The Flexibility Paradox: Why Searching More Broadly for Work Can Narrow Unemployed Jobseekers' Prospects
Download the article here:
Listen to a review of this article:
Abstract: Policymakers across OECD nations routinely encourage or require unemployed jobseekers to widen their search beyond previous occupations, pay levels, and commuting ranges. Career scholars have similarly endorsed flexibility as a hallmark of adaptable, self-directed career management. Yet a growing body of evidence suggests that flexible job search behavior (FJSB) may not deliver the anticipated benefits—and may, in some cases, undermine both re-employment likelihood and subsequent job quality. This article synthesizes research on the antecedents, mechanisms, and consequences of FJSB, drawing centrally on a landmark two-wave longitudinal study of 672 unemployed Flemish jobseekers. It examines the opposing "positive path" and "negative path" through which flexibility operates in the hiring process, explores why career-adaptable individuals do not necessarily search more flexibly, and outlines evidence-based organizational and policy responses. The article concludes with forward-looking recommendations for building long-term career resilience without sacrificing re-employment quality.
Imagine you have just lost your job. A well-meaning career counsellor advises you to "cast a wide net"—apply for roles outside your field, consider a pay cut, and look farther from home. Nearly every OECD country enshrines some version of this advice in its unemployment legislation, requiring benefit recipients to demonstrate willingness to accept jobs that deviate from their previous occupation, salary, or geographic convenience (Hasselpflug, 2005; Venn, 2012). Career scholars, too, have championed flexibility as the hallmark of the modern "boundaryless" professional—someone nimble enough to pivot across industries, accept lateral moves, and treat each transition as a learning opportunity (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; Hall, 2004).
The logic is intuitive: a wider search should multiply opportunities, accelerate re-employment, and demonstrate the kind of adaptability that employers value. But what if casting a wider net actually catches fewer fish—or worse, the wrong fish?
That is precisely the counter-intuitive finding emerging from a growing body of research. In a pivotal two-wave study of 672 unemployed jobseekers in Flanders, Vansteenkiste, Verbruggen, and Sels (2016) found that flexible job search behavior (FJSB) did not improve re-employment likelihood, could actively reduce the number of job offers received, and was associated with higher rates of underemployment and lower job quality among those who did find work. These findings challenge entrenched assumptions held by policymakers and career scholars alike—and they carry immediate, practical stakes. At the organizational level, employers making hiring decisions based on person-job fit may be systematically screening out flexible applicants. At the policy level, governments may be investing in activation strategies whose downstream effects erode the very employment sustainability they seek to promote.
This article unpacks the flexibility paradox. Drawing on the Vansteenkiste et al. (2016) study alongside complementary research from career psychology, human resource management, and labor economics, it examines what drives FJSB, how it interacts with employer selection processes, and what organizations, public employment services, and jobseekers themselves can do to pursue labor market reintegration without sacrificing long-term career quality.
The Flexible Job Search Landscape
Table 1: Flexible Job Search Behavior Dimensions and Effects
FJSB Dimension | Description | Key Antecedents and Drivers | Direct Effect on Job Offers (Beta) | Direct Effect on Re-employment (Beta) | Corresponding Underemployment Outcome | Total Effect Summary |
Pay/hierarchical flexibility | Searching for and accepting jobs that offer a lower wage or a lower hierarchical level than one's previous position or education would typically warrant. | Negatively driven by career planning and career self-directedness; positively driven by low re-employment efficacy (perceived limited labour market opportunities). | No significant direct effect reported | No significant direct effect reported | Pay/hierarchical underemployment ( $\beta$ = .25, $p$ < .01) | No significant total effect on job offers or re-employment likelihood. |
Skill-use flexibility | Searching for and accepting jobs whose content or required competencies differ substantially from one's training, education, or prior occupational experience. | Positively driven by career resilience (openness to new situations) and previous poor person-job fit; negatively driven by career planning and career self-directedness. | $\beta$ = −.11, $p$ < .01 | Indirectly via job search intensity ( $\beta$ = .13, $p$ < .01) | Skill underutilization ( $\beta$ = .21, $p$ < .01) | Negative total effect on job offers ( $\beta$ = −.10, $p$ < .01) and negative total effect on re-employment likelihood ( $\beta$ = −.04, $p$ < .05). |
Commuting flexibility | Searching for and accepting jobs that require longer travel times between home and work than one's previous employment. | Positively driven by career resilience and previous poor person-job fit; constrained/negatively impacted by financial hardship (lack of transportation resources). | $\beta$ = −.08, $p$ < .05 | Not in source | Commuting underemployment ( $\beta$ = .22, $p$ < .01) | Negative total effects on job outcomes similar to skill-use flexibility, with no significant positive total effect. |
Defining Flexible Job Search Behavior in the Unemployment Context
Flexible job search behavior (FJSB) refers to the extent to which unemployed jobseekers also look for jobs that deviate from their studies and earlier work experience (Van den Broeck et al., 2010; Vansteenkiste et al., 2016). It is distinct from job search intensity (how frequently one engages in search activities) and job search strategy (whether one searches in a focused, exploratory, or haphazard manner; Crossley & Highhouse, 2005). Instead, FJSB captures the breadth of deviation a jobseeker is willing to tolerate along three primary dimensions:
Pay/hierarchical flexibility — searching for and accepting jobs that offer a lower wage or a lower hierarchical level than one's previous position or education would typically warrant.
