The document discusses two studies on the negative effects of recruitment procedures on organizational and product image.
The first study found that receiving a rejection or being entered into a recruitment database led to lower ratings of organizational image, employer image, and intention to apply compared to receiving a job interview invitation. Product ratings were largely unaffected.
The second study replicated these negative effects of rejections on organizational image for different types of companies and products. While product familiarity and buying intentions were unaffected, rejections led to lower product quality ratings, especially for a consumer brand compared to an industrial brand.
In summary, the studies show that rejections and recruitment database entries can damage organizational image and reputation, while mostly not influencing existing product ratings
Will Robots Steal Your Jobs? Will Robots Steal Your Jobs? 10 Eye-Opening Work...
"not hired, not bought" - presentation eawop 2015
1. „Not hired, not bought?“
Negative effects of recruitment
procedures on organizational and
product image
C. Bosau & J. Forth
2. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?” 2
Starting point
Actual problems:
§ „war of talent“
§ demographical change
§ dense consumer markets
Research situation:
§ a lot focus on diagnostics, recruitment & selection procedures
§ HOWEVER: few studies about the applicant perspectives
Practice in HR:
§ uncritical implementation of recruitment strategies (e.g. recruitment databases)
§ no evaluation of effectiveness and acceptance
§ missing awareness regarding side effects (e.g. marketing)
3. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?” 3
Former research
§ „Good“ Communication with applicants is very critical, since applications are also potential
customers (Brice & Waung, 1995)
Consequences of recruitment practices:
§ How applicants perceive the recruitment and selection process has a big influence on
attitudes towards that company (Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004)
§ some studies on applicant reactions regarding rejection letters and selection procedures
(Hausknecht et al., 2004; Chambers, 2002; Gilliland et al., 2001; Ployhart, Ryan & Bennet,
1999)
è However: former studies are all cross-sectional studies
NO pre-post-measurement experimental designs
§ rejection letters including a reason for the rejection are rated better than rejection without
any reason (Gilliland et al. 2001)
§ so-called „ice-letters“ are rated better than classical rejection letters (Müller &
Moser, 2006)
§ Relationship management influences the organizational image (Keim & König, 2005)
4. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?” 4
The first study
Steps of the study:
§ Participants got a description of a company
§ Rating of that company regarding organizational image, product ratings/buying intention/etc.
and intention to apply
After about 1½ - 2 hours:
§ Application scenario: participants are looking for a job and sent a spontaneous application
§ reaction by the company: a) interview invitation, b) rejection, c) recruitment database entry
§ second rating of that company regarding organizational image, product ratings/buying
intention/etc. and intention to apply
§ addtionally and exploratively: measurement of personal reaction of the applicants
Main Question:
§ Does a recruitment database entry have positive consequences – as intented by
companies – or would the image indeed be devalued, since the applicant didn‘t achieve his
main goal – namely getting a job.
5. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?” 5
The scales
Organizational image:
In regard to other scales and items in the literature, several items were developed to measure
the organizational image:
Faktorenanalytic aggregation (PCA with Varimax): α study 1
pre post
1) organisational climate/culture .85 .85
2) General sympathy .72 .82
Intention to apply: “I would like to apply (again) for a job in that company.“
Employer image (α pre = .75, post = .88):
“I could imagine to work for that company.“
“I think I would fit very well into that company.“
“The company would be the perfect employer for me.“
6. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?” 6
The scales
Product ratings:
Product known: „The products of that company are well known to me.“
Product bought: „I already bought products of that company.“
Product image: „I think the products of that company are of high quality.“
„I don‘t like the products. The products are unattractive to me.“
Buying intention: „I will buy products of that company in the future.“
7. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?”
Sample (pen & paper):
§ n = 327 students
§ economics students in the last semester of their study programme
§ mean age = 23,6 years
§ all participants were experienced in application procedures
7
Experimental Design – Study 1
2x3 design:
§ faktor 1: ‚time‘ (repeated measurement):
pre-post-measurement of organizational image, product rating / image / buying intention
and intention to apply
§ faktor 2: ‚company reaction to application‘:
interview invitation vs. rejection vs. recruitment database entry
§ additionally:
three different brands, each participant could choose from (BMW, L´Oreal, Coca-Cola)
à to increase ‚fit‘ between participant and organization
11. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?”
Results – Study 1
Rating of the company reaction
1,52
3,52
3,30
1
2
3
4
5
invitation rejection recruitment
database
4,15
2,50
2,77
1
2
3
4
5
invitation rejection recruitment
database
3,50
1,83
2,27
1
2
3
4
5
invitation rejection recruitment
database
Hope for getting employment (α =.72): Uncertainty/Being on hold (α = .60):
Being happy (α = .77): Disappointment/frustration/anger (α = .88):
F(2) = 155,54; p < .000; η² = 0,50
2,00
2,97
3,57
1
2
3
4
5
invitation rejection recruitment
database
F(2) = 87,61; p < .000; η² = 0,36
F(2) = 151,17; p < .000; η² = 0,49
F(2) = 201,86; p < .000; η² = 0,57
12. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?” 12
The second study
Steps of the study:
§ Participants chose one company where they could imagine to apply for a job (BMW vs.
Coca Cola)
§ Rating of that company regarding organizational image and product ratings/buying intention/
etc.
§ Application scenario: participants are looking for a job and sent a spontaneous application
§ reaction by the company: a) interview invitation, b) rejection
§ second rating of that company regarding organizational image and product ratings/buying
intention/etc.
Main Question:
§ Can the negative effect of recruitment consequences on product ratings be replicated?
AND
Are there differences regarding different kinds of products?
13. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?” 13
The scales
Organizational image:
Short version of the scale from study 1
12 items on employment aspects of the organizational image (α pre = .92, post = .95)
Product ratings:
cognitive items
Product known: “The products of that company are well known to me.“
Product bought: “I already bought products of that company.“
Affective items
Product image: ”I think the products of that company are of high quality.“
(α pre = .89, post = .91) “I think the products are very good.”
“The products are unattractive to me.“
“I like the products.“
“I have an unfavourable opinion about the products.“
Buying intention: “I will buy products of that company in the future.“
14. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?”
Sample (online):
§ n = 85
§ snowball sampling via Facebook, Xing, Twitter
§ age: mean = 25,6 years, SD = 5,4 years
14
Experimental Design – Study 1
2x2x2 design:
§ faktor 1: ‘time‘ (repeated measurement):
pre-post-measurement of organizational image, product rating / image / buying intention
§ faktor 2: ‘company reaction to application‘:
interview invitation vs. rejection
§ additionally, factor 3:
two different brands, each participant could choose from (BMW, Coca-Cola)
à to increase ‘fit‘ between participant and organization
15. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?” 15
Results – Study 2
Organizational image
Organisational image:
3,85
4,06
3,93
3,84
3,5
4
4,5
invitation rejection
n.s.
p < .01
η² = .09
Sign. interaction: F(1) = 7.00; p < .01; η² = 0.08
4,18
3,933,91
3,71
3,5
4
4,5
pre post
BMW
Coca-
Cola
Rejection:
Invitation:
4,01 4,03
3,72
3,81
3,5
4
4,5
pre post
BMW
Coca-
Cola
n.s.
n.s.
p
<
.05
η²
=
.06
p
=
.11
η²
=
.04
16. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?” 16
Results – Study 2
Product ratings
Product known:
4,28
4,67
4,25
4,49
4
4,5
5
invitation rejection
n.s.
NO interaction: F(1) = 1.49; p = .23
4,74
4,614,60
4,35
4
4,5
5
pre post
BMW
Coca-
Cola
Rejection:
Invitation:
4,13
4,00
4,47
4,58
4
4,5
5
pre post
BMW
Coca-
Cola
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
17. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?” 17
Results – Study 2
Product ratings
Product bought:
3,30
3,093,20
2,91
1
2
3
4
5
invitation rejection
n.s.
NO interaction: F(1) = 0.71; p = .40 1,71 1,63
4,75
4,45
1
2
3
4
5
pre post
BMW
Coca-
Cola
Rejection:
Invitation:
2,30
2,13
4,65 4,65
1
2
3
4
5
pre post
BMW
Coca-
Cola
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
18. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?” 18
Results – Study 2
Product ratings
Buying intention:
3,78 3,753,73
3,57
3
4
5
invitation rejection
n.s.
NO interaction: F(1) = 0.95; p = .33
3,54
3,33
4,00
3,85
3
4
5
pre post
BMW
Coca-
Cola
Rejection:
Invitation:
3,70
3,35
3,89
4,24
3
4
5
pre post
BMW
Coca-
Cola
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
p = .17
η² = .02Small
effect,
but
n.s.
19. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?” 19
Results – Study 2
Product ratings
Product image:
3,67
3,91
3,74
3,64
3,5
4
4,5
invitation rejection
n.s.
p < .01
η² = .14
Sign. interaction: F(1) = 10.32; p < .01; η² = 0.11 3,76
3,54
4,09
3,75
3,5
4
4,5
pre post
BMW
Coca-
Cola
Rejection:
Invitation:
3,61 3,61
3,75
3,93
3,5
4
4,5
pre post
BMW
Coca-
Cola
n.s.
n.s.
p
<
.05
η²
=
.05
P
<
.01
η²
=
.10
20. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?” 20
Ø Reaction to recruitment database entries:
The entry to these databases has – contrary to expectations of companies – negative
consequences (similar to plain rejections)
• Organizational image decreases
• Employer image decreases
• Intention to apply decreases
Ø Negative outcomes of recruitment procedures (rejections or recruitment database entries)
do have a negative influence on product ratings
• Product image (quality, attractiveness, sympathy, etc.) decreases
• Buying intention (partly) decreases
Conclusion
Badly used recruitment procedures can have negative effects
even on aspects that are not directly linke to the recruitment
itself.
“Not hired” could mean “not bought”!
21. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?” 21
• Brice, T.S.; Waung, M. (1995). Applicant Rejection Letters: Are Businesses Sending the Wrong Message? Business
Horizons, 2, 59-62.
• Chambers, B.A. (2002). Applicant reactions and their consequences: review, advice, and recommendations for future
research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(4), 317-333.
• Gilliland, S.W., Groth, M., Baker IV, R.C., Dew, A.F., Polly, L.M., & Langdon, J.C. (2001). Improving applicants’
reactions to rejection letters: An application of fairness theory. Personnel Psychology, 54, 669-703.
• Hausknecht, J.P., Day, D.V., & Thomas, S.C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model
and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639-683.
• Keim, T. & König, W (2005). Aus der Masse in die Klasse: Wer ist der Top-Kandidat? Forschung Frankfurt 3/2005. [pdf-
Artikel], Verfügbar unter: URL: http://www.wiiw.de/publikationen/AusderMassedieKlasseWeristder1330.pdf
[05.01.2007].
• Müller, E. & Moser, K. (2006). Reaktionen auf Ablehnungsschreiben an Bewerber: Das Beispiel „Eisschreiben“.
Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 20 (4), 258 – 270.
• Ployhart, R., Ryan, A. & Bennett, M. (1999). Explanations for selection decisions: Applicants’ reactions to informational
and sensitivity features of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 87-106.
Literature
22. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?” 22
Thank you very much for your
attention!
Contact details:
Rheinische Fachhochschule Köln – University of Applied Sciences
Prof. Dr. Christian Bosau, Dipl.-Psych. & Master of HRM & IR
Schaevenstraße 1a/b
50676 Cologne / Germany
Tel.: +49 221 20302-0
e-mail: christian.bosau@rfh-koeln.de
Slides are available on Slideshare: cbosau
Twitter: cribocologne
23. EAWOP 2015Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?” 23
The scales
Organizational image – study 2: