Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY 1987. 40
A FIELD STUDY OF APPLICANT REACTIONS TO EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES: DOES THE RECRUITER MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
MICHAEL M. HARRIS, LAURENCE S. FINK Krannert Graduate School of Management
F’urdue University
Previous cross-sectional field and laboratory research has provided mixed results as to whether recruiter characteristics and behaviors influence ap- plicant reactions to employment opportunities. The present research was conducted to examine the effect of recruiter characteristics using a pre- post study design in a naturally occurring setting. In addition, the effects of several potential moderators on recruiter influence were tested. Re- sults indicated that recruiter characteristics had an impact on perceived job attributes, regard for job and company, and likelihood of joining the company. There was little evidence that the effect of recruiter character- istics was moderated by selected applicant, job, or interviewer variables.
Research on staffing has traditionally focused on development of tech- niques and instruments for improved selection and placement of job can- didates by managers and recruiters. However, researchers have become increasingly aware of the importance of the candidates’ reactions to the re- cruitment process (Boudreau & Rynes, 1985; Schneider & Schmitt, 1986; Wanous, 1980). This issue has become particularly crucial, given evidence that failing to attract and hire top candidates can lead to significant declines in the utility of a selection program (Murphy, 1986).
Work on recruiting has been divided into two areas that, for the most part, have been studied independently of one another (Schwab, 1982). Re- search regarding job and company attributes has been quite extensive (e.g., Mitchell & Beach, 1976 Power & Aldag, 1985; Rynes & Lawler, 1983; Vroom, 1966). On the other hand, aside from work on realistic job pre- views, research concerning recruiting procedures has received relatively less attention (Rynes & Boudreau, 1986). The most frequently examined issue regarding the medium has been the recruiter and his or her effect on applicant choices. In one of the earliest studies of the recruiter, Alderfer and McCord (1970) surveyed graduating college students about the inter- view process and content for their best, worst, and average interviews.
The authors would like to thank Michael Campion, Paul Sackett, Donald Schwab, and two
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Michael M. Harris, anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts.
Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907.
COPYRIGHT @ 1987 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, INC
765
766 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Results suggested that well-perceived interviews, as compared with poorly received interviews, were characterized by supportive, interested recruiters. Similarly, Schrnitt and Coyle (1976) asked graduating college students to describe the recruiter’s behavior during their most recent interview. They found a strong relationship between perceived recruiter characteristics and likelihood of accepting a job, as well as other perceptions of the company.
More recently, Schwab (1982) recommended that research be conducted that simultaneously examines the impact of recruiting practices and job attributes, as these two constructs may be highly correlated. Three studies, two in the laboratory and one in the field, have been conducted to address this concern.
In the first of two laboratory studies, Rynes and Miller (1983) manip- ulated recruiter characteristics, while fixing job attributes to be average. The results showed that although recruiter characteristics had a significant effect on perceived job attractiveness, perceptions of the recruiter did not have a significant impact on likelihood of accepting a job offer. Moreover, in their second study, where both recruiter characteristics and job attributes were manipulated, Rynes and Miller (1983) found that the recruiter had no effect on either perceived job attractiveness or likelihood of job acceptance. As pointed out by Rynes and Miller (1983), given that their research was conducted in an artificial setting, recruiter behavior may have had a smaller effect than it would in a field study due to different motivations of real job seekers and subjects in a laboratory simulation.
In a third investigation, Powell (1984) conducted a cross-sectional study using graduating college students at a university placement office. Powell found that when perceived job attributes were partialled out, perceived recruiter characteristics had no effect on likelihood of job acceptance. Thus, he concluded that “the emphasis placed on recruiting practices such as positive recruiter behaviors as determinants of applicant decisions may be overstated in the literature” (p. 730).
In summary, despite earlier findings by Alderfer and McCord (1970) and Schmitt and Coyle (1976), in two of the three cases where job attributes and recruiter characteristics were examined simultaneously, there was no support for the hypothesis that the recruiter has an influence on job choice. However, there are at least three reasons for caution before concluding that the recruiter does not affect job choice. First, less than optimal study designs have been used for analyzing the impact of the recruiter. Second, only direct effects of recruiter Characteristics have been examined in field studies; finally, several researchers have speculated that there are factors that moderate recruiter influence. What follows is a discussion of each of these issues.
HAFUUS AND FINK 767
Study Design
With regard to the study design, all of the field studies to date have been cross-sectional, including Powell (1984). As described by Schmitt and Coyle (1976), a preinterview-postinterview study is necessary for de- termining the causal effect of the recruiter on applicant perceptions as well as for controlling extraneous sources of variance. Specifically, by control- ling for pre-scores, the amount of change related to recruiter characteristics can be determined in a more precise fashion.
Direct Versus Indirect Effects
A second explanation for the apparent lack of recruiter effects is that most research and theorizing has focused on direct effects of recruiter characteristics. Specifically, attention has been on recruiter characteris- tics and intention to accept the job; the implicit assumption has been that there is little or no relationship between recruiter characteristics and job attributes. For example, Powell (1984) did not discuss the correlation be- tween recruiter characteristics and job attributes; Rynes and Miller (1983) found no relationship in their second study, but they did find a relationship between job attractiveness and recruiter characteristics in the first study. Therefore, while there may be no direct effect of recruiter characteris- tics on perceived employment opportunities, recruiter characteristics may have an indirect effect through their impact on job attributes. To date, no field research has systematically examined this possibility. Hence, a preinterview-postinterview study that includes measures of job attributes, as well as likelihood of job acceptance and expectancy of job offer, is needed to more completely examine the effect of the recruiter on applicant reactions.
