Qualifications, Skills and More!: Characteristics Employers Look for when Hiring Newly Graduated Applicants for a Higher Occupational Level.

Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences

Qualifications, Skills and More!

Characteristics Employers Look for when Hiring Newly Graduated Applicants for a Higher Occupational Level.

Ballafkih, Hafid

Publication date 2017

Document Version Final published version

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):

Ballafkih, H. (2017). Qualifications, Skills and More! Characteristics Employers Look for when Hiring Newly Graduated Applicants for a Higher Occupational Level. Universiteit van

Amsterdam.

General rights

It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations

If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please contact the library:

https://www.amsterdamuas.com/library/contact/questions, or send a letter to: University Library (Library of the University of Amsterdam and Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences), Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

Download date:27 Nov 2021

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (http://dare.uva.nl)

Qualifications, skills and more!

Ballafkih, H.

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):

Ballafkih, A. (2017). Qualifications, skills and more!: Characteristics employers look for when hiring newly graduated applicants for a higher occupational level

General rights

It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations

If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.

Download date: 25 Jun 2018

Qualifica�ons Skills

More and

Characteris�cs Employers Look for Applicants for a Higher Occupa�onal Level when Hiring Newly Graduated

!

Ha fid Ball a� ih

Balla � ih Quali fic a� ons, Skill s and Mor e

!

Qualifica�ons Skills

More and !

This book presents the characteris�cs considered by employers in selec�ng employees’.

By studying the characteris�cs used in the staffing process, this book contributes to the sociological and economic debate on inequality and stra�fica�on as results of job alloca�on and employer selec�on. Research shows that employers consider mul�ple characteris�cs during the staffing process. Examining individual characteris�cs (e.g., qualifica�ons, which are the primary focus of the inequality and stra�fica�on literature) is insufficient for explaining the differences related to who obtains pres�gious jobs (e.g., managerial jobs) and thus is insufficient to explain differences in job alloca�on, inequality and stra�fica�on. The characteris�cs frequently debated in the economic and sociological literature, such as educa�onal qualifica�ons, field of study, social, cogni�ve and technical skills, personality, and effort, cons�tute the main characteris�cs studied in this book.

The central research ques�on of this thesis is as follows: Considering employer

decisions in the staffing process, to what extent do the characteris�cs frequently debated in economic and sociological theories on job alloca�on contribute to the selec�on of newly graduated applicants applying for a junior-level managerial job?

By answering this research ques�ons this book contributes seven points of progress to the debate on job alloca�on and stra�fica�on in the context of the theore�cal

mechanisms outlined in this monograph. The argument that the mechanisms explain a macro-level phenomenon brings into ques�on the existence of the phenomena that purportedly underlie the macro explana�ons. The results of the research described in this book indicate a model with mixed mechanisms. The points of progress are

organised around the use of characteris�cs and tools (the use of qualifica�ons, cogni�ve

and non-cogni�ve characteris�cs, and mul�ple characteris�cs and selec�on tools during

the selec�on) and five mechanisms (a self-selec�ng, self-promo�ng, subjec�ve, and

organisa�onal fit in addi�on to the trainability mechanism) that complement and

contradict the exis�ng mechanisms.

Characteristics Employers Look for when Hiring Newly Graduated Applicants for a Higher Occupational Level.

by Hafid Ballafkih

Qualifications, Skills and More!

Characteristics Employers Look for when Hiring Newly Graduated Applicants for a Higher Occupational Level.

ACADEMISCH PROEFSCHRIFT ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor

aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam op gezag van de Rector Magnificus

prof. dr. ir. K.I.J. Maex

ten overstaan van een door het College voor Promoties ingestelde commissie,

in het openbaar te verdedigen in de Aula der Universiteit op woensdag 20 september 2017, te 11.00 uur

door Abdelhafid Ballafkih

geboren te Beni Touzine, Marokko

Promotor(es): Prof. dr. H.G. van de Werfhorst Universiteit van Amsterdam Copromotor(es): Dr. M. Meerman Hogeschool van Amsterdam

Overige leden: Prof. dr. P.T. de Beer Universiteit van Amsterdam Prof. dr. D.B. Bills The University of Iowa Prof. dr. R.S. Gowricharn Universiteit van Tilburg Dr. L. Elffers Universiteit van Amsterdam

Hogeschool van Amsterdam

Prof. dr. K.G. Tijdens Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam Prof. dr. W. Salverda Universiteit van Amsterdam

Faculteit der Maatschappij- en Gedragswetenschappen

Acknowledgements

”Idle reader, you can believe me when I say that I’d like this book, as a child of my intellect, to be the most beautiful, the most gallant and most ingenious one that could ever be imagined. But I haven’t been able to vio- late the laws of nature, which state that each one begets his like” (Miguel de Cervantes, in the prologue of Don Quixote)

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Prof.

Dr. Herman van de Werfhorst, and co-advisor, Dr. Martha Meerman, for their support of my PhD study. Most of all, I would like to acknowledge their patience, motivation and immense knowledge.

My sincere thanks also go to those who have helped me with gaining access to the organization where I collected the data. I want to thank the organization for its openness and kindness, as well as all the managers and all the staff members of the human resources department who were involved in the selection process. They gave me unlimited access (to managers, recruiters, the selected candidates, the information system and documents of the organisation) in addition to the opportunity to study the complete selection process. Without the help and support of Zita and Nando, it would have been impossible to collect the data. I am sorry that I cannot disclose your full names because of anonymity (as agreed), as your names can be traced back to the organization. Despite this, I hope you both accept my thanks.

I want to thank my family (your patience is priceless), my brothers, sis- ters, parents and parents-in-law who have supported me during this journey.

There is no way I can repay you, except by giving you all the love I have in me. Special thanks go to Ahmed, Brahim, Mounir and Samira who helped me with the coding. Mounir, without your help, I would still be busy with coding the job advertisements and the resumes. It was a tedious job in the middle of summer. I admit that I asked a lot of you all, but without your help it would have been impossible.

I also want to thank Jaap Terpstra. I would not have been able to finish this thesis without you. A million thanks for your encouragement and support. Now we have time to solve some real-world issues, starting with a new form of democracy.

Thanks to my colleagues and friends at the Centre for Applied Research

your motivational words) Maarten, Wander, Luca, Maryna, Arthur, Laura, Mathieu and Eline.

I also want to thank my colleagues and friends at the faculty of Business and Management. In no particular order, Marita, Evelien, Somaya, Ivo, Iris, Angelique, Yolanda, Japke, Jurre, Maaike, Tjebbe, Anita, Vincent, Mireille, Wim, Ied, Yvone, Jacobus, Gudo, Susanne (for the support, yes its your turn now). I’m 100% sure that I forgot someone. To those who I’ve forgotten, I am sorry.

