Running head: THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
The Importance of a Strong Employability Culture
The relationship between employability culture, employability orientation, career satisfaction and
turnover intention
J.H. Kroese
#4278496
Master Educational Design & Consultancy
Utrecht University
Thesis Supervisors: Dr. P.A.M. Kommers
Dr. L.H.J. van de Venne
12 June 2015
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
2
Table of Contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................4
Employability culture ...........................................................................................................................4
Trends in employability cultures ......................................................................................................4
Advantages of a strong employability culture ..................................................................................5
Employability culture and career satisfaction ......................................................................................5
Employability culture and turnover intention .......................................................................................6
Lack of scientific research ....................................................................................................................6
Hypotheses ...........................................................................................................................................7
Method...................................................................................................................................................10
Design .................................................................................................................................................10
Instruments .........................................................................................................................................10
Employability culture .....................................................................................................................10
Employability orientation ...............................................................................................................11
Career satisfaction ..........................................................................................................................11
Turnover intention ..........................................................................................................................11
Control variables ............................................................................................................................11
Sample ................................................................................................................................................12
Analyses .............................................................................................................................................14
Results ...................................................................................................................................................14
Main effects ........................................................................................................................................14
Moderation .........................................................................................................................................15
Mediation............................................................................................................................................16
Discussion ..............................................................................................................................................16
References .............................................................................................................................................21
Appendix ...............................................................................................................................................26
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
3
Abstract
Organizations are increasingly seeking direct, measurable and positive returns on investment when it
comes to professional development programs, where increased employee output and performance
should outweigh program investment. However, indirect positive effects from these development
programs are often not taken into account. This study analyzes the effect of ‘employability culture’
(company investment in employee development) and ‘employability orientation’ (an employee’s
motivation to develop himself) on career satisfaction and turnover intention. Anonymous web-based
questionnaires were completed by 163 participants, measuring perceived employability culture,
employability orientation, career satisfaction and turnover intention, as well as gender, age, education
level, organizational tenure and organization size. A multiple regression analysis shows a significant
positive relationship between employability culture and career satisfaction and a significant negative
relationship between employability culture and turnover intention. An interaction analysis shows no
significant moderation on these relationships by employability orientation. Furthermore, a Sobel test
and bootstrapping analysis show that the relationship between employability culture and turnover
intention was not significantly mediated by career satisfaction. The results correspond with
conclusions in previous studies, confirming the importance of creating a strong employability culture
within organizations.
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
4
Employability culture
Training employees through professional development programs has received an increasing
amount of attention the past decades, with professional development program expenditures increasing
fivefold in the past twenty years, across all industries (Bersin, 2014; CBS, 2011; Frazis, Gittleman &
Joyce, 2000). However, the amount of time, money and effort that is being invested in employee
training and development varies greatly from company to company. In other words: each organization
has its own ‘employability culture’ (Nauta, Vianen, Heijden, Dam & Willemsen, 2009). This
increasing effort from organizations to create a strong employability culture makes sense, as research
shows us that “human capital accumulated by education and training [...] is the main source of a
company’s growth in output in the long run” (Ballot, Fakhfakh & Taymaz, 2006, p. 1).
Trends in employability cultures. Despite the overall increased efforts, the global
economic crisis of 2008 caused a sudden 33% decrease in development expenditures in The
Netherlands (CBS, 2011) and a 21% decrease in the United States (Bersin, 2014). This is surprising, as
studies have shown that especially in times of crisis, it is essential for employees to be able to adapt to
new circumstances through professional development programs, which can also result in reduced
costs, improved quality and a more positive (internal and external) reputation for the organization
(Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009; Arthur, Bennett, Edens & Bell, 2003; Barrett & O’Connell, 2001; Bartel,
1995). Nonetheless, development programs are often among the first to be discontinued when cutbacks are required.
A large scale study in The Netherlands inquiring organizations’ motivation to terminate
professional development programs during the crisis showed two main reasons: ‘our employees
already had the necessary skills’ and ‘we hired employees that already had the necessary skills’ (CBS,
2006; CBS, 2011). Reversed, this could imply that companies believe that the main reason to invest in
development programs is to train specific skills that are used directly on-the-job. This implication is
supported by scientific studies the past decade, which conclude that effectiveness of professional
development programs has become increasingly important, with companies expecting a positive
‘return on investment’ (Poell & Kessels, 2011; Van Loo & De Grip, 2011). In fact, the most popular
methods to evaluate professional development programs are ‘changed employee behavior’ and
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
5
‘improvement in production cost or time’ (CBS, 2011). This focus on measurable return on investment
is similarly visible in the vast majority of scientific studies, which evaluated the effectiveness of
professional development programs based on measurable employee output and productivity (Van Loo
& De Grip, 2011).
Advantages of a strong employability culture. Employee output and productivity are
easily measured and therefore easily compared to development program investment costs, making it a
sensible tool for (Human Resource) managers to calculate their return on investment. There are,
however, other benefits of a strong employability culture that could be of great interest to (HR)
managers, which are not as easily measured. In fact, a large scale study by Freeman and Kleiner
(2000) implies that it is employees who benefit most from a strong employability culture, stating that
development programs “substantially improve worker well-being” (Freeman & Kleiner, 2000, p. 219).
