The Impact of Culture, Industry Type, and Job Relevance on Applicant Reactions

The present study sought to understand how national culture, industry, and the perception of job relevance has an influence on an applicant’s reaction to an online personnel selection assessment. A review of the literature on attribution theory (Fiske & Taylor, 1984; Ployhart & Harold, 2004) and organizational justice theory (Gilliland, 1993; Ployhart & Harold, 2004) provided the theoretical basis for the hypotheses of this paper. Applicant data from companies in manufacturing, finance, retail, and telecommunications were examined to explore differences in applicant reactions. Additionally, data between those in Mexico and the US within the telecommunications industry were examined to distinguish cultural differences in applicant reactions. Results indicated that job relevance was positively and significantly correlated with a favorable perception of the company and there were mixed results concerning industry differences in applicant reactions. Furthermore, analyses on cultural differences between applicants from the United States and Mexico indicated that applicants within the U.S. responded more favorably to the online assessment than those in Mexico and that applicants within Mexico rated the organization’s image more favorably than applicants within the U.S. The applied and academic implications of these findings are discussed and suggestions for future research are proposed. Running head: APPLICANT REACTIONS 5 The Impact of Culture, Industry Type, and Job Relevance on Applicant Reactions A large body of research suggests an applicant’s experiences in the selection process can determine the extent to which they feel they have been treated fairly (Gilliland, 1993; Ployhart & Harold, 2004) and how the applicant attributes the reasons behind the job offer or rejection (Fiske & Taylor, 1984; Ployhart & Harold, 2004) can explain the reactions of applicants to a personnel selection process. Differences in reactions across job applicants may be accounted for by national culture (Hofstede, 2000) and type of industry. These reactions could inform one’s opinion of the organization and the extent to which the applicant’s opinion of the company changes because of the assessment (Hulsheger & Anderson, 2009). This is of particular importance to businesses concerned with protecting their brand’s image and recruiting quality applicants. Therefore, organizations should seek to understand the ways in which an applicant is likely to respond to experiences during the selection procedure and the extent to which such experiences may influence the applicant’s understanding of the company in the future, regardless of whether or not they become an employee. The purpose of this research is to examine theories on organizational justice and attribution in order to identify the extent to which the variance in applicant reactions can be explained by the job relatedness of the procedure, national culture and industry type. Organizational Justice Theory Perhaps the most influential theorist in the applicant reactions literature has been Gilliland (1993) who evaluated the extent to which applicant reactions are guided by perceptions of fairness at the organizational level. Within this context, research has primarily evaluated two types of perceived organizational justice: distributive and Running head: APPLICANT REACTIONS 6 procedural. Distributive justice is concerned with fairness of outcomes, such as whether or not an applicant is hired, while procedural justice is concerned with fairness in a particular organizational process, such the way in which one’s manager decides to give a direct report a promotion (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Both types of justice are important in understanding applicant reactions and outcomes of these reactions during a selection process. Certainly, there is no universal code of fairness during selection procedures. For example, perception of fairness during the employment-testing phase of the selection process within one group might differ greatly within the context of another group (Scroggins, Benson, Cross, & Gilbreath, 2008). An applicant’s reaction to a pre-employment selection process can be defined as how one perceives and responds to various steps or procedures (Hausknecht, Day, & Thomas, 2004). Applicant reactions may be positive, negative, or neutral. Research in this area of personnel selection acknowledges that not only do organizations select applicants, but applicants must also choose the organizations to which they apply: ultimately, applicants decide whether or not to accept a job offer (Rynes, 1991). Evidence suggests applicants who are hired are more likely to perceive the process as fair than those who were not hired (Gilliland, 1994). In fact, applicants are more likely to recommend the organization to others when they are provided with an explanation concerning the company’s use of their selection tools (Gilliland, 1994). This finding is of particular importance to organizations interested in the applicant’s opinion of the company after they complete the selection procedure because an applicant’s negative opinion of the company could tarnish the reputation of the organization. While it is never the aim of any company to have selection procedures that are perceived as unfair by Running head: APPLICANT REACTIONS 7 applicants, issues of fairness will likely emerge at some point in the selection process. Expectations of fairness could include the perception that an online assessment did not ask questions relevant to the job for which one is applying or one’s understanding of fairness could be violated when an applicant discovers that they have not be chosen for the job. Perhaps an important aspect of fairness is the answer to the question “why? ” after perceptions of fairness have been violated. It is likely that, after one’s perception of fairness is violated, many applicants will try to explain why the event occurred. Attribution Theory It is likely that many people, and inevitably many job applicants, draw meaning from events that occur by asking why these events take place. This tendency can be explained by attribution theory. Attribution theory is comprised of a myriad of theoretical and empirical evidence that suggests people create explanations and causal attributions to events that occur in order to more fully understand one’s world (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Attribution theory is concerned with how an individual infers causality to an event (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). In a practical sense, this is an individual’s tendency to ask why a particular event occurred. In the context of selection, one might ask, “Why was I not offered the job? ” or “Why was I required to take an online assessment, when the job I applied for has nothing to do with computers? ” The attribution model developed by Weiner (1985) is of particular importance to the present study because of its applicability to a variety of employment contexts. Weiner (1985) advocated that an event, such as a hiring decision or something within the selection process, occurs and applicants give causality to that event based upon three dimensions. These dimensions are locus, controllability, and stability. Locus refers Running head: APPLICANT REACTIONS 8 to the extent to which the applicant thinks the event occurred due to internal or external forces. For example, if an applicant scores low on a math test someone with an internal locus of control might believe that they can do something about changing the score by studying more. An individual with an external locus of control might believe that things in the environment control the outcome of the math test (a friendlier test administrator, a different testing format, etc.). Controllability refers to the extent to which something can be controlled. For example, no individual or external force can control the fact that math is an abstract subject. The abstractness of math cannot be changed by external forces or by an individual’s attempt to make the topic less abstract. Finally, stability is concerned with the permanency of the event (Ployhart & Harold, 2004). If an individual takes a math test and scores, takes it a second time and achieves the same results, and tries a third time to improve one’s score, but does not do so it will likely impact the individual’s explanation of their score. These three dimensions then inform self-perceptions, intentions, and expectations of the employee. Because an applicant’s behaviors, such as recommending (e.g. warning others about a company’s selection practices or even accepting a job offer) often occur after these attributions are made, it is critical to acknowledge any misjudgments the applicant might make during selection process. There is evidence to suggest that individuals attribute various causes differently depending on whether or not the event is favorable or unfavorable for that individual. This is known as self-serving bias and occurs because of an individual’s desire to describe one’s behavior in a way that makes the individual look good in that given situation (Miller & Ross, 1975). Individuals are more likely to attribute success to one’s self and attribute failures to situations or external forces Running head: APPLICANT REACTIONS 9 (Hastorf, Schneider, & Polefka, 1970). For example, if an applicant scores high on a math test, they are likely think that they are inherently smart and that they deserved that high score. However, if an individual receives a low score on a math test, they are more likely to think that their low score had little to do with them and was a reflection of one’s teacher, curriculum, and potentially other forces unrelated to the individual. Research (Ryan & Ployhart, 2000) suggests that self-serving bias is a persistent problem for companies concerned with applicant reactions. One can elucidate that if an applicant is not offered a job, they will blame the company for his outcome and they could respond negatively to the