I also want to thank my colleagues at the Amsterdam Institute for Ad- vanced Labour Studies. Thank you for your hospitality; you guys are a great team with great people. Baking day and the discussion during lunch were unforgettable (we never solved the skating guy from the hill problem).

Finally, I would like to thank the Amsterdam University of Applied

Sciences and the University of Amsterdam for supporting this project with

294 working days.

Contents

Contents i

1 Introduction 1

Abstract . . . . 1

1.1 Introduction . . . . 2

1.2 Studying the staffing process . . . . 3

1.3 General theoretical framework . . . . 8

Human capital . . . . 9

Screening and signalling . . . . 12

Closure . . . . 14

1.4 The characteristics . . . . 17

1.5 Research questions and outline . . . . 21

2 Research Design 29 Abstract . . . . 29

2.1 Introduction . . . . 30

2.2 The job advertisements . . . . 32

2.3 The case . . . . 34

Practical and theoretical considerations of the case . . . . . 37

2.4 Notes on the method and research design . . . . 39

Methodological rigour . . . . 40

Homogeneity . . . . 42

3 Characteristics Employers Demand 47 Abstract . . . . 47

3.1 Introduction . . . . 48

i

3.2 Theoretical background . . . . 49

Education level . . . . 51

Cognitive skills . . . . 52

Technical skills . . . . 53

Social skills . . . . 53

Effort . . . . 54

Personality . . . . 54

3.3 Research design . . . . 55

3.4 Analyses . . . . 57

A multivariable analysis . . . . 60

3.5 Discussion . . . . 72

3.6 Conclusion . . . . 74

3.7 Limitations and directions for future research . . . . 75

4 Characteristics Important in the First Selection Round 79 Summary . . . . 79

4.1 Introduction . . . . 80

4.2 A human capital framework . . . . 81

Education level and field of study . . . . 83

Graduation efficiency and grades . . . . 84

Work experience . . . . 85

Extracurricular activities . . . . 86

4.3 Method . . . . 87

4.4 Analyses . . . . 88

Multivariate models . . . . 90

4.5 Discussion . . . 100

4.6 Conclusion . . . 103

4.7 Limitations and directions for future research . . . 104

5 Emphasised and Non-Emphasised Characteristics 107 Summary . . . 107

5.1 Introduction . . . 108

5.2 Relevant factors in the recruitment process . . . 109

Qualifications . . . 109

Skills . . . 110

Verbal and non-verbal impressions . . . 111

Personality, effort, and identification . . . 113

CONTENTS iii

5.3 Method . . . 115

5.4 Analyses . . . 117

Multivariate models . . . 119

Verbal . . . 120

Non-verbal impassions . . . 122

Personality, effort and identification . . . 125

5.5 Discussion . . . 129

5.6 Conclusion . . . 131

5.7 Limitations and directions for future research . . . 132

6 Assessed Characteristics that Affect Job Entry 135 Summary . . . 135

6.1 Introduction . . . 136

6.2 Characteristics relevant for selection . . . 137

Education . . . 140

Cognitive skills . . . 142

Social skills . . . 143

Personality traits . . . 143

Effort traits . . . 145

6.3 Method . . . 146

6.4 Analyses . . . 150

The fuzzy(QCA) analysis . . . 154

The fuzzy regression analysis . . . 157

6.5 Discussion . . . 163

6.6 Conclusion . . . 165

6.7 Limitations and directions for future research . . . 166

7 Skills and Traits in a Job Interviews 169 Summary . . . 169

7.1 Introduction . . . 170

7.2 A labour market framework . . . 172

Educational qualifications . . . 173

Skills . . . 175

Personality traits . . . 176

Effort . . . 177

Fit . . . 178

7.3 Method . . . 178

7.4 Analyses . . . 184

Employers’ arguments . . . 186

The effects of the characteristics . . . 193

7.5 Discussion . . . 200

7.6 Conclusion . . . 203

7.7 Limitations and directions for future research . . . 204

8 Characteristics Affecting the Probationary Period. 209 Abstract . . . 209

8.1 Introduction . . . 210

8.2 Theoretical background . . . 211

Education . . . 213

Technical skills . . . 214

Cognitive skills . . . 214

Social skills . . . 215

Personality traits . . . 215

Effort . . . 216

8.3 Hypotheses development . . . 216

8.4 Method . . . 219

8.5 Analysis . . . 225

Main characteristic set . . . 226

Sub-characteristic sets . . . 229

8.6 Discussion . . . 234

8.7 Conclusion . . . 236

8.8 Limitations and directions for future research . . . 237

9 Conclusion and Discussion 241 9.1 Introduction . . . 241

9.2 A summary of the main findings . . . 244

9.3 A contribution to the debate . . . 251

The use of qualifications . . . 251

The use of cognitive and non-cognitive characteristics . . . . 252

The use of multiple characteristics and selection tools . . . . 255

A subjectivity mechanism . . . 257

A self-selecting mechanism . . . 258

A self-promoting mechanism . . . 258

A organisational fit and trainability mechanism . . . 260

CONTENTS v

9.4 Implications . . . 261

Employers and the labour market . . . 261

Applicants and the educational system . . . 264

9.5 Limitations of this study . . . 265

9.6 Suggestions for further research . . . 267

10 References 273 A Appendix of Chapter 2 325 B Appendix of Chapter 3 327 C Appendix of Chapter 4 335 D Appendix of Chapter 5 349 E Appendix of Chapter 6 363 F Appendix of Chapter 7 372 G Appendix of Chapter 8 379 List of Hypotheses 393 List of Figures 396 List of Tables 397 Index 399 Samenvatting 403 Inleiding . . . 403

Opzet van het onderzoek . . . 406

Resultaten . . . 409

Bijdragen aan het debat . . . 414

Het gebruik van kwalificaties . . . 414

Het gebruik van cognitieve en niet-cognitieve kenmerken . . 415

Het gebruik van meerdere kenmerken en selectie-instrumenten 417 Een subjectiviteitsmechanisme . . . 418

Een zelfuitsluitingsmechanisme . . . 419

Een zelfprofileringsmechanisme . . . 420

Organisatie fit en trainingsmechanisme . . . 420

Chapter 1

Introduction

Abstract

This thesis examines the characteristics considered by employers in em- ployee selection. By studying the characteristics used in the staffing process, this thesis contributes to the sociological and economic debate on inequality and stratification as results of job allocation and employer selection.

