The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm

Differences
Individual differences in outplacement
in outplacement success success
Harry J. Martin
Department of Management & Labor Relations, Cleveland State University, 425
Cleveland, Ohio, USA, and
Dennis F. Lekan Received 10 September 2007
Revised 22 February 2008
Corporate Leadership Associates, LLC, Westlake, Ohio, USA Accepted 22 February 2008

Abstract
Purpose – Although outplacement consulting and career transition services have become a standard
management practice and are almost universally provided when terminating executives, these
services have not been carefully evaluated and their benefits are not clearly understood. The purpose
of this paper is to consider the role of individual differences in determining outplacement success using
the Big Five framework as measured by the occupational personality questionnaire (OPQ).
Design/methodology/approach – The behavior of a sample of 53 executives was examined during
outplacement as well as their success following reemployment.
Findings – The study’s hypotheses were largely supported with agreeableness, conscientiousness,
and openness to experience making a significant contribution to the understanding of outplacement
effectiveness both during and after the transition.
Practical implications – These results suggest that providers should assess individual differences
as part of career transition counseling and question recent trends toward making outplacement a
commodity service. They also suggest that the diagnostic and counseling skills of a trained
professional help to secure a successful outplacement experience and that the process should recognize
the unique needs and personality of individual clients.
Originality/value – This paper considers the behavior of actual executives in career transition. It
also extends previous research on the Big Five typology to executive outplacement and provides
evidence of the usefulness of the OPQ as a measure of these personality traits.
Keywords Redundancy, Human resourcing, Careers, Career development
Paper type Research paper

