Journal of Education and Work

ISSN: 1363-9080 (Print) 1469-9435 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjew20

Hopes for the future: demographic and personal

resources associated with self-perceived
employability and actual employment among
senior year students

Jonathan Kasler, Leehu Zysberg & Nofar Harel

To cite this article: Jonathan Kasler, Leehu Zysberg & Nofar Harel (2017) Hopes for the future:
demographic and personal resources associated with self-perceived employability and actual
employment among senior year students, Journal of Education and Work, 30:8, 881-892, DOI:
10.1080/13639080.2017.1352083

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2017.1352083

Published online: 12 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 234

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjew20
Journal of Education and Work, 2017
VOL. 30, NO. 8, 881–892
https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080.2017.1352083

Hopes for the future: demographic and personal resources

associated with self-perceived employability and actual
employment among senior year students
Jonathan Kaslera  , Leehu Zysbergb and Nofar Harela
a
Department of Education, Tel Hai College, Kiryat Shemona, Israel; bDepartment of Psychology, Tel Hai College, Kiryat
Shemona, Israel

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Undergraduates approaching completion of their studies may embrace the Received 5 April 2015
prospect of entry into the world of work as a challenge or conversely, may Accepted 27 June 2017
view it with trepidation. This study explores three major personal resources KEYWORDS
that may be associated with how young undergraduates view their future Employability; hope; grit;
employability: perceived hope, grit and emotional intelligence. Demographics emotional intelligence;
associated in the literature with perceived chance of employment – gender, positive psychology; college
age and having a learning disability – were also included in the study. The students
participants were college students in their senior year (n = 584), studying in
a variety of undergraduate programmes. Results show that perceived hope
and grit were positively associated with perceived employability whereas
the relationship with emotional intelligence was more complex. None of the
demographics associated with perceived employability.

Introduction
The last three decades have seen an exponential increase in job-market dynamics and shifting career
patterns. The literature (see Smelser 2012 for a review) identifies a few trends shaping the current job
market worldwide. The first has to do with the demise of traditional job security. In a business world
characterised by constant change, organisations often rise and fall, and organisational structures change
to meet the requirements of an ever-changing market (Shaw 2013; Tengland 2013). The second trend is
that of increasing competition among organisations and companies for market-share, technology and
client base, which translates into competition between candidates, vying for jobs in organisations. The
third trend is that of academisation: in an information age, as jobs become more and more demand-
ing and expertise-based, academic degrees become the basic norm expected of individuals entering
almost any professional career. Academic education (at least at the undergraduate and in some fields
– graduate levels) is no longer a substantial advantage – but a basic requirement.
As a result of the above-described trends, job seekers meet ever-growing challenges in securing
and maintaining a job. In such a context, the obsolete concept of job security is replaced by the con-
cept of employability: employability is a term typically used in vocational and organisational psychol-
ogy to describe a set of abilities, potentials, and skills that make an individual attractive to potential
employers (McQuaid and Lindsay 2005). However, Tomlinson (2007) suggests that exploring what he
calls the subjective dimension of employability has been absent from the discussion of employability.

CONTACT  Jonathan Kasler  Kasler.Jon@gmail.com

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
882    J. KASLER ET AL.

Indeed, employability can also be used to describe individuals’ appraisal of their own chances of being
employed in light of self-perceived skills, abilities, and resources associated with employment (Fugate,
Kinicki, and Ashforth 2004). For example, in a longitudinal study, Berntson, Näswall, and Sverke (2008)
found that self-perceived employability and self-efficacy were related but not identical. Bridgstock
(2009), who explored the concept of career management skills, concluded that graduates seeking to
find their way in the modern employment landscape need to hone navigation skills in order to manage
their future careers successfully. The above directions point to the importance of self-navigation and
self-management skills among young graduates embarking on their career. Moreover, studies have
found self-rated self-management skills and perceived employability to be associated with various
job-seeking outcomes (e.g. Tims, Bakker, and Derks 2012; Tseng 1970).
The question of employability among young adults entering the job market is even more important,
since they have little actual experience or work achievements to rely upon. In these settings, we raise the
question: What demographic and personal resources shape young adults’ self-perceived employability
as they are about to embark on their career?
To address the above question, we assume that in the absence of work experience and achievement
to build upon, young adults seeking jobs will heavily rely on personal resources. A body of literature
emphasising personal resources associated with effective coping is offered by the school of positive
psychology (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000). Traditionally, psychology has focused on pathology,
impulses, and behaviours that undermine adaptive behaviour and require intervention (Peterson, Park,
and Seligman 2005). In contrast to this traditional focus, positive psychology focuses on factors asso-
ciated with normative, adaptive, and effective everyday psychological function and coping. Seligman
and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) explored the role of traits and competencies that foster resilience and
thriving in human beings. They argued that this focus provides essential understanding of human
behaviour that emphasises growth, strength, and prevention rather than cure. In this study, we focused
on three central personal resources that are associated with positive psychology: perceived hope, grit,
and emotional intelligence.

