Brown S.D., Lent R. (Editors). Career development and counseling: putting theory and research to work

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

166 I

NFORMATIVE

ESEARCH

seeker finds employment (employment status) as well as the quality of employ-

ment. However, there has been considerable variation in the criteria used to mea-

sure job search success. Further, there is little evidence of convergent validity

among the various criteria (Brasher & Chen, 1999). Therefore, it is important, for

research and practice, to identify the criteria of job search success because the

effectiveness of job search will depend on the criteria used to measure success

(Brasher & Chen, 1999).

Since Schwab et al. (1987) first proposed their job search model, employment

status (i.e., whether a job seeker has obtained employment) has been the most

common outcome measure used (Kanfer et al., 2001). Employment quality has

only recently been included in job search research. Over the years, a number of

other outcomes have also been studied. As a result, the criteria for job search suc-

cess have become complex and multidimensional (Brasher & Chen, 1999).

Schwab et al.’s (1987) inclusion of employment status and employment qual-

ity in their job search model suggested that job search predicts outcomes at

different stages of the search process, such as during and after search and sub-

sequent employment. Therefore, a meaningful way to classify job search out-

comes is in terms of when they occur in the job search process. For example,

some outcomes occur during the job search process itself, such as interviews

and job offers. Other outcomes are the result of job search, such as employment

status or whether the job seeker has obtained employment, and are usually re-

ferred to as employment outcomes. A number of outcomes occur only after the job

seeker has begun employment, such as job satisfaction and intention to quit,

and are usually referred to as employment quality. Job search outcomes can also

differ in terms of whether they are internal states or external events. For exam-

ple, some outcomes, such as the number of job offers received, are external to

the job seeker; others, such as psychological well-being and job satisfaction, re-

flect the internal states of the job seeker.

A meaningful way to classify the criteria of job search success, then, is in terms

of (1) when they occur during the job search process and (2) their nature (extrin-

sic versus intrinsic), resulting in the following four categories:

1. Job search outcomes (outcomes that occur during the search process).

2. Employment outcomes (outcomes that are a result of the job search).

Employment quality (outcomes that occur during employment or postentry).

4. Psychological well-being (the job seeker’s mental health throughout the job

search process).

EARCH

UTCOMES

Job search outcomes are outcomes that occur during the individual’s job search.

These outcomes can be considered extrinsic to the job seeker and include the

number of job interviews and the number of job offers that a job seeker receives

during his or her search as well as the speed with which he or she obtains em-

ployment or the length of time unemployed.

Number of Job Interviews and Offers Several studies have found a positive relation-

ship between job search intensity and the number of job interviews and job offers

received. For example, Saks and Ashforth (2000) found that (1) preparatory and

c07.qxd 8/5/04 8:57 AM Page 166

Job Search Success: A Review 167

active job search behavior, job search effort, and formal job sources were posi-

tively related to the number of job interviews; and (2) preparatory and active job

search behavior, job search effort, and informal job sources were positively re-

lated to the number of job offers. Although few studies have investigated the rela-

tionships among different outcomes, Saks and Ashforth found not only that the

number of job interviews, offers, and employment status all positively correlated,

but also

that

an increase in job search behaviors was related to more job inter-

views, more job interviews were related to more job offers, and more job offers

predicted employment status.

In their meta-analysis, Kanfer et al. (2001) found that both job search intensity

and job search effort were positively related to the number of job offers; however,

the relationship was stronger for search intensity than search effort.

Speed of Employment Research has also found that job search intensity is related

to the speed of employment or what is also referred to as the duration or amount of

time spent searching for employment (Wanberg et al., 2000, 2002). The basic idea is

that job seekers who conduct a more intense search are likely to obtain employ-

ment faster. Kanfer et al. (2001) found that job search intensity and job search ef-

fort were both negatively related to the duration of unemployment; however, the

relationship was stronger for effort measures.

MPLOYMENT

UTCOMES

Employment outcomes represent the result of an individual’s job search and refer to

whether a job seeker obtains employment and the nature of that employment in

terms of its match or fit.

Employment Status The most common outcome measure in job search research is

employment status. For example, Wanberg et al. (1999) found that higher job search

intensity was positively related to reemployment. Saks and Ashforth (1999)

found

that among recent university graduates, active job search behavior and job search

effort predicted employment status at the time of graduation, and preparatory job

search behavior predicted employment status four months after graduation.

Wanberg et al. (2000) found that networking intensity predicted employment sta-

tus, but not after controlling for job search intensity.