Moderator Variables
A third plausible explanation for the apparent lack of recruiter effects on applicants is that recruiter influence may be moderated by applicant, job, and recruiter variables.
Applicant moderators. A number of potential moderators regarding the applicant have been mentioned in the recruitment literature. One key mod- erator may be prior work experience (Rynes, Heneman, & Schwab, 1980; Schwab, 1982). The assumption is that applicants with prior work experi- ence are more aware of, and therefore will concentrate more on, job and organizational attributes and attend correspondingly less to characteristics of the recruiter (Rynes et al., 1980).
768 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
A second potential applicant moderator is the number of prior interviews the candidate had. This variable is based on the same premise that was made for prior work experience: candidates who have more exposure to jobs and companies will focus more on different job attributes and less on recruiter characteristics than will those with limited exposure.
A third potential candidate moderator is gender. As described by Rynes et al. (1980), most of the research in this area has used males; little is known about whether or not recruiters have a differential impact on females. In one study, which examined the relationship between applicant sex and reactions to recruiter, however, females regarded interviewers as more competent and personable (Liden & Parsons, 1986). Thus, there is some indirect evidence that recruiters have a differential impact depending on applicant gender.
The final candidate moderator considered here is perceived alternatives. Glueck (1973) found that the impact of recruiter characteristics was mod- erated by job alternatives. Specifically, perceptions of the recruiter had a smaller influence when more alternatives were available to applicants. This appeared to be due to the fact that the candidates with more alternatives had far more information to consider than candidates with fewer options, making additional dimensions (such as recruiter characteristics) impossible to consider for the former group.
Job moderators. At least one job-related moderator has been discussed in the recruitment literature. As Rynes and Miller (1983) suggested, jobs that are perceived as neutral, neither particularly attractive nor unattractive, are more likely to be influenced by the recruiter than jobs that are clearly positive or negative, That is, in the absence of strong reactions to a job, recruiter characteristics become an important deciding factor.
Recruiter moderators. Finally, two potential recruiter moderators exist. One characteristic of interest is gender: both Driscoll and Hess (1974) and Liden and Parsons (1986) found that female recruiters were perceived as superior interviewers when compared with their male counterparts. How- ever, no research has investigated the differential impacts of male and female recruiters on applicant decisions.
The second potential recruiter moderator is job function. Specifically, recruiters may be either personnel representatives or line managers. Al- though there has been no specific research examining this variable as a factor in recruitment, there is evidence that personnel and nonpersonnel managers evaluate candidates differently (Keenan, 1976), and it has been suggested that they have different attitudes regarding the hiring process (Half, 1985). Furthermore, the personnel manager often serves only as the initial screen and may not interact with the applicant once hired on the job (Heneman, Schwab, Fossum, & Dyer, 1986). Hence, an interview
H A R R I S AND FINK 769
with a personnel representative may not be used to make judgments re- garding work environment, the actual job, or any other job attributes. In general, applicant inferences about the organization based on contact with a personnel manager may be limited.
The purpose of the present study was twofold. First, a preinterview- postinterview design was used to determine more precisely whether re- cruiter characteristics were related to perceived job attributes and intentions to accept a job. Second, a number of potential moderators were tested to determine whether the impact of the recruiter depended upon applicant, job, and interviewer variables.
A sample of graduating college students at a university placement center was used here for several reasons. First, this context permitted collection of pre- and postmeasures since students wait for their job interviews in specific areas and can be assessed immediately afterwards. Second, the students were interviewing for full-time, permanent jobs within their chosen career field. Thus, the interview had considerable importance for them. Finally, most work on the impact of the recruiter has used graduating college students (e.g., Glueck, 1973; Powell, 1984; Rynes & Miller, 1983; Schmitt & Coyle, 1976). Hence, research with this population would be comparable to previous studies.
Given the conflicting results of previous research (e.g., compare Schmitt & Coyle, 1976, and Powell, 1984), specific hypotheses as to the existence of main effects of the recruiter characteristics on applicant reactions were not stated. However, there was sufficient justification to state the following hypotheses regarding the moderator variables:
Hypothesis I : Applicant variables will moderate the effect of the recruiter such that (a) applicants with prior work experience will be less influenced by the recruiter characteristics than will applicants with no prior experience; (b) the more prior interviews a candidate has, the less effect recruiter char- acteristics will have on job perceptions; (c) applicant gender will affect the influence of the recruiter-however, no specific prediction can be made as to the direction of this effect; (d) the greater the number of perceived alter- natives, the smaller the impact recruiter characteristics will have.
Hypothesis 2: Job-relevant variables will moderate the recruiter influence in the following fashion: Jobs that initially are viewed as neither attractive nor unattractive will be more strongly influenced by the recruiter characteristics than jobs that are clearly either attractive or unattractive.
Hypothesis 3: Recruiter-related variables will moderate the recruiter's influ- ence as follows: (a) Recruiter gender will affect the influence of the recruiter; however, no predictions as to the direction of the effect are made. (b) Job function (personnel vs. nonpersonnel) will affect amount of recruiter influ- ence such that characteristics of nonpersonnel recruiters or line employees will have greater influence than characteristics of personnel managers.
