A COMPETENCE-BASED AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL OPERATIONALIZATION …€¦ · OPERATIONALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT OF EMPLOYABILITY CLAUDIA M. VAN DER HEIJDE AND BEATRICE I. J. M. VAN DER

Introduction

Stimulating occupational expertiseand employability of employees ap-pears to be advantageous for both or-ganizational and employee out-comes (Fugate, Kinicki, & Ashforth,

2004; Van Dam, 2004). Highly employableworkers (Van Dam, 2004) are necessary fororganizations in order to meet fluctuatingdemands for numerical and functional flex-ibility (Marginson, 1989; Valverde, Tre-gaskis, & Brewster, 2000). In addition, em-

ployability enables employees to cope withfast-changing job requirements. Londonand Greller (1991) refer to “loosening of or-ganizational commitment (to markets, tradi-tion, and employees), accommodating amore volatile and competitive environ-ment” (adapted from Baerveldt & Hobbs,1988), and job content becoming more de-manding, in terms of technical knowledgeand skills.

Careers increasingly have becomeboundaryless, in the sense that during career

A COMPETENCE-BASED AND

MULTIDIMENSIONAL

OPERATIONALIZATION AND

MEASUREMENT OF

EMPLOYABILITY

C L A U D I A M . VA N D E R H E I J D E A N D B E AT R I C E I . J . M . VA N D E R H E I J D E N

Employability is a critical requirement for enabling both sustained competi-tive advantage at the firm level and career success at the individual level. Wepropose a competence-based approach to employability derived from an ex-pansion of the resource-based view of the firm. In this contribution, we pres-ent a reliable and valid instrument for measuring employability. This meas-ure is based on a five-dimensional conceptualization of employability, inwhich occupational expertise is complemented with generic competences.Two sources of raters (employees and their immediate supervisors) are in-volved in developing and testing the measure. Since the five dimensions ofemployability explain a significant amount of variance in both objective andsubjective career success, the predictive validity of the tool is promising. Thisinstrument facilitates further scientific HRM research and is of practical valuein light of job and career assessments, recruitment, staffing, career mobility,and development practices. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Correspondence to: Claudia M. Van der Heijde, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business Ad-ministration, Department of Management and Organization, De Boelelaan 1105, Room 3A-34, 1081 HV Amsterdam,The Netherlands, Phone: +31 20 5986123, Fax: +31 6 24221277, E-mail: [email protected]

Human Resource Management, Fall 2006, Vol. 45, No. 3, Pp. 449–476

© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20119

450 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Fall 2006

progression, more boundaries are crossed(e.g., occupational, departmental, and orga-nizational) in comparison to earlier andmore predictable hierarchical careers (De-Fillippi & Arthur, 1996; Gunz, Evans, & Jal-

land, 2000). When careers are lesspredictable, a thorough diagnosisof competences, or employability,is a crucial starting point for allcareer policy activities. A soundmeasurement instrument for em-ployability enables individualemployees to keep track of theircompetences and career needs.Only after this assessment shouldworkers undertake action to im-prove their employability—forexample, by means of job-relatedor organizational career interven-tions such as mentoring, net-working, and age-related HRMpolicy (B. I. J. M. Van der Heijden,2005).

Increasingly, domain-specificoccupational expertise is insufficient to guar-antee positive work outcomes during thecourse of one’s entire career. Unfortunately,previous research has demonstrated thatmany employees are not able to keep upwith the faster pace of change, as invest-ments in competence development diminishwith age (Boerlijst, 1994; Thijssen, 1996).This is highly problematic, since career de-velopment is largely dependent upon initia-tives and investments of the employeesthemselves (Hall, 1976), although it must bestimulated by the organization.

In the next section, we address the defi-nition and domain-independent (see B. I. J.M. Van der Heijden, 2000) operationaliza-tion of the concept of employability. Anoverview of the theoretical framework isgiven, elucidating our competence-based ap-proach as an extension of the resource-basedview of the firm (Barney, 1991; Nordhaug &Grønhaug, 1994; Wright, McMahan, &McWilliams, 1994). This perspective enablesus to align two different theories on employ-ability: the one from Fugate et al. (2004) andthe one from Van Dam (2004). Fugate et al.(2004) have career outcomes as their first

focus, while Van Dam depicts organizationaloutcomes as her first focus of employability(more specifically, organizational flexibility).

We then discuss the development of ameasurement instrument for employabil-ity, in which employability is composed ofoccupational expertise and four moregeneric competences. In the theoreticalframework, the relationship to other con-cepts of interest concerning employabilitywill be clarified. Subsequently, we outlineour research methodologies, followed bythe results of the psychometric analyses. Inthe discussion and conclusion, we considerthe implications of our study for organiza-tional practitioners and provide sugges-tions for future research.

A Competence-Based Approach toEmployability

The concept of employability came into usearound 1955 (Versloot, Glaudé, & Thijssen,1998). However, it is only since the late1990s that employability has been empiri-cally studied. Several historical overviewsshed some light on the development of itsconceptualization and definitions (Thijssen& Van der Heijden, 2003; Van Lammeren,1999; Versloot et al., 1998). Employability isstudied from different angles and distinctlevels (individual, organizational, and indus-trial) across a wide range of academic disci-plines, such as business and managementstudies, human resource management,human resource development, psychology,educational science, and career theory. How-ever, few studies have tried to integrate thesedifferent perspectives (Thijssen & Van derHeijden, 2003).

Definitions and synonyms of the conceptat the employee level are abundant (De Grip,Van Loo, & Sanders, 2004; Forrier & Sels,2003; Fugate et al., 2004; Harvey, 2001; Thi-jssen & Van der Heijden, 2003; B. I. J. M. Vander Heijden & Thijssen, 2003; Van Lam-meren, 1999; Versloot et al., 1998), each em-phasizing a diversity of career aspects of (po-tential) employees but all referring toemployment as an outcome. Some examplesof these career aspects are physical suitability

Increasingly,

domain-specific

occupational

expertise is

insufficient to

guarantee positive

work outcomes

during the course of

one’s entire career.

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

A Competence-Based and Multidimensional Operationalization and Measurement of Employability 451

(Gazier, 1990), cognitive suitability, (career)development (De Haan, Vos, & De Jong,1994; Sterns & Dorsett, 1994), learning, de-specialization (Bolweg & Maenhout, 1995;Hoeksema & Paauwe, 1996; Pearson, 1988),flexibility, adaptation to (fast) changes (Bol-weg, 1997; Friedrichs, 2000), and mobility(both external and internal). Employability isbelieved to accommodate some or all of theseaspects, depending upon the angle fromwhich the concept is studied and, conse-quently, it is not a unidimensional construct.Fugate et al. (2004), who recently thoroughlystudied its conceptual foundation from a ca-reer angle, use the term variegated.

Apart from the large variety of employa-bility definitions, one might be able to dis-tinguish a link between the conceptualiza-tion of employability and certain historicalwork and organizational developments inWestern countries (Van Lammeren, 1999;Versloot et al., 1998), in relation to the tran-sition from an industrial to a postindustrialsociety (Thijssen & Van der Heijden, 2003).Employability is a symbol used to addresswork-related problems related to this transi-tion. Until the 1970s, employability wasabout employment participation and was ac-companied by the so-called flexibility of so-ciety. The government was considered theactor responsible for achieving the target offull employment and a decrease in the col-lective burden (Thijssen & Van der Heijden,2003). During the last decades of the twenti-eth century, market developments com-pelled organizations to reorganize them-selves into more flexible firms (see alsoBoselie & Paauwe, 2004; Geelhoed, 1997;Van Dam, 2004). Changes are taking place ata faster rate and in increasing numbers, un-dermining organizational strategy and plan-ning, and which the organizations should bepotentially able to flexibly anticipate on.

These developments enforce a reorgani-zation of the structure of work (like despe-cialization and deregulation) and the transi-tion from a job-based HRM system to acompetence-based person-related HRM sys-tem (Lawler, 1994; Mikkelsen, Nybø, &Grønhaug, 2002; Rodriguez, Patel, Bright,Gregory, & Gowing, 2002). New production

concepts, such as total quality management,lean production, business process redesign,and socio-technics (De Lange, 2001; Steijn,2002) all decrease the division of labor andincrease teamwork. These changes have im-plications for the ideal employee profile andthe type of skills that are needed (Felstead &Ashton, 2000). Furthermore, human capitalor human resources have been gaining in im-portance and increasingly should be takeninto account in organizationalstrategy making.

According to the resource-based view of the firm (Barney,1991; Nordhaug & Grønhaug,1994; Wright et al., 1994), com-petences are one category of pos-sible resources that enable firmsto achieve performance and (sus-tained) competitiveness. The re-source-based view of the firm canbe positioned somewhere in be-tween so-called soft (Guest, 1987;Legge, 1995) and hard strategicHRM approaches in that it offersa framework for theorizing onand practicing balance betweenthe interests of organizations andemployees (Boxall, 1999; Looise,1998). In such a context, em-ployee competences are treated asvaluable assets that must be nour-ished and are interpreted as beingbeneficial for both employee andorganization. As such, occupa-tional expertise and employabil-ity provide both work continuity and career-development opportunities.

This approach is more moderate and real-istic compared to using only market-drivenand cost-reducing decisions for competitivestrategy, and subsequently labor management(hard approach) or high-commitment models(soft approach) (Guest, 1987; Legge, 1995;Looise, 1998). A prerequisite for sustainedcompetitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Nord-haug & Grønhaug, 1994) consists of a uniquecombination of acquiring and retaining com-petent workers, and adequate HR policies andpractices of investing in them. Boxall (1999)refers to human resource advantage in order to

These developments

enforce a

reorganization of the

structure of work

(like

despecialization and

deregulation) and

the transition from a

job-based HRM

system to a

competence-based

person-related HRM

system.



stress the positive outcomes of thiscombination.

Within a competence-basedapproach to employability, com-petence models are used to unifyindividual capabilities with orga-nizational core competences(Rothwell & Lindholm, 1999). Be-sides vertical and horizontalalignment, Mulder (2001) stressesthe following functions of theconcept: strategic (as a route plan-ner), communicative (yieldingtransparency), dynamic, develop-mental, employability, and per-formance improvement. Atheyand Orth (1999, p. 216), definecompetency as “a set of observableperformance dimensions, includ-ing individual knowledge, skills,attitudes, and behaviors, as wellas collective team, process, andorganizational capabilities, thatare linked to high performance,and provide the organizationwith sustainable competitive ad-vantage.” In the conceptualiza-tion that is central in this article,competence is defined at an indi-vidual level.

While in practice, the termscompetence and skills are oftenused simultaneously, it mightprove illuminating to elaborateon the distinction between thetwo. Skill concerns the executionof a single task, while competencedeals more with the execution ofa whole series of different tasks ina certain (occupational) domain,all of them performed well and inan integrated manner (Mulder,2001; Onstenk, 1997). This inte-grating and synergetic processinto competence and competentaction is then enacted with theaid of different personal qualitiessuch as motivation, attitudes, be-havior, and personality.

In the remainder of this sec-tion, our line of thought will be

elaborated upon by referring to some com-petence approaches, definitions, the func-tional use of the concept, and its addedvalue, all directed toward the developmentof an employability theory. First of all, in-sights from a rationalist versus an interpreta-tive approach to competence are dealt withand integrated. Sandberg (2000) describesthe rationalist approach toward human com-petence as an attribute-based phenomenon.In this approach, workers with better knowl-edge and skills will automatically outperformothers. In the past, competence was moreabout potential, qualification, or IQ (McClel-land, 1973), and was also referred to as com-petency (Mulder, 2001).

