Employability and Career Success: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Reality
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6 (2013), 3–16.
Copyright © 2013 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/13
FOCAL ARTICLE
Employability and Career Success:
Bridging the Gap Between Theory and
Reality
ROBERT HOGAN
Hogan Assessment Systems
TOMAS CHAMORRO-PREMUZIC
University College London
New York University at London
ROBERT B. KAISER
Kaiser Leadership Solutions
Abstract
Employability is defined as the capacity to gain and retain formal employment, or find new employment
if necessary. Reasons for unemployment are often attributed to economic factors, but psychological
factors associated with employability also contribute to the problem. Consequently, industrial-organizational
psychologists should be uniquely suited to contribute to policy solutions for enhancing employability. This review
begins by surveying the most common research approach to employability—the study of career success—which
psychologists believe is determined by cognitive abilities, personality, and educational achievement. Next, we
review the literature concerning what employers actually want. This section highlights the importance of social
skills (being rewarding to deal with) as a key determinant of employability. We conclude by proposing a model
for understanding the psychological determinants of employability and for bridging the gap between what
psychologists prescribe and what employers want.
Employability is defined as the ability to is employed. Helping the unemployed
gain and maintain a job in a formal become more employable is now a public
organization (Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashforth, policy issue: Over 40% of unemployed
2004; Hillard & Pollard, 1998), and has people have been jobless for at least two
become a politically significant topic. In years (The Economist, 2010).
the United States, official unemployment There are many causes of unemploy-
figures have been high since the 2001 ment, and analyses of the current epidemic
recession and reached 10% in 2010. This focus on cyclical versus structural factors
figure does not include the millions of in the economy. Cyclical unemployment
unemployed people who have stopped is because of a decrease in aggregate-
searching for a job; when included, the level demand for goods and services, which
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011) reports results in fewer jobs. Structural unemploy-
that only 64% of the potential work force ment refers to a mismatch between the
qualifications employers seek and the skills
Correspondence concerning this article should be of the available labor force. Evidence sug-
addressed to Robert Hogan. gests that both factors explain the current
E-mail: rhogan@hoganassessments.com
Address: Hogan Assessment Systems, 2622 E 21st
global trend toward increasing unemploy-
Street, Tulsa, OK 74114-1738. ment and that structural unemployment has
34 R. Hogan, T. Chamorro-Premuzic, and R.B. Kaiser
been on the rise in the United States for employability in terms of employers’ per-
some time (Chen, Kannan, Trehan, & Loun- ceptions of job candidates’ ability to:
gani, 2011). Many analysts believe that (a) get along with coworkers— rewarding ;
a decline in human capital explains the (b) learn and do the job— able; and
seeming paradox between high rates of (c) be productive— willing . We con-
unemployment and the difficulty employers sider the psychological determinants of
have in finding qualified job seekers. Others these attributions and offer some guide-
note that many high paying manufacturing lines for future psychological research on
jobs have moved offshore and that many employability.
construction jobs vanished with the col-
lapse of the housing bubble, leaving behind
Employability and Career Success:
a growing population of otherwise willing
What Psychologists Prescribe
workers who lack the skills needed for jobs
in the technology and service industries. Empirical research on individual differences
Although psychologists have studied in career success represents the main psy-
employability since the 1950s (Feintuch, chological contribution to the study of
1955), it has never been a mainstream employability. This literature distinguishes
research topic. Furthermore, there is a gap between objective and subjective measures
between academic research on occupa- of career success, a distinction that is sup-
tional performance and the realities of the ported by modest correlations between the
hiring process. On the one hand, a sub- two (ranging from .18 to .30; Ng & Feldman,
stantial empirical literature demonstrates 2010). We focus on objective indicators
the importance of certain psychological because some people are ‘‘predisposed to
attributes, including cognitive ability and evaluate their careers favorably’’ (Baruch &
personality, for predicting job performance. Bozionelos, 2011, p. 83)—that is, happy
On the other hand, few business man- people are happy about everything (Pavot
agers read this literature (Rynes, Brown, & Diener, 2011)—and because objectively
& Colbert, 2002). Employers are more defined career success provides a more con-
interested in employees’ social skills than sistent criterion for making generalizations.
their cognitive ability (Chamorro-Premuzic In line with Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, &
& Furnham, 2010) and prefer their own Barrick (1999), we define objective career
competency models to academic prescrip- success in terms of occupational prestige
tions for success. In our combined careers and financial attainment, both of which can
of over 70 years, we have known many be assessed quantitatively.
bright people (as defined by IQ scores and The career success literature is typi-
academic achievement) who spent their cally organized in terms of three models
lives working in temporary jobs, freeload- called the human capital, the structural,
ing, or collecting unemployment benefits. and the social capital views. All three
What separates these smart but unemploy- models are well supported from an empir-
able people from their less gifted but more ical perspective, but psychologists tend to
employable contemporaries? focus on the first (Becker, 1975). According
This article is organized in three sections. to the human capital view, organizations
The first reviews the psychological liter- distribute rewards to their members accord-
ature on individual differences in career ing to their contributions. The ability to
success and summarizes the lessons we contribute to an organization depends on
have learned from this research. The sec- having relevant competencies, which can
ond section concerns the employers’ view be acquired in various ways. This view
of employability: It reviews what employers implicitly assumes that individuals compete
actually want in new hires. In the final for the rewards available in organizations,
section, we propose a model for unify- and some are more successful than others
ing both perspectives by conceptualizing (Brown & Hesketh, 2004).Employability and career success 5
Many researchers believe that educa- performance differences between people,
tion is the most important component of which makes it a useful predictor vari-
human capital (McArdle, Waters, Briscoe, able. However, as Chamorro-Premuzic and
& Hall, 2007), but the evidence suggests Furnham (2010) point out, ‘‘recruiters often
that the relationship between educational ignore GPA when recommending selec-
achievement and career success is only tion and in some circumstances even rec-
modest. For example, in a meta-analysis ommend selecting candidates with lower
of 50 studies and 62 samples, Bretz (1989) GPA’’ (p. 82).