Although not all studies have found support for a relationship between job

search and employment, Kanfer et al. (2001) found that both job search intensity

and job search effort were positively related to employment status. The results of

moderator analyses indicated that the relationship was stronger for effort mea-

sures than measures of intensity. In addition, the relationship between job search

behavior and employment status was strongest for employed job seekers, followed

by new entrants and unemployed job seekers.

Research on job information sources has also found that job seekers are more

likely to obtain employment through the use of informal sources of information

(Granovetter, 1995). In particular, friends and personal acquaintances tend to be

the main source through which job seekers obtain employment.

Person-Job and Person-Organization Fit In a study by Allen and Keaveny (1980),

graduates who used formal sources were more likely to find jobs that were more

c07.qxd 8/5/04 8:57 AM Page 167

168 I

NFORMATIVE

ESEARCH

closely related to their college training than those who used informal sources.

This led Saks and Ashforth (1997) to speculate on the importance of fit in job

search. In a study of job information sources and work outcomes, they argued that

the criteria of a successful job search should include perceptions of P-J and P-O fit.

Their findings indicated that the use of formal job information sources was posi-

tively related to preentry perceptions of P-J and P-O fit. Further, these perceptions

mediated the relationship among job information sources and postentry job satis-

faction, intentions to quit, and actual turnover. Saks and Ashforth (2002) found

that job search behavior and career planning were positively related to preentry

perceptions of P-J and P-O fit, and career planning was also positively related to

postentry P-J fit. Finally, in a recent study by Wanberg et al. (2002), job search clar-

ity (the extent to which job seekers have clear job search objectives) was positively

related to a combined measure of perceived job and organization fit.

MPLOYMENT

UALITY

Employment quality refers to job search outcomes that occur once the job seeker as-

sumes a position and begins employment. The results of several studies, however,

have been mixed. For example, although Wanberg et al. (1999) found a significant

relationship between job search intensity and reemployment, they did not find a

significant relationship between job search intensity and job satisfaction, job im-

provement, or intentions to turnover. Wanberg et al. (2000) found that neither job

search intensity nor networking intensity was related to job satisfaction or inten-

tion to turnover. Werbel (2000) also failed to detect a significant relationship be-

tween job search intensity and job satisfaction.

Research on involuntary job loss has also failed to find significant relationships

between job search and the quality of reemployment (Kinicki, Prussia, & McKee-

Ryan, 2000). Wanberg et al. (2002), however, found that job search intensity was

related to higher intentions to turnover, perhaps because rapid employment does

not always lead to good employment. On the other hand, they found that job

search clarity was related to lower intentions to turnover.

Several studies suggest that the relationship between job search behavior and

employment quality might be more complex than simple direct relationships be-

tween job search behavior and employment outcomes. In particular, both mediation

and moderation effects might be involved. For example, as indicated earlier, Saks

and Ashforth (1997) found that preentry P-J and P-O fit perceptions mediated the

relationship between job information sources and work outcomes. Thus, job search

may only be indirectly related to employment quality (Saks & Ashforth, 2002).

In addition to mediation effects, there is also some evidence that the relation-

ship between job search and employment quality might be moderated by certain

conditions. For example, Wanberg et al. (2002) found an interaction between job

search intensity and economic need to work (financial hardship). Specifically,

job search intensity was more strongly related to job improvement for job seek-

ers who scored low on economic hardship, whereas there was no intensity-

improvement relationship for individuals who scored high on economic hardship.

Wanberg et al. (2002) suggested that job seekers who report low economic hard-

ship and engage in a highly intense search can be more selective in their job

choice and choose a better job, while job seekers who report high economic hard-

ship must accept any offer they receive.

c07.qxd 8/5/04 8:57 AM Page 168

Job Search Success: A Review 169

SYCHOLOGICAL

ELL

-B

EING

A major concern in the job search and job loss literature is the psychological

well-being of job seekers. This is especially the case in research on job loss, un-

employment, and job search interventions. It is well known that the experience

of job loss and unemployment is associated with negative physical and psycho-

logical effects, including symptoms of psychiatric disorder, distress, and depres-

sion (Hanisch, 1999; Wanberg, 1995, 1997). Unlike the other outcomes discussed

in this section, psychological well-being is not associated with a particular time

during the job search process, but rather is a pervasive, internal experience that

can occur throughout the unemployment-job search-reemployment process.