Increasingly, the emphasis lies on the ap-plication of potential (knowledge and skills)(see also Athey & Orth, 1999; Mulder, 2001).Accordingly, in his interpretative approach tohuman competence at work, Sandberg(2000) points to the importance of theknowledge and skills people use when work-ing. In this approach, conceptions, ratherthan attributes, determine the level of com-petence of individual workers. The experi-ence gained by employees determines theframework or mind-set from which the workis undertaken, and subsequently, the goalsset (motivation) and the means, such asknowledge and skills, that are deployed to dothe work.

Cognition and emotion both contributeto the development of competence. Accord-ing to Sternberg (1996), success in work isnot restricted to IQ or technical skill but is aresult of the balance between cognition andemotion. Sternberg (1999, p. 438) definessuccessful intelligence as “the ability to bal-ance the needs to adapt to, shape and selectenvironments in order to attain success(however within one’s sociocultural con-text).” Limiting this definition to a workingenvironment, it can be regarded as a syn-onym for the concept of employability.

One example of how conceptions maycontribute to the attainment of compe-tence can be found in work by Dweck andLeggett (1988), in their social-cognitive ap-proach to motivation and personality. Theydescribe the role played by the mind-set of

Within a

competence-based

approach to

employability,

competence models

are used to unify

individual

capabilities with

organizational core

competences

(Rothwell &

Lindholm, 1999).

Besides vertical and

horizontal alignment,

Mulder (2001)

stresses the

following functions

of the concept:

strategic (as a route

planner),

communicative

(yielding

transparency),

dynamic,

developmental,

employability, and

performance

improvement.



orienting people toward certain goals(learning orientation vs. performance ori-entation) leading to adaptive or maladap-tive behavioral patterns, and thereby ad-dressing the mechanism through whichpersonal attributes interact.

Another powerful concept in light of ouremployability model is self-efficacy. Self-effi-cacy refers to “beliefs in one’s capabilities tomobilize the motivation, cognitive re-sources, and courses of action needed tomeet given situational demands” (Wood &Bandura, 1989, p. 408). However, it is notonly the beliefs about one’s capabilities, butalso one’s beliefs about working life andwork content (e.g., beliefs on the usefulnessof the work, beliefs in certain work methods,moral beliefs) that might influence a per-son’s motivations, actions, and performance.

The dynamic component of the conceptof competence points to its process character(Orlikowski, 2002; Scarbrough, 1998). Th.Van der Heijden, Volz, Reidinga, and Schutte(2001) define competence management atan organizational level as “the continuouslyintegrated fine tuning of competences andtalents” (p. 27). In the current study, em-ployability is defined as “the continuous ful-filling, acquiring or creating of work throughthe optimal use of competences” (Van derHeijde & Van der Heijden, 2005, p. 143).This definition is compatible with defini-tions like “the chance for employment onthe internal or external labor market” (For-rier & Sels, 2003) and “a form of work-spe-cific active adaptability that enables workersto identify and realize career opportunities”(Fugate et al., 2004).

Building on its dynamic character, an-other important dimension of the concept(Onstenk, 1997) is that learning and devel-opment for the employee is a means foradapting to change. Correspondingly, corecompetence at an organizational level is per-ceived as collective learning (Prahalad &Hamel, 1990). The concepts of continuousprofessional development (CPD) and lifelonglearning (LLL) are often mentioned with re-gard to the employability theme. As such,competence development is measured by de-termining the applicability of knowledge

and skills or possible transfer. The degree oftransfer is characterized by the extent towhich contexts differ and in which thelearned material can be applied (Perkins &Salomon, 1992). However, transfer of com-petences in the sense of so-called learning,which is about the application of knowledgeand skills in divergent working situations, isoften lacking (Cheng & Ho, 2001), althoughit is fundamental for employabil-ity enhancement.

To summarize some key ele-ments, (1) employability is ad-vantageous for both career out-comes and firm outcomes; (2) atthe employee level, employabilityis advantageous for both presentperformance on the job as well ascareer outcomes (long-term per-formance, implying the processof adaptation and learning); (3)besides adaptive behavior, em-ployability may contain personalelements such as personality, atti-tudes, motivation, and ability;and (4) employability representsthe combination of specific andmore generic competence.

Dimensions of Employability

This section addresses the competence-basedconceptualization of employability, in whichthe dimension of occupational expertise iscomplemented with four more general com-petences: (1) anticipation and optimization, (2)personal flexibility, (3) corporate sense, and (4)balance. There is clear evidence, from bothstrategic HRM (Capelli & Crocker-Hefter,1996; Wright & Snell, 1998) and from careertheory (Miles & Snow, 1996), of the impor-tance of a broader competence package.More specifically, there also is evidence of anincrease in the importance of adaptive andsocial competences (Rodriguez et al., 2002)alongside domain-related knowledge andskills in jobs, following the evolution in or-ganizational form. The proposed employa-bility dimensions relate to job-related mat-ters as well as aspects of a broader careerdevelopment. Taking into account the inter-

In the current study,

employability is

defined as “the

continuous fulfilling,

acquiring or

creating of work

through the optimal

use of

competences.”



ests of both employees and employers, wehave adopted a dual orientation, both to-ward the development of human potential

and toward the development ofthe work process (see Van derKrogt, 1998).

The first dimension of em-ployability that is taken to be aprerequisite for positive careeroutcomes of workers is referredto as occupational expertise. Anumber of authors, includingBoudreau, Boswell, and Judge(2001) and Onstenk and Kessels(1999), claim that occupationalexpertise constitutes a substan-tial element of employability.Occupational expertise also isseen as a significant human cap-ital factor for the vitality of or-ganizations. Furthermore, due tothe intensification of knowl-edge, its importance is only

growing (Enders, 2002; Schein, 1996; B. I. J.M. Van der Heijden, 2005).

In times of recession, workers mostlikely to be made redundant are the oneswhose occupational expertise is lacking,obsolete, or outdated. According to De-Fillippi and Arthur (1996), people with oc-cupational expertise derive greater benefitfrom interfirm career opportunities. For themeasurement of occupational expertise,our first dimension of employability (see B.I. J. M. Van der Heijden, 2000), we used aninstrument originally developed to meas-ure professional knowledge and skills, in-cluding meta-cognitive ones. This measurealso accounts for social recognition by im-portant key figures. Aside from a high de-gree of knowledge and skills related to aparticular professional domain, expertsneed to be perceived and labeled as highperformers and excellent professionals ifthey are to have a basis for employabilityenhancement.

The second and third dimensions of em-ployability concern adapting to changes anddevelopments at a job-content level and atother levels, such as the career as a whole,that are relevant in the light of performance

outcomes. An important component of em-ployability described by Kluytmans and Ott(1999) is the “willingness to adapt tochanges in terms of employment, job con-tents, conditions, or locations.” Futurechanges that might influence the work con-text of employees include, for example,mass unemployment and reorganization. Inour employability framework, two differenttypes of adaptation are distinguished, thefirst one being a self-initiating proactivevariant that is referred to as anticipation andoptimization, and one more passive, reactivevariant entitled personal flexibility. Bothadaptation types coexist and function to en-hance the employability of the professionalworker.

Anticipation and optimization does notconcern adaptation in its basic form, butrather entails preparing for future workchanges in a personal and creative mannerin order to strive for the best possible job andcareer outcomes (Bhaerman & Spill, 1988;North, Mallabar, & Desrochers, 1988). In-creasingly, employees have to enact theirjobs and their professional life themselves(Weick, 1996), owing to the complexity ofwork and difficulty of employers to predictfuture work content. In present-day, knowl-edge-intensive markets, employees certainlyhave an opportunity to fulfill labor require-ments by creating the future themselves in-stead of merely performing fixed tasks. Inthe employability career approach adoptedby Fugate et al. (2004), “person centered ac-tive adaptation and proactivity conceptuallyunderpin the construct of employability.”Similarly, studies on proactive personalitysummarized by Crant (2000) suggest this tobe “an important element of employee,team, and firm effectiveness.”

Career management will be optimizedwhen fine-tuning is achieved between per-sonal preferences and market developments.Labor market knowledge (Gaspersz & Ott,1996) is an essential element in planning acareer. Ball (1997) similarly proposes an opti-mization dimension of career competencefor labor market position improvement, al-though it is different in content from theproposed dimension in our instrument.

In times of

recession, workers

most likely to be

made redundant are

the ones whose

occupational

expertise is lacking,

obsolete, or

outdated.



Personal flexibility does not relate to flexi-bility at the content level of a job. Besidescreative adaptability, employees must pas-sively adapt to changes occurring in theirwork and labor market environment thatthey did not choose. As well as referring tothe capacity for smooth transitions betweenjobs and between organizations, the conceptencompasses adapting easily to all kinds ofchanges in the internal and external labormarket. Numerous changes in organizationsand their environments, such as mergers andreorganizations, call for flexible employees atmultiple levels. In addition, they make greatdemands upon people’s resilience. Reorgani-zations require employees who cope easilywith, and recover readily from, disappoint-ments. As the temporal and spatial structuresof organizations change, a greater variationin working time and place occurs. An exam-ple can be seen in phenomena such as flexi-ble warehousing and telework. Anothersource of variation is the employee’s pool ofcolleagues or the peer group, which is moreoften subject to changes.

The dimension of personal flexibility hasbeen deemed an important ingredient of em-ployability by other researchers (see, e.g.,Boudreau et al., 2001; Fugate et al., 2004)and has been labeled adaptability. We con-sider personal flexibility to be the opposite ofso-called rigid behavior, and in that sense aprerequisite for and ingredient of adapta-tion. Employees with high scores for per-sonal flexibility will derive greater benefitand further their career development fromdifferent experiences because they welcomechanges. Flexible employees expose them-selves more easily to changes and have a bet-ter understanding of how to take advantageof changes.

It is not difficult to appreciate that or-ganizations have much to gain from flexibleemployees. Regarding numerical flexibility,hiring temporary workers provides organiza-tions with the security of not spending toomuch on personnel costs in times of decline.Another positive side effect lies in the factthat the core of people working in the or-ganization benefit as they experience lesscompetition for promotions (Barnett &

Miner, 1992), and for lifetime employment(Baruch, 2001) (see Barnett & Miner, 1992,for an elaborate overview and more detailson this matter). This side effect provides con-tinuity in work and career development for acertain group of employees (although at theexpense of the others—that is to say, thetemporary workers) and to the organizationas a whole.

The fourth dimension of employabilityis corporate sense. The erosion of the tradi-tional dichotomy between managers andsupport staff means that employees have toparticipate more as members ofan integrated team, identify withcorporate goals, and accept col-lective responsibility for the deci-sion-making process (Chapman& Martin, 1995). Besides that,corporate sense extends the orga-nizational citizenship behaviorconcept (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,Paine, & Bachrach, 2000) to par-ticipation and performance indifferent workgroups, such as thedepartment, the organization,working teams, the occupationalcommunity, and other networks.The number of groups to whichemployees may belong has in-creased tremendously in recentdecades (Frese, 2000; Seibert,Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). Besidesdepartmental and organizationalcollaboration, employees mayparticipate in project networks, occupa-tional networks, industry networks, and vir-tual networks, to mention but a few. Corpo-rate sense builds on social capital (networks)(Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; see also the spe-cial issue of the Academy of Management Ex-ecutive guest-edited by Rosalie L. Tung [Vol.17(4)]), social skills, and emotional intelli-gence (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). It is aboutsharing responsibilities, knowledge, experi-ences, feelings, credits, failures, goals, andthe like.

