InvestigatingWeb-Based
RecruitmentSources:Employeetestimonialsvsword-of-mouse
GreetVanHoyeandFilipLievens
DepartmentofPersonnelManagement,WorkandOrganizationalPsychology,GhentUniversity,HenriDunantlaan2,9000Ghent,Belgium.E-mail:greet.vanhoye@ugent.be
Althoughtheinternethasdramaticallychangedrecruitmentpractices,manyweb-basedrecruitmentsourceshavenotyetbeeninvestigated.Thepresentstudyexaminestheeffectsofweb-basedemployeetestimonialsandweb-basedword-of-mouth(i.e.,‘word-of-mouse’)onorganizationalattraction.Thesourcecredibilityframeworkisusedtocomparethesecompany-dependentandcompany-independentrecruitmentsources.Inasampleofpotentialapplicantsforaheadnurseposition,word-of-mousewasassociatedwithhigherorganizationalattractivenessthanweb-basedemployeetestimonials.How-ever,potentialapplicantsweremoreattractedwhentestimonialsprovidedinformationaboutindividualemployeesthanabouttheorganization.Conversely,word-of-mousewasassociatedwithhigherorganizationalattractivenessandmoreorganizationalpursuitbehaviorwhenitfocusedontheorganizationinsteadofonemployees.Mostoftheseeffectsweremediatedbycredibilityperceptions.
1.Introduction
O
verthelastdecadetheinternethasdramaticallychangedrecruitmentpractices.Fororganizations,theinternetprovidesanefficientandlesscostlymeanstoprovidemorejobandorganizationalinformationtopotentialapplicantsinamuchmoredynamicandconsistentwaythanwasthecaseinthepast(Cober,Brown,Blumental,Doverspike,&Levy,2000;Lievens&Harris,2003).Internetrecruitmenthasalsosubstan-tiallyaffectedhowpotentialapplicantslookforajob(VanRooy,Alonso,&Fairchild,2003).Inthepast,jobseekershadtoconsultnewspapersorcontactacquain-tancestolocateasuitablejobopening.Intheinternetage,however,jobseekerscanimmediatelysearchthroughthousandsofavailablejobopenings.
Apartfromthespeedandquantityoftheinformationprovidedthroughtheinternet,potentialapplicantsalsohaveabroaderarrayofinformationavailable.Ontheonehand,thereisawealthofcompany-suppliedinformation,whichistypicallyplacedonjobboardsor
companywebsites(Lievens&Harris,2003).Examplesarejobadsandemployeetestimonials(Geisheker,2001).Ontheotherhand,therealsoexistsalotofinformationaboutjobsandcompaniesthatis‘goingaround’ontheinternet(Dellarocas,2003).Jobseekerscaneasilyandquicklysearchforsuchindependentinformationaboutanorganizationfromdiversesourcessuchasemployees’weblogs,chatrooms,electronicbulletinboards,andindependentwebsitespresentingcompanyinformation(e.g.,www.vault.com).
