From Post- to Pretest Applicant Reactions

KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN FACULTEIT PSYCHOLOGIE EN PEDAGOGISCHE WETENSCHAPPEN ONDERZOEKSCENTRUM VOOR ARBEIDS-, ORGANISATIE- EN PERSONEELSPSYCHOLOGIE

From Post- to Pretest Applicant Reactions The effect of applicant selection expectations and perceptions on organizational attractiveness

Proefschrift aangeboden tot het verkrijgen van de graad van doctor in de Psychologische Wetenschappen door Bert Schreurs Promotor: Prof. dr. Karel De Witte Co-promotor: Prof. dr. Eva Derous Co-promotor: Prof. dr. H. Canan Sümer 2007

Cover illustration: “Expectations II” by Doris Monti.

To my parents For their everlasting love and support

To my children, Lisa and Jitse For showing me the secret to joy and happiness

To my wife, Sarah For her endless patience and self-sacrifice - BS -

Thoughts are but dreams Till their effects be tried

William Shakespeare From The Rape of Lucrece, lines 346-353

Bert Schreurs Van posttest naar pretest reacties. Het effect van selectieverwachtingen en percepties van sollicitanten op organisatieattractiviteit. Proefschrift aangeboden tot het verkrijgen van de graad van doctor in de Psychologische Wetenschappen, 2007. Promotor: Prof. dr. Karel De Witte Co-promotoren: Prof. dr. Eva Derous en Prof. dr. H. Canan Sümer Personeelsselectie wordt traditioneel vanuit twee invalshoeken bestudeerd. Een eerste perspectief concentreert zich hoofdzakelijk op de psychometrische eigenschappen van selectie-instrumenten. Een tweede perspectief heeft vooral aandacht voor de reacties van sollicitanten t.a.v. selectieprocedures. Dit doctoraat kadert binnen het tweede perspectief, ook het sociaal procesperspectief op personeelsselectie genoemd. Voorgaand onderzoek binnen het sociaal procesperspectief heeft aangetoond dat de manier waarop sollicitanten selectieprocedures percipiëren een invloed kan hebben op hun attitudes, intenties en gedragingen t.a.v. de organisatie. Sollicitanten die de procedure op een positieve vs. negatieve manier percipiëren vinden de organisatie in de regel meer vs. minder aantrekkelijk als werkgever. Het is mogelijk dat percepties van de selectieprocedure en organisatieaantrekkelijkheid beïnvloed worden door wat sollicitanten vooraf verwachten van de selectieprocedure. Het onderzoek naar selectieverwachtingen bevindt zich echter nog maar in een prille beginfase. Heel wat vragen met betrekking tot de relatie tussen verwachtingen, percepties en attractiviteit zijn vooralsnog onbeantwoord. In dit doctoraat werden vijf empirische studies uitgevoerd, waarvan vier in een militaire context en één in de banksector. Volgende onderzoeksvragen vormden de rode draad doorheen deze studies (met soms meerdere vragen per studie): (a) Zijn percepties van sollicitanten (van rekrutering- en selectieprocedures) significant gerelateerd met organisatieattractiviteit? (b) Wat verwachten sollicitanten van militaire selectieprocedures en kunnen deze verwachtingen op een betrouwbare manier gemeten worden? (c) Zijn selectieverwachtingen significant gerelateerd met organisatieattractiviteit? (d) Hoe werken selectieverwachtingen en percepties van sollicitanten samen (mediatie/moderatie) bij het voorspellen van organisatieattractiviteit? Uit de resultaten bleek dat (potentiële) sollicitanten meer vs. minder aangetrokken waren tot de organisatie als werkgever indien ze de rekrutering- en selectieprocedure meer vs. minder positief vonden. Met betrekking tot militaire selectieprocedures verwachtten sollicitanten dat: (a) ze tijdens de procedure op een warme en respectvolle manier zullen behandeld worden; (b) ze tijdens de procedure in de mogelijkheid zullen zijn om te tonen wat ze waard zijn; (c) ze het selectiepersoneel tijdens de procedure moeilijk om de tuin zullen kunnen leiden; (d) de beoordeling van sollicitanten objectief zal verlopen; en (e) ze feedback zullen krijgen over hun testprestaties. In dit doctoraat vonden we beginnende evidentie dat dit vijf-factoren model, gemeten door middel van de Applicant Expectation Survey (AES-Mil), kan veralgemeend worden naar niet-militaire selectieprocedures. Uit de resultaten bleek verder dat selectieverwachtingen positief gerelateerd waren met organisatieattractiviteit in termen van attitudes en intenties ten aanzien van de organisatie gemeten vóór de selectieprocedure (bvb. intentie om aanwezig te zijn tijdens selectieprocedure) en na de selectieprocedure (bvb. intentie om organisatie aan te bevelen aan anderen), maar niet in termen van gedrag (bvb. uitvalgedrag). Tot slot vonden we dat selectieverwachtingen een indirecte invloed hadden op organisatieattractiviteit via percepties. De percepties van sollicitanten waren grotendeels in overeenstemming met hun verwachtingen en beïnvloedden op deze manier de attractiviteit van de organisatie. De sterktes en zwaktes van dit onderzoek werden besproken, samen met de praktische implicaties en suggesties voor toekomstig onderzoek.

Bert Schreurs From post- to pretest applicant reactions: The effect of applicant selection expectations and perceptions on organizational attractiveness. Thesis presented to obtain the degree of Ph.D. in Psychology, 2007 Advisor: Prof. dr. Karel De Witte Co-advisors: Prof. dr. Eva Derous en Prof. dr. H. Canan Sümer Traditionally, personnel selection has been studied from two perspectives. The first perspective mainly focuses on the psychometric qualities of selection techniques. The second perspective concentrates on applicants’ reactions to selection procedures. This doctoral thesis is located within the applicant reactions perspective, also called the social process perspective on personnel selection. Previous research within the social process perspective has shown that applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures may have an influence on their attitudes, intentions and behaviors toward the hiring organization. Organizations whose selection procedures are perceived favorably vs. unfavorably by applicants will generally be evaluated as more vs. less attractive as a place of employment. It has been suggested that applicants’ perceptions of the selection procedures and the attractiveness of the organization are affected by applicants’ pretest expectations of the forthcoming selection procedure. Applicant pretest expectations, however, have only recently begun to attract the attention of selection scholars and many questions with regard to the relationships between expectations, perceptions, and attractiveness remain to be addressed. In this dissertation, five empirical studies were conducted, of which four in a military setting and one in the bank sector. Following research questions formed the basis for this dissertation (with sometimes more questions per study): (a) Are applicant perceptions significantly related to organizational attractiveness? (b) What do applicants expect of military selection procedures and can these expectations be reliably measured? (c) Are applicant selection expectations significantly related to organizational attractiveness? (d) How do applicant selection expectations and applicant perceptions work together (mediation/moderation) in predicting organizational attractiveness? The results showed that (potential) applicants were more vs. less attracted to the organization when they perceived the recruitment and selection procedure more vs. less favorably. The results also showed that, with regard to military selection procedures, applicants expected: (a) to be treated in a warm and respectful manner by military recruiters/selectors; (b) to be given the opportunity to demonstrate their potential during the selection process; (c) that it would be difficult to fake possessing the qualities that are needed for the job; (d) an objective and unbiased assessment of their capabilities; and (e) to get feedback on their test performances. Preliminary evidence was provided that the five-factor structure, measured by the Applicant Expectation Survey (AES-Mil), may generalize beyond a military setting. The findings further suggested that pretest selection expectations were positively related to organizational attractiveness, in terms of attitudes and intentions toward the organization before the selection process (e.g., job pursuit intention) and after the process (e.g., recommendation intention), but not in terms of actual behavior (e.g., applicant withdrawal). Finally, the results showed that pretest selection expectations affected posttest organizational attractiveness mainly indirectly, through their effect on posttest applicant perceptions. Strengths and limitations of this dissertation were discussed, together with implications for practice and future research.

Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION: CONTEXT, THEORETICAL BACKGROUND, AND GUIDING QUESTIONS ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 1.2

SETTING THE SCENE ............................................................................................................................. 2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ON APPLICANT PERCEPTIONS ................................................................. 3 Models of Applicant Perceptions .......................................................................................................................... 3 Measures of Applicant Perceptions ....................................................................................................................... 7 Applicant Expectations of Selection Procedures................................................................................................... 8

1.3

ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE MILITARY AS AN EMPLOYER ...................................................................... 11 Conceptualization and Measurement of Organizational Attractiveness .............................................................. 12 Predictors of Military Attractiveness................................................................................................................... 13

1.4 1.5

GUIDING QUESTIONS OF THE PRESENT DISSERTATION ....................................................................... 16 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 21

CHAPTER 2 ATTRACTING POTENTIAL APPLICANTS TO THE MILITARY: THE EFFECTS OF INITIAL FACE-TO-FACE CONTACTS......................................................................................................... 27 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 28 POTENTIAL APPLICANTS’ REACTIONS TO EARLY RECRUITMENT ACTIVITIES ..................................... 29 POTENTIAL APPLICANTS’ ATTRACTION TO THE MILITARY ................................................................. 29 DIRECT AND INDIRECT MEASURES OF ATTRACTION ........................................................................... 30 THIS STUDY ........................................................................................................................................ 31 METHOD ............................................................................................................................................. 32 Procedure and Sample......................................................................................................................................... 32 Measures ............................................................................................................................................................. 33

2.7

ANALYSES AND RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 34 Descriptive Statistics........................................................................................................................................... 34 Test of Hypotheses.............................................................................................................................................. 35

2.8

GENERAL DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................ 38 Limitations and Future Research Opportunities .................................................................................................. 40 Contributions and Practical Recommendations................................................................................................... 42 Conclusions......................................................................................................................................................... 43

2.9

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 44

CHAPTER 3 MODELING THE STRUCTURE OF APPLICANT REACTIONS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY WITHIN THE BELGIAN MILITARY .............................................................................................. 49 3.1. 3.2. 3.3.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 50 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ....................................................................................................................... 53 METHOD ............................................................................................................................................. 53 Context................................................................................................................................................................ 53 Phase 1: Development of an Initial AR-model (Preparatory phase).................................................................... 54 Phase 2: Testing the Initial AR-model through Expert Analysis (Main study) ................................................... 54 Analyses.............................................................................................................................................................. 55

3.4.

RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................. 56 Phase 1: Development of the Initial AR-model................................................................................................... 56 Phase 2: Testing the Initial AR-model through Expert Analysis......................................................................... 56

3.5.

DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................ 63 Theoretical and Practical Contributions .............................................................................................................. 65 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 67

3.6.

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................... 68

CHAPTER 4 APPLICANT SELECTION EXPECTATIONS: DEVELOPING A MULTIDIMENSIONAL MEASURE FOR THE MILITARY .................................................................................................................. 73 4.1. 4.2.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 74 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 75 Historical Overview ............................................................................................................................................ 75 From Posttest to Pretest Reactions ...................................................................................................................... 76 Applicant Expectations ....................................................................................................................................... 77

4.3. 4.4. 4.5.