Outplacement has been a familiar human resource practice since the 1970s. It currently
is an accepted part of executive termination and commonly used when a manager’s
service is no longer required whether due to poor performance, redundancy, a reduction
in force, merger, or political discord. However, in spite of its frequent application,
comparatively little is known about outplacement processes or their effectiveness. In
addition, outplacement has evolved in recent years in response to changing technology,
economics, attitudes toward work, and cultural norms. The purpose of this paper is to
consider individual differences in personality and explore the extent to which they affect
executive reactions to outplacement and success following reemployment.
The outplacement industry has evolved in response to the increasing frequency of Career Development International
Vol. 13 No. 5, 2008
lay-offs and terminations (Cascio, 2005; Marks and De Meuse, 2004) with the number of pp. 425-439
firms providing this service and the revenues generated growing dramatically q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1362-0436
(Cowden, 1992). Outplacement consulting and career transition services have become DOI 10.1108/13620430810891455
CDI a standard management practice for organizations of various sizes in a variety of
13,5 industries (Bates, 2004) and a large percentage of organizations include outplacement
as part of their job loss policy (Doherty, 1998). However, even though lay-offs,
terminations, and job transitions have become common, job loss continues to be a
traumatic event (Miller and Robinson, 2004; Molinsky and Margolis, 2006). Executives
in particular suffer a tremendous sense of loss of professional status, social support
426 from colleagues, and self-worth when terminated (Feldman and Leana, 2000).
As a consequence, of the negative psychological effects of termination, there is a
clear need to support displaced persons and to help them cope with job loss. A review
by Hanisch (1999) found that coping strategies can significantly impact an employee’s
well-being and future employment potential. Outplacement is thought to be a
useful tool to help employees cope with job loss (Arslan, 2005; Westaby, 2004).
Numerous success stories describing the benefits of outplacement for executives exist
in the literature (Butterfield and Borgan, 2005; Parkhouse, 1988). Testimonials to the
effectiveness of outplacement abound and outplaced executives often speak positively
of their counselors. However, outplacement processes have not been carefully
evaluated and their benefits are not clearly understood. Some organizations have
attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of their outplacement activities. But this has
been done mainly through exit interviews and testimonials regarding perceptions of
the service’s usefulness (Doherty et al., 1993). Doherty (1998) argues that a better
understanding of outplacement policies and practices is needed.
One approach has been to explore the role of individual differences. While a clear
pattern of results has not emerged, there is support for the notion that personality
traits influence an individual’s ability to cope with job loss (Leana and Feldman,
1990; Leana et al., 1998; Wanberg, 1997). Personality factors are thought to affect
employment outcomes, in part, through their influence on the expectations people
have for their future performance (Gist and Mitchell, 1992; Zhao and Seibert, 2006).
Some studies have used the 16PF to assess personality (Tyson and Doherty, 1991)
but the majority of published studies have utilized the “Big Five” framework
(Tokar et al., 1998).
This framework includes five dimensions of personality: extraversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism (emotional stability), and openness to
experience (Costa and McCrae, 1992; McCrae and John, 1992) and has been established
as an important predictor of behavior across numerous cultures (McCrae and Costa,
1997). Wanberg et al. (2000) found that each of the Big Five personality traits was
significantly correlated with one or more aspects of search behavior (neuroticism had a
negative relationship while each of the others was positive). In addition, extraversion
and conscientiousness were associated with both higher levels of networking intensity
and greater use of traditional job search methods. Schmit et al. (1993) found similar
relationships between the five factors and job seeking assertiveness. Kanfer et al. (2001)
found conscientiousness to be a significant, positive predictor of job-seeking frequency
and job-seeking intentions.
Outplacement professionals are interested in a variety of client behaviors during
outplacement. An executive who is progressing well through the transition should exhibit
a willingness to grow, resilience in the face of setbacks, optimism regarding his or her
ultimate success, and achievement of objectives. Even though these behaviors are
important for a successful outplacement experience, contact with the executive once a new
job has been secured should be maintained to determine the quality of reemployment. Differences
If the placement is satisfactory, the executive should perform well in the new position, in outplacement
have a high degree of satisfaction with the new job, and be viewed as likely to advance in
the new organization. success
A successful outplacement transition depends on the willingness of the executive to
listen to and cooperate with his or her counselor. Initially, the counselor tries to help the
executive cope with the shock and trauma of job loss and career change. The counselor 427
often must work to maintain the client’s feelings of self-esteem, self-worth, and career
and social status, enhance his or her perceived control over the reemployment process,
and build confidence and expectations for success (Grzeda, 1999). Simultaneously, the
counselor assesses client traits, preferences, and characteristics, helps them discover
their capabilities and strengths, identifies weaknesses and areas for improvement, and
encourages the client to understand and identify new job and career opportunities.
This requires that clients be willing to devote significant time, energy, and attention to
developing and executing a reemployment plan. Therefore, we hypothesize that
executives who are more agreeable and conscientious should experience enhanced
growth, have greater resilience, show more optimism, and achieve more during the
transition.
Since personal growth and development are central to outplacement success, clients
will benefit more if they also are open to change and new experiences. Therefore, we
hypothesize that executives who are more open should have higher levels of growth
and achieve more during outplacement.
Helping clients successfully maneuver through the transition process and secure
reemployment are important objectives for outplacement professionals. However, they
should not be the only objectives. A successful engagement should also result in
reemployment where the executive can perform well, be satisfied, and feel that he or
she can advance personally and professionally (Saks and Ashforth, 2002).
Outplacement programs have been criticized because they do not always lead to
reemployment. But, even when an executive secures a new position, the quality of the
employment should also be assessed. This is often not considered in practice and has
not been systematically researched. While the link between a higher quality
outplacement process and higher quality reemployment is supported by logic,
testimonial evidence, and some research (Westaby, 2004), the connections between
personality traits and reemployment quality are less clear. Barrick and Mount (1991)
found that conscientiousness had consistent and positive relationships with job
performance across a variety of occupational groups. Likewise, extraversion was
related to job proficiency for occupations involving social interaction, such as
managers. Salgado (1997) confirmed many of the relationships between the Big Five
factors and various job performance criteria and found openness and agreeableness to
be valid predictors of training proficiency. While this research did not focus on
executives and did not consider performance following outplacement, it is reasonable
to expect executives who are more extraverted, agreeable, conscientious, and
emotionally stable will secure higher quality reemployment. Therefore, we hypothesize
that executives who score higher on extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
and stability should find new positions that are more satisfying, where they perform
well, and can advance.
CDI Method
13,5 Participants
To assess these hypotheses, we considered the outplacement experience of 53 executives
who had been displaced from their positions in a large urban center in the northeastern
USA. These executives were outplaced for a variety of reasons including redundancy
caused by mergers, closing or relocation of facilities or divisions, a reduction in force,
428 lack of fit with existing employer, and change in senior management. They held titles
such as chief executive officer, president, senior vice president, vice president, director,
and general manager. All held a middle-management rank or above. The sample
included 37 men and 16 women and the executive’s former employer engaged the
outplacement firm.