found that the validity of college grades Because educational attainment often
for predicting earnings and supervisory rat- acts as a ‘‘first-pass filter’’ in personnel
ings was erratic with correlations varying selection, it is instructive to know what pre-
between −.25 and .43, and a nonsignifi- dicts educational attainment. This topic has
cant average effect size of d = .39. Grade been studied in detail (Chamorro-Premuzic
point average (GPA) barely predicted start- & Arteche, 2008). Psychologists have tradi-
ing salary and did not predict salary growth tionally argued that educational attainment
thereafter. In a later study, Judge, Cable, is a function of cognitive ability, but several
Boudreau, and Bretz (1995), using a sam- recent studies highlight the importance of
ple of 1,388 U.S. executives, found that personality characteristics as predictors of
educational level, quality, prestige, and academic performance. Recent empirical
degree type significantly, but moderately, evidence combining the results of the main
predicted financial success. Similarly, Pfef- meta-analytic studies in this area (described
fer and Fong (2002) reviewed the literature below) suggests that cognitive ability and
on the utility of business school educa- personality are equally important predic-
tion and concluded that neither an MBA tors of educational attainment (von Stumm,
degree nor GPA were consistently related Hell, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011).
to pay and promotions, although the pres- For example, Noftle and Robins (2007)
tige of the institution was somewhat related show, across four samples, that the
to these measures of career success. More five-factor model (FFM) dimensions of
recently, Ng, Eby, Sorensen, and Feld- Conscientiousness and Openness signifi-
man (2005) meta-analyzed this research cantly predict college achievement test
and found that indicators of educational scores (SATs) and college GPA. In a
achievement correlated modestly but pos- large meta-analytic study (N = 70,000),
itively with subsequent financial success Poropat (2009) reports significant corre-
(r = .21). Thus, although education is reli- lations between Agreeableness, Conscien-
ably associated with career success, the tiousness, and Openness and academic
effects are relatively small; the amount of performance. Another large meta-analysis
unexplained variance suggests that other (N = 72,431) by Crede and Kuncel (2010)
factors may also be important. It could shows that study habits predict academic
be argued that the modest effects of col- performance as well as standardized tests
lege grades on subsequent career success and previous grades. Ng and Feldman
are a function of the restriction of range (2010), in a meta-analytic study of 455
observed at higher levels of career success, independent samples, report that Consci-
that is, the fact that academic/educational entiousness and cognitive ability predict
qualifications are higher and more homo- educational level, which then predicts
geneous in more competitive, desirable, salary level. Finally, von Stumm, Hell, and
or highly-skilled jobs. Thus, once you Chamorro-Premuzic (2011) present a mega-
are ‘‘smart enough’’—in terms of your analysis of these and other meta-analytic
academic qualifications—other factors are studies and conclude that effort, ability, and
more important in determining your success curiosity—‘‘a hungry mind’’—have inde-
levels. On a practical note, GPA is eas- pendent effects on academic achievement.
ily obtained and captures years of reliable The standardized mega-analytic regression6 R. Hogan, T. Chamorro-Premuzic, and R.B. Kaiser
coefficient for ability (psychometric g ) was They report that, compared to measures of
.35; the coefficients for Conscientiousness cognitive ability, measures of noncognitive
and curiosity measures were .20. ability (e.g., responsibility, independence,
In a balanced overview, Kuncel, Ones, persistence, emotional stability, and social
and Sackett (2010) conclude that personal- skill) were, in combination, better predictors
ity and cognitive ability are both important of wages, employment status, and annual
predictors of work and life success. It is earnings.
interesting to note that hiring managers In summary, then, the conventional
seem to pay at least as much attention wisdom of applied psychology maintains
to personality characteristics as they do that, in the hiring process, employers
to intelligence (Dunn, Mount, Barrick, & should be most interested in the degree to
Ones, 1995). In fact, surveys of HR prac- which applicants possess ‘‘cognitive ability,
titioners show that they may even devalue conscientiousness, and other personality
IQ data; for example, in a review of 785 characteristics that they believe add value
articles from HR Magazine (which has a to their business’’ (Baruch & Bozionelos,
readership of 200,000), the authors found 2011, p. 83), with the primary emphasis on
virtually no mention of IQ, general mental cognitive ability (Kuncel, Ones, & Sackett,
ability, g , cognitive ability, or intelligence 2010; Schmidt & Hunter, 1992).
