Who can do this Annotated Bibliography on Job Satisfaction?

Article8.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Who can do this Annotated Bibliography on Job Satisfaction?

Employability, well-being and job satisfaction following a job loss

Mary A. Gowan Department of Management, Martha and Spencer Love School of Business,

Elon University, Elon, North Carolina, USA

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to investigate changes in psychological well-being over time for individuals who experienced a career disruption in the form of a company closing, and to examine the relationships between employability, well-being, and job satisfaction. It seeks to expand on previous work of job loss relative to the long-term impact of the experience and on Fugate et al.’s psycho-social conceptualization of employability.

Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected at the time of job loss (T1) and six years later (T2). The 73 respondents at T2 represent a stratified random sample of the T1 respondents. Hypotheses were tested with paired sample t-tests and hierarchical multiple regression.

Findings – Results indicate that the negative psychological impact of job loss diminishes over time. Additionally, employability predicted well-being and job satisfaction.

Practical implications – The results of the study provide guidance for the design and administration of outplacement and related programs that focus on increasing employability and psychological well-being, and suggest ways that individuals can shield themselves from the negative consequences associated with a job loss.

Social implications – The results have policy implications for the design of government funded outplacement and retraining programs.

Originality/value – The paper is the first to examine job loss over a six-year period of time, and the first to examine the impact of employability attributes on multiple indicators of well-being and on job satisfaction in the job loss context.

Keywords Employability, Job loss, Reemployment, Careers, Psychological well-being, Unemployment, Quality of life

Paper type Research paper

Introduction The traditional paternalistic career model of working for only one or a few employers during an individual’s lifetime is almost nonexistent (Hall and Mirvis, 1995). Instead of moving upward in one functional area within one company, employees move between functional areas and between companies and industries (Hall, 2004; Leana and Rousseau, 2000; Sullivan, 1999). This movement may be necessitated by a job ending because of a company restructuring, merger/acquisition, or closing. In the third quarter of 2011 alone, 184,493 workers in the US lost their jobs as part of 1,226 extended mass layoffs (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011). The average length of unemployment reported in June 2011 was nine months, the longest since data collection began in 1948

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-3946.htm

The author thanks Steve Tate for his assistance in data collection and the Belk College of Business Administration at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte for providing funds that supported a portion of this research. Additional thanks go to Ron Karren and the two anonymous reviewers for their excellent feedback on earlier versions of this paper.

JMP 27,8

780

Journal of Managerial Psychology Vol. 27 No. 8, 2012 pp. 780-798 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0268-3946 DOI 10.1108/02683941211280157

(Rampell, 2011). In this uncertain work environment, individuals must manage their own careers rather than rely on their employers to do it for them (Fugate et al., 2004; Sullivan and Baruch, 2009).

Careers are increasingly characterized as nonlinear and discontinuous (Sullivan, 1999). Traditional career paths that still exist are not likely to yield greater career success outcomes than careers following more contemporary models (Reitman and Schneer, 2003). Three contemporary models exemplify how careers have changed: the protean career orientation, the boundaryless career model, and the kaleidoscope career model (Sullivan and Baruch, 2009).

Protean careerists are flexible and adapt quickly so that they can take their knowledge, skills, and abilities and reshape them to fit the current labor market needs, just as the Greek god Proteus could change his shape at will (Hall, 2004; Mirvis and Hall, 1996). The boundaryless career model focuses on ways in which the concept of career extends beyond a single employer (Arthur and Rousseau, 1996). Workers in this context are seen as independent agents who can physically and psychologically move between employers and/or who in other ways break down traditional assumptions about how to define a career (Sullivan and Arthur, 2006). The kaleidoscope career model (KCM) incorporates relationships and personal values and interests outside the workplace (Maniero and Sullivan, 2006). The model posits that changing patterns, resulting from events such as being laid off, cause individuals to reevaluate their choices and options and identify a best fit for the current situation in which they find themselves (Cabrera, 2007; Sullivan and Baruch, 2009).

According to these models, individuals need to take charge of their own careers (Capelli, 1999; Clarke and Patrickson, 2007). They must be increasingly fluid and adaptable to acquire and retain employment (Fugate et al., 2004) and to manage their lives (Sullivan and Baruch, 2009). Consequently, researchers have begun to define and study these new requirements within the construct of employability. Employability is a psycho-social construct that refers to the proactive adaptability of workers (Fugate et al., 2004), is an individual responsibility, and facilitates movement within and across organizations (Finn, 2000). Individuals who have greater employability perceive more control over what happens to them and are more likely to have greater satisfaction with their career outcomes and experience higher levels of well-being, even after experiencing a career disruption such as a job loss (McArdle et al., 2007).

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the changes in psychological well-being over time for individuals who experienced a career disruption in the form of a company closing, and examine the relationship between employability and multiple indicators of well-being, as well as between employability and job satisfaction. The study focuses on individuals who experienced a major career disruption in the form of a company closing. The six-year timeline is twice the typical three-year basis for studying displaced workers used by economists (Farber, 2005). The likelihood of regaining comparable employment to that which was lost was limited for these individuals because of changes in the airline industry in which they worked. Data were collected after sufficient time had evolved for individuals to have completed retraining programs, become reemployed, and settled into a different job. Studying individuals affected by the same job loss event ensures that personal characteristics were not the cause of the job loss (Paul and Moser, 2009; Sullivan et al., 2007) and, thus, removes the cause of the experience as a predictor variable in studying the relationships of interest.

Employability and job

satisfaction

781

The results of the study provide guidance for the design and administration of outplacement and related programs that focus on increasing employability and psychological well-being, and suggest ways that individuals can shield themselves from the negative consequences associated with a job loss.

Job loss as career disruption Jobs end for many reasons. Employees can choose to leave the company for another job or to retire. They can be terminated with or without cause. They can be laid off with the potential of returning to the job at a later date. This study specifically focuses on displaced workers, defined as individuals who have experienced an involuntary job loss through no fault of their own, who have been permanently separated from their employer, and who had a strong attachment to their industry ( Jacobson et al., 2005).

The detrimental effects of losing a job are well established (e.g. McKee-Ryan et al., 2005; Paul and Moser, 2009). These include financial challenges, decline in mental and physical health, and loss of status and self esteem. Research suggests that not all outcomes are negative, however. Replacing a less than satisfactory job with a better one and redirecting career activities can lead to positive outcomes (Eby and Buch, 1995; Grün et al., 2010; Paul and Moser, 2009; Zikic and Richardson, 2007).

Research has used both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs to study coping following a job loss (Leana and Feldman, 1990; 1994; Kinicki et al., 2000) and to identify factors that impact reemployment outcomes (Gowan et al., 1999; Zikic et al., 2008). Some studies have addressed the extent to which the effects endure over time and a few have identified the individual resources that can mitigate their endurance (e.g. McKee-Ryan et al., 2005).