Hope
The concept of hope is an essential element of positive psychology (Peterson 2000). Snyder, Cheavens,
and Sympson (1997) defined the psychological concept of hope as a reasoning pattern involving agency
and pathways to goals. They argued that human beings are innately oriented towards goals with the
potential of using their abilities to reach their goals. Therefore, hope expresses an inherent positive
future orientation to life with the expectation of goals being attained by the individual. Though dis-
cussed on two levels, situational and predispositional, our interest is primarily in predispositional, or trait
hope as an individual characteristic that underlies employability. This entity is shaped and crystallised
in the same way that personality predispositions are, from an early age, through formative experiences
and exposure to modelling from significant others, as well as other factors (e.g. McAdams and Olson
2010). That being said, like most predispositions, hope is also amenable to change across the lifespan
in light of events and experiences. Consequently, we may observe limited changes in hope level within
the same individual across time. In addition, some evidence suggests that hope can be taught (Gillham
and Reivich 2004). However, while fostering or teaching hope may potentially be a valuable practice in
school, as well as the workplace, this area of research remains beyond the scope of the present study.
To date, researchers have explored the role of hope in happiness and well-being, and for physical
as well as mental health. A recent study associated hope with success in personnel selection batteries,
demonstrating the potential importance of this resource in the world of career psychology (Zysberg
2012).
Snyder et al. (1991) formulated the Adult Hope Questionnaire, which assesses the agency and path-
ways factors of the concept: agency embodies innate motivation to achieve the individual’s desired
goals, and pathway represents the ability to imagine and set out alternative ways of getting there
(Babyak, Snyder, and Yoshinobu 1993). Snyder’s emphasis on cognitive aspects of the predisposition
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION AND WORK   883

toward hope suggests that the ability to determine goals and the accompanying belief that one is
­capable of achieving them is a basic human predisposition that focuses attention on planning for the
future.

Grit
Ryans (1938) suggested that the characteristic of persistence is critical in determining performance.
Sixty-nine years later, Duckworth et al. (2007) presented research on the concept of grit, which can be
understood as perseverance and commitment to the achievement of long-term goals. Their research
echoed the claims of Ryans, as well as other researchers in the field of human abilities, who sought to
develop a general measure of perseverance and commitment to achieving long-term goals that would
be independent of specific situations. They asserted that individuals high in grit, a concept related to
personality structures associated with hardiness and motivation, were more likely to achieve success in
long-term endeavours than those with low levels of grit. Much in line with other personality constructs,
grit seems to emerge from the individual’s healthy, adaptive sense of self, shaped early in life through
diverse life experiences, interpersonal interactions, and feedback from the environment (Duckworth
and Quinn 2009). The extent to which grit is amenable to change, intervention, and development later
in life is still a matter of debate (Duckworth et al. 2011).
In today’s workplace, careers require resilience, perseverance, and determination to make it through
the long haul that transforms ambition into achievement. Therefore, the trait known as grit should con-
tribute to explaining long-term performance in attaining life goals, especially when the path ahead may
be obscured by difficulties and distractions. While preliminary results of a series of studies supported
the claims of Duckworth et al. (2007), their findings suggested that more evidence is required to better
understand how grit interacts with other factors to explain the achievement of long-term goals.

Emotional intelligence
Researchers have long suggested that emotional and social abilities shape the way we think and func-
tion alongside cognitive abilities (e.g. Thorndike and Stein 1937). More recently, the notion of emotional
intelligence (EI) offered a framework that allows the study of this direction in diverse settings. Models
of EI fall largely into two groups: Trait EI and Ability EI (Mayer, Roberts, and Barsade 2008). It is generally
assumed that while traits and behavioural predispositions are best measured by self-report methods,
the measurement of abilities requires performance-based testing methods to measure emotional intel-
ligence (Zysberg, Levy, and Zisberg 2010). Regardless of measurement mode, most current definitions
of EI focus on the following core components of the concept: emotion identification/awareness, using
emotions to facilitate and enhance reasoning, effectively processing complex emotional information,
and regulating behaviour to effectively attain goals. A growing body of research has associated EI with
a broad range of outcomes, from effective work and school performance to effective leadership and
general well-being (e.g. Gannon and Ranzijn 2005; Mayer, Roberts, and Barsade 2008; O’Boyle et al.
2011). As the individual’s capacity to work with others in often intensive and vital interactions are an
ever-increasing aspect of most areas of work (Carnevale, Gainer, and Meltzer 1988), the study of the role
of EI in the workplace environment requires further investigation (Zeidner, Matthews, and Roberts 2004).
In the frame of the current study, we suggest that EI plays a role in processes that are not only related
to work performance, but also in processes related to obtaining a position, namely, ‘employability’. To
the best of our knowledge, no studies examined this association to date.

The current study

Basing our investigation into self-perceived employability on the literature briefly reviewed above,
this study focused on a combination of resources that have received much attention in the positive
psychology literature, but little attention so far in the literature on career planning and development:
884    J. KASLER ET AL.

