DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT BLEKINGE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Master Thesis MBA Program TITLE Trust Related Behavior and Person-Job Fit Among University Graduates in Europe: Evidence from REFLEX Survey Tutor Ossi Pesämaa Examiner Urban Ljungquist Authors: Sanjar Nazarov Isak Olevic Surayo Ziyadullaeva Version Feb 15 th , 2015 Key Words: trust, over education, skills, mismatch, fit model
89
Embed
Trust Related Behavior and Person-Job Fit Among University Graduates in Europe
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT
BLEKINGE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Master Thesis MBA Program
TITLE
Trust Related Behavior and Person-Job Fit Among University Graduates in Europe: Evidence from REFLEX Survey
Tutor Ossi Pesämaa
Examiner Urban Ljungquist
Authors: Sanjar Nazarov
Isak Olevic Surayo Ziyadullaeva
Version Feb 15th, 2015
Key Words: trust, over education, skills, mismatch, fit model
2
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the preconditions of trust. Using a sample of more
than 13,000 university graduates in Europe, the impact of competence mismatch on trust-related
behavior (designated below as trust) is investigated. The existing literature estimates the overall
impact of skills matches on job outcomes, while this study explores the links between nineteen
skills/competencies and trust. Theoretical analyses are grounded in one of the mainstays of
management studies: a “fit theory” that conjectures that the performance of an individual is
driven by the extent to which the environment is congruent with that individual’s personal
characteristics. Using simple logistic regression analysis, we find a non-monotonic link between
competence mismatch and trust-related behavior. The effects of underskilling on trust is stronger
in comparison to a surplus of required skills and competencies.
3
Acknowledgements
We want to thank Marie Aurell, Ossi Pesämaa and Urban Ljungquist for their valuable assistance
during the entire thesis work.
Furthermore, we would like to thank our families and friends for their support and
encouragement throughout. For any errors or inadequacies that may remain in this work, of
3.1 Research approach ........................................................................................................................... 29
3.2 Questionnaire and measurements .................................................................................................. 33
3.2.1 Individual and job-related outcomes ...................................................................................... 37
3.3 Descriptive statistics and distributions ........................................................................................... 40
4. RESULTS AND MAIN FINDINGS ......................................................................................................................... 46
4.1 Simple correlation analysis and baseline specification .................................................................. 46
4.2 Trust and skill/competence mismatches ........................................................................................ 52
4.3 The indirect effects of competence mismatches on trust ............................................................. 57
5. CONCLUSION: POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND AVENUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ......................................................... 58
where b0 is the intercept of the function, and X represents determinants of the response
variable (Hosmer and Lameshow, 1989).
Lee et al. (2006) define the logistic approach as the probability dispersion of y
considering the vector of control of the X variables.
Where are the coefficients to be calculated, and is the sigmoid.
Our dependent variable is trust, which is coded = 1 if a person reports trust-related
behavior, and zero otherwise. The binary nature of this factor provides us with the traditional
equation
trusti=a0+a1X1+a2X2 + E
where logit is the dependent variable, trust; X1 and X2 a set of control variables.
In this study, we follow previous studies in the human resource and management
literature and calculate the basic logistic function where determinants of trust are individual and
job-related factors (e.g., Pohlman and Leitner, 2003). To answer our research question, we
follow the recommendations provided in Chen et al., Regression with Stata.
3.2 Questionnaire and measurements
One common approach in the literature is the use of survey data. Such data offers a large
number of advantages:
- Flexibility
- Anonymity
- Quality control
34
- Large-scale accessibility in many countries
Still, among the major drawbacks of survey data are the possibility of low response rates,
limited sampling, and the fact that the survey data is a snapshot of a population at a specific point
in time. Results based on such calculations can be very sensitive to changes over time and to
trends.
However, survey data is the most widely used data in the empirical literature.
In this study we base our analysis on the REFLEX survey of individuals in a number of
European countries and in Japan. The master questionnaire consists of fourteen pages and is
limited to individuals who graduated in 1999 or 2000.
Fisher (2007) distinguishes between two different types of questionnaire. First, there are
questionnaires in which the answers have already been provided. These are called pre-coded
questionnaires. The second type of questionnaire is one where a responder must fill in the
answers in his or her own words. These are called open questionnaires.