THE PRESENT STUDY .......................................................................................................................... 78 PART 1: BUILDING THE AES-MIL ....................................................................................................... 80 PART 2: VALIDATION .......................................................................................................................... 81

x

Contents Study 1: Establishing the AES-Mil Structure............................................................................................... 81 Method ..................................................................................................................................................................... 81 Sample and Procedure......................................................................................................................................... 81 AES-Mil Format ................................................................................................................................................. 81 Analyses and Results................................................................................................................................................ 82

Study 2: Construct Validity of the AES-Mil ................................................................................................. 84 Convergent Validity ............................................................................................................................................ 84 Divergent Validity............................................................................................................................................... 85 Predictive Validity .............................................................................................................................................. 85 Method ..................................................................................................................................................................... 88 Participants and Procedure .................................................................................................................................. 88 Measures ............................................................................................................................................................. 89 Results ...................................................................................................................................................................... 90 Dimensionality and Internal Consistency............................................................................................................ 90 Measurement Invariance ..................................................................................................................................... 93 Convergent Validity ............................................................................................................................................ 93 Divergent Validity............................................................................................................................................... 97 Predictive Validity .............................................................................................................................................. 97

Study 3: Examining Relationships with Applicant Posttest Perceptions ..................................................... 99 Method ..................................................................................................................................................................... 99 Participants and Procedure .................................................................................................................................. 99 Measures ........................................................................................................................................................... 100 Results .................................................................................................................................................................... 100 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................................. 102 Limitations and Further Research Opportunities............................................................................................... 105 Practical Implications........................................................................................................................................ 106

4.6.

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 108

CHAPTER 5 PREDICTING APPLICANTS’ JOB PURSUIT BEHAVIOR FROM THEIR SELECTION EXPECTATIONS: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF THE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR.......... 115 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 116 JOB PURSUIT AND THE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR.................................................................. 117 APPLICANT SELECTION EXPECTATIONS ............................................................................................ 119 METHOD ........................................................................................................................................... 122 Context.............................................................................................................................................................. 122 Participants and Procedure ................................................................................................................................ 122 Measures ........................................................................................................................................................... 123

5.5.

ANALYSES AND RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 127 Prediction of Job Pursuit Behavior.................................................................................................................... 127 Mediation Analyses........................................................................................................................................... 128

5.6.

DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 132 Strengths and Limitations.................................................................................................................................. 134 Future Research and Practical Implications ...................................................................................................... 136

5.7.

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 138

CHAPTER 6 AN INVESTIGATION OF MEDIATING AND MODERATING MECHANISMS IN THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PRETEST SELECTION EXPECTATIONS, POSTTEST APPLICANT PERCEPTIONS, AND APPLICANT ATTRACTION OUTCOMES ......................................................... 143 6.1. 6.2. 6.3.

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 144 DIRECT INFLUENCES OF SELECTION EXPECTATIONS ON ORGANIZATIONAL ATTRACTION ................ 145 THE MEDIATING ROLE OF APPLICANT PERCEPTIONS ........................................................................ 147 Applicant Perceptions as a Predictor of Applicant Attraction ........................................................................... 147 Applicant Selection Expectations as a Predictor of Applicant Perceptions ....................................................... 148

6.4. 6.5.

THE MODERATING ROLE OF SELECTION EXPECTATIONS .................................................................. 149 METHOD ........................................................................................................................................... 151 Context.............................................................................................................................................................. 151 Sample and Procedure....................................................................................................................................... 151 Measures ........................................................................................................................................................... 151

6.6.

ANALYSES AND RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 154 Descriptive statistics.......................................................................................................................................... 154 Tests of Hypotheses .......................................................................................................................................... 154

6.7.

DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 162 Selection Expectations and Posttest Applicant Attraction................................................................................. 164 The Mediating Role of Applicant Perceptions .................................................................................................. 165

Contents

xi The Moderating Role of Selection Expectations ............................................................................................... 165 Strengths and Limitations.................................................................................................................................. 166 Implications for Practice and Future Research.................................................................................................. 168 Conclusions....................................................................................................................................................... 169

6.8.

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 170

CHAPTER 7 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................ 175 7.1.

RESEARCH OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 176 Are Applicant Perceptions Significantly Related to Organizational Attractiveness? ........................................ 176 What Do Applicants Expect of Military Selection Procedures and Can These Expectations Be Reliably Measured? ......................................................................................................................................................... 178 Are Applicant Selection Expectations Significantly Related to Organizational Attractiveness?....................... 180 How Do Applicant Selection Expectations and Applicant Perceptions Work Together in Predicting Organizational Attractiveness?.......................................................................................................................... 183

7.2.

STRENGTHS, LIMITATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS ................................................... 188 Strengths ........................................................................................................................................................... 188 Limitations ........................................................................................................................................................ 189 Future Research Directions ............................................................................................................................... 190

7.3. 7.4. 7.5.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ................................................................................................................ 192 GENERAL CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 193 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 195

List of Tables TABLE 2-1.

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND CORRELATIONS OF STUDY VARIABLES IN POTENTIAL APPLICANT SAMPLE (N=408).................................................................... 34

TABLE 2-2.

HIERARCHICAL REGRESSION OF POTENTIAL APPLICANTS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD THE ARMED FORCES ON DEMOGRAPHICS AND CAREER COUNSELOR CHARACTERISTICS ... 35 LOGISTIC REGRESSION OF POTENTIAL APPLICANTS’ INTENTIONS TOWARD THE ARMED FORCES ON DEMOGRAPHICS AND CAREER COUNSELOR CHARACTERISTICS ................ 36 LOGISTIC REGRESSION OF POTENTIAL APPLICANTS’ APPLICATION BEHAVIOR ON DEMOGRAPHICS AND CAREER COUNSELOR CHARACTERISTICS................................... 38 SCHEMATIC OVERVIEW AND COMPARISON OF APPLICANT REACTIONS AS FORMULATED BY GILLILAND (1993), BAUER ET AL. (2001), FALLON ET AL. (2002), AND DEROUS ET AL. (2004)......................................................................................... 51 STRESS-1 AND PROPORTION OF VARIANCE (R2) OF CO, IS AND CRS AT 1 TO 5 DIMENSIONAL SOLUTIONS ........................................................................................... 57 COMPARISON OF CATEGORIZATION OF ITEMS BELONGING TO CO: INTERVIEWS AND THEORY VERSUS MDS SOLUTION VERSUS ADDITIVE TREE SOLUTION ........................ 60 SCHEMATIC OVERVIEW OF MDS-REGIONS AT THE CO, IS AND CRS IN THE BELGIAN MILITARY ..................................................................................................................... 63 SUMMARY TABLE OF ACTIVITIES AND DATA USED ..................................................... 80 STUDY 1: ITEM MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, FACTOR LOADINGS, AND RELIABILITIES OF THE AES-MIL SCALES..................................................................... 86 STUDY 2: COMPLETELY STANDARDIZED FACTOR LOADINGS FOR THE CALIBRATION SAMPLE ........................................................................................................................ 91 GOODNESS-OF-FIT INDICES FOR MODEL COMPARISONS .............................................. 92 CORRELATIONS AMONG AES-MIL SCALES ................................................................. 92 TEST OF MEASUREMENT INVARIANCE ......................................................................... 95 CONVERGENT, DIVERGENT AND PREDICTIVE VALIDITY INFORMATION: CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AES-MIL SCALES AND VALIDATION VARIABLES ........................................ 95 PREDICTING PRETEST ATTITUDES AND INTENTIONS WITH THE AES-MIL SCALES ...... 97 PREDICTING APPLICANT PERCEPTIONS WITH THE AES-MIL SCALES ........................ 101 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, INTERNAL CONSISTENCY RELIABILITIES, AND CORRELATIONS OF STUDY VARIABLES ...................................................................... 126 LINEAR REGRESSION OF APPLICANTS’ JOB PURSUIT INTENTION ON DEMOGRAPHICS, JOB PURSUIT ATTITUDE, SUBJECTIVE NORM, SELF-EFFICACY, AND CONTROLLABILITY ................................................................................................................................... 128 LOGISTIC REGRESSION OF APPLICANTS’ JOB PURSUIT BEHAVIOR ON DEMOGRAPHICS, TIME DELAY, AND THE TPB VARIABLES .................................................................... 130 LINEAR REGRESSION OF APPLICANTS’ JOB PURSUIT INTENTION ON DEMOGRAPHICS, SELECTION EXPECTATIONS, JOB PURSUIT ATTITUDE AND SELF-EFFICACY................ 131 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, INTERNAL CONSISTENCY RELIABILITIES, AND CORRELATIONS OF STUDY VARIABLES ...................................................................... 155 RESULTS FOR THE MEDIATED REGRESSION ANALYSES FOR ORGANIZATIONAL A ATTRACTIVENESS, JOB PURSUIT AND RECOMMENDATION INTENTION .................... 157 PREDICTING APPLICANT PERCEPTIONS WITH THE AES-SCALESA .............................. 161 OVERVIEW OF THE EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF THE PRESENT DISSERTATION ................. 186

TABLE 2-3. TABLE 2-4. TABLE 3-1.

TABLE 3-2. TABLE 3-3. TABLE 3-4. TABLE 4-1. TABLE 4-2. TABLE 4-3. TABLE 4-4. TABLE 4-5. TABLE 4-6. TABLE 4-7. TABLE 4-8. TABLE 4-9. TABLE 5-1. TABLE 5-2.

TABLE 5-3. TABLE 5-4. TABLE 6-1. TABLE 6-2. TABLE 6-3. TABLE 7-1.

List of Figures FIGURE 1-1.

SCHEMATIC OVERVIEW OF THIS DISSERTATION’S EMPIRICAL STUDIES, KEY VARIABLES, AND HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS ...................................................... 20

FIGURE 3-1. FIGURE 4-1. FIGURE 5-1. FIGURE 6-1.

TWO-DIMENSIONAL MDS SPACE OF CO (N = 58 ITEMS)............................................. 61 PLOT OF ACTUAL VERSUS RANDOMLY GENERATED EIGENVALUES ............................ 83 OVERVIEW OF THE RESEARCH MODEL ...................................................................... 118 INTERACTIVE EFFECT OF DIFFICULTY OF FAKING EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ON ORGANIZATIONAL ATTRACTIVENESS ........................................................................ 163 INTERACTIVE EFFECT OF DIFFICULTY OF FAKING EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ON JOB PURSUIT INTENTION ............................................................................................ 163 INTERACTIVE EFFECT OF UNBIASED ASSESSMENT EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEPTIONS ON RECOMMENDATION INTENTION ........................................................................... 164

FIGURE 6-2. FIGURE 6-3.