Skill-use flexibility — searching for and accepting jobs whose content or required competencies differ substantially from one's training, education, or prior occupational experience.
Commuting flexibility — searching for and accepting jobs that require longer travel times between home and work than one's previous employment.
Vansteenkiste et al. (2016) demonstrated through confirmatory factor analysis that these three dimensions are empirically distinct: they are only moderately inter-correlated, are driven by different antecedents, and produce different outcomes. This multidimensionality is important. Treating "flexibility" as a single construct—as many policy frameworks do—obscures the reality that accepting a longer commute is psychologically and practically different from accepting a lower salary or retraining for a new occupation.
Prevalence, Drivers, and the Policy Context
Almost all OECD countries have embedded FJSB expectations into their unemployment benefit eligibility criteria (Hasselpflug, 2005; Venn, 2012). Recipients are typically required to demonstrate that they are searching beyond their previous occupation, willing to accept "suitable" work below their prior pay level (subject to floors), and prepared to commute for a predetermined duration. Benefit sanctions—ranging from temporary reductions to full suspensions—apply to those who refuse "suitable" offers that fall outside their preferences but within regulatory definitions of acceptable work (Venn, 2012).
The rationale is grounded in labor economics: flexibility reduces reservation wages, widens the set of acceptable job matches, and should therefore shorten unemployment spells (Grubb, 2001). From a career development perspective, the logic draws on the concept of career adaptability—"an individual's ability to face, pursue, or accept changing career roles and to successfully handle career transitions" (Koen et al., 2010, p. 128). Savickas and Porfeli (2012) operationalized career adaptability through four psychosocial resources: concern (forward planning), control (taking responsibility), curiosity (exploring options), and confidence (self-efficacy). One might therefore expect that highly adaptable individuals would naturally embrace FJSB as a constructive coping strategy.
However, Vansteenkiste et al. (2016) found the opposite: career planning and career self-directedness were negatively associated with pay/hierarchical and skills flexibility, meaning that individuals with stronger career planning were less inclined to search flexibly. Only career resilience—openness to new situations—predicted greater flexibility in skills and commuting search. This suggests that FJSB is not principally a strategic choice of career-adaptable professionals. Instead, "push" factors appear to be stronger drivers. Jobseekers with low re-employment efficacy—those who perceived limited labor market opportunities—were more likely to lower their standards on pay and hierarchy (Vansteenkiste et al., 2016). And jobseekers who had experienced poor person-job fit in their previous roles were more inclined to search flexibly on skills and commuting, apparently motivated to escape a repeating mismatch rather than to pursue a positive career vision.
These findings align with broader research showing that external pressure—financial hardship, social norms from family and friends, and benefit conditionality—can push jobseekers toward behaviors that may not reflect genuine career preferences (van Dam & Menting, 2012; Wanberg et al., 2005).
Organizational and Individual Consequences of Flexible Job Search
Organizational Performance Impacts
For employers, the implications of FJSB run through the hiring funnel. Organizations generally base their selection decisions on the perceived match between applicant characteristics—education, experience, skills, aspirations—and the requirements of the vacant role (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). When a jobseeker applies for a position outside their prior field, or signals willingness to accept a role substantially below their qualifications, this introduces a perceived misfit that can trigger employer concerns at multiple stages.