Employability and job loss Individuals who are more employable will be less harmed by the event of job loss, engage in more job search activity, and achieve higher quality reemployment (Fugate et al., 2004). Even though employability can include both objective and subjective elements (Clarke and Patrickson, 2007; Fugate et al., 2004; Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden, 2006), this study focuses on the subjective dimension as defined by Fugate et al. (2004) and used by McArdle et al. (2007) and De Vos et al. (2011). Fugate et al.’s (2004) model focuses on person-centered dimensions that position individuals to take responsibility for their own career management. This definition of employability is appropriate in the job loss context.

Career identity is the first dimension of employability. It relates to the sense people make of their career experiences and serves as a motivator for future career decisions (Fugate et al., 2004; Fugate and Kinicki, 2008). This identity is developed as a result of the assimilation of past experiences into meaningful constructs (Meijers, 1998). Career identity needs to reflect the individual’s personal values and career interests as opposed to being coupled with a particular job or company (Hall et al., 1997). This identity is one of many role identities an individual can possess. According to social identity theory, individuals organize their role identities in a hierarchical manner. The identity at the top is most likely to be invoked and be the most salient, or strongest, influencer on behavior (Hogg and Terry, 2000; Turner, 1987). Situational characteristics can affect the salience, but the salience is primarily stable and results from past interactions (Stryker and Serpe, 1982) that are a function of the individual’s

JMP 27,8

782

values, attitudes, stereotypes, and past history (Randel, 2002). For many individuals, the salience of their career identity is an important determinant of well-being and future job satisfaction in relation to a job loss. Individuals with a stronger family identity as opposed to a stronger career identity actually may be more likely to have higher life satisfaction and self esteem and lower stress after experiencing a job loss because their career is not the only, or most, important part of their life.

Personal adaptability, the second dimension of employability, is defined by attributes such as optimism, propensity to learn, openness, internal locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy (Fugate et al., 2004). These attributes predispose individuals to be proactive and willing to change as the need arises. Career resilience and appraising the experience optimistically are two indicators of personal adaptability that are appropriate to assess in the context of a job loss. Career resilience is defined as having the ability to adapt as career circumstances change (Wolf et al., 1995), is part of the individual’s work identity (Fugate and Kinicki, 2008), and is related to optimism and self-efficacy (Fleig-Palmer et al., 2009). Career resilient individuals are “ready to reinvent themselves in order to keep pace with change” (Waterman et al., 1994, p. 88) and have the ability to respond to adversity (Luthans, 2002; Reivich and Schatte, 2002). These individuals are more likely to resist career disruption and more effectively cope with a negative work situation (London, 1983). They will be open to engaging in new learning experiences through training and/or taking on new work roles (Fleig-Palmer et al., 2009), all indicators of adaptability.

Further, individuals who are optimistic readily embrace a change in their careers while those who perceive an experience more negatively are less likely to experience positive mental well-being or job satisfaction when reemployed (Pieperl and Baruch, 1997; Power, 2010). Specifically, appraisal involves an assessment of the extent to which the experience carries implications for a person’s well-being (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984; Folkman et al., 1986). Leana and Feldman (1990) found that attachment to the previous job was a strong predictor of negative reactions to job loss. Thus, the greater the individual’s attachment to the old job, the more likely the loss of the job will be perceived pessimistically rather than optimistically.

The third dimension of employability encompasses both social and human capital. Social capital relates to the constellation of relationships a person has that creates a network (Wolff and Moser, 2009). Networking itself is behavioral (Wolff and Moser, 2009) and is an important activity for navigating a boundaryless career (Forret and Dougherty, 2004; Wolff and Moser, 2009). Research over time has shown that a large percentage of jobs are acquired through networking with family, friends, and acquaintances (Granovetter, 1995). Networking opens doors to job opportunities that may not be publicly advertised and extends across organizational boundaries, thus increasing opportunities for employment (Fugate et al., 2004; Seibert et al., 2001). Networking is related to career success (Forret and Dougherty, 2004) and career satisfaction (Wolff and Moser, 2009).

Human capital can take the form of education, experience, knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics. According to McKee-Ryan et al. (2005), human capital contributes to well-being during a period of unemployment, and education is consistently identified as an important predictor of outcomes following unemployment (Price and Fang, 2002; McArdle et al., 2007). Some type of education is preferred for filling most job openings (Fugate et al., 2004). “The cultural capital associated with

Employability and job

satisfaction

783

one’s education status may also reinforce the self-esteem of unemployed individuals” (McArdle et al., 2007, p. 250).

Fugate et al. (2004) chose to focus on person-centered dimensions in keeping with their belief that employability is a predisposition toward being employed more than about external criteria such as experience and specific job skills. They view their three dimensions as influential in causing adaptive behavior. Each dimension has value independently but it is the synergy among the three that creates the construct of employability. Individuals with higher employability attributes will adopt a proactive, flexible approach to managing the job loss. Research supports the idea that a proactive personality is more likely to be associated with greater career success (Ballout, 2007) and better overall psychological well-being (McArdle et al., 2007).

Job loss outcomes Research has addressed job loss outcomes primarily in terms of psychological well-being and reemployment outcomes. There are contradictions in the findings regarding effects over time related to these variables. Some research suggests that reemployment diminishes the negative mental health consequences associated with the experience (e.g. Grün et al., 2010; Vinokur et al., 1987; Wanberg, 1995). Other studies suggest that the effects are more enduring in the form of emotional residuals (Fagin, 1979; Kaufman, 1982), or that effects are curvilinear (Paul and Moser, 2009). Reasons offered for the lack of consistency in outcomes include differences in the reasons individuals were unemployed, variability in the length of the unemployment experience of the respondents (both within and between studies), differences in the types of and definitions of variables examined such as occupation, and whether the respondents were reemployed by the end of the study (Gowan and Gatewood, 1997; McArdle et al., 2007; McKee-Ryan et al., 2005). There are some commonalities across studies, however, in terms of the types of factors identified as influencing psychological well-being and quality of reemployment.

Psychological well-being Unemployment has historically been linked to lower life quality and life satisfaction (Caplan et al., 1989; Grün et al., 2010; Wanberg, 1995); increased stress and depressive affect (Leana and Feldman, 1990; Kinicki and Latack, 1990); and lower self-esteem (Caplan et al., 1989). Recent meta-analytic work by McKee-Ryan et al. (2005) reported that increased anxiety and decreased mental health accompany unemployment. Paul and Moser (2009) found in their meta-analyses that mental health declines following a job loss and improves after reemployment:

H1. Life satisfaction and self esteem will be higher and stress will be lower six years following a job loss than immediately following the job loss.

