Recruitment and selection
9 likes13,003 views
This document discusses applicant perspectives and outcomes in recruitment and selection. It explores four main themes: candidate reactions to different selection methods, attribution theory and research in selection, organizational justice, and applicant decision-making. Selection methods like interviews, work samples, and assessment centers tend to be viewed more favorably by candidates compared to personality tests or cognitive ability tests. Models of applicant reactions emphasize factors like perceived job relevance, fairness, and transparency of the selection process. Attribution theory also plays a role, as candidates will attribute selection outcomes to internal or external causes like personality versus situational factors.
Recruitment and selection
- 1. 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
- 2. 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
- 3. Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods 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
- 4. Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods 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
- 5. Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods 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
- 6. Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Recruitment Methods Biodata Pschometric tests Interviews Work Samples Assessment centres Honesty tests Drug testing 6
- 7. Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods 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
- 8. Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods 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
- 9. Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods 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
- 10. Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods 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
- 11. Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods 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
- 12. Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods 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
- 13. Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods 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
- 14. Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods 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
- 15. Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Models of Applicant Reactions to Selection 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)
- 16. Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Models of Applicant Reactions to Selection 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
- 17. Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Models of Applicant Reactions to Selection 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.
- 18. Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods Candidate Reactions to Selection Methods 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
- 19. Attribution Theory and Research in Selection 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
- 20. Attribution Theory and Research in Selection Attribution Theory and Research in Selection 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
- 21. Attribution Theory and Research in Selection Attribution Theory and Research in Selection 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
- 22. Attribution Theory and Research in Selection Attribution Theory and Research in Selection 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
- 23. 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
- 24. Organizational Justice: Distributive and 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
- 25. Organizational Justice: Distributive and Organizational Justice: Distributive and 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
- 26. Organizational Justice: Distributive and Organizational Justice: Distributive and 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
- 27. Organizational Justice: Distributive and Organizational Justice: Distributive and 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
- 28. Organizational Justice: Distributive and Organizational Justice: Distributive and 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
- 29. Organizational Justice: Distributive and Organizational Justice: Distributive and 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
- 30. Applicant Decision-Making in Selection 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
- 31. Applicant Decision-Making in Selection Applicant Decision-Making in Selection 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
- 32. Applicant Decision-Making in Selection Applicant Decision-Making in Selection 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
- 33. Applicant Decision-Making in Selection Applicant Decision-Making in Selection 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
- 34. Applicant Decision-Making in Selection Applicant Decision-Making in Selection 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
- 35. Applicant Decision-Making in Selection Applicant Decision-Making in Selection 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
- 36. Applicant Decision-Making in Selection Applicant Decision-Making in Selection 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
- 37. 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
- 38. 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
- 39. 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
- 40. 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
- 41. A brief overview of applicant reactions 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
- 42. A brief overview of applicant reactions A brief overview of applicant reactions research research Key Theoretical Frameworks 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
- 43. A brief overview of applicant reactions A brief overview of applicant reactions research research Key Theoretical Frameworks 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
- 44. A brief overview of applicant reactions A brief overview of applicant reactions 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
- 45. 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
- 46. 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
- 47. Overview of the special issue 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
- 48. Overview of the special issue Overview of the special issue 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
- 49. 49