Received 07/23/15

Revised 12/15/15
Accepted 12/16/15

•
DOI: 10.1002/joec.12075

r elationship between perceived

organizational support, proactive
personality, and perceived
employability in workers over 50
Laure Guilbert, Cindy Carrein, Nicolas Guénolé, Lise Monfray,
Jérôme Rossier, and Daniel Priolo

This article examines the relationship between perceived organizational support,

proactive personality, and perceived employability in a sample of workers over 50.
An online questionnaire assessing these variables were filled by 213 employees.
Results confirmed that individual dispositions have a significant impact on perceived
employability but also indicated that organizational context may have a greater impact
on employability. The implications of the findings are discussed, and suggestions are
offered for future research on employability.

Keywords: perceived employability, perceived organizational support, proactive per-

sonality, workers over 50

In most countries of Western Europe, the aging of the labor force and the socio-
economic context have put a strain on national retirement budgets and caused
uncertainly about the status of workers over 50 (Collins, 2003). Age is no longer a
guarantee for job security or career advancement (Faurie, Fraccaroli, & Le Blanc,
2008), and many older workers face high unemployment rates and career stagnation.
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012),
the employment rate of workers in the 50- to 64-year age bracket in France reached
54.7% in 2011 and averaged 61.2% in the 34 member countries of the European
Union. This trend requires that dedicated support be offered to workers over 50 and
that employment counselors be oriented toward two levels of action (organizational
and individual) to assist this population.
In a turbulent work environment, employability is a key element of the processes
involved in professional transitions, whether the transitions are desired or not. Employ-
ability can be defined as “the possibility of accessing a suitable job or of remaining

Laure Guilbert, Department of Psychology, Université Paul Valéry Montpellier, Montpellier, France;
Cindy Carrein, Nicolas Guénolé, and Lise Monfray, Department of Psychology, Université de
Rouen, Rouen, France; Jérôme Rossier, Institute of Psychology, University of Lausanne, Lausanne,
Switzerland; Daniel Priolo, Department of Psychology, Université Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laure Guilbert, Laboratoire Epsylon,
Department of Psychology, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, Univ. Montpellier, EPSYLON EA 4556,
F34000, Montpellier, France (email: laure.guilbert@univ-montp3.fr).

© 2018 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

58 journal of employment counseling • June 2018 • Volume 55
employed in a social, economic, cultural, and technological context. This possibil-
ity results from interactions between the individual, organizational strategies, and
governmental and educational policies” (Guilbert, Bernaud, Gouvernet, & Rossier,
2016, p. 79). Wittekind, Raeder, and Grote (2010) noted that employability does
not concern only unemployed people but also employed people without job security.
Maintaining employment is of particular concern for workers over 50. Berntson (2008)
and De Cuyper and De Witte (2010) emphasized the notion of perceived employability,
which they consider a guarantee of job security in a shifting professional environment.
Indeed, Vanhercke et al. (2015) emphasized that it is perception, rather than reality,
that triggers cognitions, behavior, and psychological functioning. Consequently, in
the current study, we examined perceived employability, and specifically the extent
to which it optimizes the chances of a person to remain employed or to find a new
job. Placing value on the contribution of employees and showing concern for their
well-being (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002) also promote their level of perceived
organizational support (POS) and foster their subjective involvement in the company,
their work satisfaction, and the quality of their performance. Moreover, employees are
also expected to adopt active behaviors in order to maintain and develop their own
employability (Van Dam, 2004). Fuller and Marler (2009) highlighted the tendency
of proactive individuals (i.e., people who are relatively independent from situational
constraints) to concentrate on developing new skills and mastering new tasks, which
influence their perceived employability.
De Vos, De Hauw, and Van der Heijden (2011) posited that in order to study
employability antecedents, one needs to include both individual and organizational
perspectives. On the basis of the aforementioned viewpoints and theoretical elements,
the present study therefore aims to assess the role of POS and proactive personality
as organizational and individual psychological determinants for the perceived em-
ployability of workers over 50. To our knowledge, this issue has not been addressed
with this population until now.

PERCEIVED EMPLOYABILITY

According to Rothwell (2015), the concept of employability can be approached from

four distinct perspectives. The political approach studies the measures taken by
governments to boost employment and implement strategies designed to enhance
the employability of various populations. The educational approach examines the
employability of graduates and the higher education sector programs that enhance
it. In the organizational approach, firms may contribute to the employability of
employees of all ages, in particular within the framework of human resources man-
agement and planning. Finally, in the individual approach, individuals themselves
play a central role in the maintenance and development of their own employability
(Robson, Hansson, Abalos, & Booth, 2006). In the individual approach, Vanhercke,
De Cuyper, Peeters, and De Witte (2014) distinguished three dominant theories in
psychology. The first theory is based on dispositions, such as openness to change,
resilience, professional proactivity, professional motivation, and workplace identity
(Fugate & Kinicki, 2008). The second theory explores one’s perceived capacities to

journal of employment counseling • June 2018 • Volume 55 59

obtain or maintain employment (Vanhercke et al., 2014). The third theory is based
on competences (Van der Heijde & Van der Heijden, 2006).
In the third theory, Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden (2006) defined employability
as the accomplishment, the acquisition, or the creation of work by means of an optimal
use of skills, all the while emphasizing its influence on both the individual’s career
and the results of the organization. According to Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden,
perceived employability can be described in five dimensions. Corporate sense relates
to an individual’s participation and involvement in the life of the organization and in
work groups. Anticipation and optimization correspond to the capacity of workers to
foresee and correct the trajectory of their professional path. Personal flexibility relates
to the way an individual deals with change in a professional context, and his or her
ability to take advantage of a situation in terms of performance and job satisfaction.
Occupational expertise relates to personal skills; it affects individual performance and,
thus, organizational performance and competitiveness. Finally, balance relates to the
compromise that a worker has to make between his or her own professional interests
and those of the organization. Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden emphasized the
importance of maintaining and developing the employability of employees, to the extent
that it contributes to the evolution of their professional career or their work satisfaction
on the one hand, and to the flexibility and performance of the organization on the other.
Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden’s (2006) five-dimension theoretical model
is particularly well suited to describe the difficulties faced by workers over 50.
Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden’s (2005) study showed that, compared with a
younger population, workers over 50 tend to be evaluated as less competent on four
of the five dimensions of employability (i.e., occupational expertise, anticipation
and optimization, personal flexibility, and corporate sense). To reach our objective
(i.e., to orient employment counselors toward two levels of action to help and guide
workers over 50), we focused our study within this specific perspective. However,
the goal of this study was not to examine whether employability differences between
younger and older workers exist, because this has been demonstrated in previous
research (e.g., Sok, Blomme, & Tromp, 2013; Tisch, 2015; Van der Heijden, De Lange,
Demerouti, & Van der Heijde, 2009). Rather, our goal was to identify organizational
and individual factors to increase the employability of workers over 50.

POS

Among the many organizational variables likely to influence perceived employabil-

ity, POS retains our attention. The concept of POS originated in the theory of social
exchange, based on the works of Gouldner (1960) and Blau (1964), which view the
employment relationship as an exchange between the employer and the employee.
To satisfy their needs for approval, affiliation, and esteem, and to determine whether
the organization is ready to reward their efforts, employees form a general perception
of the extent to which the organization values their contributions and is concerned
with their well-being (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986).
Armstrong-Stassen and Ursel (2009) showed the importance of POS for aging
workers for career satisfaction and intention to remain in the organization. Moreover,

60 journal of employment counseling • June 2018 • Volume 55

Cheung and Wu (2014) found that POS is an important factor for five successful
aging dimensions (adaptability and health, positive relationship, occupational
growth, personal security, and continuous focus on goals). This field of research thus
emphasizes the importance of taking the aspirations of employees into account and
of valuing their efforts.
The links between POS and each of the five dimensions of employability as defined
by Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden (2006) have not been studied thus far. How-
ever, the meta-analyses of Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) and Riggle, Edmondson,
and Hansen (2009) identified a potential link between POS and organizational in-
volvement, which could be viewed as the corporate sense dimension defined earlier.
Conversely, several authors point to a link between support and global perceived
employability, for both job seekers (McArdle, Waters, Briscoe, & Hall, 2007) and
employees (De Vos et al., 2011; Wittekind et al., 2010).

