employee job search: toward an understanding of search context and search objectives

http://jom.sagepub.com/Journal of Management

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/129The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0149206311421829

2012 38: 129 originally published online 30 September 2011Journal of ManagementWendy R. Boswell, Ryan D. Zimmerman and Brian W. Swider

ObjectivesEmployee Job Search: Toward an Understanding of Search Context and Search

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

can be found at:Journal of ManagementAdditional services and information for

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Sep 30, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Dec 16, 2011Version of Record >>

at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jom.sagepub.com/

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/129

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://southernmanagement.org

http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/38/1/129.full.pdf

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/28/0149206311421829.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Employee Job Search: Toward an Understanding of Search Context and Search Objectives

Wendy R. BoswellRyan D. Zimmerman

Brian W. SwiderTexas A&M University

Job search behaviors occur across various contexts, involving diverse populations of job seekers searching for employment opportunities. In particular, individuals may search for their first jobs following a period of education, may seek reemployment following job loss, or may search for new opportunities while currently employed. Research in each of these contexts has evolved somewhat separately, yet there is value to applying the ideas and findings from one search context to other search contexts. The purpose of this article is to review the prior research in each of the three job search contexts and offer an integrative analysis of the predictors, pro-cesses, consequences, and varying objectives of job search behavior across an individual’s potential employment situations (i.e., new entrant, job loser, employed job seeker). Implications for future research on job search behavior are discussed.

Keywords: job search; recruiting; unemployment; turnover

Job search is defined as the behavior through which effort and time are expended to acquire information about labor market alternatives and to generate employment opportunities (Boswell, 2006). Job search is typically viewed as a motivated and self-regulated process (Kanfer, Wanberg, & Kantrowitz, 2001) that begins with the identification of and commitment to pursuing an employment goal that then activates search behavior to bring about that goal. While job search involves the pursuit of employment, the contexts in which job search occurs and the populations of job seekers are quite varied. These contexts, as well

129

Acknowledgments: This article was accepted under the editorship of Talya N. Bauer.

Corresponding author: Wendy R. Boswell, Department of Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA

Email: [email protected]

Journal of ManagementVol. 38 No. 1, January 2012 129-163

DOI: 10.1177/0149206311421829© The Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014jom.sagepub.comDownloaded from


130 Journal of Management / January 2012

as the specific objectives underlying an individual’s job search, hold important implications for model building and the interpretation of research findings.

The purpose of this review is to examine theory and research on job search, focusing specifically on the different contexts in which job search is studied and the varying objectives individuals may have for engaging in search. There are three primary contexts in which job search is examined: new entrant (NE)/job choice, job loser (JL)/unemployment, and employed job seeker (EJS)/turnover. These classifications are used to distinguish the employment circumstances and job search environments faced by job seekers in each context; also, each context has evolved as a somewhat separate research stream. Our approach and specific labeling is consistent with prior research in the respective contexts (e.g., Kanfer et al., 2001) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics classification of job seekers (www.bls.gov). Consistencies and divergences in models and empirical findings will be discussed to extract critical insights and inform research across the various job search contexts and the specific objectives for engaging in search behavior.

Accordingly, this review offers several important contributions to the job search and related (e.g., recruitment, turnover) literatures. First, by reviewing and integrating the various literatures in which job search has been studied, we highlight the important role of context in interpreting job search antecedents, processes, and outcomes and how these may diverge depending on this context. This integrative approach also allows us to draw on findings learned in one context and consider the application in other search contexts. Further, we elucidate the critical role of search “objectives” in helping to drive search behavior and outcomes and how such objectives may vary across and within search contexts. We believe that a more explicit recognition of an individual’s objectives for job search offers new theoretical insights into the job search process and suggests new avenues for future research. From a practical standpoint, the importance and timeliness of this research topic is reinforced by current economic conditions, including relatively high unemployment across many industrialized nations and the associated difficulty for job seekers in finding (new) employment and/or (re)entering the labor market.

We begin with a review of the measurement, research models, and empirical findings in the various search contexts. Table 1 provides a summary of the prior research. This is followed by an integrative analysis of the key conclusions and implications regarding our general understanding of job search. We conclude with a discussion of future research directions.

The Study of Job Search Behavior

Operationalizing Job Search

Job search behavior (also referred to as job search activity) has been operationalized in several different ways in the literature, with some consistencies and inconsistencies across the search contexts. The two most common methods are to assess the effort and the intensity of the search behavior. Effort reflects the general energy and persistence that the job searcher exhibits when seeking employment, while intensity assesses the frequency with which the



Tab

le 1

Su

mm

ary

of R

esea

rch

Foc

us

acro

ss J

ob S

earc

h C

onte

xts

Job

See

ker

Sub

popu

lati

onF

ound

atio

nal

Lit

erat

ure

The

oret

ical

F

ram

ewor

ksE

xam

ple

Sea

rch

Obj

ecti

ves

Ant

eced

ents

Sea

rch

Beh

avio

rs

and

Pro

cess

esO

utco

mes

New

ent

rant

(N

E)

Job

choi

ce a

nd

recr

uitm

ent

Imag

e th

eory

; si

gnal

ing

theo

ry; s

elf-

regu

lati

on

Em

ploy

men

t;

nego

tiat

ing

leve

rage

; co

mpa

re

empl

oym

ent t

o fu

rthe

r ed

ucat

ion

or

rem

aini

ng

unem

ploy

ed

Car

eer

plan

ning

; cop

ing

reac

tion

s (s

tres

s, lo

cus

of

cont

rol,

fina

ncia

l nee

ds, j

ob

sear

ch s

elf-

effi

cacy

);

orga

niza

tion

s’ r

ecru

itm

ent

effo

rts

(job

pos

ting

s, c

ampu

s vi

sits

, spo

nsor

ship

s)

Nar

row

ing

of s

earc

h fo

cus;

com

pari

ng

alte

rnat

ives

; su

bmit

ting

ap

plic

atio

ns;

eval

uati

on

Inte

rvie

ws;

off

ers;

pe

rson

–org

aniz

atio

n (P

O)

and

pers

on–j

ob

(PJ)

fit

; sta

rtin

g sa

lary

; org

aniz

atio

nal

com

mit

men

t;

inte

ntio

ns to

rem

ain

Job

lose

r (J

L)

Une

mpl

oym

ent

and

invo

lunt

ary

job

loss

The

ory

of

plan

ned

beha

vior

; se

lf-

regu

lati

on

Em

ploy

men

t; s

atis

fy

requ

irem

ents

for

go

vern

men

tal

assi

stan

ce;

nego

tiat

ing

leve

rage

; re

mai

n un

empl

oyed

Per

son

attr

ibut

es (

pers

onal

ity

trai

ts, d

emog

raph

ics/

biog

raph

ic, s

elf-

regu

lato

ry

beha

vior

s); s

itua

tion

al f

acto

rs

(fin

anci

al n

eed,

soc

ial s

uppo

rt,

soci

al n

orm

s, f

amil

y re

spon

sibi

liti

es, l

abor

mar

ket

dem

and)

Pre

para

tory

be

havi

ors;

act

ive

beha

vior

s;

inte

ntio

n to

se

arch

; sea

rch

inte

nsit

y an

d ef

fort

Inte

rvie

ws;

off

ers;

re

empl

oym

ent;

un

dere

mpl

oym

ent;

P

O a

nd P

J fi

t;

orga

niza

tion

al

iden

tifi

cati

on; j

ob

sati

sfac

tion

; int

ent t

o qu

it; s

earc

h du

rati

on

and

pers

iste

nce;

ex

haus

tion

of

unem

ploy

men

t be

nefi

ts;

psyc

holo

gica

l eff

ects

Em

ploy

ed jo

b se

eker

(E

JS)

Em

ploy

ee

turn

over

Wit

hdra

wal

m

odel

s;

theo

ry o

f pl

anne

d be

havi

or;

self

-re

gula

tion

New

em

ploy

men

t;

nego

tiat

ing

leve

rage

; de

velo

p a

prof

essi

onal

ne

twor

k; s

tay

awar

e of

alt

erna

tive

s/re

mai

n em

ploy

able

; co

mpa

re a

lter

nati

ves

to p

rese

nt s

itua

tion

Per

son

attr

ibut

es (

pers

onal

ity

trai

ts, d

emog

raph

ics/

biog

raph

ic, h

uman

cap

ital

);

situ

atio

nal f

acto

rs (

wor

k at

titu

des,

obj

ecti

ve w

ork

elem

ents

, per

cept

ions

of

wor

k el

emen

ts, e

xter

nal

empl

oym

ent m

arke

t)

Pre

para

tory

be

havi

ors;

act

ive

beha

vior

s;

inte

ntio

n to

se

arch

; sea

rch

inte

nsit

y an

d ef

fort

Tur

nove

r; e

lem

ents

of

new

job

131




searcher engages in specific job search preparations (e.g., revising resume, using the Internet to find job openings) and/or activities (e.g., filling out applications, interviewing with prospective employers; Blau 1993, 1994). Research on EJSs (e.g., Boudreau, Boswell, Judge, & Bretz, 2001; Bretz, Boudreau, & Judge, 1994; Kopelman, Rovenpor, & Millsap, 1992) has also assessed intensity as the number of different search activities in which an individual engages (e.g., contacted a search firm, gone on an interview). Measures of job search specific to unemployed job seekers (both among new entrants and in the context of job loss) often include having searchers track or estimate the amount of time (e.g., hours) spent on their job search efforts, known as general search frequency (e.g., Wanberg, Zhu, & van Hooft, 2010), and/or asking searchers whether they have clear job search objectives, including knowing what type of job they are seeking and what type of work they enjoy, known as job search clarity (Wanberg, Hough, & Song, 2002; Zikic & Saks, 2009). Job search measures for new entrants also include assessing behavior specifically related to gathering information on job opportunities and the relatedness of jobs explored to the area of academic study and then classifying search behavior as focused, exploratory, or haphazard (Crossley & Highhouse, 2005). Research modeling the search process commonly assesses job seeker attitudes toward or intentions to engage in either general job search effort (Song, Wanberg, Niu, & Xie, 2006; Vinokur & Caplan, 1987) or specific search preparations and activities (van Hooft, Born, Taris, van der Flier, & Blonk, 2004; Wanberg, Glomb, Song, & Sorenson, 2005; Zikic & Saks, 2009). Recent research (Wanberg, Zhang, & Diehn, 2010) has assessed searchers’ perceptions of their job search progress, which may serve to link job search behavior to search “success” outcomes (e.g., job attainment).

New Entrants and Job Choice

A stream of research has concerned itself with better understanding how individuals seek out and obtain employment following a period of education. These individuals are referred to as new entrants (NEs), as they are usually seeking their first full-time positions (Kanfer et al., 2001). This transition “from backpack to briefcase” (Bialac & Wallington, 1985) is one of the most critical periods for individuals’ lifelong career success. NEs’ job searches not only are instrumental for their immediate job prospects but also may define their career trajectories (Yang & Gysbers, 2007). NEs who are able to identify jobs that allow for success coming out of school should see cumulative advantages develop throughout their careers, as favorable access to resources is likely to continue (DiPrete & Eirich, 2006). Furthermore, the first experiences of the job search process by NEs is expected to color subsequent perceptions of employability, labor market conditions, and the challenges of finding employment (Barber, 1998).

While not the largest group of job searchers, NEs are estimated to comprise slightly over 7% of unemployed job searchers (bls.gov, 2009). However, Kanfer et al. (2001) found this subpopulation to be overrepresented in their meta-analysis of the job search process, as NE samples made up 27% of all studies they identified. This is perhaps not surprising given that researchers have greater access to alternative explanations for job search outcomes (i.e., experience differences; Saks, 2005), as well as a greater ability to eliminate alternative



Boswell et al. / Employee Job Search 133

explanations, among these relatively homogeneous groups of students. Although the majority of the research on NEs is conducted using college student samples, that is not to say that only college graduates make up NEs or that previous researchers have conceptualized NEs only in this manner. In fact, a wide variety of NE samples has been used in the past, including graduates of polytechnic institutions (Jokisarri & Nurmi, 2005), apprentices in skilled labor roles (Haase, Heckhausen, & Köller, 2008), enlistees in the armed forces (Lievens, Van Hoye, & Schreurs, 2005), individuals who have returned for postgraduate study following a period of employment (Boswell, Moynihan, Roehling, & Cavanaugh, 2001), and individuals with disabilities completing special education programs (Elksnin & Elksnin, 1991). Like studies focused on postcollege NEs, these studies recognize and attempt to identify how these soon-to-be former students seek out employment opportunities consistent with their educational experiences.