Research shows that employers consider multiple characteristics during the staffing process. Thus, examining individual characteristics (e.g., qual- ifications, which are the primary focus of the inequality and stratification literature) is clearly insufficient for explaining the differences related to who obtains prestigious jobs (e.g., managerial jobs) and thus is insufficient to explain differences in job allocation, inequality and stratification. Those characteristics frequently debated in the economic and sociological litera- ture, such as educational qualifications, field of study, social, cognitive and technical skills, personality, and effort, constitute the main characteristics studied in this thesis. The study of the role these characteristics play in the staffing process contributes to our understanding of job allocation.

This thesis examines the characteristics that affect job allocation by studying the characteristics employers consider during the staffing process.

The central research question of this thesis is as follows: Considering em- ployer decisions in the staffing process, to what extent do the characteris- tics frequently debated in economic and sociological theories on job alloca- tion contribute to the selection of newly graduated applicants applying for a junior-level managerial job?

1

1.1 Introduction

Job allocation is an important mechanism that affects several aspects of so- ciety. The way in which jobs are allocated on the labour market has impli- cations for social stratification and inequality (see Bol & van de Werfhorst, 2013). From a functionalist perspective, it has been argued that job and labour market complexity enhance the demand for educational qualifica- tions in selection and labour market allocation.

Educational qualifications are increasingly determining the allocation of jobs and advances in the labour market. Education appears to be an im- portant characteristic in highly technical industrialist knowledge societies in which job allocation is based on certain meritocratic principles

. The demand for highly educated employees has increased over the past several decades (Bills, 2004; D¨ orfler & Van de Werfhorst, 2009), and this phe- nomenon has substantial implications for job acquisition on an individual level. Formal qualifications play an important role in job allocation (see, e.g., Breen & Whelan, 1993; Collins, 1979; Van de Werfhorst, 2001; Whe- lan & Layte, 2002) and the selection of employees (see, e.g., Anderson &

Herriot, 1997; Cook, 2009). In highly complex, non-routine jobs, employ- ers consider highly educated individuals to be more productive than less- educated individuals (e.g., Mincer, 1989). Thus, employers are increasingly likely to demand higher educational qualifications for higher-level profes- sional and managerial jobs (Jackson, 2007).

Highly educated individuals are more likely to obtain jobs that lead to higher financial rewards (see, for an overview, e.g., Card, 1999; Cohn

& Addison, 1998; Psacharopoulos & Patrinos, 2004). Differences in these rewards have consequences for economic inequality and the social cohe- sion of societies (e.g., Piketty, 2014; Salverda, Nolan, & Smeeding, 2009;

Van de Werfhorst & Salverda, 2012). However, for those in the school-to- work transition (e.g., Bills, 1988b), differences in rewards have primarily been attributed to formal education-related characteristics

. Recently, the sociological and economic literature regarding the allocation of jobs has debated various non-educational characteristics (e.g., Heckman & Kautz, 2014; Heckman et al., 2006; Osborne, 2005) that affect job allocation.

In accordance with the labour market debate on job allocation, a well-

established body of literature (see, e.g., Cable & Judge, 1996; Evers, An-

derson, & Smit-Voskuijl, 2009; Judge & Cable, 1997; Wanous, 1980) on

1.2. STUDYING THE STAFFING PROCESS 3

personnel selection reveals that in addition to educational characteristics, employers consider several characteristics during selection. The most prac- tical argument states that educational characteristics (e.g., qualifications) are insufficient for reducing the applicant pool (Wanous, 1980), which sug- gests that educational characteristics are insufficient for explaining differ- ences in job allocation and the inequality thereby created. Furthermore, not all individuals with high educational qualifications obtain higher-level professional or managerial jobs with greater economic benefits.

A closer examination of the characteristics that determine the selec- tion of newly graduated applicants will contribute to the understanding of the characteristics involved in job allocation. Much can be learned from differences between people with similar educational and non-educational characteristics.

This thesis aims to contribute to the understanding of the characteristics that affect job allocation and, to a lesser extent, stratification by specifi- cally studying the characteristics employers use in the staffing process to determine who to hire. In this thesis, I examine the relevance of the charac- teristics used to select applicants and, ultimately, employees

for relatively well-paying jobs from an employer’s perspective. The central research ques- tion of this thesis is the following: Considering employers’ decisions in the staffing process, to what extent do the characteristics frequently debated in economic and sociological theories on job allocation contribute to the selec- tion of newly graduated applicants applying for a junior-level managerial job?

In the next section (1.2), I will elaborate on the aim and research ques- tion.

1.2 Studying the staffing process

The staffing process

is important because it determines who employers hire for open job slots in their organisation. During the staffing process, employers determine and decide which characteristics are required for the offered job.

The staffing process (see Figure 1.1) can be subdivided into the at-

traction (the process by which employers attract employees), selection (the

process by which the employer selects employees) and match (the process

by which the employees are socialised) processes

, which I will elaborate on in chapter 2. Through these processes, employers select employees for particular jobs.

Personnel selection and the staffing process determine the competitive level of organisations in societies with highly innovative and technical in- dustries. The process of attracting and selecting competent employees to achieve the organisational goals can be challenging for employers

. During the staffing process (see Figure 1.1 for a schematic overview of the process), employers shape the human capital of their organisation by demanding and selecting characteristics that they believe will confer a competitive advan- tage. Therefore, employers generally pursue characteristics that contribute to productivity and overall job performance.

Attraction Selection Match

Staffing process

Match process Selection process

Students from the Education

system

Allocation on the labour market

Allocation process

Focus of this thesis

Attraction process

Figure 1.1: Staffing and allocation process

During the allocation process, employees are assumed to prefer a job that maximises their utility, whereas employers are assumed to prefer em- ployees that maximise the organisation’s productivity. The matching of employees thus results from a joint maximisation between those who con- trol positions (employers) and those who seek access to them (employees).

This maximisation occurs during the staffing process, particularly during

the selection process (see Figure 1.1), when employers select new employees

(Eliason, 1995). In this process, both parties strive for the highest level

of perceived utility. In a slack labour market

, employees are more likely

to adjust their perceived utility downward and sacrifice part of their ca-

pacity

. The opposite is often true for employers, who are likely to upskill

(place higher demands upon) their workforce during a weak labour market

(see, e.g., Modestino, Shoag, & Ballance, 2015). Thus, joint maximisation

is likely to depend on the condition of the labour market.

1.2. STUDYING THE STAFFING PROCESS 5

Irrespective of the conditions, employers are important agents in deter- mining access to jobs. Because employers make the final decisions in the selection process, they determine who will be hired, and thus they play a major role in job allocation. This perspective is important because it suggests that income, social mobility (Baron & Bielby, 1980; Granovetter, 1981), and social inequality result partly from employers’ decisions rather than only from the decontextualised choices of the people (applicants) look- ing for jobs.

Various theories have been proposed to explain the allocation of people to jobs. Each theory argues for different characteristics or ascribes dif- ferent roles (mechanisms) to the characteristics. Characteristics such as education (Jencks et al., 1979), cognitive skills (Schmidt & Hunter, 2004), technical skills, social skills (Jackson, 2006; Morgeson, Reider, & Campion, 2005), personality, and effort (Bowles, Gintis, & Osborne, 2001b; Heckman

& Kautz, 2012; Heckman et al., 2006; Osborne, 2005), which are the focus of this thesis, have been frequently debated and used to explain job alloca- tion

. These skills and traits (characteristics) reveal information about the applicants’ performance and are therefore important to employers during the staffing process.

In general, these characteristics have been considered determinants of job entry and thus of job allocation. During selection, these determinants generate inequality through the allocation of persons with particular charac- teristics. This inequality results partly from employer’s decisions regarding each individual, which affect opportunities for social and economic mobility (Jackson, Goldthorpe, & Mills, 2005; Jonsson, Grusky, Di Carlo, Pollak,

& Brinton, 2009) through the distribution of opportunities and rewards (Baron & Pfeffer, 1994).

Understanding employers’ decisions is important for understanding the

characteristics that contribute to the allocation process (Breen & Jons-

son, 2005). Few studies (e.g., Bills, 1988a, 1988b; Di Stasio, 2014; Jackson,

2006; Rivera, 2011) have examined these characteristics from the employer’s

perspective, and little is known regarding the characteristics that employers

base decisions on during the staffing process. Most studies use aggregated or

macro-level survey data, which may be insufficient for explaining the actual

hiring behaviour of employers (Pager & Quillian, 2005). The macro-level

approach reveals little information about the effect of these characteristics

during the staffing process, and particularly during the selection process.

The lack of insight from an employer’s perspective diminishes our under- standing of those characteristics that affect the matching of persons to jobs.

A micro-level perspective on the matching process, in which the choices of employers are considered decisive, can contribute to this understanding of job allocation.

Employers’ decisions are made during the staffing process in the pre- selection phase (in which they attract candidates by announcing the re- quired characteristics), the selection phase (in which they select candidates over several rounds), and the post-selection phase (when they retain the em- ployee for a probationary period) (see Figure 1.2 on page 23). Employers use these selection phases to reduce information asymmetry around the ap- plicants’ potential performance. Although these phases are interdependent, most studies neglect these phases and their interdependencies and examine only a particular round in a particular phase (e.g., Bills, 1988b; Jackson, 2009; Rivera, 2011). Therefore, it is important to study the effect of these characteristics in the different phases from an employer’s perspective.

Another reason for studying these characteristics in different selection phases is to obtain a detailed understanding of how well the debated socio- logical and economic labour market theories can be applied to the different phases. Theories such as human capital, screening and signalling, and social closure (all of which will be used throughout this thesis) are intended to explain the allocation process by omitting the different phases of selection.

These theories argue that certain characteristics are preferred by em- ployers and affect labour market outcomes. This argument has important implications not only for job allocation but also for social stratification.

Although most theories argue that certain characteristics, primarily ed- ucation, are important in the labour market, they generally ignore the question of whether and in what way employers use these characteristics during the staffing process. Research on personnel selection shows that em- ployers use different selection tools to obtain particular information about applicants (Wilk & Cappelli, 2003), which calls into question the intended job-matching claims of the sociological and economic theories on job allo- cation and stratification. Insight into these phases contributes to empirical reflection on these sociological and economic theories.

Both applicants and employers rely on certain characteristics during the pre-selection phase to achieve their respective goals (Reeve & Schultz, 2004).

Although employers demand certain characteristics in the pre-selection phase,

1.2. STUDYING THE STAFFING PROCESS 7

the recruitment phase, the phase before employers select an applicant, has received relatively little attention in the debate (for an exception, see, e.g., D¨ orfler & Van de Werfhorst, 2009; Jackson, 2007). Furthermore, the post- selection phase has also been neglected; some researchers have examined related theories in the context of promotion (see, e.g., Bills, 1988b) but have not related these characteristics to the probationary period, which can be considered an extension of the selection phase.

Although this thesis studies several phases (see Figure 1.2 on page 23), it focuses mainly on the selection phase, which involves several selection rounds during which employers narrow their applicant pool based on the applicants’ characteristics. By examining these theories in the pre-selection, selection, and post-selection phases, this thesis offers a unique contribution to the sociological and economic debate that surrounds the allocation of individuals to jobs. This study examines these theories to understand the characteristics employers consider in the selection process. Studying these theories in the context of the selection process will reveal whether the macro- level claims and mechanisms outlined in the theories are consistent with the micro-level findings.

Research on organisational advancement and selection shows that cer- tain characteristics are important for advancement, whereas others are more important for selection. Some researchers (e.g., Bills, 1988b) have shown that educational credentials are more important for advancement than for entry into an organisation. Furthermore, the characteristics required for a first job and those needed for a second (e.g., experience) are likely to be different. The established theories largely neglect the differences between advancement and selection and the differences between those entering the labour market system (the first job) and those who transfer within the labour market (subsequent jobs). To account for these differences, this thesis will study the entry of newly graduated applicants into the labour market.

Despite the outlined shortcomings that surround the debate on job al-

location, in this thesis I will use the arguments and mechanisms of these

theories. This thesis builds on theories that share the basic assumption that

employers reward characteristics such as education, cognitive skills, techni-

cal skills, social skills, personality, and effort, all of which are assumed to

predict productivity or job performance

.

In the next section (1.3), I will briefly elaborate on the theories.

1.3 General theoretical framework

In this section, I examine the literature addressing the characteristics and mechanisms that have guided numerous studies on the determinants of job allocation.

Relatively little labour market literature explicitly focuses on whether employers use the debated characteristics during the staffing process. In the allocation debate, most studies have been oriented towards origin-education and origin-destination

and have focused on the role of education in terms of indexSocioeconomic attainmentsocioeconomic attainment, occupational status, and earnings. Obtaining a job is typically necessary to obtain so- cioeconomic and occupational status and income. The theories are used as a framework to understand the mechanisms and characteristics at a mi- cro (individual) level. Therefore, this thesis integrates frequently debated theories on education, socioeconomic attainment, occupational status, and earnings.