The last dimension of employability thatis distinguished in our employability frame-work is termed balance. Balance is defined ascompromising between opposing employers’

Employees with high

scores for personal

flexibility will derive

greater benefit and

further their career

development from

different

experiences

because they

welcome changes.



interests as well as one’s own opposing work,career, and private interests (em-ployee) and between employers’and employees’ interests. Paauwe(1997) claims that employabilityis out of the question without anhonest exchange relationship be-tween employer and employee, arelationship where both partiesbalance their investments andprofits (see also Bolweg & Maen-hout, 1995; Van Dam & Thierry,2000, on the exchange theory).

Working life is characterizedby strongly competing demandsthat are not easily balanced. In-creasingly, organizations have todeal with paradox (Handy, 1994).Organizations often refer to em-ployability as the deployment oftheir personnel, a terminologythat implies pawns without initia-tive that can be moved aroundlike chess pieces, while at thesame time, employability refers tohighly self-reliant and self-manag-ing employees. Moreover, organi-zations ask for highly committedand at the same time highly flexi-ble employees. Bolweg and Maen-hout (1995) refer to the so-calledmanagement paradox to indicatethis development. Another para-dox with which employees areconfronted is the need to bothspecialize and despecialize. Ac-cording to Weick (1996), beingable to alternate between thesetwo is highly beneficial in pres-ent-day boundaryless careers. Em-ployees also have (increasing!) in-terests that are difficult to unite,at the work process level, (career)developmental level, and privatelevel (Bolweg & Maenhout, 1995;Van Beckhoven, 1997).

Research Methodology

The measurement of employability pre-sented in this article is based upon the idea

that some characteristics of expert perform-ance and of employability are valid regard-less of the domain of expertise of a particularprofessional (see also B. I. J. M. Van der Heij-den, 2000, for a more elaborate discussionon the aim and value of a domain-independ-ent tool). The proposed five dimensions ofemployability are measured by means of fivemeasurement scales ranging in length fromseven to fifteen items scored on a six-pointrating scale. Examples of scale anchors are asfollows: not at all, to a considerable degree,never, and very often. For a full outline of allscale items, see Appendix A.

Sample and Procedure

The sample selected to test the psychometricqualities of the measurement instrumentconsists of two groups of respondents: theemployees themselves and their immediatesupervisors. One effective and valid mannerfor measuring a concept is to use multiplemeasurements and preferably to use both ob-jective as well as subjective measurements,since these provide different perspectives(Borman, 1974; Klimoski & London, 1974).However, qualitative dimensions of work per-formance are known to be difficult to obtainfrom objective measurements (Hennessey &Bernardin, 2003). For this reason, we optedfor supervisor ratings along with self-ratingsto best capture the behaviors beneficial to im-proving work and career outcomes.

While we are aware of rater bias amongsupervisors (Thornton & Byham, 1982), wenevertheless wish to emphasize the use ofthis group of raters with regard to the keyrole played by their perception in the careerprogress of the employee. Moreover, self-ratings have been demonstrated to be morereliable when employees are aware that rat-ings are also being given by their supervi-sors (Mabe & West, 1982), because the le-niency effect is suppressed (Arnold &MacKenzie Daveys, 1992; Campbell & Lee,1988; Harris & Schaubroeck, 1988; Hoff-man, Nathan, & Holden, 1991; Holzbach,1978). We test for rater bias in supervisorand self-ratings in the validity analyses andreport these in our results.

While we are aware

of rater bias among

supervisors

(Thornton & Byham,

1982), we

nevertheless wish to

emphasize the use

of this group of

raters with regard to

the key role played

by their perception

in the career

progress of the

employee. Moreover,

self-ratings have

been demonstrated

to be more reliable

when employees are

aware that ratings

are also being given

by their supervisors,

because the

leniency effect is

suppressed.



Data were gathered during the autumnand winter of 2002, in a large Dutch firmthat produces building materials. Two nom-inally identical versions of the question-naire were used: one employee version (theself-rating version) and one supervisor ver-sion. The supervisors filled out a question-naire that contained amended itemsworded to express the extent of employabil-ity of their respective employees. Most em-ployees of the firm were included in thestudy and were asked directly by their su-pervisors to participate. Each supervisor hadto complete employability questions ontheir subordinates. Questionnaires werelimited to a maximum of three employeesper supervisor for practical (time restric-tions) and reliability reasons (B. I. J. M. Vander Heijden, 2000).

The selection of employees was re-stricted to those with at least middle educa-tional levels of functioning, in order to pro-vide data that could be generalized forfuture use in organizations. It was necessaryto allow for the possibility that currentworkers, particularly older ones, might notbe comparable with employees hired bycompanies in, say, 20 years (see also B. I. J.M. Van der Heijden, 2005).

Our final research sample consisted of 314employees and 334 immediate supervisors(i.e., 290 pairs). The employees worked in nu-merous types of jobs at middle and higher ed-ucational levels. For the employees, 83.3%were male, 84.8% of them were married or co-habiting, 11.2% were single, and 3.9% were di-vorced at the time of the study. Regardingtheir education level, 0.8% had only a primaryeducation, 40.9% had a high school degree (orrecognized equivalent), 30.8% had basic voca-tional education (or recognized equivalent),15.3% had a BA, 2.2% had an MA, and noneof the employees had a doctorate.

Development of the Questionnaire

Different methods exist for constructing meas-urement instruments representing abstractconcepts. Each has specific advantages anddisadvantages. Oosterveld and Vorst (1996, p.2) refer to them as “risks for a valid measure-

ment.” In order to benefit from various ad-vantages and to decrease the number of disad-vantages, we have opted for a combination ofmethods. The effectiveness, usefulness, or theso-called instrumental utility of an opera-tionalization comprises validity, accuracy (reli-ability), and efficiency. It reflects how useful orhow valuable the operational definition is inits aim to represent the concept as intended ina certain research context (De Groot, 1961).

A multidimensional construct can bemeasured by using different subscales thatmeasure the different componentdimensions. The process of itemformulation for each scale shouldbe related to underlying theoreticalassumptions, including the statisti-cal method to test these assump-tions (Kidder & Judd, 1986). In ourstudy, both the validity and relia-bility of the instrument were opti-mized by means of an analysis ofrelevant theoretical literature (Step1), and by using statistical valida-tion techniques. The employabilityinstrument is a compound instru-ment consisting of five dimen-sions, which can also be consid-ered as a set of five instruments (DeGroot, 1961). Steps two (determi-naton of the employability dimen-sions) and three (provisional itemformulation for the different di-mensions) led to an item pool for each dimen-sion of the concept of employability.

The first dimension was measured usinga previously developed instrument for pro-fessional expertise (B. I. J. M. Van der Heij-den, 2000). The scales in the original in-strument each contained 12 to 19 items butwere reduced to a maximum of 10 items inorder to enhance the user-friendliness, effi-ciency, and symmetry of the scales. Itemswere reduced by means of a renewed con-tent analysis of the existing scales by an ex-pert group of scientists, followed by a relia-bility analysis and an exploratory factoranalysis. Some scales of the professional ex-pertise instrument gained increased valid-ity, as some items that displayed overlapwith the supplementary employability

The selection of

employees was

restricted to those

with at least middle

educational levels of

functioning, in order

to provide data that

could be generalized

for future use in

organizations.



scales were removed (Step 4). Moreover, athorough linguistic evaluation of the differ-ent items was also taken into account (Step5), followed by a formulation of the intro-

duction and instructions for re-spondents (Step 6). The data col-lection, using e-questionnaires,took place during the autumnand winter of 2002 (Step 7).

Different methods of testconstruction (Oosterveld &Vorst, 1996) were used to furtherenhance the psychometric quali-ties of the instrument. Thesemethods examined the differentitems, both their content andtheir psychometric qualities.Both convergent and divergentitem validity and criterion valid-ity were examined. Subsequently,the homogeneity of these scaleswas tested and optimized usingCronbach’s alpha and factor ana-lytic techniques. Part of the dataanalysis (Step 8) was performedat the item level. Both conver-gent and divergent item validity

were investigated by studying the correla-tion structure of all items in the five meas-urement scales. In order to support the ideaof multidimensionality of a concept, itemswithin subscales should display higher in-tercorrelations compared with items fromdifferent subscales. However, the compo-nent subscales of one (multidimensional)construct should also be positively corre-lated (Kidder & Judd, 1986). Items that didnot discriminate sufficiently were elimi-nated.

Subsequently, correlations were studiedbetween the scale scores of the employeesand the scale scores of the supervisors. Thelatter research step assesses criterion validity.Multiple regression analysis was used for thispurpose. All research steps together, com-bined with rechecking the content validityof the items, led to the elimination of a con-siderable number of items (Step 9). The goalof the procedure as a whole was to obtain avalid, though parsimonious representationof the whole concept of employability.

Measures with Regard to PredictiveValidity

Objective career success was measured usingfour single items. Objective hierarchical suc-cess was measured as the number of promo-tions. Number of promotions was defined as“any increase in hierarchical level and/orany significant increase in job responsibili-ties or job scope employees have experiencedsince joining your current organization” (or-ganization-specific objective hierarchical success[first item]) and in your entire career (overallobjective hierarchical success [second item]).Objective financial success was measured, ascurrent gross income (per month) (third item).The fourth item was number of periods of un-employment of longer than one month in theentire career.

Subjective career success was measuredusing the measurement scales from Gattikerand Larwood (1986). These scales consist ofan organizational (job satisfaction, interper-sonal success, hierarchical success, financial suc-cess) and a nonorganizational (life satisfac-tion) component. A sample item is “I amdrawing a high income compared to mypeers.” The items require responses on a five-point format: (1) does not apply at all to (5)applies a great deal.

Results

Tables Ia and Ib show the means, standarddeviations, reliability coefficients, and corre-lations between all study variables. All fivescales appear to be homogeneous for bothgroups of raters (Nemployees = 314, Nsupervisors =334) with Cronbach’s alphas for the fivemeasurement scales varying from .78 to .90for the self-ratings and from .83 to .95 for thesupervisor ratings. It is interesting that thealpha coefficients for the supervisor ratingsall are higher compared to the correspondingones for their employees. It could well bethat the ratings by employees reflect a reli-able and valid but somewhat more differen-tiated self-image. The outcomes might alsobe attributed to a halo effect. Empirical stud-ies have shown that a halo effect is lessprominent in self-ratings compared with rat-

In order to support

the idea of

multidimensionality

of a concept, items

within subscales

should display

higher

intercorrelations

compared with

items from different

subscales.



ings by others (Hoffman et al., 1991;Holzbach, 1978; Thornton, 1980).

Paired samples t-tests confirm that, foreach scale, the self-ratings are systematicallyhigher than the corresponding supervisorratings. In other words, the previously men-tioned leniency effect (Arnold & MacKenzieDaveys, 1992; Campbell & Lee, 1988; Harris& Schaubroeck, 1988; Hoffman, Nathan, &Holden, 1991; Holzbach, 1978), the ten-dency of employees to provide a somewhatrosier image of themselves, was found in ourdata. The rating differences might also be ex-plained by the fact that supervisors, in theirroles as (stringent) judges of their employees’performance and behavior, tend to empha-size the negative side relatively more thanthe positive side of employee functioning. Inother words, the so-called hardness effectmight also be a contributing factor (Ooster-veld & Vorst, 1996). All intermethod correla-tions are significant and positive. The con-

vergence of two indicators of one and thesame employability scale supports the valid-ity of both (Cronbach, 1990). The correla-tions range from r = .21 to r = .39.