(Rynes, Giluk, & Brown, 2007). There are, however, some interesting
The empirical literature clearly shows qualifications to these otherwise consis-
that IQ and personality predict educational tent findings. Most importantly, as Baruch
performance; moreover, the same vari- and Bozionelos (2011) note, doing a good
ables that predict educational achievement job does not guarantee career success;
predict job performance. Roberts, Kuncel, in fact, job performance and career suc-
Shiner, Caspi, and Goldberg (2007) eval- cess only correlate about .30 (cf. Carmeli,
uate the links between personality and Shalom, & Weisberg, 2007; Van Scot-
income, occupational prestige, long-term ter, Motowidlo, & Cross, 2000). Baruch
unemployment, and occupational stability, and Bozionelos suggest three reasons for
and conclude that ‘‘personality traits predict this modest correlation. First, career suc-
all of the work-related outcomes’’; and that cess sometimes depends on factors out-
‘‘the modal effect size of personality traits side the control of individual actors;
is comparable with the effect of childhood for example, in modern Japan, many
SES and IQ on similar outcomes’’ (p. 333). highly qualified engineering graduates can-
Consistent with these conclusions, Judge not find work, which obviously impedes
et al. (1999) compiled a sample of 354 peo- their career success. Second, career suc-
ple from longitudinal research conducted cess depends on the political structure
at the Institute for Human Development at of organizations—for example, changes in
UC Berkeley in the 1950s. In this sample, leadership are often accompanied by other
they found that personality and IQ assessed staffing changes, and alliances can deter-
in childhood each predicted occupational mine who gets which job—or no job at
status in adulthood, yielding a multiple cor- all. Third, performance appraisal systems,
relation of .64. which directly mediate career success,
Recently, economists have begun study- are almost always ‘‘imperfect’’ (Latham &
ing the links between individual character- Mann, 2006) and subject to nonperfor-
istics and employment outcomes and their mance related influences. For example, in a
research parallels the findings from applied field study of executives conducting perfor-
psychology. For example, Lindqvist and mance appraisals, it was concluded that
Westman (2011) studied a large sample of performance appraisals primarily reflect
18-year-old Swedish soldiers to examine the personal politics, defined as attempts to
relationship between cognitive and noncog- ‘‘enhance or protect their self-interests
nitive skills and labor market outcomes. . . . which represents a source of biasEmployability and career success 7
or inaccuracy in employee appraisal’’ (p. Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills
184). In another field study, Varma, DeNisi, (SCANS) surveyed business owners, union
and Peters (1996) found that performance officials, public employees, managers,
appraisals are a function of how much and private-sector workers to determine
supervisors like their employees. Further the performance demands of modern
research has identified some of the fac- employment. The SCANS survey identified
tors that bias performance evaluations and five broad categories of critical compe-
career outcomes. For example, Judge and tencies that the researchers referred to
Cable (2004) report, in a meta-analysis of as ‘‘work place know how,’’ as follows:
four samples (N = 8590), a correlation of (a) resources —being able to identify
.26 between employee height and income. and allocate resources; (b) interpersonal
And in a related study, Judge, Hurst, and skills —being able to work with others; (c)
Simon (2009) report a significant correlation information —being able to acquire and
between physical attractiveness and income use information; (d) systems —being able
(.24), leading the authors to conclude that to understand complex interrelationships;
looks are important determinants of income and (e) technology —being able to work
and financial strain (p. 742). Finally, cultural with a variety of technologies. Significantly,
attitudes and stereotypes constrain employ- the SCANS report identified interpersonal
ability, regardless of a person’s actual com- skills as being as important as any other
petence. Most notably, women earn less competency for the workforce of the future;
and get worse jobs than men, even when this departs from the Department of Labor’s
they are as well educated and have the historic emphasis on cognitive ability as
same aspirations (OECD, 2011). defined by the General Aptitude Test Bat-
tery (GATB). A related survey study by the
Bureau of National Affairs (1988) reported
Determinants of Employability:
that employers complain of three kinds
What Employers Want
of worker deficiencies: (a) poor problem
In contrast with the large body of research solving, (b) poor personal management,
concerning the psychological determinants and (c) poor interpersonal skills. The
of career success, there has been little survey’s emphasis on interpersonal skills
research on the determinants of employ- reflected the increasing use of teams in
ability (Baruch & Bozionelos, 2011). Any the workplace (Chen, Kanfer, DeShon,
serious answer to this question should begin Mathieu, & Kozlowski, 2009).
by considering what employers actually Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, and Wright
want in their new employees—after all, (1994) observe that (in the pre-digital era)
hiring organizations ultimately define who organizations often recruit job applicants
is employed. We understand, of course, that through newspaper want ads. Because they
individual hiring managers can be biased, pay for the ads, the ads should reflect what
and we are proud of the fact that the meth- employers want in new hires. Based on this
ods of industrial and organizational (I–O) reasoning, Hogan and Brinkmeyer (1994)
psychology tend to reduce employment conducted a comprehensive content anal-
discrimination and advance social justice ysis of employment ads. The researchers
(Dipboye & Colella, 2005; Lefkowitz & subscribed to newspapers from each demo-
Lowman, 2010). However, by aggregating graphic region of the United States for
across hiring managers and organizations, 6 months, clipped every major employ-
we find some consensus regarding the gen- ment ad (N = 6,326), and then content-
eral qualities sought in employees. analyzed them. Overall, 47% of the ads
The U.S. Department of Labor (1991) required ‘‘good interpersonal skills,’’ which
during the Reagan administration were deemed essential for 71% of the
conducted the first large-scale study jobs involving client contact, 78% of the
of what employers want. The Secretary’s jobs requiring coworker interaction, 83% of8 R. Hogan, T. Chamorro-Premuzic, and R.B. Kaiser the jobs involving subordinate interaction, the emergence of job search clubs that and 84% of the jobs requiring manage- train employability. These clubs focus on ment interaction. The conclusion seems enhancing impression management skills clear: From the employers’ perspective, the and ‘‘the linguistic aptitudes, norms for pre- single-most important characteristic deter- sentation of self, and interactional styles that mining employability is interpersonal skill are specific to different occupational and or social competence. Similarly, accord- professional environments’’ (Smith, 2010, ing to Brown and Hesketh (2004, p. 96), p. 284). Job search clubs teach members ‘‘to employers realize that self-presentational avoid the stark language of ‘unemployment’ skills are the building blocks of employ- . . . and use the obfuscating, free agent lan- ability and depend on a repertoire of social guage of being ‘in transition’ or ‘between skills, including ‘‘posture, gesture, use of gigs’ . . . they [devote] vast amounts of time personal space, facial characteristics and to . . . role playing . . . learning new ways eye contact’’ during interviews and meet- of