Parallelingthesedevelopmentsinpractice,thereisagrowingtrendinrecruitmentresearchtoexaminepre-hiresourcesofemploymentinformationotherthanrecruitmentadvertising(Collins&Stevens,2002;VanHoye&Lievens,2005).Infact,priorrecruitmentresearchhaspaidalotofattentiontoofficialcompanyinformationsourceswhereasmoreindependentsourcesofinformationhavelargelybeenignored(Cable&Turban,2001;Rynes&Cable,2003;Saks,2005;Taylor&Collins,2000).Similarly,previousresearchonweb-basedrecruitmenthasfocusedoninvestigatinghowthe
&2007TheAuthors.Journalcompilation&2007BlackwellPublishingLtd,
9600GarsingtonRoad,Oxford,OX42DQ,UKand350MainSt.,Malden,MA,02148,USA
Web-BasedRecruitmentSources
characteristicsofofficialrecruitmentwebsitesaffectvariousreactionsofpotentialapplicants(Cober,Brown,Levy,Cober,&Keeping,2003;Dineen,Ash,&Noe,2002;Lievens&Harris,2003;Tong,Duffy,Cross,Tsung,&Yen,2005;Williamson,Lepak,&King,2003).Alongtheselines,CableandTurban(2001)suggestedthat:
Anyinformationsource,rangingfromcompany’sbrandadvertise-menttofriends’wordofmouth,hasthepotentialtoaffectjobseekers’employerknowledge(Cable,Aiman-Smith,Mulvey,&Edwards,2000).Unfortunately,severalsourcesoforganizationalinformationsuggestedbythemarketingliteraturehavebeenrelativelyignoredinpastrecruitmentresearch.(p.132)
Thepresentstudystartstofillthesegapsinrecruit-mentresearch.Specifically,thesourcecredibilityframe-work(Eisend,2004;Pornpitakpan,2004)isappliedtocomparecompany-dependentsourcesofemploymentinformationtocompany-independentsourcesandtoinvestigatetheireffectsinaweb-basedenvironment.Inaddition,weexaminedwhetherthecontentoftherecruitmentmessagecanmoderatethissourceeffect.Inthisstudy,company-dependentrecruitmentsourceisoperationalizedthroughweb-basedemployeetestimo-nials,whereascompany-independentrecruitmentsourceisoperationalizedthroughweb-basedword-of-mouth.
2.Studybackground
2.1.Company-dependentindependentrecruitmentvscompany-sources
Bothonandofftheinternet,potentialapplicantsreceiveemploymentinformationfromabroadarrayofdifferentsourcesincludingadvertising,recruiters,publicity,andword-of-mouth.Akeydistinctioncanbemadebetweencompany-dependentandcompany-in-dependentrecruitmentsources(Cable&Turban,2001).Company-dependentsourcessuchasadvertisingarepartoftheorganization’srecruitmentactivitiesandcanbedirectlycontrolledtocommunicateapositivemessagetopotentialapplicants.Conversely,company-independentsourcessuchasword-of-mouthcanbeinfluencedonlyindirectlythroughotherrecruitmentactivitiesandcancontainpositiveaswellasnegativeinformation.
Thesourcecredibilityframeworkcanbeappliedtopredictdifferentialoutcomesforthesetwomaintypesofrecruitmentsources.Thisframeworkpostulatesthatmorecrediblesourcesofinformationaremorepersua-siveinbothchangingattitudesandgainingbehavioralcompliance(Eisend,2004;Pornpitakpan,2004).Per-ceivedcredibilityconsistsoftheperceivedaccuracy,appropriateness,andbelievabilityofthecommunicatedinformation(Allen,VanScotter,&Otondo,2004;Eisend,2004;Pornpitakpan,2004).Thistheoryimplies
&2007TheAuthors
Journalcompilation&2007BlackwellPublishingLtd373
thatrecruitmentsourcesvaryinthedegreetowhichpotentialapplicantsperceivethemasprovidingcredibleemploymentinformation,whichinturnmightexplaintheirdifferenteffectsonrecruitmentoutcomes(Allenetal.,2004;Breaugh&Starke,2000;Cable&Turban,2001;Fisher,Ilgen,&Hoyer,1979).Comparedwithcompany-dependentsources,company-independentsourcesmightbeperceivedasprovidingmorecredibleinformationbecausetheydonothavetheexplicitpurposetopromotetheorganization(Fisheretal.,1979;VanHoye&Lievens,2005).
Recruitmentadvertisingrepresentsthemosttypicalexampleofacompany-dependentrecruitmentsourceandcanbedefinedasanypaidformofnon-personalpresentationandpromotionofanorganizationasanemployerbytheorganizationitself(Highhouse&Hoffman,2001;Kotler&Keller,2005).Examplesincluderecruit-mentbrochuresandjobopportunitieswebpages.Incontrasttoindependentsources,recruitmentadvertis-inghasreceivedaconsiderableamountofresearchattention,demonstratingthatitcaninfluenceorganiza-tionalattraction(Barber&Roehling,1993;Cable&Turban,2001;Highhouse&Hoffman,2001).
