The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
LODJ
39,8
Downloaded by Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology - Hongneung Campus At 23:12 13 October 2018 (PT)
962
Received 27 March 2018
Revised 30 June 2018
Accepted 8 August 2018
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
Vol. 39 No. 8, 2018
pp. 962-974
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/LODJ-03-2018-0127
Perceived underqualification and
job attitudes: the role of
transformational leadership
Yerim Sim
Wisconsin School of Business, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison,
Wisconsin, USA, and
Eun-Suk Lee
KAIST College of Business, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology,
Seoul, Korea
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to delve into perceived underqualification, which refers to employees’
awareness that they have deficient abilities relative to their job demands (abilitiesodemands). In examining
person–job (P–J) misfit, previous research has primarily focused on one type of misfit, overqualification
(abilitiesWdemands), leaving the other type, underqualification, unexplored. To address the neglect, this
study investigates how perceived underqualification relates to job attitudes (job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and turnover intention) and how transformational leadership moderates the relationships.
Design/methodology/approach – Survey data were collected from employees working at diverse
organizations in South Korea over two waves; at Time 1, perceived underqualification and transformational
leadership were measured and at Time 2, job attitude variables were measured. Responses from 188
employees were used for hypothesis testing.
Findings – Perceived underqualification is negatively related to job satisfaction and organizational
commitment and positively related to turnover intention when transformational leadership is low. However,
under high transformational leadership, such negative attitudinal implications of perceived
underqualification are weakened.
Originality/value – By examining underqualification for the first time, this study corrects the current
incomplete and biased understanding of P–J misfit, which is exclusively overqualification-focused.
In addition, this study provides new insight into individual responses to P–J misfit by revealing that the
responses are not always negative. This study specifies transformational leadership as the contingency factor
that enables such responses, thus further advancing the P–J misfit literature that has hardly examined the
leadership effect.
Keywords Transformational leadership, Organizational commitment, Job satisfaction, Turnover intention,
Perceived underqualification, Person–job misfit
Paper type Research paper
Due to the global prevalence of underemployment, overqualification has received increasing
attention from researchers and practitioners (Liu et al., 2015; McKee-Ryan and Harvey,
2011). Although it is true that socioeconomic circumstances have forced many workers to
settle for jobs that require lower qualifications than they have (Hu et al., 2015), such
objectively overqualified individuals do not necessarily perceive themselves as
overqualified (Erdogan et al., 2011). For example, those who have graduated from a
prestigious university may feel that they are underqualified to work in a sales job that
requires a wide range of experience not gained through schooling. Further, an individual’s
initial judgment of his or her overall qualifications for a job can be modified if evaluation
standards are upwardly revised, as is often the case with promotions or transfers (Follmer
et al., 2018). Indeed, empirical evidence shows little correlation between objective and
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or
not-for-profit sectors.
 subjective measures of qualification (e.g. Burris, 1983; Halaby, 1994). This implies that Underqualification
objectively overqualified employees can subjectively perceive the opposite, and leadership
underqualification, if they feel they have less knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSAs) than
their job requires (Erdogan et al., 2011).
Theoretically, perceived underqualification, consistent with overqualification, can be
conceptualized as a person–job (P–J) misfit, or more specifically as a demands–abilities
Downloaded by Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology - Hongneung Campus At 23:12 13 October 2018 (PT)