Preface As I come to the end of this journey, I want to acknowledge several people who have allowed me to travel this path with as much ease as possible. First, I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. dr. Karel De Witte. I could not have imagined having a better advisor and mentor for my PhD. In 2001, at the time we first met, the idea of making a PhD had only just occurred to me. Under his wings the PhD dream began to take definite form. He welcomed me to the Research Center on Work, Organizational and Personnel Psychology and provided all resources, both tangible and intangible, to make this PhD possible. Thank you, Karel, for your confidence in me, your encouragement, and your wise counsel throughout the process. You are truly one in a million! In 2000, I had the great fortune and privilege of working with one of the most talented officers in the Belgian military, LtCol François Lescreve. He introduced me to the field of military selection and classification and was always ready to share his unique insights with me. He stimulated me to get more involved in the scientific arena and he gave me the opportunity of continuous learning and self-development. He also enabled me to travel a lot (to conferences, to Task Group meetings), and due to this, to meet some brilliant and inspiring people. Çois, it is impossible to put into words how much I have appreciated working with you over the last seven years. You have been a great guide, but, above all, a great friend. I am also grateful to my co-advisors, Prof. dr. Eva Derous (Erasmus University Rotterdam) and Prof. dr. H. Canan Sümer (Middle East Technical University Ankara). Eva’s knowledge and expertise were a great help in setting up the studies. Her prompt and constructive feedback uplifted the quality of the papers to a higher level. She taught me the “ropes” of academia and the importance of publishing research results. A thousand thanks for your assistance, Eva! I am also indebted to Canan, who I first met in 2002, for her valuable suggestions and encouragement. I look back with great and cherished fondness on our first attempts to develop the recruitment and retention models at METU. I treasure the many conversations we had, and I profoundly hope that we can continue working together in the future. Thank you so much, Canan, for your infinite generosity. Special thanks go to my colleague dra. Karin Proost. In the past year, we not only shared the same office, but also our joys, our sorrows, our laughter, and our suffering. She was my traveling-companion and sister-in-arms, always ready to read and reread my papers. We spent

xvi

Preface

many hours together figuring out new directions for future research on applicant reactions and far beyond. I enjoyed these moments immensely, even though most of our creative endeavors will probably not yield the hoped-for ground-breaking results (but one never knows). Karin, a wholehearted thank you for your enormous support, your sympathy, and your companionship. I look forward to continuing our collaboration for years to come. I want to thank my partners in crime, Maarten Andriessen and Thomas Bossuyt, for their unconditional friendship and mental support. Their focus on helping HRM practitioners and policy makers reminded me how science should serve society, not vice versa. During our (porch) discussions on how to improve the quality of the Belgian Defense hiring system the foundation was laid for what would become a legendary brotherhood. I find great joy in working with you two. It gives me energy and puts me into a positive state of mind. I consider myself very fortunate to have such wonderful colleagues and friends. Throughout the process, I met a number of bright people who contributed to this PhD by sharing their valuable insights, and by providing methodological and statistical advice, for which I am very grateful. Among them are Edwin van Hooft (special thanks), Filip Lievens, Norbert Vanbeselaere, Paul De Boeck, Johnny Fontaine, Guy Notelaers, Nele De Cuyper, and Wally Borman. I am thankful to the Belgian Ministry of Defense, and in particular to LtGen Somers of the Directorate General Human Resources, for giving me the opportunity to carry out scientific research in an applied setting. I am also grateful to the Scientific and Technological Research Board of the Belgian Defense (W&TOD) for supporting parts of this research. Finally, I want to thank the Belgian Minister of Defense André Flahaut for granting me leave to complete the writing of this dissertation. I am indebted to all people who helped me with data collection: Jenny De Maret (special thanks), Jan Demarré, Ives Deryck, Didier Ghislain, Christophe Coussement, the personnel of the Dienst Onthaal en Oriëntatie (DOO) and the Defensiehuizen (Belgian Ministry of Defense), Gary Hofmans (Acerta), and Saskia Van Havere and Magda Van Engeland (KBC Groep NV). I also want to express my gratitude to all applicants who have participated in this research for their persistence in filling out my questionnaires. Hopefully, the results of this study may contribute to their benefit. Admittedly, there have been moments of doubt and despair, but they have by far been

Preface

xvii

outnumbered by moments of enjoyment and pleasure, not at least thanks to the presence and support of my colleagues. A special thanks to my W&TOD fellows (Annemie, Celine, Jeroen, and Françoise), and my colleagues at WOPP and HRP-W for making work fun. This PhD would not have been possible without the financial support by a grant of the U.S. Office of Naval Research (ONR) and by a Special PhD grant of the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders, Belgium (F.W.O. - Vlaanderen). The ONR Fund was especially helpful in launching the PhD effort, whereas the F.W.O. Fund made it possible to bring this project to an end. I want to thank my family for their love and encouragement. Special thanks go to my parents for giving me the opportunity to reach for my educational dreams. They supported me in many ways. For example, when my wife and I were snowed under with work, they happily volunteered to take care of our children; they were always ready with a thoughtful listening ear; and they patiently endured my whims and grumpiness. This book is dedicated to you. I also dedicate it to my wonderful children, Lisa and Jitse, for providing the distraction I so well needed during the periods of reflection and writing. Finally, I dedicate this book to my beloved wife, Sarah. The decision to start a PhD has had chaotic consequences to our life, yet she never complained. She is an amazing woman, wife, and mother. Sarah, words fall short to express my gratitude for your immense patience and self-sacrifice. Thank you for standing by my side.

Bert Schreurs

Leuven, June 28, 2007

Chapter 1 Introduction: Context, Theoretical Background, and Guiding Questions

Previous research has shown that applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures are significantly positively related to organizational attractiveness. This previous research is limited, however, due to its focus on posttest outcomes. Beliefs and attitudes applicants hold prior to test-taking may equally well account for differences in posttest outcomes, such as organizational attractiveness. The present doctoral dissertation addresses this shortcoming by studying applicants’ pretest selection expectations in conjunction with applicant perceptions and organizational attractiveness. Five empirical studies were conducted, of which four in a military context, each taking a different perspective on the expectationperception-attraction relationship. The present chapter describes the context, the theoretical background, and introduces the research questions that guided this dissertation.

2

Chapter 1

1.1

Setting the Scene

In many Western nations, militaries are increasingly facing difficulties in attracting and enlisting the required numbers of new recruits (Asch et al., 2002; Bachman, Segal, FreedmanDoan, & O'Malley, 2000; Knowles et al., 2002). The reasons for this are manifold, including the decreased attractiveness of ‘products’ offered by the military (e.g., job security, adventure) and the growing gap between military and civilian values (Lescreve, 2000). Given this recruiting crisis, the military would benefit from minimizing the loss of capable applicants throughout the hiring process. This challenge was also recognized by the Belgian Minister of Defense André Flahaut who, in 2001, issued a more client-friendly approach to selection. His policy was that the military should view applicants as customers for whom it supplies jobs. Accordingly, changes were made to the hiring process. For example, the application and selection process was facilitated through administrative simplification and shortening of the procedures. He also called for studies on ‘social processes’ in recruitment and selection of the Belgian military. He argued that, in order to attract and retain applicants through the hiring process, the military needed a better understanding of applicants’ expectations and perceptions. This policy interest in the applicant’s point of view was the breeding ground from which sprung this doctoral dissertation. Academic interest in the applicant perspective of selection procedures has grown rapidly the last two decades. Traditionally, selection methods have been considered as neutral predictors of applicant suitability and subsequent job performance (Anderson, 2001). Research was predominantly occupied with the investigation of the psychometric properties of the selection practice (e.g., reliability, validity, efficiency of testing). This is also true for the military that has a longstanding history of research in the area of personnel testing, measurement, and classification (Rumsey, Walker, & Harris, 1994; Wiskoff & Rampton, 1989). As from the eighties, researchers started to question this one-sided ‘psychometric approach’ (Derous & De Witte, 2001) of selection, as it became increasingly clear that selection devices do not only act as predictors of job performance, but also fulfill a number of other functions. For example, selection devices may reveal information on the culture and management style of the organization (Anderson, 2001), and, in so doing, influence applicant attitudes and behaviors toward the organization. Accordingly, a complete new selection literature has developed, referred to as applicant perception research, which looks at attitudes, affect, and cognitions applicants might have about the hiring process (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). This research stream does not intend to replace the traditional psychometric approach, but rather to complement it.

Introduction

3

The basic premise underlying the applicant perception literature has been that how applicants view recruitment and selection processes and procedures affect a variety of personal and organizational outcomes. Among these outcomes are test performance, self-efficacy, post-hire work attitudes (e.g., job satisfaction, commitment), and, the outcome that is most relevant to this dissertation, the attractiveness of the hiring organization (Hausknecht, Day, & Thomas, 2004). In the following part, the literature on applicant perceptions is briefly reviewed with an emphasis on dominant theoretical models and measurement issues. Note that the terms applicant perceptions and applicant reactions have been used interchangeably throughout the literature. In line with Ryan and Ployhart (2000), I will generally use the term perceptions to refer to applicants’ views of the hiring process, since the term reactions may erroneously suggest that these views operate exclusively as outcome variables, whereas in reality perceptions are often studied as determinants of other (outcome) variables relevant to applicant and hiring organization (see below).

1.2

Theoretical Background on Applicant Perceptions

Initial studies on applicant perceptions (e.g., Dodd, 1977; Robertson & Kandola, 1982; Schmidt, Greenthal, Hunter, Berner, & Seaton, 1977) were primarily interested in describing and comparing applicant reactions to various selection procedures. The results from these studies indicate that applicants generally prefer selection procedures involving work samples and simulations to those using paper-and-pencil measures (Chan & Schmitt, 2004). Following on from this pioneer work, researchers became interested in developing comprehensive frameworks and modeling the antecedents and consequences of applicant perceptions. Several models of applicant perceptions and related research will be briefly analyzed: Schuler (1993), Arvey and Sackett (1993), Iles and Robertson (1997), Anderson and Ostroff (1997), Gilliland (1993), Ryan and Ployhart (2000), and Hausknecht et al. (2004). Subsequently, I will present some of the most commonly used measures of applicant perceptions and introduce the notion of ‘selection expectations’. Models of Applicant Perceptions Schuler (1993) proposed a model of ‘social validity’. According to his model, a cluster of four situational characteristics, called social validity, determine the social acceptability of selection: (a) relevant information about the job and the organization, (b) situational and behavioral control and participation by applicants or representatives in the development of assessment programs, (c) the transparency of the selection situation, the assessment tools, and

4

Chapter 1

the resulting evaluations, and (d) feedback as the form and content of communicating results. The social validity notion includes “acceptance, well-being, feeling of control, comfort, nondefensiveness”, as well as “being fairly and respectfully treated and not being unjustly subjected or dominated” (p. 14). The factor structure of Schuler’s model remains virtually untested, although abundant evidence exists that each characteristic on its own plays a prominent role in predicting applicant perceptions (e.g., Bauer, Maertz, Dolen, & Campion, 1998; Chan, Schmitt, DeShon, Clause, & Delbridge, 1997; Gilliland, 1994; Macan, Avedon, Paese, & Smith, 1994; Ployhart, Ziegert, & McFarland, 2003; Schinkel, van Dierendonck, & Anderson, 2004; Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey, 1993). Arvey and Sackett’s (1993) model includes 22 determinants of perceived selection fairness grouped into five factors. These factors are: (a) selection system content (e.g., fakability, job relatedness), (b) process of developing the selection system (e.g., adequacy of job analysis, adequacy of validity evidence), (c) process of administration (e.g., consistency across applicants, confidentiality), (d) the selection context (e.g., company history of discrimination, selection ratio), and (e) outcomes (maximize performance and utility, maximize representativeness). Little research has investigated the validity of this model. An exception is the study of Viswesvaran and Ones (2004) who found some “albeit not as strong as desired”, support for the convergent and divergent validity of the five-factor model (p. 176). Also, Arvey and Sackett’s (1993) model does not provide much insight into how perceptions are formed or perception-outcome relationships (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). Robertson and Smith (1989, cited in Iles & Robertson, 1997, p. 258) introduced the concept of ‘impact validity’ as “the extent to which a measuring instrument has an effect on a subject’s psychological characteristics”. Building on this notion, Iles and Robertson (1989, 1997) presented a causal model on the impact of selection practices on applicants’ cognitions and attitudes towards themselves, the selection, and the organization. The basic assumption underlying their model is that the selection decision and characteristics of the selection procedure (e.g., intrusiveness, face validity, job relevance, feedback processes) influence applicants’ cognitive reactions towards the selection procedure (e.g., beliefs about adequacy, career impact, attitudes to assessment methods). These reactions are hypothesized, in turn, to influence various individual and organizational outcome variables (e.g., self-esteem, organizational commitment, job and career withdrawal), moderated by personal characteristics and life/career stages of applicants. Preliminary support for the mediating role