Figure 1. The study model.

perceived sense of hope (Snyder et al. 1991), grit (Duckworth et al. 2007), and emotional intelligence
(Mayer, Caruso, and Salovey 2000; Schutte et al. 1998). Research has shown each of these resources to
be a major factor in coping, meeting challenges, and attainment in various settings.
We also included demographic variables associated in the literature with employability: we used
age to represent differences between ‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional’ students, who may enter the job
market at different stages in life (e.g. Treuren and Anderson 2010). We also referred to the programme
of study, acknowledging differential expectations characteristics of the nature of various academic
and professional programmes (e.g. economics majors may have different employment expectations
than philosophy majors; see e.g. Gedye, Fender, and Chalkley 2004). In addition, we included current
employment as a demographic that indicates experience and job-seeking skill acquisition (e.g. McQuaid
and Lindsay 2005). Finally, we included learning disabilities (LD), based on literature suggesting that
LDs affect individuals’ employment patterns (e.g. Madaus 2006).
Employability was represented by two measures: work search self-efficacy (Solberg et al. 1994),
and an adaptation of the Self-Perceived Employability Scale (Rothwell and Arnold 2007). Based on the
above reviewed literature, we proposed a model in which demographics mentioned in the literature on
employability (age, programme of study, current employment, and having LDs), together with personal
characteristics and resources associated with positive psychology and vocational psychology frame-
works (hope, grit, and emotional intelligence), account for variances in two indicators of self-perceived
employability: job search self-efficacy and perceived chance of employment (see Figure 1).
We tested our model in a sample of students about to graduate and enter the job market, in Israel.

Method
Settings
Israel is considered a developed economy, with an advanced and dynamic job market. With per-capita
GDP about 66% that of the US, Israel’s economy is growing steadily at 3–4% annually, and is highly
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION AND WORK   885

ranked by the World Bank. The Israeli economy as well as the job market showed relative resistance and
stability during the recent recession taking place in the US as well as many EU economies (CIA 2013).
The Israeli labour market is dominated by information technology, service, and advanced manufactur-
ing industries led by high-tech initiatives (Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs 2013). While the high-tech
sector has absorbed large numbers of highly trained professionals, Israel’s largest employer remains
the public sector.
Relatively high income inequality has created added pressures on individuals of employment age,
especially among the more educated, to compete for limited opportunities in better paid private sector
jobs or relatively stable public sector professions. The result is an ever-increasing need to find the means
to maintain and enhance individual employability.

Participants
We conducted the research with a convenience sample of 584 students in their senior year of studies
(139 males, 439 females, and 6 who did not disclose their gender), of whom 197 were students with
learning disabilities and 376 were students who did not have learning disabilities (with 11 undisclosed),
matched on programme of study, gender, and approximate age. Participants came from the following
programmes of study: education (32%), social work (15%), economics (16%), interdisciplinary studies
(12%), computer science (4%), nutritional science (12%), ecology (2%), and biotechnology (5%). One
per cent of the participants did not note their programme of study. All the participants were attending
a medium-sized college in northern Israel. The age range was 18–51 (M = 24.32 ± 4.50). About 82%
were Jewish, 6.50% were Muslim, 6% were Druze, and about 5.50% were Christian. Forty-seven per
cent reported being employed in addition to their studies. This percentage refers to students working
in their field of studies or field of intended employment; the others were either not working or worked
in non-professional capacities and jobs.

Measures
Job search self-efficacy was assessed using the Job Search Self-Efficacy Scale (Solberg et al. 1994), a
35-item, self-report aimed at assessing perceived ability to search and find employment. We utilised
the total score only in this study. Higher scores represent more positive work-search efficacy. Empirical
evidence proposed by the authors of the questionnaire supports its high reliability and appropriate
validity (Solberg, Good, and Nord 1993).
Self-perceived chance of employment was measured using an adaptation of Rothwell and Arnold’s
(2007) Self-Perceived Employability Scale. This scale was originally created to measure employability
among persons already employed in a given profession; we adapted the items from it to suit the pop-
ulation of the present study: undergraduates assessing their employability in their chosen professions
before their first job placement. From the original 16-item scale, a 9-item questionnaire was constructed
for this research study, to assess the participants’ perceived ease or obstacles in their future work-search
process. Examples of items included are: The skills I have gained are transferable to a variety of occupations,
and People with the training I am receiving are highly valued in the job market. In this study, the internal
consistency of the scale was 0.78.
Hope was measured using the Adult Dispositional Hope Scale (Snyder et al. 1991), a 12-item self-re-
port measure widely accepted in hope-related studies as a general measure of trait hope. The items
produce a general score as well as two subscale scores: agency and pathways to solutions. Higher scores
represent higher levels of trait-hope. Reliability and validity have been demonstrated to range in the
good to high values in various settings: test-retest reliability was report to range from 0.85 to 0.73 and
internal consistency ranges 0.74 through 0.85. Concurrent validity has been demonstrated in numerous
studies using this measure (Snyder et al. 2002).
Grit was measured using the short Grit Scale (Duckworth and Quinn 2009), a 17-item measure used
to evaluate individual perseverance and passion for long-term goals. The higher the score, the higher
886    J. KASLER ET AL.

the grit reported by the respondent. Several studies have shown an acceptable reliability for scale (an
internal consistency for the scale of 0.84; see Duckworth and Quinn 2009).
Emotional intelligence was assessed using two separate measures: SEIS (Schutte et al. 1998) is a
33-item self-report measure of EI, based on the ability model of the concept. The questionnaire yields
a total score that was used in this study. The measure is often used in current studies; it has been shown
to have acceptable reliability and psychometric attributes (reliability indices above 0.80; see Schutte
et al. 2001). AVEI (Zysberg, Levy, and Zisberg 2010) is a 27-item computerised test of EI that focuses on
emotion recognition in simulated social settings. The test has been shown to have acceptable psycho-
metric properties in educational and health-related settings, with reliability in the range of 0.65-0.70
and impressive predictive validity in various settings (e.g. Zysberg, Levy, and Zisberg 2010).
The demographics included in this research included age, programme of study, status of employ-
ment, having a learning disability, and additional information. These data were collected in a separate
demographic questionnaire, designed especially for this study.