misfit (Liu et al., 2015; Maynard and Parfyonova, 2013), which represents the mismatch 963
between job demands and worker abilities (Cable and DeRue, 2002; Edwards, 2008).
However, the two P–J misfit types have different implications (Erdogan et al., 2011). While
employees with an overqualification perception feel they have surplus abilities relative to
job requirements (i.e. demands o abilities), those with an underqualification perception
feel they have deficient abilities (i.e. demands W abilities). These mismatches in opposite
directions connote important differences in the psychological nature of the two misfit
types (Cable and DeRue, 2002), such that overqualification is associated with a sense of
superiority in accomplishing given job tasks, whereas underqualification is related to a
sense of inferiority. However, the literature on P–J misfit has not made a clear distinction
between the two (Erdogan et al., 2011), and even several scholars who expected different
effects depending on the direction of misfit (Liu et al., 2015; McKee-Ryan and Harvey,
2011) have exclusively focused on one type of misfit, overqualification, leaving the other
type, underqualification, unexplored. We note that such incomplete conceptualization of
misfit types or biased examination of misfit phenomenon can pose problems in validly
explaining the relationships between P–J misfit and work outcomes. Therefore, to combat
these problems and advance P–J misfit theory, this study delves into perceived
underqualification and how it relates to employee attitudes at work.
Regarding perceived overqualification, cumulative evidence has revealed that
individuals with this misfit perception negatively respond to their misfit by building
negative attitudes toward their jobs and forming intent to leave the organization (for a meta-
analysis, see Harari et al., 2017). Consistent with the fundamental tenet of early fit literature
that misfit is a negative stressor regardless of its directionality (French et al., 1974; Harrison,
1978), those negative responses are expected to occur among individuals with an
underqualification perception as well. However, we advance this previous notion by
drawing upon cognitive appraisal theory of stress (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). This theory
suggests that individuals vary in their appraisal of stressors – stressor as a challenge or as a
threat – and depending on this appraisal, they go through different coping processes.
We thus propose that for individuals with an underqualification perception, once they
appraise their misfit as a challenge, not as a threat, it is also possible to positively respond to
the stressful state of misfit. This indicates that for underqualification perceivers, not only a
passive response to P–J misfit of building negative attitudes, but also a proactive response
to challenge the misfit is possible; the latter involves actively engaging in improving one’s
abilities to better meet the job demands. That is, by developing one’s own job-related
capabilities, a person can build better fit and attitudes regarding one’s job.
These two contrasting ways of responding to underqualification indicate that
contingencies are involved. Depending on contingency factors that influence
underqualification perceivers’ framing of confronted misfit state, their job attitudes are
expected to vary, and this study proposes transformational leadership as an important
contingency factor. Despite abundant evidence of the leader effects on shaping followers’
responses to work life (Avolio et al., 2009; DeRue et al., 2011), researchers have paid
surprisingly little attention to the impact of leadership on how employees respond to their
P–J misfit. Thus, this paper highlights the role of transformational leadership which refers
to transforming the way followers view their work and inspiring them to develop their own
potential and perform beyond expectations (Bass, 1985; Bass and Riggio, 2006). We suggest
 LODJ that by offering an optimistic lens through which underqualification perceivers appraise
39,8 their misfit as a challenge rather than as a threat, transformational leaders are likely to
induce proactive rather than passive responses among these employees, thus enhancing
their attitudes toward the job.
Using survey data from 188 full-time employees working at diverse organizations in
South Korea, this study tests how transformational leadership moderates the relationships
Downloaded by Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology - Hongneung Campus At 23:12 13 October 2018 (PT)

964 between perceived underqualification and job attitudes, including job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, and turnover intention. Overall, our data analysis reveals the
substantial effects of transformational leadership on enhancing underqualification
perceivers’ job attitudes. This finding answers the recent scholarly call to explore what
leads misfit perceivers to frame their state in terms of opportunity and growth (Follmer
et al., 2018), and more importantly, this study advances extant fit/misfit literature by
validating the possibility of avoiding negative consequences of P–J misfit.

