"not hired, not bought" - presentation eawop 2015

„Not hired, not bought?“

Negative effects of recruitment procedures on organizational and

product image

C. Bosau & J. Forth

EAWOP 2015 Bosau & Forth: “Not hired, not bought?”

2

Starting point

Actual problems:

§  „war of talent“ §  demographical change §  dense consumer markets

Research situation:

§  a lot focus on diagnostics, recruitment & selection procedures §  HOWEVER: few studies about the applicant perspectives

Practice in HR:

§  uncritical implementation of recruitment strategies (e.g. recruitment databases) §  no evaluation of effectiveness and acceptance §  missing awareness regarding side effects (e.g. marketing)


3

Former research

§  „Good“ Communication with applicants is very critical, since applications are also potential customers (Brice & Waung, 1995)

Consequences of recruitment practices: §  How applicants perceive the recruitment and selection process has a big influence on attitudes towards that company (Hausknecht, Day & Thomas, 2004) §  some studies on applicant reactions regarding rejection letters and selection procedures (Hausknecht et al., 2004; Chambers, 2002; Gilliland et al., 2001; Ployhart, Ryan & Bennet, 1999)

è However: former studies are all cross-sectional studies NO pre-post-measurement experimental designs

§  rejection letters including a reason for the rejection are rated better than rejection without any reason (Gilliland et al. 2001) §  so-called „ice-letters“ are rated better than classical rejection letters (Müller & Moser, 2006)

§  Relationship management influences the organizational image (Keim & König, 2005)


4

The first study

Steps of the study: §  Participants got a description of a company §  Rating of that company regarding organizational image, product ratings/buying intention/etc. and intention to apply

After about 1½ - 2 hours: §  Application scenario: participants are looking for a job and sent a spontaneous application §  reaction by the company: a) interview invitation, b) rejection, c) recruitment database entry §  second rating of that company regarding organizational image, product ratings/buying intention/etc. and intention to apply §  addtionally and exploratively: measurement of personal reaction of the applicants

Main Question: §  Does a recruitment database entry have positive consequences – as intented by companies – or would the image indeed be devalued, since the applicant didn‘t achieve his main goal – namely getting a job.


5

The scales

Organizational image: In regard to other scales and items in the literature, several items were developed to measure the organizational image:

Faktorenanalytic aggregation (PCA with Varimax): α study 1 pre post

1) organisational climate/culture .85 .85

2) General sympathy .72 .82

Intention to apply: “I would like to apply (again) for a job in that company.“

Employer image (α pre = .75, post = .88): “I could imagine to work for that company.“ “I think I would fit very well into that company.“ “The company would be the perfect employer for me.“


6

The scales

Product ratings: Product known: „The products of that company are well known to me.“ Product bought: „I already bought products of that company.“ Product image: „I think the products of that company are of high quality.“

„I don‘t like the products. The products are unattractive to me.“ Buying intention: „I will buy products of that company in the future.“


Sample (pen & paper): §  n = 327 students §  economics students in the last semester of their study programme §  mean age = 23,6 years §  all participants were experienced in application procedures

7

Experimental Design – Study 1

2x3 design: §  faktor 1: ‚time‘ (repeated measurement): pre-post-measurement of organizational image, product rating / image / buying intention and intention to apply §  faktor 2: ‚company reaction to application‘: interview invitation vs. rejection vs. recruitment database entry

§  additionally: three different brands, each participant could choose from (BMW, L´Oreal, Coca-Cola) à to increase ‚fit‘ between participant and organization


4,30 4,35 4,26 4,23

3,77 3,75

3,5

4

4,5

5

invitation rejection recruitment database

8

Results – Study 1 Organizational image

Organisational climate/culture: General sympathy:

3,77 3,71

3,83

3,63

3,47 3,44

3,25

3,75

4,25


n.s. p < .05 η² = .06

p < .00 η² = .09 n.s.

p < .00 η² = .13

p < .00 η² = .10


3,61 3,45 3,49

3,60

3,17 3,19

2,75

3,25

3,75

4,25


9

Results – Study 1 Intention to apply & employer image

Intention to apply: Employer image:

3,85 3,69 3,69

3,94

2,76

3,13

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

5


n.s. p < .00 η² = .18

p < .00 η² = .08 n.s.

p < .00 η² = .04

p < .00 η² = .05


10

Results – Study 1 Product ratings

Product known: Product bought: Quality:

Buying intention: Attractiveness:

3,91

4,13

3,88 3,87 4,02

3,69

3,5

4

4,5


n.s. p < .01 η² = .03

n.s.