PROACTIVE PERSONALITY

The second level of analysis of this study examines individual factors, in particular,
the links between proactive personality (Bateman & Crant, 1993) and perceived
employability. Bateman and Crant (1993) defined a proactive person as “one who
is relatively unconstrained by situational forces, and who effects environmental
change” (p. 105). Individuals who are not proactive have the opposite profile. They
do not succeed in identifying and grasping opportunities to change things, and they
are passive and more likely to suffer from environmental constraints (Crant, 1995).
Fuller and Marler (2009) emphasized the existence of a link between proactive
personality and professional success, whether subjective (career satisfaction, job
satisfaction) or objective (promotions, salary). Proactive individuals, by behaving in
ways that are beneficial to their organization and to the quality of their social relations
with colleagues, are more likely to attract their superiors’ attention and to receive their
share of positive reinforcement. Indeed, they tend to develop and maintain high-quality
relationships with individuals who are likely to allow them to develop their skills and
career (Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010; Thompson, 2005), and thus to contribute to their
employability. Such proactivity may be shown by actively searching for employment,
committing to skills development, or seeking out information about a specific career
or training program (Brown, Cober, Kane, Levy, & Shalhoop, 2006). McArdle et al.
(2007) showed that proactive individuals who seek employment have a higher level
of perceived employability and are more likely to take concrete steps to search for
employment and thus to find a job. Moreover, studies have determined that there is
no link between age and proactive personality (Tornau & Frese, 2013).

AIMS OF THE STUDY

Building on the works of Nauta, Van Vianen, Van der Heijden, Van Dam, and Wellemsen
(2009) as well as De Vos et al. (2011), we aimed to study perceived employability on
two analysis levels. The first level focused on organizational factors. We hypothesized
that POS is a predictor of all the dimensions of perceived employability for workers

journal of employment counseling • June 2018 • Volume 55 61

over 50 (De Vos et al., 2011; Wittekind et al., 2010; Hypothesis 1). The second level
of analysis focused on individual factors. We hypothesized that proactive personality
is a predictor of all the dimensions of perceived employability for workers over 50
(Brown et al., 2006; Li et al., 2010; Thompson, 2005; Hypothesis 2).
According to Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden (2006), it seems legitimate to
assume that for workers over 50, the effects of POS and proactive personality vary with
the dimension of perceived employability. More precisely, POS may have a positive
influence on the involvement of an employee in his or her organization (Whitener, 2001),
on organizational commitment (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Riggle et al., 2009),
and on balance (Kurtessis et al., 2017). Additionally, Armstrong-Stassen and Ursel
(2009) demonstrated the importance of POS on older workers’ intention to remain in
their organization. Thus, we hypothesized that among workers over 50, POS is a better
predictor of corporate sense and balance than proactive personality (Hypothesis 3).
Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden (2006) noted that the personal flexibility
dimension relates to one’s capacity to adapt to changes within the organization. The
authors also emphasized that individuals with a high level of occupational exper-
tise are better able to take advantage of the various professional opportunities that
come their way. The anticipation and optimization dimension refers to planning and
executing strategies. To the extent that proactive individuals tend to engage more
in the management of their careers, we may assume that these three dimensions of
perceived employability are positively influenced by the ability to act on the envi-
ronment. Therefore, we hypothesized that for workers over 50, proactive personality
is a better predictor than POS of occupational expertise, personal flexibility, and
anticipation and optimization (Hypothesis 4).

METHOD

Participants

We invited 213 salaried workers over 50 from a single major insurance company to fill
out a questionnaire for the study. The participants’ ages ranged from 50 to 64 years old.
The mean age was 54.4 years (SD = 3.2). This sample was composed of 65% women (n
= 139) and 35% men (n = 74). Of the sample, 30% (n = 64) had a high school degree,
34% (n = 72) completed 2 years of tertiary education, 20% (n = 43) had a bachelor’s-level
degree or above, 5% (n = 11) had a master’s-level degree or above, and 11% (n = 23)
had a professional diploma. All participants filled out an online questionnaire measur-
ing POS, proactive personality, perceived employability, and demographic variables.

Ethics

Before filling out the questionnaire, participants were informed that their answers
could be used in a scientific research. The aim of the study was presented in clear
and understandable terms. Participants who clicked on the “next” button indicated
they agreed to participate. Those who preferred not to participate could click on
the “exit” button. An email address was provided at the end of the questionnaire.

62 journal of employment counseling • June 2018 • Volume 55

Participants were informed that they could contact us at this email address to obtain
more information about the study.