interacting with potential employers, and ings (Warhurst & Nickson, 2001). A sur- how to suppress purportedly negative and vey of the top 222 UK graduate recruiters self-defeating aspects of their personalities revealed that (a) employers focus on ‘‘soft that might reveal them as anything but a lib- skills’’ (e.g., team work, interpersonal skills, erated new economy worker’’ (Smith, 2010, and cultural awareness) more than aca- p. 286). demic credentials, and (b) there are not Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden enough graduates with adequate interper- (2006) proposed that employability is a sonal skills to fill the jobs that are available syndrome with five measureable compo- (The Guardian, 2006). nents (we interpret their components based Hogan, Lock, and Brinkmeyer (1997) on the content of the items they used to note that interpersonal skill involves being assess them): (a) ‘‘occupational expertise,’’ rewarding to deal with (cf. Argyle, 1967; which concerns competence at one’s Hogan & Shelton, 1998). In a sample of job; (b) ‘‘anticipation,’’ which relates to employed adults (N = 300) from a variety ambition (again, based on the content of the of occupations, they gathered 300 critical items); (c) ‘‘personal flexibility,’’ which is a incidents of rewarding and 300 incidents combination of high Openness, Conscien- of aversive behaviors at work. They con- tiousness, and adjustment (Costa & McCrae, tent analyzed the incidents and identified 1992); (d) ‘‘corporate sense,’’ which is seven dimensions of interpersonal skill that the disposition to behave in a socially can be reliably rated. Further analyses sug- desirable manner; and (e) ‘‘balance,’’ a gested the presence of one ‘‘super factor,’’ measure of work-life proportionality. Van which the authors labeled ‘‘Sensitivity to der Heijde and Van der Heijden (2006) Others.’’ This factor, which clarifies what then asked 314 non-entry level employees it means to be rewarding to deal with in a Dutch manufacturing firm to complete at work, consists of understanding oth- their (five scale) employability measure. ers’ intentions during interaction, attending Criterion variables included number of to/anticipating/meeting their needs, respect- promotions, income, and total time unem- ing their wishes, and projecting courtesy ployed in the entire career. Occupational and friendliness—in short, being consider- expertise predicted income, anticipation ate and well mannered. (ambition) predicted promotions, income, Fugate et al. (2004) argue that employ- and unemployment; personal flexibility ability depends on certain discrete compe- (Openness, Conscientiousness, and adjust- tencies. Although their model is theoretical, ment) predicted promotions and income; their claim is important—that is, employ- balance predicted income; and corpo- ability depends on identifiable personal rate sense (social desirability) predicted characteristics that can be assessed and everything—promotions, income, and possibly trained. Smith (2010) describes unemployment. The best predictor of
Employability and career success 9
employability in this study was corporate agreeable interpersonal style is associated
sense—the ability to put on a socially with employability.
desirable performance at work (r = .32 In summary, the literature on what
with promotions and r = .47 with income). employers want in job candidates high-
Once again, then, employability seems lights the importance of social skill and
to be more a function of a particular being rewarding to deal with. This dif-
interpersonal style as reflected in the cor- fers from I–O psychology’s emphasis on
porate sense measure (getting along with cognitive ability and education for career
coworkers) than of ability or experience. success, and may explain why Emotional
Studies of career failure lead to sim- Intelligence and other scientifically suspect
ilar conclusions. McCall and Lombardo measures of social skill are popular in busi-
(1983) popularized the term ‘‘derailment’’ ness (Murphy, 2006). Moreover, the gap
in their studies of executives who were fired. between what psychologists recommend
Decades of subsequent research confirm and what employers want suggests direc-
their original findings. Derailed executives tions for research that can inform the ques-
resemble successful executives—they are tion of employability and guide policy for
smart, well-educated, experienced, hard- dealing with widespread unemployment,
working, and have a track record of success. the topic to which we now turn.
However, derailed executives are more
likely to have an abrasive interpersonal
Conceptual issues in the Study of
style and a history of troubled relationships.
Employability and Career Success
Although executives are sometimes fired
for poor results, the poor results typically This review concerns the psychological
provide a justification for removing difficult characteristics needed to gain and main-
executives (Hogan, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2010). tain employment in an organization. In the
Among the unemployed, some gain work preceding sections we examined the empir-
more quickly than others, and their char- ical literature on (a) career success and
acteristics can be identified. In a study (b) what employers want in employees. In
of unemployed German workers, Gallo, our view, the discrepancy between what
Endrass, Bradley, Hall, and Kash (2003) psychologists prescribe and what employ-
report that those with high scores for ers want concerns interpersonal or social
internal locus of control (i.e., high adjust- skills, which seem to be valued more in
ment/low neuroticism) searched harder for the world of employment than in personnel
employment and were more likely to selection and career success research. This
become reemployed than those with low disconnect may in part reflect two recent
scores. Similarly, Caliendo, Cobb-Clark, and fundamental changes in the nature of
and Uhlendorff (2010), in a study of unem- work. First, jobs are becoming less for-
ployed U.S. workers, found that a one stan- mal, structured, and routine; and second,
dard deviation increase in internal locus of jobs increasingly require working collab-
control was associated with a 5.3% increase oratively with colleagues from different
in number of job applications submitted, cultural, educational, and technical back-
controlling for demographics and employ- grounds (National Research Council, 2001).
ment history. Finally, in another sample of This shifts the demand from being able
unemployed U.S. workers, McGee (2010) to perform a particular collection of tasks
found that a one standard deviation increase to being able to work cooperatively with
in internal locus of control was associated others.
with a 20% increase in time spent search- Regardless of the reason for the increased
ing for work. Because locus of control (high emphasis on interpersonal skills, it raises
adjustment/low Neuroticism) is saturated four interesting points. The first con-
with socially desirable behavior (cf. Uziel, cerns ‘‘the criterion problem’’—that is, the
2010), these results further show how an fact that performance evaluations do not10 R. Hogan, T. Chamorro-Premuzic, and R.B. Kaiser
adequately represent job performance. Hir- don’t contribute to better performance).
ing decisions and performance appraisals This tendency may enhance validity
reflect evaluations made by hiring and coefficients but obscure the influence of
operational managers. Hiring decisions biases. Furthermore, some biases may be
allegedly concern how well applicants fit functional and desirable—such as those
the requirements or competency profile concerning citizenship behavior or extra-
for a job, and performance evaluations role performance—whereas other biases
allegedly depend on job performance. Our may be irrelevant or undesirable—such
experience is consistent with the research as the effects for height, attractiveness,
literature (see Murphy, 2008) and suggests gender, or race.