The REFLEX survey questionnaire consists of both open-ended and pre-coded questions.
The main advantage of this questionnaire is that it has been used in numerous influential studies
in economics and human resources management.
For example, Kucel and Vilalta-Bufi (2013) use this survey to explore the job satisfaction
of drivers in Spain. The study finds that, in a sample of more than 1,700 respondents, the lack of
a challenging job or leisure time as well as other factors have a negative impact on well-being.
Using REFLEX survey data, Arthur (2010) concludes that “UK undergraduates spend
less time on higher education and feel less well-prepared for work immediately after graduation
than those in most other European countries”.
35
Allen and van der Velden (2010) report that the survey can be used to track labor market
trends and moods in European countries. The survey provides a rich set of questions on prior
experience, academic performance, and the current labor market status.
Sanchez-Sanchez and McGuinness (2013) explore the impact of mismatches on wages
and job satisfaction in Europe. Unlike other surveys, the REFLEX survey offers self-reported
levels of competence for eighteen different types of skills. This makes our investigation more
valuable and precise, since we do not aggregate mismatches.
This survey gives our work significant academic value because it increases the reliability,
validity, and generalizability of our results. The questionnaire is divided into several parts:
Part A – Study program you graduated from in 1999/2000
Part B – Other educational and related experiences
Part C – Transition from study to work
Part D – First job after graduation
Part E – Employment history and current situation
Part F – Current work
Part G – Work organization
Part H – Competencies
Part I – Evaluation of study program
Part J – Values and orientations
Part K – About yourself
In accordance with previous literature, the dependent variable is trust-related behavior.
Individuals were asked to what extent professional colleagues rely on him/her as an authoritative
source of advice on a 5-point Likert scale (1 – not at all, 5 – to a very high extent). We generate a
36
dichotomous variable, trust, that takes a value of 1 if a respondent replied with a 4 or 5, and zero
otherwise (see Table 5 for a description of the variable). Only 18% of respondents stated that
colleagues rely on them as an alternative source of advice, while 4% state that colleagues have
no professional trust in them (Table 2).
Table 2. Distribution of trust in Europe Total sample N % of total Professional colleagues rely on me as an authoritative source of advice:
1 not at all 1,16 4.25 2 2,86 10.42 3 7,93 27.89 4 10,51 38.29 5 to a very high extent 4,98 18.16
Source: Authors’ elaboration
In order to test Hypothesis 1, we generate a set of dichotomous variables based on the
replies to the questions “How do you rate your own level of competence?” (own) and “What is
the required level of competence in your current work” (required). We distinguish between a
reported surplus of competencies (surplus: when the difference between “own” and “required” is
2 or above) and a deficit (deficit: when the difference between “own” and “required” is -2 or
below) of competencies. In this study, we assess nineteen competencies ranging from analytical
thinking to an ability to use computers and the internet (Table 3).
Table 3. The competencies under evaluation.
Type of competency Mastery of your own field or discipline Knowledge of other fields or disciplines Analytical thinking Ability to rapidly acquire new knowledge
37
Ability to negotiate effectively Ability to perform well under pressure Alertness to new opportunities Ability to coordinate activities Ability to use time efficiently Ability to work productively with others Ability to mobilize the capacities of others Ability to make your meaning clear to others Ability to assert your authority Ability to use computers and the internet Ability to come up with new ideas and solutions Willingness to question your own and others’ ideas Ability to present products, ideas or reports to an audience Ability to write reports, memos or documents Ability to write and speak in a foreign language
Source: REFLEX Survey
We now turn to a discussion of outcome factors as determinants of trust. Based on the
literature of human resources management, we derive two sets of factors that influence trust:
individual and job-related outcomes.
3.2.1 Individual and job-related outcomes
The first measure of outcomes is gender. Gender is an important aspect in labor market
outcomes. Specifically, it has effects on resignations, earnings, and trust (e.g., Goldin, 2014).
Female is the binary variable indicating whether an individual is female (= 1) or male (= 0). In
our study, 58% of the individuals are female, with a mean age 30.8 years.
