In this chapter, a review of the literature regarding education-employment mismatch, jobsearch duration, and work values would be provided.
Education-Employment Mismatch
Hauser (1974) developed a labor underutilization framework (LUF), where the labor force is classified into two groups, adequately utilized workers and inadequately utilized workers. Inadequately utilization could be further classified by its cause of underutilization, namely, unemployment, inadequate work hours, inadequate income, and education and employment mismatch, while the adequately utilized workers are the rest of the total work force. And this section focuses on the studies of education and employment mismatch.
Education and employment mismatch has attracted substantial attention in recent years, since waste resulting from workers being in the wrong jobs might be more critical than that associated with unemployment in the economy (Hutt, 1939).
Overeducation and Overqualification
Most literature regarded overeducation and overqualification as the same phenomenon (Battu, Belfield & Sloane, 1999; Frenette, 2004; Ng, 2001; Hersch, 1991); however, Badillo Amador, López Nicolás and Vila Lladosa (2008) stated that they were different phenomena.
First, they defined qualification as the abilities, skills, attitudes and knowledge, and therefore overqualification is that one’s qualification is higher than those necessary for the job. They also explained the reason why overeducation is often used as overqualification. Since qualification is difficult to identify and measure, one’s educational attainment is often utilized as a proxy for one’s qualifications. All in all, overschooling, overeducation, overqualification, overskilled, underemployment, occupational mismatch, and so forth could be used interchangeably (Borghans & Grip, 1999).
Measures of Overeducation
There are various methods to measure overeducation. All these methods have its advantages and disadvantages; it depends on availability of data and the researchers’
preferences (Wirz & Atukeren, 2005).
The first method is the worker self-assessment method or the direct-self-response method, which is a subjective measure because participants themselves compare their educational attainment to the requirements of the job currently performed (Cohn & Ng, 2000;
Dolton & Vignoles, 2000; McGoldrick & Robst, 1996; Robst, 1995; Wirz & Atukeren, 2005).
The advantage of this measure is that it is job-specific; however, it may suffer from a self-response bias (Bauer, 1999; Wirz & Erdal, 2005). But Wirz & Erdal (2005) suggested that this problem can be solved, if there is no uncontrolled systematic bias or correlation of the responses across individuals (Dolton & Vignoles, 2000).
On the other hand, there are the other three objective measures, which these methods can avoid suffering from a self-response bias. The first method is standard deviation method, which is one of the realized matches methods. This method is to compare the number of years of individual’s schooling completed (SCHOOL) with the average years necessary to perform the tasks in an occupational field (Wirz & Erdal, 2005). According to Verdugo and Verdugo (1989), when one’s SCHOOL is higher than one standard deviation above the mean value for the occupation, one is considered to be overeducated (Cohn & Ng, 2000; Dolton & Vignoles, 2000).
This method, however, is also criticized because using one standard deviation as the cut off point might be arbitrary (Dolton & Vignoles, 2000). Moreover, Kiker, Santos and Oliveira (1997) mentioned that this measure is more sensitive to technological changes and changes in workplace organization than the others.
Therefore, the second method, one of realized matches methods, was developed by Kiker et al. (1997). They suggested using the modal value of SCHOOL for each occupation
instead. Those with SCHOOL greater than the modal level of schooling for their specific occupation are overeducated (Cohn & Ng, 2000).
The third method is the job analysis method (Hartog, 2000) or the expert opinion method, which is considered the optimal method to measure whether one is overeducated.
The experts specify the number of years of schooling necessary to perform the job in an occupational field. The most elaborate example is the United States Dictionary of Occupation Titles (DOT). While this measure is more optimal and objective than methods mentioned above, the available sources may be outdated and not capture the changes in job characteristics overtime. Moreover, it is costly to measure overeducation by this method (Hartog, 2000; Tsai, Chuang & Yeh, 2005; Wirz & Erdal, 2005).
The Determinants of Mismatch between Employment and Education
Following is a review of the literature discussed that some variables used in the analysis of likelihood of being overeducated (in terms of the additional years of overeducaiton) or mismatched (between job and major), and these variables are gender, age/cohort, experience, education background, marital status and ethnic.
Gender
There is no consistent conclusion that whether gender would have significant impact on the possibility of being overeducated or mismatched. The results showed that either females were less likely to be inadequately matched and to be overeducated than males (Cohn and Ng, 2000; Kiker et al., 1997), or females were no more likely than males to be overeducated in their jobs (Dolton & Vignoles, 2000), whereas Bender and Heywood (2006) suggested that females were more likely to be mismatched (Groot & Maassen van den Brink, 2000).