Only a few studies have examined well-being variables and psycho-social aspects of employability. Roskies et al. (1993) found a negative relationship between employability and psychological distress. McArdle et al. (2007) found that employability explained 20 percent of the variance in self-esteem in unemployed respondents. Based on their research, McArdle et al. (2007) suggest that employability can significantly impact mental well-being during unemployment.

JMP 27,8

784

Employability is particularly important for individuals who may perceive that they have few opportunities (Ito and Brotheridge, 2007). Employment uncertainty leads to a decline in well-being, but positive psychological attitudes such as those related to employability, should mitigate the uncertainty (Tien et al., 2005) and reduce the detrimental effects of the experience:

H2. Employability will be positively associated with psychological well-being six years following a job loss experience.

Reemployment quality Career success can be viewed in terms of objective career success and subjective career success (Ballout, 2007; Ng et al., 2005; Wolff and Moser, 2009). Objective career success is usually evidenced by external indicators such as promotions and raises. Subjective career success encompasses the attitudes and emotions toward work and work accomplishments (e.g. job satisfaction, organizational commitment) (Feldman and Ng, 2007; Ng et al., 2005). This characterization overlaps the focus in job loss research on reemployment outcomes (e.g. Wanberg et al., 1999).

Reemployment outcomes can take different forms but need to be examined in terms of the quality of the reemployment, not just the acquisition of a new job (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005). Quality of reemployment can be defined as new employment that is at least equal to the job that was lost in terms of pay and satisfaction for the individual (Kanfer et al., 2001; Wanberg et al., 1999).

Kinicki et al.’s (2000) work suggests that coping with job loss is a process that continues beyond simply gaining reemployment. Coping continues until the individual reaches equilibrium in multiple life areas. According to Liem (1992), individuals who settle for less than acceptable jobs are in effect giving up their sense of self-worth. Loss of a job leads to loss of “a socially approved role and the positive self-evaluations which go with it” (Warr, 1987, p. 224).

Little research to date has addressed employability and career success (McArdle et al., 2007; Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden, 2006). In one of the few studies to address these issues, De Vos et al. (2011) found that employability predicted career satisfaction. Individuals who perceive that they have alternatives because of their employability will be more likely to feel that they had options when they accepted their current position. Further, Cash and Gardner (2011) found a significant positive relationship between hardiness and job satisfaction. Hardiness, like employability, is a multidimensional construct that relates to the individual’s propensity to act rather than be a passive participant in life (Cash and Gardner, 2011). Thus:

H3. Employability will be positively associated with job satisfaction six years following a job loss experience.

Method Survey administration and sample This research is part of a larger longitudinal study that followed for six years individuals affected by a company closing (see Gowan et al., 1999, and Gowan and Lepak, 2007, for additional details about the study). The 73 participants represent 14.5 percent of the original sample of 506 respondents who completed questionnaires at a job assistance center for company employees in 1991. The author and several

Employability and job

satisfaction

785

assistants collected the first round of data (T1) from outplacement center participants. Of the 1,113 asked to participate, 669 (61 percent) completed the survey. Only surveys from the 506 respondents who actually lost their jobs because of the closing were included in the T1 study; other respondents had left the company earlier for reasons not related to the closing.

The comparison data in this study were collected through telephone interviews. The SPSS select cases random selection process was used to identify 100 individuals from the list of 506 T1 respondents. This list was divided into categories of White male, White female, Black male, Black female, other minority male, and other minority female. The sample was drawn to mirror the percentages of the groups who responded at T1. Attempts were then made to contact these individuals for telephone interviews. When the selected participant could not be reach (e.g. phone disconnected, did not return the call), another name was drawn from the same group. The calls were made over a three month period by the author and an assistant. Calls lasted 15-20 minutes on average.

The 73 respondents at T2 included: 42 percent (n ¼ 31) White male, 32 percent (n ¼ 23) White female, 12 percent (n ¼ 9) Black male, 10 percent (n ¼ 7) Black female, and 4 percent other minority female (2 Hispanic and 1 Asian). The average age at T2 was 46. A total of 21 percent (n ¼ 15) had a high school degree; 51 percent (n ¼ 37) had a technical degree, associates degree, or one or more years of college; 23 percent (n ¼ 17) had a bachelors degree; 4 percent (n ¼ 3) had some graduate work; and 1 percent (n ¼ 1) had a graduate degree. Prior to the closing, respondents had been employed by the company for an average of 13 years (SD ¼ 9.18). No statistically significant differences were found for gender, age, race, or education. Participants in the study represented a cross-section of professional, technical, management, and support staff at a wide range of levels and were representative of the types of employees who participated in activities of the outplacement program.

Respondents had been on their current jobs an average of 3.61 years at T2 and had held an average of two full-time and 1.57 part-time jobs since the company closed. A total of 42 percent of respondents had been at their current jobs less than three years.

Independent variables Independent variables were chosen to represent the three dimensions of employability (Fugate et al., 2004). Career identity salience was assessed with Lobel and St Clair’s (1992) five-item scale. Respondents indicated to what extent they agreed with four statements about the importance of work versus family on a Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree ¼ 1 to strongly agree ¼ 5. They also selected the best descriptor for their day-to-day priorities ranging from “I am primarily a family person” ¼ 1 to “I am primarily a career person” ¼ 5. Higher responses indicate a greater career identity salience (a ¼ 0.73). This alpha coefficient was similar to Lobel and St Clair (1992).

Two measures assessed personal adaptability. Career resilience was measured using a scale developed by Gowan et al.(2000) and based on work by Waterman et al. (1994). Respondents indicated the extent each item in a list of eight characteristics described them. Characteristics included traits such as being flexible and self-reliant, having a clearly defined plan for future work life, and feeling that what happens in my career is my responsibility. Responses ranged from strongly disagree ¼ 1 to strongly agree ¼ 5. The mean of the items was used as the measure of career resilience (a ¼ 0.82); higher scores indicate greater resilience.

JMP 27,8

786

The second measure of personal adaptability is related to having an optimistic outlook. Harm appraisal was measured at T2 by asking respondents “To what extent do you feel that the company’s closing has harmed you in the following areas?” The areas were “overall,” “self-esteem,” “family relationships,” “career,” and “social life.” Response choices ranged from not at all ¼ 1 to a lot ¼ 5. The mean of the items was used as the harm measure (a ¼ 0.80) with higher scores indicating greater harm (and a less optimistic outlook). This scale was developed by Gowan et al. (2000) based on Lazarus and Folkman’s (1984) work on stress and appraisal.

Two questions assessed networking. Respondents indicated if they had used referrals from friends and referrals from family to find a job since the company closed. Although they used different questions, McArdle et al. (2007) also measured networking with a two-item scale. Responses were coded as yes ¼ 1 and no ¼ 0, and the mean of the responses served as a measure of networking. Respondents also indicated if their college degree helped them get their current job and this response became the measure of education with responses coded as yes ¼ 1 and no ¼ 0.