The next outcome variable is children in the household. Children is a binary variable that
takes a value of 1 if the respondent has children and zero otherwise. According to the summary
statistics of our sample, only 25.7% of respondents have at least one child.
Marital status is also a significant factor in the human resources literature (e.g., Bardasi
and Taylor, 2008). The binary variable married takes a value of 1 if an individual is currently
38
living with a partner. According to the REFLEX survey, 38% of the respondents are reported to
be single. The mean age of the respondents in our sample is 31 years and the standard deviation
is 4.9 (see Table 4).
Current level of education is measured by a program of study that grants access to
postgraduate studies (= 1), and zero otherwise. Tenure is the duration of contract at the current
job in months. Public is a binary variable that takes a value of 1 if the respondent works in the
public sector, zero otherwise. Additionally, we control for training experience, wages, workload,
and type of contract (see Table 4, for descriptive statistics). Based on the calculations in Figure
7, 79% of the respondents have permanent jobs, 64% have received job-related training during
the past year, and almost two-thirds are married. An overall incidence of overeducation is
reported by 14% of the individuals surveyed (Figure 7). For descriptions of the variables, see
Table 5.
Table 4. Summary statistics of key variables
Variable Mean SD Min Max Trust 0.56 0.49 0 1 Permanent job contract 0.79 0.40 0 1 Received training last year 0.64 0.48 0 1 Hours of work, standardized 0 1 -3.88 9.55 Has at least one child 0.26 0.44 0 1 Female 0.59 0.49 0 1 Married 0.59 0.49 0 1 Educational level 0.62 0.48 0 1 Public job 0.40 0.49 0 1 Tenure 42.26 38.48 0 491 Wages, standardized 0 1 -1.62 56 Age 31.00 4.95 25 100
39
Figure 7. Incidence of on-the-job training, overeducation, marriage, and permanency of job
Source: Authors’ elaboration
40
Table 5. Variable descriptions Variable Description Trust 1 if respondent replied 4 or 5 on “Professional
colleagues rely on me as an authoritative source of advice”, 0 otherwise
Age Age of individual Marital status How do you live at present? 1 if with partner, 0
otherwise Female 1 if respondent is female, 0 otherwise Children 1 if respondent has at least 1 child, 0 otherwise Training 1 if respondent received training in the last 12
months, 0 otherwise Educational level 1 if the study program grants access to post-
graduate studies, 0 otherwise Tenure Duration of work experience at current job in
months Wages, standardized Gross hourly wages measured in euros Public 1 if individual works in the public sector, 0
otherwise Workload, standardized Working hours at current job Permanent Type of contract, 1 if permanent, 0 otherwise Supervision 1 if individual supervises, 0 otherwise Source: Authors’ elaboration
3.3 Descriptive statistics and distributions
Here we present descriptive statistics for the key variables. As was mentioned above, the
REFLEX survey covers a number of European countries. The largest share of individuals
interviewed (20%) comes from the Czech Republic, while the smallest group of respondents
(2%), comes from Portugal (Figure 8). As it can be seen from Figure 9, aggregated on the level
of countries, the highest mean level of trust is observed in Austria, while the lowest level of trust
is found among respondents from Belgium. We also find that the range of variations in the levels
of trust differ significantly from country to country.
41
Figure 8. Distribution of respondents in the REFLEX survey
Source: Authors’ elaboration
Figure 9. Levels of trust in Europe
Source: REFLEX dataset, authors’ elaboration
Figure 10 shows the mean levels of trust in Europe broken down on the basis of gender.
The first striking observation is that in all of the countries surveyed, the levels of trust people feel
42
for men is higher in comparison to the levels of trust they feel for women. The mean level of
trust among Austrian males is almost 0.9 in comparison to 0.39 among females in Belgium.
Figure 10. Gender-based levels of trust in Europe
Source: REFLEX dataset, authors’ elaboration
Our key variable of interest is a competence and skills mismatch. Figure 10 provides the
distribution of skills and deficits among university graduates in Europe based on the answers
reported in the REFLEX questionnaire. We designed Figure 11 to indicate the difference
between “Required level of skill/competence in current work” and the self-reported level. Based
on the distribution, 45% of graduates in Europe have excess foreign language skills, and among
40% of these respondents, their work does not utilize their competence in questioning their own
and others’ ideas.