Measures

POS. POS was measured with eight items taken and translated by Vandenberghe
and Peiró (1999) from the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support devised
by Eisenberger et al. (1986). Vandenberghe and Peiró reported a unidimensional
structure and a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .89. Participants rated the items on
how well they described their own perceptions, for example, “My company really
cares about my well-being.” This survey used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from
1 (I do not agree at all) to 5 (I totally agree). The survey had satisfactory internal
consistency in our study (α = .94).
Proactive personality. To measure the proactive personality of participants, we used
the 10-item scale created by Seibert, Kraimer, and Crant (2001) and translated by
Carrein (2011), who reported a unidimensional structure and a Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of .81. The scale included items such as “Nothing is more exciting than
seeing my ideas become real.” Participants gave their answers on a 7-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (I strongly disagree) to 7 (I strongly agree). In our study, this
scale presented with good internal consistency (α = .86).
Perceived employability. To measure perceived employability, we used the French
version of the scale proposed by Van Der Heijde and Van Der Heijden (2006).
This version, translated and adapted by Guénolé, Bernaud, and Boudrias (2015),
is a 38-item scale, for which the authors reported a five-dimensional structure and
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients between .65 and .86. In our study, participants were
asked to answer these 38 items on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (I am in
disagreement) to 5 (I am in agreement). We performed a confirmatory factor analysis,
which indicated that the 38-item model did not fit the data well, χ²(655) = 1,490.01,
p < .001, goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = .72, comparative fit index (CFI) = .74, and
root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .08. After removing items
with poor representation quality (i.e., loadings below .20), as well as complex items
(i.e., secondary loadings higher than .30), we retained 20 items measuring the five
dimensions of perceived employability (these five variables explained 59.23% of
the variance). A new confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the 20-item model
adjusted to the data in a satisfactory manner, χ²(161) = 320.35, p < .001, GFI = .87,
CFI = .90, RMSEA = .07. We compared the two models, and the difference was sig-
nificant (Δχ² = 1,169.65, Δdf = 494, p < .001). Consequently, we decided to use the
20-item employability scale for our analyses. Four items measured corporate sense
(α = .74; sample item: “I feel concerned by the accomplishment of tasks entrusted
to my company”), four items measured occupational expertise (α = .74; sample item:
“I consider that I provide clear and detailed information about my work”), four items
measured anticipation and optimization (α = .81; sample item: “I try to improve
myself constantly”), three items measured balance (α = .71; sample item: “My work
is in harmony with my view of life”), and five items measured personal flexibility (α
= .81; sample item: “I adapt easily to changes in my workplace”).

journal of employment counseling • June 2018 • Volume 55 63

 Data Analysis

We carried out preliminary analyses to assess correlations between the variables and
descriptive statistics. To that purpose, we ran Pearson correlation coefficients and
bootstrapping (Efron & Tibshirani, 1993) with 5,000 resamples and a confidence
interval of 95%. To test our hypothetical model, we used structural equation mod-
eling. To assess model fit, we used several indices: chi-square test, GFI, CFI, and
RMSEA. The data were analyzed with IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 20) and AMOS
20 software (Arbuckle, 2014).

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

The correlations between age, corporate sense, balance, personal flexibility, antici-
pation and optimization, occupational expertise, POS, and proactive personality are
presented in Table 1. The correlation between POS and proactive personality was
not statistically significant (r = .11). Moreover, there was no difference between men
and women on each scale.

Assessment of the Hypothetical Model

The fit indices revealed a good fit of our model to the data, χ²(1) = 2.58, p = .11,
GFI = .99, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .09. Considering that the RMSEA should be lower
than .08 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), we tested an alternative model (see Figure 1).
There was only one difference between the hypothetical model and the alternative
one: The link between POS and occupational expertise was removed. The alternative
model also fit well, χ²(2) = 3.58, p = .17, GFI = .99, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .06. The
RMSEA indicated that the alternative model seemed to fit better, but the difference
between the two models was not significant (Δχ² = 1.00, Δdf = 1, p = .32). However,

TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Between Variables
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Age 54.40 3.26 —
2. Corporate 3.97 0.82 –.10* —
3. Balance 3.15 0.97 .13 .47*** —
4. Personal flex 3.80 0.68 –.08 .47*** .46*** —
5. Anticipation 3.55 0.76 –.14* .40*** .29*** .44*** —
6. Occ expert 4.25 0.54 –.03 .30*** .13* .37*** .34*** —
7. POS 2.61 0.86 –.11 .52*** .57*** .38*** .42*** .10 —
8. Proactive 4.58 0.91 –.06 .16* .17* .26*** .38*** .30*** .11 —
Note. N = 213. Age = age in years; Corporate = corporate sense; Personal flex = personal flexibility;
Anticipation = anticipation and optimization; Occ expert = occupational expertise; POS = perceived
organizational support; Proactive = proactive personality.
*p < .05. ***p < .001.