Procedure
The local IRB approved the administration of the research materials. We recruited participants from
campus-wide courses to cover as many fields of study as possible. Participants were asked to take part
in a study about ‘thoughts and perceptions about employment and future employment’. Completion
of the questionnaire packet took approximately 30 min per participant. Participants were not compen-
sated in any way. Anonymity was ensured by allowing the participants to return their questionnaires
in an unmarked blank envelope.

Data analysis
After examining the distribution of our main variables, we used multiple regression analyses to exam-
ine the unique associations of resources alongside demographics with our two outcome measures of
self-perceived employability. We later used a logistic regression to test the associations of the same fac-
tors with actual employment (which was assessed dichotomously; see description in the next chapter).

Results
Before testing our model, we examined the descriptive statistics of our focal variables and of the simple
associations between them. The results of these analyses are summarised in Table 1.
Most of the focal variables showed normal or near-normal distribution. The results also suggested
good distribution and variances, allowing us to conduct further parametric analyses. The preliminary
association patterns showed only partial support of our model.
Before testing our hypotheses, we tested for potential differences based on programme of study
in our sample: We did not find significant differences in the outcome measures among students from
different programmes. We then proceeded to test our model using two multiple linear regression
analyses, using the perceived chance of employment score and the job-search self-efficacy score as
criteria, respectively. The results of the analyses are presented in Tables 2a and 2b.
The results support our model only partially. Hope and grit were the only factors that were associ-
ated with measures of self-perceived employability of the students. Together they accounted for 32%
of the variance in job-search self-efficacy and 23% of the variance in perceived chance of employment.
Significant effects were not shown for any of the other demographic and personal factors.
We also tested our factors against the criterion of current employment. We added this analysis, which
was not specified in our original model, in order to test our factors against an employment-related
criterion that was not based on subjective self-report. We created an employment indicator variable
that differentiated participants who reported working within their field of study (thus career-related
employment) from participants who reported not working or working part-time outside their field
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION AND WORK   887

of study or vocational interest. Our goal was to predict career-relevant employment as a criterion in
this analysis. We ran a logistic regression model using age, gender, programme of study, and personal
factors, with current employment status (yes/no) as a dependent variable. The resulting regression
coefficients are presented in Table 3.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and simple associations among the main variables (n = 587).

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Age 24.32 4.50 –
2. Gender M = 24% –
F = 76%
3. LD Yes = 41% −0.06 0.02 –
No = 59%
4. Emp Yes = 47% −0.24** −0.01 0.05 –
No = 53%
5. SPE 3.44 0.68 0.00 0.01 0.06 −0.05 –
6. JSSES 6.77 1.40 −0.04 0.04 0.14** −0.04 0.51** –
7. SEISS 2.04 0.49 0.10* −0.20** 0.12** 0.02 −0.29** −0.44** –
8. AVEI 16.64 3.15 −0.02 0.05 0.10 0.24** −0.09 −0.09 0.13 –
9. Grit 2.58 −0.06 0.00 −0.22** 0.03 −0.27** −0.39** 0.24** −0.10 –
0.67
10. Hope 6.25 0.01 −0.04 0.12** −0.09* 0.45** 0.48** −0.35** −0.11 −0.34** –
0.91
Notes: LD = learning disability; Emp = employed; SPE = Self-perceived chance of employment; JSSES = Job Search Self-Efficacy
Scale; SEIS  =  Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale; AVEI  =  Audio-visual test of emotional intelligence. AVEI correlations were
based on a sub-sample of 117.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Table 2a. Regression analysis summary for the dependent variable of employment self-efficacy (n = 576).

Source of variance Beta t

Constant [6.25] 2.40**
Gender 0.05 0.05
Age −0.08 −0.84
LD 0.09 1.00
Employment 0.06 0.68
Hope 0.33 3.13**
Grit 0.22 2.27*
AVEI −0.09 −1.09
SEIS −0.09 −0.99
Notes: Constant b values are presented in brackets.
LD – learning disability; AVEI – Audio-visual test of emotional intelligence; SEIS – Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Table 2b. Regression analysis summary for the dependent variable of perceived chance of employment (n = 576).

Source of variance Beta t

Constant [2.81] 2.61**
Gender −0.13 −1.27
Age 0.02 0.24
LD 0.06 0.63
Employment 0.08 −0.84
Hope 0.34 3.04**
Grit 0.16 1.40^
AVEI −0.03 −0.38
SEIS −0.08 −0.81
Notes: Constant b values are presented in brackets.
LD – learning disability; AVEI – Audio-visual test of emotional intelligence; SEIS – Schutte Emotional Intelligence Scale.
**p < 0.01; ^p = 0.07.
888    J. KASLER ET AL.