In contrast, around 25% of the individuals surveyed state that they lack an ability to use
time efficiently, while 16% report a deficit in the ability to work under pressure.
43
Farooq (2006) highlights the fact that many business ventures carefully evaluate the
financial assets that they possess; however, they fail to measure one of the most vital assets,
namely, time. Time management is one of the pillars of efficiency. The ability of individuals to
allocate time efficiently is an indicator of organizational commitment and well-developed work
habits. Management studies report that because individuals strive to be promoted within the work
environment, they are required to have skills in surplus. A review of the management literature
provides several variables that are related to improvements in time management within an
organization:
- Time management is largely based on the habits of the individual
- Effective communication increases time management
- Goals and targets allow one to allocate resources (time) better
- The ranking of priorities is vital
- Procrastination produces a deterioration in time management
Time management has an indirect impact on individuals since it leads to a higher level of
self-reported job satisfaction. Another factor that is significantly related to job satisfaction and
efficiency is the ability to perform under stress/pressure. Emm et al. (2008) define stress as an
emotional condition that arises when one does not have the power to resolve requirements. It is
shown that there is a direct link between productivity and pressure. Yet the link between stress
and efficiency is not monotonic. Overwhelming stress increases aggression and tension among
colleagues and causes individuals to make mistakes, whereas tolerable levels of stress increase
effort and productivity. The literature that examines stress from the perspective of social studies
dates back to Selye (1964), who describes stress as the “natural degeneration of the body and as
the non-specific response of the body to any demand”. A study aimed at investigating the effects
44
of stress on well-being in a sample of 400 employees shows that stress has negative links to
satisfaction and productivity. Indeed, trust and cooperation are positively associated with job
satisfaction.
Figure 11. Distribution of skills among university graduates
Figure 12 shows the distribution of skills based on a gender breakdown. We can see that
overall women report higher levels of deficits in language skills and a willingness to question
ideas. Turning to men, we see that the two skills that demonstrate the highest deficits are
computer skills and a willingness to question ideas.
Surplus of skill or competence
Deficit of skill or competence
45
We now turn to a discussion of primary pairwise correlations among our factors. As it
can be seen from the data, the highest correlations between our measures of trust and factors of
trust are found with type of contract, workload, and tenure – above 10% in each case (Appendix,
Table 1). Our primary analysis shows that, other things being equal, job-related factors are
associated positively with trust. We also find that women are less trusted in comparison to men.
One of the most striking findings is that the level of education has one of the lowest correlations
with trust. On the other hand, men report a higher surplus in time management skills in
comparison to women.
Figure 12. Distribution of skills matches based on gender
46
Indeed, a primary review of the data shows that there is a highly diverse distribution of
skills mismatches in the EU market, something that highlights the importance of exploring
separately the effects of each skill on trust.
4. RESULTS AND MAIN FINDINGS
As mentioned in previous sections, there are a number of ways in which to pursue
research objectives. One of the easiest and most direct steps is the simple correlation analysis
described below.
4.1 Simple correlation analysis and baseline specification
In this section, we attempt to establish a simple association between our measure of trust
and a set of variables that indicate mismatches for eighteen skills supplied by means of the
REFLEX survey. Table 6 provides the matrix of correlation. First, it is striking that any deviation
from a fit between the supply of skills and the demand for skills is negatively correlated with our
measure of trust. The highest correlation between trust and mismatches is observed for a surplus
in the ability to write reports and memos. The lowest association is between trust and a surplus in
the knowledge of other fields and disciplines. The value of correlation is -0.014. On the other
hand, the significance of these correlations might be reduced after we take into account the
indirect effects of mismatches through job outcomes and personal characteristics such as
education, gender, tenure, or workload. In the next section we will build up our logistic model by
introducing socio-economic and job-related factors.
47
On the other hand, such correlations may not indicate that mismatches between the skills
will have negative effects on trust in reality (Bessler, 2010; Kwon and Bessler, 2011). To address
this issue, we will proceed with an investigation using basic linear regression.
