lampiran - kc.umn.ac.idkc.umn.ac.id/6440/7/lampiran.pdfr: niat saya besar untuk cari pekerjaan...

93

LAMPIRAN

Analisis Pengaruh Perceived..., Monica, FB UMN, 2018

TRANSKRIP INDEPTH INTERVIEW

Tanggal: 8 Maret 2018

M: Monica

R: Regita Natalia (Mahasiswa Universitas Bina Nusantara)

M: Selamat siang, git. Terima kasih ya sudah meluangkan waktunya untuk diwawancara.

R: Iya, selamat siang mon.

M: Kalo boleh tahu, sekarang ini udah lulus ya? Ambil jurusan apa di Binus?

R: Iya, saat ini saya sudah lulus. Ambil jurusan manajemen.

M: Sekarang lagi sibuk apa git? Kan udah lulus kuliah nih, rencana kedepannya mau ngapain?

R: Sebenernya masih bingung mon. Pengennya cari kerja tapi kepikiran juga buat bikin usaha

sendiri.

M: Pengen bikin usaha apa? Biasanya cari kerja melalui apa?

R: Biasanya cari kerja dari job street sih. Ada rencana pengen buka usaha online shop kaya

jualan baju-baju, karena kebetulan ada kenal dengan supplier baju batik.

M: Trus, apakah anda merasa yakin dengan kemampuan yang dimiliki saat ini?

R: Ya saya yakin-yakin aja dengan kemampuan yang dipunya saat ini. Karena saya merasa nilai

saya ga jelek kok. Tapi kadanng saya suka ngerasa ga yakin sama kemampuan diri.

M: sekarang ini kan anda lagi cari kerja. Apa pandangan atau sikap anda saat mencari

pekerjaan? Trus pengennya kerja dibagian apa?

R: menurut saya, cari kerja tuh menarik banget. Karena saya bisa tahu rentang gaji fresh

graduate tuh berapa.trus bisa tau banyak informasi yang berkaitan sama job description. Jadi ga

asal pilih kerja. Pengennya cari kerja yang sesuai sama jurusan yang diambil pas kuliah.

M: Seberapa besar niat anda saat mencari pekerjaan? Kegiatan apa aja yang sudah anda

lakukan untuk mencari pekerjaan?

R: niat saya besar untuk cari pekerjaan karena saya tidak mau terlalu lama menganggur. Saat

ini, saya sudah cari-cari pekerjaan lewat situs online, kirim CV sama surat lamaran. Sekarang ini

saya berharap ada panggilan interview.


M: pernah datang ke job fair?

R: pernah, job fair itu rame banget.

M: seberapa sering cari pekerjaan?

R: hampir tiap hari kalo ada waktu luang pasti iseng-iseng liat website. Kadang suka ada

informasi pekerjaan yang baru.

M: apa pertimbangan anda waktu cari pekerjaan?

R: yang pertama sih gaji. Saya berharap dapat pekerjaan yang gajinya 5-6 juta. Kedua, tidak jauh

dari rumah. Supaya saya bisa hemat ongkos ke tempat kerja. Ketiga, job description dari

pekerjaan itu.

M: apa pandangan anda tentang mencari pekerjaan?

R: cari pekerjaan tuh ga gampang mon. kadang job descnya ga sesuai apa yang kita mau, trus

saya kan lebih suka yang ga jauh dari tempat tinggal.

M: saya rasa sudah cukup. makasih ya git udah luangin waktu buat diwawancara.


M: Monica

V: Theresa N. Vanesa (Universitas Atma Jaya)

M: Selamat siang, ca. Terima kasih ya sudah meluangkan waktunya untuk diwawancara.

V: Iya mon.

M: Ca, sekarang udah lulus ya. Ambil jurusan apa di Atma?

V: Iya sekarang saya sudah lulus. Ambil jurusan Ilmu Komunikasi.

M: sekarang rencananya udah lulus mau ngapain ca?

V: pengennya sih santai-santai dulu. Pengen cari kerja kantoran juga. Tapi untuk saat ini belum

pengen kerja dulu.

M: Tapi kalo suatu saat bakal cari kerja, seberapa yakin anda sama kemampuan yang dimiliki?

Trus pengennya kerja dibagian apa?

V: bingung.kadang saya sih merasa cukup yakin sama diri saya Karena saya merasa kemampuan

yang saya miliki saat ini cukup baik tapi kadang masih suka merasa ragu apakah kemampuan


yang saya miliki sudah sesuai sama kebutuhan untuk pekerjaan yang saya mau.. Pengennya

kerja dibidang PR.

M: Apa sih pandangan anda tentang cari pekerjaan? Apakah cari pekerjaan merupakan hal yang

menarik?

V: pernah sih iseng-iseng coba cari kerja. Tapi entah kenapa saya merasa kurang menarik aja.

Kayanya karena saya belum menemukan pekerjaan yang sesuai dengan keingingan saya.


R: ga minat ke job fair, lebih prefer cari online aja.

M: Apa yang jadi pertimbangan anda ketika cari pekerjaan?

V: yang pertama pastinya gaji. Pengennya dapet gaji 5 juta. Yang kedua lokasinya tidak terlalu

jauh dari rumah.

M: berarti untuk saat ini belum minat untuk mencari kerja ya?

V: Iya, untuk saat ini belum berminat untuk cari kerja. Karena masih pengen santai dulu. Belum

mau terbebani dengan pekerjaan tetap. Saat ini juga saya kadang-kadang kerja freelance, jadi

masih nyaman dengan kerja freelance.

M: oke. Terima kasih ya ca udah luangin waktu untuk diwawancara


M: Monica

K: Kevin (Universitas Tarumanagara)

M: Selamat sore vin. Makasih ya sudah bersedia untuk diwawancara. Sekarang kamu sudah

lulus ya. Ambil jurusan apa di Untar?

K: saya ambil jurusan Ilmu Komunikasi.

M: Sekarang lagi sibuk apa? Udah ada rencana belom kedepannya mau ngapain?

K: Sekarang lagi sibuk cari kerja kantoran, saat ini juga saya sibuk memberikan les untuk anak

SD. Untuk mengisi waktu luang. Rencana kedepannya pengen dapet kerja di bidang Public

Relation.

M: seberapa yakin anda dengan kemampuan yang dimiliki? Apakah anda yakin dengan

kemampuan yang ada dimiliki akan memudahkan untuk cari pekerjaan?


K: saya merasa lumayan yakin dengan kemampuan pada diri saya dan memudahkan saya untuk

mencari pekerjaan. Tapi kadang saya mikir, kalo saya merasa ga PD sama kemampuan saya.


menarik?

K: menurut saya, cari pekerjaan adalah salah satu hal yang menarik. Karena kita bisa tahu

banyak perusahaan, bisa tahu kerjaannya ngapain aja, juga bisa tahu kualifikasi yang

dibutuhkan perusahaan saat ini untuk cari karyawan.

M: Apa yang jadi pertimbangan anda ketika cari pekerjaan? Trus pengennya kerja dibagian apa?

K: apa ya.. saat ini sih saya belum ada pertimbangan apa-apa. Karena saya fresh graduate dan

merasa belum punya banyak pengalaman kerja. Untuk saat ini sih pengennya dibagian

marketing, sesuai dengan jurusan yang saya ambil.

M: seberapa besar niat anda mencari pekerjaan?

K: untuk saat ini masih belum niat karena masih mau cari passion yang sesuai


K: ga pernah mon. entah kenapa ga tertarik.

M: apa saja yang telah anda lakukan untuk cari pekerjaan?

K: saat ini, saya sudah cari-cari pekerjaan lewat website. Kadang suka nanya juga ke temen, di

tempat kerjanya lagi ada lowongan pekerjaan atau tidak. Terus, saya juga udah kirim CV ke

perusahaan dan sudah beberapa kali ikut interview.

M: oke saya rasa sudah cukup. Terima kasih atas informasinya.

Tanggal:12 Maret 2018

M: Monica

MS: Marsheila Valerine (Universitas Pelita Harapan)

M:Selamat sore sel. Makasih ya sudah bersedia untuk diwawancara. Sekarang anda sudah lulus

ya. Ambil jurusan apa di UPH?

MS: iya, saya baru saja kelar sidang skripsi. Ambil jurusan manajemen marketing di UPH.

M: Sekarang lagi sibuk apa sel? Kan udah lulus kuliah nih, rencana kedepannya mau ngapain?


MS: sekarang ini lagi sibuk ngurusin revisianaja sambil iseng cari kerjaan tetap. Kalo rencana

kedepan pastinya mau cari kerjaan dong. Saya berharap tidak menganggur terlalu lama.

M: oh gitu. seberapa yakin anda dengan kemampuan yang dimiliki? Apakah anda yakin dengan

kemampuan yang ada dimiliki akan memudahkan untuk cari pekerjaan?

MS: saya cukup yakin dengan kemampuan yang saya miliki tapi kadang saya merasa ga PD

dengan kemampuan saya karena merasa skill belum cukup


menarik?

MS: menurut saya cari pekerjaan cukup seru karena bisa pilih sesuai yang kita mau.

M: Apa yang jadi pertimbangan anda ketika cari pekerjaan? Trus pengennya kerja dibagian apa?

MS: yang jadi pertimbangan sih jarak tempat kerja, maunya ga terlalu jauh dari tempat tinggal

supaya irit ongkos. pengen kerja bagian marketing, biar ilmu waktu kuliah kepake.