Dependent variables Three measures of psychological well-being were included at both T1 and T2. Self-esteem was measured with Rosenberg’s (1989) ten-item self-esteem inventory. Response choices ranged from strongly disagree ¼ 1 to strongly agree ¼ 4, with items recoded so that higher scores represent greater self-esteem. The mean of the responses was used as the measure of self-esteem (a ¼ 0.82 at T1 and a ¼ 0.86 at T2). This measure has been widely used in the job loss research (e.g. Caplan et al., 1989; Kinicki and Latack, 1990).

Life satisfaction was measured by asking respondents to indicate how satisfied they were with life in general, family life, leisure activities, and the general status of their health. This measure had been previously used by Kinicki and Latack (1990). Response choices ranged from very dissatisfied ¼ 1 to very satisfied ¼ 4. The mean of the responses served as the scale score, with higher responses indicating greater life satisfaction (a ¼ 0.70 at T1 and a ¼ 0.73 at T2).

Stress was measured with the 13-item scale developed by Caplan et al. (1975) to assess anxiety, depression, and irritation. This scale has been previously used in job loss research (Harris et al., 1988). Response anchors ranged from never or a little of the time ¼ 1 to most of the time ¼ 4. Items were recoded so that higher responses indicated greater stress. The mean of the responses represented the scale score (a ¼ 0.94 at T1 and a ¼ 0.88 at T2).

Job satisfaction served as a measure of quality of reemployment. Satisfaction with the current job (T2) was measured with a single item representing each of the five subscales of the job descriptive index: pay, opportunity for promotion, coworkers, work itself, and working conditions. An additional item regarding satisfaction with your job in general was included. Research has shown that the information captured by a job in general measure is different from the sum of the facet satisfactions (Scarpello and Campbell, 1983). Response choices ranged from very dissatisfied ¼ 1 to very satisfied ¼ 5. An overall job satisfaction score was computed represented by the mean of the responses. Higher responses indicate greater overall job satisfaction (a ¼ 0.77).

Employability and job

satisfaction

787

Control variables Gender, race, and age were included as control variables. Leana and Feldman (1990) and Zikic et al.(2008) found no gender effects for reemployment status while Eby and Buch (1994) found gender effects. Age is generally perceived as having a negative correlation with employability (Clarke and Patrickson, 2007). Age affects outcomes such that the longer term consequences of job loss may be less severe for younger workers who have less income to lose (Leana and Feldman, 1992) while older workers take longer to find work (Wanberg et al., 1996) and may need encouragement to participate in job training and development activities (Maurer, 2001). Few studies have included a significant portion of minorities but there is evidence that they have more difficulty finding new employment (Kanfer et al., 2001; Vinokur et al., 2000). Gender data collected at T1 was coded as male ¼ 1 and female ¼ 2. Respondents reported their age at T1. Race was coded as White ¼ 1, Black ¼ 2, Hispanic ¼ 3, Native American ¼ 4, Asian ¼ 5, and Other ¼ 6.

Results Table I contains the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables. Table II contains the results for the tests of hypothesis I and Table III presents the results of the hierarchical regressions for H2 and H3.

H1 predicted that psychological well-being would be higher six years after a job loss than at the time of the job loss. As shown in Table II, paired sample t-tests indicate that self esteem was higher (t ¼ 24.72, p , 0.001) and stress was lower (t ¼ 4.19, p , 0.001) than at the time of the job loss. There was no significant difference for life satisfaction between the two times. It is worth noting that self esteem was relatively high at both times (T1 ¼ 3.41 and T2 ¼ 3.64 on a 4-point scale). Likewise, life satisfaction was relatively high (T1 ¼ 3.12 and T2 ¼ 3.13, also on a four-point scale).

Table III shows the results of the hierarchical multiple regressions used to test H2 and H3. In testing both hypotheses, the control variables were entered into each equation first, followed by the employability variables as a group. This approach follows from Fugate et al.’s (2004) observations that even though the dimensions have value independently, the greater value is through how they interact synergistically.

As predicted in H2, employability was generally found to be positively associated with psychological well-being six years following a job loss experience. Specifically, appraising the job loss as less harmful (b ¼ 20.43, p , 0.001), being more career resilient (b ¼ 0.37, p , 0.001), having a more salient family than career focus (b ¼ 20.22, p , 0.05), and the perception that the college degree helped get the current job (b ¼ 0.16, p , 0.05) predicted higher life satisfaction, R 2 ¼ 0.52, F(8, 62) ¼ 8.43, p , 0.001. Appraising the company closing as more harmful (b ¼ 0.32, p , 0.01), being less career resilient (b ¼ 20.43, p , 0.001), and a more salient career focus (b ¼ 0.33, p , 0.001) predicted greater stress, R 2 ¼ 0.45, F(8,62) ¼ 6.40, p , 0.01. The measure of education did not predict stress. Age, however, did predict stress: younger respondents indicated greater stress (b ¼ 20.27, p , 0.01).

Appraising the job loss as less harmful (b ¼ 20.30, p , 0.01), being more career resilient (b ¼ 0.54, p , 0.001), having a more salient family than career focus (b ¼ 20.24, p , 0.01), and perceiving the college degree as helpful in gaining the current job (b ¼ 0.17, p , 0.05) predicted higher self esteem, R 2 ¼ 59, F(8, 61) ¼ 10.82, p , 0.001. Networking did not predict any of the psychological well-being variables.

JMP 27,8

788

V a ri

a b

le M

ea n

S D

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

9 1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 .

G en

d er

1 .4

5 0 .5

0 –

2 .

A g

e 4 6 .4

4 9 .6

5 0 .0

0 –

3 .

R a ce

1 .3

3 0 .6

7 0 .1

7 2

0 .2

3 *

– 4 .

L if

e sa

ti sf

a ct

io n

(T 1 )

3 .1

2 0 .5

2 0 .0

9 0 .0

8 2

0 .1

3 –

5 .

L if

e sa

ti sf

a ct

io n

(T 2 )

3 .1

3 0 .6

4 0 .1

9 2

0 .1

4 0 .2

3 *

0 .4

7 *

* *

– 6 .

S tr

es s

(T 1 )

1 .9

0 0 .6

0 2

0 .1

6 2

0 .0

5 2

0 .1

6 2

0 .7

0 *

* *

2 0 .5

0 *

* *

– 7 .

S tr

es s

(T 2 )

1 .6

4 0 .5

6 2

0 .1

7 2

0 .1

3 2

0 .0

3 2

0 .5

4 *

* *

2 0 .5

5 *

* *

0 .5

7 *

* *

– 8 .