Measures
Personality traits. As part of the firm’s outplacement process, each executive completed
the occupational personality questionnaire (OPQ) (Saville and Holdsworth, 1990; SHL,
2000). The authors report numerous studies that support the instrument’s validity and
other published work has found that it successfully predicts job performance in a
variety of circumstances (Robertson and Kinder, 1993; Saville et al., 1996).
The OPQ was chosen by the outplacement firm for use in counseling because of the
type and variety of traits assessed, ease of administration and scoring, and the
availability of norms appropriate for the type of clients served. Although the OPQ
was not originally designed to measure the Big Five personality traits, the instrument’s
scales can be combined to measure these characteristics (SHL, 2000). Anderson and Ones
(2003) directly assessed the convergent validity of the OPQ with other measures of the
five-factor model but found a lack of convergence among all the instruments tested.
Support for use of the OPQ as a measure of the five-factor model comes primarily from
studies of its factor structure (Beaujouan, 2000; Ferguson et al., 1994; Matthews and
Stanton, 1994; Matthews et al., 1990) and construct and predictive validity (Robertson
and Kinder, 1993; Salgado, 2003; Robertson et al., 1999; Robie et al., 2005).
Composite measures of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism,
and openness to experience were created using the factor solution recommended by the
OPQ’s authors (SHL, 2000). In addition, the instrument’s authors have developed
normative (n) and ipsative (i) versions of the OPQ. The ipsative form was used in this
study (OPQ32i). Although concerns have been expressed regarding the validity and
interpretation of ipsative scales, research suggests the normative and ipsative versions
of the OPQ have similar psychometric properties (Saville and Willson, 1991) and are
less subject to faking in employment settings (Rothstein and Goffin, 2006).
Data for each executive consisted of standardized scores on each trait derived from
norms based on USA managers and professionals. Given the proprietary nature of the
instrument, only standard ten (sten) scores were available; hence, scale reliabilities for
the sample could not be computed. This is the case with most published research using
this instrument (Bartram and Brown, 2004; Lievens et al., 2003). However, individual
OPQ32i subscale reliabilities are reported to be between 0.67 and 0.88 (SHL, 2000).
Outplacement success. As noted earlier, there is wide variation among researchers
and practitioners regarding what activities outplacement should include, the emphasis
that components of the process should receive, and the objectives that should be
achieved. Evaluative research that has been published focuses on client ratings of
satisfaction and measures of reemployment such as whether a job was secured, length Differences
of time to secure a job, and salary. However, few studies have measured client progress in outplacement
during the outplacement process and the quality of reemployment has seldom been
assessed (Schwab et al., 1987). Therefore, we developed an instrument for use in this success
study designed to measure several dimensions of outplacement success.
The instrument focused on two broad aspects of success: client progress during the
transition and quality of employment following the transition. Four aspects of progress 429
during the transition were identified based on interviews with outplacement professionals
in the host firm. These aspects were labeled personal growth, resilience, optimism, and
achievement. In large measure, these dimensions reflect the outplacement philosophy and
practices of the firm but are consistent with recommendations in the literature on what
should be achieved by a quality outplacement process. Growth measured the degree to
which the client experienced personal growth during the transition, put forth his or her
best effort to make positive changes, and was open to ideas and suggestions from their
counselor. Resilience considered how well the client coped with emotional stress and
tension, felt they were in control of the process, continued to express anger at their former
employer (reverse scored), remained in denial of their circumstances (reverse scored), and
worked to improve their health and physical well-being. Optimism assessed the degree to
which the client was focused on and committed to his or her outreach effort, had feelings of
self-worth at the end of the engagement, rebounded psychologically from their initial
separation, and maintained their energy level during the transition. Achievement
measured client accomplishment during the transition including whether they achieved
the objectives they set at the beginning, how well they managed the transition, how proud
they were of what they accomplished while in transition, whether they secured a new
position in a timely manner, and how well suited they were for their next position. Specific
items and their scale anchors are contained in the Appendix.
Quality of employment following the transition considered three dimensions: job
performance in the new position, satisfaction with the new position, and probability of
advancement with the new organization. The outplacement professionals in the host
firm consider these important indicators of a successful engagement beyond merely
securing a new position, title, or salary. Performance measured how well the client was
performing in the new position and how well they had adapted to their new
organization. Satisfaction assessed the client’s contentment with the new position,
whether they felt they were well suited for the new position, and whether they had a
positive outlook toward their future career prospects. Advancement considered
whether the client had increased his or her responsibility once in the new position and
their potential for advancement in the organization.
Finding a new job is a common measure of outplacement success but was not useful
in this study since all executives were reemployed following outplacement. In addition,
the length of time taken to find a new job was not considered a valid indicator of
success. Great variation exists among executives in such areas as level of position
sought, severance and other resources available to sustain a search, interest in
relocation, stage of career, family circumstances, and industry economics. Each of
these factors makes it difficult to use time to placement as a measure of outplacement
quality with this client group.
Ideally, assessment of outplacement success would include the judgments of
knowledgeable professionals, self-report data from the clients themselves, and
CDI feedback from employers. However, we were unable to secure sufficient self-report and
13,5 employer data. Therefore, only ratings made by professional staff of the host firm were
used in this study.