M: seberapa besar niat anda mencari pekerjaan?

MS: kalo sekarang ini masih belom mau cari kerja dlu. Masih mau santai dan masih mikir

kedepannya mau kerja bagian apa.


MS: belum pernah mon. karena lebih suka cari via online aja. Ga repot.

M: apa saja yang telah anda lakukan untuk cari pekerjaan?

MS: saat ini udah kirim-kirim CV. Tapi belum dipanggil sama perusahaan untuk interview.

M: oke saya rasa sudah cukup. Terima kasih ya sel udah mau diwawancara.


M: Monica

E: Elisa (Universitas Bina Nusantara)

M: Selamat sore, ca. Terima kasih ya sudah meluangkan waktunya untuk diwawancara.

E: Iya selamat sore

M: Kalo boleh tahu, sekarang ini udah lulus ya? Ambil jurusan apa di Binus?


E: iya ambil jurusan international business management.

M: Sekarang lagi sibuk apa ca? Kan udah lulus kuliah nih, rencana kedepannya mau ngapain?

E: sekarang ini lagi ga sibuk apa-apa sih. Masih belum tau rencana kedepannya mau ngapain.

Sekarang ini lagi mau santai dulu.

M: Trus, kalo suatu saatcari kerja, apakah anda merasa yakin dengan kemampuan yang dimiliki

saat ini? Nantinya mau kerja dibagian apa?

E: hmm kayanya sih yakin-yakin aja sama kemampuan yang dimiliki. Nantinya mungkin pengen

coba kerja yang berkaitan sama ekspor impor.


menarik??

E: pandangan saya, cari kerja sepertinya bukan perkara yang mudah. Banyak teman saya yang

bilang cari kerja itu ga gampang. Cari pekerjaan kayanya bukan hal yang menarik.

M: untuk saat ini, pernah ga coba cari kerja?

E: pernah tapi ga kirim CV Cuma lihat-lihat lowongan aja.


E; belom pernah mon. ga tertarik kesana.

M: oke saya rasa sudah cukup. Makasih ya udah luangin waktu untuk diwawancara.


M: Monica

L: Lita (Universitas Multimedia Nusantara)

M: Selamat siang, ta. Terima kasih ya sudah meluangkan waktunya untuk diwawancara.

L: iya selamat siang mon.

M: Kalo boleh tahu, sekarang ini udah lulus ya? Ambil jurusan apa di UMN?

L: di UMN ambil jurusan manajemen peminatan HR.

M: Sekarang lagi sibuk apa ta? Kan udah lulus kuliah nih, rencana kedepannya mau ngapain?


L: sekarang ini lagi sibuk cari kerja aja nih. Rencana kedepannya pengen cepet dapet kerja.

Supaya tidak nganggur terlalu lama.

M: Trus, apakah anda merasa yakin dengan kemampuan yang dimiliki saat ini?

L: saat ini saya merasa yakin dengan kemampuan yang saya miliki

M: sekarang ini kan anda lagi cari kerja. Apa pandangan atau sikap anda saat mencari

pekerjaan? Trus pengennya kerja dibagian apa?

L: menurut saya, cari kerja tuh ga gampang. Kita udah apply banyak pekerjaan kadang masih

belum dapat panggilan untuk interview. Pengennya kerja bagian HR.

M: Seberapa besar niat anda saat mencari pekerjaan? Kegiatan apa aja yang sudah anda

lakukan untuk mencari pekerjaan?

L: niat saya cukup besar untuk mencari pekerjaan. Untuk saat ini, saya sudah kirim CV ke

perusahaan melalui job street dan kadang ikut job fair juga.

M: apa pertimbangan anda waktu cari pekerjaan?

L: yang pertama gaji. Kedua, lokasi kerja. Maunya ga terlalu jauh dari tempat tinggal. Jadi tidak

menghabiskan banyak waktu di perjalanan ke tempat kerja.

M: saya rasa sudah cukup. makasih ya lit udah luangin waktu buat diwawancara.


M: Monica

E: Angel (Universitas Pelita Harapan)

M: Selamat siang ngel. Terima kasih sudah meluangkan waktunya untuk diwawancara.

E: Iya selamat siang

M: Kalo boleh tahu, sekarang ini udah lulus ya? Ambil jurusan apa di UPH?

E: iya ambil jurusan perhotelan

M: Sekarang lagi sibuk apa ngel? Kan udah lulus kuliah nih, rencana kedepannya mau ngapain?


Sekarang ini lagi mau santai dulu.




E: saya merasa kurang yakin sih. Nantinya mungkin pengen coba kerja yang bidang perhotelan.


menarik??


bilang cari kerja itu ga gampang. Banyak juga yang udah lulus tapi belum dapat kerjaan.


E: pernah tapi ga kirim CV Cuma lihat-lihat lowongan aja di jobstreet, sama kadang nanya

lowongan ke temen.


E; belom pernah mon. ga tertarik kesana.



M: Monica

E: Cindy (Universitas Pelita Harapan)

M: Selamat sore, cin. Terima kasih ya sudah meluangkan waktunya untuk diwawancara.

E: Iya selamat sore

M: Kalo boleh tahu, sekarang ini udah lulus ya? Ambil jurusan apa di UPH?

E: iya ambil jurusan psikologi

M: Sekarang lagi sibuk apa cin? Kan udah lulus kuliah nih, rencana kedepannya mau ngapain?




E: hmm kayanya sih yakin-yakin aja sama kemampuan yang dimiliki. Nantinya mungkin pengen

coba kerja di bagian psikologi mungkin bagian hrd



menarik??


bilang cari kerja itu ga gampang dan mereka masih banyak yang nganggur


E: pernah trus sempet kirim CV juga


E; belom pernah mon. lebih suka apply job via online aja karena ga repot harus dating.



KUESIONER


DATA MAINTEST MEASUREMENT VALIDITAS DAN RELIABILITAS

Estimates (Group number 1 - Default model)

Scalar Estimates (Group number 1 - Default model)

Maximum Likelihood Estimates

Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label

EM5 <--- EM 1.000

EM4 <--- EM .889 .087 10.260 ***

EM3 <--- EM .783 .084 9.338 ***

EM2 <--- EM .848 .086 9.808 ***

EM1 <--- EM .961 .094 10.214 ***

JSINT5 <--- JSINT 1.000

JSINT4 <--- JSINT .873 .114 7.653 ***

JSINT2 <--- JSINT 1.053 .114 9.216 ***

JSINT1 <--- JSINT .912 .105 8.697 ***

JSSE5 <--- JSSE 1.000

JSSE4 <--- JSSE 1.207 .138 8.751 ***

JSSE3 <--- JSSE 1.159 .139 8.340 ***

JSSE2 <--- JSSE 1.207 .142 8.486 ***

JSSE1 <--- JSSE 1.052 .125 8.390 ***

JSINT3 <--- JSINT .943 .107 8.804 ***

JSA7 <--- JSA 1.000

JSA6 <--- JSA 1.165 .131 8.883 ***

JSA5 <--- JSA .981 .121 8.077 ***



JSA4 <--- JSA 1.074 .124 8.668 ***

JSA3 <--- JSA 1.165 .131 8.873 ***

JSA2 <--- JSA 1.035 .120 8.625 ***

JSA1 <--- JSA 1.118 .126 8.845 ***

Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Estimate

EM5 <--- EM .803

EM4 <--- EM .753

EM3 <--- EM .694

EM2 <--- EM .724

EM1 <--- EM .750

JSINT5 <--- JSINT .732




JSSE5 <--- JSSE .681






JSA7 <--- JSA .681


Estimate

JSA6 <--- JSA .757

JSA5 <--- JSA .680

JSA4 <--- JSA .736

JSA3 <--- JSA .756

JSA2 <--- JSA .731

JSA1 <--- JSA .753


DATA MAINTEST STRUKTURAL

Estimates (Group number 1 - Default model)

Scalar Estimates (Group number 1 - Default model)

Maximum Likelihood Estimates

Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)


JSINT <--- EM .362 .067 5.414 ***

JSINT <--- JSSE .085 .072 1.184 .236

JSINT <--- JSA .302 .082 3.703 ***

EM5 <--- EM 1.000

EM4 <--- EM .868 .086 10.079 ***

EM3 <--- EM .786 .083 9.460 ***

EM2 <--- EM .839 .086 9.781 ***

EM1 <--- EM .953 .093 10.205 ***

JSSE5 <--- JSSE 1.000

JSSE4 <--- JSSE 1.180 .133 8.864 ***

JSSE3 <--- JSSE 1.125 .134 8.382 ***

JSSE2 <--- JSSE 1.196 .138 8.678 ***

JSSE1 <--- JSSE 1.027 .121 8.474 ***

JSA5 <--- JSA 1.000

JSA4 <--- JSA 1.084 .126 8.576 ***

JSA3 <--- JSA 1.188 .134 8.858 ***

JSA2 <--- JSA 1.057 .123 8.618 ***

JSA1 <--- JSA 1.138 .129 8.813 ***



JSA6 <--- JSA 1.191 .134 8.890 ***

JSA7 <--- JSA 1.013 .126 8.036 ***

JSINT1 <--- JSINT 1.000

JSINT2 <--- JSINT 1.155 .139 8.294 ***

JSINT3 <--- JSINT 1.034 .130 7.949 ***

JSINT4 <--- JSINT .957 .138 6.959 ***

JSINT5 <--- JSINT 1.097 .137 8.015 ***

Model Fit Summary

CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Default model 47 365.093 206 .000 1.772