Table 3. Logistic regression to explain the variance in current employment status.

Factor B SE of Beta Wald coefficient OR

Age −0.06 0.08 0.59 –
Gender −0.36 0.61 0.34 –
LD −0.23 0.45 1.90 –
Hope 0.17 0.32 0.26 –
Grit 0.15 0.35 0.18 –
SEIS −0.28 0.27 1.22 –
AVEI −0.17** 0.06 5.23** 1.20
Notes: OR = odds ratio. The OR was calculated and presented only for significant effects.
**p < 0.01.

The results show a surprising pattern in the explanation of variance in actual current employment:
of all the background and personal factors, only the AVEI (test-format) EI measure showed a significant
relationship. Participants with higher EI tended to report being employed more often than those with
lower EI.

Discussion
In this study, we set out to examine the role of selected resources often associated with positive psy-
chology as factors associated with perceived employability, in a sample of college students about to
graduate and embark on their professional career. We hypothesised that hope, grit, and emotional
intelligence would account for variance in perceived employability beyond that accounted for by
demographics, programme of study, current employment, and the like. Our results provided only par-
tial support for our model. Surprisingly, none of the demographic factors, including programme of
study, learning disabilities, age, and others, had a unique association with our measures of perceived
employability. Of the personal resources, only hope and grit were found to account for the variance
in perceived employability measures, resulting in 32% of explained variance. Indeed, there is a robust
body of evidence supporting the role of these two factors in job search and employment effectiveness
(e.g. Duckworth et al. 2007; Zysberg 2012). Contrary to our expectations, neither of the emotional
intelligence measures, which are often mentioned in the literature as key in employment settings, had
a unique association with self-perceived employability. Another unexpected finding was the lack of
association between current employment status and perceived employability.
Our last surprising finding came from the additional analysis we ran to examine the factors vis-à-vis
actual current employment. We suggest that using actual current employment may help in further
examination of our model with a non-self-report measure, especially in light of the numerous biases
involved in self-report (e.g. Urbina 2004). This analysis showed that only the test-format EI measure
(AVEI) was associated with current employment, while all other factors remained non-significant. The
odds ratio for the analysis showed moderate effect size for EI.
These results add to our understanding of employability as a concept and as a subjective perception
among young adults preparing for the job market, both in its confirmation of some of the existing
evidence and in its addition of some surprising new directions for future exploration. First, the current
study took the ‘personal-resource’ approach toward employability (Harvey 2001). This is a more recent
perspective compared with traditional approaches, which view employability as either an organisational
or a factual outcome (being hired vs. not being hired). Our results lend some support to this approach,
showing that only personal resources (hope and grit) played a significant role in accounting for self-per-
ceived employability. The findings reconfirm the valuable role of these concepts in our understanding
of adaptive behaviour and effective coping with challenges (in this case, finding and securing a job).
They also contribute to our knowledge about the sources of hope and grit: the association we found
with measures of specific-domain self-efficacy and perceived chance of employment suggest that
both hope and grit may have underlying ingredients of self-efficacy and optimism. The massive body
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION AND WORK   889

of literature on self-efficacy teaches us about its genesis, based in early life and then on-going life
experiences, and especially feedback received regarding success and failure, either experienced by the
individual or taught through modelling (Bandura 1981). Optimism, a trait associated with a relatively
stable positive expectation of life events and situations is also described in the literature as relevant to
the constructs described here, and has been shown to be associated with effective career management
(e.g. Mohanty 2010). The result pattern suggests commonalities in the developmental basis of hope,
grit, self-efficacy, and optimism; however, this is beyond the scope of the current study. Further research
may help clarify and map the concepts within the ‘positive psychology domain’.
Second, our findings emphasise the contribution of positive psychology to the literature on employ-
ability: recent researchers of employability have included consideration of elements of individual behav-
iour that pertain to proactive adaptability (Duckworth et al. 2007; Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth 2004).
These fit conceptually with the notions of hope and grit, which were found to be associated with
perceived employability in this study. In this respect, our results support the personal adaptability
component of employability as a personal construct.
Third, our findings regarding demographic and background factors may shed new light on existing
claims: the literature on students with learning disabilities has associated various conditions under this
umbrella with ongoing difficulties in establishing a professional career, job search, and career manage-
ment (e.g. Adelman and Vogel 1990). Our study did not support this argument. Indeed, a deeper look
at the current literature indicates inconsistent results in this respect; in some of the research, college
graduates with learning disabilities did not differ from non-disabled peers (e.g. Madaus 2006).
In addition, there was a lack of association between programme of study and perceived employ-
ability. Numerous approaches, popular and empirical alike, argue that some academic fields promise
better employment chances and conditions than others (Crosby and Moncarz 2006; US Department
of Labor 2008). The students in our sample came from diverse programmes, spanning a range from
general studies to economics and computer science. We did not observe any association between
programme of study and perceived employability. This may also support the current notion of employ-
ability as a personal quality, dependent on human capital, potential, and effective adaptation rather
than declarative knowledge (Cassidy 2006; Fugate, Kinicki, and Ashforth 2004). Recent organisational
studies have demonstrated the importance of human capital (e.g. the added value of human qualities
such as knowledge, performance, cognitive style, and personal and interpersonal predispositions) in
understanding employee-performance organisational outcomes (e.g. Crook et al. 2011). Our results
might suggest that certain personal resources (relevant to the acceptable definitions of human capital
in employment settings) are associated with perceived employability above and beyond the perceived
effect of background variables.
We find the results regarding the role of EI to be of special interest for two reasons: recent literature
mentions EI as a human potential that is highly relevant to career and job effectiveness (e.g. Higgs
2004; Mayer, Roberts, and Barsade 2008; Slaski and Cartwright 2002). We used two measures of EI in
this study; both follow the ability–EI perspective, but one is a self-report questionnaire and the other,
a test-format measure. This was an opportunity to match two different measures of a relatively new
concept and test their applicability in this context. Although there were simple associations between
the self-report measure (SEIS) and both measures of employability, these disappeared once other var-
iables were included in the analyses, suggesting an overlap between the self-report EI measure and
personality resources (hope and grit). The test-format measure of EI (AVEI) was not associated with
any of the perceived-employability measures, but in a separate analysis it was the only factor that was
associated with actual employment among our participants – suggesting its potential to account for
actual behaviour associated with the concept of employability. However, since these analyses were
conducted outside of the scope of our original design, further research will be needed to test the use
of EI measures to explain other measures of employability.
890    J. KASLER ET AL.