Theory and hypotheses

Perceived underqualification and job attitudes
Perceived underqualification, reflecting a P–J misfit, occurs when employees feel that they
have less education, experience or KSAs than what their job requires. The overarching
hypothesis in person–environment (P–E) fit theory, a broader dimension of P–J fit, is that
the compatibility between a person and his or her work situation leads to beneficial
outcomes for both employees and organizations, whereas misfit between them results in
poorer job attitudes and performance (Edwards, 2008; Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). More
specifically, demands–abilities misfit has been conceptualized as a stressor in
organizations, such that a perception of the imbalance between environmental demands
and individual capabilities increases stress of individuals (McGrath, 1970). In other
words, the extent to which people perceive the deviation between demands and abilities
in either direction – either demands o abilities or demands W abilities – has effects on
their experienced stress, shaping negative attitudes and behavior at work (Edwards,
2008). Thus, according to this core premise of the P–J fit/misfit literature, perceived
underqualification, as one form of demands–abilities misfit, is expected to result in
negative job attitudes. At work, underqualification perceivers are likely to develop a
negative attitude toward the job itself (i.e. a low level of job satisfaction – an emotional
state resulting from the positive evaluation of one’s job experiences, Locke, 1976).
They are also likely to build negative attitudes toward the organizational context wherein
they perform the job (i.e. a low level of organizational commitment – a psychological
attachment to the organization based on internalization of the organization’s values and
goals, Meyer and Allen, 1991 – and a high level of turnover intention).
However, this traditional fit/misfit perspective tends to depict individuals with misfit
perceptions only as passive respondents who merely show negative attitudes and
complacency toward their job, underestimating the proactive responses of those individuals.
A proactive response refers to making active efforts to bring about a meaningful difference
in the self and/or environment, which contrasts to a passive response of not engaging in
such self-initiated efforts for change (Grant and Ashford, 2008; Parker et al., 2010). We note
that underqualification perceivers can take proactive responses by endeavoring to change
and develop themselves to resolve the misfit, but extant literature overlooks this possibility.
Regarding such different ways of responding to misfit, cognitive appraisal theory of stress
(Lazarus and Folkman, 1984) provides important implications. The theory suggests that
individuals go through different coping processes depending on how they appraise
stressors such as P–J misfit. More specifically, stressors are likely to be appraised as a threat
if people primarily focus on the potential harm of difficulty associated with managing the
demands, thereby leading to negative responses. By contrast, stressors also can be
 appraised as a challenge if people direct their attention toward the potential opportunities Underqualification
and growth from the state, thus resulting in positive coping processes (Lazarus and and leadership
Folkman, 1984). Therefore, it is entirely possible that, once they appraise their misfit state as
a challenge, not as a threat, underqualification perceivers proactively engage in rectifying
their deficient capacity by developing and enhancing their job-related capabilities, thus
building better fit and attitudes regarding their job (Devloo et al., 2011; Follmer et al., 2018;
Downloaded by Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology - Hongneung Campus At 23:12 13 October 2018 (PT)

Parker and Collins, 2010; Simmering et al., 2003). 965

Taken together, in line with their cognitive appraisal of misfit state as a threat or as a
challenge, individuals with an underqualification perception can respond to their P–J misfit
either in a passive or in a proactive manner, thus building varying job attitudes; they may not
always have negative job satisfaction/organizational commitment and their turnover intention
is not necessarily salient in this P–J misfit state. Put differently, depending on whether they
are motivated to improve their abilities to attain a better fit with job demands through the
appraisal of challenge, the negative attitudinal implications of their underqualification
perception may or may not lessen. Then, the question that remains is what determines
underqualification perceivers’ appraisal of their misfit state and choice of response to it. It is
necessary to identify the contingency factor, which enables underqualification perceivers to
view their misfit “as a challenge to be overcome or an opportunity for self-improvement, not as
a hopeless situation” (Shaw and Gupta, 2004, p. 873).

The moderating role of transformational leadership

To induce individuals with an underqualification perception to take their misfit as a challenge
to be overcome, it is critical to make those individuals firmly believe in their potential for
self-development and achievement. Research has shown that leaders can have substantial
influence on followers’ beliefs in their potential and help them activate goal pursuit by
providing important support (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004), and we propose that
transformational leadership positively influences employees with an underqualification
perception.
Transformational leadership aims to transform the goals and values of followers and
motivate them to perform beyond their expectations by inspiring their confidence in their
capabilities (Bass et al., 2003; Bass and Riggio, 2006; Coad and Berry, 1998; Dvir et al., 2002;
Yukl, 1998). Thus, providing an optimistic lens, this leadership is expected to encourage
underqualification perceivers to primarily focus on the challenging features of their misfit, not
viewing it negatively. A more specific consideration of four components that compose
transformational leadership – inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized
consideration, and idealized influence (Bass et al., 2003; Bass and Riggio, 2006) – further supports
this expectation. First, inspirational motivation is characterized as providing meanings for
followers’ work and establishing a positive vision of the future. Thus, by communicating
optimism about improved capabilities and future goal attainment, transformational leaders can
make underqualification perceivers envision attractive future states. In addition, their intellectual
stimulation encourages followers to try new approaches, and these leaders are unlikely to
criticize individual members’ mistakes. Frequently encouraging underqualification perceivers to
establish challenging goals and not ridiculing mistakes and low performance will provide them
with confidence to overcome their misfit. Further, under individualized consideration,
transformational leaders act as a coach or mentor, providing individualized support and
feedback for followers to realize higher levels of potential. Such leaders’ special attention to and
care for underqualification perceivers’ needs for achievement and growth will allow them to view
their misfit as new learning opportunities. Finally, since transformational leaders are admired,
respected, and trusted through idealized influence, they are expected to earn credit from
underqualification perceivers, which can make their leadership efforts of enhancing followers’
confidence in their capabilities and self-development more valid and effective.
 LODJ To sum up, transformational leaders are likely to offer underqualification perceivers a
39,8 supportive job environment in which to grow and render their future state optimistic. Indeed,
many scholars have argued that such leaders’ emphasis on followers’ self-development
substantially accounts for the positive impacts of transformational leadership (Bass and
Avolio, 1993; Dvir et al., 2002; Kark et al., 2003). Therefore, these leaders can effectively lead
underqualification perceivers to, rather than remaining passive, primarily focus on their
Downloaded by Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology - Hongneung Campus At 23:12 13 October 2018 (PT)