Saturated model 253 .000 0

Independence model 22 1992.286 231 .000 8.625

Baseline Comparisons

Model NFI

Delta1

RFI

rho1

IFI

Delta2

TLI

rho2 CFI

Default model .817 .795 .911 .899 .910

Saturated model 1.000

1.000

1.000

Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000


Parsimony-Adjusted Measures

Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI

Default model .892 .728 .811

Saturated model .000 .000 .000

Independence model 1.000 .000 .000

RMSEA

Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Default model .067 .055 .078 .009

Independence model .209 .201 .218 .000


DATA PRETEST

EMPLOYABILITY

Anti-image Matrices

Employability1 Employability2 Employability3 Employability4 Employability5

Anti-image Covariance

Employability1 .441 -.253 -.018 -.136 -.240

Employability2 -.253 .741 -.118 .014 .079

Employability3 -.018 -.118 .955 -.062 .091

Employability4 -.136 .014 -.062 .658 -.180

Employability5 -.240 .079 .091 -.180 .526

Anti-image Correlation

Employability1 .638a -.442 -.028 -.253 -.499

Employability2 -.442 .588a -.141 .019 .127

Employability3 -.028 -.141 .560a -.078 .128

Employability4 -.253 .019 -.078 .784a -.307

Employability5 -.499 .127 .128 -.307 .657a

a. Measures of Sampling Adequacy(MSA)

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.796 .747 5


KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .686

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity

Approx. Chi-Square 32.200

df 6

Sig. .000

Component Matrixa

Component

1

Employability1 .885

Employability2 .553

Employability3 .566

Employability4 .759

Employability5 .809

Extraction Method: Principal

Component Analysis.

a. 1 components extracted.


DATA PRETEST

JOB SEARCH SELF-EFFICACY

Anti-image Matrices

Job Search Self

Efficacy 1

Job Search Self

Efficacy 2

Job Search Self

Efficacy 3

Job Search Self

Efficacy 4

Job Search Self

Efficacy 5


Job Search Self Efficacy 1 .559 -.043 -.172 -.072 -.177

Job Search Self Efficacy 2 -.043 .576 -.205 -.189 .035

Job Search Self Efficacy 3 -.172 -.205 .602 -.039 -.011

Job Search Self Efficacy 4 -.072 -.189 -.039 .464 -.222

Job Search Self Efficacy 5 -.177 .035 -.011 -.222 .544


Job Search Self Efficacy 1 .828a -.075 -.296 -.142 -.321

Job Search Self Efficacy 2 -.075 .778a -.348 -.364 .062

Job Search Self Efficacy 3 -.296 -.348 .809a -.073 -.019

Job Search Self Efficacy 4 -.142 -.364 -.073 .771a -.442

Job Search Self Efficacy 5 -.321 .062 -.019 -.442 .759a






df 10

Sig. .000


Component Matrixa

Component

1

Job Search Self Efficacy 1 .788





Extraction Method: Principal Component

Analysis.



Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.828 .830 5


DATA PRETEST

JOB SEARCH ATTITUDE





df 21

Sig. .000

Anti-image Matrices

Job Search

Attitude 1

Job Search

Attitude 2

Job Search

Attitude 3

Job Search

Attitude 4

Job Search

Attitude 5

Job Search

Attitude 6

Job Search

Attitude 7

Anti-image

Covariance

Job Search Attitude

1

.687 -.094 -.181 -.016 .022 .028 -.021

Job Search Attitude

2

-.094 .233 .053 -.106 .023 -.146 -.107

Job Search Attitude

3

-.181 .053 .537 -.085 -.064 -.083 .038

Job Search Attitude

4

-.016 -.106 -.085 .304 -.126 .036 .048

Job Search Attitude

5

.022 .023 -.064 -.126 .246 -.091 -.148

Job Search Attitude

6

.028 -.146 -.083 .036 -.091 .281 .040

Job Search Attitude

7

-.021 -.107 .038 .048 -.148 .040 .477



Job Search Attitude

1

.872a -.235 -.297 -.035 .054 .065 -.036

Job Search Attitude

2

-.235 .790a .150 -.398 .097 -.569 -.321

Job Search Attitude

3

-.297 .150 .866a -.211 -.175 -.215 .075

Job Search Attitude

4

-.035 -.398 -.211 .841a -.461 .122 .126

Job Search Attitude

5

.054 .097 -.175 -.461 .820a -.346 -.433

Job Search Attitude

6

.065 -.569 -.215 .122 -.346 .820a .108

Job Search Attitude

7

-.036 -.321 .075 .126 -.433 .108 .835a

Component Matrixa

Component

1

Job Search Attitude 1 .596








Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.899 .900 7


Component Matrixa

Component

1








Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.



Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.899 .900 7


DATA PRETEST

JOB SEARCH INTENTION





df 10

Sig. .000

Anti-image Matrices

Job Search

Intention 1

Job Search

Intention 2

Job Search

Intention 3

Job Search

Intention 4

Job Search

Intention 5


Job Search Intention 1 .670 -.209 -.061 -.104 -.142

Job Search Intention 2 -.209 .710 -.091 .006 -.113

Job Search Intention 3 -.061 -.091 .610 -.098 -.257

Job Search Intention 4 -.104 .006 -.098 .877 -.069

Job Search Intention 5 -.142 -.113 -.257 -.069 .559


Job Search Intention 1 .796a -.303 -.096 -.136 -.232

Job Search Intention 2 -.303 .805a -.139 .008 -.179

Job Search Intention 3 -.096 -.139 .757a -.134 -.440

Job Search Intention 4 -.136 .008 -.134 .857a -.098

Job Search Intention 5 -.232 -.179 -.440 -.098 .746a



Component Matrixa

Component

1

Job Search Intention 1 .745





Extraction Method: Principal Component

Analysis.



Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.745 .753 5


Employee RelationsEmployability and job search behavior: A six-wave longitudinal study of Chineseuniversity graduatesXie Yizhong Zhibin Lin Yevhen Baranchenko Chi Keung Lau Andrey Yukhanaev Hailing Lu

Article information:To cite this document:Xie Yizhong Zhibin Lin Yevhen Baranchenko Chi Keung Lau Andrey Yukhanaev Hailing Lu , (2017),"Employability and job search behavior A six-wave longitudinal study of Chinese university graduates", Employee Relations, Vol. 39 Iss 2 pp. 223 - 239Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ER-02-2016-0042

Downloaded on: 09 February 2017, At: 14:57 (PT)References: this document contains references to 59 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 47 times since 2017*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:(2017),"Between hope and fear: developing social media guidelines", Employee Relations, Vol. 39 Iss2 pp. 130-144 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ER-04-2016-0086(2017),"How do Party organizations’ boundary-spanning behaviors control worker unrest? A casestudy on a Chinese resource-based state-owned enterprise", Employee Relations, Vol. 39 Iss 2 pp.184-203 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ER-03-2016-0052

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:173272 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emeraldfor Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submissionguidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, aswell as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources andservices.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of theCommittee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative fordigital archive preservation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ER-02-2016-0042

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


Employability and jobsearch behavior

A six-wave longitudinal study of Chineseuniversity graduates

Xie YizhongNanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China

Zhibin Lin and Yevhen BaranchenkoNewcastle Business School, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK

Chi Keung Lau and Andrey YukhanaevNorthumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and

Hailing LuSchool of Economics and Management,

Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing, China

AbstractPurpose – Graduate employability is a key concern for many observers particularly at a time wheneducation is increasingly available for the masses. The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact ofgraduate perceived employability on job search by integrating theory of planned behavior and to identifyhow job search self-efficacy, subjective norms, intention and intensity change over time.Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from a six-wave survey study with a sample ofChinese university graduating students.Findings – Results show that perceived employability has a positive and significant effect on job searchself-efficacy, attitude, intention and intensity; and that all the repeated measuring variables (except job searchattitude) decreased over time.Practical implications – The study is useful for educators, employers and prospective students. It promptsdiscussion of reforms in the curriculum to increase graduate awareness of the complexity of the job search processand existing opportunities. The study could also help to explain how job search behavior changes over time.Originality/value – The findings carry implications for both higher education research and the measures ofimproving graduate employability. The study fills the gap in the literature by integrating employability andthe theory of planned behavior into one framework in order to analyze the process of Chinese universitygraduates’ job search behavior.Keywords China, Graduate employability, Job search, Regulatory focus, Theory of planned behaviour,Self-evaluationPaper type Research paper

IntroductionA considerable amount of research attention has been devoted to the concept ofemployability (Clarke and Patrickson, 2008; Rothwell et al., 2008; Kang et al., 2012) revealingits multi-facetedness (Forrier and Sels, 2003). Rothwell et al. (2008) defined graduateemployability as “the perceived ability to attain sustainable employment appropriate toone’s qualification level.” Being studied from different angles employability is perceived as acomponent of higher productivity (Fugate et al., 2004). It has impact on health andwell-being of employees (De Cuyper et al., 2009). Employees are encouraged to takeresponsibility for how to respond to challenges with regard to work, their employment andorganizations (Hiltrop, 1995; Clarke and Patrickson, 2008).