64 journal of employment counseling • June 2018 • Volume 55

 Corporate sense R 2 = .28
.51**

.56**
POS
.38** Balance R 2 = .33

.36**

Anticipation and
R 2 = .28
optimization
.11
.11
.34**

Proactive .21** Personal flexibility R 2 = .18

Personality
.29**

Occupational expertise R 2 = .09

FIGURE 1
Alternative Model
Note. The dashed lines indicate the parameters that are not significant at the .01 alpha level.
Correlations among the exogeneous variables are omitted from the figure. POS = perceived
organizational support.
**p < .01.

because the alternative model (see Figure 1) was associated with a slightly better
RMSEA, we used it to interpret the data. We specified the weights of each of the
predictors for every employability dimension.

Hypotheses Test

To test Hypothesis 1 (i.e., POS is a predictor of all the dimensions of perceived

employability for workers over 50), we looked at the standardized regression weights
(see Figure 1). They show that POS may predict corporate sense (β = .51, p < .01),
balance (β = .56, p < .01), anticipation and optimization (β = .38, p < .01), and
personal flexibility (β = .36, p < .01). These results are in agreement with Hypoth-
esis 1. However, one result does not agree with Hypothesis 1: POS did not predict
occupational expertise (β = .06, ns).
To test Hypothesis 2 (i.e., proactive personality is a predictor of all the dimensions
of perceived employability for workers over 50), we looked at the standardized regres-
sions weights. The results are summarized in Figure 1. They indicate that proactive
personality predicted occupational expertise (β = .29, p < .01), personal flexibility
(β = .21, p < .01), and anticipation and optimization (β = .34, p < .01). Nevertheless,

journal of employment counseling • June 2018 • Volume 55 65

proactive personality did not have a significant effect on either corporate sense (β =
.11, ns) or balance (β = .11, ns). These results are not in agreement with Hypothesis 2.
The data supported Hypothesis 3 (i.e., POS should be a better predictor of corporate
sense and balance than proactive personality). Indeed, our results show that POS
(R² = .32) was a better predictor of balance than proactive personality (R² = .01).
Moreover, POS (R² = .27) was a better predictor of corporate sense than proactive
personality (R² = .01). These results therefore support Hypothesis 3.
We tested Hypothesis 4 (i.e., for workers over 50, proactive personality is a better
predictor than POS of the occupational expertise, personal flexibility, and anticipa-
tion and optimization dimensions of perceived employability). In agreement with
this hypothesis, the data indicate that proactive personality (R² = .09) was a better
predictor of occupational expertise than POS (R² = .004). We expected that proactive
personality would predict personal flexibility more readily than POS, but it turned
out that POS (R² = .14) had a greater weight on personal flexibility than proactive
personality (R² = .04) did. We expected that proactive personality would be a bet-
ter predictor of anticipation and optimization than POS. However, their predictive
power seemed equivalent in both cases. POS (R² = .17) had an equivalent weight
on anticipation and optimization to that of proactive personality (R² = .11). These
results therefore do not support Hypothesis 4.

DISCUSSION

In this study, our aim was to achieve a fine-grained interpretation of the relationships
between POS, proactive personality, and each dimension of perceived employability.
Our results confirm previous findings highlighting the influence of POS (De Vos et
al., 2011; Wittekind et al., 2010) and proactive personality (Brown et al., 2006;
Li et al., 2010; Thompson, 2005) on global perceived employability. These results
suggest that although a proactive personality does play an important role in one’s
perception of employability, the latter may also be influenced by organizational
factors such as POS.
The relative weight of POS and proactive personality on each of the five dimensions
of employability as defined by Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden (2006) had not
been studied until now. As hypothesized, POS has a greater impact than proactive
personality on corporate sense (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Riggle et al., 2009;
Whitener, 2001) and balance (Kurtessis et al., 2017). Our results also suggest that
proactive personality has a greater influence on occupational expertise than POS
(Van der Heijde & Van der Heijden, 2006). Our findings differ from our expecta-
tions for the respective weights of POS and proactive personality. POS has a greater
impact than proactive personality on anticipation and optimization and on personal
flexibility. This point tends to show the limits of using only a disposition-based ap-
proach to employability. This result can be interpreted in several ways. Because of
the current economic difficulties and resulting job insecurity, the perception of a
worker can be more strongly influenced by organizational and environmental factors,
which, in turn, tend to reduce the impact of proactivity. Moreover, workers over 50
may interiorize negative stereotypes, such as reduced adaptability or difficulties in