Introduction

5

of applicant reactions is provided by Robertson, Iles, Gratton, and Sharpley (1991). Yet, Anderson, Born, and Cunningham-Snell (2001) argue that reactions toward the selection process may equally well precede communication of the selection decision, and that, therefore, the role of reactions as only mediators of the decision impact is questionable. Anderson and Ostroff (1997) proposed a model of the ‘socialization impact’ of selection methods that was later extended by the first author (Anderson, 2001). According to this model, selection methods initiate the pre-entry socialization process through their impact across five constituent domains: information provision, preference impact, expectational impact, attitudinal impact, and behavioral impact. First, it is postulated that organizations, often unintentionally, convey information to applicants through their selection methods (‘information provision’). For example, in situational interviews applicants are presented a preview of the actual work environment that may influence unconsciously their attitudes/ intentions toward the job and organization. Second, not all selection practices are equally liked by applicants (‘preference impact’). Anderson suggests that the use of unpopular selection methods (e.g., drug testing, the stress interview) can result in an overall negative affective reaction to the organization, even when the applicant has accepted a job offer from the organization. Third, selection methods create expectations on a variety of issues, such as expectations of the organizational culture, future job role, and promotion opportunities (‘expectational impact’). These expectations represent the cornerstones on which the psychological contract (Rousseau, 1995) is built. A violation of the expectations is likely to result in negative attitudes and behavior to the organization, similar to the effects of unrealistic recruitment information on employee turnover (Phillips, 1998). Fourth, selection methods can influence applicants’ attitudes and beliefs (‘attitudinal impact’). For example, Macan et al. (1994) found that applicant perceptions of an assessment center were significantly related to job acceptance intention, even after controlling for applicants’ pretest attitudes toward the organization. Fifth, Anderson argues that selection methods have the potential to elicit desirable pre- and post-entry behaviors (‘behavioral impact’). For example, in a multiple hurdle selection process for the military applicants may learn very quickly that pro-social behaviors are rewarded and anti-social behaviors are penalized. Anderson suggests that these ‘lessons learned’ may also have an impact applicants’ initial post-entry behaviors. Empirical evidence on the behavioral impact of selection methods is still lacking, though. The current dominant framework for research on applicant perceptions, however, is provided

6

Chapter 1

by Gilliland (1993) who applied organizational justice theories (e.g., Greenberg & Cropanzano, 2001) to explain the nature of reactions to tests. Gilliland’s model describes how satisfaction or violation of specific procedural and distributive justice rules influence applicants’ overall perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness in selection. Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the selection process and is thought to arise from ten procedural rules which are related to (a) formal characteristics of the tests and selection system (e.g., job relatedness, opportunity to perform, reconsideration opportunity, consistency of administration), (b) explanation or information offered to applicants (e.g., performance feedback, selection process information, honesty), and (c) interpersonal treatment (e.g., interpersonal effectiveness of administrator, two-way communication, propriety of questions). Many of these procedural justice rules are similar to those factors described by Schuler (1993), Arvey and Sackett (1993), and Iles and Robertson (1997). Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the selection outcome and is thought to arrive from reactions along a more limited set of dimensions. Three distributive justice rules have emerged in the justice literature: equity, equality and needs (Leventhal, 1980). In terms of selection fairness, perceptions of equity are based on both whether or not a job offer was received and the extent to which a job offer was expected. A match between an applicant’s expectation and outcome results in equity satisfaction, whereas a mismatch results in equity violation. The equality rule suggests that all individuals should have an equal chance of being hired. Individuals rejected on the basis of gender or ethnicity will react negatively as a result of equality violations. Finally, the needs rule suggests that some hiring decisions should be influenced by special considerations given to disadvantaged individuals (Gilliland, 1994). Fairness perceptions are further hypothesized to influence applicants’ self-perceptions (e.g., self-esteem, self-efficacy), attitudes and behaviors during the hiring process (e.g., job application and acceptance decisions, test motivation, legal battles), and attitudes and behaviors post-entry into the organization (e.g., performance, organizational citizenship behavior). Gilliland’s work has been the driving force behind many studies on applicant perceptions (e.g., Bauer et al., 1998; Bauer et al., 2001; Gilliland, 1994, 1995; Ployhart & Ryan, 1998), most of which have yielded results in favor of the justice framework. More recent models of applicant perceptions, among which those of Ryan and Ployhart (2000) and Hausknecht et al. (2004), continue borrowing from Gilliland’s justice framework. Ryan and Ployhart (2000), in their seminal paper on applicant perceptions, argue that frameworks other than justice theory may be necessary to increase our understanding of how

Introduction

7

applicants view selection procedures. They presented a heuristic model, including key antecedents, perceptions, outcomes, and moderators, that assimilates the justice perspective, but comprises other variables as well. Four classes of antecedent variables are proposed: (a) person characteristics (e.g., experience, personality), (b) job characteristics (e.g., job attractiveness, job stereotypes), (c) procedure characteristics (e.g., procedural justice rules, length of process), and (d) the organizational context (e.g., selection ratio, history). Applicant perceptions are categorized into four groups: perceptions of (a) the procedure/process (e.g., justice rule violations, fairness, ease), (b) one’s affective/ cognitive state during the procedure (e.g., motivation, anxiety), (c) the procedure’s outcome (e.g., distributive fairness), and selection processes and procedures in general (e.g., belief in tests, views on affirmative action, preferences for evaluation methods). As in previously discussed models, applicant perceptions are hypothesized to influence a range of individual (e.g., test performance, self-perceptions) and organizational outcome variables (e.g., intention and behavior toward the organization, perceptions of the job and organization). In addition, Ryan and Ployhart propose a class of moderator variables among which are hiring expectations, social support/subjective norm, and available alternatives, that may influence the antecedent-perceptions and perceptionsoutcomes relationships. The authors argue that more systematic research on the model’s determinants and outcomes is needed to advance the literature on applicant perceptions. Finally, an updated theoretical model on applicant perceptions was recently presented by Hausknecht et al. (2004). The authors draw on Ryan and Ployhart’s (2000) general framework (i.e., antecedents, perceptions, outcomes, moderators), but extend the list of variables involved. For example, Ryan and Ployhart’s list of outcome variables is replenished with those from Gilliland’s (1993) model, including a range of attitudes and behaviors toward the organization (e.g., organizational attractiveness, offer acceptance intention/behavior, recommendation intention/behavior, purchase intention/behavior, applicant withdrawal), and work attitudes and behaviors (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behaviors, turnover intentions/turnover). In line with Ryan and Ployhart (2000), Hausknecht et al. (2004) recommend that future studies in this area should consider theories other than justice theory to study applicant perceptions. With these models in mind, I now turn attention to current measures of applicant perceptions. Measures of Applicant Perceptions Along with the increasing empirical and theoretical contributions on applicant perceptions,

8

Chapter 1

substantial efforts were made to develop appropriate measures. Arvey, Strickland, Drauden, and Martin (1990) developed the Test Attitude Survey (TAS) to measure test takers’ motivational and attitudinal dispositions to the tests they just took. Sanchez, Truxillo, and Bauer (2000) developed the Valence, Instrumentality, Expectancy Motivation Scale (VIEMS) to measure applicants’ test-taking motivation. Unlike the TAS, the VIEMS is explicitly grounded on a motivation theory (i.e., expectancy theory, Vroom, 1964). Another highly cited and widely used applicant perception measure is that of Smither et al. (1993). Their measure captures most of Schuler’s (1993) social validity dimensions described above. Gilliland and Honig (1994) construed the Selection Fairness Survey that consists of seven scales: job relatedness, honesty and ethical treatment, advance information, unbiased assessment, invasion of privacy, chance to demonstrate potential, and perceived ease of faking. In reaction to the frequent use of ad hoc measures in the area of applicant perceptions, Bauer et al. (2001) developed the Selection Procedural Justice Scale (SPJS). The SPJS measures Gilliland’s (1993) hypothesized components of procedural justice. Finally, Fallon, Gilliland, Groth, and Ferreter (2002) developed the Applicant Reaction Scale (ARS). The ARS consists of 13 scales, among which: job-relatedness, chance to demonstrate potential, invasion of privacy, honesty and professionalism, and unbiased assessment. Recently, researchers became interested in measuring ‘perceptions’ applicants hold prior to test-taking. In the following part I will introduce the notion ‘selection expectations’ and explain the rationale for studying selection expectations. Broadly speaking, selection expectations refer to applicants’ probabilistic beliefs about the characteristics of the forthcoming selection procedure (what will happen?), whereas applicant perceptions refer to applicants’ evaluations of the completed selection procedure (what happened?). Applicant Expectations of Selection Procedures A limitation of most previous applicant perception research is that beliefs and attitudes applicants hold prior to test-taking (pretest) are only rarely taken into consideration, even though they may well account for significant differences in posttest outcomes, such as organizational attractiveness (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). According to Derous, Born, and De Witte (2004), pretest beliefs are important to take into account as “they form the basis of people’s forthcoming behavioral intentions, attitudes, evaluations, judgment, justifications, decisions, and commitments toward social situations” (p. 100). For example, female applicants convinced that the military favors the opposite gender through its use of physical fitness tests may be more skeptical toward the military’s selection system and less inclined to

Introduction

9

accept a job offer than applicants not holding this belief. Several studies have provided evidence for the role of pretest beliefs in predicting posttest outcomes. Chan, Schmitt, Sacco, and DeShon (1998), for example, found that test-related beliefs (e.g., general belief in tests, job relatedness, face validity) measured prior to test-taking affected actual test performance. Bauer et al. (1998) found significant correlations between applicants’ pretest beliefs (i.e., testing fairness) and several individual (e.g., test-taking self-efficacy) and organizational (e.g., organizational attractiveness) posttest outcomes. In a recent study, LaHuis (2005) showed that general belief in tests and expected job relatedness of tests were significantly related to several attitudinal (e.g., test-taking motivation), cognitive (perceived procedural fairness), and behavioral (job-pursuit intentions) posttest variables. The growing awareness of the importance of pretest beliefs has led several scholars (Bell, Ryan, & Wiechmann, 2004; Derous et al., 2004) to focus on applicants’ beliefs about the characteristics of the forthcoming selection procedure. Specifically, these scholars argue that applicants’ probabilistic expectations of the selection procedures (e.g., “the selection process will be biased”; “the recruiter will treat me politely”; “I will receive feedback on my test performance”) will play a critical role in predicting a range of pretest and posttest outcomes, among which are test-taking motivation, test-taking self-efficacy, and, of most interest to this dissertation, attractiveness of the organization and posttest perceptions of the process. In the remainder of this section, two models of applicant expectations and related research will be briefly discussed: Bell et al. (2004) and Derous et al. (2004). Bell et al. (2004) introduced the notion of ‘justice expectations’ to refer to “an individual’s belief that he or she will experience fairness in a future event or social interaction” (p. 25). In a selection context, justice expectations are theorized to have a powerful influence on perceptions of the fairness of the selection process. This relation can be explained by individuals’ tendency to notice, encode, and process information in a manner that is consistent with their expectations (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Higgins & Bargh, 1987). For example, an applicant who expects to be treated unfairly in the forthcoming selection process may be more likely to notice procedural violations, such as inconsistencies in administration. Furthermore, research has demonstrated that expectations also guide our behavioral choices (Olson, Roese, & Zanna, 1996). For example, people are more likely to engage in behaviors over which they expect to have control (Ajzen, 1991), or to choose tasks on which they expect to succeed (Bandura, 1982). Along the same line, Bell et al. (2004) hypothesize justice expectations to

10

Chapter 1

influence, directly and indirectly through justice perceptions, a variety of attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. Among those outcomes are pretest test-taking motivation, test anxiety, test-taking self-efficacy and, most relevant to this dissertation, applicant attraction outcomes (e.g., pre- and posttest job pursuit intention and behavior). Recently, Bell, Wiechmann, and Ryan (2006) were able to provide empirical support for most of the hypothesized relationships. What is not examined in this or in any other study, however, is the relationship with posttest attraction to the organization. Future research, therefore, may benefit from studying the relationships between pretest expectations, posttest perceptions and posttest applicant attraction (Bell et al.). Derous et al. (2004) suggest that studying applicants’ ‘selection treatment beliefs’, defined as applicants’ expectations and values of the forthcoming selection procedure, could enhance our understanding of their immediate posttest reactions. Whereas Bell et al. (2004) adopt an organizational justice perspective, Derous et al. (2004), inspired by Schuler’s (1993) social validity notion, followed an alternative pathway by including, in addition to fairness concerns, general feelings of comfort and well-being. Specifically, the authors identified six general selection expectations: job information (“information about job/ organizational attributes”), participation (“exerting control over own and others’ behavior”), transparency (“clear insight into selection procedure”), feedback (“information on test performances”), objectivity (“equal opportunities for all applicants”), and humane treatment (“warm and respectful treatment by selection personnel”). Significant positive correlations were found between motivation-toapply and all but one (i.e., participation) selection expectation. Taken together, the literature on applicant perceptions and expectations suggests that both may be important predictors of applicant attraction. The importance of applicant perceptions has been acknowledged for over two decades now. Recently, researchers started to investigate applicants’ expectations of the forthcoming selection procedure. The reason for doing so is that the generation of expectations is a fundamental psychological function and that expectations play a central role in action regulation (Olson et al., 1996). In the following part, other factors (besides expectations and perceptions of selection procedures) that may influence applicants’ attraction to the hiring organization, and more specifically to the military, will be briefly discussed. In the fourth part, the research questions that guided this dissertation will be presented.

Introduction

11

1.3

Attractiveness of the Military as an Employer

Studying the attractiveness of the military as an employer is important for several reasons. First, in many nations, military organizations are among the largest employers, hiring hundreds, if not thousands, of people every year. The high recruitment demands, however, have become a heavy burden for the military mainly due to economic and demographic changes. In most Western countries, the booming economy has created a labor market in which many good jobs are readily available. As a result, the prospect of lifetime employment, once a compelling argument to join the military, has lost much of its influence. In addition, in the coming years, because of lower fertility rates, the working-age population will grow more slowly and will probably even begin to contract. Accordingly, the number of young work force entrants will decrease and organizations will have to rely more on mid- and late career workers to meet skill demands. Unlike other organizations, however, the military primarily needs young men and women who are able to perform physically demanding tasks. This brings me to the second reason why it is important to examine the attractiveness of the military. The military is unique in itself, and studies conducted in civilian settings may not automatically generalize to the armed forces. The military differs from other organizations not only in its target population, but also in its recruitment and selection procedures. For example, the military typically uses career offices to establish the first interpersonal contact with potential applicants. At the career office potential applicants can gather detailed information on career opportunities within the military through a face-to-face conversation with a career counselor and, if still interested, sign up for the selection procedure. Furthermore, unlike most public and private organizations, the military uses medical, physical, and psychological tests to select and allocate recruits among various competing jobs. Taken together, studying the attractiveness of the military serves two purposes: (1) from a utility perspective, it may help the military in reaching its recruitment objectives; (2) from a theoretical perspective, it may increase our understanding of context/organization-specific processes that play a role in recruitment and selection. This dissertation focuses on the role of applicants’ expectations and perceptions of the recruitment and selection procedure. Applicants’ expectations and perceptions constitute only a small, albeit important, piece of the attractiveness puzzle. That is, many other factors besides expectations and perceptions of the hiring process may contribute to the military’s attractiveness as an employer. Before briefly discussing these factors, it seems appropriate to clarify what is understood by ‘military attractiveness’.

12

Chapter 1

Conceptualization and Measurement of Organizational Attractiveness Ultimately, recruitment efforts are aimed at influencing a person’s behavior, whether this is applying, recommending the organization to others, or attending a site visit. Some behaviors (e.g., applying) occur in early recruitment stages, whereas other behaviors (e.g., job offer acceptance) are typical for later recruitment stages. Barber (1998) distinguishes three recruitment stages: generating applicants, maintaining applicant status, and job choice. Examples in a military context are as follows: the first stage would consist of attempts to persuade potential applicants to visit military career offices and to apply for the military (generating applicants). In the second stage, attempts would be made to keep applicants interested in the job, for instance by encouraging them to attend the selection procedure and to take the tests (maintaining applicant status). In the third stage, the organization would try to convince desirable applicants to accept job offers from the military (over offers from other organizations) and to be present on enlistment day (job choice). Despite the practical and theoretical value of having behavioral outcome measures (e.g., actual job application, applicant withdrawal/continuance), most previous recruitment studies used non-behavioral, indirect measures of attractiveness as a substitute for behavioral measures. Highhouse, Lievens, and Sinar (2003) did a factor analysis on items commonly used in past research (e.g., organizational attractiveness, recommendation intention, job acceptance intention) and found that three non-behavioral components of attractiveness can be reliably distinguished: general organizational attractiveness, organizational prestige, and behavioral intentions. Furthermore, according to the authors, the relation between these components and organization-pursuit behavior corresponds to the theory of reasoned action (TRA, Fishbein, 1980). According to the TRA, the most proximal determinant of behavior is a person’s intention to engage in it, which reflects the effort that someone plans to exert in order to perform the behavior. Intention, in turn, is a function of two determinants. The first determinant is the person’s attitude toward the behavior, referring to the positive or negative evaluation of performing the behavior. The second determinant is the subjective norm, reflecting the person’s perception of social pressure regarding the performance of the behavior. According to Highhouse et al. (2003), general organizational attractiveness corresponds to the attitude component of the TRA, organizational prestige to the subjective norm component, and behavioral intention to the intention component. Based on their research findings, Highhouse et al. further suggest that intention mediates the effects of general organizational attractiveness (attitude) and organizational prestige (subjective norm)

Introduction

13

on organization choice, similar to the mediating role of intentions in the TRA. The attitudeintention mediated model of organizational attractiveness has gained popularity and was supported in several recent recruitment studies (e.g., Allen, Van Scotter, & Otondo, 2004; Schreurs et al., 2005; Van Hooft, Born, Taris, & Van der Flier, 2006). Throughout this dissertation, attractiveness is conceptualized and measured at various levels. Whenever possible, a behavioral measure of attractiveness is included (e.g., job application, applicant withdrawal). Additionally, attractiveness is measured using (all or some of) the nonbehavioral components of attractiveness as identified by Highhouse et al. (2003) (i.e., general organizational attractiveness, organizational prestige, behavioral intentions). Predictors of Military Attractiveness Job and organizational characteristics. Characteristics of the job (e.g., pay, benefits, type of work) and the organization (e.g., size, type of industry, location, familiarity) have been identified as important determinants of organizational attractiveness (e.g., Barber & Roehling, 1993; Cable & Judge, 1994; Turban & Keon, 1993). Research on military enlistment and reenlistment has mainly focused on economic and educational attributes. For example, raising pay has been found to be an effective measure in influencing reenlistment decisions (e.g., Hansen, 2000; Hosek & Peterson, 1985), although the effect sizes differed substantially across studies. Tannen (1987) found that by improving educational benefits for army applicants meeting certain aptitude requirements, the quantity and quality of applicants increased dramatically. Future research on military recruitment may consider investigating the effects of other characteristics typically of military organizations, such as the need to relocate to remote areas (Ryan, Sacco, McFarland, & Kriska, 2000) and the anticipated frequency of deployment, or operations tempo (OPTEMPO) (Castro & Adler, 2005). The abovementioned job and organizational characteristics refer to objective, concrete, and instrumental attributes a job/an organization either has or does not have. These attributes primarily trigger interest among applicants because of their utility (i.e., maximizing benefits and minimizing costs). Lievens and Highhouse (2003), however, found that in early recruitment stages, applicants rely on symbolic rather than on instrumental attributes to differentiate between organizations. Symbolic attributes relate to subjective, intangible features of the job/organization in the form of imagery and trait inferences that applicants assign to organizations (e.g., innovativeness, prestige). The positive relationship between trait inferences and organizational attractiveness has been found in studies using non-military (e.g.,

14

Chapter 1

Slaughter, Zickar, Highhouse, & Mohr, 2004; Timmerman, 1996) as well as in studies using military samples (Lievens, Van Hoye, & Anseel, 2007; Lievens, Van Hoye, & Schreurs, 2005). For example, Lievens et al. (2007), using a sample of army applicants, found that symbolic attributes (i.e., excitement, competence, ruggedness) accounted for incremental variance in the Belgian armed forces’ attractiveness as an employer, over and above a large set of instrumental job and organizational characteristics (e.g., team/sports, structure, job security). Recruiter characteristics. For over thirty years now, recruitment studies have been examining applicant reactions to recruiters conducting the initial screening interview. Typically, but not always (see Anderson et al., 2001), studies of recruiter effects on applicants are excluded from literature reviews on applicant reactions to selection procedures (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000; Hausknecht et al., 2004). The reason for doing so is that the initial screening interview has a dual function. Besides serving as a selection device, the initial interview is also used to attract applicants to the organization (Barber, 1998). In line with Ryan and Ployhart (2000) and Hausknecht et al. (2004), I chose to discuss this line of research separately from the other applicant perception studies. In general, studies on recruiter effects indicate that applicant attraction to the organization is positively related to perceptions of recruiter warmth, professionalism, credibility, and informativeness (for an overview, see Barber, 1998). Based on propositions from signaling theory (Spence, 1973), it has been suggested that, because in early recruitment stages applicants have incomplete information about organizations, they interpret information they receive as ‘signals’ about what it would be like to be employed by the organization. Accordingly, applicants may interpret recruiter characteristics as providing signals concerning the organization’s working conditions. For example, a recruiter acting in an empathic manner may signal that the organization treats its employees in a warm and respectful way. The suggestion that perceptions of organizational attributes mediate the recruiter-attraction relationship has been supported by several studies (Goltz & Giannantonio, 1995; Turban, 2001; Turban, Forret, & Hendrickson, 1998). Presumably because the screening interview is one of the most frequent means of establishing interpersonal contact and influencing applicants’ job choices (Rynes, 1989), relatively few studies have investigated other types of initial face-to-face contacts (Barber, 1998). Nonetheless, organizations facing difficulties in attracting qualified applicants typically fall

Introduction

15

back on other forms of initial contacts, such as open houses and job fairs (Glickstein & Ramer, 1988). Still other organizations, such as the military, make use of career offices to inform job seekers about organizational characteristics and job opportunities. An interesting research question, therefore, is whether findings on applicant reactions to the screening interview can be generalized to other forms of initial face-to-face contact, such as the military career office. Perceived fit. It is reasonable to assume that not all characteristics (job/organizational, recruiter) are equally important to all applicants. Therefore, rather than proposing simple, direct relationships with organizational attractiveness, fit scholars adhere to an interactionist perspective on attractiveness. They argue that the effects of job, organization, and recruiter characteristics vary according to the individual’s attributes (e.g., personality, needs, values, preferences, goals). This interactionist perspective on organizational attractiveness has been supported by many studies (e.g., Cable & Judge, 1994, 1996; Judge & Cable, 1997; Trank, Rynes, & Bretz, 2002; Turban & Keon, 1993). Turban and Keon (1993), for example, found that upper-level students high on self-esteem were more attracted to decentralized and larger organizations. In a recent study for the Belgian military, Schreurs and Druart (2006) found that students low on openness to experience were more attracted to the military when they perceived the organization to be rugged. Perceived alternatives. Several studies provided support for the role of perceived alternatives (sometimes referred to as ‘perceived marketability’) in predicting organizational attractiveness. For example, Ryan et al. (2000) found that those who self-selected out from a selection procedure for police officers reported having more alternatives than those who stayed in and failed. Results from interviews that were held with those who self-selected out also indicated that job alternatives were a major reason for withdrawing. In some cases, those who withdrew believed they could get a better job or had already taken another offer. In other cases, one’s current job was seen as the better alternative. As noted by Ryan et al. (2000), these results are consistent with findings on the role of perceived employment alternatives in turnover (Gerhart, 1990) and in military reenlistment (Steel, 1996). Hiring expectancies. Hiring expectancies can be defined as applicants’ evaluations of the likelihood of being offered a position in an organization. According to expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964), positive hiring expectancies are predicted to lead to a greater effort to obtain employment. Several studies have found support for this prediction (however, none of these

16

Chapter 1

were conducted with a military sample). For example, Collins and Stevens (1999) found that hiring expectancies were significantly related to intentions-to-apply, even after controlling for organizational image. In a recent meta-analysis, Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, and Jones (2005) found support for most of the theorized relationships with organizational attractiveness. Specifically, the results showed that several attraction-related outcomes were predicted by job and organizational characteristics, recruiter characteristics, perceived fit, hiring expectancies, and perceptions of the hiring process, but not by perceived alternatives. The authors speculate that perhaps the quality of the competing alternatives is more important than the number of competing offers.

1.4

Guiding Questions of the Present Dissertation

As mentioned above, applicants’ pretest expectations and posttest perceptions are theorized to predict applicants’ attraction to the hiring organization. Until today, few studies (Bell et al., 2006; Derous et al., 2004) have examined the role of pretest expectations, even though pretest expectations may well account for significant differences in applicants’ posttest perceptions of the procedure and their attraction to the hiring organization. The present dissertation addresses this gap in the literature by examining the relationships between the triad expectations, perceptions, and organizational attractiveness. Five empirical studies were conducted, of which four in a military context, to provide an answer to following general research questions: Research question 1: Are applicant perceptions significantly related to organizational attractiveness? Research question 2: What do applicants expect of military selection procedures and can these expectations be reliably measured? Research question 3: Are applicant selection expectations significantly related to organizational attractiveness? Research question 4: How do applicant selection expectations and applicant perceptions work together in predicting organizational attractiveness? These questions form a thread (file rouge) that runs through the fabric of this dissertation. Some of the empirical chapters deal exclusively with one of these questions. Most chapters,

Introduction

17

however, touch upon more than one question. A schematic overview of this dissertation’s empirical studies, key variables and the most important hypothesized relationships among them is shown in Figure 1-1. Chapter 2 presents a study on the effect of initial face-to-face contacts with military career counselors. Prior recruitment research has shown that applicants’ perceptions of recruiters conducting the initial screening interview are related to post-interview attraction to the organization (e.g., intention to accept job offer). Although there are several other forms besides the initial screening interview to establish the first interpersonal contact (e.g., open houses, job fairs), they have not been the focus of much research as yet. The military, for example, typically uses career offices to establish the first contact. The career office consultation is a period of information provision intended to generate a sufficient number of applicants, with no hiring done. This study examines the effect of three career counselor characteristics (i.e., warmth, competence, informativeness) on potential applicants’ decision to apply to the military. Contrary to most previous recruitment research, a behavioral measure of organizational attraction is included (i.e., application decision), in addition to more common, non-behavioral measures of attraction (i.e., attitude and intention toward the organization). This study somewhat diverges from the other studies in this dissertation, in that the focus of this study is exclusively on the first hurdle of the hiring process (i.e., the career office consultation), and that, unlike in the other studies, characteristics of recruitment rather than selection procedures are being examined. The study presented in Chapter 3 investigates the structure of applicant reactions towards the first three selection hurdles, namely the career office consultation (CO), the initial intelligence screening (IS), and the extended psychological screening (CRS) of the Belgian military hiring process. The general aim was to develop an empirically-based organizing framework/model for applicant reactions through experts’ analysis of reaction-related issues generated by real applicants. Two research questions are formulated. First, it is investigated how experts in recruitment and selection of the Belgian military would sort applicant-generated items (i.e., How will experts sort items?). Second, it is investigated how consistently experts would interpret these self-sorted item clusters (i.e., How will experts label clusters of items?). The rationale for developing a context-specific model is that the military has its own way of hiring applicants (e.g., medical and physical examinations), and that, therefore, existing applicant reaction models may not take fully into account the specificity of the military recruitment and

18

Chapter 1

selection process. The development of a context-specific model may also prove valuable in predicting context-related outcome variables (e.g., applicant withdrawal), and in evaluating current hiring practices (e.g., in the form of a questionnaire). Based upon the results from the previous chapter, the research in Chapter 4 describes the development and validation of a questionnaire of applicant expectations of military selection procedures, called the Applicant Expectation Survey (AES-Mil). The AES-Mil assesses applicants’ expectations of the extended psychological screening (CRS). The reason for focusing on this particular stage is that a significant portion of applicants (about 30% in this dissertation) drops out before the extended screening, and that measuring expectations of the CRS may contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms influencing withdrawal between the initial screening at career office consultation and the next selection hurdle (see Chapter 5). Chapter 4 consists of three studies. In Study 1, the factor structure of the AES-Mil is established. In Study 2, the AES-Mil’s dimensionality, internal consistency, factor independence, and measurement invariance across samples are examined. In addition, the convergent, divergent, and predictive validity of the AES-Mil scales are explored. In Study 3, the relationships between the AES-Mil scales and posttest applicant perceptions are investigated, in order to collect corroborative evidence on the predictive validity of the AESMil. Together, these three studies should provide insight into what applicants expect of military selection procedures and whether these expectations can be reliably measured. The study in Chapter 5 explores the relationships between applicants’ expectations of military selection procedures, as measured by the AES-Mil, and job pursuit/applicant withdrawal. It is hypothesized that the theory of planned behavior (TPB) can serve as an explanatory mechanism of the expectations-job pursuit relationship. Specifically, selection expectations are suggested to influence job pursuit intention/behavior through influencing job pursuit attitude and self-efficacy for job pursuit behavior. This study adds to the literature in several ways. First, it is the first study to examine whether selection expectations have an effect on applicants’ actual job pursuit behavior [i.e., (non-)attendance at the next selection hurdle]. Second, the study explicitly addresses the role of volitional control in applicant job pursuit/withdrawal through the inclusion of both self-efficacy and controllability, the two components of the TPB-variable perceived behavioral control. Third, job pursuit was studied in a genuine selection context using a sample of real-world applicants for the Belgian military.

Introduction

19

The purpose of Chapter 6 is to examine alternative relationships between pretest selection expectations (measured by a generalized version of the AES-Mil1), posttest applicant perceptions, and posttest applicant attraction outcomes in the form of organizational attractiveness, job pursuit intention, and recommendation intention. In addition to investigating a direct relationship between selection expectations and attraction, the study also examines hypotheses claiming that applicant perceptions will mediate the expectationsattraction relationship, and that expectations, in turn, will moderate the relationship between applicant perceptions and attraction. Contrary to the previous studies, the sample in this study consisted of applicants for entry-level administrative/commercial jobs with a large Belgian bank. Chapter 7 presents an overview of the key findings obtained from the preceding empirical studies. The strengths and limitations of this dissertation are discussed, and recommendations for future research and practice are formulated.

1

An adapted version of the AES-Mil, called the AES, was used for the purpose of this research. The five-factor AES contains 24 items. Two items belonging to the scale ‘Chance to demonstrate potential’ were discarded because they referred to the military’s physical fitness test. The five-factor model showed good fit to the data.

Pretest

Pre-application Perceptions of career counselors • • •

Warmth Informativeness Competence

Attitude toward the organization Intention toward the organization

Chapter 2

Application behavior

Chapters 3 and 4 Applicant selection expectations • • • • •

Posttest

Warmth/respect Chance to demonstrate potential Difficulty of faking Unbiased assessment Feedback

Chapter 5

Job pursuit attitude Job pursuit intention Job pursuit selfefficacy

Job pursuit behavior

Applicant perceptions Chapter 6

• • • • •

Figure 1-1.

Warmth/respect Chance to demonstrate potential Difficulty of faking Unbiased assessment Feedback

Schematic overview of this dissertation’s empirical studies, key variables, and hypothesized relationships

Organizational attractiveness Job pursuit intention Recommendation intention

Introduction

21

1.5

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. Allen, D. G., Van Scotter, J. R., & Otondo, R. F. (2004). Recruitment communication media: Impact on prehire outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 57, 143-171. Anderson, N. (2001). Towards a theory of socialization impact: Selection as pre-entry socialization. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 84-91. Anderson, N., Born, M., & Cunningham-Snell, N. (2001). Recruitment and selection: Applicant perspectives and outcomes. In N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology: Volume 1 personnel psychology (pp. 200-218). London: Sage. Anderson, N., & Ostroff, C. (1997). Selection as socialization. In N. Anderson & P. Herriot (Eds.), International handbook of selection and assessment (pp. 413-440). Chichester: Wiley. Arvey, R. D., & Sackett, P. R. (1993). Fairness in selection: Current developments and perspectives. In N. W. Schmitt, W. C. Borman, & I. L. Goldstein (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 171-202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Arvey, R. D., Strickland, W., Drauden, G., & Martin, C. (1990). Motivational components of testtaking. Personnel Psychology, 43, 695-716. Asch, B., Hosek, J. R., Arkes, J., Fair, C., Sharp, J., & Totten, M. (2002). Military recruiting and retention after the fiscal year 2000 pay legislation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Bachman, J. G., Segal, D. R., Freedman-Doan, P., & O'Malley, P. M. (2000). Who chooses military service? Correlates of propensity and enlistment in the U.S. Armed Forces. Military Psychology, 12, 1-30. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. Barber, A. E. (1998). Recruiting employees: Individual and organizational perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Barber, A. E., & Roehling, M. V. (1993). Job postings and the decision to interview: A verbal protocol analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 845-856. Bauer, T. N., Maertz, C. P., Dolen, M. R., & Campion, M. A. (1998). Longitudinal assessment of applicant reactions to employment testing and test outcome feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 892-903. Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Sanchez, R. J., Craig, J. M., Ferrara, P., & Campion, M. A. (2001). Applicant reactions to selection: Development of the selection procedural justice scale (SPJS). Personnel Psychology, 54, 387-419. Bell, B. S., Ryan, A. M., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). Justice expectations and applicant perceptions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 24-38.

22

Chapter 1

Bell, B. S., Wiechmann, D. J., & Ryan, A. M. (2006). Consequences of organizational justice expectations in a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 455-466. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Pay preferences and job search decisions: A person-organization fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 47, 317-348. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294-311. Castro, C. A., & Adler, A. B. (2005). Operations tempo (OPTEMPO). Military Psychology, 17(3). Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2004). An agenda for future research on applicant reactions to selection procedures: A construct-oriented approach. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 9-23. Chan, D., Schmitt, N., DeShon, R. P., Clause, C. S., & Delbridge, K. (1997). Reactions to cognitive ability tests: The relationships between race, test performance, face validity perceptions, and test-taking motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 300-310. Chan, D., Schmitt, N., Sacco, J. M., & DeShon, R. P. (1998). Understanding pretest and posttest reactions to cognitive ability and personality tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 471485. Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytical review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 928-944. Collins, C., & Stevens, C. K. (1999). Initial organizational images and recruitment: A within-subjects investigation of the factors affecting job choices. Paper presented at the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, Georgia. Derous, E., Born, Ph. M., & De Witte, K. (2004). How applicants want and expect to be treated: Applicants' selection treatment beliefs and the development of the social process questionnaire on selection. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 99-119. Derous, E., & De Witte, K. (2001). Looking at selection from a social process perspective: Towards a social process model on personnel selection. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 319-342. Dodd, W. E. (1977). Attitudes toward assessment center programs. In J. L. Moses & W. C. Byham (Eds.), Applying assessment center method (pp. 161-183). New York, NY: Pergamon Press. Fallon, J. B., Gilliland, S. W., Groth, M., & Ferreter, J. (2002, April). The development of the applicant reactions scale (ARS). Paper presented at the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada. Fishbein, M. (1980). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. In H. E. Howe & M. M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol 27, pp. 65-116). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Introduction

23

Gerhart, B. (1990). Voluntary turnover and alternative job opportunities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 467-476. Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18, 694-734. Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691-701. Gilliland, S. W. (1995). Fairness from the applicant’s perspective: Reactions to employee selection procedures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 3, 11-19. Gilliland, S. W., & Honig, H. (1994, April). Development of the selection fairness survey. Paper presented at the Ninth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN. Glickstein, G., & Ramer, D. C. Z. (1988, February). The alternative employment marketplace. Personnel Administrator, 100-104. Goltz, S. M., & Giannantonio, C. M. (1995). Recruiter friendliness and attraction to the job: The mediating role of inferences about the organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 109118. Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Advances in organizational justice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Hansen, M. (2000). Compensation and enlisted manning shortfalls. CNA research memorandum D0001998. Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval Analyses. 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. Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 369-425. Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to organizations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 986-1001. Hosek, J. R., & Peterson, C. E. (1985). Reenlistment bonuses and retention behavior (Rep. No. R3199-MIL). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Iles, P. A., & Robertson, I. T. (1989). The impact of personnel selection procedures on candidates. In P. Herriot (Ed.), Assessment and selection in organizations (pp. 257-271). Chichester, England: Wiley. Iles, P. A., & Robertson, I. T. (1997). The impact of personnel selection procedures on candidates. In N. Anderson & P. Herriot (Eds.), International handbook of selection and assessment (pp. 543-566). Chichester: Wiley. Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359-394.

24

Chapter 1

Knowles, J. A., Parlier, G. H., Hoscheit, G. C., Ayer, R., Lyman, K., & Fancher, R. (2002). Reinventing Army recruiting. Interfaces, 32, 78-92. LaHuis, D. M. (2005). Individual differences in applicant reactions: A job search perspective. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 13, 150-159. Lescreve, F. (2000, September). Recruiting for the Military when the economy is booming. Paper presented at the Thirty-Sixth International Applied Military Psychology Symposium, Split, Croatia. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York, NY: Plenum Press. Lievens, F., & Highhouse, S. (2003). The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a company's attractiveness as an employer. Personnel Psychology, 56, 75-102. Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G., & Anseel, F. (2007). Organisational identity and employer image: Towards a unifying framework. British Journal of Management, 18, 45-59. Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G., & Schreurs, B. (2005). Examining the relationship between employer knowledge dimensions and organizational attractiveness: An application in a military context. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 553-572. Macan, T. H., Avedon, M. J., Paese, M., Smith, D. E. (1994). The effects of applicants’ reactions to cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology, 47, 715-738. Olson, J. M., Roese, N. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1996). Expectancies. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 211-238). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Phillips, J. M. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational outcomes: A metaanalysis. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 673-690. Ployhart, R. E., & Ryan, A. M. (1998). Applicants’ reactions to the fairness of selection procedures: The effects of positive rule violations and time of measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 3-16. Ployhart, R. E., Ziegert, J. C., McFarland, L. A. (2003). Understanding racial differences on cognitive ability tests in selection contexts: An integration of stereotype threat and applicant reactions research. Human Performance, 16, 231-259. Robertson, I. T., Iles, P. A., Gratton, L., & Sharpley, D. (1991). The impact of personnel selection and assessment methods on candidates. Human Relations, 44, 963-982. Robertson, I. T., & Kandola, R. S. (1982). Work sample test: Validity, adverse impact and applicant reaction. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55, 171-183. Robertson, I. T., & Smith, M. (1989). Personnel selection methods. In M. Smith & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), Advances in selection and assessment (pp. 89-112). Chichester, England: Wiley. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations. London: Sage.

Introduction

25

Rumsey, M. G., Walker, C. B., & Harris, J. H. (1994). Personnel selection and classification. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ryan, A. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2000). Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and decisions: A critical review and agenda for the future. Journal of Management, 26, 565-606. Ryan, A. M., Sacco, J. M., McFarland, L. A., & Kriska, S. D. (2000). Applicant self-selection: Correlates of withdrawal from a multiple hurdle process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 163-179. Rynes, S. L. (1989). The employment interview as a recruitment device. In R. W. Eder & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), The employment interview: Theory, research, and practice, pp. 127-142. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Sanchez, R. J., Truxillo, D. M., & Bauer, T. N. (2000). Development and examination of an expectancy-based measure of test-taking motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 739750. Schinkel, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Anderson, N. (2004). The impact of selection encounters on applicants: An experimental study into feedback effects after a negative selection decision. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 197-205. Schmidt, F. L., Greenthal, A. L., Hunter, J. E., Berner, J. G., & Seaton, F. W. (1977). Job sample vs. paper-and-pencil trades and technical tests: Adverse impact and examinee attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 30, 187-197. Schreurs, B., Derous, E., De Witte, K., Proost, K., Andriessen, M., & Glabeke, K. (2005). Attracting potential applicants to the military: The effects of initial face-to-face contacts. Human Performance, 18, 105-122. Schreurs, B., & Druart, C. (2006, May). Openness to experience: A moderator in the relationship between trait inferences and organizational attraction. In P. H. Raymark (Chair), Linking personality to decision making in recruitment and selection. Symposium conducted at the Twenty-First Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, TX. Schuler, H. (1993). Social validity of selection situations: A concept and some empirical results. In H. Schuler, J. L. Farr, & M. Smith (Eds.), Personnel selection and assessment: Individual and organizational perspectives (pp. 11-26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Slaughter, J. E., Zickar, M. J., Highhouse, S., & Mohr, D. C. (2004). Personality trait inferences about organizations: Development of a measure and assessment of construct validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 573-592. Smither, J. H., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R. W. (1993). Applicant reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46, 49-76. Spence, A. M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355-374.

26

Chapter 1

Steel, R. P. (1996). Labor market dimensions as predictors of the reenlistment decisions of military personnel. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 421-428. Tannen, M. B. (1987). Is the Army college fund meeting its objectives? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 41, 62. Timmerman, T. A. (1996, August). Do organizations have personalities? Paper presented at the FiftySixth Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Cincinnati, OH. Trank, C. Q., Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D. (2002). Attracting applicants in the war for talent: Differences in work preferences among high achievers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 331-345. Turban, D. B. (2001). Organizational attractiveness as an employer on college campuses: An examination of the applicant population. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 293-312. Turban, D. B., Forret, M. L., & Hendrickson, C. L. (1998). Applicant attraction to firms: Influences of organization reputation, job and organizational attributes, and recruiter behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 52, 24-44. Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28, 184-193. Van Hooft, E. A. J., Born, M. Ph., Taris, T. W., & Van der Flier, H. (2006). Ethnic and gender differences in applicants' decision-making processes: An application of the theory of reasoned action. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 156-166. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2004). Importance of perceived personnel selection system fairness determinants: Relations with demographic, personality, and job characteristics. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 172-186. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley. Wiskoff, M. F., & Rampton, G. L. (1989). Military personnel measurement: Testing, assignment, evaluation. New York, NY: Praeger.

Chapter 2 Attracting Potential Applicants to the Military: The Effects of Initial Face-to-Face Contacts1

This study was a first attempt to examine whether prior conclusions on applicant reactions to recruiters conducting the initial screening interview also go for other forms of initial face-toface contacts. In Belgian national defense recruiters typically are working in career offices to attract and inform job seekers about job opportunities and organizational characteristics. We surveyed job seekers visiting these career offices for the first time about their perceptions of various career counselor characteristics (warmth, informativeness, and competence). The results showed positive relationships between warmth and attitude toward the organization; between warmth and intentions toward the organization; and between competence and application behavior. Negative relationships were observed between informativeness and intentions toward the organization; and between informativeness and application behavior. Consistent with Fishbein and Ajzen’s theory of reasoned action, we found that the relationship between the set of career counselor characteristics and potential applicants’ intentions toward the organization was fully mediated by attitude toward the organization, and that intentions fully mediated the relationship between career counselor characteristics and application behavior. Suggestions for strengthening organizational recruitment programs and for directing further research are discussed.

1

Schreurs, B., Derous, E., De Witte, K., Proost, K., Andriessen, M., & Glabeke, K. (2005). Attracting potential applicants to the military: The effects of initial face-to-face contacts. Human Performance, 18, 105-122.

28

Chapter 2

2.1

Introduction

From an attraction point of view, initial contacts between organizational representatives and applicants are potentially quite important, since first impressions of an organization’s employees can lead to the formation of opinions that are not easy to displace afterward (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). Until now, research on the effects of initial contacts has focused primarily on applicant reactions to the initial screening interview in general, and the campus interview in particular (for reviews, see Barber, 1998, and Rynes, 1991). More specifically, a large number of studies have focused on applicants’ reactions to recruiter behaviors and personality during the screening interview. Recruiter warmth (also called “friendliness” or “affect”) is consistently found to be associated with applicant attraction, with applicants more attracted when the recruiter is perceived as being warm (Alderfer & McCord, 1970; Goltz & Giannantonio, 1995, Harris & Fink, 1987; Liden & Parsons, 1986; Powell, 1991; Rynes & Miller, 1983; Schmitt & Coyle, 1976; Taylor & Bergmann, 1987; Turban & Dougherty, 1992). Also frequently reported in the recruitment literature is the positive relationship between applicant attraction and the amount of information provided by the recruiter during the interview (Harris & Fink, 1987; Liden & Parsons, 1986; Maurer, Howe, & Lee, 1992; Powell, 1984; Rynes & Miller, 1983; Turban & Dougherty, 1992). A third recruiter characteristic that has received considerable attention is recruiter competence. Research indicates that applicants are generally more attracted to the organization when the recruiter is perceived as being competent (Alderfer & McCord, 1970; Harris & Fink, 1987; Liden & Parsons, 1986; Schmitt & Coyle, 1976). Presumably because the screening interview is one of the most frequent means of establishing interpersonal contact and influencing applicants’ job choices (Rynes, 1989), relatively few studies have investigated other types of initial face-to-face contacts (Barber, 1998). Nonetheless, organizations facing difficulties in attracting qualified applicants typically fall back on other forms of initial contacts, such as open houses and job fairs (Glickstein & Ramer, 1988). Still other organizations make use of career offices to inform job seekers about organizational characteristics and job opportunities. The goal of this study is to examine whether prior conclusions on applicant reactions to recruiters conducting the initial screening interview also go for other forms of initial face-to-face contacts.

Attracting Potential Applicants to the Military

2.2

29

Potential Applicants’ Reactions to Early Recruitment Activities

Contrary to research on applicants’ reactions to the selection interview, research on potential applicants’ reactions to early recruitment activities is still in its infancy. Recently, Anderson, Born, and Cunningham-Snell (2001) called for more research on “candidate reactions to recruitment processes, especially as it is at this early stage that many may decide to selfselect-out in order to avoid further time commitments in attending selection procedures with the organization” (p. 202). In this regard, recruitment research has recently begun to focus on potential applicants’ reactions to online recruitment (Anderson, 2003). For instance, Scheu, Ryan and Nona (1999) examined the effectiveness of 10 manufactering organization’s websites as recruiting mechanisms. They found that potential applicants’ perceptions of the websites were positively related to their views of the organization, and to their intentions to apply to that particular organization. Other research examined potential applicants’ reactions to the content of recruitment materials (e.g., Belt & Paollilo, 1982; Gatewood, Gowan, & Lautenschlager, 1993). Barber and Roehling (1993) investigated college graduates’ reactions to job postings for fictitious companies. The job postings contained references to characteristics of the job, the organization and the employment process. The results indicated that vacancy characteristics (i.e., location, salary, benefits) received most attention and played the largest role in participants’ intentions to apply. The results also indicated that participants essentially ignored recruiter characteristics (i.e., gender and title) that were referred to in vacancy announcements. We extend such research on early recruitment activities by examining the influence of initial face-to-face contacts on potential applicants’ attraction to organizations.

2.3

Potential Applicants’ Attraction to the Military

This study examines potential applicants’ attraction to the military. This military context is relevant because the armed forces increasingly face difficulties in attracting and enlisting new recruits (Bachman, Segal, Freedman-Doan, & O’Malley, 2000; “Good men needed”, 2002; U.S. General Accounting Office, 2000). Until now, research on military propensity and enlistment of high school seniors mainly focused on demographic, biographic, educational, and family background factors and attitudes about military service (Bachman et al., 2000; Martin, 1995), while ignoring specific factors that determine their perceived attraction to the military as an employer in early recruitment stages (Lievens, Van Hoye, & Schreurs, 2005). The military typically uses career offices to establish the first interpersonal contact with

30

Chapter 2

potential applicants. The majority of the career office personnel, further referred to as ‘career counselors’, are enlisted personnel and non-commissioned officers, while a minority are officers. Their job consists of informing career office visitors about job characteristics and working conditions in the organization. The objective of the career office consultation is to generate applicants, that is, to get a sufficient number of visitors interested in applying to the military. However, career counselors are not allowed to coarsely distort reality. After all, misrepresenting organizational life might lead to early voluntary withdrawal or dropout as a result of unmet expectations (e.g., Griffeth & Hom, 2001; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000). Another distinction between the traditional screening interview and the career office consultation is that a career counselor cannot prevent a potential applicant from applying, even if it is clear to him that the person is not suited for the job. For instance, a career counselor cannot stop a weak-sighted/ obese prospect from applying, although it is obvious to him that the prospect will not pass the medical examination. In sum, the career office consultation is a period of information provision intended to generate a sufficient number of applicants, with no hiring done. The presented information should be in accordance with reality and should assist potential applicants in their decision whether or not to apply.

2.4

Direct and Indirect Measures of Attraction

The most direct measures of potential applicant attraction would be actual applications for employment and ultimate choice of one place to work (Highhouse, Lievens, & Sinar, 2003; Sinar & Highhouse, 2000). Yet, presumably because behavioral measures of (potential) applicant attraction are hard to obtain, they are seldom used in recruitment research. Provided that they are used, behavioral measures usually deal with applicants’ decision to continue to pursue employment or not, for instance through the acceptance or rejection of site visit invitations (e.g., Rynes, Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991), or withdrawal from the selection process (Barber, Hollenbeck, Tower, & Phillips, 1994). Most previous studies on applicant attraction only used nonbehavioral, indirect measures of attraction as a substitute for behavioral measures (e.g., Highhouse, Stierwalt, Bachiochi, Elder, & Fisher, 1999). Nonbehavioral measures typically include items assessing general organizational attractiveness, such as “how attractive is this company as an employer, for you?” (e.g., Turban, Forret, & Hendrickson, 1998), and intentions, such as “if you were offered a job, how likely is it you would accept it?” (e.g., Harris & Fink, 1987; Liden & Parsons, 1986). An appealing characteristic of attitude and intention items is that they seem to map on to the

Attracting Potential Applicants to the Military

31

components of Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory of reasoned action (TRA) (Highhouse et al., 2003; Sinar & Highhouse, 2000). According to the TRA, the most proximal determinant of behavior is a person’s intention to engage in it, and intention is a function of attitude toward the behavior. Thus, attitudes influence behavior to the extent that they influence intentions to engage in that behavior. According to Highhouse et al. (2003), the attractiveness items map onto the attitude component and refer to an individual’s affective and attitudinal thoughts about a particular organization as a potential employer. Organizational attractiveness is considered to be passive in nature because it does not necessarily lead to job pursuit behavior. This passivity permits individuals to be attracted to many organizations at the same time. Intention items, on the other hand, have a more active connotation because they imply further action toward an organization. Therefore, intentions will likely be limited to a smaller subset of potential employers (Highhouse et al., 2003). Actual job application decisions are most active in nature, because they require some commitment of time and energy on the part of the potential applicant (Barber, 1998).

2.5

This Study

In the present investigation we assess both attitude and intentions toward the organization as nonbehavioral measures of applicant attraction. In addition, we include potential applicants’ decision to apply or not as a behavioral indicator of attraction. Based upon the vast amount of empirical evidence on the effects of recruiter characteristics on real applicants’ attractiveness to the organizations (attitude) and willingness to pursue employment (intentions), we expect career counselor characteristics (i.e., warmth, informativeness, competence) to have a positive effect on potential applicants’ attitude and intentions toward the organization as well. Hypothesis 1: Career counselor characteristics have a positive effect on potential applicants’ attitude and intentions toward the organization after controlling for background variables. Additionally, in line with Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) TRA, we hypothesize attitude toward the organization to play a mediating role between career counselor characteristics and intentions toward the organization. Hypothesis 2: The relationship between career counselor characteristics and potential applicants’ intentions toward the organization is at least partially mediated by potential applicants’ attitudes toward the organization.

32

Chapter 2

Next, we investigate the effects of career counselor characteristics on potential applicants’ decision to apply. Since there is a clear relation between intentions and behavior (e.g., Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), we hypothesize that career counselor characteristics will not only affect potential applicants’ intentions, but also their actual behavior toward the organization. In addition, we hypothesize that, in case there is an effect on behavior, this is mediated by intentions toward the organization, thereby again referring to the TRA. Hypothesis 3: Career counselor characteristics have a positive effect on potential applicants’ decision to apply after controlling for background variables. Hypothesis 4: The relationship between career counselor characteristics and potential applicants’ decision to apply is at least partially mediated by potential applicants’ intentions toward the organization.

2.6

Method

Procedure and Sample Between October 2001 and March 2002 1144 surveys were sent to all persons who recently (two weeks before) had visited a career office of the Belgian Defense and had a conversation with a counselor at that time about job possibilities within the military. The survey included an autobiographic form, measures of organizational attractiveness, and a measure of career counselor characteristics. 651 former visitors completed and sent back the survey, which corresponds with a response rate of 57%. As noted above, it was our objective to sample from the applicant population. The applicant population does not consist of actual applicants, but of potential applicants. Therefore, we removed all individuals who sent back the survey after applying (n = 192) from further analyses. Also removed were all individuals who did not comply with the preliminary legal conditions (i.e., age, diploma, criminal record) (n = 26). These individuals were not allowed to apply, even if they would have wanted to. Finally, some individuals were removed, because they clearly had misinterpreted some of the questions (n = 25). The analyses conducted were based on the remaining total of 408 potential applicants. The majority of the respondents were male (82%). Half of the participants were Frenchspeaking (52%); the other half was Dutch-speaking (48%). Some visitors already had a job at the time they visited the recruiting station (17%). Most of the respondents, however, were

Attracting Potential Applicants to the Military

33

secondary school students (55%) ready to enter the labor market. Consequently, the majority of respondents had no (54%) or very little (less than one year) work experience (19%). Most of the respondents also had very little experience with procedures used by organizations to recruit/ select individuals (91%). The average age of the respondents was 20. Measures Background information. Given their importance in prior research (e.g., Bachman et al., 2000; Segal, Burns, Falk, Silver, & Sharda, 1998), respondents were asked to fill out their gender, age, and educational background. We also measured work experience and prior experience with selection procedures. Career counselor characteristics. Three career counselor characteristics were of special interest to us, given their ubiquitousness in previous research on recruiter characteristics, viz., warmth, informativeness, and competence. Career counselor warmth was measured with a scale consisting of nine items from 1 (strongly disagree) to 8 (strongly agree). The reliability estimate revealed a Cronbach alpha value of .89. A sample item from this scale is “at the career office, the counselor showed interest in me”. To measure career counselor informativeness, we used a scale consisting of four items from 1 (strongly disagree) to 8 (strongly agree). The reliability estimate revealed a Cronbach alpha of .77. A sample item from this scale is “at the career office, the counselor provided ample information on possible career paths in the military”. Career counselor competence was measured with a scale consisting of six items from 1 (strongly disagree) to 8 (strongly agree), showing a Cronbach alpha value of .81. A sample item from this scale is “at the career office, the counselor gave evidence of workmanship”. All scales were developed by the authors based on preceding discussions with career counselors and job seekers visiting a career office. In general, the reliability coefficients are quite acceptable for developmental and research purposes (Nunnally, 1978). Attitude toward the organization. Attitude toward the organization was measured with a single item asking “how attractive is this company as an employer, for you?” (1 = not attractive at all, 6 = very attractive). Previous research on applicant attraction also made use of this kind of valence perception items (e.g., Turban et al., 1998). Intentions toward the organization. To measure intentions, subjects were forced to make a choice between whether or not they still intended to apply (0 = I do not intend to apply, 1 = I

34

Chapter 2

intend to apply). Application behavior. As a behavioral measure we used subjects’ decision to apply. For all visitors we verified in a central database whether or not they applied within a time span of six months after their first visit (0 = did not apply within six months, 1 = applied within six months).

2.7

Analyses and Results

Descriptive Statistics Table 2-1 presents the means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations among this study’s variables. All career counselor characteristics are significantly related to attitude toward the organization. Warmth is also significantly correlated with intentions toward the organization (Spearman r = .12, p < .05), but not with application behavior. Informativeness has significant correlations neither with intentions, nor with application behavior. Competence, on the other hand, correlates significantly with both intentions (Spearman r = .14, p < .01) and application (Spearman r = .11, p < .05). Finally, high positive correlations between attitude and intentions (Spearman r = .40, p < .01), intentions and application behavior (Spearman r = .32, p