In the higher education context policy makers and managers have to face a paradox:making the higher education system available for the masses and ensuring the

Employee RelationsVol. 39 No. 2, 2017

pp. 223-239© Emerald Publishing Limited

0142-5455DOI 10.1108/ER-02-2016-0042

Received 20 February 2016Revised 1 August 2016

23 August 2016Accepted 24 August 2016

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm

223

Employabilityand job search

behavior

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


employability of the graduates and the efficiency of the system (Chillas, 2010; Kulkarni andNithyanand, 2013). In recent decades, there has been a trend of shifting from an elite to amass higher education system across developed countries and emerging countries such asChina (Shen and Darby, 2006; Li et al., 2008; Scurry and Blenkinsopp, 2011). China presents aprime example of a country shifting to mass higher education (Zhiwen and Van der Heijden,2008; Li and Zhang, 2010). In 1999 the Chinese Government expanded the higher educationsector in response to the trend of international trade and the shortage of highly qualifiedmanpower (Bai, 2006). The number of graduates with a bachelor degree from highereducation institutions was 5,754,245 in 2010, 6,081,565 in 2011, 6,247,338 in 2012 and6,387,210 in 2013 (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2014). According to Yang (2014),employment rates for recent graduates were 67.1 percent in 2009, 72.2 percent in 2011 and71.9 percent in 2013. University graduates are meeting tremendous difficulties in securingjobs that matched their qualification (Li et al., 2008, 2010; Wang and Moffatt, 2008; Wanget al., 2012), hence there have even been concerns about their “over education,” “overqualification” and “underutilization” (Scurry and Blenkinsopp, 2011).

Graduate employability has become a major concern for all higher educationstakeholders including universities, governments, employers and the graduatesthemselves. Cai (2013) pointed to the potential imbalance between the supply of laborand the skills required by the labor market. Concerns are raised about how seriouslystakeholders address the over education. Seen by Li et al. (2008) and later by Li et al. (2010)as an evolving trend since the middle of the 1990s in China, the over education in thecountry is arguably of a temporary nature as the percentage of highly educated workers inChina has not reached the corresponding figure of the international average. Despite beingportrayed as a contemporary phenomenon and shared optimisms regarding over educationof the graduates in China (Li et al., 2008), researchers including the authors of this paperbelieve that measures need to be taken to address the potential threats imposed by overeducation. The potential consequences include devaluation of education (Dolton andVignoles, 2000), decrease in productivity of individuals (Tsang, 1987) and may lead to awage penalty in the short to medium term (Diem and Wolter, 2014).

For these reasons, graduate unemployment is now considered by many researchers to bea serious socio-economic issue ( Jin et al., 2009; Moorman, 2011), which has an impact on theexperience of student learning and their confidence in finding a job after graduation.

Graduate employment has been a critical benchmark for measuring performance at aninstitutional level seen through the prism of institutional constraint (such as hukou forinstance) (Wang and Moffatt, 2008), yet examination of how individual students getemployment has received less attention (Harvey, 2001). Due to the vast changes taking placein the labor market, including job deterioration, employability has become the centralconcern for prospective graduates (Berntson et al., 2008; Kang et al., 2012) and universitieshave been criticized for not sufficiently preparing their graduates for employment. It istherefore important to understand how graduates’ perception of their own employabilityimpacts on their job search process, so as to develop relevant support strategies for theirchances of success after university education.

In the human resources development and vocational study literature, most studies havefocused only on the effects of employability on reemployment, salary, job satisfaction andjob performance (Clarke and Patrickson, 2008; De Cuyper et al., 2009), with little attention tothe effects of perceived employability as a motivational factor. Moreover, the antecedents ofjob search behavior have been extensively analyzed by a number of experts using theory ofplanned behavior (Kanfer et al., 2001; Saks et al., 2005), yet limited research has examinedthe role of graduate perceived employability on the process.

Furthermore as acknowledged by Wang and Moffatt (2008) studying graduate jobsearch in China involves a range of constraints mainly due to difficulties in obtaining the

224

ER39,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


data and the nature of the job search phenomenon, which is still not that widespread.Yue et al. (2004) revealed the importance of academic performance and that the informationsupport from the university positively influenced a graduate’s ability to find a job with nonoticeable effect on job search intensity and specific search skill trainings. Zhou (2003) alsoidentified that university support has a positive impact on the probability of getting the job.In a more recent study Wang and Moffatt (2008) provided evidence of the positiverelationship between efforts made by the graduates and job search outcome; the role of theuniversity was also acknowledged due to the ability of the latter to assists in the university-labor market transition. In their article focused on postgraduate Chinese students Li et al.(2010) called for maximization of the utilization of job search related information channels,thus reducing information asymmetry between the graduates and the job market. In arecent study by Li et al. (2015) conducted in 14 higher education institutions from four citiesin China, evidence was provided to show that those graduates who search for jobs morefrequently have more chance of being successful in finding a job with a higher startingsalary, whereas higher job search associated expenditures do not lead to a greaterprobability of being successful in finding a job.

The aim of this study is thus to fill the gaps in the literature by drawing upon Higgins’(1997) regulatory focus theory to study the role of graduate perceived employability in theirjob search behavior. Using a strong research design with repeated measures by collectingsix-wave longitudinal data with a sample of university students in China, we attempt to findout: how perceived employability affects the trends of job search self-efficacy and intensity,and how job search self-efficacy, subjective norms, intention and intensity change over time.

The study is unique in its ability to integrate the construct of perceived employabilityand the theory of planned behavior as a more holistic approach to explain the job searchbehavior of university graduates. Our study extends the theory of planned behavior instudying graduate job search behavior and provides evidence to support the predictionregarding perceived employability based on regulatory focus theory, hence helping togenerate a better understanding of the motivational variables in relation to graduate jobsearch behavior.

Theory and hypothesesThe theory of planned behaviorThe theory of planned behavior has been widely cited in the job search literature and isconsidered to be a solid model to study the job search mechanisms (Fugate et al., 2004; Songet al., 2006; Mcardle et al., 2007; Zikic and Saks, 2009). The model was developed to explainhow goals and plans determine behavior. According to this theory, the best predictor ofbehavior is the intention to perform the actions. Job search intention can act as the mostimmediate predictor of job search behavior (Song et al., 2006) and intention is directlypredicted by subjective norms, attitudes toward the actions, and perceived behavioralcontrol (Ajzen, 1991).

Subjective norms are individual’s perceived social pressure to perform or not to performthe behavior (Ajzen, 1991). In the literature, subjective norms are formed by beliefs ofunemployed individuals on the basis of expectations of others to exert effort toward findinga job (Wanberg et al., 2005). The central role is played by the pressure to conform to thebehavior of the influencing group of people (Asch, 1951). The individual may face approvalor sanctions from the people, especially the ones who are closest to the job seeker, forexample, family, relatives and friends (Vinokur and Caplan, 1987).

In the process of job search, the intention is formed on the basis of the magnitude of effortput into the process by the individual. Attitude toward the behavior is reflected by anunemployed individual’s cognitive or affective evaluation of the effort. Thus one individualmay think that the process of finding a job is routine and even futile, whereas another

225


behavior

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


individual believes that hard work is needed in order to find a job. As intentions capture themotivational factors that determine behavior, there is a positive influence of strongerintention on the performance and as a result on greater intensity (Wanberg et al., 2005).

Perceived behavioral control, which refers to the expected difficulty, has beenoperationalized as job search self-efficacy, an individual’s confidence in performing jobsearch behavior well (Song et al., 2006; Zikic and Saks, 2009).

Many studies analyzing job search behavior took into consideration job search intensity,seen by some contributors as the frequency of actions which are undertaken by the job seeker(Van Hooft et al., 2004; Saks et al., 2005) or as the amount of time that a job seeker spendssearching for jobs (Wanberg et al., 2010), whereas others believe that job search intensity isreflected in the degree of efforts performed by job seekers (Blau, 1993; Sun et al., 2013).

The current study follows the approach used by Song et al. (2006) and Kanfer et al. (2001),in which they measure job search intensity as frequency of an individual’s job searchbehaviors, for instance sending out resumes and having interviews. In contrast to theapproach used by Wanberg et al. (2010) which assess the intensity in a short period of time,our study considers the long-term job search dynamics.

Recently a number of studies have applied the theory of planned behavior to test therelationships among the variables of job search attitude, subjective norm, self-efficacy,intention and intensity (Van Hooft et al., 2004; Wanberg et al., 2005; Song et al., 2006; Zikicand Saks, 2009). Following this strand of studies we posit the following:

H1. (a) Job search self-efficacy, (b) attitude and (c) subjective norm are positively relatedto job search intention.

H2. (a) Job search intention and (b) self-efficacy are positively related to job searchintensity.

H3. Job search intention mediates the relationship between: (a) job search self-efficacy,(b) attitude, (c) subjective norm and job search intensity.

Perceived employability and self-efficacyA considerable amount of research attention has been devoted to the conceptualization ofemployability revealing its multi-facetedness (Forrier and Sels, 2003). The concept graduallydeveloped over the last century, reflecting the labor market demand (Froehlich et al., 2014).In the early stages, employability was characterized largely by the view from an economicperspective to meet the needs of achieving full employment. Therefore the focus ofemployability was on attitudes toward work and self-image. Later the developmentof employability concept presents the existence of a diverse range of views on whatdetermines employability and its role. Moreover, employability is also seen as a form ofadaptability of individuals which has been studied extensively from an organizationalchange perspective (Fugate et al., 2004; De Cuyper et al., 2008; Van Emmerik et al., 2012).Rothwell et al. (2008) examine employability from the perspective of individuals, i.e., whatthey believe their chances of successfully getting a particular type of work are. Specifically,they define the term as: “the perceived ability to attain sustainable employment appropriateto one’s qualification level.” We adopt this definition in the current study because it fits inwith our research context and central concern. Perceived employability is conceptuallyrelated to self-efficacy, which is defined as the “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize andexecute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1982).But the two are distinct constructs. Berntson et al. (2008) empirically verified that themeasures of employability and self-efficacy were distinct from one another and thatperceived employability has positive effects on self-efficacy. Thus:

H4. Perceived employability is positively related to job search self-efficacy.