Most research on the mental health of job seekers is concerned with the expe-

rience of unemployment and how job seekers cope with it. Several studies have

considered the effect of the quality of reemployment on job seekers’ mental

health and psychological well-being (Wanberg, 1995). Some have suggested that

reemployment in an unsatisfying or low-quality job can lead to poor mental

health. Wanberg, for example, found that job seekers who were satisfied with

their new jobs showed an increase in mental health, while those who remained

unemployed or were dissatisfied with their new jobs showed no change.

There is also some evidence that job search is related to job seekers’ mental

health. That is, job seekers who cope with job loss by engaging in an intense job

search are more likely to have improved mental health, especially if they find

employment (Wanberg, 1997). On the other hand, a long period of search fol-

lowed by continued unemployment is likely to lead to decreased mental health.

Wanberg also showed that the relationship between job search and mental

health was moderated by situational control such that job search was related

to improved mental health for job seekers who believed that they had control

over the situation. However, job search was related to lower mental health for

job seekers with low situational control (i.e., those who believed that they

were not likely to find employment even if they conducted an intense job

search). This led Wanberg to conclude that a proactive job search might have ad-

verse effects in terms of lower mental health when the situation is perceived as

uncontrollable.

UMMARY

Job search research has used various criteria as indicators of job search success.

These criteria can be classified in terms of when they occur during the job search

process and whether they involve internal states or external events. In terms of

the time frame, job search criteria can be classified as:

•

Job search outcomes, or outcomes that occur during an individual’s job

search,

such as the number of job interviews and offers received.

•Employment outcomes, or the outcomes that occur once the job search is

complete.

•Employment quality outcomes, or the outcomes that the job seeker experi-

ences on the job.

• Psychological well-being, an internal state that is relevant throughout the

job search process.

c07.qxd 8/5/04 8:57 AM Page 169

170 I

NFORMATIVE

ESEARCH

In summary, job search behaviors have been found to relate to outcomes

throughout

the job search process. That is, job seekers who engage in a better (i.e.,

more intense and effortful) job search are more likely to have more interviews

and job offers, to obtain employment more rapidly, to obtain a better P-J and P-O

fit, and, ultimately, to experience improved psychological well-being. There is

also some evidence, although much weaker, that job search is related to employ-

ment quality, especially if intensity and effort are complemented by career plan-

ning (Saks & Ashforth, 2002). However, not all job search behaviors have been

linked to all of the outcomes. Thus, for the time being, we can only conclude that,

in general, job search behavior is related to these outcomes, and the strength of the

relations varies as a function of the job search measure (e.g., intensity, effort), the

sample type (employed job seeker, unemployed job seeker, new entrant), and

the

outcome (Kanfer et al., 2001).

AN INTEGRATIVE SELF-REGULATORY MODEL OF

JOB SEARCH PREDICTORS, BEHAVIORS, AND OUTCOMES

Based on the preceding review, it is possible to develop a job search model that in-

tegrates the key variables in the job search process and shows the links among the

job search outcomes. This model can be used to guide future job search research

and practice.

Figure 7.1 presents an integrative self-regulatory model of the job search pro-

cess. First, the model shows the main groups of predictors, including biographical

Figure 7.1 An Integrative Self-Regulatory Model of Job Search Predictors, Behaviors, and

Outcomes.

Biographical

variables

1. Gender

2. Age

3. Education

4. Race

5. Tenure

Individual difference

variables

1. Self-esteem

2. Conscientiousness

3. Extraversion

4. Job search

self-efficacy

5. Perceived control

6. Ability

7. Employment

commitment

Job search behaviors

1. Job information

sources

2. Job search

intensity

3. Job search effort

4. Assertive job-

seeking behavior

5. Networking

intensity

Situational variables

1. Financial need/

hardship

2. Job-seeking social

support

Goals

1. Job search goals

2. Employment goals

Job search outcomes

1. Job interviews

2. Job offers

3. Speed of

employment

Other outcome

predictors

1. Self-presentation

skills

2. Job choice

decision-making

Employment outcomes

1. Employment

status

2. Person-job fit

3. Person-

organization fit

Employment quality

1. Job satisfaction

2. Organizational

commitment

3. Intention to quit

4. Turnover

Psychological well-being

c07.qxd 8/5/04 8:57 AM Page 170

Job Search Success: A Review 171

variables, individual difference variables, and situational variables. Consistent

with the research reviewed earlier, these variables are shown to predict the job

search behaviors ( job information sources, job search intensity, job search effort,

assertive job-seeking behavior, and networking intensity).