Research on NE job search is often driven by, or accompanies, theoretical arguments within a recruitment framework (Barber, 1998; Barber, Daly, Giannantonio, & Phillips, 1994; Schwab, Rynes, & Aldag, 1987). One theory that frequently drives both job search and recruitment research is image theory (Dineen & Noe, 2009; Ehrhart & Ziegert, 2005; Kanar, Collins, & Bell, 2010). Image theory outlines the processes by which individuals use elements of a given environment to make decisions among alternatives (Beach, 1990). When applied to NE job search, image theory describes how the image of a suitable job (subject to change) influences the type of information gathered, how information is weighted, and how job options are evaluated (Stevens, 1998). A second key theory that often drives research on NE job search, as well as on employee recruitment, is signaling theory (Allen, Mahto, & Otondo, 2007; Boswell, Roehling, LePine, & Moynihan, 2003; Connelly, Certo, Ireland, & Reutzel, 2011). Signaling theory outlines how individuals, when making decisions with less-than-perfect information, draw inferences about alternatives based on observable attributes (Spence, 1973). During the search process, NEs use information provided by and about organizational representatives as well as available information sources (e.g., company websites) to make inferences about organizations, which affects subsequent job search outcomes (Goldberg & Allen, 2008; Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991; Turban, 2001).

Despite the common conceptual frameworks, job search is distinct from recruitment, given the different perspectives of focus. Specifically, job search research focuses on how behavior and efforts of individuals influence their progression in the selection process and ultimate job choice decisions (Kanfer et al., 2001). This is in contrast to the focus of a recruitment perspective seeking to understand how the efforts of organizations influence selection processes and individual job choice decisions (Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, 2005). However, both streams of research are constrained by the institutional rules and norms of the college student recruitment cycle (Schwab et al., 1987), often resulting in studies being limited to a relatively short period of time (e.g., four-month semester) and having overlapping dependent variables such as quantity of interviews or offers and/or job acceptance or intentions (Saks & Ashforth, 2000).

As noted, NEs are entering full-time employment often for the first time and thus have little familiarity with the unstructured environment that is the labor market (Turban, Stevens, & Lee, 2009). Furthermore, NEs’ job search activities occur while they are developing or refining career plans and preferences (Quint & Kopelman, 1995; Saks & Ashforth, 2002).




Perhaps more so than for other subpopulations of job searchers, NEs’ job search activities involve gathering information about job market opportunities and information to aid self-assessments about careers, both of which are expected to guide their job choice decisions (Werbel, 2000). NEs’ career self-assessments during the job search process are expected to lead to the discovery of more relevant job information and leads (Linnehan & Blau, 1998), and NEs who engage in higher levels of career planning should be better prepared to seek and locate jobs that are in congruence with their values, needs, and abilities (Saks & Ashforth, 2002). Furthermore, this meta-cognitive activity about career prospects not only influences proximal job search outcomes but also has been shown to predict long-term outcomes such as pay and promotions (Orazem, Werbel, & McElroy, 2003). However, research by Wells and Iyengar (2005) revealed that career-related cognitions have a complex effect on job search success. Specifically, their results showed that objective measures of job characteristics and NEs’ attribute preferences varied drastically, while NEs thought they were consistent, indicating that individuals were often under “the illusion of preference consistency” (Wells & Iyengar, 2005: 66) during the job search process. Interestingly, NEs with greater discrepancies had more positive and successful (e.g., number of job offers) job searches (Wells & Iyengar, 2005). This suggests that NEs who are more malleable to the labor market conditions may be more successful in their job search efforts.

Similar to other search contexts, NEs’ job searches have often been studied using a self-regulatory framework where search direction, focus, and effort fluctuate as NEs move closer to accomplishing their goal of finding postgraduate employment (Kanfer et al., 2001). Specifically, the NEs’ job search is expected to be sequential, with researchers often describing an initially broad search process followed by a more focused search process over time (Barber et al., 1994; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Prior research has contrasted broad versus narrow search processes in terms of the sources NEs rely on to generate job information (Barber et al., 1994; García, Triana, Peters, & Sanchez, 2009; Saks & Ashforth, 1997, 1999). For example, it appears that NEs seek out and use more formal sources of job information such as job postings, college placement services, or employment agencies (Ellis & Taylor, 1983; Linnehan & Blau, 1998; Tziner, Vered, & Ophir, 2004) early in the search process. The use of formal job information allows individuals to more readily and comprehensively understand labor market conditions (Werbel, 2000), something NEs have less experience with, and then build on this base of knowledge regarding job alternatives (Turban et al., 2009). As NEs gain understanding of the environment and clarify job search goals (Cote, Saks, & Zikic, 2006), they become more intense and active in their search (García et al., 2009; Saks & Ashforth, 1999, 2000). Active job search often involves the use of more interactive (Linnehan & Blau, 1998) job information sources such as friends, family, faculty, or social networks (Allen & Keaveny, 1980; Ellis & Taylor, 1983; Tziner et al., 2004). As they generate information during the active job search process, NEs appear to seek an optimal stopping point (Moynihan, Roehling, LePine, & Boswell, 2003) and limit job search efforts, given the lower expected marginal return as they approach labor market entry (van Hooft & Crossley, 2008).

Although much of the research on NEs has developed and investigated rational sequential models of job search, a limited number of studies has examined the more “emotional” or stress-related variables that influence the search process (Barber et al., 1994; Saks, 2005).




These studies have addressed how NEs use the search process as a behavioral coping mechanism to deal with concerns about employment following graduation (Caska, 1998). Consistent with this idea, results have shown that NEs’ financial needs and the extent to which they feel search outcomes are not in their control (i.e., external job search locus of control) increase the intensity with which NEs search for jobs (Saks & Ashforth, 1999; van Hooft & Crossley, 2008). Yet findings of the beneficial aspects of stress have been equivocal. For instance, Brasher and Chen (1999) found that NEs’ stress during the job search process was negatively related to starting salary of the job accepted, while Crossley and Stanton (2005) showed that stress had a positive direct effect on number of offers generated after accounting for stress’ negative indirect effect through job search self-efficacy. It seems that the positive effects of stress on outcomes such as number of offers may have a negative indirect effect through various self-perceptions (e.g., job search self-efficacy) that NEs develop during the job search process (Crossley & Stanton, 2005).

Additional research questions concerning NE job search focus on how the search process differs across diverse groups. Understanding such issues offers important practical insight, as workforce diversity is a critical goal yet also a significant challenge for organizations (cf. Ployhart, 2006). While the initial results of studies of the effect of diversity and demographic factors on applicants have been fairly modest (cf. Chapman et al., 2005; Hausknecht, Day, & Thomas, 2004), the actual role of diversity on NE job search may be more nuanced than current research has recognized. For instance, McKay and Avery (2006) note that simply capturing the number of diversity cues presented to NEs fails to assess the quality of the information or search experience as well as job seekers’ individual differences, both of which are expected to influence job choice. In support of this argument, recent research has found support for a higher order relationship for diversity cues and search outcomes such that NE race interacts with both the depiction of diversity and NE familiarity with the organization to influence how NEs interpret and respond to job search information (Walker, Feild, Giles, Bernerth, & Short, 2011). Research on diversity and affirmative action policies in job ads suggests differences in the reactions of targeted applicants (typically Black applicants) versus nontargets (White applicants) but also how the content or structural features of a plan plays a role in minority applicant reactions and desirability of the organization as a place to work (cf. Avery, 2003; Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer, Leslie, & Lev-Arvey, 2006; Highhouse, Stierwalt, Bachiochi, Elder, & Fisher, 1999; Kravitz & Klineberg, 2000; Slaughter, Sinar, & Bachiochi, 2002). Research has also examined the role of work–family issues to job search behavior, finding, for example, that such factors are viewed by NEs as equally important as pay elements (Boswell et al., 2003). However, this same study found that such factors did not play a significant role in final accept or reject decisions. We would expect that the impact of work–life and diversity initiatives is likely to depend on a NE’s available (or perceived) alternatives as well as on “noncompensatory” factors such as reservation wage, location, and the type of work, as such factors may constrain a job seeker’s options.

While the majority of NE job search research has been focused on the United States, job seekers and organizations’ recruitment efforts are becoming more globally focused (Ma & Allen, 2009). While nascent, this stream of research has begun investigating how cross-cultural factors influence NEs’ assimilation in and response to information about organizations




collected during their job searches (cf. Turban, Lau, Ngo, Chow, & Si, 2001; Werbel, Song, & Yan, 2008). In general, U.S.-based findings seem to generalize across cultures (e.g., the importance of fit; Turban et al., 2001), although this research highlights the importance of additional factors (e.g., type of firm ownership, access to information) relevant to job search processes and outcomes in a global context.

One of the most influential shifts in the job search process over the past two decades has been the development of the Internet as an essential tool in the job search process (Cober, Brown, Keeping, & Levy, 2004). Perhaps no subpopulation of job searchers has been more affected by these technological advances than NEs, given their increased willingness and likelihood to effectively use computers (Czaja et al., 2006). Organizational websites, and to a lesser extent e-mail correspondence with organizational representatives, have allowed NEs to gather information about and interact with a larger number of organizations than in decades past, including those organizations with limited or no presence on college campuses (Allen et al., 2007; Van Rooy, Alonso, & Fairchild, 2003). Customization of online information given to NEs, based on initial assessments of “fit” with an organization, have also allowed both NEs and hiring organizations to engage in more efficient job search and hiring processes (Dineen, Ash, & Noe, 2002). However, the effect of the Internet and other e-sources of job information might not be universally positive for both NEs and organizations (Dineen, Ling, Ash, & DelVecchio, 2007). Although research clearly shows that online resources increase the amount of job information NEs can gather, questions still remain as to the usefulness of the abundant information gathered during various stages of the job search (Allen et al., 2007). Similarly, given the relatively low cost (time and monetary resources) required to submit applications online, organizations frequently report being flooded with applications from unqualified job seekers (Dineen et al., 2007).

Theories and models of NE job search often include mediating variables that represent elements common in multiple-hurdle selection systems. The NE job search process often involves submitting numerous applications and participating in a number of interviews, followed by second or follow-up interviews and finally the receipt of offers (Brown, Cober, Kane, Levy, & Shalhoop, 2006; Saks, 2006; Turban et al., 2009). Yet models that depict the string of activities require positive relationships between the intermediary variables and employment status. That is, before an NE becomes employed, he or she must first apply to an organization, be granted an interview, be invited for a second interview or site visit, and finally be given a job offer to accept or reject (Saks, 2006; Turban et al., 2009). Yet, even given the sizable correlations between these sequential and dependent “preliminary success” variables (Brasher & Chen, 1999), they are often predicted by distinct variables. For instance, Turban et al. (2009) found that NEs’ meta-cognitive activity (i.e., strategizing how to accomplish one’s job search goals) predicted the number of resumes submitted and first interviews only, while positive emotions predicted second interviews and final offers only. Similarly, Cote et al. (2006) found that job search clarity was positively related to number of interviews but not significantly related to number of job offers received, while job search self-efficacy was not significantly related to number of interviews yet positively related to number of job offers. Given the convergent and divergent variables relevant to predicting the various job search outcomes, it is critical that researchers be very specific about the conceptual relationships expected in their job search models.




The most prominent, and arguably most important, outcome in NE job search is employment status, often assessed at, or shortly following, graduation (Saks & Ashforth, 2000). Kanfer et al.’s (2001) meta-analysis found the relationship between job search and employment status in NE samples to be .24 (k = 5; N = 1,186). This modest relationship may be the result of a statistical artifact, as the job search–employment status (i.e., coded 0 = unemployed, 1 = employed) relationship is will be attenuated to the extent that base rates of employment status differ from 50% (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). In response to this statistical shortcoming, studies on NEs have begun to use number of job offers as the primary indicator of job search success (cf. Brown et al., 2006; Cote et al., 2006; Crossley & Highhouse, 2005; Crossley & Stanton, 2005; Turban et al., 2009).