966 potential opportunities for growth and proactively engage in developing their capabilities, and
with this enhanced experience about their job, they will develop better job attitudes. In this
regard, we posit that transformational leadership alleviates the negative implications of
perceived underqualification on job attitudes; it weakens the negative relationships between
perceived underqualification and job satisfaction/organizational commitment and weakens
the positive relationship between perceived underqualification and turnover intention.
Put differently, we propose the following hypotheses:
H1. Transformational leadership positively moderates the negative relationship between
perceived underqualification and job satisfaction.
H2. Transformational leadership positively moderates the negative relationship between
perceived underqualification and organizational commitment.
H3. Transformational leadership negatively moderates the positive relationship between
perceived underqualification and turnover intention.

Method
Data
The sample was composed of full-time employees working at diverse organizations in
South Korea. Survey participants were recruited through one author’s social network
(e.g. colleagues, friends, and family members). They were informed that survey participation
was voluntary, confidentiality was guaranteed, and they could withdraw from the study at
any time. Surveys were distributed to the participants over two waves. To avoid common
method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003), the researcher distributed the second survey
approximately two weeks after distributing the first one. The first survey included
measures of perceived underqualification, transformational leadership, and demographics,
and 312 individuals completed the first survey. The second survey containing measures for
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention was distributed to these
312 individuals, and 202 individuals finished the second survey, resulting in a response rate
of 64.7 percent. After excluding incomplete questionnaires or mismatching data sets,
188 responses were available for hypothesis testing. The sample was 51.1 percent male and
average age was 39.9 years (SD ¼ 10.02), all being over age 18. Overall, 61.2 percent had
at least a bachelor’s degree and 16.5 percent had a graduate degree. Average tenure was
12.01 years (SD ¼ 9.95).

Measures
All measures were rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to seven
(strongly agree).
Perceived underqualification. Based on the four-item scale of perceived overqualification
developed by Johnson and Johnson (1996), we constructed items for perceived
underqualification. Specifically, except for one item, “My talents are not fully utilized on
my job,” we transformed the other three items to reflect perceived underqualification by
substituting the words related to overqualification with their opposites. For example, we
transformed “My formal education overqualifies me for my present job” into “My formal
 education underqualifies me for my present job.” The other two items were “My work Underqualification
experience is less than necessary to do my present job” and “Based on my skills, I am and leadership
underqualified for the job I hold” (α ¼ 0.78).
Transformational leadership. Transformational leadership was measured with 22 items
developed by Bass (1985) and Bycio et al. (1995). Sample items are “My supervisor’s ideas
have forced me to rethink some of my own ideas which I had never questioned before” and
Downloaded by Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology - Hongneung Campus At 23:12 13 October 2018 (PT)

“In my mind, my supervisor is a symbol of success and accomplishment” (α ¼ 0.97). 967

Job attitudes. Job satisfaction was measured with five items developed by Cammann et al.
(1983). A sample item is “All in all, I am satisfied with my job” (α ¼ 0.87). Organizational
commitment was measured with six items from Allen and Meyer (1990). Example items are
“I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this organization” and “I enjoy
discussing my organization with people outside it” (α ¼ 0.87). Turnover intention was
measured with three items developed by Cammann et al. (1979). Sample items are “I often
think of leaving the organization” and “It is very possible that I will look for a new job next
year” (α ¼ 0.85).
Controls. We controlled for demographic characteristics such as education, age, gender,
and marital status, because these variables can influence individual perceptions of settling
for jobs that do not necessarily fit their qualifications (Harari et al., 2017) and resulting
attitudes toward the jobs. More specifically, education was included as a control because
those with low levels of education are more likely to have an underqualification perception
and concomitant negative job attitudes, which implies that the implications of P–J misfit
on job attitudes may vary depending on education. Regarding age, younger employees are
more likely to have P–J misfit perceptions because they may accept job offers to enter
the labor market even if they do not feel that the job offers fully correspond to their
qualifications. Gender and marital status are likely to relate to misfit perceptions and
resulting job attitudes because family and career issues may affect whether people should
endure jobs that they perceive do not fit them well. We also controlled for work-related
variables such as tenure and position, because a shorter job period would make it
more difficult to achieve excellent P–J fit (Harari et al., 2017), thereby generating more
negative job attitudes.

Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables are shown in Table I. Before
hypothesis testing, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to assess the factor structure
of the five key variables: perceived underqualification, transformational leadership, job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention. The hypothesized five-factor
model achieved acceptable fit with the data ( χ2/df ¼ 1.34; TLI ¼ 0.95; CFI ¼ 0.95;
RMSEA ¼ 0.06). Plausible alternative models, such as the three-factor model wherein job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover intention were combined into one
( χ2/df ¼ 2.32; TLI ¼ 0.89; CFI ¼ 0.90; RMSEA ¼ 0.08) and the one-factor model wherein all
variables were combined into one ( χ2/df ¼ 6.84; TLI ¼ 0.49; CFI ¼ 0.54; RMSEA ¼ 0.18),
displayed poorer fit. These results supported our examination of the five variables as
discriminant constructs.
Table II presents the results of regression analysis for each job attitude variable.
The interaction between perceived underqualification and transformational leadership was
significant in predicting job satisfaction (b ¼ 0.13, SE ¼ 0.07, p o0.10), organizational
commitment (b ¼ 0.17, SE ¼ 0.07, p o0.05), and turnover intention (b ¼ −0.25, SE ¼ 0.08,
p o0.01). To interpret the form of the interaction, the simple slopes for the relationship
between perceived underqualification and each job attitude variable at one SD above and
below the mean of transformational leadership were plotted (see Figure 1). Simple slope
 Downloaded by Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology - Hongneung Campus At 23:12 13 October 2018 (PT)

39,8

968
LODJ

Table I.

and correlations
Descriptive statistics
Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Perceived underqualification 2.33 1.03

2. Transformational leadership 3.73 1.27 0.05
3. Job satisfaction 4.72 1.16 −0.20** 0.24**
4. Organizational commitment 4.50 1.25 −0.10 0.37** 0.77**
5. Turnover intention 3.16 1.55 0.17* −0.19** −0.57** −0.65**
6. Gender (male ¼ 0) 0.49 0.50 0.11 0.17* −0.06 −0.09 0.31**
7. Age 39.90 10.02 −0.11 −0.07 0.36** 0.36** −0.44** −0.35**
8. Marriage (single ¼ 0) 0.67 0.47 −0.13 0.07 0.28** 0.32** −0.35** −0.27** 0.67**
9. Education 2.87 0.80 0.07 −0.02 0.06 −0.03 0.03 0.10 −0.00 −0.04
10. Position 2.27 1.41 −0.03 −0.04 0.29** 0.27** −0.31** −0.38** 0.63** 0.45** 0.11
11. Tenure 12.01 9.95 −0.11 −0.11 0.30** 0.30** −0.42** −0.31** 0.76** 0.57** −0.06 0.49**
Notes: n ¼ 188; *p o0.05; **p o0.01
 analysis indicated that when transformational leadership was low, perceived Underqualification
underqualification was negatively related to job satisfaction (b ¼ −0.42, SE ¼ 0.12, and leadership
p o0.01) and organizational commitment (b ¼ −0.37, SE ¼ 0.14, p o0.01), but when
transformational leadership was high, perceived underqualification was not related to job
satisfaction (b ¼ −0.09, SE ¼ 0.10, ns.) and organizational commitment (b ¼ 0.07, SE ¼ 0.09,
ns.). Simple slope analysis also showed that when transformational leadership was low,
Downloaded by Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology - Hongneung Campus At 23:12 13 October 2018 (PT)

perceived underqualification was positively related to turnover intention (b ¼ 0.58, SE 969

¼ 0.16, p o 0.01), but when transformational leadership was high, perceived
underqualification was not related to turnover intention (b ¼ −0.06, SE ¼ 0.12, ns.).
Overall, these results supported our hypotheses postulating that transformational
leadership positively moderates the negative relationships between perceived
underqualification and job satisfaction (H1)/organizational commitment (H2) and
negatively moderates the positive relationship between perceived underqualification and
turnover intention (H3).

