magazine issue 12 2006 / Issue 1

Not Again! I’m Looking for a Job but I Don’t Know Why It Is Taking So Long!

• written by Silvia Barriga

Kanfer et al. (2001) found in their meta-analysis that, as common sense tell us, the job seekers that engage in more job search behavior are more likely to obtain employment. As well, although meta-analysis does not provide information on causal relations, the pattern of results suggest that job search is more strongly related to psychological variables comprised by the broader construct of positive affectivity (e.g., extraversion, conscientiousness, self-esteem, job search self-efficacy) than to variables encompassed by the broad construct of negative affectivity (e.g., neuroticism, agreeableness). These findings are consistent with recent work by Kinicki and Latack (1990) suggesting a difference between problem-focused and emotion-focused coping behaviors following job loss. In terms of situational variables, motives (perceived financial need, employment commitment) were shown to be more strongly related to job search behavior than to employment outcomes, but social support and biographical factors (e.g., age, education, race) were generally similarly related to both job search behavior and employment outcomes.

Moreover, the Big-Five personality traits were more strongly related to job search behavior among first time job seekers (i.e. job entrants) compared with job losers (i.e. people who are unemployed). Self-esteem and employment commitment were more strongly related to job search among job losers than job entrants. Therefore, this pattern of findings provides evidence on the pathway by which job loss per se could exert debilitating effects in job search behavior. This further suggests that the experience of job loss may influence the initiation or efficiency of self-regulatory job search through changes in attitudes towards work and evaluations of one’s worth.

Additionally, neuroticism was positively related to job search effort but negatively related to job search intensity. To be precise, people higher in neuroticism tended to report greater subjective job search effort but fewer job search behaviors. This happens because individuals higher in neuroticism are more prone to experience difficulty in managing anxiety and other disruptive emotions during job search.

The findings also suggest that how individuals present themselves during the employee selection process may be as important to employment success as the job search. Therefore, some of the trait variables related to the effectiveness of self-regulated search behavior, such as conscientiousness and a strong internal locus of control, may be the same characteristics that employers look for when evaluating applicants. Hence, people that only take care of increasing their job search without taking care of how they “come across” in the interactions with future employers would be more likely to experience frustration and discouragement because of their repeated failure to advance the initial employment interview.

In addition, other researchers have found other individual differences in the strategies taken to search for a job. These strategies are called foraging strategies and are based on Foraging Theory which explains how individuals go about deciding if an option is or is not worth pursuing. An important concept in this theory has to do with the expected preparatory or planning effort, called search costs. This refers to the time, energy, risk, and foregone opportunities or regret the person foresees as required to achieve a goal (Kaplan & Hill, 1992; Krebs & Davies, 1997).

In Wieczorkowska and Burnstein’s (2004) studies, they examine two ideal types or styles of foraging that reflect opposite trade-offs between planning effort and goal-category range (i.e. number of options an individual considers acceptable). The first style describes people who are characteristically meticulous about means, willingly to take a lot of trouble planning and preparing, enjoy details, and people who strive to be systematic, precise and focused. These characteristics allow them to be careful about ends; they recall all but relatively small number of possibilities and concentrate on achieving one or more of them. These individuals may find the security or certainty that comes from knowing precisely what they want and how to get it.

The second style of foraging refers to individuals who are characteristically easygoing when it comes to preparation. These individuals prefer to avoid effortful planning and hence, plan in an imprecise, random or automatic manner with little attention to detail. Being insecure or uncertain about what can be achieved or the means to achievement is not aversive to them. The trade-offs they make inclines them to be undemanding regarding ends; they entertain a relatively large number, and, if necessary, are satisfied with what others might consider less desirable outcomes.