Asatypicalexampleofacompany-independentrecruitmentsource,word-of-mouthcanbedefinedasaninterpersonalcommunication,independentoftheorganization’srecruitmentactivities,aboutanorganiza-tionasanemployeroraboutspecificjobs(Bone,1995;Cableetal.,2000;Collins&Stevens,2002;VanHoye&Lievens,2005).Examplesincludeconversationswithfriendsandadvicefromindependentexperts.Eventhoughword-of-mouthistypicallyassociatedwithface-to-facecommunication,itcanbeprovidedthroughallsortsofmediasuchasthetelephoneortheinternet(Dellarocas,2003;Herr,Kardes,&Kim,1991;Smith&Vogt,1995).Infact,theimportanceofweb-basedword-of-mouth(i.e.,‘word-of-mouse’)hasincreasedinprac-tice,asshownbytheemergenceofe-mails,weblogs,chatrooms,electronicbulletinboards,andindependentwebsitespresentinginterpersonalcompanyinformation(Dellarocas,2003).Althoughknowledgeaboutword-of-mouthasarecruitmentsourceisstillscarce,afewstudieshaveindicatedthatword-of-mouthcaninflu-enceorganizationalattraction(Collins&Stevens,2002;VanHoye&Lievens,2005,2007).
Theinabilitytodirectlycontrolword-of-mouthrepresentsbothanadvantageandadisadvantage.Whileitcontributestoitscredibilityasacompany-indepen-dentrecruitmentsource(VanHoye&Lievens,2005),itmakesitdifficult,ifnotimpossible,fororganizationstoconveytheirrecruitmentmessagethroughword-of-mouthinexactlythewaytheywantto.Usingemployeetestimonialsinrecruitmentadvertisingmighthelptoaddressthisproblembycombiningtheadvan-tagesofacompany-dependentrecruitmentsourcethatcanbedirectlycontrolledtopromoteafavorable
InternationalJournalofSelectionandAssessment
Volume15Number4December2007
374
image,withthecharacteristicsofword-of-mouthasaninterpersonalinformationsource.Infact,employeetestimonialscanbeseenascompany-controlledimita-tionsofword-of-mouth.
Marketingresearchsuggeststhattheuseoftestimo-nialscanincreasethecredibilityandpersuasivepowerofadvertising(Feick&Higie,1992;Kotler&Keller,2005;Mittelstaedt,Riesz,&Burns,2000;Till,1998).Hence,onrecruitmentwebsitesorganizationsareincreasinglyhavingemployeestestifyabouttheirworkexperiencestoinformandattractpotentialapplicants(Geisheker,2001).However,empiricalresearchhaslaggedbehindthesenewandinnovativerecruitmentactivities(Rynes&Cable,2003;Saks,2005;Taylor&Collins,2000).Ontheonehand,Fisheretal.(1979)foundthatemployeesandfriendsassourcesofemploy-mentinformationhadcomparableeffects:bothweremorecredibleandinfluentialthanrecruiters.Ontheotherhand,itmightbethatthegreaterorganizationalcontrolofemployeetestimonialsleadstoalossincredibilityandinfluencecomparedwithword-of-mouththatistrulyindependentoftheorganization(Pornpi-takpan,2004;VanHoye&Lievens,2005).Alongtheselines,Highhouse,Hoffman,Greve,andCollins(2002)foundthatanecdotalinformationwaslesscredibleandattractiveinarecruitmentbrochurethaninanews-paperarticle.However,toourknowledge,nostudieshaveyetscrutinizedtheeffectsofweb-basedemployeetestimonialsonapplicantattraction.Therefore,wedonotknowiftheseattemptstoimitateword-of-mousearesuccessfulornot.Akeytestoftheeffectivenessofemployeetestimonialswouldconsistofcomparingtheireffectsonimportantattractionoutcomestoword-of-mouth.Giventhatwewantedtoexaminetheeffectsofweb-basedtestimonials,wecomparedthemwithweb-basedword-of-mouth,toavoidmedium-relatedcon-found.Inaddition,althoughword-of-mouthasacom-pany-independentsourcecancontainpositiveaswellasnegativeinformation,company-dependentemployeetestimonialsaretypicallypositive.Therefore,onlypo-sitiveword-of-mousewasconsideredinthepresentstudy.Onthebasisofthesourcecredibilityframework,weexpectedthatweb-basedemployeetestimonialsasacompany-dependentrecruitmentsourcewouldbelesscredibleandthereforelessattractivethanword-of-mouseasacompany-independentsource(Eisend,2004;Pornpitakpan,2004).