Multitrait–Multimethod Analysis

A multitrait–multimethod (MTMM) analysis(Campbell & Fiske, 1959) was performed inorder to check convergence and divergenceof our multidimensional instrument. A mul-titrait–multimethod analysis provides in-sight into the amount of variance that iscaused by the kind of method that has beenused (method variance) and the degree ofvariance that is explained by the trait orconcept. In a multitrait–multimethod analy-sis, at least two traits are measured by atleast two maximally different methods. Con-vergent validity demonstrates that the twodifferent methods really measure the sameunderlying traits or concepts. Discriminant


M SD

1 Age of employee 40.94 9.202 Years of working experience of employee 20.54 10.583 Age of supervisor 42.95 7.794 Length of time supervising this employeea 2.73 1.305 Occupational expertise (self-ratings) 4.78 .436 Anticipation and optimization (self-ratings) 3.72 .667 Personal flexibility (self-ratings) 4.44 .498 Corporate sense (self-ratings) 4.13 .729 Balance (self-ratings) 4.30 .5110 Occupational expertise (supervisor ratings) 4.36 .6711 Anticipation and optimization (supervisor ratings) 3.49 .7112 Personal flexibility (supervisor ratings) 3.92 .6713 Corporate sense (supervisor ratings) 3.90 .7214 Balance (supervisor ratings) 4.17 .5415 Number of promotions in the company 1.34 1.6316 Number of promotions in the career 3.46 2.4017 Monthly gross income (EURO) 3266.30 1328.6318 Periods of unemployment > 1 month in career .27 .9219 Job satisfaction 3.51 .4720 Interpersonal career success 4.00 .3921 Hierarchical career success 3.35 .5722 Financial career success 2.92 .6423 Life satisfaction 4.36 .43

aYears of supervision was measured using the following classifications: 1 = < 1 year; 2 = 1–2 years; 3 = 3–4 years; 4 = 5–6 years; 5 = � 7 years.

T A B L E I a Means and Standard Deviations for Variables Under Study(Nemployees = 314, Nsupervisors = 334)



12

34

56

78

910

1112

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

1–

2.9

5**

–

3.1

2*.0

7–

4.1

0.1

1*.4

7**

–

5.0

5.0

2.0

8.0

3(.9

0)

6–.

14*

–.14

*–.

05–.

11*

.40*

*(.8

1)

7–.

18*

–.22

**.0

4–.

14*

.56*

*.4

8**

(.79)

8.0

6.0

4.1

5*.0

0.5

3**

.53*

*.5

3**

(.83)

9–.

01–.

03.0

5–.

02.4

4**

.32*

*.3

1**

.30*

*(.7

8)

10–.

17**

–.16

**.2

5**

.19*

*.2

6**

.05

.17*

*.2

2**

.14*

(.95)

11–.

30**

–.29

**.2

2**

.15*

*.2

2**

.21*

*.3

2**

.28*

*.1

0.6

9**

(.89)

12–.

33**

–.32

**.1

5**

–.02

.21*

*.1

9**

.39*

*.2

6**

.13*

.70*

*.7

5**

(.88)

13–.

09–.

08.2

6**

.15*

*.2

2**

.10

.24*

*.3

7**

.06

.77*

*.6

9**

.71*

*(.8

5)

14–.

13*

–.12

*. 1

3*.1

1*.1

8**

.09

.12*

.21*

*.2

9**

.60*

*.5

4**

.56*

*.4

9**

(.83)

15.1

6**

.20*

*.1

1.1

8**

.06

–.04

–.11

*.1

5**

–.05

.02

–.00

–.06

.06

–.00

–

16.3

0**

.31*

*.1

0–.

06.0

9.1

7**

.13*

.32*

*.0

4–.

11–.

05–.

06.0

4–.

08.4

5**

–

17.4

0**

.33*

*.3

5**

.10

.25*

*.1

6**

.21*

*.4

7**

.20*

*.1

5*.1

1.0

8.2

7**

.08

.19*

*.4

1**

–

18–.

02–.

02–.

08–.

09.0

2–.

11*

–.00

–.15

**–.

09–.

13*

–.18

**–.

01–.

15**

–.12

*–.

04–.

00–.

13*

–

19.1

3*.1

3*.1

5**

.03

.16*

*.2

5**

.13*

.40*

*.3

5**

.09

.07

.12*

.15*

.16*

*.1

6**

.24*

*.3

5**

–.09

(.67)

20.0

0–.

00.1

3*.1

5**

.33*

*.2

3**

.23*

*.3

3**

.30*

*.2

6**

.17*

*.1

8**

.20*

*.2

1**

.11

.02

.18*

*–.

06.4

0**

(.58)

21–.

18**

–.17

**.1

3*–.

06.0

9.3

2**

.19*

*.3

6**

.18*

*.0

5.1

9**

.20*

*.2

2**

.14*

.19*

*.2

2**

.24*

*–.

11.4

6**

.21*

*(.6

8)

22.1

5**

.12*

.15*

*.1

4*–.

21**

–.22

**–.

19**

–.18

**.1

6**

–.03

–.11

–.09

–.04

–.02

.07

.05

.14*

–.03

.13*

.01

.09

(.61)

23–.

04–.

03–.

01.0

2.3

4**

.24*

*.2

9**

.33*

*.2

7**

.04

.07

.06

.04

.13*

.01

.06

.14*

–.11

*.2

2**

.21*

*.1

4*–.

08(.6

7)

*p<

.05.

**p

< .0

1.

TA

BL

E

Ib

Corr

elat

ions

and

Rel

iabi

litie

s fo

r Var

iabl

es U

nder

Stu

dy (N

empl

oyee

s=

314,

Nsu

perv

isor

s=

334)


validity demonstrates that the underlyingtraits or concepts are really different traits orconcepts. Table II shows the correlations be-tween all traits (or dimensions) we havemeasured with the two different methods—that is, the self-ratings and the supervisorscales.

Convergent validity is determined by themono-trait, hetero-method correlations, theunderlined values in Table II. According toCampbell and Fiske (1959), convergent va-lidity can be demonstrated if these valuesare “significantly different from zero andsufficiently large to encourage further ex-amination of validity.” In their excellent ar-ticle, they label .46 and .40 as “impressivevalidity values.” Our validity values are lessimpressive but certainly indicative of avalid operationalization of the concept ofemployability.

Facteau and Craig (2001, p. 215) state,“Perhaps one of the most consistent findingsin the empirical literature on performanceappraisal systems is that the ratings obtainedfrom different sources generally do not con-verge.” They tested for the structure of amultifaceted construct evaluated by four dif-ferent rater groups (supervisors, peers, subor-dinates, and self-ratings) and demonstratedthe equivalent structure of the construct

among the rater groups despite nonconver-gence, and advocate the comparability of thedifferent rater group scores. Likewise, Ooster-veld and Vorst (1996) mention that a largerpart of the variance can often be accountedfor by the methods used to measure a traitrather than the trait itself (see also B. I. J. M.Van der Heijden & Verhelst, 2002).

The proposed multidimensional charac-ter of our instrument requires outcomesdemonstrating the significance and validityof distinguishing between the differentscales, the discriminant validity. Discriminantvalidity is indicated by means of three out-comes (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Firstly, theheterotrait–heteromethod correlations (gray,not underlined, in Table II) need to be lowerthan the monotrait–heteromethod correlations(gray, underlined). Correlations between dif-ferent traits measured with different meth-ods should be lower than correlations be-tween the same traits measured withdifferent methods. Our data give us good rea-son to assume that different meanings, orconcepts, are indeed reflected by the fivescales. Only in the case of the anticipationand optimization scale have exceptions beenfound, in that there are threeheterotrait–heteromethod values exceedingthe monotrait–heteromethod value (.21) of


Self Supervisor

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Self

1. Occupational expertise (.90)2. Anticipation and optimization .40 (.81)3. Personal flexibility .58 .48 (.79)4. Corporate sense .53 .53 .53 (.83)5. Balance .44 .32 .31 .30 (.78)

Supervisor

1. Occupational expertise .26 .05 .17 .22 .14 (.95)2. Anticipation and optimization .22 .21 .32 .28 .10 .69 (.89)3. Personal flexibility .21 .19 .39 .26 .13 .70 .75 (.88)4. Corporate sense .22 .10 .24 .37 .06 .77 .69 .71 (.85)5. Balance .18 .09 .12 .21 .29 .60 .54 .56 .49 (.83)

T A B L E I I Correlation Matrix Following the Multitrait–Multimethod Approach; Self-Ratings (N = 314) andSupervisor Ratings (N = 334) Including Cronbach’s Alphas and Interscale Correlations


the scale. This relatively low correlation isperhaps an indication that supervisor andemployee disagree more with regard to thisdimension than the other dimensions.

Second, the heterotrait–monomethodvalues (white areas in Table II) need to belower than the monotrait–heteromethodvalues (grey, underlined). Correlations be-tween different traits measured with thesame method should be lower than correla-tions between the same traits measured withdifferent methods. This requirement is notmet (see Table II), owing to the greatermethod variance (Facteau & Craig, 2001).Moreover, according to Campbell and Fiske(1959), the heterotrait–monomethod valuesshould not converge with the reliability co-efficients (Cronbach’s alpha). Fortunately,our results are in line with this requirementand lead us to conclude that the outcomesare satisfactory.

The third test of discriminant validity re-quires that the patterns of correlations foreach set of raters should be similar. Thismeans that the interscale correlations shouldbe lower than the within-scale homo-geneities, both for the self-ratings and the su-pervisor ratings. Table II indicates that thisrequirement is fully met. Overall, while ex-amining the multitrait–multimethod matrix

it is obvious that the criteria of convergentand discriminant validity are met to a rea-sonable extent.

Structural Equation Modeling

Finally, we performed analyses based uponstructural equation modeling (SEM) tech-niques, using the AMOS 4.0 program (Ar-buckle & Wothke, 1999), in order to investi-gate whether the conceptualization ofemployability is exhaustive—that is, coversall possible aspects or dimensions. Several al-ternative models were tested to find a modelwith the best fit. This modeling was per-formed at the item level. Alternative modelswere compared to a second-order confirma-tory factor analysis (CFA), which in our caseis the hypothesized structure of employabil-ity. In this model, employability is presentedas a latent variable, and so are its subdimen-sions: (1) occupational expertise, (2) antici-pation and optimization, (3) personal flexi-bility, (4) corporate sense, and (5) balance.

The alternative models (Table III) com-prise, respectively, a null model with all theitems and their error terms (no latent con-structs), a one-factor model in which em-ployability is measured by all the items (nodistinction between employability dimen-


Target

Competing Model (47 items) χ2 df χ2/df ratio RMSEA Coefficient

EmployeeNull model 6227.6*** 1081 5.76 .114One-factor model 3027.9*** 1034 2.93 .073Uncorrelated factors model 2479.3*** 1034 2.40 .062Correlated factors model 1981.1*** 1024 1.94 .055Hierarchical model (second order) 2004.8*** 1029 1.95 .051 .99

SupervisorNull model 11440.8*** 1081 10.58 .162One-factor model 3999.6*** 1034 3.87 .089Uncorrelated factors model 3834.6*** 1034 3.71 .086Correlated factors model 2799.0*** 1024 2.73 .069Hierarchical model (second order) 2821.2*** 1029 2.74 .069 .99

*** p < .001.

T A B L E I I I Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Employability Measurement Instrument (SEM)


sions), a first-order model that measures thefive employability dimensions separately(uncorrelated), and a first-order model inwhich the five employability dimensions arecorrelated (correlated factors model).