Limitations
While considering and interpreting our results, the reader should bear in mind the study’s limitations.
First, our sample was taken from a single medium-sized college in northern Israel. Israel, in general, is
characterised by a relatively stable job market, which is also much smaller, and slightly more govern-
ment-regulated than those in the EU and the US in recent years. Therefore, the ability to generalise
career decisions and outcomes when considering different job markets and career-search tactics may
be limited. The use of self-report measures for most of our variables, though common and acceptable
in research in this field, may have resulted in biased responses, so that the associations might reflect the
measurement method and medium rather than the essence, an artefact mentioned in the methodolog-
ical literature (e.g. Coolican, McMullen, and Lecky 2008). This suspicion may be somewhat supported
by the differential effects we saw for the self-report vs. test-type measures of the same variable (EI) in
our study. Further research should replicate and re-examine our results in various settings and samples,
using additional measures to add to the generalisability of our results.
That being said, notwithstanding these limitations, our results do echo findings offered in the litera-
ture, while adding new direction for consideration and future research. In this respect, we believe they
add to the current discussion of the notion of employability among entry level and aspiring professionals
(college students and graduates) in a number of ways:
While our results reaffirm existing evidence of the centrality of hope and grit as representatives
of positive coping resources for perceived employability, they also point to the relevance of personal
potential beyond demographic denominations, such as gender, programme of study, and even learning
disabilities. Our evidence suggests that personal resources may be more important than traditional
background variables in determining self-perceived employability. The results also add to our under-
standing of the genesis and possible sources of hope and grit as personal resources. The association
found suggests the existence of a common denominator of self-efficacy, optimism and hardiness – all
are personality predispositions associated with career performance and success. Additional research
is needed to further examine the potential associations and differences between the roles that each of
the above concepts plays in accounting for effective coping and adaptation in face of the challenges
of modern careers. The implications for professional career training and career development may be
vast (should future research support the same trend): a focus on personal strengths and self-perceived
resilience, and a problem-focused approach to overcoming obstacles seems to correlate with the notions
of hope and grit as operationalised in this study. Competency development is a field that is currently
enjoying popularity in both research and practice (e.g. De Vos, De Hauw, and Van der Heijden 2011).
Our findings also support its importance in career counselling and development.
The role of emotional intelligence seems to be more complex and indirect than usually inferred.
However, at least one measure of EI showed an interesting association with actual employment, lending
support to the concept’s relevance. This again demonstrates the importance of self-regulation, effective
utilisation of emotion, and interpersonal abilities in the process of embarking on one’s career path.
Our results fit well with the general view of career planning and finding employment as a challenge
requiring effective coping. In this case – it may be personal resources that matter most, beyond social
labels and attributes.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Jonathan Kasler is currently a lecturer in the department of Education in Tel Hai College, Israel. He has served in a number of
positions at Tel Hai College, Israel, including head of counselling services and head of the English department. His research
interests include: social emotional and character education, career counselling for adults with learning disabilities, and
education and minorities.
 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION AND WORK   891

Leehu Zysberg is a faculty member at the graduate school, Gordon College of education and chair of the research authority
in the same institute. His fields of interest include I/O psychology with emphasis on vocational assessment and measure-
ment, emotional aspects in individual behaviour, coping in everyday life and health.
Nofar Harel recently completed an MA in social psychology at Haifa University, Israel. She earned her BA in psychology and
education at Tel Hai College, Israel. She currently works as a teaching assistant at Tel Hai College and Gordon College in
Israel and she is also actively engaged in research in several areas, including the use of treatment for children with anxiety
disorders, humour and emotion, and moral development in children. She has also worked for the Seeds of Peace Trust.