Furthermore, Chevalier (2000) indicated that women with master degree were more likely than men to accept non-graduate jobs and that married women were more likely to be overeducated due to the fact that they might be more constrained in their job search by family
who had experienced a career interruption were more likely to be in jobs for which they were overeducated. Thus, these results implied that women with children might have higher probability of being overeducated. On the other hand, there was a finding that gender has no significant effects on the risk of overeducation (Battu, Belfield, & Sloane, 2000; Wirz &
Atukeren 2005).
Education background
The likelihood of being mismatched decreases with the level of the most recent degree;
in other words, individuals with master degree or doctoral degree were less likely to be mismatched than those with bachelor degree (Robst, 2007). Also, Wirz and Atukeren (2005) suggested that university education had a positive and significant relationship with overeducation in the Swiss labor market. However, Wang (2000) illustrated that people with master degree were significantly overeducated than people with bachelor degree were.
Further, Dolton & Vignoles (2000, p.18) expressed that “arts/humanities or languages graduates are more likely to be overeducated than graduates of other faculties”. Additionally, Robst (1995) stressed that US graduates from more prestigious institutions were less likely to be overeducated. Also, public-school students were less likely to be overeducated than private-school students (Wang, 2000). Likewise, graduates with good grades were less likely to be overeducated than those with bad grades (Dolton & Vignoles, 2000). Therefore, as mentioned above, educational background difference could have impact on education-employment mismatch. And there were two sub-hypotheses were proposed: (a) educational attainment is positively and significantly related to overeducation; (b) educational attainment is negatively and significantly related to mismatch.
Marital status
In Wirz and Atukeren’s study (2005), the result showed that for the overall sample or the sample restricted to female, there was no statistically positive relationship between marital status and overeducation, whereas for the sample restricted to male, there is a statistically
negative relationship between them. Also, Bender and Heywood (2006) suggested that the married were less likely to be overeducated.
Ethnic
The result showed that whites and blacks were equally likely to be mismatched;
nevertheless, Robst (2007) found that if ethnic groups face discrimination, they will be less likely to find a related job. Also, the result showed that Whites and Asians were more mismatched than Blacks and Hispanics (Robst, 2007).
Age/Cohort
Bender and Heywood (2006) illustrated that older workers were more likely to be mismatched (Robst, 2007) while Groot and Maassen van den Brink (1996, 2000) found that younger workers were more likely to be overeducated than older workers (Chevalier, 2000;
Kiker et al., 1997).
Chevalier (2000) explained why younger workers were more likely to be overeducated.
First, older workers have had more time to prospect the labor market so that their skills could be improved through on-the-job training. Second, workers would consider that it is inevitable to change their career expectations over time. Third, graduates from the younger cohort were less likely to acquire graduate skills while studying due to over-crowding or changes in the curriculum.
Experience
Workers with less work experience were more likely to be overeducated (Cohn & Ng, 2000; Daly, Bu¨chel & Duncan, 2000), because overeducated workers may substitute education for the lack of previous job experience (Kiker et al., 1997).
The Reasons for Being Willing to Be Overeducated or Mismatched
According to Bender and Heywood (2006), the result indicated that people who were willing to be overeducated because of these three factors, better pay and promotion, the lack
because they lack jobs. As mentioned before, if jobseekers still could not find jobs for a long time, they would rather be overeducated (Wang, 2000).
Likewise, people might be willing to be overeducated, if what they desired is satisfied.
For example, if they were satisfied with the pay which companies offered, they would be willing to be overeducated. Thus, there might be a relationship between work values and overeducation.
As a result, the researcher hypothesized that the certain perceived work values are significantly and positively associated to education-employment mismatch. In addition, jobsearch duration could be positively related to education-employment mismatch, and the hypothesis was developed: jobsearch duration is significantly and positively related to education-employment mismatch.
The Consequences of Mismatch between Employment and Education
The consequences could be divided into two groups: the monetary consequences and the non-monetary consequences for workers.
Monetary consequences
Considerable studies investigated the relationship between education-employment mismatch and wages, and the results were consistent among these researches. In most study, there was a positive relationship between overeducation and wages. Overeducated workers earned more than their coworkers with exactly the adequate years of schooling and identical other characteristics. And Oosterbeek (2000) mentioned that only when males had a bachelor degree, males who were overeducated could earn more than males who were properly matched. However, overeducated workers earned lower wages than workers with the same level of educational attainment, but work in occupations which fully utilize their education (Allen & Van der Velden, 2001; Borghans, Bruinshoofd & Grip, 2000; Cohn & Ng, 2000;
Daly, Bu¨chel & Duncan, 2000; Dolton & Vignoles, 2000).
Non-Monetary consequences
There were also several studies investigated the relationship between overeducation and non-monetary consequences such as job satisfaction. Most studies had similar results showed that overeducation was positively related to diminished job satisfaction. Those who were overeducated were less satisfied than those who work in occupations which fully utilize their education (Belfield & Harris, 2002; Hersch, 1991; Moshavi & Terborg, 2002), whereas the adequately educated workers have a premium on job satisfaction (Battu et al., 2000). Vieira (2005) further divided job satisfaction into four dimensions, which were pay, job security, type of work and number of hours of work, and found that overeducation had negative effect on these four dimensions.
As mentioned, some authors regarded overeducation and overqualification as different.
Thus, they investigated whether both overeducation and overqualification affect the job satisfaction. According to Badillo-Amador and Vila-Lladosa (2006), they argued that the qualification mismatched workers were more likely to be disappointed than those who were accurately match in terms of qualification, while the effects of education mismatch situations (overeducation) on job satisfaction were not significant (Allen & Van der Velden, 2001;
Green & McIntosh, 2002). Yet, Buchel (2002) suggested that overqualified employees had the same job satisfaction as those properly matched.
In addition, overeducation resulted in not only dissatisfied workers (Tsang, 1987), but also higher turnover rate (McGoldrick & Robst, 1996; Wolbers, 2003). Further, people who were overqualified would have difficulties in professional / private life and poor health status (Wirz & Atukeren 2005).
Jobsearch duration
Following is a review of literature studied on the jobsearch duration or unemployment duration. According to Ghukasyan (2008, p.15), the author defined the duration of unemployment or jobsearch duration as “the time when the citizen is searching for a job irrespective of the way of searching it”. The duration of unemployment has two characteristics:
1. Duration of completed unemployment, which is the time period between job search and job placement.
2. Duration of incomplete unemployment, which is the time period between job search and the moment of official registration of unemployment.
Educational Background and Jobsearch Duration
According to Zhang (1994), he found that school, major and, educational attainment have significantly impact on jobsearch duration. For example, lower educated people continued to face greater barriers to the exit from unemployment (Kletzer, 1998; Mills, 2001).
In most cases, a significantly negative relationship between educational attainment and jobsearch duration was found; in other words, the higher the educational level, the shorter the jobsearch duration (Chen, 2008; Tao & Li, 2006). However, in Lin’s study (2007), there was no significant difference in jobsearch duration between bachelors and masters. And in this study, the hypothesis was proposed: the jobsearch duration of master’s graduates is significantly shorter than that of bachelor’s graduates.
Other Factors and Jobsearch Duration
Tao and Li (2006) indicated that personal characteristics such as age, gender and marital status significantly impact on the unemployment duration. Take age for example, if one is under the age of 34, as one grows older, one has shorter unemployment duration (Lin, 1991).
However, if one is over the age of 34, as one grows older, one has longer unemployment duration (Chen, 2002). Additionally, the unemployment duration of males was significantly
longer than that of females (Chen, 2002; Chen, 2008). Chen (2002) explained that because men have taken on more economic responsibilities, they spent more time on searching a high salary job. Nevertheless, the result also showed that gender had no significant impact on jobsearch duration (Lin, 2007).
Moreover, Lin (2007) suggested that first-time jobseekers had lower probability of employment due to the lack of work experience. And the average unemployment duration was also found to be longer in non-metropolitan than in metropolitan areas (Mills, 2001;
Swaim, 1990). Also, the welfare policy had positively and significantly impact on the jobsearch duration (Bloemen, 1997; Paul & Ian, 2001; Stancanelli, 1999).
As mentioned above, several factors were found to be related to jobsearch duration. In Chen’s study (2002), the researcher further stressed that males had longer jobsearch duration because of the preference for the high salary. Based on the explanation, the hypothesis was developed: work values are significantly associated with the length of jobsearch duration.
Work values
The definition of work values, the types of work values, and literature about work values would be included in this section.
Definition of Work Value
With regard to work values, there remains disagreement on the definition or dimension in spite of the considerable literature discussed about work values (Dose, 1997). For example, Super (1970) defined that work values are the part of individuals’ values that work can satisfy (Li, Liu & Wan, 2008, p876), while Kalleberg (1977) defined them as the conceptions of what is desirable that individuals hold with respect to their work activity (p140). According to Hazer and Alvares (1981), however, they argued that work values are shaped by the socialization. As shown in Table 2.1, the various definitions of work values could be identified.
Table 2.1.
Review of the definition of work values
Authors Definitions
England (1967, p.54)
Work values are ideologies or philosophies that enable the understanding of individuals' behaviors at work.
Super (1970) respect to their work activity.
Pryor (1981)
Cited Zhang, Wang, Yang, & Teng (2007)
The author used the term preferences to define values, so work values are what individuals like or prefer in a job rather than what they think is good or should be done.
Cook, Hepworth, Wall, & Warr (1981, p.132)
Work values focus on the more enduring aspects of people's orientations towards employment in general rather than on their reactions to particular jobs or occupations.
(table continues)
Table 2.1. (continued) various socially desirable modes of work behaviors, which consequently ought to be displayed
Elizur, Borg, Hunt, &
Beck (1991, p.22)
Value of a given social group is any entity (object, behavior, situation) on which that group place a high importance. Work values are such entities in the work context.
Dose
(1997, p.227-228)
Work values are evaluative standards relating to work or the work environment by which individuals discern what is “right” or assess the importance of preferences.
Ros, Schwartz &
Surkiss (1999, p.54)
Work goals or values are seen as specific expressions of general values in the work setting.
Schwartz (1999, p.41)
Work values are the goals or rewards people seek through their work, and they are expressions of more general human values in the context of the work setting.
Taris & Feij (2001, p.3)
Work values are enduring beliefs that a specific mode or conduct or end-state is preferable to its opposite, thereby guiding the
individual’s attitudes, judgments and behaviors Zhang, Wang, Yang,
& Teng (2007, p.1282)
Work values refer to broad tendencies to prefer certain job characteristics, outcomes or features of work environments.
Types of Work Value
Notwithstanding there is also no agreement on the types of work values (Table 2.2); one of the most widely used approaches to work values classified them as either intrinsic or extrinsic. For instance, Work Values Questionnaire (WVQ; Mantech, 1983) comprises 37 items measuring intrinsic and extrinsic work values.
According to Taris and Feij (2001, p.3), they illustrated that “intrinsic work values refer to immaterial aspects of their jobs that allow for self-expression, for example, job variety and autonomy, while extrinsic work values refer to material or instrumental work aspects, such as salary and opportunity for promotion”. In addition, George and Jones (1997) also proposed that intrinsic work values are relevant to the goals of work and dependent on the content of work, whereas extrinsic work values are independent of work content.
Table 2.2.
Review of the types of work values
Authors Types of work values
Super(1970, 1973) Super (1973) developed the Work Values Inventory, which contains 15 items.
1. Extrinsic values in the form of rewards: way of life, security, prestige, and economic returns.
2. Extrinsic social and environmental concomitants of work:
surroundings, associates, supervisory relationships, and variety.
3. Intrinsic rewards derived from activity enjoyment (pleasure) and goal accomplishment: creativity, management, achievement, altruism, independence, intellectual stimulation, and aesthetics.
Zytowski (1970) There are 3 types of work values: extrinsic values, intrinsic values and concomitant values.
Rokeach (1973) Work values can be classified into two groups.
1. Instrumental values (having to do with a mode of conduct): they are further divided into the categories of moral such as honesty or competence such as intelligence.
2. Terminal values (having to do with an end-state of existence):
they are described as either personal (an end state describing oneself) or social (an end state describing society).
Miller (1974) 1. Extrinsic values: way of life, security, prestige, economic returns, variety, independence, surroundings, associates, and supervisory relationships,
2. Intrinsic value: achievement, altruism, creativity, aesthetics, management, and intellectual stimulation.
Kalleberg (1977) There are six types of work values: intrinsic, convenience, financial, relationships with co-workers, career, and resource adequacy.
Pryor (1981) The author distinguished 12 factors in his Work Aspect Preference Scale (WAPS): security, self-development, altruism, lifestyle, physical activity, detachment, independence, prestige, management, coworkers, creativity, and money.
(table continues)
Table 2.2. (continued)
Authors Types of work values
Elizur (1984)
Elizur, Borg, Hunt, &
Beck (1991)
Two facets for classifying work values were proposed:
1. Modality of outcome:
(1) Instrumental outcomes: pay, hours of work, security, benefits, and work conditions.
(2) Cognitive outcomes: relations with supervisor, coworkers, recognition, esteem, and opportunity to interact with people
(3) Affective outcomes: responsibility, advancement, achievement, influence, interest, feedback, meaningful work, use of abilities, independence, company, status, and contribution to society.
2. System–performance contingency: whether job rewards are contingent on task performance (reward such as pay, recognition, feedback,
achievement, concen for others, honesty, and fairness.
Vaus & McAllister
They identified three categories of goals: social, expressive, and instrumental. (parallel the social, intrinsic, and extrinsic types, respectively) Ros, Schwartz, &
Surkis (1999)
1. Intrinsic: personal growth, autonomy, interest, and creativity 2. Extrinsic: pay and security
3. Social: contact with people and contribution to society
4. Power: prestige, authority, influence, power, and achievement in work are common in empirical research on work. These values have usually
4. Power: prestige, authority, influence, power, and achievement in work are common in empirical research on work. These values have usually