Moreover, professional development programs support employees in training generic skills (useful
beyond their current position), such as self-management, communication, planning, teamwork and
task coordination (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Although these may not be direct benefits for
organizations, they do indirectly provide substantial advantages that should be of interest for (HR)
managers in all industries. Particularly relevant for HR managers; recent studies have indicated that a
strong employability culture is also related to higher job satisfaction and lower turnover rates among
employees (e.g. De Cuyper & De Witte, 2011; Nauta, Vianen, Heijden, Dam & Willemsen, 2009).
Employability culture and career satisfaction
High career satisfaction among employees is one of the primary goals for HR managers, as it
is linked to organizational loyalty and employee productivity (Harter, Schmidt & Hayes, 2002).
Furthermore, studies have shown a significant correlation between career satisfaction and an
employee’s physical and psychological health (Faragher, Cass & Cooper, 2005). Recent research has
indicated a relationship between employability culture and career satisfaction (Renee Barnett &
Bradley, 2007), making it a relevant subject for HR managers. Getting an insight into the effect of
employability culture on career satisfaction will allow them to place the costs of professional
development program in perspective, even though some effects (such as loyalty and health) will
remain difficult to quantify.
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
6
Employability culture and turnover intention
Since the 1950’s, the traditional ‘lifetime employment’ contracts, where a career starts and
ends within the same company, have been replaced with a culture where employees change jobs
regularly and neither employee nor employer can guarantee lifetime loyalty (Clark & Patrickson,
2008; McQuaid, Green & Danson, 2013). With this changed perspective, employees now aim to
develop themselves broader, so that their capabilities (skills, know-how, knowledge) match the
capabilities demanded by the market, also known as their personal ‘employability’ (Berntson &
Marklund, 2007; De Vries, Gründemann & Van Vuuren, 2001). Employees want to be employable so
they can adapt to changing environments.
This aim for employees to be more employable created a dilemma for employers: developing
employees beyond task-specific skills and preparing them for changed environments (making them
employable) could cause employees to explore new career possibilities outside of their current job,
thus increasing turnover rates within the company (Legge, 1995; McQuaid & Lindsay, 2005).
Although this fear of increased turnover was often an argument against creating strong employability
cultures, more recent studies conclude that a strong employability culture actually decreases employee
turnover (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2011; Nauta, Vianen, Heijden, Dam & Willemsen, 2009). The
authors argue that employees are mainly concerned with the idea of being able to find new
employment when necessary. As long as organizations invest in the employability of their employees,
challenging them and broadening their skills and competencies, the incentive to actually switch jobs to
remain employable is nullified.
Decreasing turnover rates is a key objective for many HR managers (Egan, Yang & Bartlett,
2004), as turnover can result in decreased company performance and increased production costs due to
a loss of knowledge and experience (Cascio, 2005), as well as increased recruitment, hiring and
training costs for new employees (Hinkin & Tracey, 2000). Information about the relationship
between employability culture and turnover intention is therefore essential for HR managers.
Lack of scientific research
As explained, career satisfaction and low turnover rates are two primary goals for HR
managers of any organization. Increased employee morale and decreased (recruitment) costs as a
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
7
result of a strong employability culture are additional results that are currently being overlooked due to
a focus on measurable employee output. It is therefore valuable for scientific research to focus on
these additional effects of employability cultures. However, despite interesting first results that
implicate the importance of a strong employability culture, there is still a notable lack of scientific
research in this field when it comes to indirect gains. By confirming previous results (that
employability culture is related to career satisfaction and turnover intention) and including additional
variables that might affect this relationship, scientific research can gain more insight into the
importance of creating a strong employability culture within organizations. Ultimately, this knowledge
will be able to assist HR managers in establishing a profitable employability culture and making more
deliberate decisions as to the value of professional development programs for their company. Building
upon the limited previous research, this study assessed the relationship between employability culture
and both career satisfaction and turnover intention among Dutch employees. Furthermore, it assessed
to which extent this effect is moderated by ‘employability orientation’, defined as an employee’s
desire to develop himself. Lastly, this study aimed to uncover whether the relationship between
employability culture and turnover intention is mediated by career satisfaction.
Hypotheses
Previous research in this field has shown a positive relationship between employability
culture and career satisfaction (De Vos, De Hauw & Van der Heijden, 2011). Their study was,
however, performed in Belgium, where the career environment is characterized as traditional, showing
an average organization tenure of 17 years, compared to 8 years in The Netherlands (CBS, 2010;
Forrier, Sels & Stynen, 2009). The authors suggest that “in more boundaryless contexts, these
relationships might be even stronger” (De Vos, De Hauw & Van der Heijden, 2011, p. 445), which
provided grounds to expect a similar or stronger effect in this current study set in The Netherlands.
Similarly, previous studies have shown a negative relationship between employability
culture and turnover intention (De Cuyper & De Witte, 2011; Nauta, Vianen, Heijden, Dam &
Willemsen, 2009; Renee Barnett & Bradley, 2007). Following the unanimous results in these studies
covering both the Dutch and international career environment, it was expected that this study will
show a similar result. This led to the following hypotheses:
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
8
Hypothesis 1a. Employability culture is positively related to career satisfaction.
Hypothesis 1b. Employability culture is negatively related to turnover intention.
Furthermore, this study added the moderator ‘employability orientation’ to the relationship
between employability culture and career satisfaction and turnover intention. Employability
orientation has previously been defined as an employee’s motivation to become employable (Forrier &
Sels, 2003; Nauta, Vianen, Heijden, Dam & Willemsen, 2009). In other words, it is an employee´s
willingness and ambition to develop himself and become adaptable to changing work environments.