770 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Method
Subjects
The sample consisted of 145 students participating in campus interviews at the university placement office of a large midwestem university. The subjects represented a total of 35 different majors and had a mean age of 22 (SD = 2.2). Seventy-one percent were male. The subjects had an average of 10 previous interviews (SD = 6.3), and 35% had previous full-time work experience. Students were interviewed by a total of 135 different recruiters from 76 different organizations. Seventy-eight percent of these recruiters were male; almost half (43%) were from the personnel department. The organizations were from both the public and private sectors and ranged from Fortune 500 companies to regional and local employers. Given the large number of recruiters and the variety of organizations, it is reasonable to assume that there was sufficient variance in both job attributes and recruiter characteristics.
Measures
Job attributes. In order to have as complete a measure of job attributes as possible, a 25-item questionnaire was developed using items from Posner (1981), Powell (1984), and Wright (1983). Items were categorized into the four dimensions described by Powell and Wright: job itself, worklcompany environment, compensation/ job security, and minor fringe benefits. Each item was answered on a five-point scale regarding the instrumentality or likelihood that this company had the characteristic (1 = very unlikely, 5 = very likely). The items and their respective categories are provided in Appendix 1.
Recruiter perceptions. Thirty-three items (adapted from Schmitt & Coyle, 1976) were used to measure recruiter characteristics. Items com- prised brief descriptions of behavior or characteristics of the recruiter. Rat- ings were made on a five-point scale regarding the degree to which the in- terviewer exhibited the characteristics (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly
Given the differences in the number of factors found in past research on recruiter characteristics (e.g., compare Liden & Parsons, 1986, and Schmitt & Coyle, 1976), a factor analysis was conducted using the data collected for this study to determine the scales. A four-factor principal axis solution with a varimax rotation provided the best fit of the data, accounting for 48% of the common variance. Two items were dropped because they did not load highly on any factors. Items were placed into scales based on the factor on which they showed the highest loading. The resultant scales were
agree).
HARRIS AND FINK 77 1
named personableness, competence, informativeness, and aggressiveness. A complete listing of the items and their respective categories is provided in Appendix 2.
Likelihood of joining organization and regard for job and company. A single item was used to measure likelihood of getting a job offer: “How likely is it that you will be offered a job by this company?” (answered on a five-point scale where 1 = very unlikely and 5 = very likely). Another single item assessed overall attractiveness of or regard for the job: “Overall how attractive is this job?” (answered on a seven-point scale where 1 = very unattractive, 7 = very attractive). Intention to accept job was measured with a two-item scale: “If you were offered this job, would you accept it?” (1 = very unlikely, 5 = very likely) and “If you were offered this job, would you accept it immediately?” (1 = definitely not, 5 = definitely would). Regard for the company was measured with a single item: “How highly do you regard this company?” (answered with a five-point scale where 1 = hold in low regard, 5 = hold it in high regard).
Perceived alternatives. Perceptions regarding alternative employment opportunities were measured using three items: “How many total job offers do you expect to receive?”, “How many job offers have your received so far?”, and “How many plant trips have you received so far?” Each item was answered on a seven-point scale (1 = none, 7 = 8 or more).
Other moderator variables. In order to test whether jobs which were perceived as neutral were more likely to be affected by the recruiter than jobs regarded as either extremely attractive or unattractive, the entire sample was split into three approximately equal subgroups, based on preinterview measures of regard for job.
A dichotomous variable (referred to henceforth as “attractiveness”) was then created, whereby jobs rated as either highly attractive or highly unattractive were coded 1 (non-neutral) and jobs rated in the middle were coded 2 (neutral).
All other moderator variables were measured directly with single items. Prior full-time work experience was measured with the following question: “Have you had previous full-time (excluding summer) work (Yes or No)?” Recruiter job function, number of prior interviews, and recruiter and appli- cant gender were ascertained directly on the questionnaire.
Procedure
Job candidates waiting in the university placement office for their sched- uled interviews were asked if they were interested in voluntarily participat- ing in a study regarding student job choices. Only subjects with at least ten minutes before their interviews were scheduled to begin were permit- ted to participate. This was done for two reasons. First, the preinterview
772 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
questionnaire took approximately ten minutes to complete. Second, in merit with the university placement office, it was believed that undue stress would be placed on students if they had less than ten minutes in which to answer the survey. After the students completed their interview, they immediately filled out the postinterview questionnaire. Participants in the study were given a $2 honorarium.
Precise figures as to the response rate are difficult to calculate as many participants initially could not participate due to time constraints but did so at a later time. Our best estimate is that between 50% and 75% of the students that we asked did eventually participate.
The preinterview questionnaire consisted of measures of job attributes, likelihood of joining the organization, and regard for job and company. The postinterview questionnaire included questions regarding the applicant and recruiter, in addition to the items from the preinterview questionnaire.
Results
Main Effects of Recruiter Characteristics
Alpha coefficients, means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all variables are provided in Table 1.
The first set of analyses addressed the effect of recruiter character- istics on the four job attributes ('job itself, compensation/job security, work/ company environment, and minor fringe benefits), regard for com- pany and job, likelihood of job offer, and intentions to accept a job offer. The impact of the recruiter characteristics was tested using two-stage, hier- archical set regression equations for each of these eight measures. Step 1 consisted of the pre-score for the dependent measure entered first, followed by the four recruiter characteristics entered in Step 2. An F test was used to determine whether the addition of Step 2, recruiter characteristics, led to a significant increase in explained variance.