Still, the sheer number of job offers generated may not represent the most appropriate outcome variable for job search success; at the least, these job offers may be a contaminated variable. Moynihan et al. (2003) noted that search success should be judged not solely on the number of job offers but also on whether these offers are for desirable positions from desirable organizations to the NE (i.e., quality of offers is more important than quantity of offers). Measures that reflect “efficiency” in one’s job search may also be informative of an individual’s “success” in the search process, though not clearly captured through absolute numbers of offers (Moynihan et al., 2003). For example, two individuals might interview with the same four organizations, one receiving offers from the three least preferred organizations, while the other individual receives only one offer but from the most preferred organization. In general, an individual who interviews and obtains an offer with a most desirable employer or “implicit favorite” (Soelberg, 1967), regardless of the number of other interviews and/or offers received, would indicate success in the job search process. However, if one’s goal was simply to attain a job and avoid a time of unemployment following graduation, then both individuals could be considered successful job searchers. Thus, identification of broader (and subjectivity in) job search goals and outcomes beyond simple quantitative count measures is an area of ongoing and critical development in the literature.

In this vein, researchers have begun to broaden their focus beyond the number of job offers and/or employment status at graduation to characteristics of the job that reflect the desirability of the chosen alternative. In particular, initial salary is commonly utilized as an indicator of success following job search (Brasher & Chen, 1999; Werbel, 2000; Werbel et al., 2008). It is generally argued that NEs who were more effective job searchers would identify better quality (in terms of higher pay) job alternatives, accumulate a number of alternatives to perhaps use as negotiating leverage for a higher starting salary (Werbel, 2000), or both. Further, research has examined “job-based” outcomes including affective reactions to the job (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational identification, commitment), typically assessed a few months following the search and choice process (Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2005; Linnehan & Blau, 1998; Saks & Ashforth, 1997, 1999, 2002). Many of these studies, such as those conducted by Saks and Ashforth, have incorporated NE person–job and person–organization fit perceptions as mediating linkages between search behaviors and distal outcomes. The general argument is that an ineffective job search leads to a misfit with the organization, job, or both, resulting in negative work attitudes shortly after beginning employment (Saks, 2006; Saks & Ashforth, 1997, 2002) and, perhaps, restarting the job search process as an EJS (discussed below). Consistent with other fit research (Kristof-




Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005), job search studies may also assess fit as the congruence between a job seeker’s academic area (i.e., major) and the field or industry of the job (Allen & Keaveny, 1980; Brasher & Chen, 1999).

In an effort to highlight the effects of the job search process throughout the duration of the employment life cycle, researchers have also examined the effect of job search activity on retention-related variables. For example, NEs who utilized pertinent information to identify possible long-term job opportunities with an employer during their job searches have been shown to have fewer cognitions about quitting and intend to remain in a given position or organization for longer periods of time (Brasher & Chen, 1999; Ellis & Taylor, 1983; Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2005). Researchers have also included NEs’ satisfaction with the job search process itself (Crossley & Highhouse, 2005; Ellis & Taylor, 1983) and the potential link to subsequent job search behavior when employed. Interestingly, an overly positive (negative) job search process coming out of school may facilitate NEs to search more (less) and to use the same (different) job search process in the future (Barber, 1998; Crossley & Highhouse, 2005).

Similar to the other contexts described below, NE job search is driven by forces both “pushing” and “pulling” NEs to explore and gather information about job opportunities. While financial needs are certainly a factor (van Hooft & Crossley, 2008), a main force driving job search behavior that is unique to NEs is having a graduation date (Saks & Ashforth, 2002). Unlike recently unemployed or employed job seekers, NE job search coincides with the natural cycle of students’ progression through their educational programs (Barber, 1998). As end dates (i.e., graduation) are often known by students months, or even years, in advance, NEs are pushed to engage in job search efforts to eliminate or minimize time spent unemployed following the conclusion of their education. These forces work in concert with organizations’ efforts to provide information about current openings, or the organization in general, through various recruitment activities. Given the increasing need and competition for skilled workers, organizations are actively trying to “pull” NEs into positions by disseminating job information to assist NEs’ job searches, including advertising in school newspapers, partnering with placement services, placing job postings around campus, hosting social functions on campus, or sponsoring classrooms and equipment (Collins & Stevens, 2002).

In concluding the review of NE job search literature, we wish to highlight an interesting methodological issue in this job search context. As is often the case, future college graduates may search not only for jobs but also for opportunities to pursue higher level degrees (Davis, 1966). Yet some NE studies reviewed here removed from the analyzed sample those individuals who decided to pursue more education (cf. Saks & Ashforth, 1999; Wells & Iyengar, 2005; Werbel et al., 2008), and in other studies, the approach to dealing with individuals who did not enter the labor market and/or had varying objectives following education is unclear. At worst, these nonrandom missing data could bias conclusions drawn from these studies (Newman, 2003). While placing a boundary condition of focusing on those NEs who actually entered the workforce (thus excluding non–job finders; Saks & Ashforth, 1997) is conceptually justified given the focus of NE studies on employment decisions, we believe that interesting research questions pertaining to job search objectives and varying job search outcomes may be overlooked. This issue is further discussed below.




Unemployed Job Seekers and Job Loss

Perhaps the greatest amount of job search research revolves around those individuals who lose their jobs and must search to find reemployment (63% of the meta-analytic sample of Kanfer et al., 2001). Job search success of the unemployed is of particular relevance to society, as often times unemployed individuals receive governmental monetary support while not contributing to the productivity of the nation (Wanberg et al., 2002). Research into the job search process of unemployed individuals is primarily driven by a job loss framework. Job search in this context is distinguished from other types of search, as job losers (JLs) typically lack the security and stability that employment may bring by having an income and typically are seeking employment not on their own accord. Due at least in part to these key differences, certain situational and individual factors play a more prominent role for JLs compared with other types of job searchers. Also, because of the potential psychological effects associated with involuntary job loss (Price, 1992) and the subsequent unplanned search for new employment, the motivational and self-regulatory states of JLs are particularly salient, as they can affect the chances of successful reemployment both in the short term and in the long term.

Historically in the job search literature involving JLs, surveying methods have followed a single time lag (Time 1 and Time 2) research design with at least some of the outcome variables (e.g., number of interviews or job offers, reemployment) collected during the second time period. However, more recent studies have begun to use multistage sampling designs (e.g., Wanberg et al., 2005). Participants are typically identified through unemployment or reemployment agencies or programs (samples often located in Minnesota or the Netherlands), with samples sizes well into the hundreds. While certainly a good source of JLs, such sources may miss JLs who are unemployed for shorter periods of time (e.g., those with higher level skill sets or larger networks) and oversample those in more entry-level jobs and those with less well-defined job search strategies who are more dependent on the structure and training such reemployment services provide (possibly including individuals high on external locus of control). These common populations for research on JLs are quite different than job search research focusing on either NEs, who are often educated individuals just starting their careers, or employed searchers, who are typically in higher level positions and may have established networks.

Much of the research in this job loss context draws on two prominent theoretical perspectives: theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) and self-regulation theories (Elliott & Thrash, 2002; Kanfer et al., 2001). Based on the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975), the TPB extends to situations where individuals do not have complete volitional control of their behavior. More specifically, the TPB includes the constructs of perceived behavior control and subjective norms, in addition to the attitudes held toward the behavior by the individual, which are argued to affect intentions and behaviors, with some direct effect from perceived behavioral control to actual behavior (Ajzen, 1991). As noted by van Hooft et al., “Job search is a complex behavior, depending not only on the individual’s skills and abilities, but also on resources and opportunities outside the individual’s personal control” (2004: 30). Perceived behavioral control is most often operationalized as job search self-efficacy, which reflects the searchers’ “perceptions of control over environmental




constraints on behavior” (van Hooft, Born, Taris, van der Flier, & Blonk, 2005b: 240). Self-efficacy is theorized to have some direct (as well as indirect) effect on search behavior, as those who believe they can successfully engage in job search behavior are more likely to do so even when holding intent constant; further, self-efficacy is theorized to reflect some degree of actual (and perceived) behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991). Van Hooft and colleagues (2005b) have extended the TPB by integrating the theory of action control (Kuhl & Beckmann, 1985) to model how the relationship between intention to search and job search behavior is mediated by implementation intentions, which seeks to explain why some people who intend to search never engage in actual job search behavior.

Other researchers draw on self-regulation theories as the basis of JLs’ job search behaviors. Here, job search is conceptualized as a recursive self-regulated multistage process with reemployment as the goal (Kanfer et al., 2001). Job search behavior requires a “purposive, volitional pattern of actions that begins with the identification and commitment to pursuing an employment goal” (Kanfer et al., 2001: 838). Van Hooft and Noordzij (2009) theorized that the two main stages of the job search process that are part of the TPB, the intentional and behavioral phases, parallel the goal establishment and goal-striving phases that are part of many self-regulation theories (Diefendorff & Lord, 2008). These phases are followed by the goal attainment phase (i.e., reemployment).

Outcome variables of interest for JLs generally fall into one of three categories. The first includes quantity (or quality) indicators of job search success. Like the NE literature, the number of interviews and/or job offers, in particular, indicates a successful job search (Creed, King, Hood, & McKenzie, 2009; Koen, Klehe, Van Vianen, Zikic, & Nauta, 2010), with Kanfer et al. (2001) finding corrected correlations of .32 between search intensity and job offers and .08 between search effort and job offers. Many researchers utilize reemployment success as the ultimate criterion (rc = .18 with intensity and rc = .30 with effort; Kanfer et al., 2001). Reemployment success is often measured by a simple dichotomous item asking participants if they have secured new employment. Some researchers (e.g., van Hooft, Born, Taris, & van der Flier, 2005a; Zikic & Klehe, 2006) go beyond this simple dichotomy by obtaining an indication of underemployment by asking participants whether the new jobs are full-time or part-time, as well as permanent or temporary positions. Such measures are particularly important given the recent economic downturn, as many individuals may have had to settle for less when finding new employment (McKee-Ryan & Harvey, 2011), although they may still consider such employment better than the alternative of remaining unemployed. However, other individuals may regard underemployment as undesirable, as they may prefer alternatives such as staying at home and/or staying on unemployment benefits.

Other indicators of reemployment quality include evaluations of fit with the new job (Koen et al., 2010; Van Hoye, van Hooft, & Lievens, 2009; Wanberg et al., 2002), organization identification (Zikic & Klehe, 2006), or work-related attitudes including job satisfaction or intent to quit (Koen et al., 2010; Wanberg et al., 2002; Wanberg, Kanfer, & Rotundo, 1999). Interestingly, most of the relationships between prior job search behavior and such outcomes are either near zero or weakly negative (for job satisfaction and organizational identification), indicating that greater job search activity does not necessarily result in a more desirable employment situation for JLs. Researchers have also assessed




whether or not the new job is an improvement over the old job, based on job characteristics including pay, benefits, and working hours (Wanberg et al., 2002) or based on subjective evaluations such as enhanced career growth and opportunities (Zikic & Klehe, 2006), but again with near-zero to weakly negative effects. Collection of these quality indicators is a marked difference compared with the research on employed searchers (discussed below), which generally does not follow up with participants after reemployment. These results are also different from those found with NEs, where greater job search activity is often linked to higher levels of job satisfaction and organizational identification. Research has yet to fully examine why JLs tend to have neutral or negative views of their new jobs. These unexpected effects may be due to JLs tending to be consistently lower performers across jobs. Or perhaps an extensive job search process causes burnout or even bitterness that remains with the individuals even into their new positions, thus limiting the psychological resources (Hobfoll, 1988) these individuals have in order to cope with the ambiguity of a new job and preventing the “honeymoon” period most new employees experience upon new job entry (cf. Boswell, Boudreau, & Tichy, 2005; Boswell, Shipp, Payne, & Culbertson, 2009). Of course, the findings may simply be due to unmet expectations, or as JLs have a basis for comparison that NEs do not have, the new position may not compare favorably to previous jobs.

A second category of job search outcomes within the job loss context focuses on duration or persistence of search. Duration of reemployment arguably offers greater insight into the job search process and search success than a simple dichotomous measure of reemployment (Creed et al., 2009; Wanberg et al., 2002). Similarly, but more directly related to the potential societal costs of unemployment, exhaustion of unemployment benefits is occasionally examined as an outcome variable of interest (Wanberg et al., 2002). Kanfer et al.’s (2001) meta-analysis calculated corrected correlations of –.11 between search intensity and unemployment duration and –.40 between effort and duration.

Finally, some research has focused on the negative psychological repercussions of unemployment, including anxiety, depression, psychosomatic symptoms, and lower self-esteem and subjective well-being (Audhoe, Hoving, Sluiter, & Frings-Dressen, 2010; McKee-Ryan, Song, Wanberg, & Kinicki, 2005; Wanberg, 1995, 1997). Two meta-analyses (McKee-Ryan et al., 2005; Paul & Moser, 2009) found generally moderate effects when comparing employed and unemployed individuals’ psychological and physical well-being, with the latter exhibiting higher levels of negative psychological outcomes. Further, stronger effects were found in longitudinal studies and for individuals who were unemployed for longer periods of time.