Discussion
This study investigated an unexplored dimension of P–J misfit – underqualification. Data
analysis revealed that perceived underqualification was negatively related to job
satisfaction and organizational commitment and positively related to turnover intention
when employees reported low levels of transformational leadership. High levels of
transformational leadership weakened these relationships. These findings indicate that
transformational leadership can help individuals, who feel that their abilities are deficient
relative to their job demands, to better respond to their misfit state.

Implications
This study makes several contributions to the existing literature. First, by explicating
perceived underqualification and how it relates to job attitudes, this study corrects the
current incomplete and biased understanding in the P–J misfit literature which has covered
only half of the misfit phenomenon, overqualification. Although perceived overqualification,
based on cumulative evidence, has been suggested to be an important antecedent of
negative work outcomes (Harari et al., 2017), researchers have not provided empirical
evidence of perceived underqualification. Therefore, to extend the P–J misfit literature, this
study delineates unknown nature and work outcomes of perceived underqualification, thus

Job Organizational Turnover

satisfaction commitment intention
Variable b SE b SE b SE

Constant 2.37*** 0.57 1.65*** 0.58 5.73*** 0.71

Gender 0.19 0.17 0.06 0.17 0.58*** 0.21
Age 0.03** 0.01 0.03** 0.01 −0.04** 0.02
Marriage −0.05 0.22 0.09 0.23 0.06 0.27
Education 0.10 0.10 −0.02 0.10 −0.04 0.12
Position 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.07 −0.01 0.09
Tenure 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 −0.04** 0.02
Perceived underqualification −0.25*** 0.08 −0.15* 0.08 0.26*** 0.10
Transformational leadership 0.27*** 0.06 0.43*** 0.07 −0.39** 0.08
Perceived underqualification × transformational leadership 0.13* 0.07 0.17** 0.07 −0.25*** 0.08 Table II.
R2 0.26 0.33 0.35 Results of regression
Adj. R2 0.22 0.29 0.32 analyses predicting
Notes: n ¼ 188. *po 0.10; **p o0.05; ***p o0.01 job attitudes
 LODJ 4.00

39,8 3.50

Job Satisfaction
LOW
3.00
Transformational
Leadership
2.50
HIGH
Downloaded by Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology - Hongneung Campus At 23:12 13 October 2018 (PT)

970 2.00
Transformational
Leadership
1.50

1.00
LOW HIGH
Perceived Underqualification

3.00
Organizational Commitment

2.50
LOW
2.00
Transformational
Leadership
1.50
HIGH
1.00 Transformational
Leadership
0.50

0.00
LOW HIGH
Perceived Underqualification
7.00

6.50
Figure 1.
Turnover Intention

Transformational 6.00 LOW

leadership as a Transformational
moderator of the Leadership
5.50
relationships between HIGH
perceived 5.00 Transformational
underqualification and Leadership
job attitudes (job 4.50
satisfaction,
organizational
4.00
commitment and LOW HIGH
turnover intention)
Perceived Underqualification

covering the other half of the misfit phenomenon. By doing so, this paper actively answers
the scholarly calls for examining the impact of the directionality of demands–abilities misfit
(Cable and DeRue, 2002; Erdogan et al., 2011).
Second, this study provides new insight into how individuals respond to their P–J misfit,
by revealing that their responses are not always negative. Consistent with the general
perspective in early fit literature, which posits that misfit is a negative stressor (French et al.,
1974; Harrison, 1978), there has been little doubt about the expectation that perceived
underqualification leads to negative consequences (Edwards, 2008). However, by suggesting
that the outcomes of perceived underqualification are more complex than expected, this
study advances the previous perspective. Drawing upon cognitive appraisal theory of
 stress, we theorized that the perception of underqualification can elicit contrasting ways of Underqualification
responses depending on whether individuals view their stressful state of misfit as a and leadership
challenge or as a threat, and empirically demonstrated that negative responses to P–J misfit
are indeed avoidable. We believe that by taking this new insight we provide, scholarly
discussion on the essence and effects of misfit can be further enriched.
Third, this study introduces leadership as an important boundary condition underlying
Downloaded by Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology - Hongneung Campus At 23:12 13 October 2018 (PT)