66 journal of employment counseling • June 2018 • Volume 55

acquiring new skills. This interiorization process could have a negative effect on
one’s own sense of identity, leading workers over 50 to think that their organization’s
support is the only hope they have for continued employability.

Limitations of the Study

Although our findings appear promising, several limitations exist. First, to our
knowledge, the instruments used in this study were not standardized for the specific
population of French workers over 50. Nevertheless, all the scales had been adapted
and used previously in a European context. Moreover, the perceived employability
scale had been used with workers over 50. Second, all participants in the study were
employed by a single, large French insurance company. Despite the absence of gender
difference, the overrepresentation of women (65%) prevents the generalizability of our
results. It would be interesting to conduct similar studies with an equal number of
women and men, in other sectors of activity, and in other organizational and national
contexts. However, by studying a single-source population (i.e., workers from the
same company), we were able to control a number of organizational characteristics,
such as criteria for promotion or annual performance review interviews. Third, the
data were collected via an online survey, which may have generated a technology
bias. Indeed, it is possible that only those employees who were more familiar with
this type of interface participated in the online questionnaire. Finally, we believe that
some of the limitations of this study could be adequately addressed in future research.

Recommendations for Future Research

Our results confirm the soundness of the multidimensional and competence-based

approach proposed by Van der Heijde and Van der Heijden (2006). According to
Vanhercke et al. (2014), it is useful to design interventions because competences
are more malleable (through training and counseling) than dispositions. However,
Vanhercke et al. also called for an integrative approach of employability at the
individual level, as they believe that competences, dispositions, and environment
have to be articulated to provide a better understanding of employability. We plan
to test such a model in future research, because we believe it will provide a useful
set of tools for interventions. More precisely, we aim to take into account the role
of extraprofessional factors, such as family support or involvement in extraprofes-
sional activities.
It might also be interesting to study the impact of the interiorization of age ste-
reotypes in workers over 50. Burnay (2011) highlighted both negative stereotypes
(e.g., incapacity to master new technologies, resistance to change) and positive ones
(e.g., ability to coach younger colleagues, advanced skills, loyalty to the firm). In our
view, the degree to which these two kinds of stereotypes are interiorized is likely
to influence POS and perceived employability. Furthermore, a longitudinal study
would make it possible to explore causal relations between the different variables
across time and organizations, taking into account the legal employment regulations
for this age group.

journal of employment counseling • June 2018 • Volume 55 67

Practical Implications

This study provides a number of perspectives, which could be used to increase the
perceived employability of workers over 50. Enhancing employability perceptions
would likely prove beneficial to workers, organizations, and public authorities. We
therefore propose two action levels (organizational and individual) to assist employ-
ment counselors in their support of workers over 50. First, organizational support
should be designed and implemented to answer the hopes and expectations of work-
ers. In fact, organizations that do provide such support may expect higher levels
of corporate sense, personal flexibility, anticipation and optimization, and balance
from their workers. Paradoxically, the action of POS on these dimensions could
reduce turnover. Indeed, various studies have shown that when organizations foster
their employees’ employability, employees are less likely to leave the organization
(De Cuyper, Mauno, Kinnunen, & Mäkikangas, 2011; Nauta et al., 2009). Second,
employment counselors should target their work to help individuals with low proactiv-
ity scores. Because a proactive personality is considered a disposition (Seibert et al.,
2001), it is rather difficult to develop from scratch. However, it is possible to encour-
age individuals to adopt proactive behaviors in contexts where they are valued (Den
Hartog & Belschak, 2012) so they can reach higher employability levels. Counselors
can design and implement relevant, adapted training and/or coaching procedures.