Broadly, predictors of job search behavior and resulting reemployment success can be categorized into situational factors and person attributes. Within the JL context, situational factors include financial need, social support, subjective norms, having family responsibilities, and labor market demand. Financial need, including amount of unemployment benefits available and social support (i.e., support received from others aiding in coping with job search stress), has been shown to be a modest predictor of job search effort (Kanfer et al., 2001). As unemployed searchers are likely to have greater financial commitments (often due to family obligations) than new NEs do, yet do not have the income of employed searchers, financial need is often argued to be a primary motivator of job search for JLs (Kanfer et al., 2001). Subjective norms, defined as the extent to which significant others believe the JL




should be trying to find a new job (Vinokur & Caplan, 1987), also tend to have moderate effects on job search behavior (Koen et al., 2010; Song et al., 2006; van Hooft et al., 2004; van Hooft et al., 2005a; Wanberg et al., 2005; Zikic & Saks, 2009). Both family responsibilities (Koen et al., 2010; van Hooft et al., 2005a; Wanberg et al., 2005; Wanberg et al., 2002) and labor market demands (Koen et al., 2010; Wanberg et al., 2002; Zikic & Klehe, 2006) have effects that range from slightly negative to slightly positive on search behavior. These equivocal effects may be explained by counteracting processes such that taking care of dependents may detract from job search behavior yet pressure of meeting family needs helps to motivate job search behavior. Similarly, the effect of labor market demand may depend on whether individuals perceive good labor markets as meaning more opportunities, which increases expectancy in job search behavior having a positive outcome, or indicating that less effort is perhaps required to find a new job.

Person attributes predicting JL search behavior vary from human capital and biographic variables to individual traits, to differences in self-regulatory behaviors, and to job search strategies. Kanfer et al. (2001) found that biographic variables, including gender, race, age, education, and job tenure, had weak relationships with the search behavior of JLs. Interestingly, compared with NEs, education had a weaker effect (rc = .22 for NEs vs. .11 for JLs) and job tenure had directionally opposite effects for JLs across these search contexts (rc = .17 vs. –.17). Kanfer et al. (2001) found that being committed to finding employment was a key factor to an unemployed searcher’s success. Several personality traits have shown moderate effects on the search behavior of JLs, including the five-factor model (FFM) traits of extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, as well as other traits such as self-efficacy and self-esteem (Kanfer et al., 2001). Notable differences in findings between types of searchers include the FFM traits of JLs exhibiting generally weaker relationships with search compared with those of NEs, with the exception of agreeableness, which was stronger for JLs. Also, whereas neuroticism did not predict job search behavior for JLs, there was a moderate negative relationship for NEs.

Recent research has examined other traits, finding moderate effects for positive affectivity (Wanberg, Zhu, et al., 2010) and proactive personality (McArdle, Waters, Briscoe, & Hall, 2007). Self-regulatory behaviors such as learning goal orientation (van Hooft & Noordzij, 2009), motivation control (Wanberg et al., 1999), utilizing an exploratory job search strategy (Koen et al., 2010), and engaging in career exploration and planning (Zikic & Klehe, 2006) have also shown moderately positive relationships with job search behavior. Research is needed to understand how individual traits affect search behavior through various self-regulatory processes. For example, conscientiousness may affect search behavior through motivation control, goal setting, or career planning. Openness to experience may influence search behavior indirectly through enhancing a job seeker’s learning goal orientation and/or use of exploratory career or job search strategy. Such process models would provide for a more complete understanding of how individual differences impact the job search behaviors of JLs.

Several studies have empirically examined and found support for the TPB mediation process. Caska (1998) found that intentions fully mediated the link between both job search attitude and subjective norms on specific search behaviors (specifically, social networking and employer contact). The role of perceived behavioral control (measured as job search




self-efficacy) was partially mediated with social networking but fully mediated with employer contact. In a longitudinal study, van Ryn and Vinokur (1992) noted that the mediating role of job search intentions varied over time, with the effects of the antecedent variables sometimes fully mediated and sometimes partially mediated. Their one-month follow-up on job search behavior did fully support the TPB model, with the job search intention fully mediating the effects of job search attitude and subjective norms on search behavior as well as partially mediating the effect of job search self-efficacy on search behavior. The authors also discovered that a randomly assigned job search intervention had both indirect and direct effects on job search behavior measured at four months; the authors conjectured that the latter effect was due to inoculating job seekers against setbacks, which is critical for job seekers’ continued job search efforts. Van Hooft et al. (2004) found similar results to prior studies, with the exception that job search self-efficacy was not related to job search intention or behavior after controlling for other variables in the model. In other mediated models, van Hooft et al. (2005b) observed that implementation intentions partially mediated the relationship between search intention and search behavior, and McArdle et al. (2007) found that general employability (as indicated by several individual difference variables and social support) did associate with reemployment, but these effects were not mediated through self-esteem or job search behavior. Taken together, these findings offer important insight for the present labor market situation in that unsuccessful unemployed searchers may perceive having little control over their employment situations and thus may enter into a self-perpetuating cycle where low self-esteem leads to job search failure, which leads to even lower self-esteem or efficacy and even depression and perhaps withdrawal from the labor market (Wanberg, 1995, 1997).

A few recent studies have identified some factors that can alter search processes for JLs. Van Hooft and colleagues (2005a), for example, found that personal attitude toward search was a weaker predictor of job search for JLs with families compared with JLs who were single. However, the reverse was true regarding the effect of social norms on search behavior, with the effects stronger for those with family responsibilities. In a sample of Chinese JLs, Song et al. (2006) found stronger relationships between job search attitudes and intentions as well as between search intentions and intensity for JLs with greater action orientations. Interestingly, the researchers also found that, within their sample, subjective norms had a stronger relationship with job search than did personal attitudes, which may reflect the collectivist nature of their sample. Finally, Van Hoye and colleagues (2009) found evidence that networking may be more effective for JLs with networks consisting of weaker yet high-status ties.

Finally, a large segment of the search literature involving JLs investigates the efficacy of various forms of search interventions. While potentially costly, such interventions may yield positive economic utility due to the expenses associated with subsidizing unemployed JLs with unemployment insurance (Wanberg et al., 2002). Job search training has been shown to increase the likelihood of individuals finding employment (Wanberg et al., 2002; Zikic & Klehe, 2006; Zikic & Saks, 2009), though unemployed searchers may have less ready and less recent access to such training compared with graduating students (NEs). These interventions typically focus on training individuals to engage in better job search strategies and/or cope with the negative psychological effects of unemployment (Audhoe et al., 2010).




Specifically, they may impart job search–related skills, increase motivation and self-efficacy, and help JLs avoid psychological depression stemming from unemployment (Saks, 2005). In addition, these interventions seek to inoculate JLs against setbacks that are likely to occur during the job search process. In a review by Audhoe and colleagues (2010), the authors noted that the JOBS II intervention (Vinokur, Price, & Schul, 1995) reported significant effects on reemployment and that the JOBS II and Työhon (Vuori, Silvonen, Vinokur, & Price, 2002) interventions were effective in mitigating the negative psychological effects of unemployment. Recent research (Wanberg, Zhang, et al., 2010) has focused on developing inventories for JLs to gain self-insight to better conduct their job searches, with or without guidance by an employment counselor. Wanberg Zhang, and colleagues (2010) found that their inventory was effective in predicting employment outcomes. Future research is needed to compare the efficacy and utility of traditional job search intervention training and self-guided inventories. Further, because prior research has shown that individuals who have higher learning goal orientation and who utilize exploratory job search strategies or career exploration tend to have more successful job searches (Koen et al., 2010; van Hooft & Noordzij, 2009; Zikic & Klehe, 2006), future researchers may wish to examine whether these individual differences moderate the effectiveness of intervention techniques such that certain individuals benefit more from the interventions. Additionally, because layoffs and unemployment, particularly in certain industries (www.bls.gov), can disproportionately affect older workers and racial minorities, who may also have less access to and/or knowledge of Internet job search methods, job search interventions may be even more critical for these demographic groups.

Employed Job Seekers and Employee Turnover

The antecedents and search processes for employees searching for alternative employment, referred to as employed job seekers (EJSs), can be quite distinct from those in the contexts discussed above, given that such individuals are seeking “new” employment. As such, job search in this context is often positioned within employee withdrawal or turnover models (Hom & Griffeth, 1991; Mobley, 1977). The general argument is that dissatisfaction with the present situation leads to withdrawal cognitions, a search for and evaluation of alternatives, and ultimately a decision to quit or stay. Although work by Lee and colleagues (Lee & Mitchell, 1994; Lee, Mitchell, Holtom, McDaniel, & Hill, 1999; Lee, Mitchell, Wise, & Fireman, 1996) has revealed that search does not always precede turnover, search is typically seen as instrumental to leaving an employer, with greater search activity making that more likely (Blau, 1993; Bretz et al., 1994; Lee, Gerhart, Weller, & Trevor, 2008).

Early theoretical models explicating the employee turnover process typically placed job search as the proximal behavioral antecedent to employee turnover, usually instigated by undesirable work elements, corresponding negative work attitudes (e.g., job dissatisfaction), and withdrawal cognitions (e.g., intent to quit). For example, Mobley’s (1977) seminal turnover model proposed that a negative evaluation of the job fosters employee job dissatisfaction, thoughts of quitting, evaluation of the expected utility of quitting, intent to search, actual search for alternatives, and evaluation of alternatives relative to the present




job. This process then leads to the decision to quit and ultimately to employee turnover. Other models view the job search–withdrawal cognition relationship as recursive and/or parallel (e.g., Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979; Price & Mueller, 1981; Steers & Mowday, 1981), whereby job search may reinforce or even help to facilitate the intent or desire to quit by helping to shape an individual’s perceptions of the viability of leaving the employer. Consistent with this, research applying Ajzen’s (1991) TPB (discussed above) incorporates the role of perceived behavioral control (i.e., job search self-efficacy) as well as job search attitudes and subjective norms (i.e., pressure to look for a job) in influencing an EJS’s search behavior directly and indirectly through intention. Although much of the research drawing on TPB has focused on JLs (discussed above), research has generally supported the attitude-intention-behavior link across both employed and unemployed job seeker groups (e.g., van Hooft et al., 2005b; van Hooft et al., 2004).

Arguably the most notable turnover model in the past two decades is Lee and colleagues’ (Lee & Mitchell, 1994; Lee et al., 1996) “unfolding model of voluntary turnover.” In developing their model, the researchers drew on image theory (Beach, 1990) and the notion that factors other than employees’ affective states can instigate turnover decisions, with such decisions often involving a compatibility judgment other than a comparison of the current job to alternatives. As such, this model recognizes that turnover and search processes may deviate from the traditional sequential model of search necessarily preceding a quit decision. Lee and Mitchell (1994) argued that turnover is often triggered by a precipitating event (“shock”), such as an unsolicited job offer or an extreme incident of mistreatment by one’s manager, that can prompt an individual to leave without engaging in a search for alternative employment. Empirical research on this model suggests that “shocks” initiate more voluntary turnover than accumulated job dissatisfaction does (Holtom, Mitchell, Lee, & Inderrieden, 2005), though typically there is still a search for alternative employment prior to the actual departure from the organization. Accordingly, search behavior remains a key step to employee turnover.

Although job search is a cornerstone in a number of turnover theories and models (Steel, 2002), prior empirical work shows a modest relationship between search and turnover (rc = .31; see the meta-analysis by Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000). Research has sought to understand this modest correlation, examining, for example, variables that may moderate the search–turnover relationship (Bretz et al., 1994; Swider, Boswell, & Zimmerman, 2011; Trevor, 2001). This work offers evidence of when job search is most likely to lead to an actual quit decision. Certainly, the modest correlation can be explained in part by the fact that not every job seeker is able to find viable alternative employment opportunities following his or her search. Taking this general perspective, Bretz and colleagues (1994) focused on the human capital variables (e.g., education level and quality, tenure, gender) that may enhance one’s “opportunity” for a successful job search. Bretz et al.’s study found limited support for such opportunity variables in moderating the search–turnover relationship. Yet recent work by Swider et al. (2011) revealed that job search activity was most strongly predictive of subsequent turnover when individuals had greater available alternatives, were less embedded in the organization, or had lower job satisfaction. The “alternative” variable was assessed in this study objectively, as the relevant unemployment level for an individual, and as an individual’s subjective perceptions of external opportunities,




finding support for both variables enhancing the likelihood of job search leading to turnover. In effect, this research suggests that not all searchers are leavers and that there are important contingency factors that help to accentuate (or attenuate) the job search–turnover link (Swider et al., 2011).