Procedure
Each executive was involved in an extensive outplacement program that included
430 various assessments, counseling, training and coaching, office support, resource
assistance, and follow-up activities. Although multiple counselors were employed by
the firm, each used a similar outplacement protocol. This included assisting the
displaced executive by:
.
Helping clients cope with the shock and trauma of job loss and career change.
. Providing ongoing counseling and support to maintain the client’s feelings of
status, self-esteem, and self-worth, enhance perceived control over the
reemployment process, increase the ability to cope with personal and family
stress, and build confidence and expectations for success.
.
Helping clients understand the search process and develop realistic expectations
concerning their involvement and potential reemployment outcomes.
.
Conducting assessments to help clients improve their self-awareness, understand
their traits, preferences, and characteristics, discover their capabilities, target
their strengths and weaknesses, and identify new job and career opportunities.
. Working with clients to set specific goals for the outplacement process, structure
activities, and enhance their motivation to find another job.
.
Providing coaching and other assistance in job search techniques, network
building, resume preparation, interviewing, impression management, and
strategies for coping.
.
Being available for ongoing counseling and support until the executive has
completed his or her transition.
As part of the firm’s outplacement process, clients complete several assessments
including the OPQ. This instrument is used by the firm’s counselors to help gauge the
client’s strengths and areas for growth, develop a personalized outplacement plan, and
guide coaching and counseling. Data for each OPQ scale were available and composite
measures for each of the Big Five factors were computed based on the factor model
recommended by the instrument’s authors (SHL, 2000).
Ratings of outplacement success were made by the counselor who worked most
closely with each participant. This counselor did not review OPQ data prior to providing
the ratings and it had been many months since OPQ data were reviewed. An obvious
weakness of the study is reliance on the counselor’s judgment both of progress during
transition and performance following employment. For 14 of the participants, other staff
professions who worked with them during their engagement were able to make ratings
and these correlated favorably with those of the counselor (inter-rater reliability of
0.73 across all dimensions). However, only counselor ratings were used in the analysis
given the limited number of supplemental ratings and the fact that the staff
professionals were not as closely involved with the clients as the counselors.
Another limitation of the study is use of counselor judgments regarding success
following outplacement. Ideally, self-report and employer data should be used for such
assessments. However, as part of the host firm’s outplacement process, counselors Differences
maintained regular follow-up contact with clients during the first year after placement in outplacement
and noted progress in client files. The ratings were made by experienced outplacement
counselors who had worked extensively with the clients involved. success

Results 431
Table I contains means, standard deviations, and correlations for the OPQ Big Five
personality dimensions and the measures of outplacement success. The table also
includes internal consistency reliabilities for the outplacement measures. Results
showed that the outplacement measures were internally consistent and
inter-correlations among the personality dimensions were similar to other Big Five
studies.
The hypothesized relationships between personality and the four measures of client
progress during the transition and three measures of quality of employment following
the transition were evaluated using linear regression. All five personality components
were entered as a block. The results of this analysis are contained in Table II. It was
hypothesized that agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness would be positively
related to client success during the transition. This hypothesis was supported for
agreeableness across all four transition measures. The hypothesis was partially
supported for conscientiousness and openness to experience. Conscientiousness made
a significant contribution to the explained variance of growth, optimism, and
achievement while openness predicted growth and achievement. These results confirm
the importance of conscientiousness in job search and extend it into the arena of
executive outplacement. The findings also highlight agreeableness as a contributing
factor in an executive’s ability to cope with job loss and make a successful transition
through outplacement. While not entirely as expected, the results for openness are
consistent with previous research that has established this trait’s positive relationship
to training proficiency. Personal growth and achievement were the two outcome
measures most closely aligned with learning and development.
Table II also presents the results for ratings of executive success following
outplacement. It was hypothesized that extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
and greater emotional stability would predict positive outcomes following the
executive’s transition to new employment. The hypothesis was supported for
agreeableness and conscientiousness but not for extraversion or neuroticism.
Executives who scored more highly on agreeableness and conscientiousness were
rated as performing better in and more satisfied with their new position and more likely
to advance in the organization. Unexpectedly, openness to experience made a significant
contribution to the prediction of advancement potential. This result is consistent with the
notion that those executives most open to growth are more likely to take on additional
responsibilities and move to higher-level positions. In general, the participants in this
study were outgoing and emotionally stable individuals. It may be that some restriction
of range played a role in the lack of support for the hypothesized relationships for
extraversion and neuroticism.
In summary, the hypotheses regarding executive progress during outplacement and
success following reemployment were largely supported. Personality traits like
agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience contribute significantly
 CDI
13,5

432

Table I.