Vansteenkiste et al. (2016) modelled these dynamics through structural equation modelling and found evidence for both a "positive path" and a "negative path" operating simultaneously. On the positive side, skills flexibility was associated with higher job search intensity (β = .13, p < .01), which in turn increased job interviews (β = .29, p < .01), job offers (β = .27, p < .01), and re-employment likelihood (β = .37, p < .01). On the negative side, however, skills FJSB (β = −.11, p < .01) and commuting FJSB (β = −.08, p < .05) were directly and negatively related to the number of job offers received—indicating that employers were less inclined to extend offers to flexible applicants, even when those applicants had secured interviews.
Critically, when both paths were combined into total effects, the negative path dominated. The total effect of skills flexibility on job offers was significantly negative (β = −.10, p < .01), and the total effect on re-employment likelihood was likewise negative (β = −.04, p < .05). Commuting flexibility showed similar patterns. Only pay/hierarchical flexibility showed no significant total effect in either direction—perhaps because overskilled applicants willing to accept lower pay are perceived as lower-risk hires who need less training.
For organizations, this means that the very jobseekers who demonstrate the broadest willingness to adapt may be systematically filtered out by selection processes that privilege tight person-job fit. Cappelli (2012) has argued that even when vacancies are hard to fill, many employers maintain unrealistic demands regarding previous job titles and experience, effectively creating artificial barriers to labor market reintegration.
Individual Wellbeing and Career Quality Impacts
For jobseekers who do find employment through a flexible search, the downstream consequences can be troubling. Vansteenkiste et al. (2016) found that each type of FJSB was positively related to its corresponding form of underemployment: skill flexibility predicted skill underutilization (β = .21, p < .01), pay/hierarchical flexibility predicted pay/hierarchical underemployment (β = .25, p < .01), and commuting flexibility predicted commuting underemployment (β = .22, p < .01). In turn, underemployment was associated with markedly lower job quality—lower needs–supply fit, lower job satisfaction, lower work engagement, and higher turnover intentions.
These findings are consistent with the broader underemployment literature, which documents robust links between substandard employment and diminished wellbeing. McKee-Ryan and Harvey (2011) identified underemployment as a pervasive phenomenon associated with relative deprivation: individuals compare the features of their current jobs to what they feel entitled to given their background, and the resulting discrepancy generates dissatisfaction and disengagement. Feldman et al. (2002) found that underemployed executives experienced significantly higher turnover intentions and lower organizational commitment than their adequately employed counterparts. Maynard et al. (2006) documented similar patterns across broader populations, establishing that underemployment's negative effects on job attitudes rival those of unemployment itself.
There is also a broader wellbeing dimension. A meta-analysis by McKee-Ryan et al. (2005) found that while re-employment generally improves psychological and physical health relative to remaining unemployed, the quality of re-employment matters enormously. Those who obtained poor-quality jobs showed wellbeing levels only marginally better than those who remained unemployed. This raises the possibility that FJSB-driven re-employment could create a revolving door—individuals accept substandard positions, experience dissatisfaction, leave, and re-enter unemployment in a cycle that Vansteenkiste et al. (2016) described as "a less sustainable job and career path."
Evidence-Based Organizational Responses
Redesigning Selection Processes for Skills-Based Hiring
A central mechanism driving the negative path of FJSB is the employer's reliance on narrow person-job fit criteria in selection. When hiring managers use previous job titles and educational credentials as primary screens, flexible applicants—those whose backgrounds deviate from the role's traditional profile—are disadvantaged regardless of their transferable capabilities.
Adopt competency-based job descriptions that specify required skills, knowledge, and behavioral indicators rather than specific degree fields or prior role titles.
Implement structured interviews and work-sample assessments that allow non-traditional candidates to demonstrate capability directly, rather than relying on résumé proxies for fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005).
Train hiring managers on transferable skill recognition to counteract the tendency to equate "different background" with "poor fit."
Use blind résumé review processes for initial screening to reduce anchoring on prior occupation or industry.
Walmart has become a high-profile exemplar of this approach. In 2023, the company announced it was rewriting job descriptions for corporate headquarters positions to create an "either/or" pathway: applicants could qualify with either a relevant degree or demonstrable skills acquired through experience or alternative learning. With 90% of U.S. roles already not requiring a degree, Walmart invested $1 billion in career-driven training through its Walmart Academy, enabling frontline associates to transition into higher-paying roles such as technicians and drivers. The initiative reflects a fundamental reorientation from credential-based to skills-based selection—one that could significantly expand opportunities for flexible jobseekers who bring non-traditional backgrounds.