that these decisions are typically less ratio- The third point concerns the study by
nal than one might hope. For example, Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden
several years ago we developed a sales (2006), which shows that the essence of
selection process for a large logistics firm. employability is socially desirable behavior
We tested the national sales force (about during the hiring process—and by exten-
300 people) and gathered revenue data for sion on the job. Scores on their measure
them, which we corrected for the size of of social desirability—which they called
the market in which the person worked. ‘‘corporate sense’’—predicted promotions,
We then developed an index of job perfor- income, and time spent unemployed. This
mance based on ratings from three sources: suggests an important link between employ-
(a) the terminal manager where the sales ability and career success; the link concerns
person worked, (b) the regional sales man- the ability to put on a socially desirable
ager, and (c) the national sales manager. performance during hiring interviews and
These ratings correlated about .80, indicat- social interaction at work.
ing reasonable agreement about each per- The fourth point concerns the definition
son’s performance. However, performance of socially desirable behavior. The literature
ratings were uncorrelated with sales rev- contains three definitions. The first defines
enue; instead, performance ratings were socially desirable behavior as faking
most highly correlated with an index of how (Edwards, 1957)—where faking involves
well the salespeople completed their paper ‘‘not being yourself.’’ This definition
work. The point is that criterion data in assumes that people have internal, acces-
employment research are usually contami- sible models of their true selves that guide
nated by politics (Mintzberg, 1985) and that their behavior. They also have internal
the profiles of high performers are necessar- rulers that they use to measure how much
ily profiles of successful political actors who their overt behavior departs from their true
are also doing their jobs at least adequately. selves. Faking involves self-consciously
The second point concerns the inter- behaving in ways that deviate from a pre-
esting finding reported by Boudreau, scribed limit. This definition assumes the
Boswell, and Judge (2001) that ratings for existence of several psychic mechanisms
‘‘employability’’ during the hiring process (true selves, deviance detection devices,
predict compensation levels after people intentions to deceive) that, in principle,
are on the job. This suggests that both hiring can’t be observed; more importantly, no
managers and the managers who make modern self-concept researchers would
compensation decisions respond to similar endorse this model—compare Leary and
characteristics of employees, which by Tangney (in press). In addition, Uziel (2010)
definition are something other than pure job shows that socially desirable behavior is
performance. Thus, biases in the selection related to social effectiveness and not fak-
process seem to overlap with biases in job ing, which indicates that socially desirable
performance evaluations (e.g., supervisors behavior is valid variance. The second
may reward the same attributes that are definition of social desirability is in terms
valued in an interview, even if the attributes of a profile on the FFM. Steenkamp, deEmployability and career success 11
Jong, and Baumgartner (2010) summarize Recall that job performance is primarily
the research regarding the relationships defined by supervisors’ ratings. In very
between social desirability and the dimen- general terms, supervisors like employees
sions of the FFM (p. 203, table 3). As who are likeable. In addition, they favor
they note, individual differences in the employees who seem to learn quickly
tendency to respond to questions (behave) and show good judgment—and this helps
in a socially desirable fashion correlate explain the consistent correlations between
.46 with ‘‘Emotional Stability,’’ .32 with cognitive ability and job performance
‘‘Conscientiousness,’’ .26 with ‘‘Extraver- (Kuncel et al. 2010). Supervisors also like
sion,’’ .13 with ‘‘Openness,’’ and .10 with employees who seem compliant, obedient,
‘‘Agreeableness.’’ Thus, socially desirable and conforming—and this helps explain the
behavior is positively correlated with every consistent correlations between measures
facet of the ‘‘bright side’’ of personality and of Conscientiousness and job performance
is, therefore, somewhat attractive. The third (Chamorro-Premuzic & Furnham, 2010).
definition (Hogan & Shelton, 1998) views These observations also account for the
socially desirable behavior as a particular positive manifold between personality,
kind of role performance, one that is cognitive ability, educational performance,
designed to allow people to fit in and get and job performance. Teachers are de
along with the others with whom they must facto supervisors (they supervise student
interact. Although the evidence suggests performance); like all supervisors, they
that socially desirable role performance is favor student/subordinates who seem smart,
associated with a wide range of positive attentive, pliable, and conforming, and such
career outcomes, many bright people seem students tend to receive higher grades.
unable or unwilling to behave this way. The set of attributes that combine to
The importance of socially desirable make people employable (or successful
behavior depends on context. For example, in their careers) also explains why some
a talented renegade manager may be tol- high IQ people are unemployable. Unem-
erated in a logistics company but not in ployable people are irritable, challenging,
a human services organization. The rea- and disputatious—not rewarding to deal
son has to do with organizational cul- with; they also display bad judgment;
ture (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006; Schein, still others are stubborn, nonconforming,
1992). Research shows that the congruence and insubordinate. Unemployability, there-
between an employee’s and an organiza- fore, is a composite of irritability/rudeness,
tion’s values significantly impacts perfor- social insensitivity, and incompetence,
mance and career outcomes (Arthur, Bell, which explains the links between dark side
Villado, & Doverspike, 2006; Hoffman & personality traits and counterproductive
Woehr, 2006; Verquer, Beehr, & Wagner, work behavior (O’Boyle, Forsyth, Banks, &
2003). McDaniel, 2012).
We believe that employability is an attri-
bution employers make about the prob-
An Integrative Model of
ability that job candidates will make
Employability
positive contributions to their organiza-
In our view, both career success and tions. Psychologists interested in employ-
employability depend on behaving in ability should therefore investigate the
socially desirable ways, especially when determinants of employers’ perceptions of
interacting with recruiters, employers, and employability. The essential question is as
managers. The ability to do this depends follows: What determines whether a person
on a surprisingly small set of competencies, will be perceived as having the potential to
namely seeming (a) interpersonally skilled, contribute positively to an organization? We
(b) smart or able, and (c) compliant believe the answer is whether the person
(National Research Council, 2011, p. 2). is (a) rewarding to deal with— rewarding ;12 R. Hogan, T. Chamorro-Premuzic, and R.B. Kaiser
Candidate’s profile Employer’s perception
Social/
Rewarding
interpersonal
to deal with
compatibility
Employer’s attribut ion
Abilities,
Able
expertise, know- Employability
to do the job
how
Ambition, work Willing
ethic, drive to work hard
Figure 1. Determinants of employability.
(b) capable of learning and performing performance and organizational citizenship
the job— able; and (c) driven and hard literature. On the other hand, the fact that
working— willing (see Figure 1). Thus, well-validated measures of personality do
employers’ ratings of a candidates employ- not yield adverse impact against women,
ability will be a function of (a) interpersonal older workers, and minorities (Chamorro-
skill (Lievens & Sackett, 2012) and compat- Premuzic & Furnham, 2010) suggests there
ibility with the values of the organization, may be fewer sustainable complaints in the
team, or management (Edwards & Cable, future compared to selection procedures
2009); (b) ability, know-how, and expertise based on measures of cognitive ability.
(Schmidt, Hunter, & Outerbridge, 1986); Second, we think this reward-
and (c) ambition, drive, and work ethic ing/ability/willingness (RAW) model is
(Hogan & Chamorro-Premuzic, in press). inherently compensatory. Thus, employees
Two implications of Figure 1 should be with only average ability may succeed by
mentioned. First, the traditional focus of being rewarding and productive; bright
I–O selection research has concerned the people with limited social skills may suc-
fit of applicants with the demands of jobs. ceed by being very productive; those who
In addition, the entire thrust of labor law as are charming, bright, and lazy will succeed
it applies to defending selection procedures as they always do. But candidates who
has maintained that selection procedures ‘‘tick all three boxes’’ should have higher
must be demonstrably job related. In con- levels of career success; candidates who
trast, we believe employers mostly want are strong in two of the three areas should
to know if new hires will fit with the do well; those who are strong in only one
organization—employees who don’t fit will can expect occasional unemployment;
tend not to work hard and leave, even if those who are weak in all three may be
they can do the job well (Edwards & Cable, unemployable.
2009); poor fit is also associated with lower Reframing occupational research in
job satisfaction, which decreases task per- terms of employability opens directions for
formance (Arthur et al., 2006; Hoffman research that can better inform public policy
& Woehr, 2006) and increases counter- decisions as well as help the unemployed
productive work behaviors (Mount, Ilies, improve their chances of obtaining a job.
& Johnson, 2006). Justifying selection pro- In particular, we see four basic research
cedures based on fit will require a different directions.
line of defense from job relevance; it will The first concerns the determinants of
necessarily depend more on the contextual employers’ perceptions of employability—Employability and career success 13
being seen as (a) rewarding to deal with, and level the playing field that seems to put
(b) able to get work done, and (c) willing women and ethnic minorities at a disadvan-
to work hard. It would be useful to tage.
study the importance to employers of the Finally, there may be a dark side to
three categories that would define their maximizing employees’ ability to get along,
priority in terms of employability training. fit in, and be productive. For example, if
For example, unrewarding people with an the selection process emphasizes ability
extraordinary work ethic can be trained and work ethic, the staffing outcome may
in social skills and placed in jobs where be a workforce that competes internally,
interaction skills are less relevant—, for becomes overly consumed with the work,
example, virtual work groups. People who and burns out. On the other hand,
are highly able but unwilling to work hard emphasizing rewardingness may create a
may require extra incentives or special workforce that is conflict averse and puts
management strategies; and those who are political correctness above performance.
less able may compensate by working hard The same goes for staffing strategies that
or being rewarding to deal with. emphasize fit between employees’ and
A second question concerns our claim organizational values: It can lead to a
that being rewarding to deal with is an homogenous workforce that is unable to
important part of employability. Recent adapt, change, or maintain constructive
research on workplace civility and citizen- conflict.
ship and, conversely, on rudeness, bul-
lying, and antisocial behavior, suggests
Summary and Conclusions
that the need for social skill may be
increasing (Porath & Erez, 2007; Sutton, The inexorable automation of work pro-
2007). Research can document the need cesses, the rise of service industries, the
for interpersonal skill in job training and tendency to outsource jobs, and the con-
other educational efforts (Lievens & Sack- stant pressure to cut costs have combined
ett, 2012). Historically, training initiatives to change, probably forever, the nature
have focused on technical, not social, of employment in the developed world.
skills (Brown & Hesketh, 2004), and as Employers no longer need bodies that can
the economy shifts to services, team-based fog mirrors; for the vast majority of jobs
structures, and an increasingly networked they can afford to be selective, and this
workplace, this will probably also need to makes the job search process more compet-
change. itive than perhaps ever in modern economic
A third area of research concerns the history (Brown & Hesketh, 2004). Employ-
shared bias that affects selection decisions ability, defined as the ability to gain and
and performance appraisals. Supervisors’ retain employment (including finding new
ratings of job performance are minimally employment when necessary), has become
related to actual job performance (Murphy, a public policy issue, and it is a issue to
2008) but significantly related to candidate which applied psychologists are uniquely
screening evaluations in the hiring process. qualified to contribute.