Several related theories have been proposed and are frequently debated (see, e.g., Bills, 2003, 2004, for an exhaustive overview of the competing theories). This thesis builds on the simplified categories (Barone & Van de Werfhorst, 2011; Bills, 2003; Goldthorpe, 2013; Van de Werfhorst, 2011) of human capital, screening and signalling, and closure theory; these form the general framework of this thesis. The human capital and the screening and signalling theories are driven by classical economic and sociological views on labour. In contrast, closure theory is influenced by neoclassical views. These theories are not mutually exclusive, but there are substantial differences between them. They are of interest because they capture a broad spectrum of the debate and argue that employers reward particular characteristics given different rationales for the rewards.

At one extreme, human capital theory assumes that employers reward and select employees based on productivity-enhancing skills (Becker, 1962).

Screening and signalling theory, also known as positional goods theory, ar-

gues that the relative position people occupy in the labour market is associ-

ated with training costs. Thus, this theory emphasises skills over traits and

suggests that employers select employees using skills and traits as signals

that predict training costs. This theory fits rather uneasily between the

1.3. GENERAL THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 9

human capital theory and closure theory. At the other extreme, closure theory, also known as control theory, argues that no productivity capac- ities, skills, or (inherited) traits are involved in labour allocation. These theories emphasise the inheritance or reproduction of traits though educa- tion and the family (e.g., Bowles & Gintis, 2002; Collins, 1979; Kingston, 2006). According to these theories, employers select employees based on characteristics that support socialisation into a given system.

The mechanisms described by these theories suggest that employers ex- perience long-term benefits from particular characteristics. The long-term perspective, however, ignores the uncertainty employers face during the selection process

(see, e.g., Born & Scholarios, 2005; Born, 2008) during which they use selection tools and characteristics to reduce the uncertain- ties originating from their lack of information on the productivity and/or performance of potential applicants (e.g., Stiglitz, 1975, 2000). Because sev- eral characteristics and selection tools are used to avoid adverse selection, as shown in personnel selection research (Wanous, 1980), it is unlikely that one of the mechanisms outlined in this theoretical framework can outper- form the others across all selection phases and rounds or could be considered as a single mechanism for job allocation. Therefore, I expect to find little evidence that only one theory (human capital, screening, or closure) can account for the complete staffing process, as their explanatory power differs for each selection round.

In the following sub-sections, I will briefly outline the human capital, screen- ing and closure theories from an employer staffing perspective.

Human capital

Starting in the early 1960s, human capital theory has developed to integrate

human labour, which it considers to be equivalent to economic capital, as

a form of capital in organisations. Human capital and economic capital

show similar development. Economic capital focuses on physical capital as

a means of generating income by creating or enhancing productivity. This

view has been adopted by human capital theory, which leads to the sug-

gestion that employers consider people to be ’physical’ capital invested to

enhance productivity. These physical benefits are achieved through the em-

ployee’s skills and knowledge. Adam Smith (2003)

argued that education

improves the productive capacities of employees and can be considered to be an investment in their productivity-enhancing skills. The argument that education provides people with skills that enhance productivity is known as human capital theory (Becker, 1962; Mincer, 1958; Schultz, 1961).

According to human capital theory, education enhances the marketable skills and knowledge rewarded by employers (Becker, 1962). Employers prefer highly educated employees because they possess a greater number of productivity-increasing skills. To secure labour, employers correlate com- pensation with education (Mincer, 1958). Because qualifications are per- ceived as a ’merit good’, in western societies, employers use educationally related characteristics, such as qualifications, as a reliable signal of human capital.

To select the most promising employees, employers first rely on eas- ily observable, less costly and reliable characteristics to minimise adverse selection. During the selection process, employers possess imperfect in- formation regarding the human capital of applicants. The least costly and most reliable signals include educational qualifications. According to human capital theory, employers perceive these qualifications as reflecting partic- ular productivity-enhancing skills,. Skills acquired through education are typified as general skills that are transferable across employers. Employ- ers indirectly make selections based on these general skills by examining qualifications.

Educational level reflects minimum cognitive ability. Therefore, qual- ifications indicate cognitive skills as correlated with an educational level and a particular knowledge type, which can be expressed as a technical skill associated with a field of study. The field of study reflects certain types of specialised skills and knowledge that may be relevant for specific jobs. Van de Werfhorst (2002) shows that employees with a field of study that matches the desired field receive increased wages. This finding indi- cates the relevance of matching skills and knowledge with demand

. It has been argued that field of study is relevant for social stratification (Van de Werfhorst & Luijkx, 2010) and the allocation of jobs. Educational qualifi- cations are therefore used by employers during the staffing process to select field-specific skills and knowledge.

In addition to qualifications, employers use education-related indicators,

such as grades and graduation efficiency. Research shows somewhat con-

tradictory findings regarding employers’ use of grades as indicators (e.g.,

1.3. GENERAL THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 11

Rivera, 2011). Some studies argue that employers use grades to identify productive employees (Miller, 1998). Other related indicators, such as graduation efficiency (the number of obtained degrees given years in the educational system), are also considered to be indicators of productivity by employers. From the human capital perspective, employers perceive gradu- ation efficiency as reflecting a high cognitive performance level that serves as a signal of productivity. Both grades and graduation efficiency thus reflect cognitive performance.

Cognitive ability is frequently considered to be the most important indi- cator of human capital

. Education is associated with enhanced cognitive skills (Blau & Duncan, 1967). Research examining employee selection sug- gests that cognitive skills, typically measured as the intelligence quotient (IQ), are the best predictors of job performance (Hunter, 1986) and job entry (Schmidt & Hunter, 2004). This understanding is reflected in the increased use of cognitive skill assessments during selection (Ones, Viswes- varan, & Stephan, 2005). However, variance in cognitive skills explains only a marginal component of income variance (Arrow, Bowles, & Durlauf, 2000) and of variance in the distribution of well-paid and highly prestigious jobs.

Social skills have received increasing attention in the last decade (e.g., D¨ orfler & Van de Werfhorst, 2009), as they are thought to be relevant in modern-day economies (Jackson, 2007). However, little attention has been given to the extent to which social skills affect job attainment.

Human capital theory argues that education enhances skills, including social skills

. A significant portion of primary and secondary education involves learning social skills, from interacting with peers and respecting teachers’ authority during the early stages of education to meeting the gen- eral standards of employers during the final stages (e.g., Bowles & Gintis, 2002a; Kerckhoff, 1976). Certainly, a given field of study prepares students for a particular job by teaching them social skills specific to that job. Edu- cation enhances and refines social skills; however, the extent of its influence remains unclear.

Several theories in addition to human capital theory make the same

argument, although with different interpretations of the characteristics.