Hypothesis1:Web-basedword-of-mouthwillleadto(a)higherorganizationalattractiveness,and(b)moreor-ganizationalpursuitbehaviorthantheweb-basedem-ployeetestimonial.
Hypothesis2a:Web-basedword-of-mouthwillbeper-ceivedasamorecrediblerecruitmentsourcethantheweb-basedemployeetestimonial.
InternationalJournalofSelectionandAssessmentVolume15Number4December2007GreetVanHoyeandFilipLievens
Hypothesis2b:Theeffectofrecruitmentsourceon(a)organizationalattractiveness,and(b)organizationalpursuitbehaviorwillbemediatedbycredibility.
2.2.Recruitmentindividual
message:Organizationvs
Thesourcecredibilityframework(Eisend,2004;Porn-pitakpan,2004)notonlyproposesamaineffectofsourcecredibilitybutalsopostulatesthatthecommu-nicatedmessagewillmoderatetheeffectofsourcecredibilityonpersuasion.Thisimpliesthatthecred-ibilityandimpactofword-of-mouthandemployeetestimonialsmightvaryasafunctionofthecontentoftherecruitmentmessage.Theperson–environmentfitperspectivecanbeappliedtobetterunderstandtheeffectoftherecruitmentmessageasamoderatingvariable.Inthecontextofrecruitment,theperson–environmentfitperspectivestatesthatpotentialappli-cantsaremoreattractedtoworkenvironmentswithcharacteristicscompatiblewiththeirowncharacteris-tics(Kristof-Brown,Zimmerman,&Johnson,2005).Thisimpliesthat,toincreaseorganizationalattraction,aneffectiverecruitmentmessageshouldemphasizesimilaritiesbetweenthecharacteristicsofpotentialapplicantsandtheworkenvironmentthatthecompanycanofferthem.Althoughseveralaspectsoftheworkenvironmentcanbecommunicatedinsuchatargetedrecruitmentmessage,amaindistinctioncanbemadebetweenmessagesdescribingtheorganizationasawholeandmessagesdescribingtheindividualsworkingfortheorganization.
Arecruitmentmessageemphasizingthesimilaritiesbetweenpotentialapplicantsandtheorganizationitselfisinlinewithaperson–organizationfitperspective,whichsuggeststhatpotentialapplicantsaremoreattractedtoorganizationswithcharacteristicssimilartotheirown(Kristof,1996;Schneider,1987).Alargeamountofresearchhasprovidedsupportfortheassumptionthattheeffectsoforganizationalcharacter-isticsonapplicantattractionaremoderatedbyindivi-dualdifferencevariables(e.g.,Cable&Judge,1994,1996;Judge&Bretz,1992;Judge&Cable,1997;Kristof-Brownetal.,2005;Rentsch&McEwen,2002;Turban&Keon,1993).
Arecruitmentmessagedescribingthesimilaritiesbetweenpotentialapplicantsandtheorganization’scurrentemployeesisbasedonaperson–groupfitperspective,whichproposesthatpotentialapplicantswillbemoreattractedtoorganizationswithemployeessimilartothemselves(Kristof-Brownetal.,2005).Incontrasttotheresearchattentionforperson–organi-zationfit,therehavebeennostudiesinvestigatingtheeffectsofperson–groupfitinarecruitmentcontext.However,previousresearchinotherdomainshas
&2007TheAuthors
Journalcompilation&2007BlackwellPublishingLtd
Web-BasedRecruitmentSources
repeatedlydemonstratedthatinterpersonalsimilarityisrelatedtoattraction(seesimilar-to-meeffectorthesimilarity–attractionhypothesis,Byrne,1971;Cialdini,2001;Strauss,Barrick,&Connerley,2001;VanVianen,2005).Inaddition,socialidentitytheoryarguesthatpeopledefinetheirself-conceptsbychoosingmember-shipinorganizationsconsistingofpeoplesimilartothemselves(Tsui,Egan,&O’Reilly,1992).