ORCID
Jonathan Kasler   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2480-587X

References
Adelman, P. B., and S. A. Vogel. 1990. “College Graduates with Learning Disabilities: Employment Attainment and Career
Patterns.” Learning Disability Quarterly 13 (3): 154–166.
Babyak, M., C. R. Snyder, and L. Yoshinobu. 1993. “Psychometric Properties of the Hope Scale: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis.”
Journal of Research in Personality 27 (2): 154–169.
Bandura, A. 1981. “Self-referent Thought: A Developmental Analysis of Self-efficacy.” In Social Cognitive Development:
Frontiers and Possible Futures, edited by J. H. Flavell and L. Ross, 200–239. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Berntson, E., K. Näswall, and M. Sverke. 2008. “Investigating the Relationship between Employability and Self-efficacy: A
Cross-lagged Analysis.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 17 (4): 413–425.
Bridgstock, R. 2009. “The Graduate Attributes We’ve Overlooked: Enhancing Graduate Employability through Career
Management Skills.” Higher Education Research & Development 28 (1): 31–44. doi:10.1080/07294360802444347.
Carnevale, A., L. Gainer, and A. Meltzer. 1988. Workplace Basics: The Skills Employers Want. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cassidy, S. 2006. “Developing Employability Skills: Peer Assessment in Higher Education.” Education + Training 48 (7): 508–517.
CIA. 2013. The World Fact Book (Israel). Washington, DC: CIA Office of Public Affairs.
Coolican, J., Gail A. Eskes, Patricia A. McMullen, and E. Lecky. 2008. “Perceptual Biases in Processing Facial Identity and
Emotion.” Brain and Cognition 66 (2): 176–187.
Crook, T. R., S. Y. Todd, J. G. Combs, D. J. Woehr, and D. J. Ketchen Jr. 2011. “Does Human Capital Matter? A Meta-analysis of
the Relationship between Human Capital and Firm Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology 96 (3): 443.
Crosby, O., and R. Moncarz. 2006. “The 2004–14 Job Outlook for College Graduates.” Occupational Outlook Quarterly
50 (3): 14–28.
De Vos, A., S. De Hauw, and B. I. J. M. Van der Heijden. 2011. “Competency Development and Career Success: The Mediating
Role of Employability.” Journal of Vocational Behavior 79 (2): 438–447.
Duckworth, A. L., H. Grant, B. Loew, G. Oettingen, and P. M. Gollwitzer. 2011. “Self-regulation Strategies Improve Self-
discipline in Adolescents: Benefits of Mental Contrasting and Implementation Intentions.” Educational Psychology
31 (1): 17–26.
Duckworth, A. L., C. Peterson, M. D. Matthews, and D. R. Kelly. 2007. “Grit: Perseverance and Passion for Long-term Goals.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92 (6): 1087–1101. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087.
Duckworth, A. L., and P. D. Quinn. 2009. “Development and Validation of the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S).” Journal of Personality
Assessment 91 (2): 166–174.
Fugate, M., A. J. Kinicki, and B. E. Ashforth. 2004. “Employability: A Psycho-social Construct, Its Dimensions, and Applications.”
Journal of Vocational Behavior 65 (1): 14–38. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2003.10.005.
Gannon, N., and R. Ranzijn. 2005. “Does Emotional Intelligence Predict Unique Variance in Life Satisfaction beyond IQ and
Personality?” Personality and Individual Differences 38 (6): 1353–1364.
Gedye, S., E. Fender, and B. Chalkley. 2004. “Students’ Undergraduate Expectations and Post-graduation Experiences of the
Value of a Degree.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 28 (3): 381–396.
Gillham, J., and K. Reivich. 2004. “Cultivating Optimism in Childhood and Adolescence.” The Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science 591 (1): 146–163.
Harvey, L. 2001. “Defining and Measuring Employability.” Quality in Higher Education 7 (2): 97–109.
doi:10.1080/1353832012005999.
Higgs, M. 2004. “A Study of the Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and Performance in UK Call Centres.” Journal
of Managerial Psychology 19 (4): 442–454.
Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 2013. https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/Economy/Pages/ECONOMY-%20Sectors%20
of%20the%20Economy.aspx.
Madaus, J. W. 2006. “Employment Outcomes of University Graduates with Learning Disabilities.” Learning Disability Quarterly
29 (1): 19–31.
892    J. KASLER ET AL.