Intuitively, it seems sensible that the effect of employability culture on career satisfaction and turnover
intention is influenced by an employee´s desire to learn: a person with a strong employability
orientation will be more interested in a strong employability culture than an employee who is not
interested in increasing his employability. This would be especially relevant, as it might give HR
managers a tool to determine the importance of providing a strong employability culture for individual
employees, based on their employability orientation. Furthermore it will contribute to the scientific
field by proposing comments to previous results. Therefore, this study hypothesized that employability
orientation moderates the effects between employability culture and career satisfaction and turnover
intention.
Hypothesis 2a. Employability orientation moderates the relationship between employability culture
and career satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2b. Employability orientation moderates the relationship between employability culture
and turnover intention.
Finally, this study analyzed whether the relationship between employability culture and
turnover intention is mediated by career satisfaction. Career satisfaction has been defined in scientific
literature as an employee’s satisfaction with the progression and status of their career (Greenhaus,
Parasuraman and Wormley, 1990). As employability culture has been linked to both career satisfaction
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
9
(De Vos, De Hauw & Van der Heijden, 2011) and turnover intention (Renee Barnett & Bradley,
2007), this study can contribute greatly to the scientific field by analyzing a possible mediation effect
of career satisfaction on turnover intention. Previous studies have proven job satisfaction to be a
medium to strong predictor of turnover intention (Egan, Yang & Bartlett, 2004; Mobley, 1977; Tett &
Meyer, 1993), indicating that decreased turnover intention might be partially explained by increased
career satisfaction. Intuitively, this also makes sense: being more satisfied with your career is a
motivation to stay with your current employer. This study therefore expected a (partial) mediation
effect of career satisfaction on the relationship between employability culture and turnover intention.
Hypothesis 3. Career satisfaction (partially) mediates the relationship between employability
orientation and turnover intention.
The model for this study is visualized in Figure 1. The expected main effects are relationships
between employability culture and career satisfaction (A) and employability culture and turnover
intention (B). Secondly, this study hypothesized a moderation effect by employability orientation on
the relationship between employability culture and career satisfaction (C1 on B) and turnover intention
(C2 on A). Finally, a mediation effect by career satisfaction on the relationship between employability
culture and turnover intention (AD on B) was expected.
B
C2
Employability
orientation
Moderator
Employability
culture
Independent variable
A
C1
Career
satisfaction
Mediator
D
Turnover
intention
Dependent variable
Figure 1. Research design visualizing the hypothesized main effects (A & B), the moderation effect by employability
orientation (C1 & C2) and the mediation effect of career satisfaction on the relationship between employability culture on
turnover intention (AD on B)
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
10
This model was used to test the hypotheses and answer the main question of this study: Is the
relationship between employability culture and turnover intention moderated by employability
orientation and/or mediated by career satisfaction?
Method
Design
The design for this study was a large-scale quantitative analysis, which used web-based
questionnaires. In order to objectively compare the relationship between variables, and build upon
previous research, quantitative data was necessary for statistical analyses. Furthermore, the variables
required private information from participants, which research suggests is more easily collected using
quantitative questionnaires as opposed to more personal qualitative measures (Singer, Von Thurn &
Miller, 1995).
Instruments
To measure the relationships between variables, an anonymous internet survey was
constructed, which research has shown leads to more honest answers when it comes to sensitive
questions (Singer, Von Thurn & Miller, 1995; Sofaer, 1999). Moreover, a web-based survey lowers
the threshold for employees to participate without being restricted to certain time-place arrangements.
Furthermore, it increases data input efficiency and reduces the margin of human error during this
process.
Three measures were obtained from separate English studies and translated to Dutch,
demanding conceptual translations (instead of literal) and pre-testing before use (McKay et al., 1996).
To ensure a conceptual translation, the translated measures were verified by a native English speaker.
After this, a pilot was conducted among 10 respondents to ensure the validity of the translated
measures through both a quantitative (Cronbach’s alpha, minimum requirement = 0.7) and qualitative
(interview questions) measurement to ensure proper translation, comprehensibility and reliability.
Employability culture. This study defines employability culture as the extent to which
companies are actively involved in offering professional training and development programs. This was
measured by focusing on employees’ perception of their company’s employability culture. The
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
11
motivation behind this decision is twofold: first of all, if an employee does not believe there is a strong
employability culture, there most likely is not one. Secondly, this is probably a more accurate form of
measurement than analyzing documents or asking the management’s perspective, as that is often
biased (De Vos, De Hauw & Van der Heijden, 2011). This concept was measured by adapting ten
Likert scale items constructed by De Vos, De Hauw en Van der Heijden (2011) (α = .82), with items
such as: “I get the necessary time and means to further develop my competencies”. The questions were
answered using a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5).
De items were translated from English to Dutch, showing a high internal consistency (α = .90). The
complete list of items measuring employability culture can be found in Appendix A.
Employability orientation. Operationally defined as an employee’s desire and motivation to
develop, employability orientation was measured using four items first constructed by Van Dam
(2004), with one item being “I find it important to participate in development activities regularly” (α =
.82). The translated items showed an internal consistency similar to the original scale (α = .78). The
complete list of items measuring employability orientation can be found in Appendix A.