S el

f es

te em

(T 1 )

3 .4

2 0 .4

1 0 .1

9 0 .1

1 0 .0

2 0 .4

9 *

* *

0 .3

1 *

* 2

0 .5

8 *

* *

2 0 .5

3 *

* *

– 9 .

S el

f E

st ee

m (T

2 )

3 .6

5 0 .4

1 0 .2

7 *

* 2

0 .0

1 0 .1

2 0 .3

8 *

* *

0 .6

7 *

* *

2 0 .4

9 *

* *

2 0 .7

1 *

* *

0 .5

2 *

* *

– 1 0 .

Jo b

sa ti

sf a ct

io n

3 .6

2 0 .7

5 0 .2

1 *

0 .1

7 2

0 .0

1 0 .2

8 *

0 .2

8 *

* 2

0 .3

4 *

* 2

0 .2

2 *

2 0 .0

2 0 .1

0 –

1 1 .

H a rm

a p

p ra

is a l

2 .5

1 1 .0

6 2

0 .1

4 0 .3

1 *

* 2

0 .1

3 2

0 .2

0 *

2 0 .5

8 *

* *

0 .4

2 *

* *

0 .4

1 *

* *

2 0 .1

7 2

0 .4

9 *

* *

2 0 .2

2 *

– 1 2 .

C a re

er re

si li

en ce

4 .3

0 0 .5

8 0 .1

9 *

2 0 .1

6 0 .1

6 0 .2

3 *

0 .5

7 *

* *

2 0 .3

1 *

* 2

0 .4

9 *

* *

0 .2

5 *

0 .6

5 *

* *

0 .0

5 2

0 .4

7 *

* *

– 1 3 .

C a re

er id

en ti

ty sa

li en

ce 2 .0

7 0 .6

7 2

0 .0

5 0 .0

1 2

0 .1

5 2

0 .4

2 *

* *

2 0 .1

0 0 .2

5 *

0 .2

1 *

2 0 .3

2 *

* 2

0 .1

1 0 .1

0 2

0 .1

1 0 .1

7 –

1 4 .

N et

w o rk

in g

0 .6

2 0 .3

5 2

0 .1

6 2

0 .3

0 *

* 0 .0

0 2

0 .1

0 2

0 .0

9 0 .1

0 0 .1

5 0 .0

0 2

0 .1

7 2

0 .3

4 *

* 0 .0

3 2

0 .0

5 2

0 .0

2 –

1 5 .

E d

u ca

ti o n

0 .3

8 0 .4

9 2

0 .1

5 2

0 .0

1 2

0 .0

5 2

0 .0

0 0 .1

4 0 .0

1 2

0 .0

4 0 .0

5 0 .1

6 0 .3

0 *

* 2

0 .0

1 0 .0

7 0 .1

4 2

0 .1

N o te s :

* p #

0 .0

5 ;

* * p #

0 .0

1 ;

* *

* p #

0 .0

0 1 ;

G en

d er

co d

ed 1 ¼

m a le

, 2 ¼

fe m

a le

; R

a ce

co d

ed 1 ¼

W h

it e,

2 ¼

B la

ck ,

3 ¼

H is

p a n

ic ,

4 ¼

N a ti

v e

A m

er ic

a n

, 5 ¼

A si

a n

; N

et w

o rk

in g

co d

ed 1 ¼

u se

d ty

p e

o f

n et

w o rk

in g

, 0 ¼

d id

n o t

u se

; E

d u

ca ti

o n

co d

ed 1 ¼

co ll

eg e

d eg

re e

h el

p ed

fi n

d cu

rr en

t jo

b ,

0 ¼

co ll

eg e

d eg

re e

d id

n o t

h el

p fi

n d

cu rr

en t

jo b

Table I. Means, standard

deviations, and correlations among the

variables

Employability and job

satisfaction

789

H3, predicted that employability will be positively associated with job satisfaction six years following a job loss experience. This hypothesis was partially supported. Gender (b ¼ 0.21, p , 0.05), age (b ¼ 0.23, p , 0.05), harm appraisal (b ¼ 20.34, p , 0.05), networking (b ¼ 20.27, p , 0.05), and education (b ¼ 0.26, p , 0.05) predicted job satisfaction, R 2 ¼ 0.33, F(8, 53) ¼ 3.25, p , 0.05. Thus, being female, older, perceiving the job loss as less harmful, being less likely to network, and perceiving the college degree as helpful in getting the current job predicted job satisfaction.

In reviewing the overall results, 48 percent of the participants reported that they still perceived that they were harmed somewhat or a lot by the company closing even though six years had passed since the job loss. Forty-four percent felt that the closing had harmed their career and another 18 percent indicated they were not sure if it had harmed their career. The highly significant negative correlation between harm appraisal and career resilience (r ¼ 247, p , 0.000) suggests the importance of building resilience in those affected by job loss to overcome the harm appraisal as appraisals affect outcomes (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984).

Career identity salience was highly correlated with life satisfaction at T1 (r ¼ 20.42, p , 0.001) but not significantly correlated at T2 (r ¼ 20.10, ns). The same is also true for self esteem: a greater family identity at T2 correlated with higher self esteem scores from T1 (r ¼ 20.32, p , 0.01) but not at T2 (r ¼ 20.11, ns). These results suggest that the career salience may have changed as the result of the job loss experience.

Discussion This study is the first to examine psychological well-being and job satisfaction six years after a job loss. The study extends research of employability by examining the relationship of employability variables to multiple indicators of psychological well-being and a reemployment outcome for individuals who shared a common career disruption experience.

The results provide support for previous studies which have found that the mental health impairment resulting from job loss is limited and that mental health improves after reemployment (Paul and Moser, 2009; Grün et al., 2010). Stress levels were lower than immediately following the job loss and self-esteem was higher. post hoc analyses revealed that even participants who were not in the type of jobs they wanted had comparable levels of life satisfaction, self-esteem, and stress with individuals employed in the type of jobs wanted. This finding is similar to that of Grün et al. (2010) that found that people in bad jobs are better off than those who are unemployed. As Vinokur et al. (1991) has suggested, “For most people, unemployment is an episodic phenomenon but with the potential for being recurrent” (p. 213).