Considering the four job attributes shown in Table 2, recruiter character- istics were significantly related to perceptions of the job itself (AR2 = .17), compensation/ job security (AR2 = .06), and work/ company environment (AR2 = . lo). The effect of the recuiter on minor fringe benefits was nonsignificant. Examination of individual F tests to determine which re- cruiter characteristics were significantly related to job attributes revealed fairly consistent results: both the personableness and informativeness di- mensions were significant (p < .05) for the job itself and work/company environment. No individual F tests were significant for compensation/ job security. This generally means that, as a whole, recruiter characteristics do have an impact on this attribute; individually, however, one cannot deter- mine where the effect lies (Cohen & Cohen, 1975).
TABL
E 1
Mea
ns, S
tand
ard
Dev
iatio
ns, a
nd I
nter
corr
elat
ions
of S
tudy
Var
iabl
es
Item
s V
aria
ble
M SD
in s
cale
1
2 3
45
6 7
x 9
in
11
12
Mod
erat
ors
1. Pr
ior w
ork"
1.
69
.46
1 (N
A)
2.
No.
of
inte
rvie
ws
9.87
6.
34
1 -.2
5 (N
A)
3. A
plic
ant g
ende
rb
1.29
.4
6 1
-.02
' .O
l (N
A)
6.
Rec
ruite
r en
derd
1.
23
.42
1 .0
3 -.0
7 .I5
.05
.I2
(NA
)
4.
ALr
nativ
es
2.38
.8
2 3
-.30
.43
.21
(.75)
5.
Attr
activ
enes
s' 1.
38
.49
1 -.0
5 .09
-.04
.05
(NA
)
7.
Rec
ruite
r fun
ctio
n'
2.19
1.
25
1 .I
4 .OO
.0
6 -.0
3 .0
4 -.2
1 R
ecru
iter c
hara
cter
istic
s 8.
Pe
rson
able
ness
4.
12
.50
9 .I
0 .04
.09
-.03
.06
.I2
9.
Com
pete
nce
4.19
.5
6 11
.0
5 .0
2 .I
7 -.0
5 -.0
5 .0
3 10
. In
form
ativ
enes
s 3.
49
.64
7 .0
2 .0
7 .I
0 -.I
2 -.0
5 -.
I1
1 1.
Agg
ress
iven
ess
3.32
.64
4 .0
6 .0
1 .0
3 -.0
8 -.0
2 -.
I2
(38)
.5U
(.85)
SO
.4
7 (.7
5)
.I 1
.23
.13
(.64)
> z U
Prei
nter
viib
mea
sure
s 12
. Jo
b its
elf
13.
Com
pens
atio
n 14
. W
ork
envi
ronm
ent
15.
Min
or fr
inge
ben
efits
16
. R
egar
d fo
r com
pany
17
. R
egar
d fo
r job
18
. Li
kelih
ood
of o
ffer
19
. In
tent
. to
acce
pt jo
b Po
stin
terv
iew
mea
sure
s 20
. Jo
b its
elf
21.
Com
pens
atio
n 22
. W
ork
envi
ronm
ent
23.
Min
or fr
inge
ben
efits
24
. R
egar
d fo
r com
pany
25
. R
egar
d fo
r cor
n an
y 26
. Li
kelih
ood
of o
ker
27.
Inte
nt. t
o ac
cept
job
3.70
.6
5 3.
55
.62
3.66
.5
6
8 5 8
.04
.05 .o I
-.02
-.05
-.I 1
.0
6 -. 1
4 -.I5
-.03
-.22
.06
.08
.08
.02
.I0
.07
.05
-.01
-.I1
-.I2
-.I
I -.0
1 -.
I9
.09
.02
.21
.12
-.Ol
.28
.20
.32
.14
.09
.07 .oo
.18
.03
.05
.I6
-.04
Y z 7i
-.I 1
(.8
2)
-.12
.05
-.05
.75
-.I5
.29
.OO
.24
.02
.32
.08
.04
.06
.26
3.16
.UO
3.88
.8
2 4
.~
.0
2 .1
0 .1
3 -.
01
.11
.07
.I0 .o 1
-.0
1
1 1 1 2
.03 -.6
-.51
-.I0
-.1
6 -.1
6 .09
-.I0
-.
I0
.05
-.37
-.37
.24
-.06
-.06
.I7
-.15
-.I5
.23
-.18
-.I8
-.0
6 -.0
5 -.0
5 -.0
1 -.2
9 -.0
3 .0
3 -.2
9 -.2
9 .0
1 -.09
-.09
.02
-.39
-.39
-.Ol
.18
.02
.I0
4.90
1.
50
3.27
.60
3.01
.8
7
.o 1
.OO
.01
.06
-.05
.10
-.02
-.02
-.04
.09
.01
.03
.01
.02
3.96
.64
3.61
.6
1 3.
71
.57
3.11
.7
8 4.
96
1.72
4.
04
.77
3.31
.6
9 3.
20
1.01
-.I0
-.04
-.20
.I6
-.05
-.07 .oo
-.25
.06
.03
.I1
-.07
-.02
-.09
.08
.02
.45
.28
.44
-.07
.29
.5 1
.34
.42
.40
.25
.41
.I2
.44
-.01
.40
.04
.47
.01
.I0
-.09
.27
.22
.27
-.04
.07
-.I3
.2
1
.11
.23
.05
.20
.37
.I4
.30
.I7
-.03
-.01
.I9
.36
.37
.30
.46
.I2
.37
4
4
w
TABL
E 1
(con
tinue
d)
4 4
P
Var
iabl
e 13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Mod
erat
ors
1. Pr
ior
wor
k"
2. No
. of
int
ervi
ews
3.
A p
lican
t gen
derb
4.
A
fkrn
ativ
es
5.
Attr
activ
enes
s' 6.