In accordance with previously establishedmultivariate normal distributions, we reliedon maximum likelihood estimation of co-variance matrices. The goodness-of-fit of themodel was evaluated using absolute indices,which are more useful when using the AMOSfull information maximum likelihood (FIML)estimation for missing data in the AMOS pro-gram. The absolute goodness-of-fit indicescalculated were the chi-square (χ2) measure,the normed chi-square measure (χ2/df)(Jöreskog, 1969), and the Root Mean SquareError of Approximation (RMSEA). Accordingto Schumacker and Lomax (1996), a χ2/dfratio between 1 and 5 is an indication thatthe hypothesized model fits the data, andRMSEA values below or equal to .08 are in-dicative of an acceptable fit (Cudeck &Browne, 1993). Subsequently, the target coef-ficient (Marsh, 1987) was calculated, measur-ing that part of the covariances among thefirst-order factors that is explained by the sec-ond-order factor (the ratio of the chi-squareof the correlated first-order model to the chi-square of the second-order model, with amaximum of 1, indicates that all covariancesare explained by the second-order factor).

The SEM analyses are performed twice,once for the self-ratings and once for the su-pervisor ratings. In Table III, the results ofthe SEM analyses for the self-ratings and forthe supervisor ratings are presented. For bothself-ratings and for the supervisor ratings, anacceptable fit was obtained for the second-order model (for the self-ratings: χ2(1029) =2004.8, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 1.95, RMSEA = .051;for the supervisor ratings: χ2(1029) = 2821.2,p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.74, RMSEA = .069) andthe correlated first-order model (for the self-ratings: χ2(1024) = 1981.1, p < 0.001, χ2/df =1.94, RMSEA = .055; for the supervisor rat-ings: χ2(1024) = 2799.0, p < 0.001, χ2/df =2.73, RMSEA = .069).

Regarding the second-order model, in-dices of the self-ratings were especially prom-ising, as compared to the supervisor ratings,

although the decrease of the indices acrossthe alternative models was the same for thesupervisor ratings as for the self-ratings. Thisis an indication of an equivalent structure ofthe construct among the rater groups (seealso Facteau & Craig, 2001). The target coef-ficient for both self-ratings and supervisorratings, with regard to the first-order corre-lated model (baseline) and the hypothesizedsecond-order model, is .99. From this find-ing, we conclude that 99% of the covariationamong the five first-order factors is ex-plained by the second-order factor of em-ployability.

In Table IV, the standardizedfirst-order factor loadings of thesecond-order model are presented(the supervisor outcomes aregiven in parentheses). They are allstatistically significant, with t-val-ues varying between 4.84 and10.12 (p < .001) for the self-ratingsand t-values varying between 6.45and 16.45 (p < .001) for the super-visor ratings. Moreover, the stan-dardized second-order factor load-ings suggest strong relations ofthe indicators with the latent vari-able employability (self-ratings:.81 for occupational expertise, .71for anticipation and optimization,.87 for personal flexibility, .79 forcorporate sense, and .53 for bal-ance). For the supervisors theseare .88 for occupational expertise,.87 for anticipation and optimiza-tion, .91 for personal flexibility,.93 for corporate sense, and .63for balance. The combined resultsof our study argue in favor of ac-cepting our hypothesized second-order em-ployability model.

Predictive Validity

To demonstrate the predictive validity of theemployability measurement instrument forcareer success, hierarchical regression analy-ses were performed, using both objective andsubjective career success measures (Gattiker& Larwood, 1986). This enabled us to better

To demonstrate the

predictive validity of

the employability

measurement

instrument for

career success,

hierarchical

regression analyses

were performed,

using both objective

and subjective

career success

measures.




Occup Exp Ant & Opt Pers Flex Corp Sense Balance

Occupational expertise1 .59 (.65)Occupational expertise2 .56 (.73)Occupational expertise3 .66 (.81)Occupational expertise4 .59 (.59)Occupational expertise5 .65 (.72)Occupational expertise6 .60 (.67)Occupational expertise7 .57 (.76)Occupational expertise8 .71 (.79)Occupational expertise9 .70 (.75)Occupational expertise10 .53 (.89)Occupational expertise11 .63 (.86)Occupational expertise12 .62 (.83)Occupational expertise13 .52 (.79)Occupational expertise14 .50 (.76)Occupational expertise15 .67 (.85)Anticipation and optimization1 .65 (.68)Anticipation and optimization2 .51 (.75)Anticipation and optimization3 .63 (.65)Anticipation and optimization4 .74 (.86)Anticipation and optimization5 .64 (.77)Anticipation and optimization6 .48 (.67)Anticipation and optimization7 .52 (.59)Anticipation and optimization8 .55 (.77)Personal flexibility1 .62 (.75)Personal flexibility2 .41 (.46)Personal flexibility3 .53 (.82)Personal flexibility4 .74 (.87)Personal flexibility5 .66 (.73)Personal flexibility6 .56 (.69)Personal flexibility7 .58 (.72)Personal flexibility8 .50 (.58)Corporate sense1 .60 (.76)Corporate sense2 .58 (.69)Corporate sense3 .59 (.62)Corporate sense4 .70 (.59)Corporate sense5 .77 (.69)Corporate sense6 .70 (.65)Corporate sense7 .56 (.71)Balance1 .41 (.50)Balance2 .72 (.70)Balance3 .74 (.79)Balance4 .47 (.47)Balance5 .58 (.70)Balance6 .50 (.62)Balance7 .48 (.56)Balance8 .54 (.51)Balance9 .41 (.50)

Self-ratings: χ2(1029)=2004.8, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 1.95, RMSEA = .051; Supervisor ratings: χ2(1029)= 2821.2, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.74, RMSEA = .069)(All factor loadings are significant at p < .001.)

T A B L E I V Hierarchical CFA: Standardized Factor Loadings per Item and Dimension (SEM) (Supervisor in Parentheses)


represent a modern career in which lateralcareer moves are more frequent (as opposedto the traditional hierarchical career). The re-sults of the analyses can be found in Tables Vand VI. Age, gender, highest educationalqualification, years of experience, and mana-gerial activities of the employee were con-trolled for in the analysis (Step 1). Subse-quently, age, gender, and years ofsupervision (of that particular employee) bythe supervisor were controlled for (Step 2).The employability dimensions are importedin Step 3, assessing their predictive value forthe career outcome in question. Supervisorratings are used here to prevent commonmethod bias (Doty & Glick, 1998). Interest-ingly enough, each career outcome appearedto be predicted by different employability di-mensions, their effects not always being pos-itive. The predictive value of the separatecompetences for the different career successoutcomes is now considered.

Promotion within the organization is notsignificantly predicted by any of the employ-ability dimensions. Occupational expertise isrelated positively only to subjective interper-sonal success, which is rather remarkable.Occupational expertise is negatively relatedto the number of promotions in the entirecareer and, likewise, negatively related tosubjective hierarchical success. A negative re-lationship of the career anchor of technicalcompetence (similar to occupational expert-ise) with employability was found in earlierstudies (Van Dam, 2004). This result could beexplained by the fact that experts are verycommitted to their profession. Followingtheir profession is their primary career goal,which consequently leads to less hierarchicalmobility and change.

This result also may be caused by organi-zations, in the sense that they thrive if peo-ple keep on doing what they do best. Thefact that we are unable to demonstrate a re-lationship between occupational expertiseand at least the number of periods of unem-ployment can be explained by the funnelingcharacter of expertise. People are overspecial-ized to the degree that this might have a neg-ative impact on their job acquisition. Westrongly assume a positive relationship be-

tween occupational expertise and firm out-comes with knowledge intensification.

Anticipation and optimization is a sig-nificant predictor for periods of unemploy-ment; the higher the score on this employ-ability dimension, the fewer periods ofunemployment employees suffered. Prepar-ing for and adapting to future changes in apersonal and creative manner, and strivingfor the best possible results, indeed seem toprotect a person from unemployment.However, anticipation and optimization isnegatively related to subjective financialsuccess. A logical explanation would bethat employees scoring higher on this di-mension are more impatientwith regard to increasing theirsalary.

Personal flexibility is onlypositively related to periods ofunemployment: the higher thescore on this employability di-mension, the more periods of un-employment employees suffered.Based on our results, a persondoes not seem to benefit from thecapacity to adapt easily to allkinds of changes in the internaland external labor market that donot pertain to one’s immediatejob domain. We do expect thisemployability dimension to havea positive relation to firm out-comes though (see, for example,Van Dam, 2004), with negativerepercussions on employee out-comes.

Corporate sense appears to be a signifi-cant predictor for the number of promotionsin the entire career, gross income, and sub-jective hierarchical success. These results area strong indicator for the positive impact ofthe employability dimension on both objec-tive and subjective career success. Participa-tion and performance in different work-groups seem to be very important activitiesfor a person’s career success (Seibert et al.,2001).

Finally, balance was positively related tojob satisfaction and life satisfaction, bothsubjective career success outcomes. Compro-

Personal flexibility is

only positively

related to periods of

unemployment: the

higher the score on

this employability

dimension, the more

periods of

unemployment

employees suffered.




Pro

mo

tio

ns

Pro

mo

tio

ns

Gro

ss

Peri

od

s

Wit

hin

Org

an

iza

tio

nin

En

tire

Ca

ree

rIn

co

me p

er

Mo

nth

of

Un

em

plo

ym

en

tc

Pre

dic

tor/

Ste

pA

t ste

pFin

al

R2

∅R

2A

t ste

pF

ina

lR

2∅

R2

At

ste

pF

inal

R2

∅R

2A

t ste

pFin

al

R2

∅R

2

Indi

v. F

acto

rsag

e–.

31–.

33–.

03–.

01.5

3***

.46*

**.1

5.1

9ge

nder

–.05

–.07

–.08

–.05

–.25

***

–.22

***

.05

–.01

high

est

educ

qua

lific

–.15

**–.

15**

–.02

–.04

.06

.05

–.11

*–.

10ye

ars

expe

rien

ce.4

1**

.40*

*.3

0.2

8–.

24–.

18–.

19–.

19no

man

agem

ent

–.18

***

–.20

***

.08*

**.0

8***

–.26

***

–.23

***

.17*

**.1

7***

–.29

***

–.20

***

.34*

**.3

4***

.07

.01

.02

.02

Sup

ervi

sor

Fact

ors

age

–.02

–.01

.06

.06

.19*

**.1

6***

–.02

.00

gend

er.0

8.0

9–.

03–.

01–.

07–.

10*

.27*

**.2

4***

supe

rvis

ion

.16*

*.1

5**

.11*

**.0

3**

–.16

**–.

14**

.19*

**.0

2*.0

2.0

1.3

8***

.04*

**–.

09.0

0.1

0***

.08*

**

Empl

oyab

ility

a

oc e

xper

tise

–.01

–.01

–.29

***

–.29

***

.04

.04

–.08

–.08

antic

& o

pt.0

4.0

4.0

9.0

9–.

08–.

08–.

20**

–.20

**pe

rs f

lex

–.08

–.08

.04

.04

.04

.04

.33*

**.3

3***

corp

sen

se.0

5.0

5.1

9**

.19*

*.2

0**

.20*

*–.

13–.

13ba

lanc

e–.

03–.

03.1

2***

.00

–.07

–.07

.23*

**.0

3**

–.06

–.06

.41*

**.0

3**

–.09

–.09

.15*

**.0

5***

Ove

rall

F=

2.72

dfs

13,2

70O

vera

ll F

= 6.

04df

s13

,269

Ove

rall

F=

13.7

0df

s13

,260

Ove

rall

F=

3.79

dfs

13,2

78

aS

up

ervi

sor

rati

ng

s.

bR

2va

lues

do

no

t al

way

s ad

d u

p b

ecau

se o

f th

e ro

un

din

g o

f n

um

ber

s.