At time of job loss Six years later Variable M SD M SD T

Life satisfaction 3.12 0.52 3.13 0.64 0.10 Self-esteem 3.41 0.41 3.64 0.41 24.72 *

Stress 1.90 0.60 1.64 0.56 4.19 *

Notes: *p #0.05; * *p # 0.01; * * *p # 0.001

Table II. Psychological well-being at time of job loss compared to six years later

JMP 27,8

790

L if

e sa

ti sf

a ct

io n

S tr

es s

S el

f es

te em

Jo b

sa ti

sf a ct

io n

V a ri

a b

le S

te p

1 S

te p

2 S

te p

1 S

te p

2 S

te p

1 S

te p

2 S

te p

1 S

te p

C o n tr o l v a ri a b le s

G en

d er

0 .1

5 0 .0

4 2

0 .1

6 2

0 .0

4 0 .2

4 *

0 .1

2 0 .2

6 *

0 .2

1 *

A g

e 2

0 .1

0 0 .0

7 2

0 .1

4 2

0 .2

7 *

* 0 .0

0 0 .1

5 0 .1

9 0 .2

3 *

R a ce

0 .1

7 0 .0

8 2

0 .0

3 0 .0

8 0 .0

5 2

0 .0

5 0 .0

9 0 .1

E m p lo ya b il it y

H a rm

a p

p ra

is a l

2 0 .4

3 *

* *

0 .3

2 *

* 2

0 .3

0 *

* 2

0 .3

4 *

C a re

er re

si li

en ce

0 .3

7 *

* *

2 0 .4

3 *

* *

0 .5

4 *

* *

2 0 .2

0 C

a re

er id

en ti

ty sa

li en

ce 2

0 .2

2 *

0 .3

3 *

* *

2 0 .2

4 *

* 2

0 .0

5 N

et w

o rk

in g

2 0 .0

4 2

0 .0

5 2

0 .2

7 *

E d

u ca

ti o n

0 .1

6 *

2 0 .0

6 0 .1

7 *

0 .2

6 *

F 1 .8

2 8 .4

3 *

* *

1 .0

0 6 .4

0 *

* 1 .5

5 1 0 .8

2 *

* *

2 .2

6 3 .2

5 *

d f

(3 ,6

7 )

(8 ,6

2 )

(3 ,6

7 )

(8 ,6

2 )

(3 ,

6 6 )

(8 ,6

1 )

(3 ,5

8 )

(8 ,5

3 )

R 0 .2

8 0 .7

2 0 .2

1 0 .6

7 0 .2

6 0 .7

7 0 .3

2 0 .5

7 R

2 0 .0

8 0 .5

2 0 .0

4 0 .4

5 0 .0

7 0 .5

9 0 .1

1 0 .3

3 A

d ju

st ed

R 2

0 .0

3 0 .4

6 0 .0

0 0 .3

8 0 .0

2 0 .5

3 0 .0

6 0 .2

N o te s :

* p #

0 .0

5 ;

* * p #

0 .0

1 ;

* *

* p #

0 .0

0 1 ;

G en

d er

co d

ed 1 ¼

m a le

, 2 ¼

fe m

a le

; R

a ce

co d

ed 1 ¼

W h

it e,

2 ¼

B la

ck ,

3 ¼

H is

p a n

ic ,

4 ¼

N a ti

v e

A m

er ic

a n

, 5 ¼

A si

a n

; N

et w

o rk

in g

co d

ed 1 ¼

u se

d ty

p e

o f

n et

w o rk

in g

, 0 ¼

d id

n o t

u se

; E

d u

ca ti

o n

co d

ed 1 ¼

co ll

eg e

d eg

re e

h el

p ed

fi n

d cu

rr en

t jo

b ,

0 ¼

co ll

eg e

d eg

re e

d id

n o t

h el

p fi

n d

cu rr

en t

jo b

Table III. Hierarchical regressions

of the predictors of well-being and job

satisfaction six years after a job loss

Employability and job

satisfaction

791

Overall, respondents had relatively high levels of life satisfaction and self esteem and low levels of stress, and were somewhat satisfied with their new jobs. Support was found for the importance of psycho-social measures of employability in predicting psychological well-being and job satisfaction, but different attributes predicted job satisfaction than predicted well-being. Harm appraisal, used as an indicator of optimism, was the only employability variable that predicted all three measures of psychological well-being and job satisfaction.

Older individuals and females were more satisfied with their new jobs overall. These demographic groups may have lower expectations about their opportunities and, consequently, are more likely to be satisfied with their outcomes. Additionally, older workers, either by virtue of experience in the world of work or acceptance of their situation, were less likely to report high levels of stress six years after the company closed.

Limitations and future research directions The sample size is small but comparable to that of other job loss studies (e.g. Kinicki et al., 2000 (n ¼ 100 at T2); Leana and Feldman, 1995 (n ¼ 59 at T2); McArdle et al., 2007 (n ¼ 126 at T2)). Following the same individuals over time reduces problems with interpersonal comparability of subjective well-being found in cross-sectional studies (Grün et al., 2010). Still, studies with larger samples across different industries and geographic locations are needed to further validate these results.

Given the importance of the harm appraisal variable in this study, future studies should consider using harm appraisal with other measures of optimism to confirm that harm appraisal is an indicator of optimism, or lack thereof, in responding to job loss. These studies should also examine whether harm appraisal may be a moderator between employability and outcomes.

Further, the high level of family as opposed to career salience among the respondents suggests that individuals value other aspects of their life besides work. The kaleidoscope career model with its focus on both relationships and personal values and interests outside the workplace (Maniero and Sullivan, 2006) and reevaluating choices and options to fit the current situation (Cabrera, 2007; Sullivan and Baruch, 2009) may be an appropriate description of how career is enacted by this group. Future research also should examine whether career salience actually changes following a job loss experience even though salience is believed to be fairly stable over time (Stryker and Serpe, 1982).

Actual differences in educational levels between T1 and T2 were not measured and should be considered in future studies. Also, the measure of networking was limited and deserves further attention given the unexpected negative relationship between job satisfaction and networking. McArdle et al. (2007) found that networking did not contribute significantly to employability and suggested that networking may be more valuable early in the lay-off than later. In this study, data were collected at T2 via telephone interviews making it important to limit the number of questions to increase response rates. Future research should include recognized social capital scales that assess quality and quantity of social capital (e.g. Forret and Dougherty, 2001) as well as more and different measures of networking such as the networking intensity measures used by Wanberg et al. (2000).

Last, met expectations is an area of research in the context of job loss and employability that warrants attention. As Hamilton et al. (1993) note, a critical issue in

JMP 27,8

792

understanding the impact of unemployment may be whether the worker gets what he or she expected. Whether goals are met may actually moderate the relationship between employability and outcomes (van Hooft and Noordzij, 2009).

Implications for practice From an individual perspective, the findings suggest that developing a proactive, positive approach to managing a job loss will help maintain psychological well-being. Being more resilient, finding a balance between work and family, being more optimistic, and completing a college degree can lead to better psychological well-being and enhance job outcomes.

Outplacement programs need to address the psycho-social aspect of employability and design programs that assist individuals in becoming more career resilient and optimistic while developing traditional human capital skills. Programs can also help employees maintain their focus on areas outside their work life, recalibrating the importance of career in order to enhance well-being. This approach to outplacement has the potential to position the participant to have a better work/life balance when reemployed. Additionally, a side benefit for participants of focusing on areas outside their work life may be an increase in networking opportunities that open new doors for employment opportunities.

