1. Perceived External Employability and Well-being: A Study on Causation among the Employed and Job Seekers in Outplacement EAWOP 2013 Dra. Dorien Vanhercke Dra. Kaisa Kirves Prof. Nele De Cuyper Prof. Anneleen Forrier Prof. Marijke Verbruggen Prof. Hans De Witte Contact: Dorien.Vanhercke@ppw.kuleuven.be

2. Context 2 Perceived employability is becoming more relevant: o Career management is predominantly the responsability of the individual. o Career actions or lack thereof are strongly determined by one’s perception of events (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). However, research concerning perceived employability is still rather vague, especially towards the relationship with the subjective outcome of well- being. Two samples: the employed and job seekers in outplacement Perceived internal and external employability

3. Theoretical framework 3 Conservation of Resources Theory (Hobfoll, 1989) Perceived external employability and well-being as personal resources (Hobfoll et al., 2003) : Resilience Feelings of control Develop from other resources Hypotheses: Perceived external employability Well-being Both effects appear at the same time.

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

5. The employed 5 Table 1. Sample composition

6. The employed Results 6 Table 2. Fit statistics for the structural equation models (employed) Note: best-fitting model in italics. χ2χ2 dfpGFICFIRMSEASRMRComparison Δχ 2 Δdfp SM1 Stability model 133.7832<.0010.960.980.070.03 SM2 Normal causation model 129.6931<.0010.960.980.070.02SM1-SM2 4.091<.05 SM3 Reversed causation model 133.3931<.0010.960.980.070.03SM1-SM3 0.391.532 SM4 Reciprocal causation model 129.3030<.0010.960.980.070.02SM2-SM4 0.391.532

7. The employed 7

8. Results  H1 confirmed  H2 and H3 rejected. Perceived external employability Well-being 8 *p <.05 χ² (31) = 129.69, p <.001 GFI =.96, CFI =. 98, RMSEA =.07

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

10. Job seekers in outplacement 10 Table 3. Sample composition

11. Job seekers in outplacement 11 Results Note: best-fitting model in italics. Table 4. Fit statistics for the structural equation models (job seeker) χ2χ2 dfpGFICFIRMSEASRMRComparison Δχ 2 Δdfp SM1 Stability model 110.5071.0020.920.980.06 SM2 Normal causation model 109.6370.0020.920.980.06 SM1-SM2 0.881.351 SM3 Reversed causation model 105.5270.0040.930.980.050.04SM1-SM3 4.981<.05 SM4 Reciprocal causation model 104.8969.0030.930.980.050.04SM3-SM4 0.631.427

12. Job seekers in outplacement 12

13. Job seekers in outplacement 13 Results Perceived external employability Well-being *p <.05 χ² (70) = 105.52, p <.01 GFI =.93, CFI =.98, RMSEA =.05  H2 confirmed.  H1 and H3 rejected.

14. Take home and discussion 14 Pathways between perceived external employability and well-being are different in different contexts. o Employed: o Job seekers in outplacement: Perceived external employability Well-being *p <.05 Well-being Perceived external employability *p <.05

15. Thank you for your attention 15

16. References 16 Abdel-Khalek, A. M. (2006). Measuring happiness with a single-item scale. Social Behavior and Personality, 34(2), 139-150. Armstrong-Stassen, M. (1994). Coping with Transition: A Study of Layoff Survivors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(7), 597-621. Berntson, E., & Marklund, S. (2007). The relationship between perceived employability and subsequent health. Work and Stress, 21(3), 279-292. doi: 10.1080/02678370701659215 De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2010). Temporary employment and perceived employability: mediation by impression management. Journal of Career Development, 37(3), 1-18. De Witte, H. (1999). Job insecurity and psychological well-being: Review of the literature and exploration of some unresolved issues. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8 (2), 155-177. Goldberg, D.P. (1972). The general health questionnaire (GHQ). Companion to psychiatric studies. London: Oxford University. Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources. A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. The American Psychologist Association, 4 (3), 513 - 524.

17. References (continued) 17 Hobfoll, S.E., Johnson, R.J., Ennis, N., & Jackson, A.P. (2003). Resource loss, resource gain, and emotional outcomes among inner city women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 632-643. Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping, New York: Springer Publishing. Mäkikangas, A. M., Feldt, T., Kinnunen, U., Tolvanen, A., Kinunnen, M.-L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2006). The factor structure and factorial invariance of the 12-Item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) across time: Evidence from two community-based samples. Psychological Assessment, 18(4), 444-451. Silla, I., De Cuyper, N., Gracia, F., Peiró, J. M., & De Witte, H. (2009). Job insecurity and well-being: Moderation by employability. Journal of Happiness Studies,10, 739-751. Wanberg, C. R., Zhu J., & Van Hooft, E., A., J. (2010). The job search grind: Perceived progress, self-reactions, and self-regulation of search effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (4), 788–807.

18. 18 Table 5. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between the study variables (employed) (N = 600) * p <.05, ** p <.01 MSD1234 567 1. PEE at T0 (1 ‒ 5) 3.361.12(.94) 2. PEE at T1 (1 ‒ 5) 3.431.09.64**(.90) 3. Well-being at T0 (1 ‒ 10) 8.271.20.02.04 ‒ 4. Well-being at T1 (1 ‒ 10) 8.220.96.08*.07.48** ‒ 5. Age42.2311.12 ‒.37** ‒.34** ‒.07 ‒.02 ‒ 6. Gender ‒‒‒.11* ‒.13**.07 ‒.01 ‒.05 ‒ 7. Education ‒‒.06.05.01.13** ‒

19. 19 Table 6. Means, standard deviations, and correlations between the study variables (job seekers) (N = 179) * p <.05, ** p <.01