4,11

4,27 4,23 4,16 4,19

4,08

3,75

4,25

4,75


n.s. p = .01 η² = .02 n.s.

3,46 3,43 3,31

3,49 3,26

3,00

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5


n.s. p < .00 η² = .04

2,75

3,25

3,75


4

4,5

5


n.s.

NO sign. differences

NO sign. differences


Results – Study 1 Rating of the company reaction

1,52

3,52 3,30

1

2

3

4

5


4,15

2,50 2,77

1

2

3

4

5


3,50

1,83 2,27

1

2

3

4

5


Hope for getting employment (α =.72): Uncertainty/Being on hold (α = .60):

Being happy (α = .77): Disappointment/frustration/anger (α = .88):

F(2) = 155,54; p < .000; η² = 0,50

2,00

2,97 3,57

1

2

3

4

5


F(2) = 87,61; p < .000; η² = 0,36

F(2) = 151,17; p < .000; η² = 0,49 F(2) = 201,86; p < .000; η² = 0,57


12

The second study

Steps of the study: §  Participants chose one company where they could imagine to apply for a job (BMW vs. Coca Cola) §  Rating of that company regarding organizational image and product ratings/buying intention/ etc.

§  Application scenario: participants are looking for a job and sent a spontaneous application §  reaction by the company: a) interview invitation, b) rejection §  second rating of that company regarding organizational image and product ratings/buying intention/etc.

Main Question: §  Can the negative effect of recruitment consequences on product ratings be replicated? AND Are there differences regarding different kinds of products?


13

The scales

Organizational image: Short version of the scale from study 1

12 items on employment aspects of the organizational image (α pre = .92, post = .95)

Product ratings: cognitive items Product known: “The products of that company are well known to me.“ Product bought: “I already bought products of that company.“ Affective items Product image: ”I think the products of that company are of high quality.“ (α pre = .89, post = .91) “I think the products are very good.”

“The products are unattractive to me.“ “I like the products.“ “I have an unfavourable opinion about the products.“

Buying intention: “I will buy products of that company in the future.“


Sample (online): §  n = 85 §  snowball sampling via Facebook, Xing, Twitter §  age: mean = 25,6 years, SD = 5,4 years

14

Experimental Design – Study 1

2x2x2 design: §  faktor 1: ‘time‘ (repeated measurement): pre-post-measurement of organizational image, product rating / image / buying intention §  faktor 2: ‘company reaction to application‘: interview invitation vs. rejection

§  additionally, factor 3: two different brands, each participant could choose from (BMW, Coca-Cola) à to increase ‘fit‘ between participant and organization


15

Results – Study 2 Organizational image

Organisational image:

3,85

4,06

3,93 3,84

3,5

4

4,5

invitation rejection

n.s. p < .01 η² = .09

Sign. interaction: F(1) = 7.00; p < .01; η² = 0.08

4,18

3,93 3,91

3,71

3,5

4

4,5

pre post

BMW

Coca-Cola

Rejection:

Invitation:

4,01 4,03

3,72 3,81

3,5

4

4,5

pre post

BMW

Coca-Cola

n.s.

n.s.

p < .05 η² = .06

p = .11 η² = .04


16


Product known:

4,28

4,67

4,25

4,49

4

4,5

5


n.s.

NO interaction: F(1) = 1.49; p = .23

4,74 4,61 4,60

4,35

4

4,5

5

pre post

BMW

Coca-Cola

Rejection:

Invitation:

4,13 4,00

4,47 4,58

4

4,5

5

pre post

BMW

Coca-Cola

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.