the relationships between P–J misfit perceptions and work outcomes. Although leadership 971
can be a critical factor that determines employees’ responses to their work life, few
researchers have investigated the leadership effect in the context of P–J misfit. Thus,
focusing on transformational leadership, this study not only advances the current
understanding of the boundary conditions, but also answers the recent scholarly call to
explore a specific factor that encourages misfit perceivers to frame their state in a positive
way (Follmer et al., 2018). We specifically theorized that transformational leaders help
underqualification perceivers to view their misfit as a challenge to be overcome, thereby
reducing the negative attitudinal implications of misfit, and our empirical evidence revealed
that a high level of transformational leadership substantially weakens the negative impacts
of perceived underqualification on job attitudes. Ultimately, this finding indicates that if
there exists an appropriate contextual factor that enables misfit perceivers to positively
interpret their job situations and enhances their motivation, the negative impacts of
perceived misfit on work outcomes can be effectively managed.
Finally, this study also contributes to the research on proactivity. Prior proactivity
research has tended to focus on individual differences, giving relatively little attention to
contextual factors (Parker et al., 2010). For example, researchers assert that extraversion and
openness to experience are positively associated with proactive behaviors in the
socialization process (Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000), and that conscientious
individuals are more likely to endeavor to achieve a better fit in the organization (Parker
et al., 2010; Parker and Collins, 2010; Simmering et al., 2003). Although dispositional
differences among individuals are relevant to their proactive responses at work, situational
factors motivating employees to pursue proactive goals can also be a strong predictor of
their proactivity (Parker et al., 2010). Thus, by revealing that transformational leadership
can play an important role in allowing underqualification perceivers to proactively respond
to their misfit, we further substantiate such a scholarly notion.

Limitations and future research

This study has some limitations that need to be addressed in further research. First, all the
constructs in the study were measured with self-report questionnaires, which may lead to self-
serving bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003); therefore, this study cannot avoid limitations common to
survey-based research. It is possible to measure P–J misfit objectively by using objective
education or experience levels for a job (McKee-Ryan and Harvey, 2011). However, many
scholars have noted that perceptual measures are more proximal predictors of employee work
outcomes than objective qualifications (Erdogan et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2015). Thus, self-ratings on
underqualification may be more effective in predicting job attitudes, but an interesting avenue
for future research would be to examine whether transformational leadership plays a similar
moderating role in the relationships between objective underqualification and job attitudes.
Second, this study identified a single boundary condition, that is, transformational
leadership. However, other specific factors that have potential to allow underqualified
employees to view their misfit as a challenge to be overcome could also mitigate the negative
effects of perceived underqualification. For example, coworker support that provides
underqualification perceivers with specific job-related help or confidence to accomplish their
jobs is expected to have effects similar to those of transformational leadership. On the other
hand, examining how other types of leadership, such as transactional leadership, function in
 LODJ managing underqualification perceivers could advance our initial findings on the leadership
39,8 effect. Thus, we hope that future research explores various factors that may influence
individual reactions to underqualification and how such factors interact with one another.
Third, this study did not consider the occupational differences in the perception of
underqualification, but there may be some types of jobs or occupations that are more prone
to this misfit perception. To illustrate, employees are highly likely to perceive
Downloaded by Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology - Hongneung Campus At 23:12 13 October 2018 (PT)

972 underqualification when they are struggling for jobs in which the standards of
performance or the terms of rewards are clearly specified. This is because people can
easily recognize how deficient they are in performance, comparing with the objective
standards. On the contrary, if those standards are ambiguous, as is the way with jobs
requiring creativity, employees may not be able to easily recognize, or not much sensitive to,
whether they are deficient or not. Thus, it seems plausible that, for instance, a product
designer is less likely to perceive underqualification than a salesperson whose performance
standards are more specifically defined. Future research exploring specific job or
occupational characteristics that may saliently lead to perceived underqualification and
resulting job attitudes will provide important insight into P–J misfit at work.
Finally, a sample of Korean employees limits the generalizability of the findings to
different contexts. Cultural values can influence how individuals perceive and react to P–J
misfit (Erdogan et al., 2011; Harari et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2015). As this study examined
perceived underqualification in one specific cultural context, replicating the present
investigation in other cultural contexts is worthy of consideration.