From a public policy standpoint, requiring government sponsored outplacement programs to incorporate coaching on psycho-social aspects of employability as well as more behavioral aspects of employability, such as skills training and job search training, has implications for program funding, design, and delivery and may well be worth the effort. By focusing on development of a proactive approach to career management, participants will be able to more effectively manage the job transitions that are an inevitable part of twenty-first century employment.

References

Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. (1996), “The boundaryless career as a new employment principle”, in Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds), The Boundaryless Career, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 3-20.

Ballout, H. (2007), “Career success: the effects of human capital, person-environment fit and organizational support”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 741-65.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011), “Business functions and processes in extended mass layoffs in the third quarter 2011”, available at: www.bls.gov/mls/mlbfbptext_20113.htm (accessed 12 December 2011).

Cabrera, E.F. (2007), “Opting out and opting in: understanding the complexities of women’s career transitions”, Career Development International, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 218-37.

Caplan, R.D., Vinokur, A.D., Price, R.H. and van Ryn, M. (1989), “Job seeking, reemployment, and mental health: a randomized field experiment in coping with job loss”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 759-69.

Caplan, R.D., Cobb, S., French, J.R., Van Harrison, R. and Pinneau, S.R. (1975), Job Demands and Worker Health, NIOSH, Cincinnati, OH.

Capelli, P. (1999), “Career jobs are dead”, California Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 146-67.

Cash, M. and Gardner, D. (2011), “Cognitive hardiness, appraisal and coping: comparing two transactional models”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 646-64.

Employability and job

satisfaction

793

Clarke, M. and Patrickson, M. (2007), “The new covenant of employability”, Employee Relations, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 121-41.

De Vos, A., De Hauw, S. and Van der Heijden, B. (2011), “Competency development and career success: the mediating role of employability”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 438-47.

Eby, L.T. and Buch, K. (1994), “The effect of job search method, sex, activity level, and emotional acceptance on new job characteristics: implications for counseling unemployed professionals”, Journal of Employment Counseling, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 69-82.

Eby, L.T. and Buch, K. (1995), “Job loss as career growth: responses to involuntary career transitions”, The Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 26-37.

Farber, H.S. (2005), “What do we know about job loss in the United States? Evidence from the displaced workers survey, 1984-2004”, Economics Perspectives, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 13-28.

Fagin, L.H. (1979), “The experience of unemployment II: unemployment and family crisis”, Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 66-74.

Feldman, D. and Ng, T. (2007), “Careers: mobility, embeddedness, and success”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 350-77.

Finn, D. (2000), “From full employment to employability: a new deal for Britain’s unemployed?”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 384-99.

Fleig-Palmer, M., Luthans, K. and Mandernach, B. (2009), “Successful reemployment through resiliency development”, Journal of Career Development, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 228-47.

Folkman, S., Lazarus, R.S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A. and Gruen, R.J. (1986), “Dynamics of a stressful encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 992-1003.

Forret, M.L. and Dougherty, T.W. (2001), “Correlates of networking behavior for managerial and professional employees”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 283-311.

Forret, M.L. and Dougherty, T.W. (2004), “Networking behaviors and career outcomes: differences for men and women?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 1-19.

Fugate, M. and Kinicki, A.J. (2008), “A dispositional approach to employability: development of a measure and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational change”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 3, pp. 503-27.

Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. and Ashforth, B. (2004), “Employability: a psycho-social construct, its dimensions, and applications”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 14-38.

Gowan, M., Craft, S. and Zimmermann, R.A. (2000), “Response to work transitions by United States Army personnel: the effects of self-esteem, self-efficacy, and career resilience”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 911-21.

Gowan, M., Riordan, C. and Gatewood, R. (1999), “The development and test of a model of appraisal, coping, distress, and reemployment following involuntary job loss”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 75-86.

Gowan, M.A. and Gatewood, R.D. (1997), “A model of response to the stress of involuntary job loss”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 277-97.

Gowan, M.A. and Lepak, D.L. (2007), “Current and future value of human capital: predictors of reemployment compensation following a job loss”, Journal of Employment Counseling, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 135-44.

Granovetter, M. (1995), Getting a Job, A Study of Contacts and Careers, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

JMP 27,8

794

Grün, C., Hauser, W. and Rhein, T. (2010), “Is any job better than no job? Life satisfaction and re-employment”, Journal of Labor Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 285-306.

Hall, D., Briscoe, J. and Kram, K. (1997), “Identity, values and learning in the protean career”, in Cooper, C.L. and Jackson, S.E. (Eds), Creating Tomorrow’s Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 321-32.

Hall, D.T. (2004), “The protean career: a quarter-century journey”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 1-13.

Hall, D.T. and Mirvis, P.H. (1995), “The new career contract: developing the whole person at midlife and beyond”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 269-89.

Hamilton, V.L., Hoffman, W.S., Broman, C.L. and Rauma, D. (1993), “Unemployment, distress, and coping: a panel study of autoworkers”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 234-47.

Harris, M.M., Heller, T. and Braddock, D. (1988), “Sex differences in psychological well-being during a facility closure”, Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 391-402.

Hogg, M.A. and Terry, D.J. (2000), “Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 121-40.

Ito, J. and Brotheridge, C. (2007), “Exploring the predictors and consequences of job insecurity’s components”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 40-64.

Jacobson, L., LaLonde, R. and Sullivan, D. (2005), “Is retraining displaced workers a good investment?”, Economic Perspectives, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 47-66.

Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. and Kantrowitz, T. (2001), “Job search and employment: a personality-motivational analysis and meta-analytic review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 837-55.

Kaufman, H.G. (1982), Professionals in Search of Work, Wiley, New York, NY.

Kinicki, A.J. and Latack, J.C. (1990), “Explication of the construct of coping with involuntary job loss”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 339-60.

Kinicki, A.J., Prussia, G.E. and McKee-Ryan, F.M. (2000), “A panel study of coping with involuntary job loss”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 90-100.

Lazarus, R.S. and Folkman, S. (1984), Stress, Appraisal, and Coping, Springer Publishing Company, New York, NY.

Leana, C. and Feldman, D. (1990), “Individual responses to job loss: empirical findings from two field studies”, Human Relations, Vol. 43 No. 11, pp. 1155-81.

Leana, C. and Feldman, D.C. (1992), Coping with Job Loss: How Individuals, Organizations, and Communities Respond to Layoffs, Lexington, New York, NY.

Leana, C.R. and Feldman, D.C. (1994), “The psychology of job loss”, in Ferris, G. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 12, pp. 271-302.