226

ER39,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


Perceived employability and job search behaviorPerceived employability is a self-concept which is an important contributor to globalevaluations of the self (Marsh, 1986), and self-evaluation is an important source of intrinsicmotivation (Shamir et al., 1993). According to Higgins’ (1997) regulatory focus theory, themotivational principle that underlies self-regulation behavior, such as approaching pleasureand avoiding pain, is regulatory focus. There are two types of regulatory foci: promotionand prevention. The promotion focus is concerned with positive outcomes and theindividual is eager to pursue potential success, in contrast, the prevention focus is concernedwith security or avoiding failure and the individual tends to use vigilant strategies guardingagainst mistakes in order to ensure safety and maintain a satisfactory state (Higgins, 1997).Scholer et al. (2014) show that more positive self-evaluations support the promotion focus,whereas less positive self-evaluations support prevention focus. As they put it, “the ways inwhich individuals think and feel about themselves play a significant role in guidingbehavior across many domains in life” (Scholer et al., 2014), such as search for a job aftergraduating from university. Following theory of planned behavior, this includes variablessuch as job search attitude, intention and intensity.

Thus, we posit that:

H5. Perceived employability is positively related to job search attitude.

H6. Perceived employability is positively related to job search intention.

H7. Perceived employability is positively related to job search intensity.

The unique framework of the research is represented in Figure 1.

MethodProcedure and participantsA six-wave anonymous questionnaire survey was conducted on a stratified sample of Chineseuniversity graduating students who were not preparing for further study. In the beginning ofthe first wave, 709 participants from 16 provinces (five in East China, two in South China, twoin North China, three in Central China, one in Northeast China, two in Northwest China, one inSouthwest China) and 52 universities (11 “Project 985” universities, nine “Project 211”universities, 32 other universities) attended the survey. Of these participants, 346 (48.8percent) were men, 362 (51.1 percent) were women; 281 (39.6 percent) were from urban areas,408 (57.5 percent) were from rural areas; 301 (42.5 percent) were students of liberal arts,130 (18.3 percent) were students of science, 262 (37.0 percent) were students of engineering; theaverage age is 22.86, while the standard deviation is 0.98.

Job searchself-efficacy

Job searchintention

Employability

Job searchattitude

Subjectivenorm

Job searchintensity

Figure 1.Employability and the

theory of plannedbehavior

227


behavior

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


All the participants were asked to participate through disseminated e-mail invitations andclassroom announcements. As there are two teaching semesters in China (autumn andspring), the authors of the study expected that the main job searching activities of 2013/2014graduates took place from October 2012 to January 2013 and from March 2013 to May 2013,respectively. During these two periods the six-wave survey was carried out on amonthly basis. The survey was divided into two parts (A and B) in Wave 1, in which Part Aincluded stable demographic characteristics (i.e. control variables) and employability,whereas Part B measured job search self-efficacy, job search attitude, subjective norm andjob search intention.

The four variables in part B of Wave 1 and job search intensity were found to be unstableover time in the job search process. This is also confirmed by Wanberg et al. (2005, 2010) andSun et al. (2013), therefore they are measured repeatedly from Wave 2 to Wave 5. Wave 6 onlycontained the measure of job search intensity. The dates for data collection are as follows.

Wave 1 survey:(A): October 15, 2012-October 22, 2012.(B): October 25, 2012-November 1, 2012.

Wave 2 survey: November 26, 2012-December 3, 2012.Wave 3 survey: January 4, 2013-January 11, 2013.Wave 4 survey: March 18, 2013-March 25, 2013.Wave 5 survey: April 18, 2013-April 25, 2013.Wave 6 survey: May 20, 2013-May 27, 2013.

To reduce attrition due to non-response, we tracked participants unless they stoppedsearching for another job. In total, 709 university graduating students took part in theWave 1survey (A). We provided the questionnaire survey to 709 graduating students in theWave 1 survey (B), 694 effective questionnaires had been obtained (of which 159 people hadfound jobs). We provided the questionnaire survey to 550 graduating students in Wave 2, 344effective questionnaires had been collected (of which 56 people had found jobs). We providedthe questionnaire survey to 494 graduating students in Wave 3, 245 effective questionnaireshad been obtained (of which 57 people had found jobs). We provided the questionnaire surveyto 437 graduating students in Wave 4, 181 effective questionnaires had been received(of which 35 people had found jobs). We provided the questionnaire survey to 402 graduatingstudents in Wave 5, 113 effective questionnaires had been received (of which 46 people hadfound jobs). We provided the questionnaire survey to 356 graduating students in Wave 6, 67effective questionnaires had been received. Each wave of the samples lost some participantsmainly because they were not willing to continue to participate in the survey or were not ableto complete the distributed questionnaires within a required timeslot. To conduct laggedanalysis, we matched each individual’s job search self-efficacy, subjective norm, attitude,intention at Wave t with that person’s job search intensity at Wave t+ 1. One advantage ofusing the repeated measures in our graduate sample is to help to minimize the impact ofpotential endogeneity, an issue of explanatory variables being correlated with the error termwhich might cause incorrect estimates.

MeasuresPerceived employability. The questionnaire used in this study was based on the workof Rothwell et al. (2008). A 16-item scale was used to assess perceived employability(e.g. “I achieve high grades in relation to my studies”). Items were scored on a five-point scaleranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Reliability (coefficient α) is 0.86.

Job search self-efficacy. The researchers adapted items from Song et al. (2006) and theparticipants were asked to indicate how confident they were of being able to do those eight

228

ER39,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


activities related to job search self-efficacy. Items included, for example, “Making the bestimpression and getting the point across in an interview.” The responses ranged from 1(not at all) to 5 (a great deal). Reliability (coefficient α) across the five waves is 0.83.

Job search attitude. This scale consists of instrumental (three items) and affective(four items) job search attitude measurements. The instrumental job search attitudemeasurement developed by Song et al. (2006) was employed by the researchers. An example ofthe instrumental item is “How useful is it for you to spend enough effort in the next month tofind a job” (from “1¼ very useless” to “5¼ very useful”). Affective job search attitude wasadapted from Van Hooft et al. (2004) and the participants were asked to indicate whether thejob search for them is interesting, enjoyable, pleasant or boring (reverse scored).The responses ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Reliability(coefficient α) across the five waves is 0.78.

Subjective norm. Two items were adapted from Song et al. (2006) to measure thesubjective norm, an example being “In the next month, how much effort does your spouse orthe person closest to you think you should spend to get a job?” The responses were on afive-point scale with anchors 1 (no effort) to 5 (a lot of effort). Reliability (coefficient α) acrossthe five waves is 0.84.

Job search intention. Job search intention was measured with two items (Song et al., 2006).For instance: “In the next month, how hard do you intend to look for a job?” Items werescored on a five-point scale, ranging from 1 (no effort) to 5 (a lot of effort). Reliability(coefficient α) across the five waves is 0.87.

Job search intensity. The questionnaire consists of 19 items, 16 of which were adapted fromBlau (1993). Some amendments to the original set of items were needed as a number of themwere specifically designed for company employees. An example item is “Read the helpwanted/classified advertisement in a newspaper, journal, or professional association.” In orderto be more relevant to the Chinese context, three additional items based on the actual situationin China were incorporated. The researchers asked the participants to respond on a five-pointscale (from “1¼ strongly disagree” to “5¼ strongly agree”). Reliability (coefficient α) acrossthe five waves is 0.92.

Control variablesDue to the potential influence of the demographic characteristics of the graduates (gender,age and origin of the participants (i.e. native place)), the researchers introduced thesevariables to control their impact on job search behavior.

AnalysesData were analyzed by means of SPSS19.0, Mplus 7.0 and HLM6.08. Given that the data of thisstudy are hierarchically nested within individuals, the researchers conducted two levels ofanalysis: within-person (Level 1) and between-person (Level 2). Job search efficacy, job searchattitude, subjective norm, job search intention and time dimension were formed into Level 1variables, due to multiple within-person observations. Level 2 analysis consists of controlvariables and perceived employability measures. All the variables from Levels 1 and 2 analysiswere group-mean centered as a way to avoid multicollinarity of the interaction terms with theircorresponding main effects. The adapted centering methods are consistent with the results.

ResultsDescriptive statistics and confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs)Descriptive statistics are provided in Table I, which shows the means, standard deviations,reliability coefficients, intra-class correlations (ICCs) of the key variables, and inter-correlationsat both between-person and within-person analysis levels.