Second, the model includes both job search and employment goals. Job search

goals are more proximal and refer to goals such as sending out a certain number of

applications each week or spending a specific amount of time each day searching

for employment. Employment goals refer to possible outcomes, such as obtaining a

specific job or a job in a certain organization. In the model, job search and em-

ployment goals are shown to be outcomes of the predictor variables and predic-

tors of the job search behaviors.

The links between the predictors and goals are consistent with Kanfer et al.

(2001), who noted that the trait and contextual variables in their meta-analysis

“have been shown to affect self-regulatory mechanisms (e.g., goal-setting, self-

monitoring, self-reactions) and, in turn, the direction and intensity of goal-

directed (i.e., job search) behaviors” (p. 838). Therefore, job search and employment

goals are posited to partially mediate the relations between the predictors and

job search behaviors. A recent study on personality and the goal-striving process

provides some support for the mediating role of goals. In particular, Lee, Sheldon,

and Turban (2003) found that several general personality characteristics influence

performance and enjoyment of work through goal-striving and self-regulatory

rocesses.

The link between goals and job search behaviors is consistent with Kanfer

et al.’s (2001) assertion that employment goals activate search behaviors as well as

the motivational effects of goals (Locke & Latham, 2002). Prussia et al.’s (2001)

finding that reemployment coping goals predict job search effort also supports

the relationship between goals and job search behaviors.

Third, the model shows that the job search behaviors are directly related to job

search and employment outcomes and indirectly related to employment quality.

As well, the job search outcomes are posited to partially mediate the relationship

between job search behaviors and employment outcomes. In other words, job

search behaviors are positively related to the number of job interviews and offers,

which are in turn related to the probability of employment, and P-J and P-O fit.

The model also shows that P-J and P-O fit mediate the relationship between job

search behaviors and employment quality (Saks & Ashforth, 1997, 2002). In addi-

tion, because goals are strong predictors of performance outcomes (Locke &

Latham, 2002), it is likely that job search and employment goals are related to job

search and employment outcomes. In the model, job search behaviors are shown

to mediate the relationship between goals and job search and employment out-

comes. The model also shows the interrelationships among the outcome variables.

For example, more interviews and job offers predict employment status as well as

P-J and P-O fit, and P-J and P-O fit predict employment quality.

The model includes two other predictors of job search and employment out-

comes. Whether job seekers obtain employment and the type of employment

obtained are also a function of how they present themselves during the recruitment/

selection process as well as their ability to make job choice decisions. Thus, these

variables are also shown to have a direct effect on the outcome variables. In par-

ticular, presentation skills are shown to have a direct effect on job search and em-

ployment outcomes, as well as employment quality. Job choice decision making is

c07.qxd 8/5/04 8:57 AM Page 171

172 I

NFORMATIVE

ESEARCH

predicted to have a direct effect on P-J and P-O fit perceptions and employment

quality. In other words, job seekers who are more skilled at making job choice de-

cisions are more likely to choose a job and an organization that are good fits and

more likely to obtain quality employment. In addition, both of these variables

might also moderate the relationships between job search behaviors and the out-

comes, although this is not shown in the model. Finally, psychological well-being

is shown in a box at the bottom of the figure to indicate that it is a pervasive out-

come of job search that can occur at any time throughout the job search process.

In summary, Figure 7.1 is meant to be an integrative model of the job search

process that incorporates goal setting and self-regulatory behaviors. However, not

every relationship in the model has received the same amount of attention in pre-

vious research. For example, only one study has investigated networking inten-

sity, and only a select number of predictors and outcomes were studied. Further,

the role of goals in the job search process has seldom been investigated. Thus, the

model is meant to provide a general depiction of what has been the focus of job

search research as well as what researchers might focus on in future research. It is

unlikely that any single study would be able to test all of the rela

tionships in the

model. However, the model can be used to identify specific areas to consider in

future research as well as a guide for practice.

JOB SEARCH INTERVENTION FRAMEWORK

In this final section of the chapter, a job search intervention framework is pre-

sented as a guide to counselors in the design of job search intervention programs

for job seekers. Although the job search model indicates the predictors, behav-

iors, and outcomes of job search, it needs to be translated into a meaningful guide

for practice.