*p<

.10.

**p

< .0

5. *

**p

< .0

1.

cIn

cas

e o

f “p

erio

ds

of

un

emp

loym

ent,”

neg

ativ

e re

lati

on

ship

s ar

e p

osi

tive

an

d v

ice

vers

a: t

he

mo

re o

f th

e co

mp

eten

ce, t

he

few

er p

erio

ds

of

un

emp

loym

ent.

TA

BL

E

VH

iera

rchi

cal R

egre

ssio

n Re

sults

: Pre

dict

ing

Obj

ectiv

e Ca

reer

Suc

cess



Jo

b S

ati

sfa

cti

on

Inte

rpers

on

al S

uccess

Fin

an

cia

l S

uccess

Hie

rarc

hic

al S

uccess

Life S

ati

sfa

cti

on

Pre

dic

tor/

Ste

pA

t ste

pFin

al

R2

�R

2A

t ste

pFin

al

R2

�R

2A

t ste

pFin

al

R2

�R

2A

t ste

pFin

al

R2

�R

2A

t ste

pFin

al

R2

�R

2

Indi

v. F

acto

rs

age

–.03

–.04

.08

.13

.23

.12

–.45

**–.

48**

–.20

–.20

gend

er–.

12**

–.10

–.08

–.10

–.05

–.06

–.09

–.00

–.07

–.04

high

edu

c. q

..0

3.0

5–.

02–.

00–.

00.0

3–.

02–.

02–.

03–.

02

year

s ex

p.1

3.1

6–.

11–.

12–.

09–.

01.2

1.2

6.1

4.1

4

no m

anag

–.14

**–.

10.0

6***

.06*

**–.

09–.

08.0

2.0

2.1

2*.1

4**

.03*

.03*

–.24

***

–.16

***

.11*

**.1

1***

–.10

*–.

09.0

2.0

2

Sup

ervi

sor

F.

age

.10

.08

.01

–.03

.16*

*.1

7**

.15*

*.1

4**

–.06

–.06

gend

er.0

5.0

3.1

6***

.14*

*.0

8.0

6–.

11*

–.11

*–.

13**

–.13

**

supe

rvis

ion

.01

.03

.07*

*.0

1.1

8***

.16*

*.0

7***

.06*

**.0

4.0

7.0

7**

.03*

*–.

11*

–.10

.14*

**.0

3**

.01

.01

.04

.02

Empl

oyab

ility

a

oc e

xper

tise

–.14

–.14

.19*

.19*

.06

.06

–.43

***

–.43

***

–.10

–.10

antic

& o

pt–.

16–.

16–.

07–.

07–.

22**

–.22

**.0

2.0

2–.

03–.

03

pers

fle

x.1

5.1

5.0

3.0

3.0

6.0

6.1

0.1

0.0

1.0

1

corp

sen

se.1

5.1

5.0

0–.

01–.

02–.

02.3

5***

.35*

**.0

6.0

6

bala

nce

.15*

*.1

5**

.11*

**.0

4**

.10

.10

.12*

**.0

5**

.03

.03

.09*

*.0

2.0

9.0

9.2

1***

.08*

**.1

6**

.16*

*.0

5.0

2

Ove

rall

F=

2.45

dfs

13,2

71O

vera

ll F

= 2.

84df

s13

,271

Ove

rall

F=

2.00

dfs

13,2

71O

vera

ll F

= 5.

56df

s13

,271

Ove

rall

F=

1.19

dfs

13,2

71

aS

up

ervi

sor

rati

ng

s.

bR

2va

lues

do

no

t al

way

s ad

d u

p b

ecau

se o

f th

e ro

un

din

g o

f n

um

ber

s.

*p<

.10

** p

< .0

5. *

**p

< .0

1.

TA

BL

E

VI

Hie

rarc

hica

l Reg

ress

ion

Resu

lts: P

redi

ctin

g Su

bjec

tive

Care

er S

ucce

ss (G

attik

er &

Lar

woo

d, 1

986)


mising between opposing employers’ inter-ests as well as one’s own opposing interests(employee) and between employers’ and em-ployees’ interests fulfills an important role.

Job satisfaction and life satisfac-tion are important outcomes foremployees in order to maintaintheir productivity in the long run(Korman, Wittig-Berman, & Lang,1981).

Implications forPractitioners

The validated employabilitymeasurement instrument offers auser-friendly opportunity forpractitioners to monitor compe-tences of the organization’s per-sonnel on a continual basis,which is helpful to plan relevantactions for the future strategy ofthe company and for other re-search objectives (such as demon-strating relationships with finan-cial outcomes; see; for example;Cascio, 2005). This will help prac-titioners in their role as strategicbusiness partners. The instrumentis simple to use and can be de-ployed throughout different sec-tors and jobs. Practitioners areable to monitor the employabilityof the employees with this instru-ment and use it in their annualperformance interviews and per-sonal development plans. The in-strument presented here has highpractical value both for managers,since it is aimed at improving ex-

isting evaluation methods used for assessingtheir subordinates, and for employees, inproviding thorough suggestions aimed at im-proving their career development.

Moreover, the instrument could be de-ployed with the objective of integrating per-formance interviews and personal develop-ment plans (see also Rodriguez et al., 2002).Differences between supervisor ratings andself-ratings could serve as a fruitful topic ofconversation. Our instrument might also be

used as a means of comparing competencesof employees in different organizationalunits or departments. The latter might leadto an improvement in recruitment, staffing,and career mobility practices.

Conclusions and Discussion

In conclusion, in the competence-based ap-proach to employability outlined in this arti-cle, employability (1) is advantageous forboth career outcomes and firm outcomes, (2)is advantageous for both present perform-ance on the job as well as career outcomes(long-term performance, implying theprocess of adaptation and learning), (3) inaddition to adaptive behavior, may includepersonal elements such as personality, atti-tudes, motivation, and ability, and (4) repre-sents the combination of specific and moregeneric competences.

The measurement of employability pre-sented in this article is based upon the ideathat some characteristics of expert perform-ance and of employability are valid regard-less of the domain of expertise of a profes-sional. The present study is explorative inthe sense that a domain-independent opera-tionalization of employability was nonexist-ent in the literature. Our study was designedin order to test the psychometric propertiesof the measures and indicates that the crite-ria of convergent and discriminant validityhave been met to a reasonable extent. A validand reliable multitrait instrument has beenachieved. The five scales appear very homo-geneous, for both the self-ratings and for thesupervisor ratings. Although employability isthought to be a multidimensional concept,the five dimensions are not fully exclusiveand represent correlated aspects of employa-bility. This is why the factor structure isoblique instead of orthogonal.

The distinctive power of the five scales,however, is satisfactory given the higher in-trascale correlations, the outcomes of themultitrait–multimethod analysis, and theSEM analyses. These results support our the-ory, which states that employability in-volves: (1) occupational expertise, (2) antici-pation and optimization, (3) personal

The validated

employability

measurement

instrument offers a

user-friendly

opportunity for

practitioners to

monitor

competences of the

organization’s

personnel on a

continual basis,

which is helpful to

plan relevant

actions for the

future strategy of

the company and

for other research

objectives.



flexibility, (4) corporate sense, and (5) bal-ance.

One limitation is that the measurementinstrument has been tested using only onesample. In the future, we will test the general-izability of our findings by applying the em-ployability theory and measurement instru-ment in other samples and professionalsectors. Another limitation of this study isthat only the influence of employability uponemployee (career) outcomes has been studiedin this contribution. Studying the relation-ship of employability with firm outcomes isthe next important step in this research proj-ect. Moreover, the cross-sectional design thatwe have used for testing the predictive valid-ity of employability for career success should,in future studies, be replaced with longitudi-nal studies to prevent reverse causation(Wright, Gardner, Moynihan, & Allen, 2005).

The predictive validity of the employa-bility measurement instrument upon objec-tive and subjective career success measureshas been demonstrated. For most career suc-cess measures, the predictive role of employ-ability is significant. All five employabilitydimensions appear to be significantly relatedto one or more of the career success meas-ures. The pattern varies for the different ca-reer success measures. In some cases, there isa negative or null relationship between theemployability dimension and the career suc-cess measure (especially in the case of occu-pational expertise and personal flexibility).Nonetheless, overall we expect that certainemployability competences indeed stimulateparticular career outcomes and consequentlypositively influence organizational out-comes. This assumption needs to be furtherexplored and tested in new studies.

Using both self-ratings and supervisorratings is of great importance. The disagree-ment between supervisors and employees onthe employability dimensions is indicative ofthe difficulty of evaluating employability.The suggestion made by Van der Heijden(2000) to use think-aloud protocols aimed atexplaining why a rater gives a particular rat-ing to a particular item might also be used inthe near future. It is possible that this tech-nique will improve the validity of the instru-

ment, albeit at the expense of the homo-geneity of the scales. If raters are asked toprovide concrete examples of performancesor behaviors of the ratees, response sets suchas the halo effect will probably be sifted out,at least to a certain extent. If raters have tojustify their choices and are encouraged tothink more carefully about their answers, thedifferentiation between item meanings willprobably increase, leading to a further in-crease in valid outcomes.

Only if ratings are explicitly based on em-pirical, verifiable observations of behaviorand performance can we use themconfidently in annual job and ca-reer assessments. The instrumentpresented here has high practicalvalue both for managers (aimed atimproving existing evaluationmethods used for assessing theirsubordinates) and for employees(in providing thorough sugges-tions aimed at improving their ca-reer development). The proposedmeasurement instrument enablesus to further investigate the rela-tionship between individual, job-related, and organizational careeractivities and characteristics onthe one hand and employabilityon the other hand. This mighteventually produce useful recom-mendations for enhancing life-long career success. Knowledgeconcerning these relationships isdesirable from both an organiza-tional and an individual perspective.

Acknowledgments

This study has been financed by NWO, Nether-lands Organization for Scientific Research, as anASPASIA-Program. This study also forms part ofa cross-cultural project, entitled Indic@tor, thathas been partly financed by the European Com-mission, IST program (project ID: IST-2000-31070). We wish to thank H. C. M. Vorst of theUniversity of Amsterdam in the Netherlands forhis elaborate contributions to the data analysis.We also thank the editor and anonymous re-viewers for helpful comments on the manuscript.

…overall we expect

that certain

employability

competences

indeed stimulate

particular career

outcomes and

consequently

positively influence

organizational

outcomes.



REFERENCES

Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). AMOS softwareand 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SmallWaters Cor-poration.

Arnold, J., & MacKenzie Daveys, K. (1992). Self-ratingsand supervisor ratings of graduate employees’ com-petences during early career. Journal of Occupa-tional and Organizational Psychology, 65, 235–250.

Athey, T. R., & Orth, M. S. (1999). Emerging compe-tency methods for the future. Human ResourceManagement, 38, 215–226.

Baerveldt, M., & Hobbs, G. (1988). Forces reshapingthe future organization and management of work:A perspective from a Canadian oil company. In R.J. Neihaus & K. F. Price (Eds.), Creating the com-petitive edge through human resource applications(pp. 47–62). New York: Plenum.

Ball, B. (1997). Career management competences—The individual perspective. Career DevelopmentInternational, 2, 74–79.

Barnett, W. P., & Miner, A. S. (1992). Standing on theshoulders of others: Career interdependence in jobmobility. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37,262–281.

Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustainedcompetitive advantage. Journal of Management,17, 99–120.