Table 6. Correlation matrix between trust and the skills mismatches
Type of competency Deficit Surplus Mastery of your own field or discipline -0.08 -0.08 Knowledge of other fields or disciplines -0.05 -0.01 Analytical thinking -0.05 -0.07 Ability to rapidly acquire new knowledge -0.06 -0.05 Ability to negotiate effectively -0.03 -0.05 Ability to perform well under pressure -0.09 -0.03 Alertness to new opportunities -0.04 -0.04 Ability to coordinate activities -0.04 -0.05 Ability to use time efficiently -0.03 -0.05 Ability to work productively with others -0.04 -0.04 Ability to mobilize the capacities of others -0.03 -0.04 Ability to make your meaning clear to others -0.05 -0.04 Ability to assert your authority -0.05 -0.01 Ability to use computers and the internet -0.03 -0.04 Ability to come up with new ideas and solutions -0.03 -0.07 Willingness to question your own and others’ ideas -0.02 -0.06 Ability to present products, ideas or reports to an audience -0.04 -0.03 Ability to write reports, memos or documents -0.03 -0.08 Ability to write and speak in a foreign language -0.01 -0.01
Source: Authors’ elaboration
We will calculate a baseline logit function where the dependent variable, trust, is
regressed on outcome factors (age, gender, number of children, marital status, and level of
education) (Model 1). This is very important because we must first establish the effects of
outcomes on trust-related behavior. This step allows us to control for possible factors that are
omitted if trust is regressed on the mismatch variables in a two-factor model. Most importantly,
this will allow us to test Hypothesis 1, which conjectures that outcomes have effects on trust.
48
Table 7 provides the effects of personal outcomes (gender, education stock, age, etc.).
The results show that the coefficient of the variable female has a negative sign, indicating that
being female reduces trust-related behavior in an enterprise. This is not surprising, since this has
been supported by a number of studies, e.g., Sheehan (1999), who shows that trust concerns are
greater among females. Moreover, being married increases the likelihood of being an
authoritative source of advice for colleagues. In Model 1, trust is an increasing function of age.
The results show that expertise proxied by age, education, and marital status is positively linked
with trust. On the other hand, it is important to control for the U-shaped links between age and
trust. Ermish et al. (2009), Frijters and Beaton (2012), and Tiefenbach and Kohlbacher (2010)
show that age has non-monotonic effects on trust.
In Model 2 we account for the well-known U-shaped link between age and trust. As
previous studies have shown, the links between age and labor market outcomes (such as
satisfaction) are nonlinear. Using the methodology of empirical studies, we included age and age
squared/100) to calculate the nonlinear impact of age. Model 2 shows that trust-related behavior
among colleagues decreases when an individual is very young (in the very early stage of his or
her career) and very old.
Table 7. Pooled calculations of trust
Model 1 Model 2 children -0.007
(0.007) -0.01 (0.008)
female -0.09*** (0.006)
-0.09*** (0.006)
married 0.03*** (0.006)
0.03*** (0.006)
educational level 0.05*** (0.006)
0.04*** (0.006)
49
age 0.006*** (0.00)
0.03*** (0.004)
age2 /1000 -0.33*** (0.05)
_cons 0.35*** 0.02
-0.09 (0.08)
Number of observations 25,71 25,71 Sample Pooled Pooled Note: Dependent variable: trust; standard errors in parentheses; *p<.1, **p<.05, ***p<.01
Next, we investigate the links between trust and the remaining job outcomes. Building on
the findings from the previous section, we include job factors (training, hours of work, wages,
permanent, tenure, public job) in our calculations (Table 8).
We find that the level of education has a positive impact on trust. Colleagues exhibit
more trust toward individuals whose programs provided access to post-graduate studies. This is
in line with Hakhverdian and Mayne (2012), in which the authors show that education has a
positive impact on institutional trust. Workload, professional training in the past 12 months, and
tenure increase trust-related behavior among employees.
Weaver, G. R., Treviño, L. K., and Agle, B. (2005). ― Somebody I Look Up To: Ethical
Role Models in Organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 34, 313-330.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Yamagishi, T., Yamagishi, M.: Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan.
Motivation and Emotion 18 (1994) 129-166.