Other research has argued that the search–turnover link is dependent on one’s search objectives, as individuals may search for reasons other than to leave the present employer. The explicit inclusion of search objectives (or goals) aligns with a self-regulatory view of the search process (Van Hoye & Saks, 2008). Research by Boswell, Boudreau, and Dunford (2004) showed that an EJS may engage in a leverage-seeking search whereby the motive driving search activity is to obtain an external offer to enhance bargaining power and ultimately enhance employment conditions (e.g., pay, promotion) with the current employer. Other objectives for job search activity may include searching to develop a network, to stay aware of potential opportunities, and to investigate whether the grass may be greener elsewhere (see Table 1; Boswell, Boudreau, et al., 2004). Specific objectives (e.g., staying aware and networking) are predictive of specific search methods (e.g., perusing job sites and contacting employers, respectively; Van Hoye & Saks, 2008). Research in this vein underscores the value of understanding the employment goal as part of a self-regulatory process motivating search behavior (Kanfer et al., 2001), as why one is searching is likely to offer insight on potential search outcomes.

Also expanding on the simple job search–turnover link, recent research has examined how the job searches of others play a role in an individual’s own job search behavior and ultimately turnover from an organization. In particular, Felps et al. (2009) focused on the social dimensions of job search by examining coworker attitudes and behaviors, including coworker job search behavior, in predicting a focal employee’s subsequent turnover. More specifically, the authors modeled and found support for a contagion process whereby the behaviors of coworkers spill over to influence employee turnover, over and above a focal employee’s own search behavior and work attitudes. Taken together, prior research suggests a potentially complex process between the search for new employment and actual departure from the current employer.

Some research has moved beyond the simplistic focus on employee turnover or job change as the key outcomes of employee job search behavior. The specific variables examined are consistent with those examined in the context of NEs and JLs. For example, van Hooft et al. (2005a) examined the quality of the obtained employment (Schwab et al., 1987), focusing specifically on satisfaction with the new job and the agreement between the job wanted and the job obtained in terms of number of hours and type of contract. Interestingly, while this study found greater job search positively related to (new) job attainment, the researchers found no link between job search and satisfaction with the new job or level of congruence with desired job characteristics. Yet there may be other relevant outcomes of employee job search behavior beyond obtaining or accepting new employment or the nature of the job obtained. Indeed, even with the objective to leave, an EJS may search, and even obtain an alternative offer (or offers), yet evaluate the present employer as a better fit. As discussed more below, we have little understanding of the consequences of searching and not leaving the present situation (either due to having other objectives for the job search or to not finding viable alternative employment), suggesting the value of a broadened conceptualization of search success.




Specific to the EJS context is how job search activity affects outcomes for the current employer, regardless of whether search leads to a turnover decision. Simply the act of searching may facilitate psychological detachment from the employer, and certainly the time and energy an employee spends searching may be put to other task-related uses (March & Simon, 1958), suggesting performance- and productivity-related implications of the EJS job search. This latter point is arguably exacerbated by the Internet, as employees can readily (and anonymously) search for alternative employment while on the job (Kuhn & Skuterud, 2000). Consequently, although research has yet to examine the consequences of EJSs’ search behaviors for the present employer in general (discussed below), the growth of the Internet as a search tool holds particularly important implications for managing job search behavior and understanding the potential effects of such behavior in this context.

Prior work has examined an array of variables in predicting the search for alternative employment. This research again generally places job search among employed individuals within an employee withdrawal or turnover framework. Accordingly, research on EJS search predictors often focuses on factors in the organizational environment that may motivate a desire for alternative employment. Situational variables reflect aspects of the work that may “push” an individual to seek an alternative (Blau, 1994; Bretz et al., 1994; Cavanaugh, Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2000; Dunford, Boudreau, & Boswell, 2005) and commonly include general work attitudes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment, objective factors including pay and benefits and job demands, and assessments of these factors (e.g., pay equity, feelings toward the supervisor, person–organization fit). Consistent with turnover research more generally, job satisfaction plays a prominent role in negatively predicting search intensity (Boswell, Roehling, & Boudreau, 2006; Boudreau et al., 2001; Bretz et al., 1994), as well as negatively relating to both preparatory and active job search behaviors (e.g., Blau, 1994). Less clear is the role of compensation, with some research showing a significant (albeit weak) negative relationship (Boudreau et al., 2001; Bretz et al., 1994). This might be partially explained by other research showing that, similar to the context of unemployment, financial need is critical to motivating search behavior (Blau, 1994; Zimmerman, Boswell, Shipp, Dunford, & Boudreau, in press).

Research in this area has also examined work practices and workplace perceptions as job search antecedents. Bretz et al. (1994) found that work–family balance initiatives are associated with less job search behavior, while search was higher among those individuals desiring work–family programs. These effects were found over and above compensation, job dissatisfaction, and an array of other search antecedents. Related research on employee feelings of stress reveals that it is the nature of the stress that is critical, with stress due to work challenges associating with lower search activity and stress stemming from hindrances associating with higher search activity (Boswell, Olson-Buchanan, & Lepine, 2004; Cavanaugh et al., 2000). Research on high-level managers both in the United States and in Western Europe has found that an individual’s perception of the organization’s “success” moderately (negatively) predicts job search (e.g., Boswell et al., 2006; Boudreau et al. 2001). It appears that at least among high-level employees, feeling that one does not “work for a winner” leads one to seek alternative employment. This is consistent with Dunford et al.’s (2005) research linking “underwater” stock options, presumably a reflection of organizational underperformance and risk, to job search behavior.




Also relevant to situational factors driving search activity is the role of the external labor market. Labor market attributes such as unemployment rate and perceived alternatives affect the relative supply and demand for labor. We note that defining the relevant employment market for a particular individual is challenging, especially given increasing globalization and the accompanying potential for enhanced mobility. Some research indicates a positive effect for alternative opportunities in predicting search (Blau, 1993), although other research shows a null effect (Boswell et al., 2006; Bretz et al., 1994). Similar to JL research, one argument for the equivocal results involving the alternative opportunity construct is that, on the one hand, those perceiving more alternatives might search more due to higher confidence in the ability to find a job (Blau, 1994), yet perceiving alternatives might also diminish the felt need to search because alternatives are perceived to be readily available (Boswell, Boudreau, et al., 2004). These divergent processes may then work against one another, resulting in a null effect (Boswell et al., 2006). It also appears that labor market conditions may be best viewed as playing a moderating role in whether search is likely to result in actual separation from an organization (e.g., Hom & Kinicki, 2001; Swider et al., 2011; Trevor, 2001). More generally, as with NEs, we would expect the role of work-related factors and workplace practices (e.g., diversity or work–family initiatives) to be influenced by the availability of alternative opportunities, whereby such factors have the strongest effects for EJSs with more “opportunities” (Bretz et al. 1994).

Work has begun to examine individual differences that may influence employee job search activity. Person attributes reflect relatively enduring characteristics about an individual that may increase the propensity to seek new employment; these include personality traits (e.g., self-esteem, FFM) as well as biographical (e.g., gender, race) and human capital (e.g., experience, education level) factors (Boswell et al., 2006; Boudreau et al., 2001; Zimmerman, 2008; Zimmerman et al., in press). In regards to personality traits, while Boudreau and colleagues (2001) found statistically significant effects for the FFM traits agreeableness, extraversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience in predicting job search, the effect sizes were quite modest (ranging from .05 to .07). Boswell et al. (2006) found similar results for extraversion and neuroticism in their study of European managers. Recently, Zimmerman and colleagues (in press) drew on an approach–avoidance framework to examine the pathways by which these two personality traits (extraversion and neuroticism) may lead to subsequent job search. This study revealed simultaneous positive and negative effects of extraversion and neuroticism on subsequent job search behavior, depending on the mediating mechanism involved (i.e., ambition values, job search self-efficacy, perceived job challenge, work burnout, perceived financial inadequacy, and job satisfaction), which helps explain the generally weak main effects on job search found in prior research. More specifically, EJSs with higher levels of extraversion and neuroticism were likely to experience several motivational forces related to advancing their careers and/or avoiding negative aspects of the job that then influenced their job search behaviors, and each personality trait had both positive and negative effects on job search, depending on the specific mediating mechanism.

Beyond dispositional traits, research has revealed that other individual differences may be predictive of EJS job search. Boudreau et al. found a positive link between cognitive ability and job search, suggesting that “this trait enhances the perceived benefit of search” (2001: 44). Like research on NEs and JLs, several studies have examined motivational variables related to self-evaluation, showing a positive link between task-related self-esteem




and/or self-efficacy, for example, and job search behavior (e.g., Blau, 1994; Zimmerman et al., in press). Research has also found negative relationships between job search and employee hierarchical level, tenure, and age (e.g., Boswell et al., 2006; Boudreau et al., 2001; Bretz et al. 1994), though again, the effect sizes are fairly small for these biographic variables. Similarly, consistent with the job search literature in general (cf. Kanfer et al., 2001), research on EJSs has not found a consistent role for gender or race in predicting search behavior.

As noted, research seeking to understand the determinants of EJS search generally focuses on variables conceptually linked to employee withdrawal or turnover. Yet in recognizing that not all EJSs have the intent to leave the current employer, Boswell, Boudreau, and colleagues (2004) also examined the antecedents of searching for an alternative job to “seek leverage” against the current employer. Among a sample of high-level managers, they found that employees higher in the organizational hierarchy and with greater career satisfaction were less likely to engage in leverage-seeking search, while those who perceived more alternative opportunities and placed higher value on rewards were more likely to engage in leverage-seeking search. Interestingly, this study found no role for compensation level, thus suggesting that seeking leverage is less motivated by absolute pay (at least among the executives studied) and driven more by other career elements (e.g., hierarchical level) as well as individual differences in valuing extrinsic rewards. This research again highlights the importance of considering the objective (or objectives) underlying one’s job search behavior in understanding the critical determinants (as well as likely consequences) of job search.

Integrative Implications

This review of the literature from the various job search contexts suggests commonality and divergence surrounding the conceptual arguments and interpretation of empirical findings and ultimately offers important theoretical and practical insights on job search behavior generally. In this section, we discuss several specific implications for understanding job search behavior by analyzing and integrating these diverse contexts in which job search is studied.

Job Search Antecedents and Processes

In regards to commonalities, there are key general factors serving as determinants of job search, regardless of the search context. The main theoretical perspectives in this literature—self-regulatory, TPB, and image theory—suggest the importance of individual capabilities and values related to finding employment as well as factors external to an individual’s control in facilitating job search. Although, in general, the motivation (or “push”) and opportunity (or “pull”) to search are implicitly, if not explicitly, incorporated in job search research across the various contexts, the particular constructs of focus and the nature of the effects can play differing roles depending on the job search context. One prominent example is perceived job alternatives, which is a key motivating factor for unemployed job seekers yet may diminish the perceived need to search among EJSs (Boswell et al., 2006). Psychological




variables related to self-evaluation are often relevant across the search contexts, yet the conceptual arguments and nature of the effects can diverge. In particular, variables such as self-esteem appear to play a stronger moderating role among EJSs (e.g., Blau, 1994) such that the relationship between preparatory and active search behavior is more strongly positive for those individuals higher in job search self-esteem, as such individuals should be more likely to persist in the search for alternative employment. On the other hand, self-evaluation is likely to have a more direct effect motivating search for those not currently employed (NEs and JLs). Given the stress involved in these contexts, unemployed individuals may be particularly hindered by low self-evaluation, while positive self-views may be less critical among those currently employed and thus not facing an urgent employment need.

A related issue is that certain constructs have been more commonly examined in one job search context than in others. For example, individual differences such as personality traits and variables reflecting human capital have only recently been incorporated in the context of EJSs (cf. Boudreau et al., 2001; Zimmerman, 2008; Zimmerman et al., in press) yet have been more consistently included in the context of first-time or unemployed job search (Kanfer et al., 2001; Turban et al., 2009). Similarly, although job factors (e.g., compensation, job demands) and perceptions of such factors (e.g., equity, job satisfaction) are commonly examined in the context of EJSs, such factors have yet to be incorporated in other job search contexts. Specifically, although by definition JLs (as well as NEs) do not have a current job to react to, situational factors present in prior jobs and/or the availability (or perceived availability) of desirable job factors may play a role in search behavior. And, while perceived opportunities has been shown to be an important driver of job search among those not currently employed, specific job factors surrounding the available opportunities may also play a role. For example, perceiving that available jobs offer low pay or otherwise poor working conditions may be particularly detrimental to a job seeker’s motivation to search and, ultimately, to job obtainment, beyond simply “available opportunities.”