229


behavior

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


nM

SDICC

12

34

56

78

9

1.Gender

709

0.51

0.50

–2.Age

709

22.86

0.98

−0.10**

–3.Origin

709

0.59

0.49

−0.03

0.09*

–4.Employability

709

3.07

0.58

−0.18**

0.05

0.03

0.86

5.Jobsearch

self-efficacy

695

3.26

0.52

0.281

−0.07***

0.01

−0.06

0.30**

0.83

0.25**

0.05***

0.12**

0.33**

6.Jobsearch

attitud

e553

3.11

0.52

0.326

−0.10*

0.01

0.01

0.24**

0.39**

0.78

0.47**

0.55**

0.38**

7.Su

bjectiv

enorm

553

3.25

0.69

0.305

−0.05

0.02

0.03

0.07

0.18**

0.49**

0.84

0.60**

0.26**

8.Jobsearch

intention

553

3.173

0.78

0.333

−0.06

−0.01

0.04

0.12**

0.25**

0.53**

0.62**

0.87

0.38**

9.Jobsearch

intensity

349

2.97

0.49

0.403

−0.14**

0.07

−0.04

0.16**

0.33**

0.43**

0.24**

0.36**

0.92

Notes

:Num

bersinthelowerdiagonalofthecorrelationmatrix

arebetween-person

levelcorrelations.N

umbersintheup

perd

iagonalofthe

correlationmatrix

arewith

in-person

levelcorrelations.R

eliabilitycoefficientsarein

thediagonal.F

orgender:0

–male,1–female;fororigin:0

–urban,1–rural.*p

<0.05;**p

<0.01;***p<0.10

Table I.Descriptive statisticsand between-personand within-personcorrelations

230

ER39,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


The ICCs of variables in various waves indicated that there is a significant amount ofwithin-person variation across months, and therefore within-person level analysis waslegitimate in this study. The results indicated that the correlation betweenperceived employability, job search self-efficacy, attitude, subjective norm, intention andintensity were significant, except the relationship between perceived employability andsubjective norm.

Before testing the hypotheses, we first conducted a set of CFAs to evaluate themeasurement models for the constructs (i.e. employability, job search self-efficacy,subjective norm, attitude, intention and job search intensity). According to Bagozzi and Yi(1988) and Hooper et al. (2008), the generally accepted cutoff criteria are ratio of χ2 statisticsto the degree of freedom (df) not larger than 2 is a good fit; comparative fit index (CFI) largerthan 0.90 indicates satisfactory fit (larger than 0.95 is a good fit); a non-normed fit index orthe Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) larger than 0.90 is a satisfactory fit (larger than 0.95 is a goodfit); a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) smaller than 0.07 is a good fit; anda standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) smaller than 0.08 is a good fit. The resultsof the CFAs in Table II show that the indices of CFI and TLI were satisfactory and theremaining indices are a good fit.

Tests of hypothesesTo test H1-H3, we followed the procedures suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) and theresults are presented in Table III. First, we regressed the dependent variable (job searchintensity) on the control variables (gender, age and origin) and the independent variables( job search self-efficacy, attitude and subjective norm). The coefficients indicate job searchself-efficacy, attitude and subjective norm are positively associated with job search intensity,while gender is negatively associated with it. Second, we regressed the mediating variable

χ2 df χ2/df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

Model 1Baseline: employability1st wave: job search self-efficacy, subjective norm,attitude, intention2nd wave: job search intensity

1,804.248 1,301 1.387 0.916 0.907 0.032 0.051

Model 2Baseline: employability2nd wave: job search self-efficacy, subjective norm,attitude, intention3rd wave: job search intensity

1,727.984 1,306 1.323 0.906 0.897 0.033 0.058

Model 3Baseline: employability3rd wave: job search self-efficacy, subjective norm,attitude, intention4th wave: job search intensity

1,761.740 1,312 1.343 0.898 0.889 0.035 0.063

Model 4Baseline: employability4th wave: job search self-efficacy, subjective norm,attitude, intention5th wave: job search intensity

1,688.837 1,322 1.277 0.909 0.902 0.032 0.058

Model 5Baseline: employability5th wave: job search self-efficacy, subjective norm,attitude, intention6th wave: job search intensity

1,643.672 1,291 1.273 0.915 0.906 0.033 0.066

Table II.CFA results for the

measurement models

231


behavior

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


( job search intention) on the control variables (gender, age and origin) and the independentvariables (job search self-efficacy, attitude and subjective norm). The coefficients indicate thatjob search attitude, subjective norm (with the exception of job search self-efficacy) arepositively associated with job search intention, while gender is negatively associated with it.Finally, we regressed the dependent variable (job search intensity) on the control variables(gender, age and origin), the independent variables (job search self-efficacy, attitude andsubjective norm), and the mediating variable (job search intention). The coefficients indicatethat job search self-efficacy, attitude, subjective norm and job search intention are positivelyassociated with job search intensity, while gender is negatively associated with it. Based onthe above evidence we can conclude that H2 was supported, while H1 and H3 were partiallysupported. In particular, job search efficacy did not predict job search intention significantly,and thus job search intention did not mediate the relationship between job search efficacy andjob search intensity.

To test H4-H7, we estimated four multi-level models with between-person maineffects and the results are presented in Table IV. As expected, individuals with higherperceived employability significantly predicted a higher mean level of job searchself-efficacy, job search attitude, job search intention and job search intensity over time, thusH4-H7 were supported.

Variables Job search self-efficacy Job search attitude Job search intention Job search intensity

Intercept 3.227** 3.108** 3.153** 2.955**

Control variablesGender −0.015 −0.075*** −0.119*** −0.141**Age 0.001 0.005 −0.002 0.026Origin −0.081* 0.001 0.079 −0.073

Main effectsEmployability 0.250** 0.185** 0.116* 0.120*

Model fitDeviance 2,656 2,017 3,061 1,628Notes: For gender: 0 – male, 1 – female; for origin: 0 – urban, 1 – rural. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.10

Table IV.Hierarchical linearmodeling model withcontrols andemployability used topredict TPB variablesand job searchintensity over time

Variables Job search intention Job search intensity

Intercept 3.161** 2.941** 2.941**

Control variablesGender −0.129* −0.117* −0.116*Age −0.007 0.029 0.029Origin 0.078 −0.059 −0.059

Main effectsJob search self-efficacy 0.005 0.215** 0.204**Subjective norm 0.391** 0.128* 0.086***Job search attitude 0.591** 0.267** 0.204**Job search intention 0.104**

Model fitDeviance 2,715 1,409 1,403Notes: For gender: 0 – male, 1 – female; for origin: 0 – urban, 1 – rural. *p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ***p< 0.10

Table III.Predicting job searchintensity with TPBvariables

232

ER39,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


Supplementary analysisGiven the longitudinal nature of our data, we further used a set of unconditional HLMmodels to examine within-individual change over time for each repeated measure( job search self-efficacy, attitude, subjective norm and job search intensity) beforewe tested our hypotheses, and the results are presented in Table V. We found allthe variables (except job search attitude) decreased over time. It was found in the literaturethat workers who are less likely to get jobs become discouraged and eventuallyreduce their search intensity. An individual may change the level of job search intensity(i.e. fewer job applications sent) over time for reasons including a personal tendency to getdiscouraged or increased uncertainty about what to do next in the job search (Wanberget al., 2005). It is rather interesting to note that job search attitude does not showsignificant decrease over time.

As shown in Table V, the slope coefficients for job search self-efficacy, intention andintensity (with the exception of job search attitude) reflected a significantly negativelinear trend over time. To test whether perceived employability plays a moderating role onthe time trend of job search self-efficacy, intention and intensity, we established a set ofmulti-level models, and the results are presented in Table VI. The intercept terms (perceivedemployability for time slope) on both job search self-efficacy and intensity were positivelysignificant, while the intercept term on job search intention was statistically insignificant.It indicates the individuals who had not yet found a job and with higher perceivedemployability suffered much faster decreases on both job search self-efficacy and intensityduring graduate job hunting.

Variables Job search self-efficacy Job search intention Job search intensity

For interceptIntercept 3.303** 3.282** 3.107**

Control variablesGender −0.030 −0.124*** −0.151**Age 0.005 −0.001 0.027Origin −0.081* 0.079 −0.078

For time slopeIntercept −0.038** −0.071** −0.076**Employability 0.078** 0.034 0.033***

Model fitDeviance 2,632 3,017 1,595Notes: For gender: 0 – male, 1 – female; for origin: 0 – urban, 1 – rural. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.10

Table VI.Hierarchical linear

modeling model withcontrols and

employability used topredict slope of

repeated measures

Variable Intercept SlopeCoefficient Variance Coefficient Variance

Job search self-efficacy 3.3076** 0.2710** −0.0432** 0.0269**Subjective norm 3.3118** 0.5000** −0.0421* 0.0349**Job search attitude 3.1219** 0.2827** −0.0179 0.0190**Job search intention 3.2774** 0.7528** −0.0771** 0.0546**Job search intensity 3.0905** 0.2940** −0.0773** 0.0156**Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.10

Table V.Hierarchical linear

modeling descriptiveexamination of

intercept and slope ofrepeated measures

233


behavior

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


Discussion and conclusionThe main purpose of this study was to explore the role of graduate perceived employabilityon the job search process by extending the theory of planned behavior. The results of thisstudy have both theoretical and practical implications.

Theoretical implicationsThe present research has three major contributions to theory. First, the major finding is thatgraduate perceived employability has a positive significant effect on job search self-efficacy,attitude, intention and intensity. This finding suggests that graduates who perceived ahigher level of employability (this can be obtained through higher education) aremore confident of being able to perform the job search process well, have a positive attitudeand intense intentions of looking for a job as well as putting much effort into the jobsearch. These findings represent an important extension of job search research, which hasoften been neglected it as one of the key factors influencing job search behavior (Zikic andSaks, 2009).