Zucker, L. G.: Production of Trust: Institutional Sources of Economic Structure, 1840-
1920. In Staw, B. M., Cummings, L. L. (eds.): Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 6. JAI
Press, Greenwich, CN (1986) 53-111
Pecoraro, Marco. "Is There Still a Wage Penalty for Being Overeducated But Well-matched in Skills? A Panel Data Analysis of a Swiss Graduate Cohort."LABOUR (2014).
Muysken, Joan, and Bastiaan Johan Weel. Overeducation, job competition and
unemployment. MERIT, Maastricht Economic Research Institute on Innovation and Technology,
1999.
Card, David, Francis Kramarz, and Thomas Lemieux (1996), Changes in the Relative
Structure of Wages and Employment: A Comparison of the United States, Canada and France,
NBER Working Paper 5487, Cambridge MA.
Bulow, Jeremy I. and Lawrence H. Summers (1986), A Theory of Dual Labor Markets
with Application to Industrial Policy, Discrimination, and Keynesian Unemployment, Journal of
Labor Economics, vol. 4, pp. 376-414.
Davis, Donald R. and Trevor A. Reeve (1997), Human Capital, Unemployment and
Relative Wages in a Global Economy, NBER Working Paper 6133, Cambridge MA.
de Groot, Henry L. F. and Anton B. T. M. van Schaik (1997), Unemployment and
Catching Up: Europe vis-à-vis the USA, De Economist, vol. 145, pp. 179-201.
Wasmer, Etienne (1999), Competition for Jobs in a Growing Economy and the
Emergence of Dualism, Economic Journal, vol. 109, pp. 349-71.
Tarvid, Alexander. "Unobserved heterogeneity in overeducation models: Is personality
more important than ability?." Procedia Economics and Finance 5 (2013): 722-731.
International Labour Office, 2013 International Labour Office, Global employment
trends for youth 2013, Report, ILO, Geneva. (2013).
Joona, Pernilla A., Nabanita D. Gupta, and Eskil Wadensjö. "Overeducation among
immigrants in Sweden: Incidence, wage effects and state dependence." IZA Journal of Migration
3.1 (2014): 9.
Sekhon, Vijay. "Over-Education of American Lawyers: An Economic and Ethical
Analysis of the Requirements for Practicing Law in the United States, The." Geo. Mason L. Rev.
14 (2006): 769.
Chiswick BR, Miller PW (2008) Why is the payoff to schooling smaller for immigrants?
Labour Econ 15(6):1317-1340
Chiswick BR, Miller PW, et al. (2010a) An explanation for the Lower Payoff to
Schooling for Immigrants. In: Ted MD (ed) The Canadian Labor Market, in Canadian
Immigration - Economic Evidence for a Dynamic Policy Environment, Montreal and Kingston:
McGill-Queen's University Press. pp 41-75
71
Chiswick BR, Miller PW (2010b) Does the Choice of Reference Levels of Education
Matter in the ORU Earnings Equation? Econ Educ Rev 29(6):1076-1085
Korpi T, Tåhlin M (2009) Educational mismatch, wages, and wage growth:
Overeducation in Sweden, 1974–2000. Labour Econ 16(2):183-193
Battu H, Peter SJ (2002) To what extent are ethnic minorities in Britain overeducated? Int
J Manpow 23(3):192-208
Li, Tianshu. "The Effect of College Education on Individual Social Trust in the United
States–An Examination of the Causal Mechanisms." (2009)
Huang, Jian, Henriëtte Maassen van den Brink, and Wim Groot. "College education and
social trust: an evidence-based study on the causal mechanisms." Social indicators research
104.2 (2011): 287-310.
Huang, Jian, Henriëtte Maassen van den Brink, and Wim Groot. "Does education
promote social capital? Evidence from IV analysis and nonparametric-bound analysis."
Empirical economics 42.3 (2012): 1011-1034.
Supjarerndee, Surattana, Yaowadee Temtanapat, and Utomporn Phalavonk. "Recruitment
filtering with personality-job fit model." Information Technology: Coding and Computing, 2002.
Proceedings. International Conference on. IEEE, 2002.
Grogan, Erin, and Peter Youngs. "Fitting in: Person-Organization, Person-Job, and
Person-Group Fit as Drivers of Teacher Mobility. Working Paper# 21."Education Policy Center,
Michigan State University (2011).