It is important to note that the theoretical perspectives somewhat diverge across the search contexts (see Table 1). Although a self-regulatory perspective is a cornerstone of recent conceptualizations of the search process across contexts (cf. Kanfer et al., 2001), applying theories typically constrained to particular search contexts (e.g., image or signaling theory, TPB) more broadly can add to our understanding of the factors and processes involved in driving search behavior and various search outcomes (discussed more next). As an example, the decision-making processes outlined by image and signaling theories offer insight on mechanisms linked to JL and/or EJS employment and the more long-term consequences following search (e.g., job fit, retention). More generally, integrating the various theoretical perspectives would help to derive an overarching model of the search process that may persist across contexts.

Job Search Objectives and Job Search Outcomes

While arguably all job searchers are seeking to generate employment opportunities, an individual’s specific objective for searching varies across the search contexts as well as




within any one context. For example, within each search context, individuals may have varying levels of interest in finding any available option versus uncovering a potential career employer, which in turn is likely to affect one’s search intensity and specific behaviors utilized. For EJSs specifically, we cannot assume that the objective is to actually leave for an alternative job. Indeed, evidence of “boundaryless careers” (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Sullivan & Baruch, 2009) supports an increased interest among employees in remaining employable even absent the desirability to change employers. Similarly, we cannot assume that all JLs or NEs are necessarily intent on accepting any job opportunity generated through search, as such individuals may be inclined to continuing their education or remaining out of the workforce. For example, one job seeker may accept the best offer he or she can field, while another may not deem any offer he or she receives as acceptable in meeting his or her “reservation wage” or advantageous over remaining unemployed (particularly if unemployment benefits are still available). Recognizing these varying objectives and the relative importance placed on obtaining and/or accepting (alternative) employment provides insight on job search determinants and processes. Though some research has specifically assessed varying search objectives (Boswell, Boudreau, et al., 2004; Van Hoye & Saks, 2008), prior work across contexts has generally focused on employment status following search and related outcomes (e.g., time to find employment, new job fit; Kanfer et al., 2001; Saks & Ashforth, 1997; van Hooft et al., 2005a), thus implicitly if not explicitly framing (new) employment as the job search objective.

In regards to search outcomes specifically, research on NEs and JLs has typically focused on quantitative outcomes such as the number of interviews or offers received and/or more direct measures of employment success such as job acceptance or intent (in the case of NEs) or reemployment (in the case of JLs). Time-focused outcomes such as search duration are also commonly assessed. As discussed above, turnover is the key outcome linked to EJS search. The more qualitative elements of search “success” such as the nature of, perceptions of, and longevity in the (new) job have more recently been assessed within the job search literature. A key divergence between research on individuals currently holding job (EJSs) versus those not employed (both NEs and JLs) is the former’s omission of intermediary variables linking search behavior to employment (e.g., interviews, offers received). Indeed, EJS research has yet to fully explore the process by which search activity leads to employment, including the process involved in making quit versus stay decisions.

Recognition of job search objectives also suggests that job seekers in one context may actually behave more like job seekers in another context and/or less like other job seekers in the respective context than presently recognized in the literature. As an example, EJSs should not necessarily be equated with potential job quitters, as the goal underlying their job search may be to obtain negotiating leverage with the current employer. And, as shown in Table 1, this latter search objective can surface across all three search contexts. Also, job seekers across the three contexts may be similarly motivated to use job search as a means to compare their current situations (i.e., unemployment, continuing education, stay with current employer) with alternative opportunities. Explicitly incorporating job search objectives into the search model thus offers not only new insight into the search process and possible outcomes within a specific context but an opportunity to integrate our understanding of job search behaviors and outcomes across contexts where job seeker objectives may overlap.




Temporal Nature of Job Search

Job search is an evolving, dynamic process, yet much of the prior research is single time lag (Time 1 and Time 2). This is a commonality across the search contexts, suggesting that each would benefit from a more longitudinal approach to exploring how search antecedents, behaviors, and outcomes evolve over the full search process. An exception to these static designs in the NE job search literature can be found in a series of studies conducted by Saks and Ashforth (1997, 2002) in which they tracked the relationships between NEs’ job search behaviors, pre-entry attitudes, post-entry attitudes, and long-term employment outcomes (i.e., intent to quit, organizational identification). Exceptions in the JL literature are the study by van Ryn and Vinokur (1992), who followed up one month and four months after the initial survey and job search intervention, and the 10-wave study on job search persistence by Wanberg et al. (2005).

Another temporal issue involves the evolution of search activity across an individual’s various employment situations. Research on NEs has begun to recognize this, incorporating, for example, retention-related constructs and subsequent search behaviors linked to earlier search activity (e.g., Brasher & Chen, 1999; Crossley & Highhouse, 2005). Further, some research has recognized the critical role of early job search experiences (e.g., as an NE) in shaping subsequent career transitions (Barber, 1998). Analyzing job search research from different contexts helps us to recognize that search activity transpires across one’s career life cycle. Individuals can draw on and learn from their experiences over the course of a career, thus suggesting a cumulative process as search experiences in one search context (e.g., school to job) play a role in other contexts (job to job). While this has implications for future research design (noted below), this further highlights job search as a self-regulatory process involving feedback and learning that helps to define search goals, intensify (or attenuate) search activity, and reinforce (or redirect) search strategy.

More specifically, an NE’s experiences searching and obtaining that first job can help to shape subsequent job search whether seeking to leave an employer or during a time of future unemployment. As an example, an NE who experienced early job search success, perhaps obtaining a job from a “favorite” (Soelberg, 1967), is likely to experience self-esteem or self-efficacy helpful to future searches (e.g., Zimmerman et al., in press). Yet a more drawn-out search may garner coping skills and/or enhanced knowledge about effective search behaviors (e.g., networking) that may be drawn on in subsequent searches. For example, learning acquired through search interventions as an NE may be of use if faced with future unemployment.

This employment life cycle perspective is also relevant when considering that an individual may face search in the context of being employed and following job loss. Indeed, the experience of losing one’s job is likely to shape subsequent perceptions about and strategies for seeking job change in the future (and vice versa). Prior experiences of searching may also shape search objectives in the future, prompting individuals to be more (or less) focused on staying aware of alternatives, be more (or less) accepting of different types of opportunities, or even be less (or more) inclined to quit without having a job alternative in hand (Lee & Mitchell, 1994). In effect, although any one search event occurs in a particular context (e.g., following job loss), the experiences of searching across one’s career span and across contexts suggest a dynamic and evolutionary process.




Future Research Directions

Integrating the job search literature reveals numerous issues deserving of additional research attention. Several of these have already been highlighted. Key areas for future job search research and specific research questions are summarized in Table 2.

First, more work is needed across the job search contexts focused explicitly on varying search objectives. Both employed and unemployed individuals may have objectives beyond simply the intent to obtain (new) employment, which may then have implications for job search effort and behavior. Potential search objectives across the contexts are listed in Table 1. The intended destination (e.g., career change, internal move, promotion) or intended employment status (e.g., temporary, part-time work) may also play a role in the nature of the job search. For instance, little, if any, research has been conducted focusing on how EJSs may successfully search for new jobs with their current employers. These employees may seek to uncover higher quality employment opportunities and/or search for new career trajectories while avoiding the possible financial hardships involved with quitting.

As we expand our understanding of search objectives, we can also begin to think more broadly about job search outcomes. For example, what happens to employed searchers (e.g., heightened withdrawal) who do not leave the present job, and does this depend on the search objective? Similarly, as noted above, research is needed on NEs who do not enter the workforce, either by their own volition or perhaps due to not finding employment within the defined study period. Also, is employment necessarily the only objective for unemployed job seekers, and might a broader consideration suggest additional “outcomes” to assess (e.g., career change, relocation, educational attainment)? Research should continue to look beyond “employment status” and consider the nature of the job obtained (e.g., underemployment, person–environment fit) as well as more distal outcomes including affective reactions to the job and tenure. Although recent research has incorporated such variables, research taking a more long-term perspective is particularly warranted to offer insight on how search behaviors, processes, and decisions subsequently impact the employment life cycle.

More generally, we see the need for an expanded view of search “success.” Indeed, staying in one’s present job or not obtaining employment should not necessarily be deemed job search “failure,” as certainly there are other outcomes that may reflect success (e.g., an EJS discovering the grass is not greener, resulting in reestablished commitment to the present employer) or that may reflect success for that particular individual. Given the subjectivity inherent in indicators of success, comparing the congruence between a job seeker’s objective a priori and the attainment of the objective may better define a “successful” search. What might be defined by a researcher as success (e.g., high pay) may not accurately capture success as defined by a job seeker (e.g., job fit; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) or as defined across research studies (cf. Moynihan et al., 2003).

More proximal or intermediary outcomes could also be included in future research to better understand the search process. Similar to prior work on unemployed job seekers, research on EJS search could incorporate more proximal outcomes, including offers received or even efficiency indicators (cf. Moynihan et al., 2003). Investigating such variables would add insight to whether individuals who search and do not leave had the opportunity to leave,




Table 2Areas for Future Job Search Research

Job Search Objectives

Job Search Antecedents

• New entrants

Distinguish between searching for ideal job and good enough job

• New entrants

Whether career services and related interventions minimize consequences of unfamiliarity with labor markets and greater awareness of priorities and needs

Influence of organizational policies (e.g., diversity) relative to traditional vacancy factors (e.g., pay)

• Job losers Characteristics/reasons for rejecting offers of reemployment to remain unemployed (e.g., waiting for ideal offer, maximizing unemployment benefits)

• Job losers The countervailing effects of taking care of dependents vs. pressure to meet family’s financial needs

Comparing the efficacy of traditional job search intervention training with self-guided inventories

• Employed job seekers

Determinants and outcomes of searching without intent to leave on the individual, organization, and coworkers

Comparing congruence between search objectives and search outcomes


Importance of coping and control factors in driving search and search success

Divergent effects of job seeker characteristics across one’s career and search contexts

Job Search Destinations

Contextual Factors

• New entrants

How job search is influenced by opportunities for further education

Factors that might constrain international job seeking

• New entrants

How mobility (including international search) influences search process and outcomes

• Job losers What causes job losers to abandon search for reemployment

Person and situational factors as determinants of underemployment

• Job losers Utilizing more diverse sample of job losers, including those who don’t use a job service to find reemployment


Factors affecting internal transfers or career change


Cultural, community, and industry norm and generational differences affecting search behaviors and processes

Search Outcomes and Success

Temporal Processes

• New entrants

Characteristics of job offer (beyond pay) as indicator of search success (e.g., negotiation success, benefits, career opportunities)

• New entrants

Trajectories of job attitudes pre-employment (expectations) to initial employment (socialization)

• Job losers Why job losers tend to hold neutral or negative views of the new job

• Job losers Understanding the recursive process of low self-evaluations leading to job search failure leading to lower self-evaluations


Why individuals search and not leave, the effects of not leaving, and the moderating role of search objectives


Long-term consequences of searching and/or changing jobs

Changes in search objectives or behaviors over the search process and one’s career

(continued)




Proximal Outcomes and Processes

Search Behaviors

• New entrants

Role of initial favorites, early expectations, and efficiency in the search process to subsequent search decisions and search “success”

• New entrants

Differences in search behaviors based on major industry, school quality, and education level

• Job losers Self-regulatory processes that mediate effects of personality on job search outcomes

• Job losers How personality and demographics (e.g., age) moderate the effectiveness of job search interventions on job search behaviors


Interviews, offers, and job comparisons as intermediary links in the search–turnover relationship

Role of motivation and opportunity in linking job seeker characteristics to search behavior and outcomes


Effect of Internet search on outcomes at the present employer

Table 2 (continued)

as well as the processes involved when making turnover decisions. Indeed, the process of EJS search is not well understood, yet such research would offer important practical insight for organizations looking to prevent employee search activity and to stop those who do search for new employment from actually quitting (Swider et al., 2011).

