Motivating and hindering factors during the reemployment process: The added value of employment counselors’ assessment.

Abstract

Because unemployment negatively affects people's well-being, it is of crucial importance that unemployed individuals move back to work. The process of getting reemployed, however, is difficult and complex. Therefore, many unemployed job seekers are assisted by employment counselors. The present study focuses on motivating and hindering factors in the reemployment process, examining the added value of the counselors' assessment of job seekers' attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors. The results of a 3-wave study with job seeker self-ratings and counselor-ratings indicated that perceived health problems is the most consistent predictor of job search and reemployment status. The findings further provide some convergent validity evidence for self- and counselor-rated situational-level motivators (i.e., attitude, social pressure, self-efficacy) and job search intensity. Although method effects did not seem to threaten the validity of the prediction of job search intensity and procrastination, employment counselors' assessments of job seekers' job search intensity and procrastination were significantly more strongly related to reemployment success than job seekers' self-ratings. Future research should therefore include other-reports, in addition to job seeker self-reports, to get a more complete view of people's job search behavior. Also reemployment counseling firms may want to use the expert knowledge of their employment counselors more systematically.

Specific job search self‐efficacy beliefs and behaviors of unemployed ethnic minority women

“…The low means for job search behaviors (ranging between 2.11 and 2.30 on a 5‐point Likert scale) and job offers (0.39) further suggest that social desirability responding was not a major concern in our study. In addition, previous research has supported the validity of job search self‐reports as these correlated with the number of hours spent on job search (Wanberg et al, ), counselor reports, and objective data logs of job search activity (Van Hooft, ). Nevertheless, future research may include other sources to assess job search behaviors, or test the effectiveness of specific job search self‐efficacy training interventions.…”

A behavioural approach in the development of work-related interventions for cancer survivors: an exploratory review

“…In total, 26 studies on the role of behavioural determinants regarding work were retrieved (Albertsen, Lund, Christensen, Kristensen, & Villadsen, ; Bains et al., ; Berglind & Gerner, ; Borgogni, Dello Russo, Miraglia, & Vecchione, ; Brouwer, Reneman, Bultmann, van der Klink, & Groothoff, ; Brouwer et al., ; Burns, Boyd, Hill, & Hough, ; Busch, Goransson, & Melin, ; Clausen, Burr, & Borg, ; Dionne et al., ; Hanebuth, Meinel, & Fischer, ; Heijbel, Josephson, Jensen, Stark, & Vingard, ; Heymans et al., ; Huijs, Koppes, Taris, & Blonk, ; Jensen, ; Labriola et al., ; Laisne, Lecomte, & Corbiere, ; Lindell, Johansson, & Strender, ; Ozegovic, Carroll, & David, ; Schultz et al., ; Sinokki et al., ; Turner et al., ; van Hooft, ; van de Vijfeijke et al., ; Westaby, Versenyi, & Hausmann, ), of which one was performed in cancer survivors (Bains et al., ) and one in a population of another debilitating illness, namely amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Westaby et al., ). The remaining 24 studies were directed among others at healthy employees, employees on (long‐term) sick leave or workers with non‐specific back pain.…”

“…The remaining 24 studies were directed among others at healthy employees, employees on (long‐term) sick leave or workers with non‐specific back pain. In 12 studies, the role of self‐efficacy on work‐related outcomes was explored (Bains et al., ; Berglind & Gerner, ; Borgogni et al., ; Brouwer et al., , ; Burns et al., ; Busch et al., ; Dionne et al., ; Huijs et al., ; Jensen, ; Labriola et al., ; van Hooft, ), while in another 12, social norms (or related concepts, such as pressure or support) were assessed (Albertsen et al., ; Bergstrom, Hagberg, Busch, Jensen, & Bjorklund, ; Brouwer et al., , ; Burns et al., ; Dionne et al., ; Hanebuth et al., ; Laisne et al., ; Schultz et al., ; Sinokki et al., ; van Hooft, ; van de Vijfeijke et al., ). Workers' expectations towards work or recovery were described in eight studies (Busch et al., ; Heijbel et al., ; Heymans et al., ; Laisne et al., ; Lindell et al., ; Ottenbacher et al., ; Schultz et al., ; Turner et al., ).…”

“…The intervention group had a greater motivational readiness for physical activity at 6-month than standard care. No significant differences were seen in terms of number of minutes of moderate or more intense physical activity or number of days on which they did 30 min of moderate or more intense activity Bennett et al Schultz et al, 2004;Sinokki et al, 2010;van Hooft, 2014;van de Vijfeijke et al, 2013). Workers' expectations towards work or recovery were described in eight studies (Busch et al, 2007;Heijbel et al, 2006;Heymans et al, 2006;Laisne et al, 2013;Lindell et al, 2010;Ottenbacher et al, 2012;Schultz et al, 2004;Turner et al, 2006).…”

“…The remaining 24 studies were directed among others at healthy employees, employees on (long-term) sick leave or workers with nonspecific back pain. In 12 studies, the role of self-efficacy on workrelated outcomes was explored (Bains et al, 2012;Berglind & Gerner, 2002;Borgogni et al, 2013;Brouwer et al, 2009Brouwer et al, , 2010Burns et al, 2010;Busch et al, 2007;Dionne et al, 2007;Huijs et al, 2012;Jensen, 2013;Labriola et al, 2007;van Hooft, 2014), while in another 12, social norms (or related concepts, such as pressure or support)…”