Baruch, Y. (2001). Employability: A substitute for loy-alty? Human Resource Development International,4, 543–566.

Bhaerman, R., & Spill, R. (1988). A dialogue on em-ployability skills: How can they be taught? Journalof Career Development, 15, 41–52.

Boerlijst, J. G. (1994). The neglect of growth and de-velopment of employees over 40 in organizations:A managerial and training problem. In J. Snel & R.Cremer (Eds.), Work and aging (pp. 251–271). Lon-don: Taylor & Francis Ltd.

Bolweg, J. F. (1997). De onmogelijkheid van consistentsociaal beleid [The impossibility of a consistent so-cial policy]. Deventer: Kluwer.

Bolweg, J. F., & Maenhout, J. M. M. (1995). Full em-ployability: Economisch noodzakelijk, sociologischnaïef? [Full employability: Economic necessity, so-ciologic naïveté?]. In L. Faase, M. Ott, & C. J. Vos(Eds.), Nieuwe breukvlakken in het arbeidsbestel?(pp. 92–99). Utrecht: De Tijdstroom.

Borman, W. C. (1974). The rating of individuals in or-ganizations: An alternative approach. Organiza-


CLAUDIA M. VAN DER HEIJDE is an assistant professor in the Department of Manage-ment and Organization of the Faculty of Economics and Business Administration at theVrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands. She holds an M. A. in psychology fromthe University of Amsterdam. After her studies, she worked as a researcher and con-sultant for profit and nonprofit organizations on HRM and diversity issues. Her area ofexpertise is quantitative research, particularly the development of questionnaires andmeasurement instruments. She also built a substantial amount of expertise working forlarge research projects funded by the European Social Fund (ESF), such as IST andEqual. She is also affiliated with the University of Twente, the Netherlands, in the HRMdepartment of the School of Business, Public Administration, and Technology, where shestarted her PhD research on employability and age management.

BEATRICE I. J. M.VAN DER HEIJDEN is working as the director of research and doctoral pro-grams at the Maastricht School of Management in the Netherlands. She is also head of theDepartment of Organizational Behavior. She holds a chair in strategic HRM at the Open Uni-versity of the Netherlands and is also affiliated with the University of Twente, the Nether-lands, in the HRM department of the School of Business, Public Administration, and Tech-nology. Her main research areas are career development, employability, and aging at work.Currently, she is coordinating two European cross-cultural research projects on career out-comes and their individual, job-related and organizational predictor variables. She servesas a member of the editorial boards of Ergonomia, Gedrag en Organisatie, Personeelbeleid,SAM, Advanced Management Journal, and Systems Practice and Action, and is a guest ed-itor for several journals in the field of HRM and work and organizational psychology.


tional Behavior and Human Performance, 12,105–124.

Boselie, P., & Pauwe, J. (2004). Human resource man-agement en prestatieverbetering: Een overzichtvan 10 jaar onderzoek [Human resource manage-ment and performance improvement: A review of10 years’ research]. Unpublished paper.

Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., & Judge, T. A. (2001).Effects of personality on executive career successin the United States and Europe. Journal of Voca-tional Behavior, 58, 53–81.

Boxall, P. (1999). The strategic HRM debate and the re-source-based view of the firm. In R. S. Schuler & S.E. Jackson (Eds.), Strategic human resource man-agement (pp. 73–89). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Busi-ness.

Campbell, D. J., & Lee, C. (1988). Self-appraisal in per-formance evaluation: Development versus evalua-tion. Academy of Management Review, 13,302–314.

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent anddiscriminant validation by the multitrait-multi-method matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2),81–105.

Capelli, P., & Crocker-Hefter, A. (1996). Distinctivehuman resources are firms’ core competencies.Organizational Dynamics, 24(3), 7–22.

Cascio, W. F. (2005). From business partner to drivingbusiness success: The next step in the evolution ofHR management. Human Resource Management,44, 159–163.

Chapman, G. M., & Martin, J. F. (1995). Computerizedbusiness games in engineering education. Com-puters & Education, 25(1/2), 67–73.

Cheng, E. W. L., & Ho, D. C. K. (2001). The influence ofjob and career attitudes on learning motivationand transfer. Career Development International, 6,20–27.

Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organiza-tions. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462.

Cronbach, L. J. (1990). Essentials of psychologicaltesting. New York: HarperCollins.

Cudeck, R., & Browne, M. W. (1993). Alternative waysof assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. ScottLong (Eds.), Testing structural equation models(pp. 1–9). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

DeFillippi, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1996). Boundarylesscontexts and careers: A competency-based per-spective. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.),The boundaryless career: A new employment prin-ciple for a new organizational era (pp. 116–131).New York: Oxford University Press.

De Grip, A., Van Loo, J., & Sanders, J. (2004). The in-dustry employability index: Taking account of sup-ply and demand characteristics. InternationalLabour Review, 143, 211–233.

De Groot, A. D. (1961). Methodologie. Grondslagenvan onderzoek en denken in de gedragsweten-schappen [Methodology. Foundations of researchand thinking in the behavioral sciences]. DenHaag: Uitgeverij Mouton.

De Haan, E. G., Vos, P. J., & De Jong, Ph. R. (1994).Flexibiliteit van de arbeid [Labor flexibility]. DenHaag: Welboom.

De Lange, W. A. M. (2001). Flexibilisering van de ar-beid en flexibilisering van de organisatie—Incom-patibilité des humeurs? [Labor flexibility and orga-nizational flexibility—Incompatible?]. In P. Ester, R.Muffels, & J. Schippers (Eds.), Flexibilisering, or-ganisatie en employability (pp. 40–56). Bussum:Coutinho.

Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Common methodsbias: Does common methods variance really biasresults? Organizational Research Methods, 1,374–406.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitiveapproach to motivation and personality. Psycho-logical Review, 95, 256–273.

Enders, J. (2002). Governing the academic commons:About blurring boundaries, blistering organisa-tions, and growing demands. Inaugural lecture. InThe CHEPS Inaugurals 2002, (pp. 69–105). En-schede: University of Twente.

Facteau, J. D., & Craig, S. B. (2001). Are performanceappraisal ratings obtained from different ratingsources comparable? Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 86, 215–227.

Felstead, A., & Ashton, D. N. (2000). Tracing the link:Organizational structures and skill formation.Human Resource Management Journal, 10(3),5–21.

Forrier, A., & Sels, L. (2003). The concept employabil-ity: A complex mosaic. International Journal ofHuman Resources Development and Management,3, 102–124.

Frese, M. (2000). The changing nature of work. In N.Chmiel (Ed.), Introduction to work and organiza-tional psychology (pp. 424–439). Oxford, UK:Blackwell.

Friedrichs, J. H. (2000). Personeel steeds meer rots inde branding: Employability als drijvende krachtachter veranderingen [Personnel, relying on themmore and more: Employability as driving force be-hind changes]. Gids voor Personeelsmanagement,79, 36–38.



Fugate, M., Kinicki, A. J., & Ashforth, B. E. (2004). Em-ployability: A psycho-social construct, its dimen-sions, and applications. Journal of Vocational Be-havior, 65, 14–38.

Gaspersz, J., & Ott, M. (1996). Management van em-ployability. Nieuwe kansen in arbeidsrelaties [Man-agement of employability. New opportunities inlabor relations]. Assen: Van Gorcum/Stichting Man-agement Studies.

Gattiker, U. E., & Larwood, L. (1986). Subjective careersuccess: A study of managers and support person-nel. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1, 78–94.

Gazier, B. (1990). L’Employabilité: Brève radiographied’un concept en mutation. [Employability: Shortregistration of a changing concept]. Sociologie duTravail, 32, 575–584.

Geelhoed, L. A. (1997). Flexibilisering van de arbeid,deregulering en marktwerking. [Labor flexibility,deregulation and free market mechanism]. In G.Faber & J. Schippers (Eds.), Flexibilisering van ar-beid (pp. 29–40). Bussum: Coutinho.

Guest, D. (1987). Human resource management andindustrial relations. Journal of Management Stud-ies, 24, 503–521.

Gunz, H., Evans, M., & Jalland, M. (2000). Careerboundaries in a “boundaryless world.” In M. A.Peiperl, M. B. Arthur, R. Goffee, & T. Morris (Eds.),Career frontiers: New conceptions of working lives(pp. 24–53). Oxford, UK: University Press.

Hall, D. T. (1976). Careers in organizations. Pacific Pal-isades, CA: Goodyear.

Handy, C. (1994). The age of paradox. Cambridge, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

Harris, M. M., & Schaubroeck, J. (1988). A meta-analy-sis of self-supervisor, self-peer, and peer-supervi-sor ratings. Personnel Psychology, 41, 43–62.

Harvey, L. (2001). Defining and measuring employa-bility. Quality in Higher Education, 7, 97–109.

Hennessey, H. W., Jr., & Bernardin, H. J. (2003). The re-lationship between performance appraisal criterion,specificity, and statistical evidence of discrimina-tion. Human Resource Management, 42, 143–158.

Hoeksema, L., & Paauwe, J. (1996). Employability: Deinzetbaarheid van personeel binnen en buiten deorganisatie. [Employability: The deployment of per-sonnel within and outside the organization] In A.Stads & N. Verbeek (Eds.), Human resource man-agement, een praktisch handboek voor operation-eel leidinggeven, 3 (pp. 102–132). Utrecht: Teleac.

Hoffman, C. C., Nathan, B. R., & Holden, L. M. (1991).A comparison of validation criteria: Objective ver-sus subjective performance measures and self-

versus supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology,44, 601–619.

Holzbach, R. L. (1978). Rater bias in performance rat-ings: Superior, self-, and peer ratings. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 63, 579–588.

Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confir-matory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psy-chometrika, 34, 183–202.

Kidder, L. H., & Judd, C. M. (1986). Research meth-ods in social relations. New York: CBS CollegePublishing.

Klimoski, R. J., & London, M. (1974). Role of the raterin performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 59, 445–45l.

Kluytmans, F., & Ott, M. (1999). Management of em-ployability in The Netherlands. European Journalof Work and Organizational Psychology, 8, 261–272.

Korman, A., Wittig-Berman, U., & Lang, D. (1981). Ca-reer success and personal failure: Alienation inprofessionals and managers. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 24, 342–360.

Lawler, E. E., III. (1994). From job-based to compe-tency-based organizations. Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 15, 3–15.

Legge, K. (1995). Human resource management:Rhetorics and realities. Basingstoke, UK: MacMillan.

London, M., & Greller, M. M. (1991). Demographictrends and vocational behavior: A twenty year ret-rospective and agenda for the 1990s. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 38, 125–164.

Looise, J. C. (1998). Competentiemanagement en per-soneelsmanagement. Het gevaar van oudevalkuilen en eenzijdige visies [The management ofcompetences and the management of personnel].Opleiding en Ontwikkeling, 10, 24–28.

Mabe, P., & West, S. (1982). Validity of self-evaluationof ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 67, 280–296.

Marginson, P. (1989). Employment flexibility in largecompanies: Change and continuity. Industrial Rela-tions Journal, 20, 101–109.

Marsh, H. W. (1987). The hierarchical structure of self-concept and the application of hierarchical confir-matory factor analysis. Journal of EducationalMeasurement, 24, 17–39.

Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotionalintelligence? In P. Salovey & D. Sluyter (Eds.), Emo-tional development and emotional intelligence: Im-plications for educators (pp. 3–31). New York: BasicBooks.

McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence



rather than for intelligence. American Psychologist,28, 1–14.

Mikkelsen, A., Nybø, G., & Grønhaug, K. (2002). Ex-ploring the impact of deregulation on HRM: Thecase of the Norwegian energy sector. InternationalJournal of Human Resource Management, 13,1–16.

Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1996). Twenty-first-centurycareers. In M. B. Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.),The boundaryless career: A new employment prin-ciple for a new organizational era (pp. 116–131).New York: Oxford University Press.

Mulder, M. (2001). Competence development—Somebackground thoughts. Journal of Agricultural Edu-cation and Extension, 7, 147–159.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, in-tellectual capital, and the organizational advan-tage. Academy of Management Review, 23,242–266.

Nordhaug, O., & Grønhaug, K. (1994). Competencesas resources in firms. International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 5, 89–106.

North, J., Mallabar, M., & Desrochers, R. (1988). Voca-tional preparation and employability development.Child Welfare, 67, 573–585.

Onstenk, J. H. A. M. (1997). Lerend leren werken.Brede vakbekwaamheid en de integratie tussenwerken, leren en innoveren. [Learning to learn atwork. Broad occupational competence and the in-tegration between working, learning, and innovat-ing]. Delft: Eburon.

Onstenk, J. H. A. M., & Kessels, J. (1999). Employabil-ity: Arbeidsmarkt, brede vakbekwaamheid en burg-erschap. [Employability: Labor market, broad occu-pational competence, and citizenship]. Comenius,19, 113–132.

Oosterveld, P., & Vorst, H. C. M. (1996). Testconstructieen testonderzoek. Methoden van vragenlijstcon-structie. [Test construction and test research. Meth-ods of questionnaire construction]. Amsterdam:UVA.

Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enactinga collective capability in distributed organizing. Or-ganization Science, 13, 249–273.

Paauwe, J. (1997, October 14). Zonder eerlijke ruilre-latie geen employability. [No employability withoutan honest exchange relationship]. Trouw, p. 11.

Pearson, R. W. (1988). Creating flexible careers: Someobservations on a “bridge” programme for unem-ployed professionals. British Journal of Guidanceand Counselling, 16, 250–267.

Perkins, D., & Salomon, G. (1992). Transfer of learning.

International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.).Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., &Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenshipbehaviors: A critical review of the theoretical andempirical literature and suggestions for future re-search. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563.

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core compe-tence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,68(3), 79–91.

Rodriguez, D. A., Patel, R., Bright, A., Gregory, D., &Gowing, M. K. (2002). Developing competencymodels to promote integrated human resourcepractices. Human Resource Management, 41,309–324.

Rothwell, W. J., & Lindholm, J. E. (1999). Competencyidentification, modelling and assessment in theUSA. International Journal of Training and Devel-opment, 3, 90–105.

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human compe-tence at work: An interpretative approach. Acad-emy of Management Journal, 43, 9–25.

Scarbrough, H. (1998). Path(ological) dependency?Core competencies from an organizational perspec-tive. British Journal of Management, 9, 219–232.

Schein, E. H. (1996). Career anchors revisited: Implica-tions for career development in the 21st century.Academy of Management Executive, 10(4), 80–88.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (1996). A begin-ner’s guide to structural equation modeling. NewYork: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). Asocial capital theory of career success. Academy ofManagement Journal, 44, 219–237.

Steijn, B. (2002). De komst van nieuwe productie-con-cepten en andere arbeidsrelaties: Sneltrein ofboemel? [The arrival of new production conceptsand other labor relations: Fast or slow train?]. Tijd-schrift voor HRM, 2, 7–24.

Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Successful intelligence. NewYork: Simon & Schuster.

Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Successful intelligence: Find-ing a balance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3,436–442.

Sterns, H. L., & Dorsett, J. G. (1994). Career develop-ment: A life span issue. Experimental Aging Re-search, Special Issue on Cognition, Work, Technol-ogy and Environmental Design for the Elderly, 20,257–264.

Thijssen, J. G. L. (1996). Leren, leeftijd en loopbaan-perspectief. Opleidingsdeelname door oudere per-



soneelsleden als component van human resourcedevelopment [Learning, aging and careerprospect]. Unpublished doctoral thesis, CatholicUniversity Brabant.

Thijssen, J. G. L., & Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2003).Employability in the focus of attention. In M. J.Morley, P. Gunnigle, N. Heraty, J. Pearson, H.Shiekh, & S. Tiernan (Eds.), Exploring the mosaic:Developing the discipline (pp. 229–239). Dublin: In-teresource Group Limited.

Thornton, G. C., III. (1980). Psychometric properties ofself-appraisals of job performance. Personnel Psy-chology, 33, 263–271.

Thornton, G. C., III, & Byham, W. C. (1982). Assess-ment centers and managerial performance. NewYork: Academic Press.

Valverde, M., Tregaskis, O., & Brewster, C. (2000).Labor flexibility and firm performance. Interna-tional Advances in Economic Research, 6, 649–661.

Van Beckhoven, G.M. (1997, June). Employability enloopbaan. [Employability and career]. NIVE Man-agement Magazine, pp. 15–19.

Van Dam, K. (2004). Antecedents and consequencesof employability orientation. European Journal ofWork and Organizational Psychology, 13, 29–51.

Van Dam, K., & Thierry, H. (2000). Mobiliteit in per-spectief: Een overzicht van onderzoek rond de mo-biliteit van personeel. [Mobility in perspective: Areview of studies on the mobility of personnel].Gedrag & Organisatie, 13, 29–50.

Van der Heijde, C. M., & Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M.(2005). The development and psychometric evalua-tion of a multi-dimensional measurement instru-ment of employability—and the impact of ageing. InG. Costa, W. J. A. Goedhard, & J. Ilmarinen (Eds.),Assessment and promotion of work ability, healthand well-being of ageing workers. Proceedings ofthe 2nd International Symposium on Work Ability,Verona, Italy, October 18–20, 2004. InternationalCongress Series (ICS) 1280. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2000). The developmentand psychometric evaluation of a multidimen-sional measurement instrument of professional ex-pertise. High Ability Studies, 11, 9–39.

Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2005, September 30). Noone has ever promised you a rose garden. Onshared responsibility and employability enhancingpractices throughout careers. Inaugural lecture,MSM/OU. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., & Thijssen, J. G. L. (2003).Editorial: HRD and employability. InternationalJournal of Human Resources Development andManagement, 3, 99–101.

Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., & Verhelst, N. D. (2002).The psychometric evaluation of a multi-dimen-sional measurement instrument of professional ex-pertise. Results from a study in small and medium-sized enterprises in the Netherlands. EuropeanJournal of Psychological Assessment, 18, 165–178.

Van der Heijden, Th. J., Volz, A. B., Reidinga, H. F., &Schutte, R. J. (2001). Competentiemanagement.Van belofte naar verzilvering [Management ofcompetences]. Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom/NVP.

Van der Krogt, F. J. (1998). Learning network theory:The tension between learning systems and worksystems in organizations. Human Resource Devel-opment Quarterly, 9, 157–177.

Van Lammeren, C. (1999). De veranderende betekenisvan employability [The changing meaning of em-ployability]. Gids voor de Opleidingspraktijk, 28,1–23.

Versloot, A. M., Glaudé, M. Th., & Thijssen, J. G. L.(1998). Employability: Een pluriform arbeidsmarkt-fenomeen [Employability: A multiform job marketphenomenon]. Amsterdam: Max Goote/ Synopsis.

Weick, K. E. (1996). Enactment and the boundarylesscareer: Organizing as we work. In M. B. Arthur & D.M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless career: Anew employment principle for a new organiza-tional era (pp. 40–57). Oxford, UK: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Wood, R. E., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of concep-tions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms andcomplex decision making. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 56, 407–415.

Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., & Allen,M. R. (2005). The relationship between HR prac-tices and firm performance: Examining causalorder. Personnel Psychology, 58, 409–446.

Wright, P. M., McMahan, G. C., & McWilliams, A.(1994). Human resources and sustained competi-tive advantage: A resource-based perspective. In-ternational Journal of Human Resource Manage-ment, 5, 301–326.

Wright, P. M., & Snell, S. A. (1998). Toward a unifyingframework for exploring fit and flexibility in strate-gic human resource management. Academy ofManagement Review, 23, 756–772.




Occupational Expertise

1. I consider myself competent to engage in in-depth, specialist discussions in my job domain.

2. During the past year, I was, in general, competent to perform my work accurately and with few mistakes.

3. During the past year, I was, in general, competent to take prompt decisions with respect to my approachto work.

4. I consider myself competent to indicate when my knowledge is insufficient to perform a task or solve aproblem.

5. I consider myself competent to provide information on my work in a way that is comprehensible.

6. In general, I am competent to distinguish main issues from side issues and to set priorities.

7. During the past year, I was, in general, competent to carry out my work independently.

8. I consider myself competent to be of practical assistance to colleagues with questions about the approachto work.

9. I consider myself competent to weigh up and reason out the “pros” and “cons” of particular decisions onworking methods, materials, and techniques in my job domain.

10. Overall, how do you see yourself in terms of your work performance?

11. How much confidence do you have in your capacities within your area of expertise?

12. How would you rate the quality of your skills overall?

13. What proportion of your work would you say you brought to a successful conclusion in the past year?

14. I have a ___ opinion of how well I performed in the past year.

15. During the past year, how sure of yourself have you felt at work?

Anticipation and Optimization

1. How much time do you spend improving the knowledge and skills that will be of benefit to your work?

2. I take responsibility for maintaining my labor market value.

3. I approach the development of correcting my weaknesses in a systematic manner.

4. I am focused on continuously developing myself.

5. I consciously devote attention to applying my newly acquired knowledge and skills.

6. In formulating my career goals, I take account of external market demand.

7. During the past year, I was actively engaged in investigating adjacent job areas to see where successcould be achieved.

8. During the past year, I associated myself with the latest developments in my job domain.

Personal Flexibility

1. How easily would you say you can adapt to changes in your workplace?

2. How easily would you say you are able to change organizations, if necessary?

3. I adapt to developments within my organization.

4. How quickly do you generally anticipate and take advantage of changes in your working environment?

5. How quickly do you generally anticipate and take advantage of changes in your sector?

6. How much variation is there in the range of duties you aim to achieve in your work?

7. I have a ______(very negative-very positive) attitude to changes in my function.

8. I find working with new people __________ (very unpleasant-very pleasant).

(continued)

A P P E N D I X A



Corporate Sense

1. I am involved in achieving my organization’s/department’s mission.

2. I do that extra bit for my organization/department over and above my direct responsibilities.

3. I support the operational processes within my organization.

4. In my work, I take the initiative in sharing responsibilities with colleagues.

5. In my organization, I take part in forming a common vision of values and goals.

6. I share my experience and knowledge with others.

7. How much influence do you exercise within your organization?

Balance

1. I suffer from work-related stress.

2. My work and private life are evenly balanced.

3. My working, learning, and living are in harmony.

4. My work efforts are in proportion to what I get back in return (e.g., through primary and secondary condi-tions of employment, pleasure in work).

5. The time I spend on my work and career development on the one hand and my personal developmentand relaxation on the other are evenly balanced.

6. I achieve a balance in alternating between a high degree of involvement in my work and a more moderateone at the appropriate moment.

7. After working, I am generally able to relax.

8. I achieve a balance in alternating between reaching my own work goals and supporting my colleagues.

9. I achieve a balance in alternating between reaching my own career goals and supporting my colleagues.

A P P E N D I X A (continued)

Documents

A COMPETENCE-BASED AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL OPERATIONALIZATION …€¦ · OPERATIONALIZATION AND MEASUREMENT OF EMPLOYABILITY CLAUDIA M. VAN DER HEIJDE AND BEATRICE I. J. M. VAN DER