R
ecru
iter
ende
rd
7.
Rec
ruite
r fu
nctio
n'
Rec
ruite
r cha
ract
eris
tics
8.
Pers
onab
lene
ss
9.
Com
pete
nce
10.
Info
rmat
iven
ess
I I.
Agg
ress
iven
ess
Prei
nter
view
mea
sure
s 12
. Jo
b its
elf
13.
Com
pens
atio
n (.7
5)
14.
Wor
k en
viro
nmen
t .6
4 (.7
8)
15.
Min
or f
ring
e be
nefit
s .3
3 .3
2 (.6
8)
16.
Reg
ard
for c
ompa
ny
.28
.31
.I4
(NA
) 17
. R
egar
d fo
r job
.2
3 .3
5 .I
2 .3
5 (N
A)
19.
Inte
nt.
to a
ccep
t job
.2
6 .2
S .I
5 .4
8 -.3
6 -.
I2
(.62)
20.
Job
itsel
f .2
8 .4
0 .I
1 .I
3 .2
0 .06
.31
(.84)
23.
Min
or f
ringe
ben
efits
.2
3 .I
9 .5
7 .I
4 .06
.05
.04
.08
.25
.20
(.66)
24
. R
egar
d fo
r com
pany
.I
8 .2
2 .I
0 .3
4 .I
7 .I
2 .3
4 .4
0 .3
5 .4
0 .09
(NA
) 25
. R
egar
d fo
rcom
any
.I
5 .2
1 .0
4 .I
5 .3
2 .I
3 .IS
.I9
.I7
.I6
.IS
.28
(NA
)
27.
Inte
nt.
to a
ccep
t job
.2
0 2
8
.I2
.34
.37
.13
.78
.46
.30
.43
.06
.49
.31
.30
(.07S
)
Nor
e:Pa
rent
hetic
al v
alue
s on
dia
gona
l are
coe
ffic
ient
alp
ha r
elia
bilit
y es
timat
es f
rom
the
pres
ent
sam
ple:
n =
145
. Cor
rela
tions
of
high
er th
an .
I6
a 1
= y
es, 2
= n
o;
18.
Like
lihoo
d of
off
er
.I6
.07
-.02
.03
-.I0
(N
A)
Post
inte
rvie
w m
easu
res
21.
Com
pens
atio
n .5
3 .4
8 .2
4 .2
5 .I
6 -.0
2 .2
1 .6
2 (.7
4)
22.
Wor
k en
viro
nmen
t .3
5 .5
6 .I
7 .I
8 .2
2 -.0
2 .3
0 .7
1 .64
(.79
)
26.
Like
lihoo
d of
off
er
-.04
.OO
.07
.05
. I 8
.40
. I4
.30
.08
.2 I
.O I
.I 8
.20
(NA
)
and
low
er th
an -
.I6
are
sign
ifica
nt a
t p
<.0
5.
1 =
mal
e, 2
= fe
mal
e;
I =
hig
h or
low
, 2 =
ave
rage
; 1
= m
ale,
2 =
fem
ale;
' 1
= p
erso
nnel
, 2 =
non
pers
onne
l.
0 2
HARRIS AND FINK 775
TABLE 2 Effects of Recruiter Characteristics on Job Attributes
~ ~~ ~~~~~
Dependent variables Recruiter Job Compensation/ Work/ Mmor fringe
characteristics itself Security company benefits
Personableness .19*" . I 1 .18* -.01 Competence .I3 .09 .03 .04 Informativeness .16* .I0 .17* .07 Aggressiveness .07 -.03 .oo .ll Overall effect
A F (4.139) 9.88* 3.32* 6.42* .89 A R ~ .I7 .06 .I0 .02
aStandardized regression weight *p<.05
TABLE 3 Effects of Recruiter Characteristics on Regard for Job and Company
and Likelihood of Joining Organization
Dependent variables Intentions
Recruiter Regard Regard Expectancy to accept characteristics for company for job of job offer job offer
Personableness .09' .22* .45* .IS*
Infomtiveness .19* -.03 -.03 . l l
Overall effect
Competence .21* .09 - .I 1 .08
Aggressiveness .08 -.16* -.04 .01
AR? .I9 .09 .15 .I0 AF(4: 139) 9.08* 3.91* 7.63* 10.61*
"Standardized regression weight *p<.os
Effects of recruiter characteristics on regard for company and job and likelihood of joining the organization are shown in Table 3. Recruiter char- acteristics were significantly related to regard for company (All2 = .19) and job (AR2 = .09). Examination of individual F tests revealed that perceived recruiter competence and informativeness were significantly re- lated to regard for company; conversely, perceived recruiter personableness and aggressiveness were significantly related to regard for job. While all other characteristics functioned in a positive direction, aggressiveness was negatively related to regard for job such that more aggressive recruiters were associated with lower job attractiveness.
Finally, recruiter characteristics showed a significant relationship with likelihood of joining the organization. Specifically, recruiter characteristics were related to expectancy of job offer (AR' = .15) and displayed a statistically significant relationship with intentions to accept job (AR' = .lo). In terms of specific recruiter characteristics, personableness was the only characteristic that was significant.
776 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
TABLE 4 Main Effects of Moderator Variables on Job Attributes
~
Dependent Variables Moderator Job Compensation/ Work/ Minor variables itselfa security company fringe benefits
A R ~ A R ~ A R ~ AR'
Work experience .a* .02* Prior interviews .oo .oo Applicant gender .o t .oo Perceived alternatives .01 .02* Job attractiveness .o 1 .oo Recruiter ender .oo .oo Recruiter function .o I .oo
.oo
.o 1 .o 1
.02* .oo
.01 .o 1
.oo
.02 .oo .oo .oo .oo .oo ' ARa with preinterview measure and recruiter characteristics in the equation. *p<.05
A separate analysis was conducted to determine whether recruiter char- acteristics had an effect on intention to accept job even when controlling for job attributes. In Step 1, pre-scores of intention and post-scores measuring job attributes, were included in the equation. Recruiter characteristics were added in Step 2, resulting in a statistically significant increase in explained variance [All2 = .07, P(4,135) = 7.80, p < .05]. Thus, recruiter char- acteristics had a significant relationship to likelihood of accepting a job, even when job attributes were partialled out.
Moderator Variables
In order to test the moderator variables stated in Hypotheses 1 through 3, a hierarchical set regression with multiplicative terms was used. Toward this end, a three-step analysis was conducted for each moderator with each of the eight dependent variables. Specifically, pre-scores for the dependent variable and recruiter characteristics were entered first. In Step 2, the moderator variable was entered. The product of the moderator and each recruiter characteristic was entered as a set in Step 3.
Applicant moderators. Considering Hypothesis 1 (a) first, the results indicated that previous work experience was not a moderator of recruiter characteristics.' However, previous work experience did have a significant main effect on several job attributes, including the job itself and compen- satiodjob security (Table 4) as well as intention to accept job and regard for job (Table 5). For all significant effects, respondents without prior work experience reported greater positive change in their perceptions of the job than did candidates with prior full-time jobs.
There was partial support for Hypothesis l(b) since the number of prior interviews did have a moderating effect on regard for the company [ARa
'Tables containing all R's and F tests for the interactions are available from the first author.
HARRIS AND FINK 777
TABLE 5 Main Effects of Variables on Regard for Job and Company
and Likelihood of Joining Organization
Dependent Variables Intentions
Regard Regard Expectancy Moderator for company' for job of job offer variables AR' AR' AR'
Work experience .oo .02* .oo .01' Prior interviews .oo .o 1 .oo .oo Applicant gender .oo .oo .oo .oo Perceived alternatives .o 1 .oo .o 1 .oo Job attractiveness NA NA NA NA Recruiter ender .o 1 .o 1 .oo .oo Recruiter function .o I .oo .01 .oo
~ ~ ~ -~ ~
8 ~ ~ a with preinterview measure and recruiter characteristics in the equation. *p<.06
= .06, F(4, 134) = 2.80, p < .05]. In order to examine the impact of this variable, the sample was split according to the median number of prior interviews, and separate regression analyses were run for each subsample. The results showed that individuals with fewer prior interviews (8 or less) were significantly affected by perceived recruiter informativeness but not by other dimensions. Conversely, subjects with more interviews (more than 8) were affected by recruiter personableness and competence. Rather than having less effect on applicants, however, the data indicate that the recruiter factors that affect regard for company differ.
There was no evidence that applicant gender affected recruiter influence, either as a moderator or as a main effect. Hence, Hypothesis l(c) was not supported.
Finally, in regard to Hypothesis l(d), there was no evidence that num- ber of perceived alternatives served as a moderator of recruiter character- istics. Nonetheless, as seen in Table 4, perceived alternatives did have a main effect on several job attributes (compensatiodjob security and work/ company environment) such that respondeq4'yith more perceived alternatives reported less positive change in both 'of these job attributes than did subjects with fewer alternatives.
Job moderators. There was no support for Hypothesis 2. Thus, the impact of the recruiter was not affected by the job-related moderator con- sidered here.
Recruiter moderators. Finally, in terms of the recruiter-related moder- ator variables, neither interviewer gender nor job function had an effect on job perceptions. Hence, there was no support for Hypotheses 3(a) or 3(b).
778 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Discussion
The present research employed a pre-post design in a field setting to assess the relationship between recruiter characteristics and perceptions of the job. Unlike recent studies, the results here showed a significant relationship between recruiter characteristics and applicants’ judgments of jobs. Moreover, the impact of the recruiter appeared to extend beyond merely affecting perceived job attributes. That is, there was a significant relationship between recruiter characteristics and intentions of accepting a job, even controlling for job attributes. Thus, recruiter characteristics appeared to have both direct and indirect effects on applicant reactions.
In terms of moderators, there was very little support for the basic propo- sition that the effect of the recruiter characteristics depends on applicant, job, or interviewer variables included in this study. The only significant moderator was prior number of interviews; rather than applicants being less affected by recruiter characteristics as they gained experience in inter- viewing, however, greater experience appeared to alter the importance of different recruiter characteristics. Moreover, given the number of modera- tors tested, it is possible that the one significant moderator was simply due to chance. On the whole, then, moderators had very little impact on the effect of recruiter characteristics.
The results concerning recruiter characteristics mesh well with Schmitt and Coyle (1976). Specifically, Schmitt and Coyle were able to account for 19% of the variance for expectancy of a job offer (compared with our 15%), 11% of the variance in likelihood of accepting a job (compared with 10% in the present study), and 31% of the variance of regard for the company (compared with 19% here). The present data also support several results and predictions from Rynes and Miller (1983). Specifically, perceived recruiter personableness and informativeness were the two most important recruiter characteristics in the present study, thus replicating some of the findings by Rynes and Miller. Furthermore, as predicted by Rynes and Miller, the present research shows that recruiter characteristics were more important in the field setting than in the laboratory context. For example, recruiter characteristics had no impact on job acceptance in either of the two studies reported by Rynes and Miller; recruiter characteristics were significantly related to intentions to accept a job offer in this study.