Career satisfaction. As opposed to job satisfaction, which measures satisfaction at a specific
point in time, this study defined career satisfaction as an employee’s satisfaction with regards to the
steps they have made in their career. This was measured using an instrument developed by Greenhaus,
Parasuraman and Wormley (1990), with one item being “I am satisfied with the progress I have made
toward meeting my goals for advancement” (α = .85). The items were translated and piloted to
construct a Dutch version, showing a high internal consistency (α = .88). The complete list of items
measuring career satisfaction can be found in Appendix A.
Turnover intention. Turnover intention has been operationally defined as an employee’s
intention to leave its current employer. Based on Nauta, Vianen, Heijden, Dam and Willemsen (2009),
who argue that it is sufficiently unambiguous, turnover intention was measured using a single item:
“How likely is it that you will start looking for a new employer the coming year” with a scale ranging
from very unlikely (1) to very likely (5).
Control variables. The study controls for the variables gender, age, education level,
organizational tenure, and organization size.
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
12
Age was (based on pilot feedback) categorized in 10-year intervals (20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 5059 and >60) to further ensure anonymity.
Education level was standardized into three categories: Lower (secondary school and ‘mbo’),
Medium (‘hbo’, Bachelor’s degree and university drop-outs) and Higher level (Master’s degree and
PhD).
Studies have shown organizational tenure to be a predictor of career satisfaction, (Bedeian,
Ferris & Kacmar, 1992; White & Spector, 1987), making it a relevant variable in this study.
Organizational tenure was measured using a multiple choice question with four categories (<1 year,
new employee; 2-5 years, below average; 5-10 years, average; >10 years, above average) where an
average of 8 years is based on data provided by the Dutch bureau of statistics (CBS, 2010).
Lastly, organization size was divided into small (<50 employees), medium (50-250
employees) and large (>250 employees), based on the categories of organization size applied by the
Dutch bureau of statistics and the European Commission (CBS, 2006; 2011). Studies show that 98%
of large companies invest in development programs, as opposed 74% of smaller companies (CBS,
2010). As De Vries, Gründemann en Van Vuuren (2001) argue, company size also affects the
employees it attracts, with smaller companies’ employees having a lower employability orientation
than employees of larger companies, acknowledging the relevance of this variable.
Sample
The questionnaire was distributed online through e-mail and social media such as Facebook
and LinkedIn, aiming to gather respondents working for organizations varying in size and industry, as
well as a diverse group in terms of gender, age and organizational tenure to increase the validity and
basis for generalization of the study.
Based on one of the more recent studies in this field by Renee Barnett and Bradley (2007),
which measured an effect size (f2) of .39 (p<0.01) for employability culture on career satisfaction, an a
priori sample size was calculated. Aiming for a power of 0.8 and a 0.01 probability level, the required
sample size for this study was set at 79 respondents.
The requirements stated in the questionnaire instructions were: full-time employment, with an
organization of >10 FTE, and a minimum age of 20 years old. These requirements were controlled for
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
13
in the survey, where failing to meet the above requirement skipped the respondents to the submission
page. The confidentiality of the questionnaire and the scientific purpose of the study were stressed in
the accompanying e-mail and the introduction, as well as an encouragement to distribute the
questionnaire to other potential participants. Based on their age or education level, specific people
were personally encouraged to distribute the questionnaire among their colleagues to ensure a
heterogeneous pool of respondents. Due to the importance of confidentiality, no reward was offered
for participation.
A total of 169 people responded to the questionnaire. As all questions required an answer
before being able to continue, there were no missing data. Six respondents were excluded because they
were currently unemployed or working part-time. There were no significant outliers that might suggest
manipulated answers. This resulted in 163 employees (90 women, 73 men) which were included in the
analyses, exceeding the a priori minimum requirement. Table 1 shows the distribution of control
variables among the respondents.
Table 1.
Participant distribution per control variable
Variable
Gender
Male
Female
Age
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
>60
Education Level *
Low
Medium
High
Organizational tenure *
< 1 year
2-5 years
6-10 years
>10 years
Organization size *
Small
Medium
Large
n=163
%
73
90
44.8
55.2
51
37
37
27
11
31.3
22.7
22.7
16.6
6.7
45
33
85
27.6
20.2
52.1
34
66
30
33
20.9
40.5
18.4
20.2
34
50
79
20.9
30.7
48.5
*Classifications have been explained in paragraph ‘instruments’
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
14
Analyses
Analysis of the data was based on the moderation model, introduced by Baron and Kenny
(1986). To find the direct moderation effects, a two-step hierarchal multiple regression analysis was
performed. In step 1, the main effects (described by Baron and Kenny as the ‘zero order correlation’)
between the independent variable (employability culture) and the dependent variables (turnover
intention and career satisfaction) were measured, controlling for age, gender, education level,
organization size, organizational tenure and employability orientation (hypotheses 1a and 1b). In step
2 of the regression analysis, the interaction effect between the independent variable and the moderator
(employability culture * employability orientation) was added to the model, where a significant
change effect can indicate a moderation effect (hypotheses 2a and 2b). Employability culture,
employability orientation and career satisfaction were all centered to validate the interaction effect.
Mediation was tested by running a Sobel test, where the mediator was included in the
regression analysis and the results were checked for reduced main effects. The Sobel test then
analyzed the statistical significance of a possible mediation effect. There has, however, been an
increasing amount of criticism questioning the reliability of Sobel-tests, especially for relatively small
sample sizes such as this study (Zhao, Lynch & Chen, 2010). The mediation effect was therefore also
tested using a bootstrap analysis that has been popularized by Preacher and Hayes (2004).