Mayer, J. D., D. R. Caruso, and P. Salovey. 2000. “Emotional Intelligence Meets Traditional Standards for Intelligence.”
Intelligence 27 (4): 267–298.
Mayer, J. D., R. D. Roberts, and S. G. Barsade. 2008. “Human Abilities: Emotional Intelligence.” Annual Review of Psychology
59: 507–536. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646.
McAdams, D. P., and B. D. Olson. 2010. “Personality Development: Continuity and Change over the Life Course.” Annual
Review of Psychology 61: 517–542.
McQuaid, R. W., and C. Lindsay. 2005. “The Concept of Employability.” Urban Studies 42 (2): 197–219. doi:10.1080/004209
8042000316100.
Mohanty, M. S. 2010. “Effects of Positive Attitude and Optimism on Employment: Evidence from the US Data.” The Journal
of Socio-Economics 39 (2): 258–270.
O’Boyle, E. H., R. H. Humphrey, J. M. Pollack, T. H. Hawver, and P. A. Story. 2011. “The Relation between Emotional Intelligence
and Job Performance: A Meta-analysis.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 32 (5): 788–818.
Peterson, C. 2000. “The Future of Optimism.” American Psychologist 55 (1): 44–55. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.44.
Peterson, C., N. Park, and M. E. P. Seligman. 2005. “Orientations to Happiness and Life Satisfaction: The Full Life versus the
Empty Life.” Journal of Happiness Studies 6 (1): 25–41. doi:10.1007/s10902-004-1278-z.
Rothwell, A., and J. Arnold. 2007. “Self‐perceived Employability: Development and Validation of a Scale.” Personnel Review
36 (1): 23–41. doi:10.1108/00483480710716704.
Ryans, D. G. 1938. “The Meaning of Persistence.” The Journal of General Psychology 19 (1): 79–96.
Schutte, N. S., J. M. Malouff, C. Bobik, T. D. Coston, C. Greeson, C. Jedlicka, E. Rhodes, and G. Wendorf. 2001. “Emotional
Intelligence and Interpersonal Relations.” The Journal of Social Psychology 141 (4): 523–536.
Schutte, N. S., J. M. Malouff, L. E. Hall, D. J. Haggerty, J. T. Cooper, C. J. Golden, and L. Dornheim. 1998. “Development and
Validation of a Measure of Emotional Intelligence.” Personality and Individual Differences 25 (2): 167–177. doi:10.1016/
S0191-8869(98)00001-4.
Seligman, M. E. P., and M. Csikszentmihalyi. 2000. “Positive Psychology: An Introduction.” American Psychologist 55 (1): 5–14.
doi:10.1037//0003-066X.55.1.5.
Shaw, L. 2013. “Are We Ready to Address the New Expectations of Work and Workers in the Transforming World of Work?”
Work 44: 3–9.
Slaski, M., and S. Cartwright. 2002. “Health, Performance and Emotional Intelligence: An Exploratory Study of Retail
Managers.” Stress and Health 18 (2): 63–68.
Smelser, N. J. 2012. The Changing Academic Market: General Trends and a Berkeley Case Study. New Orleans, LA: Quid Pro Books.
Snyder, C. R., J. Cheavens, and S. C. Sympson. 1997. “Hope: An Individual Motive for Social Commerce.” Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice 1 (2): 107. doi:10.1037//1089-2699.1.2.107.
Snyder, C. R., C. Harris, J. R. Anderson, S. A. Holleran, L. M. Irving, S. T. Sigmon, L. Yoshinobu, June Gibb, Charyle Langelle,
and Pat Harney. 1991. “The Will and the Ways: Development and Validation of an Individual-Differences Measure of
Hope.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 (4): 570–585. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2037968.
Snyder, C. R., H. S. Shorey, J. Cheavens, K. M. Pulvers, V. H. Adams, and C. Wiklund. 2002. “Hope and Academic Success in
College.” Journal of Educational Psychology 94 (4): 820–826.
Solberg, V. S., G. E. Good, and D. Nord. 1993. The Career Search Efficacy Scale.
Solberg, V. S., G. E. Good, D. Nord, C. Holm, R. Hohner, N. Zima, M. Heffernan, and A. Malen. 1994. “Assessing Career Search
Expectations: Development and Validation of the Career Search Efficacy Scale.” Journal of Career Assessment 2 (2): 111–123.
Tengland, P. 2013. “A Qualitative Approach to Assessing Work Ability.” Work 44 (4): 393–404.
Thorndike, R. L., and S. Stein. 1937. “An Evaluation of the Attempts to Measure Social Intelligence.” Psychological Bulletin
34 (5): 275.
Tims, M., A. B. Bakker, and D. Derks. 2012. “Development and Validation of the Job Crafting Scale.” Journal of Vocational
Behavior 80 (1): 173–186.
Tomlinson, M. 2007. “Graduate Employability and Student Attitudes and Orientations to the Labour Market.” Journal of
Education and Work 20 (4): 285–304.
Treuren, G., and K. Anderson. 2010. “The Employment Expectations of Different Age Cohorts: Is Generation Y Really That
Different?” Australian Journal of Career Development 19 (2): 49–61.
Tseng, M. S. 1970. “Locus of Control as a Determinant of Job Proficiency, Employability, and Training Satisfaction of Vocational
Rehabilitation Clients.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 17 (6): 487–491.
Urbina, S. 2004. Essentials of Psychological Testing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
US Department of Labor. 2008. Occupational Outlook Handbook: Tomorrow’s Jobs. https://www.cis.hfcc.edu/.
Zeidner, M., G. Matthews, and R. D. Roberts. 2004. “Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace: A Critical Review.” Applied
Psychology 53 (3): 371–399. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00176.x.
Zysberg, L. 2012. “Hope in Personnel Selection.” International Journal of Selection and Assessment 20 (1): 98–104.
Zysberg, L., A. Levy, and A. Zisberg. 2010. “Emotional Intelligence in Applicant Selection for Care-related Academic Programs.”
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 29 (1): 27–38. doi:10.1177/0734282910365059.