Structured Onboarding and Transition Support for Career-Changers
Even when organizations hire flexible jobseekers, the risk of underemployment and early turnover remains if new hires are not adequately integrated. Vansteenkiste et al. (2016) found that flexible hires were significantly more likely to experience skill underutilization, pay underemployment, and commuting dissatisfaction. Structured onboarding can mitigate these risks.
Design role-specific learning pathways that accelerate competency development for career-changers, particularly for skills gaps identified during selection.
Assign mentors or "transition sponsors" from similar cross-functional backgrounds who can model successful role adaptation.
Conduct 90-day fit check-ins that explicitly assess whether the job is utilizing the new hire's capabilities, and recalibrate responsibilities if underutilization is detected.
Offer upskilling stipends or tuition support tied to role-relevant certifications, turning perceived overqualification into a strategic development investment.
Amazon Web Services (AWS) piloted a Skills-Based Hiring Program in 2023 that removed bachelor's degree requirements from more than 500 early-career roles. Critically, the program did not stop at hiring; it partnered with U.S. community colleges to co-design onboarding curricula and engaged hiring managers in rethinking how "raising the bar" could be demonstrated through competency rather than credentials. By 2024, the program expanded to cover one-third of all AWS early-career job categories, with structured educational support embedded throughout the first year of employment.
Employer Awareness and Recruiter Training
A striking implication of Vansteenkiste et al.'s (2016) findings is that jobseekers willing to reorient—exactly the population that policymakers want to encourage—face more barriers in the hiring process. Part of this problem lies in recruiter cognition. Research on person-organization fit in selection decisions has shown that interviewers' subjective assessments of values congruence have a larger effect on hiring recommendations than objective qualifications (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). When a candidate's background deviates from the "typical" profile for a role, recruiters may unconsciously downgrade their perceived fit.
Incorporate bias training focused on "occupational heuristics"—the tendency to assume that candidates from non-traditional backgrounds will perform worse or leave sooner.
Share evidence on cross-functional hiring success rates within the organization to counteract anecdotal assumptions.
Incentivize hiring managers for retention outcomes rather than speed-to-fill, encouraging more deliberate assessment of non-traditional candidates.
Create "career-changer" talent pools within applicant tracking systems so that promising flexible candidates can be matched to emerging opportunities across the organization.
Siemens has pursued this approach through its broader workforce transformation strategy in response to digital and green transitions. The company invested in systematic recruiter education around "adjacent skills"—the principle that competencies developed in one technical domain (e.g., mechanical engineering) often transfer productively to another (e.g., automation technology). By mapping skill taxonomies across business units, Siemens enabled recruiters to identify transferable capabilities that traditional job-title matching would miss, thereby expanding the effective talent pool without compromising quality-of-hire metrics.
Career Counselling and Guided Flexibility
Vansteenkiste et al. (2016) recommended caution in promoting blanket flexibility, particularly during the early stages of unemployment. Their data suggested that, at least in the first months of a job search, searching broadly on skills or commuting time reduces job offers and increases underemployment risk. This points to the value of guided rather than unconditional flexibility.
Public employment services should conduct skills audits that identify specific, realistic reorientation targets rather than encouraging diffuse flexibility.
Counsellors should help jobseekers articulate transferable competencies in language that resonates with target employers—framing flexibility as strategic capability rather than desperation.
Phased flexibility protocols could allow jobseekers a "protection period" of focused search in their primary field before broadening the search, as Vansteenkiste et al. (2016) suggested.
Coaching on interview confidence is important, since the study's findings hinted that flexible jobseekers may lack career planning and self-directedness, potentially coming across as less motivated in interviews.
The Flemish Public Employment Service (VDAB) collaborated directly with the researchers in this study and has since used the findings to refine its activation counselling. Rather than applying uniform flexibility expectations from day one of unemployment, VDAB counsellors now assess individual jobseekers' prior occupational fit, labor market conditions in their field, and psychological readiness before recommending broadened search strategies—an approach that acknowledges the multidimensional nature of FJSB and its differential effects.
Financial and Transitional Benefit Design
Financial pressure was one of the push factors examined by Vansteenkiste et al. (2016), though its effects were nuanced. Financial hardship predicted less commuting flexibility (likely because financially strained individuals lack transportation resources) but did not significantly drive pay or skills flexibility, at least among short-term unemployed with Belgium's relatively generous replacement incomes. In contexts with less generous benefit systems, financial pressure could play a larger role in pushing jobseekers toward premature, poor-fitting re-employment.
Design benefit structures that avoid "cliff effects" which force sudden, all-or-nothing reorientation. Gradual benefit tapering gives jobseekers time to conduct focused searches before economic desperation forces broad flexibility.
Offer transitional wage supplements for career-changers who accept roles in new fields at lower starting pay, bridging the gap during the learning curve.
Provide mobility supports—transportation subsidies, relocation assistance—that reduce the non-wage costs of commuting flexibility, addressing the practical barriers that Vansteenkiste et al. (2016) identified.
Tie benefit conditionality to search quality, not just search breadth. Rewarding well-targeted applications may be more effective than requiring applicants to demonstrate willingness to apply for any available role.
Building Long-Term Career Resilience Without Sacrificing Job Quality
Recalibrating the Psychological Contract Around Adaptability
The Vansteenkiste et al. (2016) findings challenge a key assumption embedded in protean career theory: that career success rests primarily on individual agency—the ability to flex, adapt, and self-direct (Hall, 2004). The reality is that structural factors—employer selection criteria, labor market segmentation, benefit conditionality—powerfully shape whether flexibility is rewarded or punished (Forrier et al., 2009). Building long-term career resilience therefore requires a recalibrated psychological contract in which adaptability is valued bilaterally.
Organizations that expect employees to be flexible about roles, skills, and career trajectories must reciprocate with investment in continuous development, internal mobility infrastructure, and fair compensation for reorientation. Career adaptability resources—the "four Cs" of concern, control, curiosity, and confidence (Savickas & Porfeli, 2012)—should be cultivated not just in unemployed jobseekers but in employed workers, so that career transitions, when they occur, are proactive and planned rather than reactive and desperate.
Developing Intelligent Labor Market Information Systems
One of the mechanisms underlying poor FJSB outcomes is information asymmetry. Jobseekers may search flexibly in directions where their skills have low transferability, or where employer demand is soft—not because they lack adaptability, but because they lack information. Public employment services and workforce development organizations can address this by investing in:
Real-time skills-matching platforms that map individuals' competency profiles against demand signals from job postings, identifying the highest-probability reorientation pathways.
Career simulation tools that allow jobseekers to model the likely consequences of different flexibility choices—anticipated salary impact, commute burden, skill utilization—before committing to a broadened search.
Sectoral observatory reports that translate aggregate labor market data into actionable guidance for individual jobseekers and their counsellors.
The goal is to replace undifferentiated flexibility mandates with precision reorientation—targeted flexibility that reflects both the individual's transferable capabilities and the market's absorptive capacity. This approach honours the insight from Vansteenkiste et al. (2016) that not all flexibility is created equal, and that the costs and benefits differ markedly across dimensions.
Embedding Continuous Learning Architectures
Perhaps the most powerful antidote to the flexibility paradox is to reduce the need for dramatic career pivots in the first place. When workers continuously update their skills throughout employment, the distance between their current competencies and alternative roles shrinks—making any eventual transition less disruptive and more likely to result in adequate, rather than substandard, re-employment.
This requires a shift from episodic training (short courses triggered by job loss) to embedded learning (ongoing skill development woven into everyday work). Organizations can support this through:
Internal talent marketplaces that expose employees to cross-functional projects, stretch assignments, and gig-style tasks that broaden their portfolios while still employed.
Modular credentialing systems that allow workers to stack micro-credentials over time, building documented evidence of skill breadth that is legible to future employers.
Partnerships between employers, education providers, and public employment services to create industry-recognized pathways that validate non-traditional competencies.
When workers arrive at unemployment with a broader, more documented skill base, they can search for adjacent roles without the dramatic mismatch that triggers employer scepticism. In other words, the best time to build the conditions for successful flexible search is before unemployment begins.
Conclusion
The flexibility paradox sits at the intersection of well-intentioned policy, intuitive career advice, and stubborn labor market realities. Vansteenkiste et al. (2016) provided some of the first rigorous evidence that flexible job search behavior—the kind of broadened, deviation-tolerant search that policymakers mandate and career scholars endorse—can backfire. Searching more flexibly on skills and commuting dimensions was associated with fewer job offers, lower re-employment likelihood, higher underemployment, and diminished job quality. These findings do not mean that flexibility is always harmful, but they do mean that it must be deployed with far more precision than current policy frameworks typically allow.
For organizations, the practical takeaways are clear. Selection processes that rely on narrow credential matching systematically disadvantage flexible applicants who may bring valuable transferable skills. Skills-based hiring, structured onboarding for career-changers, and recruiter training on transferable competencies can all widen the aperture without compromising quality of hire. For public employment services, the evidence supports phased approaches—focused search in the early months of unemployment, broadening only when labor market signals and individual readiness converge. For jobseekers themselves, the message is nuanced: flexibility is not a substitute for strategic career planning, and the most career-adaptable individuals are those who plan carefully and search with purpose, not those who apply indiscriminately.
Building labor markets that value adaptability without punishing deviation requires effort on both sides of the hiring desk. Employers must become more sophisticated in recognizing transferable capability. Policymakers must move from blunt flexibility mandates to precision reorientation frameworks. And career development systems must invest in continuous learning architectures that make dramatic pivots less necessary in the first place. The flexibility paradox is not unsolvable—but solving it demands that we stop treating breadth of search as an unqualified virtue and start treating quality of match as the metric that matters most.
Research Infographic
References
Arthur, M., & Rousseau, D. (1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era. Oxford University Press.
Cappelli, P. (2012). Why good people can't get jobs: The skills gap and what companies can do about it. Wharton Digital Press.
Crossley, C., & Highhouse, S. (2005). Relation of job search and choice process with subsequent satisfaction. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(2), 255–268.
Feldman, D. C., Leana, C. R., & Bolino, M. C. (2002). Underemployment and relative deprivation among reemployed executives. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75(4), 453–471.
Forrier, A., Sels, L., & Stynen, D. (2009). Career mobility at the intersection between agent and structure: A conceptual model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(4), 739–759.
Grubb, D. (2001). Eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits. In OECD, Labour market policies and the public employment service (pp. 187–216). OECD Publishing.
Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65(1), 1–13.
Hasselpflug, S. (2005). Availability criteria in 25 countries (Danish Ministry of Finance Working Paper No. 12). Ministry of Finance, Copenhagen.
Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Job search and employment: A personality–motivational analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 837–855.
Koen, J., Klehe, U.-C., van Vianen, A. E. M., Zikic, J., & Nauta, A. (2010). Job-search strategies and reemployment quality: The impact of career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(1), 126–139.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.
Maynard, D. C., Joseph, T. A., & Maynard, A. M. (2006). Underemployment, job attitudes, and turnover intentions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 509–536.
McKee-Ryan, F. M., & Harvey, J. (2011). "I have a job, but . . .": A review of underemployment. Journal of Management, 37(4), 962–996.
McKee-Ryan, F. M., Song, Z., Wanberg, C. R., & Kinicki, A. J. (2005). Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 53–76.
Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(3), 661–673.
van Dam, K., & Menting, L. (2012). The role of approach and avoidance motives for unemployed job search behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 108–117.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & De Witte, H. (2010). Unemployed individuals' work values and job flexibility: An explanation from expectancy-value theory and self-determination theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 59(2), 296–317.
Vansteenkiste, S., Verbruggen, M., & Sels, L. (2016). Flexible job search behaviour among unemployed jobseekers: Antecedents and outcomes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25(6), 901–921.
Venn, D. (2012). Eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits: Quantitative indicators for OECD and EU countries (OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 131). OECD Publishing.
Wanberg, C. R., Glomb, T. M., Song, Z., & Sorenson, S. (2005). Job-search persistence during unemployment: A 10-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 411–430.
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD, Chief Research Officer (Nexus Institute for Work and AI); Co-Founder & Chief Workforce and Learning Officer (Future State University); Founder & CEO (Human Capital Innovations); Professor of Organizational Leadership & Change (UVU). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2026). The Flexibility Paradox: Why Searching More Broadly for Work Can Narrow Unemployed Jobseekers' Prospects. Human Capital Leadership Review, 39(3). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.39.3.5