Inlinewiththesourcecredibilityframework(Eisend,2004;Pornpitakpan,2004),weexpectedthatthere-cruitmentmessage(organizationvsindividual)wouldmoderatetheeffectofrecruitmentsource(web-basedemployeetestimonialvsweb-basedword-of-mouth)oncredibilityandorganizationalattraction.Fortheweb-basedtestimonial,wehypothesizedthattheindividualrecruitmentmessagewouldbemorecredibleandthereforemoreeffective.Theemployeetestimonialisacompany-dependentrecruitmentsourcethatpoten-tialapplicantsarelesslikelytotrustbecauseittriesto‘selltheorganization’(Breaugh&Starke,2000;Cable&Turban,2001).However,thisulteriormotiveisprobablylessevidentwhentheemployeedescribesherselfinsteadoftheorganizationasawhole(Fisheretal.,1979).Conversely,weexpectedthatforword-of-mousetherecruitmentmessagewouldbemorecred-ibleandeffectiveifitwouldfocusontheorganization.Althoughword-of-mouthisprobablytrustedmoreasacompany-independentrecruitmentsource,itissome-timesperceivedashavinglessexpertisethancompany-dependentrecruitmentsources(Cable&Turban,2001).Inparticular,ifinformationaboutindividualemployeesisprovidedoutsideoftheorganizationalcontext,potentialapplicantsmightthinkthatthisinformationisnotrepresentativeeitherforallemployeesorfortheorganizationasawhole.Therefore,potentialapplicantsareprobablylesslikelytogeneralizetheindividualrecruitmentmessagetotheirglobalperceptionsoftheorganizationthantheorganizationmessage.Hypothesis3:Therecruitmentmessagewillmoderatetheeffectofrecruitmentsourceon(a)organizationalattractiveness,and(b)organizationalpursuitbehavior:Theweb-basedemployeetestimonial(word-of-mouth)willbemoreeffectivewhenthemessagefocusesontheindividualemployee(organization).
Hypothesis4a:Therecruitmentmessagewillmoderatetheeffectofrecruitmentsourceoncredibility:Theweb-basedemployeetestimonial(word-of-mouth)willbemorecrediblewhenthemessagefocusesontheindividualemployee(organization).
Hypothesis4b:Theinteractioneffectofrecruitmentsourceandrecruitmentmessageon(a)organizationalattractiveness,and(b)organizationalpursuitbehaviorwillbemediatedbycredibility.
&2007TheAuthors
Journalcompilation&2007BlackwellPublishingLtd375
3.Method3.1.Participants
Asamplewasdrawnfromthepopulationofpotentialapplicantstargetedbyhospitalsrecruitingheadnursesornursingmanagers(Barber,1998).Thisisaparticu-larlyrelevantpopulationforstudyingrecruitmentissuesbecauseoftheworldwideshortageofnurses.Forinstance,intheUnitedStatestherewasa6%shortageofnursesin2000,projectedtoexpandtoa12%shortageby2010(Crow&Hartman,2005).Therefore,108registerednursesfollowingagraduatenursingmanagementprogramataBelgianuniversitywereaskedtoparticipateinaweb-basedrecruitmentsimula-tion.Giventhatthisdegreewouldqualifythemtoworkasaheadnurse,weconsideredthemtobepotentialapplicantsforsuchaposition.Themajorityofoursamplewasfemale(80%),withanaverageageof26years[standarddeviation(SD)¼6.13].Mostpotentialapplicantshadalreadyappliedforajobinthepast(88%),averagingfivepreviousapplications.Themajorityofthesample(78%)hadsomepreviousworkexperience.Morethanhalfofthepotentialapplicantswerecurrentlyemployed(57%),mainlyasanurse(64%).
3.2.Designandprocedure
A2Â2between-subjectsfactorialdesignwasappliedwithrecruitmentsource(web-basedemployeetesti-monialorweb-basedword-of-mouth)andrecruitmentmessage(organizationorindividual)asexperimentalvariables.Participantswererandomlyassignedtooneofthesefourconditions.
Thefollowingrecruitmentsimulationwasused.Participantswereaskedtovisitthewebsiteofamedium-sizedregionalhospital.Thehospitalwebsiteprovidedgeneralbackgroundandemploymentinforma-tionabouttheorganization.Thejobopportunitiespagedescribedavacantpositionforaheadnurse.Toensurethatpotentialapplicantsvisitedallpartsofthewebsite,thepagesmakingupthesitewerelinkedserially(Dineenetal.,2002).Aftervisitingthegeneralhospitalwebsite,halfofthepotentialapplicantswerepresentedwithanemployeetestimonialthatwaspartofthesamewebsite.Theotherhalfvisitedanotherwebsitewheretheyreceivedword-of-mouthfromafriendnotem-ployedbythehospital.Inbothcases,therecruitmentmessagedescribedeithertheorganizationortheemployee.Toenhanceecologicalvalidity,allmaterialsweremodeledafteranactualhospital(recruitment)websiteaswellasjobadvertisementsandtestimonialsrelevantforapositionasaheadnurse.Tocontrolforreputation,thenameoftheorganizationwaschangedintoafictitiousname.
InternationalJournalofSelectionandAssessment
Volume15Number4December2007
376
Aftervisitingthewebsiteandbeingexposedtooneofthefourexperimentalconditions,potentialappli-cantscompletedaweb-basedquestionnairetoassessorganizationalattractiveness,organizationalpursuitbe-havior,credibility,andsomedemographicvariables.Finally,participantscompletedanonlinemanipulationcheck.About2weeksafterthesimulation,potentialapplicantsreceivedadebriefinge-mail,explainingthestudy’spurposeandrevealingthatitwasasimulation.Theyalsoreceivedfeedbackontheirscoresonthepersonalityandpreferredorganizationpersonalityscalesmeasuredinaprestudy(see‘Materials’).
GreetVanHoyeandFilipLievens
monthbeforethemainstudy.Tobeabletoemphasizesimilaritieswithpotentialapplicants’characteristicsinatargetedrecruitmentmessage,aweb-basedquestion-nairemeasuredtheirindividualandpreferredorganiza-tionpersonality(see‘Measures’).Threecriteriawereusedtoselecttheindividualandorganizationalchar-acteristicstobasetherecruitmentmessageon.First,potentialapplicantshadtoscorehighonagivencharacteristic,asevidencedbyhighmean,minimum,andmaximumscores.Second,potentialapplicants’scoreshadtoberelativelyhomogeneous,asevidencedbyasmallSD.Third,giventhatweintendedtocomparearecruitmentmessagedescribingtheorganizationtoamessagefocusingontheindividualemployee,wewantedtobasebothmessagesonthesamepersonalityfactortoavoidconfound.Intermsofindividualperson-ality,Table1showsthatagreeablenessandconscien-tiousnessbestmetthefirsttwocriteria.Intermsofpreferredorganizationpersonality,anorganization’slevelof‘agreeableness’(e.g.,whethertheorganizationissociallyoriented,supportsandhelpsitsemployees,andinvestsinthem,VanOudenhoven,Prins,Bakker,Schipper,&Tromp,2003)wasassociatedwiththehighestmeanscoreandthesmallestSD.Therefore,inaccordancewiththethirdcriterion,agreeablenesswaschosenasabasisfordevelopingthecontentoftherecruitmentmessage.Insupportoftheexternalvalidityofouroperationalization,previousresearchhasfoundthatemployednursestendtoscorehighonagreeable-nessandthatagreeablenessispositivelyassociatedwithperformanceinnursingandotherservice-orientedjobs(Day&Bedeian,1995;Frei&McDaniel,1998).Conse-quently,therecruitmentmessagewasmanipulatedbydescribingeithertheorganizationasawholehighinagreeableness(e.g.,‘Inthehospital,helpingandsup-portingothersisveryimportant.’)oraheadnursehighinagreeableness(e.g.,‘Foraheadnurseinthehospital,otherscomefirst.’).Thespecificwordingofthere-cruitmentmessagewasbasedonitemsfromthe
3.3.Materials
Asamanipulationoftheexperimentalvariablerecruit-mentsource,potentialapplicantswerepresentedwitheitheraweb-basedemployeetestimonialorweb-basedword-of-mouth.Intheweb-basedtestimonialcondi-tion,anadditionalpagewasaddedtothehospitalwebsiteentitled‘Employeetestimonials.’Onthispage,aheadnurseworkingfortheorganizationprovidedtherecruitmentmessage.Intheword-of-mousecondition,participantsvisitedacompany-independentwebsitewheretheyreceivedthesameinformationfromafriendalsoworkingasaheadnurse,butinanotherorganiza-tion.Toavoidconfound,apictureofthesamepersonwaspresentedinbothconditions.Thenameandageofthispersonwerekeptconstantaswell.Awomanwaschosenbecausetheprestudyindicatedthatthemajor-ityofoursampleofnurseswasfemale.Tostrengthenthemanipulation,shewaswearinganurse’suniformandwasstandingagainstaneutralbackgroundinthetestimonialcondition.Intheword-of-mouthcondition,shewasshowninahomeenvironmentwearingcasualclothes.
Todevelopanadequaterecruitmentmessage,apre-studywiththesamesamplewasconductedabouta
Table1.Internalconsistencies,means,standarddeviations(SDs),minima,andmaximaofindividualpersonalityandpreferredorganizationpersonality(N¼108)
a
IndividualpersonalityExtraversionAgreeablenessConscientiousnessEmotionalstability
Opennesstoexperience
PreferredorganizationpersonalityExtraversionAgreeablenessConscientiousnessEmotionalstability
Opennesstoexperience
.87.69.87.92.71.81.87.82.75.89
M6.157.127.445.786.805.216.085.655.245.95
SD1.39.95.981.761.12.93.59.66.75.68
Minimum2.674.333.001.672.332.004.173.703.504.33
Maximum9.008.679.009.008.677.007.007.007.007.00
Note:Individualpersonalityvariableswereratedonanine-pointbipolarscale.Preferredorganizationpersonalityvariableswereratedonaseven-pointscale,rangingfrom1¼completelydisagreeto7¼completelyagree.
InternationalJournalofSelectionandAssessmentVolume15Number4December2007&2007TheAuthors
Journalcompilation&2007BlackwellPublishingLtd
Web-BasedRecruitmentSources
individualpersonalityandpreferredorganizationper-sonalitymeasuresusedintheprestudy.
Thecombinationofthesetwoexperimentalvariablesresultedinfourdifferentversionsoftherecruitmentcommunication.
3.4.Measures
3.4.1.Prestudymeasures
First,theBigFiveBipolarMarkerswereusedtodrawupapersonalityprofileofoursampleofpotentialapplicants(Goldberg,1992;Mervielde,1992).Eachfactorwasmeasuredbythreenine-pointbipolaritems.Allfactorscaleshadacceptableinternalconsistencies(seeTable1).Second,thejobandorganizationalpreferencesofoursamplewereassessedbythe43-itemOrganizationalBigFiveInventory,whichenablescommensuratemeasurementwithourmeasureofindividualpersonality(VanOudenhovenetal.,2003).Fiveto12itemsperfactorwereassessedonaseven-pointratingscale,rangingfrom1¼completelydisagreeto7¼completelyagree.Allfactorscaleshadsatisfactoryinternalconsistencies(seeTable1).
3.4.2.Organizationalattractiveness
Potentialapplicants’attitudetowardtheorganizationasanemployerwasmeasuredbyafive-itemscalefromHighhouse,Lievens,andSinar(2003).Anexampleitemis‘Forme,thisorganizationwouldbeagoodplacetowork’.Theitemswereratedonaseven-pointratingscale,rangingfrom1¼completelydisagreeto7¼completelyagree.Theinternalconsistencyofthescalewas.93.