Screening and signalling

Human capital theory explains differences in the allocation of labour and thus differences in salaries as being based on the human capital possessed by individuals. This explanation omits inherited characteristics and the use of (signalling) characteristics. One critique of human capital theory, as stated by Spence (1973) and Stiglitz (1975), is that education does not increase human capital but increases the ability of people to signal their skills and traits to prospective employers so that they are offered jobs. Employers, in turn, screen the labour market for candidates with the desired skills and traits. The basis of the critique from these theories is that enhancing the skills obtained during the educational process does not directly enhance productivity on the labour market.

Screening, in addition to signalling, plays an important role in eco- nomics

. Both concepts arise from the theory of adverse selection (Ak- erlof, 1970), which focuses on quality and uncertainty in a market. Quality and uncertainty are modelled by screening and signalling. Stiglitz (1975) explored the screening model and provided a description of screening: in a labour market with demand and supply, actors (in this thesis, employers) react to imperfect information about the qualities of applicants. Stiglitz refers to quality screens, identifying the devices used to distinguish appli- cants according to their qualities as screening devices. An applicant who is labelled by an employer as more likely to be productive than another applicant based on his or her signalled characteristics will obtain a job and a higher salary. According to Stiglitz, employers screen for the productive capabilities (characteristics) of the applicants. Screening theory assumes that applicants are aware of their abilities and that employers, more than employees, are risk neutral.

The idea that qualifications serve as an easily observable signal and

screening device for employers has been extensively discussed and devel-

oped (e.g., Arrow, 1973; Spence, 1973; Young, 1958). Screening theory

considers the educational system to be a screening device and regards it

as the primary determinant of job allocation. Employers rely on qualifi-

cations as a pre-screening mechanism to select applicants. Psacharopou-

los (1979) extended this argument by proposing that education serves as

both a weak and a strong screening device. The strong version holds that

qualifications function exclusively as a signal and that education guaran-

1.3. GENERAL THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 13

tees the productivity of those who acquire certain qualifications. The weak version concedes that the primary role of educational qualifications is to indicate likely productivity. The weak version holds that education does not enhance job-relevant skills but does enhance trainability (Arrow, 1973;

Thurow, 1975).

During the hiring process, employers use qualifications as a screening device to select applicants whose individual abilities predict productivity through trainability (Arrow, 1973). One reason that particular charac- teristics pay off in the labour market is that highly educated individuals possess characteristics that are more valuable to employers, not because they promote productivity but because they indicate trainability. Educa- tional qualifications signal interest and knowledge, as reflected in the field of study, and the cognitive ability to process new knowledge, as reflected in the level of education.

If a signal becomes weak, employers seek other ways to predict trainabil- ity and, hence, productivity, using a range of tools to collect information on applicants’ characteristics to overcome weak signals. A weak signal can be attributed to the homogeneity of the applicant pool (all elements in the pool have the same signal) and to the fuzziness and uncertainty of the characteristics used during the staffing process. Thus, it is unlikely that em- ployers will rely solely on a few education-related characteristics to reduce an applicant pool. Signalling theory suggests that employers will reduce the number of adverse selections by gathering as much information as pos- sible on several characteristics prior to hiring and after hiring, during the probationary period (Weiss, 1995), through on-the-job screening.

Based on the indexperformance experience performance experience of hired employees, employers adjust and determine the characteristics re- quired for a job. Some characteristics may be signals of specific skills and therefore may be more useful for some jobs and less useful for oth- ers (Spence, 1973). The information-gathering and adjustment process, which is used to predict performance, determines the likelihood of selection or the allocation of jobs in the market (Spence, 1973, 1974). To determine this likelihood, employers screen prospective employees using alterable and unalterable characteristics.

Spence (1973) described the distinction between alterable and unalter- able (fixed) characteristics in relation to observable personal attributes.

Sex, age, race, voice, and attractiveness are observable, unalterable charac-

teristics. Qualifications, technical skills, social skills (verbal and nonverbal communication), work experience, dress, behaviour, and accent are exam- ples of observable and alterable (can be manipulated by the person) charac- teristics or signals. Characteristics such as cognitive skills, personality, and effort are less directly observable during the selection process and less alter- able through training. However, all alterable and unalterable characteristics are used as characteristics to assess trainability.

Screening and signalling theories, also known as the positional goods perspective, differ from human capital theory in that they do not stem from the idea that education enhances skills. In the weak

version, they view education as a force that ’changes’ people into better learners (Thurow, 1975). These theories argue that the position of applicants is relative be- cause it is based on training costs associated with certain characteristics signalled by an applicant. The applicant’s likelihood of selection is based on his or her position relative to others in the queue (e.g., Ultee, 1980), and position in the queue is based on perceived training costs.

Whereas human capital theory focuses primarily on skills that are en- hanced through education and marginalises other characteristics that affect trainability, signalling theory includes a broader set of characteristics that serve as a signal of trainability. Screening and signalling rely on observable and unobservable characteristics (vague signals) that can be determined through testing (Weiss, 1995) or by “soaking and poking” during the selec- tion process.

Both the human capital and the signalling and screening theories are concerned with skills that enhance productivity and decrease training costs.

Both theories argue that certain characteristics pay off in the labour market based on expected productivity. Other characteristics, such as personality, effort, and organisational fit, are less associated with these theories.

Closure

Closure essentially refers to the process of drawing boundaries between

groups of people to monopolise opportunities for group members, such as

access to jobs (Murphy, 1988). Closure theory disregards the emphasis

on functional productivity characteristics; instead, it views characteristics

as social closure enhancers. Weber (1978) used the term social closure to

describe the actions of social groups that maximise their own advantages

1.3. GENERAL THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 15

by restricting and denying access to particular social rewards, such as jobs, to those seen as inferior or as outsiders.

The main claim of closure theory is that employers do not select employ- ees based on their productive capacities or their trainability. Instead, the theory argues that employers use both the staffing process and characteris- tics as legitimised closure mechanisms to control entrance into organisations and access to particular jobs within the organisation. The basic assump- tion is that employers and employees who hold well-paid and prestigious jobs control and monopolise access to those jobs. Closure on the labour market occurs when competition is determined by specific characteristics and thus results in groups based on shared characteristics.

According to closure theory, employers attempt to maximise their ad- vantage by eliminating the likelihood that they will select individuals with inferior characteristics. Exclusion can be based on any convenient, direct or indirect visible employee characteristics. Therefore, although the ascribed characteristics are used in the selection process, they are replaced by char- acteristics such as educational qualifications (Collins, 1974; Murphy, 1986) as a rationalisation for ’non-ascribed’ selection. The characteristics used in the staffing process yield higher returns on organisational capital (human productivity) and increase the probability of achieving similar productivity levels by allowing access to employees with similar characteristics.