Lu, Chang-qin, et al. "Does work engagement increase person–job fit? The role of job
crafting and job insecurity." Journal of Vocational Behavior 84.2 (2014): 142-152.
Carless, Sally A. "Person–job fit versus person–organization fit as predictors of
organizational attraction and job acceptance intentions: A longitudinal study."Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology 78.3 (2005): 411-429.
Lauver, Kristy J., and Amy Kristof-Brown. "Distinguishing between employees'
perceptions of person–job and person–organization fit." Journal of Vocational Behavior 59.3
(2001): 454-470.
Chuang, Aichia, and Paul R. Sackett. "The perceived importance of person-job fit and
person-organization fit between and within interview stages." Social Behavior and Personality:
an international journal 33.3 (2005): 209-226.
72
Westerman, James W., and Linda A. Cyr. "An integrative analysis of person–
organization fit theories." International Journal of Selection and Assessment12.3 (2004): 252-
261.
Cable, Daniel M., and Kang Yang Trevor Yu. "Managing job seekers' organizational
image beliefs: The role of media richness and media credibility." Journal of Applied Psychology
91.4 (2006): 828.
Piasentin, Kelly A., and Derek S. Chapman. "Subjective person–organization fit:
Bridging the gap between conceptualization and measurement." Journal of Vocational Behavior
69.2 (2006): 202-221.
Lievens, Filip, et al. "Organizational attractiveness for prospective applicants: A person–
organisation fit perspective." Applied Psychology 50.1 (2001): 30-51.
Verquer, Michelle L., Terry A. Beehr, and Stephen H. Wagner. "A meta-analysis of
relations between person–organization fit and work attitudes."Journal of Vocational Behavior
63.3 (2003): 473-489.
Kristof-Brown, Amy L., Karen J. Jansen, and Amy E. Colbert. "A policy-capturing study
of the simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations." Journal of Applied
Psychology 87.5 (2002): 985.
Pecoraro, Marco. "Is There Still a Wage Penalty for Being Overeducated But Well-matched in Skills? A Panel Data Analysis of a Swiss Graduate Cohort."Labour (2014).
Karakurum, MÜGE. The effects of person-organization fit on employee job satisfaction,
performance and organizational commitment in a Turkish public organization. Diss. Middle East
Technical University, 2005.
Ramesh, Anuradha. "Replicating and extending job embeddedness across cultures:
Employee turnover in India and the United States." (2007).
Scroggins, Wesley A. "Antecedents and outcomes of experienced meaningful work: a
person-job fit perspective." Journal of Business Inquiry 7.1 (2008): 68-78.
Iqbal, Muhammad Tahir, Waqas Latif, and Wahab Naseer. "The impact of person job fit
on job satisfaction and its subsequent impact on employees performance." Mediterranean Journal
of Social Sciences 3.2 (2012): 523-530.
Eurostat (2012) Europe 2020 Target: Tertiary education attainment. Available at
Van Smoorenburg, M. S. M., and Rolf KW Van der Velden. "The training of school-
leavers: complementarity or substitution?." Economics of education review 19.2 (2000): 207-
217.
76
APPENDIX REFLEX Questionnaire (related questions)
MASTER QUESTIONNAIRE
• This questionnaire is about the study programme that you finished in 1999/2000. Unless explicitly indicated otherwise, the term ‘study programme’ refers to this study programme.
• If you finished more than one study programme in 1999/2000, we would like you to refer to the study programme you consider the most important for your professional development.
• Please use a black or blue pen to fill in the questionnaire. • Please mark your answer by placing a cross X in the relevant box.
Some questions allow multiple answers. Where this is the case, this is clearly indicated.
• If you would like to correct your answer, completely blacken the box, and mark the right answer. If the question requires you to fill in a number, please fill in only one digit per box.
• If the question requires you to fill in text, please use capital letters. • If you are unsure of the exact answer to some questions, please
estimate the answer to the best of your ability.