Big Five personality

of outplacement success
Descriptive statistics for

dimensions and measures

OPQ Big Five composite scales During transition After reemployment
Personal
Scale Mean SD Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness growth Resilience Optimism Achievement Performance Satisfaction Advancement

Extraversion 34.8 6.8 NA – – – – – – – – – – –

Agreeableness 23.8 4.7 20.27 * NA – – – – – – – – – –
Conscientiousness 39.5 7.6 0.05 20.05 NA – – – – – – – – –
Neuroticism 26.9 6.3 20.23 0.31 * 20.16 NA – – – – – – – –
Openness 29.9 6.8 0.37 * * 0.05 0.14 2 0.08 NA – – – – – – –
Personal growth 10.8 2.6 20.04 0.36 * * 0.23 0.16 0.35 * * (0.83) – – – – – –
Resilience 16.8 4.2 20.05 0.27 * 0.14 2 0.09 0.07 0.52 * * (0.80) – – – – –
Optimism 14.6 2.8 0.07 0.25 0.26 2 0.04 0.20 0.70 * * 0.73 * * (0.70) – – – –
Achievement 18.4 3.5 0.07 0.24 0.36 * * 2 0.03 0.28 * 0.69 * * 0.63 * * 0.78 * * (0.83) – – –
Performance 7.7 1.6 20.08 0.35 * * 0.32 * 0.16 0.08 0.49 * * 0.44 * * 0.48 * * 0.60 * * (0.82) – –
Satisfaction 10.8 2.5 20.04 0.40 * * 0.24 0.01 0.10 0.48 * * 0.53 * * 0.58 * * 0.72 * * 0.76 * * (0.91) –
Advancement 5.5 2.1 20.08 0.29 * 0.30 * 0.01 0.29 * 0.51 * * 0.37 * * 0.44 * * 0.56 * * 0.62 * * 0.58 * * (0.79)

Notes: n ¼ 53; figures in diagonal are internal consistency reliability coefficients; NA – not available; *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01
 During transition After reemployment
Personality dimension Personal growth Resilience Optimism Achievement Performance Satisfaction Advancement

Extraversion 20.07 20.07 0.05 0.02 2 0.09 20.02 2 0.14

Agreeableness 0.35 * * 0.30 * 0.29 * 0.28 * 0.25 * 0.42 * * 0.30 *
Conscientiousness 0.24 * 0.13 0.25 * 0.35 * * 0.38 * * 0.24 * 0.29 *
Neuroticism 0.16 20.15 2 0.03 0.00 0.20 20.03 2 0.00
Openness to experience 0.40 * * 0.08 0.18 0.26 * 0.13 0.10 0.32 *
R2 0.35 0.12 0.18 0.27 0.26 0.24 0.28
Adjusted R 2 0.28 0.03 0.09 0.19 0.18 0.15 0.20
F (5,47) 5.09 * * * 1.30 2.16 * 3.42 * * 3.35 * * 2.88 * 3.63 * *
Notes: n ¼ 53; the values in the table are standardized b weights; *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01; * * *p , 0.001

dimensions
Big Five personality
in outplacement
Differences

success

Regression analysis for

433

Table II.
CDI to our understanding of outplacement effectiveness. Furthermore, the OPQ scales
13,5 appear to form factors that successfully capture the Big Five personality traits.