CONCLUSION

De Vos et al. (2011) proposed the idea that in an economic context where organi-
zational success and job security are not guaranteed, organizations and individual
workers alike should take their share of responsibility in the maintenance and
development of employability. Another level of analysis could also be added, with
the integration of cultural and political data. Two main types of careers can be
observed: On the one hand, traditional, organizational careers are characterized
by predictable vertical evolution within a single organization; on the other hand,
changes in the work market have led to the appearance of “protean and boundaryless”
careers (Briscoe, Hall, & DeMuth, 2006). In our sample, we observed an average
tenure of 28 years. Similar results have been obtained by Forrier, Verbruggen, and
De Cuyper (2015) in their Belgian sample. These elements seem to indicate that
there is a career profile difference between Europe and the United States, where
the boundaryless career model is likely more prevalent. These cultural differences
call for additional studies on employability that take into account the diversity of
national contexts.

REFERENCES
Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). Amos (Version 23.0) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: IBM SPSS.
Armstrong-Stassen, M., & Ursel, N. D. (2009). Perceived organizational support, career satisfaction, and
the retention of older workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 201–220.
doi:10.1348/096317908X28883
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure
and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118. doi:10.1002/job.4030140202

68 journal of employment counseling • June 2018 • Volume 55

Berntson, E. (2008). Employability perceptions: Nature, determinants, and implications for health and
well-being. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
Briscoe, J. P., Hall, D. T., & DeMuth, R. L. F. (2006). Protean and boundaryless careers: An empirical
exploration, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 30–47. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2005.09.003
Brown, D. J., Cober, R. T., Kane, K., Levy, P. E., & Shalhoop, J. (2006). Proactive personality and the
successful job search: A field investigation with college graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 717–726. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.717
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S.
Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burnay, N. (2011). La cohabitation intergénérationnelle en entreprise: Des stéréotypes prégnants à
l’égard des seniors [Intergenerational cohabitation at work: Significant stereotypes against seniors].
Communication et organisation, 40, 71–86.
Carrein, C. (2011). L’entrée en consultation d’accompagnement en orientation scolaire et professionnelle:
Analyse des déterminants, modélisation et aide au changement [Meeting with a career counselor:
Determinants analysis, modeling and help to change] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Rouen,
France: Université de Rouen.
Cheung, F., & Wu, A. M. S. (2014). Social identification, perception of aging, and successful aging in the
workplace. Journal of Career Development, 41, 218–236. doi:10.1177/0894845313486353
Collins, G. A. (2003). Rethinking retirement in the context of an aging workforce. Journal of Career
Development, 30, 145–157. doi:10.1177/089484530303000204
Crant, M. J. (1995). The Proactive Personality Scale and objective job performance among real estate
agents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532–537. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.4.532
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2010). Temporary employment and perceived employability: Mediation by
impression management. Journal of Career Development, 37, 635–652. doi:10.1177/0894845309357051
De Cuyper, N., Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Mäkikangas, A. (2011). The role of job resources in the
relation between perceived employability and turnover intention: A prospective two-sample study.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 78, 253–263. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2010.09.008
De Vos, A., De Hauw, S., & Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2011). Competency development and career success: The
mediating role of employability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 438–447. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.010
Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). When does transformational leadership enhance employee
proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 97, 194–202. doi:10.1037/a0024903
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500–507. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500
Faurie, I., Fraccaroli, F., & Le Blanc, A. (2008). Âge et travail: Des études sur le vieillissement au
travail à une approche psychosociale de la fin de la carrière professionnelle [Age and work: From
the studies on aging in work to a psychosocial approach to the late career]. Le Travail Humain, 71,
137–172. doi:10.3917/th.712.0137
Forrier, A., Verbruggen, M., & De Cuyper, N. (2015). Integrating different notions of employability in a
dynamic chain: The relationship between job transitions, movement capital and perceived employ-
ability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89, 56–64. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2015.04.007
Fugate, M., & Kinicki, A. J. (2008). A dispositional approach to employability: Development of a measure
and test of implications for employee reactions to organizational change. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 81, 503–527. doi:10.1348/096317907X241579
Fuller, B., & Marler, L. E. (2009). Change driven by nature: A meta-analytic review of the proactive
personality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 75, 329–345. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2009.05.008
Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review,
25, 161–178.
Guénolé, N., Bernaud, J.-L., & Boudrias, J.-S. (2015). Problematiche professionali in beneficiari di
servizi di accompagnamento al lavoro: Un approcio tipologico [Vocational issues among recipients
of counseling for a job search: A typological approach]. Counseling: Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e
Applicazioni, 8, 1–33.