77
Please answer these questions about your current (self) employment situation ■ If you are still in the job you first held after graduation in 1999/2000, please answer these questions for the situation as it is now ■ If you have more than one job, please answer the questions for the job in which you work the highest number of hours
F1 What is your current occupation or job title? (e.g. civil engineer, lawyer, assistant accountant, nurse)
П the same as listed above for first job □ other (please specify):
F2 Please describe your current main tasks or activities. (e.g. analysing test results, making diagnoses, teaching classes,
developing a marketing plan)
□ the same as listed above for first job □ other (please specify):
F3 Are you self-employed? □ yes О no -> go to F5
F4 Are you mainly dependent on one client or several clients? □ mainly one client -> go to F6 □ several clients -> go to F6
F5 What is your current type of contract? □ unlimited term 1 1 fixed-term, for I I I months □ other (please specify):
F6 What are your average working hours?
Regular/contract hours in main employment I I I per week
Paid or unpaid average overtime in main employment I I I per week
Average hours in other paid work I I I per week
F7 What are your gross monthly earnings?
From contract hours in main employment about ! I ! I I I EURO per month
From overtime or extras in main employment about ! I ! I I I EURO per month
From other work about I I I I I I EURO per month
F8 What type of education do you feel is most appropriate for this work? □ PhD □ other postgraduate qualification □ master □ bachelor □ lower than higher education
F9 What field of study do you feel is most appropriate for this work? □ exclusively own field □ own or a related field □ a completely different field □ no particular field
F10 How much time would it take for an average graduate with the relevant
educational background to become an expert in this kind of work? □ 6 months or less □ 7 to 12 months □ 1 to 2 years П 3 to 5 years П 6 to 10 years □ more than 10 years
F11 To what extent are your knowledge and skills utilized in your current
work?
not at all 1 2 3 45 to a very high extent O O O O O
Please answer these questions about your current (self) employment situation ■ If you are still in the job you first held after graduation in 1999/2000, please answer these questions for the situation as it is now ■ If you have more than one job, please answer the questions for the job in which you work the highest number of hours
78
The following questions refer to the organization in which you are currently employed • If you are self-employed, these questions apply to yourself or, if applicable, to the organization you run
G1 When did you start working with your current employer/ start your self-
employment?
i 1 i months i i i i i (year)
G2 In what economic sector do you work? (e.g. car manufacturing, primary school, hospital)
□ the same as listed above for first job □ other (please specify):
What kind of product or service does the organization provide? (e.g. nursing patients, computer components, legal advice, scientific
research)
□ the same as listed above for first job □ other (please specify):
G3 Do you work in the public or private sector? П public sector П private non-profit sector □ private profit sector □ other (please specify):
G4 Where do you work? Town/city
Country: □ UK □ other (please specify):
G5 How strong is the competition in the market in which your organization
operates?
very weak 123 45 strong not applicable О О О О О О
G6 Does your organization compete mainly by price or by quality? mainly price 123 45 qUality not applicable О О О О О О
G7 How stable is demand in the market in which your organization
operates?
highly stable 123 45 unstable not applicable О О О О О О
G8 What is the scope of operations of your organization? □ local □ regional □ national □ international
79
H1 Below is a list of competencies. Please provide the
following information: • How do you rate your own level of competence? • What is the required level of competence in your
current work? If you are not currently employed, only fill in column A
H Competencies
B Required level in current work Very low < ......> very high
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a Mastery of your own field or discipline О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
b Knowledge of other fields or disciplines О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
c Analytical thinking О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
d Ability to rapidly acquire new knowledge О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
A Own level Very low < ...... > very high
1 2 3 4 5 7
e Ability to negotiate effectively О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
f Ability to perform well under pressure О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
g Alertness to new opportunities О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
h Ability to coordinate activities О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
i Ability to use time efficiently О О О О О О О О О О О О О О j Ability to work productively with others О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
k Ability to mobilize the capacities of others О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
l Ability to make your meaning clear to others О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
m Ability to assert your authority О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
n Ability to use computers and the internet О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
o Ability to come up with new ideas and solutions О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
p Willingness to question your own and others’ ideas О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
q Ability to present products, ideas or reports to an audience О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
r Ability to write reports, memos or documents О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
s Ability to write and speak in a foreign language О О О О О О О О О О О О О О
80
K8 How do you live at present? Alone (incl. single parent) With a partner With parents Other, please specify
K9 Do you have children? □ yes, 1 child
E7 Are you currently in paid employment? yes, I have one job (Include self-employment) yes, I have more than one job О no