Discussion
Based on the results of this and other studies, it is clear that individual differences
should be assessed and carefully considered in the outplacement process. Research has
434 not progressed to the point where specific recommendations can be made to
outplacement professionals regarding which traits are most important, what advice
they should give to clients, or interventions they should undertake to accommodate a
particular trait. However, counselors need to consider personality to better help clients
cope with psychological reactions following termination (McLoughlin et al., 1983;
Tzafrir et al., 2006) and facilitate a match between the client and a new job or
organization (Flynn, 1991; Timmerman, 1997; Zikic and Klehe, 2006).
The results of this study point to the richness of information that is available to the
outplacement professional through personality assessment. For example, clients who
are more conscientious tend to view life more in its entirety, rather than as just a series
of events. They do a better job of planning their transition, are more patient with their
progress, less likely to harbor self-doubts, and generally less bitter. They rebound
faster from the termination (Lekan, 1993) and have greater ability to reflect on events.
This helps them put their situation in perspective and maintain a sense of control
(Waters, 2007). It also aids in coping because each setback in the transition process is
not viewed as devastating, but as simply a barrier to be overcome along the way.
Considering such individual differences provides greater insight into outplacement
success. Assessment of an executive’s predisposition aids in understanding how
personality affects his or her behavior and decision-making.
The results of this study also suggest that outplacement counselors should tailor
counseling to meet individual needs. This confirms the observations and
recommendations of others (Eby and Buch, 1994) and supports the position that those
who provide outplacement services need to refine their programs to ensure that
resources are put to the best use in assisting individuals to regain employment (Gowan
and Nassar-McMillan, 2001). Different interventions need to be implemented for
different individuals depending on coping resources, economic disparity, and the stage
of job loss (Kinicki et al., 2000). Adjustments need to be made in the outplacement process
to account for varying circumstances and factors affecting the termination. Likewise,
outplaced executives should be given an assessment of their strengths and weaknesses
and support systems should be developed based on the individual’s unique situation.
The primary managerial implication of this study is that client personality has a
significant impact on outplacement outcomes both during the transition and after
reemployment and counselors should understand and be willing to accommodate these
individual characteristics. We recommend that outplacement counselors conduct
assessments to help clients understand their traits, preferences, and characteristics and
modify the job search process to account for these differences. Counselors should adapt
their coaching and other assistance to individual client needs and be willing to develop
strategies for coping with job loss that reflect the executive’s unique circumstances.
However, these observations are preliminary and the study has a number of
limitations that need to be addressed through further research. First, a common
difficulty in outplacement research is obtaining adequate samples of the target
population, such as executives. Caution is warranted with regard to the generalizability Differences
of results and effect sizes. Second, additional work is needed to replicate these findings in outplacement
using more established measures of the five-factor model and measures of
outplacement success. Additional validation of the instrument used to measure success
client progress during the transition is needed and confidence in the findings could be
strengthened by using client and employer ratings of quality of employment following
the transition. 435
Future research is encouraged to establish what types of transition counseling work
best with different personality types to positively affect client outcomes. Outplacement
counselors should tailor counseling to meet individual needs but additional research
can provide more specific guidance into how this can be done. For example, executives
who score highly on conscientiousness are inclined to critically evaluate information,
look for potential limitations, and focus on errors. Hence, executives with this
predisposition tend to be perfectionists, are less resilient, and can be hard on
themselves and those around them. This suggests that outplacement counselors need
to adjust services to compensate for behaviors such as the conscientious executive’s
having a more difficult time to finding reemployment because of his or her
dissatisfaction with the perceived quality of available positions or anxiety over never
seeming to get enough information about a new job to satisfy them. This research
raises more questions than it answers but emphasizes the need for more investigation
into how to better use assessment data to assist people in transition.