We would also encourage future researchers to consider search antecedents examined in one context that have not been assessed in other search contexts. For example, individual differences related to coping and control could be incorporated into models of EJS search, while factors associated with the prior job (or jobs) could be examined in the context of JLs. More generally, job search research across the contexts would benefit from greater attention to job seeker characteristics, as research on person attributes is relatively limited (cf. Kanfer et al., 2001). How might dispositional (e.g., positive or negative affect, Big Five factors), psychological (e.g., identity, attitudes toward work, self-evaluation), and human capital (e.g., ability, biographical) characteristics play differing roles across the career span of an individual’s search for employment, and what is the process (e.g., enhanced motivation, created opportunities or constraints, discrimination) by which job seeker characteristics influence search behaviors and outcomes? This not only would add new understanding of under-researched variables but also would provide insight on how factors affecting search effort, use of specific search behaviors, and search effectiveness may be dependent on the search context. It would be particularly valuable to take a comparative approach, examining the search antecedents, processes, and outcomes across the varying contexts in one study. Although our review has sought to uncover generalities and divergences in search activity across search contexts, many of the specific variables assessed often differ across studies (e.g., specific outcome variable of focus, operationalization of search behavior). We would envision a study assessing consistent person attributes and situational factors, search behaviors, and outcomes among a sample of NEs, JLs, and EJSs. Some research has taken




a comparative approach (cf. van Hooft et al., 2004), but we see benefits to a more inclusive analysis of the various search antecedents and processes in offering a rich understanding of how certain factors might be more or less critical, depending on the search context.

This review examined various contexts in which job search occurs, yet there are other “contextual” variables that should be examined in future research. In particular, more attention is needed to understand how different demographic groups may approach, react to, and achieve success in searching for employment and/or how community, cultural, or industry factors and norms shape job search behavior. For example, with the aging population, more attention is needed on differing search priorities and processes across generations, as well as career and life stages, just as gender and racial diversity holds implications for job seeker preferences and decision making (cf. McKay & Avery, 2006). Further, the globalization of business and the workforce suggests that job search should be considered an international experience. On the one hand, we have little understanding of how search behaviors and processes may differ across nations and cultures. Yet an international perspective might also suggest enhanced global opportunities for some, though also constraints (e.g., relocation ability, identification with culture) for others, depending on demographic or personal job seeker characteristics.

Finally, we identify several methods-related considerations for future research. In particular, expanding job search research beyond single time lag studies would offer greater insight on dynamic self-regulatory search processes, including how search behaviors and goals evolve over time. Studies employing recent developments in experience sampling methodologies would allow researchers to investigate both positive (e.g., optimism from early success) and negative (e.g., increased anxiety over growing financial strain) searcher attitudes that have been shown to develop over the duration of the job search process (Kanfer et al., 2001). We have little understanding of whether and how job search goals, strategies, and specific behaviors may change as individuals experience and learn from the process. Related to the issue discussed above regarding a more “career” perspective of job search activity, longitudinal studies that track individuals across the various contexts, such as from NE to EJS or from EJS to job search following job loss, would be particularly insightful. Such studies, although potentially quite challenging to conduct given the need to follow individuals over many years and across organizations, would allow a unique understanding of how search processes and the relevant factors might vary depending on the search context.

In regards to measurement, we note that the extant measures have not fully incorporated the role of Internet search, which has transformed the nature of search behavior over the past two decades. Many of the established job search scales were developed prior to the Internet, and while researchers often incorporate additional items relevant to e-search, more work is needed to develop valid scales appropriate in the current electronic environment. One concern is that scale items related to job search methods that are now less frequently used (e.g., walk-ins or newspaper want ads) or used by only a particular type of job seeker (e.g., entry-level jobs vs. professional positions) may affect the psychometric properties of the scale, possibly either decreasing variance or creating unintended moderators, ultimately affecting the observed effects of a study. Therefore, consideration needs to be given to the sample and context of a particular study before deciding what job search scale or even which specific job search items are appropriate. This also raises the issue of whether our knowledge




of job search might change in the context of e-search. That is, do prior findings for self-evaluation, human capital, cognition and coping, networking, and situational factors still hold when individuals search primarily via the Internet? Other critical issues to examine surrounding Internet search behavior include how the Internet is used (e.g., preparatory vs. active search behavior), the effectiveness as a search tool (e.g., for focused vs. broad search efforts), the potential challenges (e.g., sacrifice quality for quantity of opportunities), the role of the Internet in supporting domestic and global job search, and whether the findings differ across search contexts. We can turn to work on e-recruiting (e.g., Cober et al., 2004; Lievens & Harris, 2003; Williamson, King, Lepak, & Sarma, 2010) to begin to understand the potential role of technology in affecting job search behaviors, processes, and outcomes.

Conclusion

The study of job search across different contexts has evolved as fairly disparate literatures. While these literatures have contributed much to our understanding of job search predictors, behaviors, and outcomes, we believe there is much more to explore in understanding the determinants, processes, and effects surrounding job search across the various employment situations an individual is likely to encounter across his or her career span. We hope that this integrative review and analysis offers novel insight on this timely topic and suggests important areas for new research on job search behavior specifically and organizational entry and employee withdrawal more broadly.

References

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179-211.Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. 1975. A Bayesian analysis of attribution processes. Psychological Bulletin, 82: 261-277.Allen, D. G., Mahto, R. V., & Otondo, R. F. 2007. Web-based recruitment: Effects of information, organizational

brand, and attitudes toward a web site on applicant attraction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1696-1708.Allen, R. E., & Keaveny, T. J. 1980. The relative effectiveness of alternative job sources. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 16: 18-32.Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. 1996. The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organi-

zational era. New York: Oxford University Press.Audhoe, S. S., Hoving, J. L., Sluiter, J. K., & Frings-Dressen, M. H. W. 2010. Vocational interventions for unem-

ployed: Effects on work participation and mental distress. A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20: 1-13.

Avery, D. R. 2003. Reactions to diversity in recruitment advertising—Are differences Black and White? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 672-679.

Barber, A. E. 1998. Recruiting employees: Individual and organizational perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Barber, A. E., Daly, C. L., Giannantonio, C. M., & Phillips, J. M. 1994. Job search activities: An examination of

changes over time. Personnel Psychology, 47: 739-766.Beach, L. R. 1990. Image theory: Decision making in personal and organizational contexts. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Bialac, D., & Wallington, C. 1985. From backpack to briefcase. Training and Development Journal, 39: 66-68.Blau, G. 1993. Further exploring the relationship between job search and voluntary individual turnover. Personnel

Psychology, 46: 313-330.Blau, G. 1994. Testing a two-dimensional measure of job search behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 59: 288-312.




BLS.gov. 2009. Unemployed persons by reason for unemployment, sex, and age. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aa2009/pdf/cpsaat27.pdf

Boswell, W. R. 2006. Job search. In S. G. Rogelberg, Encyclopedia of industrial/organizational psychology: 414-416. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W, & Dunford, B. B. 2004. The outcomes and correlates of job search objectives: Searching to leave or searching for leverage? Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 1083-1091.

Boswell, W. R., Boudreau, J. W., & Tichy, J. 2005. The relationship between employee job change and job satisfac-tion: The honeymoon-hangover effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 882-892.

Boswell, W. R., Moynihan, L. M., Roehling, M. V., & Cavanaugh, M. A. 2001. Responsibilities in the “new employment relationship”: An empirical test of an assumed phenomenon. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13: 307-327.

Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & LePine, M. A. 2004. Relations between stress and work outcomes: The role of felt challenge, job control, and psychological strain. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64: 165-181.

Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. 2006. The role of personality, situational, and demographic vari-ables in predicting job search among European managers. Personality and Individual Differences, 40: 783-794.

Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., LePine, M. A., & Moynihan, L. M. 2003. Individual job choice decisions and the impact of job attributes and recruitment practices: A longitudinal field study. Human Resource Management, 42: 23-37.

Boswell, W. R., Shipp, A. J., Payne, S. C., & Culbertson, S. S. 2009. Changes in job satisfaction over time: The surprising role of honeymoons and hangovers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 844-858.

Boudreau, J. W., Boswell, W. R., Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. 2001. Personality and cognitive ability as predic-tors of job search among employed managers. Personnel Psychology, 54: 25-50.

Brasher, E. E., & Chen, P. Y. 1999. Evaluation of success criteria in job search: A process perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72: 57-70.

Bretz, R. D., Boudreau, J. W., & Judge, T. A. 1994. Job search behavior of employed managers. Personnel Psychology, 47: 275-301.

Brown, D. J., Cober, R. T., Kane, K., Levy, P.E., & Shalhoop, J. 2006. Proactive personality and the successful job search: A field investigation with college graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 717-726.

Caska, B. A. 1998. The search for employment: Motivation to engage in a coping behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28: 206-224.

Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. 2000. An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among U.S. managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 65-74.

Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. 2005. Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 928-944.

Cober, R. T., Brown, D. J., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. 2004. Recruitment on the net: How do organizational web site characteristics influence applicant attraction? Journal of Management, 30: 623-646.

Collins, C. J., & Stevens, C. K. 2002. The relationship between early recruitment-related activities and the applica-tion decisions of new labor-market entrants: A brand equity approach to recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 1121-1133.

Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. 2011. Signaling theory: A review and assessment. Journal of Management, 37: 39-67.

Cote, S., Saks, A. M., & Zikic, J. 2006. Trait affect and job search outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68: 233-252.

Creed, P. A., King, V., Hood, M., & McKenzie, R. 2009. Goal orientation, self-regulation strategies, and job-seeking intensity in unemployed adults. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 806-813.

Crossley, C. D., & Highhouse, S. 2005. Relation of job search and choice process with subsequent satisfaction. Journal of Economic Psychology. 26: 255-268

Crossley, C. D., & Stanton, J. M. 2005. Negative affect and job search: Further examination of the reverse causation hypothesis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66: 549-560.

Czaja, S. J., Charness, N., Fisk, A. D., Hertzog, C., Nair, S., Rogers, W. A., & Sharit, J. 2006. Factors predicting the use of technology: Findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE). Psychology and Aging, 21: 333–352.




Davis, J. A. 1966. The campus as a frog pond: An application of the theory of relative deprivation to career deci-sions of college men. American Journal of Sociology, 72: 17–31.

Diefendorff, J. M., & Lord, R. G. 2008. Self-regulation and goal striving processes. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R.D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future: 151-196. New York: Routledge.

Dineen, B. R., Ash, S. R., & Noe, R. A. 2002. A web of applicant attraction: Person-organization fit in the context of Web-based recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 723-734.

Dineen, B. R., Ling, J., Ash, S. R., & DelVecchio, D. 2007. Aesthetic properties and message customization: Navigating the dark side of Web recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 356–372.

Dineen, B. R., & Noe, R. A. 2009. Effects of customization on application decisions and applicant pool character-istics in a Web-based recruitment context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 224-234.

DiPrete, T. A., & Eirich, G. M. 2006. Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theoretical and empirical developments. Annual Review of Sociology, 32: 271-297

Dunford, B. B., Boudreau, J. W., & Boswell, W. R. 2005. Out of the money: The impact of underwater stock options on executive job search. Personnel Psychology, 58: 67-101.

Ehrhart, K. H., & Ziegert, J. C. 2005. Why are individuals attracted to organizations? Journal of Management, 31: 901-919.

Elksnin, L. K., & Elksnin, N. 1991. The school counselor as job search facilitator: Increasing employment of handicapped students through job clubs. School Counselor, 38: 215-220.

Ellis, R. A., & Taylor, M. S. 1983. Role of self-esteem within the job search process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68: 632-640.

Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., Hekman, D. R., Lee, T. W., Holtom, B. C., & Harman, W. S. 2009. Turnover contagion: How coworkers’ job embeddedness and job search behaviors influence quitting. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 545-561.

García, M. F., Triana, M., Peters, A., & Sanchez, M. C. 2009. Self-enhancement in a job search context. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17: 290-299.

Goldberg, C. B., & Allen, D. G. 2008. Black and white and read all over: Race differences in reactions to recruit-ment Web sites. Human Resource Management, 47: 217-236.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W, & Gaertner, S. A. 2000. A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26: 463-488.

Haase, C. M., Heckhausen, J., & Köller, O. 2008. Goal engagement during the school–work transition: Beneficial for all, particularly for girls. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 18: 671-698

Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L. M., & Lev-Arvey, D. 2006. Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1013-1036.

Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. 2004. Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57: 639-683.

Highhouse, S., Stierwalt, S. L., Bachiochi, P., Elder, A. E., & Fisher, G. 1999. Effects of advertised human resource management practices on attraction of African-American applicants. Personnel Psychology, 52: 425-442.