Second, this study shows that all the repeated measuring variables (except job searchattitude) decreased over time. Upon completion of their studies, the longer the graduatesstay unemployed, the less effort they put into the job search process. After four years ofstudying at the university, job search will give them higher perceived employability, so theyengage in promotion-focused regulatory behavior, i.e., they are eager to look for a job, andtry their best to find a job. As the time passes, those being rejected several times adjust theirself-perception of employability to a lower level and focus on prevention regulatorybehavior to avoid more job search failure (Higgins, 1997; Scholer et al., 2014). Unsuccessfuljob searchers experience a decline in self-efficacy (confidence loss), intention and intensity,therefore a negative trend for those variables was observed over time in the present study.Furthermore, the findings of the study indicate that job search self-efficacy and intensitydeclined less for individuals with higher levels of perceived employability. The results addfurther evidence to the regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997; Scholer et al., 2014) as appliedin the job search context. However, we also find that the subjective norm decreased overtime. This contradicts the conclusions made in Wanberg et al. (2005). It is possible that afterChinese university graduates fail in their job search, parents will help their children to find ajob through their social network due to the Chinese cultural concept: guanxi. We found thatthe slope for job search attitude was not statistically significant. This is also in contrast tothe finding of Wanberg et al. (2005) that job search attitude shows a negative trend overtime. This difference may be attributed to the different samples, their study examinedunemployed individuals who have already been in the labor market for some time.

Third, the theory of planned behavior within the Chinese context was examined.The results partially supported the theory of planned behavior in predicting job searchbehavior in the Chinese context. Job search attitude and subjective norm were positivelyrelated to intention. Job search intention and self-efficacy were significant predictors ofintensity. Job search intention partially mediated the effects of attitude and subjective normon intensity. Job search self-efficacy, however, did not predict intention. Accordingly, jobsearch intention mediated the effects of attitude and subjective norm on intensity. Previousresearch on the relationship between job search self-efficacy and intention brought mixedresults (Van Hooft et al., 2004).

Self-efficacy does not have an effect on job search intention. Some research implies thatself-efficacy does not have a significant effect on job search intention (Van Hooft et al., 2004;Song et al., 2006), while other research shows that self-efficacy has a weak effect on jobsearch intention (Van Hooft et al., 2004; Zikic and Saks, 2009). The lack of consensus may bedue to the following two reasons: first, on one hand job search intention was enhanced as aresult of enhancement in self-efficacy, when job seekers become more confident in searching

234

ER39,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


for a job, they will have strong job search intention (Ajzen, 1991); on the other hand, it is alsoconceivable that when their job search efficacy is high, they may have low job searchintention because the job search process becomes less challenging (Sun et al., 2013). Second,the strong effect that job search attitude had on job search intention in this study mayweaken the influence that job search self-efficacy had on job search intention (Van Hooftet al., 2004). In the same vein Song et al. (2006) reached a similar conclusion in the Chinesecontext. However, our results were a little different from the results in Song et al. (2006) andshed light on the existing literature in a sense that subjective norm and job search attitudehave positive effects on intention, while self-efficacy does not have an effect on intention.

Practical implicationsThe results of the present research have two major implications for practice. First, ourfindings show that high self-efficacy and intention motivates job search; improvinggraduates’ confidence in the job market is essential. Accordingly, to build confidence in thejob market, universities can contribute, for example, by providing workshops to students forjob searching skills, CV improvement and interview skills (Van Hooft et al., 2004; Wanberget al., 2005). Additionally, friends and families’ support and encouragement can also enhancegraduates’ confidence. In this research, four components are structured to produce theoverall measure of university graduates’ perceived employability: self-belief (confidence inone’s own skills and abilities), my university (the strength of the university’s brand), myfield of study (the status and credibility of the field of study) and the state of the externallabor market (perceptions of the external labor market) (Rothwell et al., 2008). Graduates’perceived employability can be enhanced through strengthening these four components sothat their self-efficacy and intention are enhanced.

Therefore, it is suggested that universities adjust their support accordingly. For example,perceived employability enhancement can be achieved as a result of transformations inuniversity curriculum design, development of new modules and programs focusing on theactual needs of employers in light of recent advancements in information technologies andcross-national higher education initiatives (Wilton, 2008). Therefore upon the completion ofthe degree, the graduates are more self-confident and have positive attitudes toward jobsearch initiatives, which reflect in their skills, abilities, ambition and their awarenessabout job opportunities. Thus the student’s and consequently parents’ dilemma ofconsidering the degree for their children as an opportunistic investment is resolved in a waythat reinforces the need to enhance perceived employability through highereducation. Additionally, building a strong university brand, reputation and enhancing thecorporation with recruiters would also provide more potential job opportunities forgraduates (Zikic and Saks, 2009).

Second, our findings show that self-efficacy, intention and intensity gradually declineover time as a result of a number of unsuccessful job search attempts. This suggests that forunsuccessful job seekers, more support and help from the university to enhance itsgraduates’ self-efficacy, intention and intensity are needed. Therefore in addition to settingemployment goals, university careers advisors can develop or (te Wierik et al., 2015).The engagement in various activities organized by the university, such as development ofthe database of potential employers, participation in on-campus job fairs or attendingworkshops on how to develop effective resumes, may help to guide students not just alongthe path of goal clarification, but along the job search process. Mentoring programs canfocus on expansion of employment information including how to use alumni resources andnetworks. As a result the graduates know that the job search activities eventually leadtoward finding an appropriate job and thus individuals with low intentions will gainconfidence in dealing with difficult situations which require handling the consequences ofbeing unsuccessful in the process of job search. Thus instead, for instance, of individuals

235


behavior

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


with high subjective norm relying heavily on support from their parents (through guanxi),the substantial resources of the alumni group can be used in supporting graduates’ jobsearch (Marmaros and Sacerdote, 2002).

Limitations and future studiesThis study has several limitations that provide avenues for further research. First theparticipant attrition rate is high in this study, a typical issue in all studies using a repeatedmeasure design (Sun et al., 2013). Future research should take some measures to reduceparticipant attrition, and to increase the statistical power of the model.

Second, this study only focused on the job search dynamic process (whether anindividual is able to find a job or not), future research should take into account the outcomesof job search (i.e. employment status, starting salary and job satisfaction), as well as otherfactors such as salary increment, job security and promotion in the future.

Third, between-person and within-person variables were only included on the basis ofthe theory of planned behavior; external variables of industrial globalization, educationalglobalization, and continual education/economic reform may have a mediating effect on thejob search process (Wanberg et al., 2005). Repeated measures of external factors (forinstance unemployment rate and consumer sentiment index) should be adopted in futureresearch and integrated into job search behavior, thus enhancing the model throughminimizing the omitted variable bias. Finally, it would provide additional insights if furtherresearch includes the data of actually finding a job into this study’s research model.

ConclusionGraduate employability is a key concern for all stakeholders, particularly at a time when thehigher education system is increasingly available for the masses. Despite the growingresearch interest in graduate employability (Cai, 2013) and job search (Berntson et al., 2008;Zikic and Saks, 2009), few studies have attempted to integrate graduate perceivedemployability and the theory of planned behavior into one framework. In this study,we integrated employability and the theory of planned behavior into one framework toanalyze the process of Chinese university graduates’ job search behavior. Our findingsreveal that perceived employability has a positive and significant effect on job searchself-efficacy, attitude, intention and intensity. Thus the study advances our knowledge ofgraduate employability and its relationship with job search behavior.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.

Asch, S. (1951), “Effects of group pressure upon the modification distortion of judgments”,in Guetzkow, H. (Ed.), Groups, Leadership and Men, Carnegie Press, Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 222-236.

Bagozzi, R. and Yi, Y. (1988), “On the evaluation of structural equation models”, Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.

Bai, L. (2006), “Graduate unemployment: dilemmas and challenges in China’s move to mass highereducation”, The China Quarterly, Vol. 185, pp. 128-144.

Bandura, A. (1982), “Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency”, American Psychologist, Vol. 37 No. 2,p. 122.

Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.

236

ER39,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0749-5978%2891%2990020-T&isi=A1991GQ64400003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0749-5978%2891%2990020-T&isi=A1991GQ64400003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0003-066X.37.2.122&isi=A1982NG05900002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-3514.51.6.1173&isi=A1986F285400010


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2FBF02723327

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2FBF02723327

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1017%2FS0305741006000087&isi=000238827400008

Berntson, E., Näswall, K. and Sverke, M. (2008), “Investigating the relationship between employabilityand self-efficacy: a cross-lagged analysis”, European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 413-425.

Blau, G. (1993), “Further exploring the relationship between job search and voluntary individualturnover”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 313-330.

Cai, Y. (2013), “Graduate employability: a conceptual framework for understanding employers’perceptions”, Higher Education, Vol. 65 No. 4, pp. 457-469.

Chillas, S. (2010), “Degrees of fit? Matching in the graduate labour market”, Employee Relations, Vol. 32No. 2, pp. 156-170.

Clarke, M. and Patrickson, M. (2008), “The new covenant of employability”, Employee Relations, Vol. 30No. 2, pp. 121-141.

De Cuyper, N., Notelaers, G. and De Witte, H. (2009), “Job insecurity and employability in fixed-termcontractors, agency workers, and permanent workers: associations with job satisfaction andaffective organizational commitment”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2,pp. 193-205.