17


Product bought:

3,30 3,09 3,20

2,91

1

2

3

4

5


n.s.

NO interaction: F(1) = 0.71; p = .40 1,71 1,63

4,75 4,45

1

2

3

4

5

pre post

BMW

Coca-Cola

Rejection:

Invitation:

2,30 2,13

4,65 4,65

1

2

3

4

5

pre post

BMW

Coca-Cola

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.


18


Buying intention:

3,78 3,75 3,73 3,57

3

4

5


n.s.

NO interaction: F(1) = 0.95; p = .33 3,54 3,33

4,00 3,85

3

4

5

pre post

BMW

Coca-Cola

Rejection:

Invitation:

3,70

3,35

3,89

4,24

3

4

5

pre post

BMW

Coca-Cola

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

p = .17 η² = .02 Small

effect, but n.s.


19


Product image:

3,67

3,91

3,74 3,64

3,5

4

4,5


n.s. p < .01 η² = .14

Sign. interaction: F(1) = 10.32; p < .01; η² = 0.11 3,76

3,54

4,09

3,75

3,5

4

4,5

pre post

BMW

Coca-Cola

Rejection:

Invitation:

3,61 3,61 3,75

3,93

3,5

4

4,5

pre post

BMW

Coca-Cola

n.s.

n.s.

p < .05 η² = .05

P < .01 η² = .10


20

Ø  Reaction to recruitment database entries: The entry to these databases has – contrary to expectations of companies – negative consequences (similar to plain rejections)

•  Organizational image decreases •  Employer image decreases •  Intention to apply decreases

Ø  Negative outcomes of recruitment procedures (rejections or recruitment database entries)

do have a negative influence on product ratings

•  Product image (quality, attractiveness, sympathy, etc.) decreases •  Buying intention (partly) decreases

Conclusion

Badly used recruitment procedures can have negative effects even on aspects that are not directly linke to the recruitment itself.

“Not hired” could mean “not bought”!


21

•  Brice, T.S.; Waung, M. (1995). Applicant Rejection Letters: Are Businesses Sending the Wrong Message? Business Horizons, 2, 59-62.

•  Chambers, B.A. (2002). Applicant reactions and their consequences: review, advice, and recommendations for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 4(4), 317-333.

•  Gilliland, S.W., Groth, M., Baker IV, R.C., Dew, A.F., Polly, L.M., & Langdon, J.C. (2001). Improving applicants’ reactions to rejection letters: An application of fairness theory. Personnel Psychology, 54, 669-703.

•  Hausknecht, J.P., Day, D.V., & Thomas, S.C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639-683.

•  Keim, T. & König, W (2005). Aus der Masse in die Klasse: Wer ist der Top-Kandidat? Forschung Frankfurt 3/2005. [pdf-Artikel], Verfügbar unter: URL: http://www.wiiw.de/publikationen/AusderMassedieKlasseWeristder1330.pdf [05.01.2007].

•  Müller, E. & Moser, K. (2006). Reaktionen auf Ablehnungsschreiben an Bewerber: Das Beispiel „Eisschreiben“. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 20 (4), 258 – 270.

•  Ployhart, R., Ryan, A. & Bennett, M. (1999). Explanations for selection decisions: Applicants’ reactions to informational and sensitivity features of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 87-106.

Literature


22

Thank you very much for your attention!

Contact details:

Rheinische Fachhochschule Köln – University of Applied Sciences Prof. Dr. Christian Bosau, Dipl.-Psych. & Master of HRM & IR Schaevenstraße 1a/b 50676 Cologne / Germany Tel.: +49 221 20302-0 e-mail: [email protected] Slides are available on Slideshare: cbosau Twitter: cribocologne


23

The scales

Organizational image – study 2:

"not hired, not bought" - presentation eawop 2015

Recruiting & HR

Transcript of "not hired, not bought" - presentation eawop 2015