Research can identify the factors contribut- But being able to contribute to public
ing to this effect that are also related to policy discussions requires that psychol-
organizational effectiveness and the mech- ogists adjust their typical focus. Histori-
anisms through which these factors operate, cally, they have told employers what they
such as contextual performance and orga- should look for in employees. The data
nizational citizenship, as opposed to factors suggest, however, that employers are no
that are associated with unfair discrimina- longer listening. Psychologists might con-
tion and unrelated to employee or orga- sider expanding their research to include
nizational performance. Such studies could what it is that employers actually want
improve the fairness of selection procedures in new hires. Answers to this question14 R. Hogan, T. Chamorro-Premuzic, and R.B. Kaiser
have important implications for recruit- Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010). The
psychology of personnel selection. Cambridge,
ment, selection, training, outplacement, MA: Cambridge University Press.
management practices, and the entire Chen, G., Kanfer, R., DeShon, R. P., Mathieu, J. E.,
employee life cycle. However, our sense & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2009). The motivating
potential of teams: A test and extension of Chen
is that I–O psychologists often fall into the & Kanfer’s (2006) model. Organizational Behavior
technical expert trap—that is, convinced and Human Decision Processes, 110 , 45–55.
that they are uniquely qualified to deter- Chen, J., Kannan, P., Trehan, B., & Loungani, P. (2011,
May). New evidence on cyclical and structural
mine what employers need, they ignore sources of unemployment (IMF Working Paper No.
what employer say they need. This attitude 11/106). Washington, DC: International Monetary
can focus research in the wrong direction, Fund.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO
produce irrelevant advice, and widen the Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-
gap between the theory and reality of what Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual .
is needed to find and maintain employment. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Crede, M., & Kuncel, N. R. (2010). Study habits,
skills, and attitudes: The third pillar supporting
college academic performance. Perspectives on
References Psychological Science, 3, 425–442.
Dipboye, R., & Colella, A. (Eds.) (2005). Discrimination
Argyle, M. (1967). The psychology of interpersonal at work: The psychological and organizational
behavior . Middlesex, England: Penguin. bases. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Arthur, W., Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., & Doverspike, Dunn, W. S., Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Ones,
D. (2006). The use of person-organization fit in D. S. (1995). Relative importance of personality
employment decision making: An assessment of and general mental ability in managers’ judgments
its criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied of applicant qualifications. Journal of Applied
Psychology , 91, 786–801. Psychology , 80 , 500–509.
Baruch, Y., & Bozionelos, N. (2011). Career issues. Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable
In S. Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and in personality assessment and research. New York,
organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 67–113). NY: Dryden Press.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ- Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of
ation. value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology ,
Becker, G. S. (1975). Human capital . Chicago, IL: 94, 654–677.
University of Chicago Press. Feintuch, A. (1955). Improving the employability
Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., & Judge, T. A. (2001). and attitudes of ‘‘difficult to place’’ persons.
Effects of personality on executive career success in Psychological Monographs, 69, 392–397.
the United States and Europe. Journal of Vocational Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E.
Behavior , 58, 53–81. (2004). Employability: A psycho-social construct,
Bretz, R. D. (1989). College grade point average as a its dimensions and applications. Journal of Voca-
predictor of adult success: A meta-analytic review tional Behavior , 65, 14–38.
and some additional evidence. Public Personnel Gallo, W. T., Endrass, J., Bradley, E. H., Hall, D., &
Management , 18, 11–22. Kash, S. V. (2003). The influence of internal control
Brown, P., & Hesketh, A. (2004). The mismanagement on the employment status of German workers.
of talent: Employability and jobs in the knowledge Schmollers Jahrbuch, 123, 71–81.
economy . Oxford, England: Oxford University Hall, D. T. (1996). Protean careers of the 21st century.
Press. The Academy of Management Executive , 10 , 8–16.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). Civilian labor Hillard, J., & Pollard, E. (1998). Employability:
force participation rate. Retrieved from http://data. Developing a framework for policy analysis.
bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000years_option= Nottingham, England: Department of Education
specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_month=1 and Employment.
&from_month=2 Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quantita-
Bureau of National Affairs. (1988). Recruiting and tive review of the relationship between person-
selection procedures. Personnel policy forum organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal
survey No. 146. Washington, DC: The Bureau of of Vocational Behavior , 68, 389–399.
National Affairs, Inc. Hogan, J., & Brinkmeyer, K. (1994). What do
Caliendo, M., Cobb-Clark, D., & Uhlendorff, A. (2010). employers want? Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment
Locus of control and job search strategies. IZA Systems.
Discussion Paper No. 4750. Hogan, J., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2010).
Carmeli, A., Shalom, R., & Weisberg, J. (2007). Management derailment. In S., Zedeck (Ed.),
Considerations in organizational career advance- American Psychological Association handbook of
ment: What really matters. Personnel Review , 36, industrial and organizational psychology (Vol.
190–205. 3, pp. 555–575). Washington, DC: American
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Arteche, A. (2008). Intel- Psychological Association.
lectual competence and academic performance: Hogan, J., Lock, J., & Brinkmeyer, K. (1997). A general
Preliminary validation of a model. Intelligence , 36, taxonomy of interpersonal skills for work . Tulsa,
564–573. OK: Hogan Assessment Systems.Employability and career success 15
Hogan, R., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (in press). behaviors: The mediating effects of job satisfaction.
Personality and career success. In L. Cooper, Personnel Psychology , 59, 591–622.
& R. Larsen (Eds.), Handbook of personality Murphy, K. R. (Ed.) (2006). A critique of emotional
processes and individual differences. Washington, intelligence: What are the problems and how can
DC: American Psychological Association. they be fixed? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic per- Murphy, K. R. (2008). Explaining the weak relationship
spective on job performance. Human Performance , between job performance and ratings of job perfor-
11, 129–144. mance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (2004). The effect of Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 148–160.
physical height on workplace success and income. National Research Council. (2001). The chang-
Journal of Applied Psychology , 89, 428–441. ing nature of work . Washington, DC: National
Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, Academy Press.
R. D., Jr. (1995). An empirical investigation of the National Research Council. (2011). Assessing 21st cen-
predictors of executive career success. Personnel tury skills. Washington, DC: National Academies
Psychology , 48, 485–519. Press.
Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, Ng, T. W. H., & Feldman, D. C. (2010). Human
M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general capital and objective indicators of career success:
mental ability, and career success across the life The mediating effects of cognitive ability and
span. Personnel Psychology , 52, 621–652. conscientiousness. Journal of Occupational and
Judge, T. A., Hurst, C., & Simon, L. S. (2009). Does Organizational Psychology , 83, 207–235.
it pay to be smart, attractive, or confident (or all Ng, T. W. H., Eby, T. T., Sorensen, K. L., &
three)? Relationships among general mental ability, Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective
physical attractiveness, core self-evaluations, and and subjective career success: A meta-analysis.
income. Journal of Applied Psychology , 94, Personnel Psychology , 58, 367–408.
742–755. Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B., & Wright,
Kuncel, N. R., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. P. M. (1994). Human resources management . Burr
(2010). Individual differences as predictors of work, Ridge, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
educational, and broad life outcomes. Personality Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality pre-
and Individual Differences, 49, 331–336. dictors of academic outcomes: Big five correlates
Latham, G. P., & Mann, S. (2006). Advances in the of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and
science of performance appraisal. International
Social Psychology , 93, 116–130.
O’Boyle, E. H., Jr., Forsyth, D. R., Banks, G. C., &
Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychol-
McDaniel, M. A. (2012). A meta-analysis of the
ogy , 21, 295–337.
dark triad and work outcomes: A social exchange
Leary, M. R., & Tangney, J. P. (in press). Handbook of
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 97 ,
self and identity (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
557–579.
Lefkowitz, J., & Lowman, R. L. (2010). Ethics of
OECD. (2011). OECD employment outlook . Paris,
employee selection. In J. L. Farr, & N. T. Tippins
France: OECD.
(Eds.), Handbook of employee selection. New York, Pavot, B., & Diener, E. (2011). Personality and
NY: Routledge. happiness: Predicting the experience of subjective
Lievens, F., & Sackett, P. R. (2012). The validity well-being. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von
of interpersonal skills assessment via situational Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), Handbook of
judgment tests for predicting academic success and individual differences (pp. 699–717). Oxford,
job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , England: Wiley-Blackwell.
97 , 460–468. Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2002). The end of business
Lindqvist, E., & Westman, R. (2011). The labor schools? Less success than meets the eye. The
market returns to cognitive and noncognitive Academy of Management Learning and Education,
ability: Evidence from the Swedish enlistment. 1, 78–96.
American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. (2007). Does rudeness matter?
3, 101–128. The effects of rude behavior on task performance
McArdle, S., Waters, L., Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal ,
T. (2007). Employability during unemployment: 50 , 1181–1197.
Adaptability, career identity, and human and Poropat, A. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor
social capital. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 71, model of personality and academic performance.
247–264. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322–338.
McCall, M. W., Jr., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). Off Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to
the track: Why and how successful executives organizational identity threats: Exploring the role
get derailed . Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative of organizational culture. Academy of Management
Leadership. Journal , 49, 433–458.
McGee, A. (2010). How the perception of control Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi,
influences unemployed job search. Unpublished A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of
manuscript, Ohio State University, Department of personality: The comparative validity of personality
Economics. traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability
Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as a polit- for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives
ical arena. Journal of Management Studies, 22, on Psychological Science , 2, 313–332.
133–154. Rynes, S. L., Brown, K. G., & Colbert, A. E. (2002).
Mount, M., Ilies, R., & Johnson, E. (2006). Relationship Seven misconceptions about human resource
of personality traits and counterproductive work practices; Research findings versus practitioner16 R. Hogan, T. Chamorro-Premuzic, and R.B. Kaiser
beliefs. The Academy of Management Executive , The Economist. (2010). The joyless of the jobless.
16, 92–103. Should governments pursue happiness rather than
Rynes, S. L., Giluk, T. L., & Brown, K. G. (2007). The economic growth? November, 25.
very separate worlds of academic and practitioner The Guardian. (2006). Employers fail to find enough
periodicals in human resource management: graduates with social skills. February, 7th.
Implications for evidence-based management. U.S. Department of Labor (1991). What work requires
Academy of Management Journal , 50 , 987–1008. of schools: A SCANS report for American 2000 .
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leader- Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
ship: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Uziel, L. (2010). Rethinking social desirability
Bass. scales. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 5,
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1992). Development 243–262.
of a causal model of processes determining job Van der Heijde, C. M., & Van der Heijden, B. I.
performance. Current Directions in Psychological J. M. (2006). A competence-based and multidi-
Science, 1, 89–92. mensional operationalization and measurement of
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Outerbridge, A. N. employability. Human Resource Management , 45,
(1986). Impact of job experience and ability on 449–476.
job knowledge, work sample performance, and Van Scotter, J. R., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C.
supervisory ratings of job performance. Journal of (2000). Effects of task performance and contextual
Applied Psychology , 71, 432–439. performance on systemic rewards. Journal of
Smith, V. (2010). Enhancing employability: Human, Applied Psychology , 85, 5216–5535.
cultural, and social capital in an era of turbulent Varma, A., DeNisi, A. S., & Peters, L. H. (1996).
unpredictability. Human Relations, 63, 279–303. Interpersonal affect and performance appraisal: A
Steenkamp, J. B., de Jong, M. G., & Baumgartner, H. field study. Personnel Psychology , 49, 341–360.
(2010). Socially desirable response tendencies in Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003).
survey research. Journal of Marketing Research, 47 , A meta-analysis of the relations between person-
199–214. organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of
von Stumm, S., Hell, B., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. Vocational Behavior , 63, 473–489.
(2011). The ”hungry mind”: Intellectual curiosity as Warhurst, C., & Nickson, D. (2001). Looking good,
third pillar of intellectual competence. Perspectives sounding right: Style counselling and the aesthetics
on Psychological Science , 6, 574–588. of the new economy . London, England: Industrial
Sutton, R. (2007). The no asshole rule: Building a Society.
civilized workplace and surviving one that isn’t.
New York, NY: Business Plus.You can also read