Cultural capital theory, one such closure theory, argues that education

does not enhance the productive skills typically associated with trainabil-

ity or productivity. Rather, it argues that highly educated candidates

possess social skills (language use, communication, and social behaviour)

and personality traits (courtesy, openness, conscientiousness, extraversion,

agreeableness, and neuroticism) that are rewarded by employers because

of their familiarity and similarity. This theory emphasises those charac-

teristics manifested in behaviour, which are ’deeply’ embedded structural

(cultural) characteristics. Research shows that when selecting candidates

for highly privileged positions, employers select individuals based on par-

ticular cultural characteristics (e.g., Altonji & Pierret, 2001; Rivera, 2011)

and that employees prefer organisations that share their ’personality’ profile

(Schneider, 1987). The social setting, including the educational setting, is

considered to be a self-perpetuating force for deeply embedded structural

(cultural) characteristics. Therefore, educational characteristics, among

others, are used by firms to select applicants who have socialised themselves

within a certain habitus

and to secure their access to jobs (Bourdieu &

Passeron, 1990).

Some closure theories are very clear regarding the role of characteristics such as education, personality traits, and social skills. Educational qualifi- cations are rewarded for reasons beyond the cognitive and technical skills learned in the educational system (Collins, 1974, 1974; Heywood, 1994).

Students are sorted according to their level of cultural capital (Bourdieu

& Passeron, 1990); more precisely, students’ ability to reproduce

certain characteristics (skills, traits, and effort) is rewarded in a particular context (i.e., their job (level) in an organisation). Characteristics serve as markers of cultural capital. Bowles and Gintis (2002a) argued that education im- parts and transmits

cultural norms that are rewarded by employers, such as the manner of speaking, walking, and dressing. Applicants who have already acquired certain social skills and personality traits have an advan- tage (Bowles, 1972; Bowles & Gintis, 2002a) because they allow employers to base their decisions on educational qualifications as an act of closure.

In contrast to personality and effort, cognitive and technical skills become subsidiary characteristics (Bowles et al., 2001b; Heckman & Kautz, 2012;

Heckman et al., 2006; Osborne, 2005).

Economists, who have dominated human capital and screening theories, consider the idea that employers reward and select candidates based on skills in the competitive labour market to be biased according to the neoclassical economic view on labour market allocation (Bowles, & Gintis, 2000; Bowles

& Gintis, 2002a). It is commonly known that effort (including motivation, tenacity, trustworthiness, and perseverance) is important for success in life (Heckman & Rubinstein, 2001), including obtaining and maintaining a job.

Modern economists acknowledge that specific traits play a substantial role

in employee rewards and in applicant selection. Applicants who show little

effort are more likely to shirk, evade responsibility or, worse yet, exhibit

counterproductive work behaviour

. A lack of effort and poor personality

traits are considered by employers to be of greater concern than a lack of

technical or cognitive skills from a staffing and organisational perspective. A

poor attitude was by far the most important reason reported for recruitment

difficulties (Green, Machin, & Wilkinson, 1998; Spangenberg, 2011). These

findings illustrate the importance of personality and effort when allocating

jobs and, more precisely, in the staffing and promotion processes, indicating

bias for those theories in which skills predominate.

1.4. THE CHARACTERISTICS 17

Over the past decade, personality traits have been addressed in vari- ous job allocation theories. However, there is no widely accepted theory or model that explains why applicants’ non-skill-based traits may be rewarded in a competitive labour market (Bowles & Gintis, 2000). Proponents of clo- sure theory argue that employees can acquire skills, but they cannot acquire personality traits. Proponents therefore argue that employers can contract for skills but not for behaviour and personality traits, which results in an incomplete contract. Employers therefore focus on aspects of the psycholog- ical contract. According to closure theory, employers secure productivity by selecting for traits that enhance their authority. Traits are essential charac- teristics of endogenous enforcement, in which incentives play a major role.

Proponents of this theory argue that employers select candidates based on incentive-enhancing preferences (Arrow et al., 2000; Bowles, Gintis, &

Osborne, 2001a; Bowles et al., 2001b). These preferences reflect a desire for high effort, which can be achieved through various incentive-enhancing preferences. Employers maximise their profit to reinforce their authority (closure) to induce the highest effort with the lowest cost incentive and thus select applicants who exhibit high levels of effort and the personality to achieve this goal.

The three theories provide different rationales for the use of characteris- tics. As argued, most theories generally do not address whether employers use these characteristics during the staffing process, instead hinting at a broad theoretical perspective.

In chapters 4 to 8, I will elaborate on the theories in the context of the research questions, as outlined in section 1.5. Before outlining the research questions and their importance in job allocation, I will first briefly outline the characteristics addressed in this thesis.

1.4 The characteristics

In this section, I will describe the main characteristics examined in this

thesis. The characteristics are education, social skills, cognitive skills, tech-

nical skills, personality, and effort. These characteristics include several

sub-characteristics (see Table 1.1) that are formative

, rather than reflec-

tive, of the main characteristics. Different conceptual and measurement

definitions exist for these characteristics. The characteristics and their sub-

characteristics are described in more detail in each chapter.

Most studies examining job allocation, job attainment, and inequality refer to education. In this thesis, ’education’ includes all characteristics that are directly related to education. Qualifications are the most apparent result of completing an educational programme and are considered to be obtained education. In the Netherlands, qualifications include educational level and field of study. In addition to qualifications, students receive study results, represented by grades; these are a frequently debated character- istic in applicant selection (Kuncel, Hezlett, & Ones, 2004; Miller, 1998).

Characteristics such as the number of degrees and graduation efficiency are also related to the educational system. Graduation efficiency refers to the number of degrees obtained given the time spent in the educational system (in other words, an applicant’s study efficiency). The characteristics that directly emerge from the education system are regarded in this thesis as educational characteristics.

Social skills include verbal and nonverbal skills that facilitate interaction and communication, including adjustment to social rules and relationships.

Communication, teamwork, and sociability are sub-characteristics of social skills. Communication refers to the ability to converse in an appropriate, engaging, educated, and understandable manner at the right time and with the right vocal tone. Teamwork involves several social skills, including ver- bal and nonverbal communication, that are affected by social rules and relationships. The necessity of interaction around teamwork increases in- terdependence among team workers. Social skills are therefore an important component of teamwork: team members must be able to listen to and influ- ence (convince) other team members (see, e.g., Mohrman & Cohen, 1995;

Morgeson, Reider,& Campion, 2005) and adjust their social behaviours in different social and physical contexts. Sociability involves the interpersonal capacity to adjust one’s social behaviour to different situational demands and to effectively influence the responses of others (Ferris & Hochwarter, 2001).