Results
Main effects
The first step in the hierarchal multiple regression analysis, where two multiple regression
analyses were run to predict career satisfaction and turnover intention from employability culture,
gender, age, education level, organizational tenure, employability orientation and organization size,
yielded significant models. These variables significantly predict career satisfaction, F(14,148) =
8.825, p < .001, adj. R2 = .40, and turnover intention, F(14,148) = 3.269, p < .001, adj. R2 = .16.
However, not all independent variables significantly predicted the dependent variables. Table 2
presents the main effects of employability culture on both career satisfaction and turnover intention.
Controlled for the other variables in the analysis, employability culture showed a significant positive
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
15
effect on career satisfaction (β = .594, p < .001) and a negative effect on turnover intention (β = -.389,
p < .001).
Significant effects were also found for age group 40-49 (using 20-29 as reference), and an
organizational tenure above ten years (using <1 year as reference) on career satisfaction. For turnover
intention, significant effects were found for females, and high education level (using low education
level as reference).
Moderation
The added interaction model (employability orientation * employability culture) in step two of
the multiple regression analysis did not significantly improve the regression models, indicating that
employability orientation did not moderate the effect of employability culture on career satisfaction or
turnover intention.
Table 2.
Main effects and interaction effects on career satisfaction and turnover intention
Model 1***
Career Satisfaction
Turnover Intention
µ = 3.42
µ = 2.83
Predictor
SD = 0.89
SD = 1.47
B(SE)
β
B(SE)
β
Constant
-.188(.21)
3.04(.40)
Gender (ref. male)
-.131(.11)
.073
-.471(.22)
-.160*
Age (ref 20-29)
30-39
-.058(.16)
-.027
.182(.31)
.052
40-49
-.440(.18)
-.190(.36)
-.054
-.209*
50-59
-.236(.21)
-.099
.040(.41)
-.010
>60
.192(.27)
.055
.198(.53)
.034
(ref low)
Education level
Medium
-.207(.18)
-.094
-.423(.35)
-.116
High
-.069(.15)
-.039
-.663(.29)
-.226*
Years at current employer(ref <1)
1-5 years
.072(.15)
.040
.139(.30)
.047
5-10 years
.143(.19)
.063
.522(.38)
.138
>10 years
.446(.21)
.047(.41)
.013
.203*
Company size (ref. small)
Medium
.244(.17)
.127
.406(.32)
.128
Large
.231(.15)
.130
.382(.29)
.130
Employability Orientation
-.022(.10)
-.014
.409(.20)
.146*
Employability Culture
.643(.07)
-.696(.14)
.594***
-.389***
Model 2 : Interaction effect
(Employability culture x
employability orientation)
.090(.16)
Note. * : p < .05; ** : p < .01; *** : p < .001
.043
.461(.30)
.133
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
16
Mediation
To assess whether career satisfaction mediated the relationship between employability culture
and turnover intention, two analyses were performed. First, a Sobel test was run, which showed no
significant mediation effect. The bootstrap mediation analysis, as popularized by Preacher and Hayes
(2004) also showed no significant mediation effect, indicating that career satisfaction did not mediate
the relationship between employability culture and turnover intention. Figure 2 summarizes the
conclusions of this study.
B
C2
Employability
orientation
Moderator
Employability
culture
Independent variable
A
C1
Career
satisfaction
Mediator
D
Turnover
intention
Dependent variable
Figure 2. The data showed a significant positive relationship between employability culture and career
satisfaction (A) and a significant negative relationship between employability culture and turnover intention (B).
However, no significant moderation effect (C1 and C2) or mediation effect (AD on B) was found.
Discussion
There are three relevant conclusions from this study, which will be discussed in terms of its
implications for future research and for HR managers. Firstly, perceived employability culture is a
significant predictor of both career satisfaction (β = .594, p < .001) and turnover intention (β = -.389, p
< .001), controlling for gender, age, education level, organizational tenure and organization size. This
confirms the first hypotheses (1a and 1b) that employability culture is positively related to career
satisfaction, and negatively related to turnover intention. The complete models including control
variables show a large effect on career satisfaction (adj. R2 = .40) and medium effect on turnover
intention (adj. R2 = .16), based on Cohen’s effect size classification system (Cohen, 1992). This result
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
17
is not surprising, as it confirms previous research in this field (such as Renee Barnett & Bradley,
2007), although the 40% explained variance for career satisfaction found in this study is particularly
high. This makes it an interesting variable for HR managers, as there are methods to create a strong
employability culture within companies (for examples, see: Ruvolo, Peterson & LeBoeuf, 2004;
Simonsen, 1997). Considering the previously discussed high costs associated with turnover, investing
in a strong employability culture could result in noteworthy returns.
Second, no moderation effect was found for employability orientation on the relationship
between employability culture and career satisfaction or turnover intention. Hypotheses 2a and 2b,
employability orientation moderates the effect of employability culture on (a) career satisfaction and
(b) turnover intention, are therefore rejected. This result seems surprising, as one would intuitively
expect an employee that values development opportunities to be more satisfied (and less inclined to
change jobs) when they are working for an organization with a strong employability culture. There are
two possible explanations for this unintuitive result. First, it is of course possible that the limitations of
this research, which will be discussed at a later moment, caused a false rejection of the hypothesis.
Alternatively, there is a theoretic explanation that would be interesting in both the academic and
organizational field. The lack of moderation could be an indication that a strong employability culture
is important for career satisfaction (and decreased turnover intention) whether or not the employee has
a strong employability orientation. In other words: even if an employee is not necessarily interested in
self-development, a strong employability culture is still a strong predictor for career satisfaction. This
could imply that creating a strong employability culture is a valuable tool for HR managers to increase
career satisfaction and decrease turnover rates among all employees. Alternatively, and perhaps more
feasibly, it might also imply that organizations that are generally seeing high career satisfaction rates
and low turnover intention rates, create a positive environment for their employees, which often
includes a strong employability culture. Hence, the employability culture itself may not be the
predictor for career satisfaction, but rather be inextricable linked to good employers. For future
research, it would be relevant to use a within-organization approach including other variables related
to organization satisfaction (such as salary, working hours and flexibility) to study this alternative
explanation.
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
18
Third, no mediation effect was found for career satisfaction on the relationship between
employability culture and turnover intention. This leads to a rejection of the third hypothesis: ‘career
satisfaction (partly) mediates the relationship between employability culture and turnover intention’.
Moreover, adding career satisfaction to the previous regression model does not show a significant
explained variance for career satisfaction on turnover intention. Although the data does show a
significant negative correlation between the two (r = -.32, p<.001), it is noticeably lower than that
reported in a meta-analysis by Tett and Meyer (1993) (r = -.58, p<.001). An explanation for the lack of
strong, significant results in this relationship could be a decreased sense of job security caused by the
financial crisis of 2008. Increased job insecurity and the knowledge of limited external job availability
causes employees to be more committed to their current job, decreasing their turnover intention (Kim,
Kim & Yoo, 2012). This could imply that even when their career satisfaction is lower, the fear of
being unable to find an alternative job might eliminate an increased turnover intention. However, there
seem to be insufficient studies to support this model, making it an interesting topic for future research.
Including job insecurity and external employability as predictive variables could yield interesting
results in this field. Especially if these variables are included in a longitudinal intervention design that
differentiates in terms of offered employability culture within a company, it would add significantly to
the limited scientific knowledge that is currently available in this field.
As stated before, there are a several limitations to this study that should be taken into account.
First of all, the questionnaires were translated from English to Dutch, which often causes slight
differences or lost nuances. However, all the measures showed an acceptable or high internal
consistency that corresponds to the original English measures. It is therefore unlikely that the
translations would have negatively affected these results, although it is important to note that
translated studies are never directly comparable to the original.
Another limitation of this research design might be a participant bias. Due to a lack of funding
or other incentives to attract participants, many were recruited through my own network. Although
extensive effort was put into achieving sufficient variation among the measured variables to run all
necessary analyses, there is a dominant share of young (20-29 years old) and highly educated
(university) participants. Future research in this field should therefore aim for a larger and more
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
19
diversified pool of respondents. Regarding significant secondary effects found in this study for age
and organizational tenure on career satisfaction and gender and education level on turnover intention, a
larger and more diversified sample size would also be relevant to confirm these results.
Moreover, one variable that was not taken into account in this study is the industry in which
the participants were employed. Just as turnover rates differ from country to country, there are also
differences depending on the industry in which one is employed (Forrier, Sels & Stynen, 2009). For
example, an industry that is dominated by a monopoly would give employees less opportunity to
consider a switch than one with many competitors. Future research should take this aspect into
account.
Although there are a few limitations to this study, they do not undermine the significance and
importance of the presented results. Employability culture has once again been found to strongly
influence career satisfaction and turnover intention, making it an important tool for HR managers.
Since the economic crisis of 2008, many companies have been focusing on achieving a positive return
on investment when it comes to professional development programs. Although this is not unwise, it is
essential that they look at all aspects of yielded returns, including indirect ones. HR managers need to
realize that merely measuring performance and employee output does not fully reflect the value of
professional development programs. Through increased career satisfaction and decreased turnover
intention, organizations can significantly decrease recruitment and hiring costs to find replacement
employees, making it a notable argument in favor of investing in professional development programs.
In light of these results, it is highly recommended that HR managers invest in a strong
employability culture within their organization. It is essential, however, that a new employability
culture matches employee preferences. If HR managers do not possess the necessary knowledge and
experience themselves, it would be strongly recommended to reach out to scientific research which
focuses on improving the employability culture within professional organizations (such as Ruvolo,
Peterson & LeBoeuf, 2004; Simonsen, 1997). Alternatively, there are many specialized external
consultancy and development agencies whose experience could assist HR managers in this
assignment.
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
20
However, it must be stressed that such a change in organizational culture is a complicated
procedure. Although previously mentioned studies and external consultancy agencies may assist the
transition to creating a strong employability culture, it will require a structured and well though-out
approach. Changing an organizational culture is often underestimated, resulting in top-down changes
that generally do not properly address apparent problems, thus lacking organization-wide support and
ultimately failing (Mento, Jones & Dirndorfer, 2002). It is therefore essential that organizations are
able to effectively implement such a change in culture. A professional change model, such as Kotter’s
model for organizational change, could greatly enhance organization’s likelihood of success. This
eight step model guides organizations in creating a solid foundation and support for change,
emphasizing sense of urgency, bottom-up input and top-down support and proper communication
(Kotter, 1995).
This study has confirmed previous indications that employability culture is positively related
to career satisfaction and negatively related to turnover intention. Future research focusing on
moderators on these effects could yield even more valuable results for HR managers, making it a
relevant field of research. Provided that organizations possess the proper knowledge and experience,
combined with a structured approach to organizational change, enhancing the internal employability
culture should be a priority for HR managers, even in times of crisis. Especially when taking both
direct and indirect benefits into account, creating a strong employability culture seems a wise
investment for all organizations that value their employees.
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
21
References
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and teams,
organizations, and society. Annual review of psychology, 60, 451-474. doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163505
Arthur Jr, W., Bennett Jr, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in
organizations: a meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied
psychology, 88(2), 234. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.234
Ballot, G., Fakhfakh, F., & Taymaz, E. (2006). Who benefits from training and R&D, the firm or the
workers?. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(3), 473-495. doi: 10.1111/j.14678543.2006.00509.x
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Barrett, A., & O'Connell, P. J. (2001). Does training generally work? The returns to in- company
training. Industrial and labor relations review, 647-662. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2695995
Bartel, A. P. (1995). Training, wage growth and job performance: evidence from a company
database (No. w4027). National Bureau of Economic Research. doi: 10.3386/w4027
Bedeian, A. G., Ferris, G. R., & Kacmar, K. M. (1992). Age, tenure, and job satisfaction: A tale of
two perspectives. Journal of Vocational behavior, 40(1), 33-48. doi:10.1016/00018791(92)90045-2
Berntson, E., & Marklund, S. (2007). The relationship between employability and subsequent health.
Work & Stress, 21(3), 279–292. doi:10.1080/02678370701659215
Bersin, J. (2014). The recovery arrives: corporate training spend skyrockets. [Blog] Forbes.
Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2014/02/04/the-recovery-arrivescorporate-training-spend-skyrockets/ [Accessed 15 Jan. 2015].
Cascio, W. F. (2005). Strategies for responsible restructuring. The Academy of Management
Executive, 19(4), 39-50. doi: 10.5465/AME.2005.19417906
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
22
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2006). Bedrijsopleidingen 2005. Alphen aan den Rijn.
Retrieved from: http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/5EEDAD0D-8023-4391-81FFE03C29F3B4B3/0/2007k4v4p46art.pdf
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2010). Mobiliteit werkend Nederland 2010. Alphen aan den Rijn.
Retrieved from: http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/bedrijven/publicaties/artikelen/
archief/2010/ 2010-mobiliteit-werkend-nederland-art.htm
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2011). Bedrijsopleidingen 2010. Alphen aan den Rijn.
Retrieved from: http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/E6551CA1-9A95-4243-AAE43586FB5A2496/0/2012k3v4p52art.pdf
Clarke, M., & Patrickson, M. (2008). The new covenant of employability.Employee Relations, 30(2),
121-141. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01425450810843320
Cohen, J. (1992). "A power primer". Psychological Bulletin 112 (1): 155-159. doi:10.1037/00332909
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2011). The management paradox: Self-rated employability and
organizational commitment and performance. Personnel Review, 40(2), 152-172.
De Vos, A., De Hauw, S., & Van der Heijden, B. I. (2011). Competency development and career
success: The mediating role of employability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 438447. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.010
De Vries, S., Gründemann, R., & Van Vuuren, T. (2001). Employability policy in Dutch
organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management,12(7), 1193-1202. doi:
10.1080/09585190110068395
Egan, T. M., Yang, B., & Bartlett, K. R. (2004). The effects of organizational learning culture and job
satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention. Human resource
development quarterly, 15(3), 279-301. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.1104
Faragher, E. B., Cass, M., & Cooper, C. L. (2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and
health: a meta-analysis. Occupational and environmental medicine, 62(2), 105- 112.
doi:10.1136/oem.2002.006734
Forrier, A., & Sels, L. (2003). The concept employability: A complex mosaic. International
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
23
Journal of Human Resource Development and Management, 3(2), 103–124.
Forrier, A., Sels, L., & Stynen, D. (2009). Career mobility at the intersection between agent and
structure: A conceptual model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 82(4), 739-759. doi: 10.1348/096317909X470933
Frazis, H., Gittleman, M., & Joyce, M. (2000). Correlates of training: An analysis using both
employer and employee characteristics. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 443-462.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2695968
Freeman, R. B., & Kleiner, M. M. (2000). Who benefits most from employee involvement: Firms or
workers?. American Economic Review, 90(2), 219-223. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org.
proxy. library.uu.nl/sloan/freeman.html
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational
experiences, job performance evaluations, and career
outcomes. Academy of management
Journal, 33(1), 64-86. doi: 10.2307/256352
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between
employee
satisfaction, employee
engagement, and
business
outcomes:
a
meta-
analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 87(2), 268. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.268
Hinkin, T. R., & Tracey, J. B. (2000). The cost of turnover: Putting a price on the learning
curve. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,41(3), 14-4.
doi:10.1016/S0010-8804(00)80013-0
Kim, Y. G., Kim, S., & Yoo, J. L. (2012). Travel agency employees' career commitment and
turnover intention during the recent global economic crisis.The Service Industries
Journal, 32(8), 1247-1264. doi: 10.1080/02642069.2010.545393
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard business
review, 73(2), 59-67.
Legge, K. (1995). HRM: rhetoric, reality and hidden agendas. Human resource management:
critical text, 33-59. doi unavailable
A
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
24
McKay, R. B., Breslow, M. J., Sangster, R. L., Gabbard, S. M., Reynolds, R. W., Nakamoto, J. M., &
Tarnai, J. (1996). Translating survey questionnaires: Lessons learned. New Directions for
Evaluation, 1996(70), 93-104. doi: 10.1002/ev.1037
McQuaid, R. W., & Lindsay, C. (2005). The concept of employability. Urban studies, 42(2), 197-219.
doi: 10.1080/0042098042000316100
McQuaid, R. W., Green, A., & Danson, M. (2013). Introducing employability.Employability and
Local Labour Markets, 1.