Conclusion
This study investigated how individuals who perceive that they have less education, experience
and KSAs than what their job requires respond to their P–J misfit, and found that
transformational leadership weakens the negative implications of perceived underqualification
on job attitudes. On a practical level, our findings indicate that to make underqualification
perceivers develop themselves and realize their full potential in demanding situations,
organizations need to note the important roles of leaders and train them on transformational
leadership skills. By facilitating development of employees with an underqualification perception
and, thereby, their retention in the organization, transformational leaders can substantially
contribute to reducing costs associated with employee turnover such as separation, recruiting,
and training costs (Allen et al., 2010) and improving misfit perceivers’ quality of life at work. We
hope that this study stimulates further scholarly discussion on perceived underqualification and
ways to help organizations in managing individuals with such P–J misfit perception.

References
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and
normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 1,
pp. 1-18.
Allen, D.G., Bryant, P.C. and Vardaman, J.M. (2010), “Retaining talent: replacing misconceptions with
evidence-based strategies”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 48-64.
Avolio, B.J., Reichard, R.J., Hannah, S.T., Walumbwa, F.O. and Chan, A. (2009), “A meta-analytic review
of leadership impact research: experimental and quasi-experimental studies”, Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 764-784.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1993), Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational
Leadership, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
 Bass, B.M. and Riggio, R.E. (2006), Transformational Leadership, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Underqualification
Mahwah, NJ. and leadership
Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. and Berson, Y. (2003), “Predicting unit performance by assessing
transformational and transactional leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2,
pp. 207-218.
Burris, B.H. (1983), “The human effects of underemployment”, Social Problems, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 96-110.
Downloaded by Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology - Hongneung Campus At 23:12 13 October 2018 (PT)

Bycio, P., Hackett, R.D. and Allen, J.S. (1995), “Further assessments of Bass’s (1985) conceptualization 973
of transactional and transformational leadership”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 4,
pp. 468-478.
Cable, D.M. and DeRue, D.S. (2002), “The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit
perceptions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 5, pp. 875-884.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. and Klesh, J. (1979), “The Michigan organizational assessment
questionnaire”, unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. and Klesh, J.R. (1983), “Assessing the attitudes and perceptions
of organizational members”, in Seashore, S.E., Lawler, E.E. III, Mirvis, P.H. and Cammann, C.
(Eds), Assessing Organizational Change: A Guide to Methods, Measures, and Practices, Wiley,
New York, NY, pp. 71-138.
Coad, A.F. and Berry, A.J. (1998), “Transformational leadership and learning orientation”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 164-172.
DeRue, D.S., Nahrgang, J.D., Wellman, N. and Humphrey, S.E. (2011), “Trait and behavioral theories of
leadership: an integration and meta-analytic test of their relative validity”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 7-52.
Devloo, T., Anseel, F. and De Beuckelaer, A. (2011), “Do managers use feedback seeking as a strategy to
regulate demands–abilities misfit? The moderating role of implicit person theory”, Journal of
Business and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 453-465.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. and Shamir, B. (2002), “Impact of transformational leadership on follower
development and performance: a field experiment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45
No. 4, pp. 735-744.
Edwards, J.R. (2008), “Person–environment fit in organizations: an assessment of theoretical progress”,
Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 167-230.
Erdogan, B., Bauer, T.N., Peiro, J. and Truxillo, D.M. (2011), “Overqualified employees: making the best
of a potentially bad situation for individuals and organizations”, Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 215-232.
Follmer, E.H., Talbot, D.L., Kristof-Brown, A.L., Astrove, S.L. and Billsberry, J. (2018), “Resolution,
relief, and resignation: a qualitative study of responses to misfit at work”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 61 No. 2, pp. 440-465.
French, J.R.P., Rodgers, W.L. and Cobb, S. (1974), Coping and Adaptation, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Grant, A.M. and Ashford, S.J. (2008), “The dynamics of proactivity at work”, Research in Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 3-34.
Halaby, C.N. (1994), “Overeducation and skill mismatch”, Sociology of Education, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 47-59.
Harari, M.B., Manapragada, A. and Viswesvaran, C. (2017), “Who thinks they’re a big fish in a small
pond and why does it matter? A meta-analysis of perceived overqualification”, Journal of
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 102, pp. 28-47.
Harrison, R.V. (1978), Stress at Work, Wiley, New York, NY.
Hu, J., Erdogan, B., Bauer, T.N., Jiang, K., Liu, S. and Li, Y. (2015), “There are lots of big fish in this pond:
the role of peer overqualification on task significance, perceived fit, and performance for
overqualified employees”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 100 No. 4, pp. 1228-1238.
Johnson, G.J. and Johnson, W.R. (1996), “Perceived overqualification and psychological well-being”,
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 136 No. 4, pp. 435-445.