1 / 20

Context

walda
Download Presentation

Context

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Causal Relationships between Perceived Employability and Well-being among Employed Workers and Unemployed Job SeekersSustainable Employability:Challenges for HRM Innovation2013Dra. Dorien VanherckeDra. Kaisa KirvesProf. Nele De CuyperProf. Anneleen ForrierProf. Marijke Verbruggen Prof. Hans De WitteContact: Dorien.Vanhercke@ppw.kuleuven.be

  2. Context • Definition • Perceivedemployability is becoming more relevant: • In the current era of continuous change individuals need to be more aware of their employability in order to secure employment (Cohen & Mallon, 1999; Hall, 2004). • Career actions or lackthereof are stronglydeterminedbyone’sperception of events (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). • Perceivedemployability in relationto well-being: • - Theoretically: control versus selection-effect • - Empirically:

  3. Theoreticalframework • Personal resources “Internal resources upon which an individual may draw to cope with stressful life events” (McKee-Ryan & Kinicki, 2002, p.18). • Individual resilience • Feelings of control • A spiral relationship: reciprocal causation • Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, Johnson, Ennis, & Jackson, 2003) • Broaden and Build Theory of Positive Emotions: positive affect broadens people’s momentary thought-action repertoires (Fredrickson, 2001) • Well-being – opennesstoexperience(Steel, Schmidt and Shultz, 2008) • Self-efficacy – well-being (Magaletta & Oliver, 1999)

  4. Theoreticalframework Perceived employability Time 1 Perceived employability Time 0 Well-being Time 0 Well-being Time 0 • Hypothesis: reciprocalcausation • Amongemployedworkersandunemployed job seekers in outplacement “The process of facilitating a terminated employee's search for a new job by provision of professional services, such as counseling, paid for by the former employer”. (CAO51, 1992)

  5. The employed Method • Two-wave surveydata (2011 – 2012): N= 600 • Measures: • Perceived employability (4 items; De Cuyper & De Witte, 2010) - T0: α = .94; T1: α = .90 - e.g.: “I could easily switch to another job elsewhere, if I wanted to.” - 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). • Well-being(1 item; Abdel-Khalek, 2006) - “Overall, how happy or unhappywouldyou say you are?” - Response scale ranges from 1 (very unhappy) to 10 (very happy) • Analyses: SEM with AMOS

  6. The employed Table 1. Sample composition

  7. The employed Table 2. Fit statistics for the structural equation models (employed) Note: best-fitting model in italics. PE = perceived employability. Results 7

  8. The employed Perceived employability Time 0 Perceived employability Time 1 + *p < .05 Well-being Time 1 Well-being Time 0 χ² (31) = 129.69, p <.001 GFI = .96, CFI = . 98, RMSEA = .07 Results • Hypothesis of reciprocalcausation was notsupported. 8

  9. Unemployed job seekers in outplacement Method • Two-wave surveydata of individualoutplacement trajectories (2011 – 2012): N= 179 • Measures • Perceivedemployability (4 items; Wanberg, Zhu, & Van Hooft, 2010) - T0: α = .87; T1: α = .90 - e.g.: “How confident are youthatyouwill get a goodpaying job” - Response scalerangingfrom1 (= not at all confident) to 5 (= highly confident). • Lack of mental health (12 items; Goldberg, 1972): 3 dimensions(Mäkikangas et al., 2006): • Socialdysfunction (6 items) (T0: α = .86; T1: α = .88) - e.g.: “How much have you felt capable of making decisions during the previous weeks?” 2. Anxietyanddepression (4 items) (T0: α = .88; T1: α = .88) - e.g. : “How much have you felt depressed and unhappy during the previous weeks” 3. Loss of confidence (2 items) (T0: α = .89; T1: α = .82) - e.g.: “How much have you felt like you have lost confidence in yourself during the previous weeks?” All 3 on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (= a lot less than usual) to 4 (more than usual) • Analyses: SEM with AMOS

  10. Unemployed job seekers in outplacement Table 3. Sample composition

  11. Unemployed job seekers in outplacement Table 4. Fit statistics for the structural equation models (unemployed job seeker) Note: best-fitting model in italics. PE = perceived employability. Results

  12. Unemployed job seekers in outplacement Perceived employability Time 0 Perceived employability Time 1 • *p < .05 Well-being Time 1 Well-being Time 0 χ² (70) = 105.52, p <.01 GFI = .93, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05 • Hypothesis of reciprocal causation was not supported. Results

  13. Take home anddiscussion *p < .05 + Perceived employability Time 0 Well-being Time 1 *p < .05 Perceived employability Time 1 Well-being Time 0 Pathways between perceived employability and well-being are different in different contexts Employed: • Unemployed job seekers in outplacement:

  14. Take home anddiscussion • Whatmightexplainourresults? • Employed: feeling in control over one’semploymentsituationrelatesto well-being. • Unemployed job seekers: • Involuntary job lossrelatestoill-being • Time 0: psychological counseling • Time 1: job search counseling

  15. Implications • Research: studyothercontexts (e.g., (graduate) students) • Practice: • Invest in workers’ perceived employability byoffering training, career counseling and networking opportunities  benefits for individual and organization (Cropanzano & Wright, 2001). • Invest in psychological counseling  benefits perceived employability.

  16. Thankyouforyour attention

  17. References • Abdel-Khalek, A. M. (2006). Measuring happiness with a single-item scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 34(2), 139-150. • Cohen, L., & Mallon, M. (1999). The transition from organisational employment to portfolio working: Perceptions of boundarylessness. Work, Employment and Society, 13, 329-352. • Collectieve arbeidsovereenkomst nr. 51, betreffende outplacement, Nationale arbeidsraad van België (1992). • Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T. A. (2001). When a “happy” worker is really a “productive” worker . A review and further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53(3), 182-199. • De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2010). Temporary employment and perceived employability: mediation by impression management. Journal of Career Development, 37(3), 1-18. • Frederickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218-226. • Goldberg, D.P. (1972). The general health questionnaire (GHQ). Companion to psychiatric studies. London: Oxford University. • Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 1-13.

  18. References(continued) • Hobfoll, S.E., Johnson, R.J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A.P. (2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 632-643. • Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping, New York: Springer Publishing. • Magaletta, P. R., & Oliver, J. M. (1999). The hope construct, will, and ways: Their relations with self-efficacy, and general well-being. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 539-551. • Mäkikangas, A. M., Feldt, T., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., Kinunnen, M.-L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2006). The factor structure and factorial invariance of the 12-Item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) across time: Evidence from two community-based samples. Psychological Assessment, 18(4), 444-451. • McKee-Ryan, F. M., & Kinicki, A. J. (2002). Chapter 1: Coping with job loss: A life-facet perspective. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (17). John Wiley and Sons Ltd. • Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 138–161. • Wanberg, C. R., Zhu J., & Van Hooft, E., A., J. (2010). The job search grind: Perceived progress, self-reactions, and self-regulation of search effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (4), 788–807.

  19. Table 5. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between the study variables (employed) (N = 600) • * p < .05, ** p < .01

  20. Table 6. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between the study variables (unemployed job seekers) (N = 179) • * p < .05, ** p < .01

More Related