Hobfoll, S. E. 1998. The ecology of stress. New York: Hemisphere.Holtom, B., Mitchell, T., Lee, T., & Inderrieden, E. 2005. Shocks as causes of turnover: What they are and how

organizations can manage them, Human Resource Management, 44: 337-352.Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. 1991. Structural equations modeling test of a turnover theory: Cross-sectional and

longitudinal analyses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 350-366.Hom, P. W., & Kinicki, A. J. 2001. Toward a greater understanding of how dissatisfaction drives employee turnover.

Academy of Management Journal, 44: 975-987.Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. 2004. Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Jokisaari, M., & Nurmi, J. E. 2005. Company matters: Goal-related social capital in the transition to working life.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67: 413-428.Kanar, A. M., Collins, C., & Bell, B. 2010. A comparison of the effects of positive and negative information on job

seekers’ organizational attraction and attribute recall. Human Performance, 23: 193-212.




Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. 2001. Job search and employment: A personality-motivational analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 837-855.

Koen, J., Klehe, U., Van Vianen, A. E. M., Zikic, J., & Nauta, A. 2010. Job-search strategies and reemployment quality: The impact of career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77: 126-139.

Kopelman, R. E., Rovenpor, J. L., & Millsap, R. E. 1992. Rationale and construct validity evidence for the Job Search Behavior Index: Because intentions (and New Year’s resolutions) often come to naught. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 40: 269-287.

Kravitz, D. A., & Klineberg, S. L. 2000. Reactions to two versions of affirmative action among Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 597-611.

Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. 2005. Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58: 281-342.

Kuhl, J., & Beckmann, J. 1985. Action control: From cognition to behavior. New York: Springer.Kuhn, P., & Skuterud, M. 2000. Job search methods: Internet versus traditional. Monthly Labor Review,

123: 3-11.Lee, T. H., Gerhart, B., Weller, I., & Trevor, C. O. 2008. Understanding voluntary turnover: Path-specific job sat-

isfaction effects and the importance of unsolicited job offers. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 65-671.Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. 1994. An alternative approach: The unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover.

Academy of Management Review, 19: 51-89.Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., McDaniel, L. S., & Hill, J. W. 1999. The unfolding model of voluntary

turnover: A replication and extension. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 450-462.Lee, T. W., Mitchell, T. R., Wise, L., & Fireman, S. 1996. An unfolding model of voluntary employee turnover.

Academy of Management Journal, 39: 5-36.Lievens, F., & Harris, M.M. 2003. Research on Internet recruiting and testing: Current status and future directions.

In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial/organizational psychology (Vol. 20): 131-165). Hoboken; NJ: Wiley.

Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G., & Schreurs, B. 2005. Examining the relationship between employer knowledge dimen-sions and organizational attractiveness: An application in a military context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78: 553-5722.

Linnehan, F., & Blau, G. 1998. Exploring the emotional side of job search behavior for younger workforce entrants. Journal of Employment Counseling, 35: 98-113.

Ma, R., & Allen, D. G. 2009. Recruiting across cultures: A value-based model of recruitment. Human Resource Management Review, 19: 334-346.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.McArdle, S., Waters, L., Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D.T. 2007. Employability during unemployment: Adaptability,

career identity and human and social capital. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71: 247-264.McKay, P. F., & Avery, D. R. 2006. What has race got to do with it? Unraveling the role of racioethnicity in job

seekers’ reactions to site visit. Personnel Psychology, 59: 395-429.McKee-Ryan, F. M., & Harvey, J. 2011. I have a job, but . . . : A review of underemployment. Journal of

Management, 37: 962-996.McKee-Ryan, F., Song, Z., Wanberg, C. R., & Kinicki, A. J. 2005. Psychological and physical well-being during

unemployment: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 53-76.Mobley, W. H. 1977. Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 62: 237-240.Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. 1979. Review and conceptual analysis of the

employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86: 493-522.Moynihan, L. M., Roehling, M. V., LePine, M. A., & Boswell, W. R. 2003. A longitudinal study of the relationships

among job-search self-efficacy, job interviews, and employment outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18: 207-233.

Newman, D. A. 2003. Longitudinal modeling with randomly and systematically missing data: A simulation of ad hoc, maximum likelihood, and multiple imputation techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 6: 328-362.

Orazem, P. F., Werbel, J. D., & McElroy, J. 2003. The roles of market expectations and job search on gender dif-ferences in starting pay. Journal of Labor Research, 24: 307-322.




Paul, K. I., & Moser, K. 2009. Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74: 264-282.

Ployhart, R. E. 2006. Staffing in the 21st century: New challenges and strategic opportunities. Journal of Management, 32: 868-897.

Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. 1981. A causal model of turnover for nurses. Academy of Management Journal, 24: 543-565.

Price, R. H. 1992. Psychological impact of job loss on individuals and families. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1: 9-11.

Quint, E. D., & Kopelman, R. E. 1995. The effects of job search behavior and vocational self-concept crystallization on job acquisition: Is there an interaction? Journal of Employment Counseling, 32: 88-96.

Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., Jr., & Gerhart, B. 1991. The importance of recruitment in job choice: A different way of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44: 487-521.

Saks, A. M. 2005. Job search success: A review and integration of the predictors, behaviors, and outcomes. In S. Brown & R. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work: 155-179. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Saks, A. M. 2006. Multiple predictors and criteria of job search success. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68: 400-415.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 1997. A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50: 395-426.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 1999. Effects of individual differences and job search behaviors on the employment status of recent university graduates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54: 335-349.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 2000. Change in job search behaviors and employment outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56: 277-287.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. 2002. Is job search related to employment quality? It all depends on the fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 646-654.

Schwab, D. P., Rynes, S. L., & Aldag, R. J. 1987. Theories and research on job search and choice. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 5: 129-166.

Slaughter, J. E., Sinar, E. F., & Bachiochi, P. D. 2002. Black applicants’ reactions to affirmative action plans: Effects of plan content and previous experience with discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 333-344.

Soelberg, P.O. 1967. Unprogrammed decision making. Industrial Management Review, 8: 19-29.Song, Z., Wanberg, C., Niu, X., & Xie, Y. 2006. Action-state orientation and the theory of planned behavior: A study

of job search in China. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68: 490-503.Spence, M. 1973. Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87: 255–274.Steel, R. P. 2002. Turnover theory at the empirical interface: Problems of fit and function. Academy of Management

Review, 27: 346–360.Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. 1981. Employee turnover and postdecision accommodation processes. In L. Cummings

& B. Staw, Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3): 235-281. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.]Stevens, C. K. 1998. Image theory and career-related decisions: Finding and selecting occupations and jobs. In L. R.

Beach (Ed.), Image theory: Theoretical and empirical foundations: 227-239. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Sullivan, S. E., & Baruch, Y. 2009. Advances in career theory and research: A critical review and agenda for future

exploration. Journal of Management, 35: 1542-1571.Swider, B. W., Boswell, W. R., & Zimmerman, R. D. 2011. Examining the job search–turnover relationship: The

role of embeddedness, job satisfaction, and available alternatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 432-441.Trevor, C. O. 2001. Interactions among actual ease-of-movement determinants and job satisfaction in the prediction

of voluntary turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 621-638.Turban, D. B. 2001. Organizational attractiveness as an employer on college campuses: An examination of the

applicant population. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58: 293-312.Turban, D. B., Lau, C., Ngo, H., Chow, I. H., & Si, S. X. 2001. Organizational attractiveness of firms in the People’s

Republic of China: A person–organization fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 194-206.Turban, D. B., Stevens, S. K., & Lee, F. K. 2009. Effects of conscientiousness and extraversion on new labor market

entrants’ job search: The mediating role of metacognitive activities and positive emotions. Personnel Psychology, 62: 553-573.




Tziner, A., Vered, E., & Ophir, L. 2004. Predictors of job search intensity among college graduates. Journal of Career Assessment, 12: 332-344.

van Hooft, E. A. J., Born, M. P., Taris, T. W., & van der Flier, H. 2005a. Predictors and outcomes of job search behavior: The moderating effects of gender and family situation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67: 133-152.

van Hooft, E. A. J., Born, M. P., Taris, T. W., van der Flier, H., & Blonk, R. W. B. 2005b. Bridging the gap between intentions and behavior: Implementation intentions, action control, and procrastination. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66: 238-256.

van Hooft, E. A. J., Born, M. P., Taris, T. W., van der Flier, H., & Blonk, R. W. B. 2004. Predictors of job search behavior among employed and unemployed people. Personnel Psychology, 57: 25-59.

van Hooft, E. A. J., & Crossley, C. D. 2008. The joint role of locus of control and perceived financial need in job search. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 16: 258-271.

van Hooft, E. A. J., & Noordzij, G. 2009. The effects of goal orientation on job search and reemployment: A field experiment among unemployed job seekers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1581-1590.

Van Hoye, G., van Hooft, E. A. J., & Lievens, F. 2009. Networking as a job search behaviour: A social networking perspective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82: 661-682.

Van Hoye, G., & Saks, A. 2008. Job search as goal-directed behavior: Objectives and methods. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73: 358-367.

Van Rooy, D. L., Alonso, A., & Fairchild, Z. 2003. In with the new, out with the old: Has the technological revolution eliminated the traditional job search process? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11: 170-174.

van Ryn, M., & Vinokur, A. D. 1992. How did it work? An examination of the mechanisms through which an intervention for the unemployed promoted job-search behavior. American Journal of Community Psychology, 20: 577-597.

Vinokur, A., & Caplan, R. D. 1987. Attitudes and social support: Determinants of job-seeking behavior and well-being among the unemployed. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17: 1007-1024.

Vinokur, A. D., Price R. H., & Schul, Y. 1995. Impact of the JOBS intervention on unemployed workers varying in risk for depression. American Journal Community Psychology, 23: 39-74.

Vuori, J., Silvonen, J., Vinokur, A. D., & Price, R. H. 2002. The Työhön Job Search Program in Finland: Benefits for the unemployed with risk of depression or discouragement. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7: 5-19.

Walker, J. H., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., Bernerth, J. B., & Short, J. C. 2011. So what do you think of the organiza-tion? A contextual priming explanation for recruitment Web site characteristics as antecedents of job seekers’ organizational image perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114: 165-178.

Wanberg, C. R. 1995. A longitudinal study of the effects of unemployment and the quality of reemployment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46: 40-54.

Wanberg, C. R. 1997. Antecedents and outcomes of coping behaviors among unemployed and reemployed indi-viduals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 731-744.

Wanberg, C. R., Glomb, T. M., Song, Z., & Sorenson, S. 2005. Job-search persistence during unemployment: A 10-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 411-430.

Wanberg, C. R., Hough, L. M., & Song, Z. 2002. Predictive validity of a multidisciplinary model of reemployment success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8: 1100-1121.

Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R., & Rotundo, M. 1999. Unemployed individuals: Motives, job-search competencies, and job-search constraints as predictors of job seeking and reemployment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 897-910.

Wanberg, C. R., Zhang, Z., Diehn, E. W. 2010. Development of the “Getting Ready for Your Next Job” inventory for unemployed individuals. Personnel Psychology, 63: 439-478.

Wanberg, C. R., Zhu, J., & van Hooft, E. A. J. 2010. The job search grind: Perceived progress, self-reactions, and self-regulation of search effort. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 788-807.

Wells, R. E., & Iyengar, S. S. 2005. Positive illusions of preference consistency: When remaining eluded by one’s preferences yields greater subjective well-being and decision outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98: 66-87.

Werbel, J. D. 2000. Relationships among career exploration, job search intensity and job search effectiveness in graduating college students. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57: 379-394.




Werbel, J. D., Song, L. J., & Yan, S. 2008. The influence of external recruitment practices on job search practices across domestic labor markets: A comparison of the United States and China. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12: 93-101.

Williamson, I. O., King, J. E., Jr., Lepak, D., & Sarma, A. 2010. Firm reputation, recruitment web sites, and attract-ing applicants. Human Resource Management, 49: 669-687.

Yang, E., & Gysbers, N. C. 2007. Career transitions of college seniors. Career Development Quarterly, 56: 157-170.Zikic, J., & Klehe, U. 2006. Job loss as a blessing in disguise: The role of career exploration and career planning

in predicting reemployment quality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69: 391-401.Zikic, J., & Saks, A. M. 2009. Job search and social cognitive theory: The role of career-relevant activities. Journal

of Vocational Behavior, 74: 117-127.Zimmerman, R. D. 2008. Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-

analytic path model. Personnel Psychology, 61: 309-348.Zimmerman, R. D., Boswell, W. R., Shipp, A. J., Dunford, B. B., & Boudreau, J. W. in press. Explaining the

pathways between approach-avoidance personality traits and employees’ job search behavior. Journal of Management. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310396376.



employee job search: toward an understanding of search context and search objectives

Documents