Mento, A., Jones, R., & Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change management process: Grounded in both
theory and practice. Journal of Change Management, 3(1), 45-59. doi: 10.1080/714042520
Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and
employee turnover. Journal of applied psychology, 62(2), 237. doi: 10.1037/00219010.62.2.237
Nauta, A., Vianen, A., Heijden, B., Dam, K., & Willemsen, M. (2009). Understanding the
factors that promote employability orientation: The impact of employability culture, career
satisfaction, and role breadth self‐efficacy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 82(2), 233-251. doi: 10.1348/096317908X320147
Poell, R., & Kessels, J. (2011). Handboek human resource development. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum.
Retrieved from: http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-90-313-8565-2
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers, 36(4), 717731. doi: 10.3758/BF03206553
Renee Barnett, B., & Bradley, L. (2007). The impact of organisational support for career
development on career satisfaction. Career development international, 12(7), 617-636. doi:
10.1108/13620430710834396
Ruvolo, C. M., Peterson, S. A., & LeBoeuf, J. N. (2004). Leaders Are Made, Not Born The Critical
Role of a Developmental Framework to Facilitate an Organizational Culture of
Development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(1), 10. doi:
10.1037/1061-4087.56.1.10
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
25
Simonsen, P. (1997). Promoting a Development Culture in Your Organization: Using Career
Development as a Change Agent. Davies-Black Publishing, Consulting Psychologists Press,
Palo Alto.
Singer, E., Von Thurn, D. R., & Miller, E. R. (1995). Confidentiality assurances and response a
quantitative review of the experimental literature. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59(1), 66-77. doi:
10.1086/269458
Sofaer, S. (1999). Qualitative methods: what are they and why use them?.Health services
research, 34(5 Pt 2), 1101. Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. proxy.library.
uu.nl/pmc/articles/PMC1089055/
Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and
turnover: path analyses based on meta‐analytic findings. Personnel psychology, 46(2), 259293. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00874.x
Van Dam, K. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of employability orientation. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(1), 29-51. doi:10.1080/135 94320344000237
Van Loo, J., & de Grip, A. (2011). Opleiden in bedrijf: effectief opleiden of opleiden voor
effectiviteit? In Handboek human resource development (pp. 507-522). Bohn Stafleu van
Loghum.
White, A. T., & Spector, P. E. (1987). An investigation of age-related factors in the agejob-satisfaction
relationship. Psychology and Aging, 2, 261-265.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about
mediation analysis. Journal of consumer research,37(2), 197-206. doi: 10.1086/651257
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
26
APPENDIX A – Measures
Perceived employability culture
Based on De Vos, De Hauw en Van der Heijden (2011) (α = .90)
Respondents indicate on a five-point Likert scale to what extent they agree with the statements,
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
1. Ik krijg de benodigde tijd en middelen om mijn competenties verder te ontwikkelen
2. Ik krijg regelmatig feedback over mijn werkzaamheden van mijn leidinggevende
3. Ik heb de mogelijkheid nieuwe en creatieve trainingen te volgen
4. Mijn leidinggevende zorgt dat ik mijzelf blijf ontwikkelen door mij uitdagende taken en
projecten toe te wijzen
5. Ik krijg regelmatig feedback over mijn presteren van collega's
6. Ik kan voorkeur voor taken of projecten aangeven om zelf invloed te hebben op welke
competenties ik ontwikkel
7. Er is voldoende informatie beschikbaar over carrièremogelijkheden binnen mijn bedrijf
8. Ik krijg taken toegewezen die mij voorbereiden op de toekomst
9. Ik heb een persoonlijk ontwikkelingsplan waarin mij duidelijk wordt welke mogelijkheden er
binnen het bedrijf voor mij zijn en welke competenties ik hiervoor moet ontwikkelen
10. Ik krijg de mogelijkheid competenties te trainen en te ontwikkelen die nodig zijn om promotie
te maken binnen mijn bedrijf
THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG EMPLOYABILITY CULTURE
27
Employability orientation
Based on Van Dam (2004) (α = .78)
Respondents indicate on a five-point Likert scale to what extent they agree with the statements,
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
1. Ik vind het belangrijk mijzelf breed te ontwikkelen, zodat ik ook andere taken binnen de
organisatie uit kan voeren
2. Ik vind het belangrijk regelmatig deel te nemen aan ontwikkelingsprogramma's
3. Als mijn werkgever mij vraagt andere taken uit te voeren, ben ik bereid mij hieraan aan te
passen
4. Als mijn werkgever mij de mogelijkheid biedt nieuwe ervaringen op te doen, grijp ik die kans
aan
Career satisfaction
Basd on Greenhaus, Parasuraman and Wormley (1990) (α = .85)
Respondents indicate on a five-point Likert scale to what extent they agree with the statements,
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
1. Ik ben tevreden met de successen die ik in mijn carrière heb geboekt
2. Ik ben tevreden met de stappen die ik heb gezet wat betreft salaries
3. Ik ben tevreden over de stappen die ik heb gezet wat betreft promoties
4. Ik ben tevreden over de stappen die ik heb gezet in het ontwikkelen van nieuwe vaardigheden