Leana, C. and Feldman, D. (1995), “Finding new jobs after a plant closing: antecedents and outcomes of the occurrence and quality of reemployment”, Human Relations, Vol. 48 No. 12, pp. 1381-401.

Leana, C.R. and Rousseau, D.M. (2000), Relational Wealth: Advantages of Stability in a Changing Economy, Oxford, New York, NY.

Liem, R. (1992), “Unemployed workers and their families: social victims or social critics?”, in Voydanoff, P. and Majka, L. (Eds), Families and Economic Distress, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 135-51.

Employability and job

satisfaction

795

Lobel, S.A. and St. Clair, L. (1992), “Effects of family responsibilities, gender, and career identity salience on performance outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 1057-69.

London, M. (1983), “Toward a theory of career motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 620-30.

Luthans, F. (2002), “The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 695-706.

McArdle, S., Waters, L., Briscoe, J.P. and Hall, D.T. (2007), “Employability during unemployment: adaptability, career identity and human and social capital”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 247-64.

McKee-Ryan, F.M., Song, Z., Wanberg, C.R. and Kinicki, A.J. (2005), “Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: a meta-analytic study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 53-76.

Maniero, L.A. and Sullivan, S.E. (2006), The Opt-out Revolt: How People Are Creating Kaleidoscope Careers outside of Companies, Davies-Black, New York, NY.

Maurer, T. (2001), “Career-relevant learning and development, worker age, and beliefs about self-efficacy for development”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 123-40.

Meijers, F. (1998), “The development of a career identity”, International Journal for the Advancement of Counseling, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 191-207.

Mirvis, P.H. and Hall, D.T. (1996), “Psychological success and the boundaryless career”, in Arthur, M.B. and Rousseau, D.M. (Eds), The Boundaryless Career, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 237-55.

Ng, T.W.H., Eby, L.G., Sorensen, K.L. and Feldman, D.C. (2005), “Predictors of objective and subjective career success: a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 367-408.

Paul, K.I. and Moser, K. (2009), “Unemployment impairs mental health: meta-analyses”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 74 No. 3, pp. 264-82.

Pieperl, M.A. and Baruch, Y. (1997), “Back to square zero: the post-corporate career”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 7-22.

Power, S. (2010), “Career management tactical innovations and successful interorganizational transitions”, Career Development International, Vol. 15 No. 7, pp. 664-86.

Price, R.H. and Fang, L. (2002), “Unemployed Chinese workers: survivors, the worried young and the discouraged old”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 416-30.

Rampell, C. (2011), “Average length of unemployment at all-time high”, available at: http:// economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/average-length-of-unemployment-at-all-time- high (accessed 12 December 2011).

Randel, A.E. (2002), “Identity salience: a moderator of the relationship between group gender composition and work group conflict”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 749-66.

Reitman, F. and Schneer, J. (2003), “The promised path: a longitudinal study of managerial careers”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 60-75.

Reivich, K.J. and Schatte, A. (2002), The Resilience Factor, Broadway Books, New York, NY.

Rosenberg, M. (1989), Society and the Adolescent Self-Image, Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, CT.

JMP 27,8

796

Roskies, E., Louis-Guerin, C. and Fournier, C. (1993), “Coping with job insecurity: how does personality make a difference?”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 617-30.

Scarpello, V. and Campbell, J.P. (1983), “Job satisfaction: are all the parts there?”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 577-600.

Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L. and Liden, R.C. (2001), “A social capital theory of career success”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 219-37.

Stryker, S. and Serpe, R.T. (1982), “Commitment, identity salience, and role behavior: theory and research example”, in Ickes, W. and Knowles, E.S. (Eds), Personality, Roles, and Social Behavior, Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 199-218.

Sullivan, S.E. (1999), “The changing nature of careers: a review and research agenda”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 457-84.

Sullivan, S.E. and Arthur, M.B. (2006), “The evolution of the boundaryless career concept: examining physical and psychological mobility”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 19-29.

Sullivan, S. and Baruch, Y. (2009), “Advances in career theory and research: a critical review and agenda for future research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1542-71.

Sullivan, S., Forret, M. and Mainiero, L. (2007), “No regrets? An investigation of the relationship between being laid off and experiencing career regrets”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 787-804.

Tien, H.S., Lin, C. and Chen, S. (2005), “A grounded analysis of career uncertainty perceived by college students in Taiwan”, The Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 162-74.

Turner, J.C. (1987), “Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group”, in Tajfel, H. (Ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 15-40.

Van der Heijde, C. and Van der Heijden, B. (2006), “A competence-based and multidimensional operationalization and measurement of employability”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 449-76.

van Hooft, E. and Noordzij, G. (2009), “The effects of goal orientation on job search and reemployment: a field experiment among unemployed job seekers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 6, pp. 1581-90.

Vinokur, A.D., Caplan, R.D. and Williams, C.C. (1987), “Effects of recent and past stress on mental health. Coping with unemployment among Vietnam veterans and nonveterans”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 8, pp. 708-28.

Vinokur, A., Schul, Y., Vuori, J. and Price, R. (2000), “Two years after a job loss: long-term impact of the JOBS program on reemployment and mental health”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 32-47.

Vinokur, A.D., van Ryn, M., Gramlich, E.M. and Price, R.H. (1991), “Long-term follow-up and benefit-cost analysis of the Jobs Program: a preventive intervention for the unemployed”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 213-9.

Wanberg, C.R. (1995), “A longitudinal study of the effects of unemployment and quality of reemployment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 40-54.

Wanberg, C.R., Bunce, L.W. and Gavin, M.B. (1999), “Perceived fairness of layoffs among individuals who have been laid off: a longitudinal study”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 59-84.

Employability and job

satisfaction

797

Wanberg, C.R., Kanfer, R. and Banas, J.T. (2000), “Predictors and outcomes of networking intensity among unemployed job seekers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 4, pp. 491-503.

Wanberg, C.R., Watt, J.D. and Rumsey, D.J. (1996), “Individuals without jobs: an empirical study of job-seeking behavior and reemployment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 76-87.

Warr, P. (1987), Work, Unemployment, and Mental Health, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Waterman, R.H. Jr, Waterman, J.A. and Collard, B.A. (1994), “Toward a more career-resilient workforce”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 87-95.

Wolf, G., London, M., Casey, J. and Pufahl, J. (1995), “Career experience and motivation as predictors of training behaviors and outcomes for displaced engineers”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 316-31.

Wolff, H. and Moser, K. (2009), “Effects of networking on career success: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 196-206.

Zikic, J. and Richardson, J. (2007), “Unlocking the careers of business professionals following job loss: sensemaking and career exploration of older workers”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 58-73.

Zikic, J., Burke, R.J. and Fiksenbaum, L. (2008), “Gender differences in involuntary job loss and the reemployment experience: less there than meets the eye”, Gender in Management: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 247-61.