References
Anderson, N. and Ones, D.S. (2003), “The construct validity of three entry level personality
inventories used in the UK: cautionary findings from a multiple-inventory investigation”,
European Journal of Personality, Vol. 17, S1, pp. 39-66.
Arslan, H.B. (2005), “Where can outplacement be placed? Offering a broader role to assistance:
a theoretical approach”, Problems and Perspectives in Management, Vol. 3, pp. 137-46.
Barrick, M.R. and Mount, M.K. (1991), “The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 1-26.
Bartram, D. and Brown, A. (2004), “Online testing: mode of administration and the stability of
OPQ 32i scores”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 12, pp. 278-84.
Bates, S. (2004), “HR executives embrace outplacement assistance efforts”, HR Magazine, Vol. 49
No. 3, p. 12.
Beaujouan, Y. (2000), “The convergence of the factorial structure of the OPQ (occupational
personality questionnaire) towards the five factor model in seven countries”, European
Review of Applied Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 349-57.
Butterfield, L.D. and Borgan, W.A. (2005), “Outplacement counseling from the client’s
perspective”, Career Development Quarterly, Vol. 53, pp. 306-16.
Cascio, W.F. (2005), “Strategies for responsible restructuring”, Academy of Management
Executive, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 39-50.
Costa, P.T. Jr and McCrae, R.R. (1992), Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO
Five-factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual, Psychological Assessment
Resources, Odessa, FL.
Cowden, P. (1992), “Outplacement services assessment”, HR Magazine, Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 69-70.
CDI Doherty, N. (1998), “The role of outplacement in redundancy management”, Personnel Review,
Vol. 27, pp. 343-53.
13,5
Doherty, N., Tyson, S. and Viney, C. (1993), “A positive policy? Corporate perspectives on
redundancy and outplacement”, Personnel Review, Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 45-53.
Eby, L.T. and Buch, K. (1994), “The effect of job search method, sex, activity level, and emotional
acceptance on new job characteristics: implications for counseling unemployed
436 professionals”, Journal of Employment Counseling, Vol. 31, pp. 69-82.
Feldman, D.C. and Leana, C.R. (2000), “What ever happened to laid-off executives? A study of
reemployment challenges after downsizing”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 64-75.
Ferguson, E., Payne, T. and Anderson, N. (1994), “Occupational personality assessment: theory,
structure, and psychometrics of the OPQ FMX5-student”, Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 17, pp. 217-25.
Flynn, R.J. (1991), “Matching job-search training interventions with client characteristics:
employment outcomes”, Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, Vol. 4, pp. 133-43.
Gist, M.E. and Mitchell, T.R. (1992), “Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17, pp. 183-211.
Gowan, M.A. and Nassar-McMillan, S.C. (2001), “Examination of individual differences in
participation in outplacement program activities after a job loss”, Journal of Employment
Counseling, Vol. 38, pp. 185-96.
Grzeda, M.M. (1999), “Re-conceptualizing career change: a career development perspective”,
Career Development International, Vol. 4, pp. 305-11.
Hanisch, K.A. (1999), “Job loss and unemployment research from 1994 to 1998: a review and
recommendations for research and intervention”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 55,
pp. 188-220.
Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C.R. and Kantrowitz, T.M. (2001), “Job search and employment:
a personality-motivational analysis and meta-analytic review”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 837-55.
Kinicki, A., Prussia, G. and McKee-Ryan, F. (2000), “A panel study of coping with involuntary job
loss”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 90-100.
Leana, C.R. and Feldman, D.C. (1990), “Individual responses to job loss: empirical findings from
two field studies”, Human Relations, Vol. 43, pp. 1155-81.
Leana, C.R., Feldman, D.C. and Tan, G.Y. (1998), “Predictors of coping behavior after a layoff”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 85-97.
Lekan, D.F. (1993), “Outplacement programming: the facilitation of adult learning during career
transition”, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol. 54 No. 3, p. 777A.
Lievens, F., Harris, M., Van Keer, E. and Bisqueret, C. (2003), “Predicting cross-cultural training
performance: the validity of personality, cognitive ability, and dimensions measured by an
assessment center and a behavior description interview”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 88, pp. 476-89.
McCrae, R.R. and Costa, P.T. Jr (1997), “Personality trait structure as a human universal”,
American Psychologist, Vol. 52, pp. 509-16.
McCrae, R.R. and John, O.P. (1992), “An introduction to the five-factor model and its
applications”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 60, pp. 175-216.
McLoughlin, C.S., Friedson, W.S. and Murray, J.N. (1983), “Personality profiles of recently
terminated executives”, Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 62, pp. 226-9.
Marks, M.L. and De Meuse, K.P. (2005), “Resizing the organization: maximizing the gain while Differences
minimizing the pain of layoffs, divestitures, and closings”, Organizational Dynamics,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 19-35. in outplacement
Matthews, G. and Stanton, N. (1994), “Item and scale factor analyses of the occupational success
personality questionnaire”, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 16, pp. 733-43.
Matthews, G., Stanton, N., Graham, N.C. and Brimelow, C. (1990), “A factor analysis of the scales
of the occupational personality questionnaire”, Personality and Individual Differences, 437
Vol. 11, pp. 591-6.
Miller, M.V. and Robinson, C. (2004), “Managing the disappointment of job termination:
outplacement as a cooling-out device”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 40,
pp. 49-65.
Molinsky, A. and Margolis, J. (2006), “The emotional tightrope of downsizing: hidden challenges
for leaders and their organizations”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 145-59.
Parkhouse, G.C. (1988), “Inside outplacement – my search for a job”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 67-73.
Robertson, I.T. and Kinder, A. (1993), “Personality and job competencies: the criterion-related
validity of some personality variables”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 225-44.
Robertson, I., Gibbons, P., Baron, H., MacIver, R. and Nyfield, G. (1999), “Understanding
management performance”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 10, pp. 5-12.
Robie, C., Brown, D.J. and Bly, P.R. (2005), “The big five in the USA and Japan”, Journal of
Management Development, Vol. 24, pp. 720-36.
Rothstein, M.G. and Goffin, R.D. (2006), “The use of personality measures in personnel selection:
what does current research support?”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 16,
pp. 155-80.
Saks, A.M. and Ashforth, B.E. (2002), “Is job search related to employment quality? It all depends
on the fit”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 646-54.
Salgado, J.F. (1997), “The five factor model of personality and job performance in the European
community”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 30-43.
Salgado, J.F. (2003), “Predicting job performance using FFM and non-FFM personality
measures”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 323-46.
Saville, P. and Holdsworth, J. (1990), Occupational Personality Questionnaire Manual, Saville
& Holdsworth, Esher.
Saville, P. and Willson, E. (1991), “The reliability and validity of normative and ipsative
approaches in the measurement of personality”, Journal of Occupational Psychology,
Vol. 64, pp. 219-38.
Saville, P., Sik, G., Nyfield, G., Hackston, J. and MacIver, R. (1996), “A demonstration of the
validity of the occupational personality questionnaire (OPQ) in the measurement of job
competencies across time and in separate organizations”, Applied Psychology:
An International Review, Vol. 45, pp. 243-62.
Schmit, M.J., Amel, E.L. and Ryan, A.M. (1993), “Self-reported assertive job-seeking behaviors of
minimally educated job hunters”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 105-24.
Schwab, D.P., Rynes, S.L. and Aldag, R.J. (1987), “Theories and research on job search and
choice”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 5, pp. 129-66.
SHL (2000), OPQ32 Manual and User’s Guide, SHL, Boulder, CO.
CDI Timmerman, T.A. (1997), “A closer look at the personality characteristics of outplaced
executives”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 55-66.
13,5 Tokar, D.M., Fischer, A.R. and Subich, L.M. (1998), “Personality and vocational behavior:
a selective review of the literature, 1993-1997”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 53,
pp. 115-53.
Tyson, S. and Doherty, N. (1991), “Redundant executive: personality and the job change
438 experience”, Personnel Review, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 3-10.
Tzafrir, S.S., Mano-Negrin, R., Harel, G.H. and Rom-Nagy, D. (2006), “Downsizing and the impact
of job counseling and retraining on effective employee responses”, Career Development
International, Vol. 11, pp. 125-44.
Wanberg, C.R. (1997), “Antecedents and outcomes of coping behaviors among unemployed and
reemployed individuals”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 731-44.
Wanberg, C.R., Kanfer, R. and Banas, J.T. (2000), “Predictors and outcomes of networking
intensity among unemployed job seekers”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85,
pp. 491-503.
Waters, L. (2007), “Experiential differences between voluntary and involuntary job redundancy
on depression, job-search activity, affective employee outcomes, and re-employment
quality”, Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 80, pp. 279-99.
Westaby, J.D. (2004), “The impact of outplacement programs on reemployment criteria:
a longitudinal study of displaced managers and executives”, Journal of Employment
Counseling, Vol. 41, pp. 19-28.
Zhao, H. and Seibert, S.E. (2006), “The Big Five personality dimensions and entrepreneurial
status: a meta-analytical review”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91, pp. 259-71.
Zikic, J. and Klehe, U. (2006), “Job loss as a blessing in disguise: the role of career planning in
predicting reemployment quality”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 69, pp. 391-409.
Appendix Differences
in outplacement
Scale Item success
During transition
Growth Experience personal growtha
Put forth their best effort to make positive changesa 439
Openness to ideas and suggestions for
improvementb
Resilience Did they cope with emotional stress and tensionc
Feel they were in control of the transition processa
Continue to be angry with their previous employera,e
Remain in denial of their circumstancesa,e
Work to improve their health and physical
well-beinga
Optimism Focus and commitment to their outreach effortsb
Feelings of self-worth at the end of the engagementb
Did they rebound from their initial separationc
Energy levelb
Achievement Achieve the objectives set at the beginninga
Did they manage the transitionc
Pride in their accomplishmentsb
Did they secure a new position in a timely mannerc
Suited were they for their next position c
After reemployment
Performance Perform in their new positiond
Adapt to their new organizationd
Satisfaction Satisfaction or contentment with their new position b
Feel they were well suited for their new positiona
Attitude or outlook toward their future career
prospectsb
Advancement Increase their responsibility in the new positiona
Advance in the organizationa
Notes: aSentence prefix: “To what extent did this person:” 1 ¼ none, 2 ¼ a little, 3 ¼ some, 4 ¼ great,
5 ¼ very great; bSentence prefix: “How would you assess his or her:” 1 ¼ poor, 2 ¼ not very good,
3 ¼ satisfactory, 4 ¼ very good, 5 ¼ excellent; cSentence prefix: “How well:” 1 ¼ not at all, 2 ¼ not Table AI.
very, 3 ¼ somewhat, 4 ¼ quite, 5 ¼ very; dSentence prefix: “How well did this person:” 1 ¼ not at all, Measures of
2 ¼ not very, 3 ¼ somewhat, 4 ¼ quite, 5 ¼ very; eReverse scored item outplacement success

Corresponding author
Harry J. Martin can be contacted at: h.martin@csuohio.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.