effect of proactivity on PJ-fit, ‘from a person-environment fit perspective proactivity may also help employees to actively customize their environments in a way that accentuates individual strength and optimizes
performance (Thomas et al, 2010, p.278). Hereby, it might be interesting to investigate whether proactive persons are more or less likely to mismatch with their environment.
31
6. ConclusionThe findings of this study indicate that over-qualification has a positive effect on taking charge. The results of the regression-analysis of the 205 surveys conducted from people who are employed for more than eight hours a week indicate that selecting overqualified employees appears beneficially for organizations were better execution of procedures and putting effort to improve and change certain procedures is necessary for organizational success (Morrison & Phelps, 1999). Taking charge is of all the proactivity constructs the strongest predictor of organizational performance (Thomas et al.,2010). Therefore, this study contributes to the over-qualification literature by opening the black box between over-qualification and better performance outcomes. Furthermore, investing in improving employees AOC appears not helpful in order to achieve more taking charge behaviours, since AOC and taking charge are not related. If obtaining high AOC of employees is an important aim in an organization, hiring overqualified people appears not advantageous, overqualified employees have less AOC than non-overqualified employees. Increasing amounts of job-autonomy for employees increases proactivity behaviours (taking charge and personal initiative). In conclusion, hiring overqualified employees might improve taking charge behaviours, which leads to more innovation, change behaviours and organizational adaptation, three extremely important capabilities for today’s organizations to survive in the rapid changing environment.
32
7. ReferencesAgut, S., Peiró, J. M., & Grau, R. (2009). The effect of overeducation on job content innovation and career-enhancing strategies among young Spanish employees. Journal of Career Development.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of occupation al psychology, 63 (1), 1-18. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology,51 (6), 1173.’
Bashshur, M. R., Hernández, A., & Piero, J. M. (2011).The impact of underemployment on individual and organizational performance. Underemployment: Psychological, Economic, and Social Challenges Belschak, F. D., & Hartog, D. N. (2010). Pro‐self, prosocial, and pro‐organizational foci of proactive behaviour:
Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83 (2), 475-498.
Bills, D. B. (1992). The mutability of educational credentials as hiring criteria: How employers evaluate atypically highly credentialed job candidates. Work and Occupations, 19, 179–195.
Boon, C., Den Hartog, D. N., Boselie, P., & Paauwe, J. (2011).The relationship between perceptions of HR practices and employee outcomes: examining the role of person–organisation and person–job fit. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22 (01), 138-162.
Büchel, F., & Mertens, A. (2004). Overeducation, undereducation, and the theory of career mobility. Applied Economics, 36 (8), 803-816.
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2015) CBS: Bijna kwart werknemers zegt belangrijke nieuwe kennis of vaardigheden te missen
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of management, 26 (3),435-462. Cronbach LJ (1951). "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests". Psychometrika 16 (3): 297–
334. doi:10.1007/bf02310555.
Crook, T. R., Todd, S. Y., Combs, J. G., Woehr, D. J., & Ketchen Jr, D. J. (2011). Does human capital matter? A meta-analysis of the relationship between human capital and firm performance. Journal of applied psychology, 96 (3), 443.
33
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2005). Enhancing career benefits of employee proactive personality: The role offit with jobs and organizations. Personnel Psychology, 58 (4), 859-891.
Erdogan, B., & Bauer, T. N. (2009). Perceived overqualification and its outcomes: the moderating role of empowerment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (2), 557.
Ehrhart, K. H. (2006). Job characteristic beliefs and personality as antecedents of subjective person–job fit. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21 (2), 193-226.
Farzaneh, J., Dehghanpour Farashah, A., & Kazemi, M. (2014). The impact of job fit and person-organization fit on OCB: The mediating and moderating effects of person-organizational commitment and psychological empowerment. Personnel Review, 43 (5), 672-691.
Feldman, D. C., Leana, C. R., & Bolino, M. C. (2002). Underemployment and relative deprivation among re-employed executives. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 453–471. Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East
and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 37–63.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). 4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in organizational behavior, 23, 133-187.
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2007). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at job stressors and positive affect during the workday. Journal of Management.
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.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management review, 17 (2), 183-211.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 3-34.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign.
Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2007). Personal initiative, commitment and affect at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80 (4), 601-622.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from