De Cuyper, N., Bernhard-Oettel, C., Berntson, E., Witte, H. and Alarco, B. (2008), “Employability andemployees’ well-being: mediation by job insecurity”, Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 488-509.

Diem, A. and Wolter, S. (2014), “Overeducation among Swiss university graduates: determinants andconsequences”, Journal for Labour Market Research, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 313-328.

Dolton, P. and Vignoles, A. (2000), “The incidence and effects of overeducation in the UK graduatelabour market”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 179-198.

Forrier, A. and Sels, L. (2003), “The concept of employability: a complex mosaic”, International Journalof Human Resources Development and Management, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 102-124.

Froehlich, D., Beausaert, S., Segers, M. and Gerken, M. (2014), “Learning to stay employable”,Career Development International, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 508-525.

Fugate, M., Kinicki, A.J. and Ashforth, B.E. (2004), “Employability: a psycho-social construct,its dimensions, and applications”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 14-38.

Harvey, L. (2001), “Defining and measuring employability”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 7 No. 2,pp. 97-109.

Higgins, E.T. (1997), “Beyond pleasure and pain”, American Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 12, p. 1280.

Hiltrop, J. (1995), “The changing psychological contract: the human resource challenge of the 1990s”,European Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 286-294.

Hooft, E.A.V., Born, M.P., Taris, T.W., Flier, H.V.D. and Blonk, R.W.B. (2004), “Predictors of job searchbehavior among employed and unemployed people”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 25-59.

Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. and Mullen, M. (2008), “Structural equation modeling: guidelines fordetermining model fit”, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 53-60.

Jin, L., Watkins, D. and Yuen, M. (2009), “Personality, career decision self-efficacy and commitment tothe career choices process among Chinese graduate students”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 47-52.

Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C.R. and Kantrowitz, T.M. (2001), “Job search and employment: a personality-motivational analysis and meta-analytic review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 5,pp. 837-855.

Kang, D., Gold, J. and Kim, D. (2012), “Responses to job insecurity. The impact on discretionaryextra-role and impression management behaviors and the moderating role of employability”,Career Development International, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 314-332.

Kulkarni, M. and Nithyanand, S. (2013), “Social influence and job search choice decisions”, EmployeeRelations, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 139-156.

237


behavior

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0272-7757%2897%2900036-8&isi=000086083500006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13538320120059990

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2Fa0014603&isi=000268814800008

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01425451311287844&isi=000314604700002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs10734-012-9556-x&isi=000316346200004


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1504%2FIJHRDM.2003.002414

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1504%2FIJHRDM.2003.002414

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0003-066X.52.12.1280&isi=A1997YK91700002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jvb.2008.10.002&isi=000263188700006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1464-0597.2008.00332.x&isi=000256442000007


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FCDI-11-2013-0139&isi=000341662000002

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0263-2373%2895%2900019-H

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2F01425451011010104

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.86.5.837&isi=000171256500003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13594320801969699&isi=000260676300001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13594320801969699&isi=000260676300001

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs12651-014-0164-3


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1744-6570.2004.tb02483.x&isi=000220313900002



http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1744-6570.1993.tb00876.x&isi=A1993LH08900004

Li, F., Morgan, J. and Ding, X. (2008), “The expansion of higher education, employment andover-education in China”, International Journal of Educational Development, Vol. 28 No. 6,pp. 687-697.

Li, F., Zhao, Y. and Morgan, J. (2015), “Job search intensity, costs and outcomes: evidence from jobmarket for post-graduate students”, Research in Educational Development, Vol. 5, pp. 18-23.

Li, F., Zhao, Y. and Tian, Y. (2010), “Job search and over-education: evidence from China’s labourmarket for postgraduates”, Perspectives in Education, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 41-50.

Li, T. and Zhang, J. (2010), “What determines employment opportunity for college graduates in Chinaafter higher education reform”, China Economic Review, Vol. 21, pp. 38-50.

McArdle, S., Waters, L., Briscoe, J.P. and Hall, D.T.T. (2007), “Employability during unemployment:adaptability, career identity and human and social capital”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,Vol. 71 No. 2, pp. 247-264.

Marmaros, D. and Sacerdote, B. (2002), “Peer and social networks in job search”, European EconomicReview, Vol. 46 Nos 4-5, pp. 870-879.

Marsh, H.W. (1986), “Global self-esteem: its relation to specific facets of self-concept and theirimportance”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1224-1236.

Moorman, A. (2011), “Changing student expectations and graduate employment: case studies fromXi’an, Shaanxi province”, Frontiers of Education in China, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 521-548.

National Bureau of Statistics of China (2014), China Statistical Year Book 2014, China Statistics Press,Beijing.

Rothwell, A., Herbert, I. and Rothwell, F. (2008), “Self-perceived employability: construction andinitial validation of a scale for university students”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 73No. 1, pp. 1-12.

Saks, A., Brown, S. and Lent, R. (2005), “Job search success: a review and integration of the predictors,behaviors, and outcomes”, in Brown, S. and Lent, R. (Eds), Career Development and Counselling:Putting Theory and Research to Work, John Wiley & Sons, NJ, pp. 155-179.

Scholer, A.A., Ozaki, Y. and Higgins, E.T. (2014), “Inflating and deflating the self: sustainingmotivational concerns through self-evaluation”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,Vol. 51, pp. 60-73.

Scurry, T. and Blenkinsopp, J. (2011), “Under-employment among recent graduates: a review of theliterature”, Personal Review, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 643-659.

Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M.B. (1993), “The motivational effects of charismatic leadership:a self-concept based theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 577-594.

Shen, J. and Darby, R. (2006), “Training and management development in Chinese multinationalenterprises”, Employee Relations, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 342-362.

Song, Z., Wanberg, C., Niu, X. and Xie, Y. (2006), “Action-state orientation and the theory ofplanned behavior: a study of job search in China”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 68 No. 3,pp. 490-503.

Sun, S., Song, Z. and Lim, V.K.G. (2013), “Dynamics of the job search process: developing and testing amediated moderation model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 98 No. 5, pp. 771-784.

te Wierik, M., Beishuizen, J. and van Os, W. (2015), “Career guidance and student success in Dutchhigher vocational education”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 40 No. 10, pp. 1947-1961.

Tsang, M. (1987), “The impact of underutilization of education on productivity: a case study of the USBell companies”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 239-254.

Van Emmerik, H., Schreurs, B., De Cuyper, N., Jawahar, I. and Peeters, M. (2012), “The route toemployability. Examining resources and the mediating role of motivation”, Career DevelopmentInternational, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 104-119.

Van Hooft, E.A.J., Born, M.P., Taris, T.W. and van der Flier, H. (2004), “Job search and the theory ofplanned behavior: minority-majority group differences in the Netherlands”, Journal ofVocational Behavior, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 366-390.

238

ER39,2

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?isi=000279986700006

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F03075079.2014.914905&isi=000362174400012



http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.chieco.2009.10.001&isi=000275799800005

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0272-7757%2887%2990003-3

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs11516-011-0144-0

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jesp.2013.11.008&isi=000331689100009


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ijedudev.2007.10.002&isi=000259709400006





http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2Fa0033606&isi=000324350300005






http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1287%2Forsc.4.4.577&isi=A1993MM31900005

Vinokur, A. and Caplan, R.D. (1987), “Attitudes and social support: determinants of job-seekingbehavior and well-being among the unemployed”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 17No. 12, pp. 1007-1024.

Wanberg, C.R., Zhu, J. and Van Hooft, E.A. (2010), “The job search grind: perceived progress,self-reactions, and self-regulation of search effort”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53No. 4, pp. 788-807.

Wanberg, C.R., Glomb, T.M., Song, Z. and Sorenson, S. (2005), “Job-search persistence duringunemployment: a 10-wave longitudinal study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3,pp. 411-430.

Wang, W. and Moffatt, P. (2008), “Hukou and graduates’ job search in China”, Asian Economic Journal,Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Wang, D., Liu, D. and Lai, C. (2012), “Expansion of higher education and the employment crisis: policyinnovations in China”, On the Horizon, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 336-344.

Wilton, N. (2008), “Business graduates and management jobs: an employability match made inheaven?”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 143-158.

Yang, D. (2014), Annual Report on China’s Education 2014, Social Sciences Academic Press, Beijing.Yue, C., Wen, D. and Ding, X. (2004), “An empirical study on the employment competition of

graduates”, Economics of Education Research, Vol. 3, pp. 20-46.Zhiwen, G. and Van der Heijden, B. (2008), “Employability enhancement of business graduates in

China”, Education+Training, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 289-304.Zhou, J. (2003), “An empirical study on graduates’ job search cost”, Economics of Education Research,

Vol. 1, pp. 32-55.Zikic, J. and Saks, A.M. (2009), “Job search and social cognitive theory: the role of career-relevant

activities”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 117-127.

Corresponding authorYevhen Baranchenko can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htmOr contact us for further details: [email protected]

239


behavior

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

New

cast

le A

t 14:

57 0

9 Fe

brua

ry 2

017

(PT

)


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1559-1816.1987.tb02345.x&isi=A1987M924600001


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.5465%2FAMJ.2010.52814599&isi=000281616700007

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F13639080802080949

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0021-9010.90.3.411&isi=000229376100001



Scanned by CamScannerAnalisis Pengaruh Perceived..., Monica, FB UMN, 2018

lampiran - kc.umn.ac.idkc.umn.ac.id/6440/7/lampiran.pdfr: niat saya besar untuk cari pekerjaan...

Documents