These results differ from findings reported by Powell (1984), who found that recruiter characteristics had no impact on intentions to accept a job when job attributes were partialled out. There are several potential reasons for the conflicting results. First, examination of Powell’s data indicates a strong correlation between recruiter characteristics and job attributes; this is not surprising given the present results suggesting that the recruiter characteristics affect perceived job attributes. However, the consequence
HARRIS AND FINK 779
of the strong covariation may have been multicollinearity, which in turn negatively affected the observed impact of the recruiter in Powell's study. A second reason is that there may have been either less variance in recruiter characteristics or more variance in job attributes in Powell's study than here.'
With a single exception, the effect of the recruiter characteristics was not moderated by applicant variables. However, prior work experience on the part of applicants as well as number of alternatives had a signif- icant main effect on several dependent variables whereby applicants with prior full-time experience and more alternatives were less likely to report a positive change in job perceptions after the interview than were applicants without prior work experience or with fewer alternatives. These findings, then, provide partial support for the Rynes et al. (1980) and Schwab (1982) assertion that prior work experience affects reactions to recruiters.
While there are a number of different interpretations of a recruiter characteristics-job attributes relationship, the data seem to indicate that recruiter characteristics have a causal impact on perceptions of the job. Specifically, the assumption that a spurious relationship exists between job attributes and recruiter characteristics (e.g., organizations with positive at- tributes also employ well-regarded recruiters) or that job attributes affect perceptions of recruiters (e.g., if an applicant perceives the job to have pos- itive attributes, the applicant may be more favorably predisposed towards, and interact differently with, the recruiter than if the job initially is nega- tively regarded) should both be rejected. Specifically, the evidence supports the conclusion that recruiter characteristics affect job attributes. First, in terms of bivariate relationships, the average correlations between recruiter characteristics and pre-score measures of the four job attributes were .13, .lo, .18, and .ll for job itself. cnmnenwtinnlinh qpcurity, work/company environment, and min PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY r. Moreover, the anal- yses used in the study, whereby pre-score measures were entered into the analysis first, ensured that recruiter characteristics were added to the equa- tion only if they accounted for additional variance. Hence, there was no support for either of the alternative explanations of the relationship between recruiter characteristics and job attributes cited above.
An alternative interpretation for the apparent relationship between re- cruiter characteristics and regard for job is that informativeness was con- founded with job information. That is, the informativeness scale contained items regarding the degree to which the recruiter stressed variety and change in the job, mentioned high salary was possibility, and so forth, much like the items found on the job attributes scales. Nevertheless, as described in
'Because Powell (1984) used slightly different scales than those used here, a comparison of variances could not be done.
780 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
the Results section. we tested whether or not recruiter characteristics had a direct effect by conducting a hierarchical regression analysis with regard for job as the dependent variable and pre-score measures as well as post-score job attributes in the equation. Even so, recruiter characteristics accounted for additional variance. If the relationship between recruiter characteristics and regard for job was spurious, this regression analysis would not have shown a significant relationship.
Another potential threat to the validity of the results is sensitization. Specifically, it is possible that subjects remembered their preinterview re- sponses, and engaged in hypothesis-guessing (Cook & Campbell, 1979), thereby affecting their responses on the postinterview questionnaire. This concern points to a tradeoff: On the one hand, a researcher can eliminate as much extraneous variance as possible by reassessing subject perceptions immediately after the recruitment interview but, at the same time, increase the possibility of sensitization, compounded by recall of prior responses. On the other hand, delaying postinterview data collection for some unstipu- lated period of time after the interview allows more extraneous, nonrecruiter information to be obtained, but it potentially reduces the impact of recall. We chose the former approach. Clearly, more research is needed to de- termine whether the impact of the recruiter is merely temporary (possibly due to sensitization or hypothesis guessing) or has a permanent effect on applicant perceptions.
Finally, method variance is less of a concern here for several reasons. First, Liden and Parsons (1986) found no evidence of method variance in their study of recruiters and job perceptions. Second, the pre-post nature of the present research helps reduce method bias since any relationship between recruiter characteristics and job attributes that is due to common methods should be partialled out in the hierarchical regression analyses with the pre-measure of job perceptions.
A major task for future researchers will be to examine more carefully what well-perceived recruiters do. For example, what behaviors, manner- isms, or other characteristics do recruiters evidence that in turn lead them to be perceived as thoughtful, socially perceptive, and cooperative? While the present research indicates that perceptions of recruiters seem important, we need to know more about what forms these perceptions. Furthermore, although personableness and informativeness generally seemed to be the most important characteristics here, it is possible that multicollinearity af- fected the results. Specifically, it may be that personableness, informa- tiveness, and competence are not separate concepts. Indeed, these scales had an average intercorrelation of .52. Research using observer ratings of actual recruiter behavior is needed if the dimensions of successful recruiter performance are to be completely understood.
HARRIS AND FINK 78 1
It is important to note that the present study examined the impact of the recruiter at a very early stage in the recruitment process. In a recent study, Taylor and Bergmann (1987) found that recruitment activities had no effect on applicant reactions across different stages in the process. Nevertheless, Taylor and Bergmann did not examine pre-campus interview perceptions of the job. Given the results of their study and the present data, it is possible that the early campus interview is a critical point at which recruiters may have a major impact on subsequent applicant reactions. Further research is needed to test this more carefully.