journal of employment counseling • June 2018 • Volume 55 69

Guilbert, L., Bernaud, J. L., Gouvernet, B., & Rossier, J. (2016). Employability: Review and research
prospects. International Journal of Educational and Vocational Guidance, 16, 69–89. doi:10.1007/
s10775-015-9288-4
Kurtessis, J. N., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M. T., Buffardi, L. C., Stewart, K. A., & Adis, C. S. (2017). Per-
ceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory. Journal
of Management, 43, 1854–1884. doi:10.1177/0149206315575554
Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organi-
zational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 395–404.
doi:10.1037/a0018079
McArdle, S., Waters, L., Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. (2007). Employability during unemployment: Adapt-
ability, career identity and human and social capital. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 71, 247–264.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2007.06.003
Nauta, A., Van Vianen, A., Van der Heijden, B., Van Dam, K., & Wellemsen, M. (2009). Understand-
ing 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, 233–251. doi:10.1348/096317908X320147
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). Examen thématique de l’OCDE
de suivi des politiques pour améliorer les perspectives des travailleurs âgés sur le marché du travail
[OECD thematic review of monitoring policies to improve the prospects of older workers in the labor
market]. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/fr/els/politiquesetdonneessurlemploi/Travailleurs%20
âgés_France.pdf
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698–714. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.698
Riggle, R. J., Edmondson, D. R., & Hansen, J. D. (2009). A meta-analysis of the relationship between
perceived organizational support and job outcomes: 20 years of research. Journal of Business Research,
62, 1027–1030. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.003
Robson, S. M., Hansson, R. O., Abalos, A., & Booth, M. (2006). Successful aging: Criteria for aging well
in the workplace. Journal of Career Development, 33, 156–177. doi:10.1177/0894845306292533
Rothwell, A. T. (2015). Employability. In P. J. Hartung, M. L. Savickas, & W. B. Walsh (Eds.), APA
handbook of career intervention: Vol. 2. Applications (pp. 337–350). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal
model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845–874.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00234.x
Sok, J., Blomme, R., & Tromp, D. (2013). The use of the psychological contract to explain self-perceived
employability. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 274–284. doi:10.1016/j.
ijhm.2013.03.008
Thompson, J. A. (2005). Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 90, 1011–1017. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.1011
Tisch, A. (2015). The employability of older job-seekers: Evidence from Germany. The Journal of the
Economics of Ageing, 6, 102–112. doi:10.1016/j.jeoa.2014.07.001
Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the nomo-
logical net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities. Applied Psychology:
An International Review, 62, 44–96. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00514.x
Van Dam, K. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of employability orientation. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 29–51. doi:10.1080/13594320344000237
Vandenberghe, C., & Peiró, J. M. (1999). Organizational and individual values: Their main and combined
effects on work attitudes and perceptions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
8, 569–581. doi:10.1080/135943299398177
Van der Heijde, C. M., & Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2005). The development and psychometric evalu-
ation of a multi-dimensional measurement instrument of employability—and the impact of aging.
International Congress Series, 1280, 142–147.

70 journal of employment counseling • June 2018 • Volume 55

Van der Heijde, C. M., & Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M. (2006). A competence-based and multidimensional
operationalization and measurement of employability. Human Resource Management, 45, 449–476.
doi:10.1002/hrm.20119
Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., De Lange, A. H., Demerouti, E., & Van der Heijde, C. M. (2009). Age
effects on the employability–career success relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74, 156–164.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2008.12.009
Vanhercke, D., De Cuyper, N., Peeters, E., & De Witte, H. (2014). Defining perceived employability: A
psychological approach. Personnel Review, 43, 592–605. doi:10.1108/PR-07-2012-0110
Vanhercke, D., Kirves, K., De Cuyper, N., Verbruggen, M., Forrier, A., & De Witte, H. (2015). Perceived
employability and psychological functioning framed by gain and loss cycles. Career Development
International, 20, 179–198. doi:10.1108/CDI-12-2014-0160
Whitener, E. (2001). Do “high commitment” human resource practices affect employee commitment?
A cross-level analysis using hierarchical linear modeling, Journal of Management, 27, 515–535.
doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(01)00106-4
Wittekind, A., Raeder, S., & Grote, G. (2010). A longitudinal study of determinants of perceived employ-
ability. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 566–586. doi:10.1002/job.6

journal of employment counseling • June 2018 • Volume 55 71