Table 7.1 presents the job search intervention framework. The first step in the

framework consists of a job-seeker needs assessment. The idea of a job-seeker

needs assessment and feedback tool organized around key variable categories

was developed by Wanberg et al. (2002) to help job seekers identify their strengths

and weaknesses in skills, motivation, and job search activities. Using the main

predictors of job search, a counselor can assess a job seeker on each of the predic-

tors to determine areas that might require improvement. For example, job seekers

who have low levels of job search self-efficacy or perceived control will require in-

terventions that are designed to increase them.

Following the job-seeker needs assessment, a counselor can then determine

what type of intervention is required. For most job seekers, the first intervention

should involve the setting of goals. However, because of the different criteria of

job search success, the starting point for goal setting should be a review of the job

search success criteria. For example, does the job seeker want to find a job as fast

as possible, or does he or she want to take his or her time and obtain a good P-J or

P-O fit? Does the job seeker want to find a job with the highest possible wage, or

is he or she more interested in the reputation of the organization or perhaps the

amount of training and development he or she will receive?

Once a job seeker has identified the success criteria of most importance, two

types of goals should be considered. First, employment goals could be set in

terms of the type of employment that a job seeker wants to obtain. Employment

goals might involve pay, type of employer or organization, type of work, location,

c07.qxd 8/5/04 8:57 AM Page 172

173

Table 7.1

Job Search Intervention Framework

A. Job-Seeker Needs Analysis

1. Biographical characteristics

a. Gender, age, education, race, and tenure

b. Job search experience and success

2. Individual difference variables

a. Self-esteem

b. Five-factor model

c. Job search self-efficacy

d. Perceived control

e. Ability

f. Employment commitment

3. Situational variables

a. Financial hardship

b. Job-seeking social support

B. Job Search Success Criteria

1. Job search outcomes

a. Number of job interviews

b. Number of job offers

c. Speed of (re)employment

2. Employment outcomes

a. Employment status

b. Person-job and person-organization fit

Job and organization attributes (wage, organization reputation, opportunities for

advancement, etc.)

3. Employment quality

a. Job attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational commitment)

b. Intent to turnover/expected tenure

C. Employment and Job Search Goal Setting

1. Employment goals based on job search success criteria

2. Job search goals based on job search behaviors

D. Job Search Behaviors

1. Job information sources

a. Informal sources

b. Formal sources

2. Job search intensity

a. Preparatory job search behaviors

b. Active job search behaviors

3. Job search effort

4. Assertive job search behavior

5. Networking intensity

E. Job Search Interventions

1. Goal setting and self-regulation

2. Job search behaviors and strategies

3. JOBS intervention

4. Job finding club

5. Self-efficacy intervention

6. Job/organization fit intervention

7. Presentation skills intervention

8. Job choice intervention

c07.qxd 8/5/04 8:57 AM Page 173

174 I

NFORMATIVE

ESEARCH

hours, opportunities for training and advancement, and so on. Employment goals

are not only important for motivational reasons, but also they will have some

bearing on the nature of the job search. As noted by Kanfer et al. (2001), a job

seeker who defines his or her employment goal primarily in terms of pay might

engage in a different kind of job search than one whose employment goal is ori-

ented toward the type of employer or location.

A second type of goal that should be part of the goal-setting process focuses on

what the job seeker will actually do to obtain the employment goal. Job search

goals involve setting goals for the specific job search behaviors, such as sending

out resumes, networking, contacting friends and relatives, or making cold calls. At

this stage of the intervention, the counselor should review the different job search

behaviors and determine those that are necessary for helping the job seeker

achieve his or her employment goals and those that the job seeker needs to im-

prove. This might mean increasing the use of formal or informal job information

sources, training in preparatory, active, or assertive job search behavior, and so on.

The setting of job search goals should be part of a larger self-regulatory process in

which job seekers monitor their performance, compare their performance at set

periods to their goals, reward themselves for goal achievement, make ad

justments

to their goals when necessary, and so on. Thus, part of the goal-setting interven-

tion should include instruction on self-regulation.

Once employment and job search goals have been set, an intervention to pre-

pare a job seeker for job search should be provided. This might focus on some of

the behaviors listed in Table 7.1, such as preparatory job search behavior, active

job search behavior, and so on depending on a job seeker’s previous job search ex-

perience, needs, and capabilities. In addition, a number of training interventions

have been extensively studied in the job search literature and are known to be ef-

fective (see Jome & Phillips, Chapter 19, this volume).

For example, research on employment counseling and job loss has found that

the Job Club is one of the most effective methods of job search training (Azrin,

Philip, Thienes-Hontos, & Besalel, 1980). The Job Club is an intensive, highly

structured, group-based behavioral counseling program that emphasizes motiva-

tion, maintenance of behavior, feedback and reinforcement, imitation, role play-

ing, and practice activities (Azrin, Flores, & Kaplan, 1975). Participants receive

assistance in all areas of job search, including coping with discouragement,

preparing resumes, obtaining and pursuing job leads, learning interviewing

skills, scheduling time and record keeping, dress and grooming, and using the

telephone for making inquiries and contacts.

Job seekers who have attended Job Clubs have been found to be more likely to

obtain employment compared to individuals in a control group or those who par-

ticipated in other types of programs (Azrin & Philip, 1979; Azrin et al., 1975,

1980; Braddy & Gray, 1987; Elksnin & Elksnin, 1991; Rife & Belcher, 1994). Some

studies have also found the Job Club to result in higher starting salaries, more

work hours, lower depression, greater advancement, and job satisfaction (Azrin

et al., 1980; Gray, 1983; Gray & Braddy, 1988; Rife & Belcher, 1994; Stidham &

Remley, 1992).

Another extensively studied job search training intervention is JOBS, which is

designed to improve job seekers’ motivation and skills to engage in job-seeking

behavior (Caplan et al., 1989). The intervention includes problem-solving and

c07.qxd 8/5/04 8:57 AM Page 174

Job Search Success: A Review 175

decision-making processes, inoculation against setbacks, social support, and job-

seeking skills similar to those taught in the Job Club. The JOBS intervention has

been shown to result in higher rates of reemployment as well as higher quality

reemployment in terms of earnings and job satisfaction. Job seekers who have

participated in JOBS but remained unemployed reported higher job search moti-

vation and self-efficacy compared to control group participants (Caplan et al.,

1989). The benefits of JOBS for reemployment and employment quality have been

shown to persist. Individuals who have participated in the JOBS program show

higher levels of employment, higher paying jobs, more work hours, and fewer

changes in jobs and employers up to two and a half years following the program

(Vinokur, van Ryn, Gramlich, & Price, 1991). The JOBS intervention also has a

significant effect on the mental health of individuals at high risk for depression

(Vinokur, Price, & Schul, 1995).

A third job search intervention that has been shown to be effective is a workshop

to improve job seekers’ self-efficacy. Eden and Aviram (1993) studied the effects of

a behavioral-modeling job search workshop designed to boost the general self-

efficacy (GSE) of unemployed vocational workers. Participants who attended the

workshop had higher self-efficacy at the end of the workshop and two months later

compared to those in a control group. The workshop also increased the job search

activity and reemployment of individuals with low initial GSE. Further, the effect

of the workshop on reemployment was mediated by job search behaviors.

Another possible intervention might focus on fit-based job search strategies.

That is, given the importance of job and organization fit and their relation to em-

ployment quality (Saks & Ashforth, 1997, 2002), job seekers might require in-

struction on what P-J and P-O fit are and how to assess them. This might include

instruction on how to identify those factors in themselves and in jobs and organ-

izations that, when matched, will provide them with a good job and organization

fit. Current person-environment theories of vocational choice and adjustment

(see Dawis, Chapter 1, this volume; Spokane & Cruza-Guet, Chapter 2, this vol-

ume) might also be incorporated.

As indicated earlier, job search is not the only factor that can influence job

search success. As noted by Kanfer et al. (2001), significant relationships between

individual difference variables and job search outcomes suggest that nonmotiva-

tional factors, such as the interview-hiring process and self-presentation to em-

ployers, also play a role in job search success (Wanberg et al., 2000). Obtaining a

job offer requires job applicants to perform well during the selection process and,

in particular, during employment interviews. It also depends on the preferences

of employers and the employer’s perceptions of the applicant’s fit to the job and

organization. Thus, an effective job search campaign will not result in employ-

ment for job seekers who have poor interviewing skills or who are perceived by

interviewers as a poor fit. As noted by Kanfer et al. (2001), “how an individual

presents himself or herself during the employee selection process may be as im-

portant to employment success as job search” (p. 851).

Along these lines, Wanberg et al. (2002) commented: “A person who turns in

carefully constructed resumes and job applications and presents him- or herself

with ease in a job interview is more likely to be hired than someone who turns

in poorly crafted communications and is ineffectual in his or her interviews”

(p. 1105). Furthermore, it has been shown that job applicant characteristics, such

c07.qxd 8/5/04 8:57 AM Page 175