The practical implication of this study is that the recruiter does seem to have a significant impact on college students’ reactions to employment perceptions at an early stage in the recruitment process. Choosing per- sonable, competent recruiters would therefore seem to have an impact on the success of a college campus recruitment program. Conversely, neither recruiter function (i.e., personnel vs. line manager) nor recruiter gender appeared to affect applicant perceptions. Thus, the particular job functions or demographic characteristics of the recruiter seem far less important than their behavior and knowledge of the job and company.
In sum, the results found here suggest that recruiters may have signifi- cant impacts on both perceived job attributes and intention to accept a job. Future research should thus extend this finding to determine whether the same is true for other areas besides college recruitment.
REFERENCES
Alderfer CP, McCord CG. (1970). Personal and situational factors in the recruitment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 377-385.
Boudreau JW, Rynes SL. (1985). Role of recruitment in staffing utility analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70. 354-366.
Cohen J, Cohen P. (1975). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Wiley.
Cook TD, Campbell DT. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for je ld settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Driscoll J, Hess HR. (1974). The recruiter: Women’s friend or foe? Journal of College Placement, 34, 42-48.
Glueck WF. (1973). Recruiters and executives: How do they affect job choice? Journnl of College Placement, 33, 77-78.
Half R. (1985). Robert Halfon hiring. New York: Crown. Heneman HG, Schwab DP, Fossum JA, Dyer LD. (1986). Personnelihumn resource man-
agement. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Keenan A. (1976). Interviewers’ evaluation of applicant characteristics: Differences between
personnel and non-personnel managers. Journal of Occupational Psychofogy, 49, 223-230.
Liden RC, Parsons CK. (1986). A field study ofjob applicant interview perceptions, alternative opportunities, and demographic characteristics. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 39, 109-122.
782 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Mirdrell lR, Besch L& (1976). A review of occupational preference and choice research using expectancy thecuy and decision theory. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49,231-248.
Murphy KA. (1986). When your top choice turns you down: Effect of rejected job offers on
Posner BZ. (1981). Comparing recruiter, student, and faculty perceptions on important appli-
Powell GN. (1984). Effects of job attributes and recruiting practices on applicant decisions:
Power DJ, Aldag RJ. (1985). Soelberg’s job search and choice model: A clarification, review,
Rynes SL, Boudreau JW. (1986). College recruiting in large organizations: Practice, evalua-
Rynes SL, Heneman HG III, Schwab DP. (1980). Individual reactions to organizational
Rynes SL, Lawler J. (1983). A policycapturing investigation of the role of expectancies in
Rynes SL, Miller HE. (1983). Recruiter and job influences on candidates for employment.
Schmitt N, Coyle BW. (1976). Applicant decisions in the employment interview. Journal of
Schneider B. Schmitt N. (1986). Staffing organizarions. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Schwab DP. (1982). Recruiting and organizational participation. In Rowland K, F e m s G
(Eds.), Human resource management (pp. 103-128). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Taylor MS, Bergmann TJ. (1987). Organizational recruitment activities and applicants’ re-
actions at different stages of the recruitment process. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 40, 26 1-285.
Vroom VH. (1966). Organizational choice: A study of pre- and post-decision processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, I , 21 2-225.
Wanous JP. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection. and socialization of new- comers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Wright PL. (1983). Can certain nonmonetary compensation-a personal secretary, first-class travel, professional development seminars, and the like-affect students’ choice of employer? Journal of College Placement, 43, 49-5 I .
the utility of selection tests. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 133-138.
cant and job characteristics. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 34, 329-339.
A comparison. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 37, 721-732.
and critique. Academy of Management Review, 10,48-58.
tion, and research implications. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 39, 729-757.
recruiting: A review. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 33, 529-542.
decisions to pursue job alternatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 62063 1.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 147-154.
AppIied Psychology, 61, 184-1 92.
HARRIS AND FINK 783
Appendix 1 Job Attribute Items and Corresponding Scales
Scale Job Compensat!on/ Work/ Minor fringe
Item itself job secunty company benefits
Challenging/ interestin% work Opportunities to use a ilities Opportunity to learn Opportunity to show superiors
Variety of activities Competent and sociable co-workers Opportunity for rapid advancement Enjo able type of work G o d salary Training pro ams available Freedom to Job security Good fringe benefits F’restigous job title Good career paths Pleasant work environment Job fits with m lifestyle BOSS I can wori with Private phone After-hour access to building Stock options Business cards Company has good re utation Desirable geographic Lation Appropriately sized company
effective perfornance
the job my own way
X X X X
784 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
Appendix 2 Recruiter Characteristic Items and Categories
Item Scale Person- Compe- Informa- Aggres- ableness tence tiveness siveness
Warm rsonality Thou &I sociafly perceptiv-
senses others' feelings Cooperative Effective, conducted
interview well Willing to answer questions Irritable" Trustwortly Defensive Used inappropriate words" Lost train of thoughta Gave vague and evasive"
answers Spoke forcefully Self-confident Aggressive Persistent Maintained eye contactb Gramatically precise Well acquainted with
Capable of answering
Ha8 broad knowled e Stressed variety a n t
change in job Told about careers of
others in his company High salary was a ossibility Gave inforpation g o u t
supervision Familiar with my back roundb $eke of job in great fetail
ave balanced view of company Asked interesting and relevant
In% icated kind of employee company was looking for
Showed respect for you as a person and for your accomplishments
Liked ou Likeable
potential job
uestions
uestions
X X X X
X X
X X X X
X X
X X X
X X X X
X X
X X X X
"Reverse scored. *Itern dropped.
