Effectiveness of job search interventions: A meta-analytic review.

Abstract

The current meta-analytic review examined the effectiveness of job search interventions in facilitating job search success (i.e., obtaining employment). Major theoretical perspectives on job search interventions, including behavioral learning theory, theory of planned behavior, social cognitive theory, and coping theory, were reviewed and integrated to derive a taxonomy of critical job search intervention components. Summarizing the data from 47 experimentally or quasi-experimentally evaluated job search interventions, we found that the odds of obtaining employment were 2.67 times higher for job seekers participating in job search interventions compared to job seekers in the control group, who did not participate in such intervention programs. Our moderator analysis also suggested that job search interventions that contained certain components, including teaching job search skills, improving self-presentation, boosting self-efficacy, encouraging proactivity, promoting goal setting, and enlisting social support, were more effective than interventions that did not include such components. More important, job search interventions effectively promoted employment only when both skill development and motivation enhancement were included. In addition, we found that job search interventions were more effective in helping younger and older (vs. middle-aged) job seekers, short-term (vs. long-term) unemployed job seekers, and job seekers with special needs and conditions (vs. job seekers in general) to find employment. Furthermore, meta-analytic path analysis revealed that increased job search skills, job search self-efficacy, and job search behaviors partially mediated the positive effect of job search interventions on obtaining employment. Theoretical and practical implications and future research directions are discussed.

Coping with Economic Stress: A Test of Deterioration and Stress-Suppressing Models

“…The importance of self-efficacy in this model corresponds to previous studies that demonstrate the salience of self-efficacy in the association between stress and personal well-being in the context of economic stress (Chen & Lim, 2012;Lim, Heckman, Montalto, & Letkiewicz, 2014;Liu et al, 2014). The findings indicate a similar pattern among whites, blacks, and Latinos with respect to self-efficacy and financial strain, the study's outcome measure.…”

“…Conceptually, a major component of economic stress is employment stressors (e.g., a lack of regular work and income) (Voydanoff & Donnelly, 1988), thus, techniques and interventions boosting selfefficacy in the area of unemployment might be aligned. In a meta-analysis of job search interventions, Liu et al (2014) found the odds of obtaining employment increased with interventions that included a component that boosted self-efficacy. Lim et al (2014) found that college students with high financial self-efficacy were more likely to seek help from professionals when they were experiencing financial stress.…”

“…Furthermore, evidence demonstrates that certain interventions are more efficacious when treating economic stress. A recent meta-analysis of job search interventions suggested that interventions that encouraged individuals to enhance self-efficacy, enlist social support, set goals, be proactive, and develop relevant skills were associated with better outcomes (Liu, Huang, & Wang, 2014).…”

‘If you look the part you’ll get the job’: should career professionals help clients to enhance their career image?

“…Beautiful people are treated better than their less attractive peers and this shapes their self-image and world view. Self-esteem in itself has been shown to confer great benefits both in getting jobs and in being successful in the workplace (Songqi, Huang, & Mo, 2014), so those blessed with good looks and a winning smile have the advantages of high self-esteem in addition to the advantages bestowed on them by others' responses to their appearance.…”

Summary of Key Elements in Using Theory and Research to Improve Evidence-Based Practice

“…Based on results from Whiston et al (1998) and Brown and Ryan Krane (2000), the 95% confidence interval for true effect sizes range from .26 to .36 for choice making difficulty interventions. Liu et al (2014) used a random effects model, showing that participants in job search interventions yielded 2.67 times greater odds of obtaining jobs than control groups.…”