Cognitive skills refer to the ability to process (e.g., problem solving, de- cision making), know (remember), and learn. These skills are used to gain meaning and knowledge by processing the information received in everyday life through perceptions, experiences, and learning. Identifying the appro- priate cognitive characteristics for study is challenging because cognition is a multifaceted trait that involves several dimensions (e.g., fluid, crystallised).

To measure cognitive skills, most studies use a variant of IQ, which cap-

1.4. THE CHARACTERISTICS 19

tures several qualities, including learning and analytical skills, approaching complexity, and using creativity. Therefore, this thesis considers learning, analytical skills, complexity, and creativity to be sub-characteristics of cog- nitive skills.

Technical skills are the specific types of expertise and knowledge required to accomplish a particular task. Technical skills refer to job-specific skills and serve as a complement for social and cognitive skills. Among the many different types of technical skills, one set of technical skills may be applicable to a number of different jobs. One basic technical skill is the ability to plan and to manage oneself and others. Further, computer skills are integral to most jobs. Computer skills include basic knowledge of how to work with a computer and how to use specific software. The most general and most important technical skills include reading, writing and, to a lesser extent, numeracy skills, as these are important and applicable to both manual and non-manual labour. For the junior managerial jobs studied in this thesis, management/business, information and communication technology (ICT), literacy, and numeracy skills are used as sub-characteristics of technical skills.

In this thesis, personality refers to the stable and organised set of per- sonal characteristics that uniquely influence a person’s behaviour in various situations. Several personality dimensions and characteristics have been described in the psychological literature (see for an overview, e.g., Salgado

& Fruyt, 2005). The Big Five framework has emerged as a robust model for

understanding personality relationships based on organisational behaviour

and applicant selection (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mervielde & De Fruyt,

2000). The five sub-characteristics of personality include extroversion, emo-

tional stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness (Digman,

1990). Extroversion refers to the degree to which a person outwardly di-

rects his or her interests and concerns. Emotional stability is the extent

to which a person is worried, insecure, anxious, or angry. Agreeableness

reflects an individual’s level of courtesy, trust, and kindness. Conscien-

tiousness refers to the extent to which an individual is dutiful, reliable,

thorough, and persevering. Finally, openness reflects the level to which

someone is imaginative, curious, and non-dogmatic.

T able 1.1: Ov er view of the Characteristics Studie d in chapters 3 to 8 C ha p te r Ma in cha ra cte ris tics 3 4 5 6 7 8 Educa tio n

Le ve l (Tertiary, high er vo ca tio n al) Le ve l (co ll eg e, ma ste r) , fie ld of study (m ana ge m ent, bu sine ss , economics, te chn ica l, l aw an d so cia l s cie nce ) Le ve l (co ll eg e, ma ste r) , f ie ld of study ( ma n age m ent , bu sine ss , economics, te chn ica l, l aw an d s ocial sci ence ) F ie ld o f s tu dy (m ana ge m ent, bu sine ss , economics, te chn ica l, l aw an d so cia l s cien ce ) F ie ld o f s tu dy (m ana ge m ent, bu sine ss , economics, te chn ica l, l aw an d so cia l s cie nce )

le ve l, f ie ld o f s tu dy C og niti ve ski ll s C og niti ve ski ll s X (le ar n in g, an al yti ca l, comple xity ) (cre ati ve , a na ly tica l, lea rning , r ef le cti n g X

ana ly tica l, comp le xi ty Tech nica l ski ll s Tech nica l ski ll s X (m ana g eme n t/ b usi n es s, ict, li te racy/num er acy), - X

Jo b skil ls , Lite ra cy, nu me ra cy S ocia l ski ll s S ocia l ski ll s X (comm un ica tio n , te amwo rk) (co m mu nica ti on, te amwo rk, so cia ble ) X

(comm un ica tio n , te amwo rk, so cia ble ) Pe rsona lity Pe rso na li ty X

(ope n ne ss , conscientiousness, extra ve rs io n , agre ea ble ne ss , n euro tici sm) (ope n ne ss , conscientiousness, extra ve rs io n , agre ea ble ne ss , ne u roti cism)

X

(ope n ne ss , conscientiousness, extra ve rs io n , agre ea ble ne ss , ne u roti cism) Eff or t Ef fo rt X

(m otiv ate d , i n vol ve d, enth usi asti c, trustwo rthy, ha rd w orki n g) (re lia ble , co m mitte d, ha rd w orki n g) X

(m otiv ate d , i n vol ve d, trustw or th y) X

q ua li ta tiv e da ta , conta ins se ve ral s u b- cha ra cte risti c, s ee cha p te r 7 fo r co m plete o ve rview o f the sub s.

1.5. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OUTLINE 21

Effort, a conscientious activity that contributes to accomplishing a goal, refers to employee traits other than skills (Bowles et al., 2001a). Compared to personality, effort is more volatile, context-bound, and sensitive to in- centives; unlike personality, effort is related to the individual’s job task as well as to the collective goals of the organisation (Knoke, 1988). Employees can withhold effort on the job by avoiding work, social loafing, and free riding (Kidwell & Bennett, 1993). Either withholding or increasing effort can occur when several members are responsible for productivity, such as working in a group (team) setting. Employers can induce effort and the acceptance of their authority during working hours through both finan- cial (e.g., salaries, bonuses) and nonfinancial (e.g., compliments, privileges) incentives. Examples of traits that ensure consistent effort include moti- vation, involvement, enthusiasm, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, and commitment (Bowles & Gintis, 2000). These traits are sub-characteristics of effort.

1.5 Research questions and outline

As argued in the previous section, entrance into the labour market is a cru- cial step that affects labour market position (Steijn, Need, & Gesthuizen, 2006) and job allocation. Importantly, several studies (Breen, Hannan, &

O’Leary, 1995; Jackson et al., 2005; Kerckhoff, 1976) have found that to better understand allocation mechanisms and the related characteristics, it is necessary to understand the characteristics on which employers base hiring decisions. However, these factors have not been thoroughly exam- ined (for an exception, see, e.g., Di Stasio, 2014). This study differs from previous studies in that it examines the entire staffing process.

An innovative aspect of this thesis is its examination of the characteris-

tics involved in the staffing process from the employer’s perspective. This

examination will contribute to the understanding of how characteristics gen-

erate differences in job allocation. Another innovative aspect is the study of

the complete staffing process. Understanding the characteristics employers

use to select newly graduated applicants who are applying for a highly pres-

tigious salaried job discussed in the context of the theories outlined in the

previous section 1.3 will improve understanding of the characteristics that

affect job allocation. Therefore, this study aims to address the following

central research question: