Recruitment and selection

Recruitment and Selection:
Applicant Perspectives and Outcomes

Neil Anderson, Marise Born and
Nicole Cunningham, 2001

By Sinem Bulkan
PhD in Organisational Behaviour
1 Marmara University

Four Main Themes to Explore
Four Main Themes to Explore

 Candidate reactions to selection methods
 Attribution theory and research in selection
 Organizational Justice: Distributive and procedural
justice
 Applicant decision-making in selection

2

Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods

 Reaction to selection may impact on several
factors including applicant’s decision-making,
an organization’s reputation and litigation.

3


Recruitment Methods
The Effect of Recruiter
 Whilst job attributes were the most important factor influencing
candidates reactions, recruitment activities were important at the
interview stage only (Taylor and Bergmann,1987).

 The recruiter has a crucial role upon candidate reactions (Harris and
Fink,1987).

 Candidates are prone to extrapolating from recruiter behaviour to infer
wider characteristics such as organizational leadership styles
(Rynes, Bretz and Gerhart,1991).

4


Recruitment Methods
The Effect of Application Forms

 Candidates reacted more favourably to forms containing no
discriminatory questions than those which do;

BUT

candidates also preferred application blanks which included a
statement equal opportunity by the recruiting organization
(Saks, Leck and Saunders, 1995).
5


Recruitment Methods

 Biodata
 Pschometric tests
 Interviews
 Work Samples
 Assessment centres

 Honesty tests
 Drug testing
6


Recruitment Methods: Biodata
 Candidates react negatively to the use of biodata for selection purposes as
they doubt its accuracy and usefulness (Stones and Jones, 1997).

 Experimental study by Stones and Jones – 86 participants
Complete a biographical information questionnaire

For personnel selection purposes For career tracking purposes

Significantly lower
(Perception regarding the fairness of biodata)
7


Recruitment Methods: Testing
 Candidates respond moderately well to cognitive tests, but tend to rate
tests with concrete items as more job-related than abstract tests
(Rynes&Connerly,1993).

 Applicants tend to react less favourably to personality tests (Smither et
al.,1993).

 Positive reactions to computer-based testing have been reported.

 Tests are not viewed as favourably as assessment centres, as they are
more perceived as being more job relevant by applicants.

8


Recruitment Methods: Interviews

 In terms of interviewer behaviour, question invasivaness, interviewer job
knowledge and informativeness were found to influence applicants’ general
reactions to interviews (Powell,1991).

 Positive candidate reactions have been reported to particular interview
formats and delivery: video conference interviews.

 Candidates have been found to react less positively to telephone-based
than face-to-face interviews.

9


Recruitment Methods: Work Samples

 Applicants rate work sample tests positively, perceiving them as
fair, valid and job related (Steiner&Gilliland,1996).

 Both majority and minority applicants found the written tests to be
more difficult and less fair than work-samples.

10


Recruitment Methods: Assessment Centres (AC)

 Applicants give favourable ratings to ACs due to their apparent job
relatedness, the use of work-sample tests, and the opportunity to meet in
person with the assessors (Iles&Robertson,1997).

 Candidates rated ACs more positively than cognitive ability tests (Macan et
al.,1994)
BUT

 ACs have effects upon candidate self-esteem and psychological well-being,
and negatively so for unsuccessful candidates.

11


Comparison of Selection Methods

 References and methods with apparent contend validity (e.g., simulations and
business-related tests). (Positive)

 Interviews, work samples, and job skill tests (found more job related, fair and
appropriate)

BUT research on 80 applicants by Rosse et al., 1994

 Interview only (Positive)
 Interview + Personality Inventory + Cognitive Ability Tests (Positive)
 Interview + Personality Inventory (Less Positive)

12


Comparison of Selection Methods

 Astrology, graphology, and polygraphs (were found less job-related, fair
and appropriate).

BUT

 Personality inventories, drug testing and honesty testing (were generally
viewed as neutral).

13


Models of Applicant Reactions to Selection
1 Schuler, Farr and Smith (1993) ‘Social Validity’ Model – what influences
acceptability of selection?

 The presence of job and organizational relevant information,
 Participation by the applicant in the development and execution of the selection
process,
 Transparency of assessment (applicants understand the objectives of evaluation
process and its relevance to organizational requirements),
 The provision of feedback with appropriate content and form.
 Personal relationship between the applicant and assessor.

14


2 Arvey and Sackett (1993); perceived fairness of the process can be
influenced by:

 The content of selection (job relatedness, thoroughness of knowledge,
skills and ability coverage, invasiveness of questions)

 An understanding of the the system development process

 The administration of the selection procedures(consistency, confidentiality,
opportunity for reconsideration)

15  The organizational context (selection ratio)


3 Iles and Robertson (1997)

Outcome Decision
Selection Methods (Org.
Cognitive reactions to Commitment, self-
(intrusiveness, job the process esteem, job and
relevance, career
feedback) withdrawal)

16


4 Anderson and Ostroff (1997) ‘Socialization Impact’ Model

Information Preference Expectation Attudinal Behavioural
Provision Impact Impact Impact Impact

 1 All selection methods convey information, intentionally or unintentionally on the part of the
organization and this information will be construed by the applicants.
 2 Information influence candidate preferences.
 3 Expectations are generated on the job role, the organization as an employer, psychological
contract.
 4 Candidate attitudes and beliefs are affected.
17  5 Candidate behaviour is affected.


Summary
Favourable if the selection process is;
 More job relevant
 Less personally intrusive
 Not contravening candidate procedural or distributive justice expectations
 Allowing the candidate to meet in person with the selectors

Future Research

 Do reactions affect candidate job motivation and org. commitment in the
longer term?

18

Attribution Theory and Research in Selection

 Attribution Theory suggests that a person will attribute the behaviour of
another to
– Internal Causes (personality, motivation, intelligence etc.)
– External Causes (situational factors, difficulties, chance, bad luck..).

19


Herriot’s Theoretical Framework ‘employment interviews’ (1981)

Propositions:

 Falsely high consensus may exist between interviewers and candidates, assuming same
expectations.

 False assumption of low distinctiveness, interview behaviour may not represent the behaviour on
the job.

 Falsely assuming that the behaviour will be consistent across interview situations.

 Incorrectly attributing much of the cause of the other’s behaviour to internal dispositional factors
instead of pecularities of the interview situation itself.

20


Silvester (1997) – attributional statements

 Subjects graduate interviewees
 35 interviews and 1967 attributional statements
 These were coded using five key dimensions
– Stable-unstable
– Global-specific
– Internal-external
– Personal-universal
– Controllable-uncontrollable

 Successful candidates made significantly more stable and personal attributions
regarding negative life and career events

21


Summary

Attribution Theory has much to offer our understanding of how interviewers interpret
candidate replies and behaviours.

Future Research

Further research is needed into candidate attributions of recruiter behaviour, both at
interview and in other face-to-face selection encounters.

22

Organizational Justice: Distributive and Procedural Justice
Organizational Justice: Distributive and Procedural Justice

 In selection Distributive and Procedural Justice equate to
– the perceived fairness of the selection decision
– the perceived fairness of the hiring process respectively.

 The fairness in organizational procedures constitutes an important determinant of
work attitudes and behaviours.

23

Organizational Justice: Distributive and
Procedural Justice
Procedural Justice

Distributive Justice
Determined by 3 distributive rules: Equity, Equality, Needs

 Equity: The extent to which a person’s inputs justify the outcome (e.g.hiring decision
is based on past success, experience and qualifications).

 Equality: All individuals should have the same chance of receiving an outcome.

 Needs: Preferential treatment should be given to certaind sub-groups (e.g. Disabled
applicants).

24

Procedural Justice
Procedural Justice

Procedural Justice

 Gilliland and Honig (1994) – 10 procedural justice rules

 Conducted a study involving 333 graduates

 Retrospective ratings on selection experiences

 50% of the variance in perceptions of overall procedural fairness was
accounted for by the perceived satisfaction or violation of the 10
Procedural rules.

25

Procedural Justice
Procedural Justice
Procedural Justice Rules
Rule Definition

Formal Characteristics
Job Relatedness The measurement of constructs relevant to the job
Opportunity to perform The opportunity to display knowledge, skills and abilities
Consistency of administration The standardization of administrative procedures across people and techniques

Information Offered
Performance Feedback The provision of timely and informative feedback regarding selection performance and
the outcome
Selection process information The adequacy of information provided to applicants regarding the selection process

Honesty in treatment The organization’s integrity during the selection

Interpersonal Treatment
Recruiter effectiveness The interpersonal effectiveness and interest of the recruiter
Two-way communication The extent to which conversation flows in a normal pattern and applicants are given
opportunites to ask questions
Propriety of questions The appropriateness of the questions asked

Additional
Ease of faking The extent to which applicants believe information can be distorted in a socially desirable
way.
26

Procedural Justice
Procedural Justice

The Impact of Selection Justice

Gilliand (1993) documented the impact of selection justice on three levels:

 Applicants’ attitudes and behaviour during the hiring process
 Applicants’ self-perceptions
 Attitudes and behaviour post-entry into the organization

27

Procedural Justice
Procedural Justice

The Impact of Culture on Selection Justice

 Social, economic, political, and management environment may impact on applicants
reaction to selection procedures.

 Steiner and Gilliland (1996), conducted a study on French and American College
students

 Their reactions to seven justice dimensions (scientific evidence, employer’s right
to obtain information, opportunity to perform, interpersonal warmth, face validity,
widespread use, and respect for privacy)

28

Procedural Justice
Procedural Justice

Summary

Candidates’ reactions to procedural and distributive justice are likely to impact on an
organization’s continued ability to recruit effectively.

Future Research

Further research is needed to comparing the reactions of groups of candidates with
different biographical (minority and majority candidates) and professional
backgrounds (graduates versus professionals and nonprofessionals with work
experience).

29

Applicant Decision-Making in Selection

5 types of models to explain candidates’ decision making behaviour

 Rational-economic models
 Rational-psychological models
 Person-organization fit models
 Individual differences models
 Negotiation process models

30


Rational - Economic Models (McFayden and Thomas, 1997)

 Applicants are rational job seekers and choose between offers purely on
economic grounds.

 Reservation wage (The minimum wage that the individual is prepared to
accept)

 Individual differences (negative relationship between the length of
unemployment and the motivation to search)

 Hard criteria (career perspectives), soft criteria (interesting job,
independence, new challenges etc.) (psychological perspective)
31


Rational - Psychological Models

 Candidate’s pursuit of a job = Value or attractiveness of the job x
probability of obtaining the job

 Attractiveness (The chance to learn new things, the experience of control,
career opportunities, job security, opportunity to relate to others)

32


Person-Organization Fit Models

 The individual’s decisions during recruitment and selection will primarily be
a result of the perceived ability of the organization to satisfy the
predominant needs of the individual.

33


Individual Differences Models

 Personality differences are put forward to describe individual differences.

 Schwab, Rynes, Aldag (1987) mention the following outcomes:
– Achievement motivation correlates positively with job search intensity
– Procrastination is thought to negatively relate to job search intensity

34


Negotiation Process Models

 The recruitment and selection process is a negotiation process towards a
possible future employment relationship.

 Both parties have strong bargaining positions and that outcomes can be
‘negotiated’ through interactions during the selection process.

35


A General Model of Applicant Decision Making

Main Effect Moderating Effect Feedback Effect

Applicant characteristics Applicant reaction to
selection

(1) (2)

Perceived Fit
(3)

(4)
Organisational and Job
Labour Market Conditions
(5) attractiveness

(6)
(7)
Applicant Decision-making
(8) (9)
36

Concluding Comments
Concluding Comments

 Increasing attention to ‘Candidate’s-eye view on the recruitment and
selection process.

 A general model of applicant decision making model can generate future
research.

37

Applicant Perspectives in Selection:
Going beyond preference reactions

Ute R. Hülsheger and Neil
Anderson (2009)

International Journal of Selection and
Assesment,Volume 7, Number 4

38

Introduction
Introduction

 Introduction of the topic of applicant reactions

 Review the state of the literature

 Highlight why applicant reactions research has important scientific and
practical implications

 Acknowledge recent developments

 A brief summary of six research papers

39

Why Applicant Reactions Matter
Why Applicant Reactions Matter

 Dissapointed applicants may withdraw their application during the selection process
and organizations may thus loose potential high performers (Murphy, 1986).

 Unfavourable reactions to recruitment and selection procedures might affect an
organizations image (Ryan&Ployhart, 2000).

 Influences applicants’ work attitudes, work behaviour, and performance after being
hired (Gilliand, 1993).

 Legal implicaitons (Smither et al, 1993)

 Influences applicants’ well-being and state of health. (Positive and Psychological
effects) (Anderson, 2010)

40

A brief overview of applicant reactions
research
research

Key Theoretical Frameworks

1. Test Perceptions – Performance Framework

– Actual applicants differ from job incumbents on test attiudes and that test
attitudes are related to test performance. (Arvey, Strickland, Drauden, and
Martin, 1990)

– Test attitudes and motivations moderate test validities of a personality and an
ability tests. (Schmit and Ryan)

41

research
research


2. Overall fairness perceptions of the selection process and outcome, influence
final outcomes such as job-acceptance decisions, job performance, job
attitudes, and self-perceptions (Gilliand, 1993).

3. Ryan And Ployhart (2000) extends Gilliard’s model by considering
additional antecedents of applicant perceptions,
such as person characteristics (e.g. Experience, personality)
job characteristics (job attractivenes, KSA requirements)
organizational context (selection ratio, history)

42

research
research


4. Justice expectations (JE) : ‘ an individual’s believe that he or she will experience
fairness in a future event or social interaction’. JE displayed positive links with justice
perceptions during the testing process (Bell, Ryan, and Wiechmann, 2004).

5. Applicant attribution – reaction theory: Attributional process explain why and how
objective events occuring during the selection process lead to behavioural
outcomes, such as test performance, job choice or withdrawal (Ployhart and
Harold, 2004)

43

research
research

Key Empirical Findings

 Procedural and distributive justice are moderately to strongly related to attitudes
toward the hiring organization (perceived organizational attractiveness,
recommendations, and job offer intentions) Gilliand, 1993.

 Applicants with higher general mental ability (GMA) tended to place more importance
on the content (fakability, job relatedness, objectivity) but less importance on the
context of selection systems than applicants with lower levels of GMA
(Viswesvaran & Öneş, 2004).

44

Beyond the fledgling stages
Beyond the fledgling stages

Key strengths in applicant reactions research to date

 Across samples internationally, interviews and work samples seem to be most preferred, while
honesty tests, personal contacts, and graphology receive less favorable ratings by applicants.

 The research field cover a far wider area of research (reactions to recruitment activities and HR
policies, perceptions of selection procedures involving new technology, reactions to diversity
practices and reactions to practises meant to reduce faking behaviour).

 Different methodological approaches have been taken in studying applicant reactions and
perceptions:
– Laboratory studies
– Field studies
– Meta anaysis

45

Overview of the special issue- 6 studies
Overview of the special issue- 6 studies

 Providing explanations is related to the perceived fairness of the selection
process, perceptions of the hiring organization, test-taking motivation, and
performance on a cognitive ability test. (Truxillo et al, 2009)

 It is not only necessary to provide applications with informative feedback
but that is vital to do so in a way that helps applicants accept feedback
even in the case of an unfavourable outcome. (Anseel and Lievens, 2009)

46

Overview of the special issue

 Job applicants just as managers prefer intuitive over empirically validated, objective
decision-making approaches considering diversity information in personnel
selection (Brooks et al, 2009)

 Sieverding, 2009: Laboratory studies
– A selection situation does motivate applicants to hide negative feelings (insecurity, anxiety,
anger..)
– Applicants hiding their negative feelings are evaluated to be more competent than
applicants who do not hide their feelings of insecurity and anxiety.
– Women hiding negative feelings during a job interview experience an increase in feelings of
depression.

47


 It is important to start dedicating more attention to applicant reactions of
internal applicants within promotional contexts (Ford, Truxillo, and
Bauer, 2009).

 Marcus, 2009 replaces the term ‘faking’ by ‘self-presentation’ which he
conceptualizes as legitimate behaviour applicants show as an adaptation to
situational demands in selection situations.

48

Recruitment and selection

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (6)

Ähnlich wie Recruitment and selection

Ähnlich wie Recruitment and selection (20)

Mehr von Dr. Sinem Bulkan

Mehr von Dr. Sinem Bulkan (8)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Recruitment and selection