3.4.3.Organizationalpursuitbehavior
Tohaveanindicationofhowmanypeoplewouldapplyforajobinthehospital,potentialapplicantscouldprovidetheire-mailaddressiftheywantedthehospitaltocontactthemaboutcurrentorfuturejobopportu-nities.Answerswerecodedas0¼didnotprovidee-mailor1¼providede-mail.Asimilarmeasurehasbeenusedinpreviousresearchtoassessorganizationalpursuitbehavior,whichisrelatedtothequantityoftheapplicantpool(Barber,1998;Highhouseetal.,2003).Asalreadynoted,inthedebriefinge-mailpeopleweretoldthate-mailaddresseswerenotactuallypassedtothehospitalbecausetherecruitmentcommunicationwaspartofasimulation.
3.4.4.Credibility
Athree-itemscaleadaptedfromFisheretal.(1979)wasusedtomeasuretheperceivedcredibilityoftherecruitmentsource.Anexampleitemis‘Ifeelthispersonisextremelytrustworthy.’Theitemswereratedonaseven-pointratingscale,rangingfrom
&2007TheAuthors
Journalcompilation&2007BlackwellPublishingLtd377
1¼completelydisagreeto7¼completelyagree.Theinternalconsistencyofthescalewas.81.
3.4.5.Demographicvariables
Potentialapplicantswereaskedtofillouttheirage,gender,jobsearchexperience,workexperience,em-ploymentstatus,andcurrentjobtitle.
4.Manipulationcheck
Tocheckthesuccessfulmanipulationofrecruitmentsource,participantswereaskedtoindicatewhetherthepersonprovidingtherecruitmentmessagewasanemployeeoftheorganizationornot.Allpotentialapplicantscorrectlyperceivedthatthispersonwasanemployeeinthetestimonialconditionorthatthispersonwasnotanemployeeintheword-of-mouthcondition,enablinganaccuratecomparisonofweb-basedemployeetestimonialsandweb-basedword-of-mouth.
Themanipulationcheckalsoexaminedpotentialapplicants’perceptionsoftherecruitmentmessage.Specifically,theywereaskedtoassessboththeper-ceivedagreeablenessofthehospitalandtheperceivedagreeablenessofitsemployeesononeitem,developedonthebasisoftheoperationalizationoftherecruit-mentmessage.Bothitemswereratedonaseven-pointratingscale,rangingfrom1¼completelydisagreeto7¼completelyagree.Inlinewithouroperationalizationoftherecruitmentmessage,afirstindependentsamplest-testindicatedthattheperceivedagreeablenessofthehospitalwashigherfortheorganizationmessage(M¼5.35,SD¼1.12)thanfortheindividualmessage(M¼4.06,SD¼1.22),t(105)¼À5.74,po.01,Z2¼.24.Asecondindependentsamplest-testindicatedthattheperceivedagreeablenessofthehospital’semployeeswashigherfortheindividualmessage(M¼5.40,SD¼1.70)thanfortheorganizationmessage(M¼3.87,SD¼1.21),t(94)¼5.33,po.01,Z2¼.21.
5.Results
Means,SDs,andcorrelationsamongallvariablesarepresentedinTable2.Amultivariateanalysisofvariance(MANOVA)wasconductedtoanalyzetheeffectsofrecruitmentsourceandmessageonorganizationalattractivenessandcredibility.Giventhatorganizationalpursuitbehaviorisadichotomousvariable,alogisticregressionanalysiswasperformedtoexaminetheeffectsofrecruitmentsourceandmessage.InsupportofHypotheses1and2a,wefoundamultivariatemaineffectofrecruitmentsource,F(2,103)¼14.26,po.01,partialZ2¼.22.Theunivariatemaineffectofrecruit-mentsourcewassignificantforbothorganizationalattractiveness,F(1,104)¼9.27,po.01,partial
InternationalJournalofSelectionandAssessment
Volume15Number4December2007
378
GreetVanHoyeandFilipLievens
Table2.Means,standarddeviations(SDs),andcorrelationsbetweenstudyvariables(N¼108)Variable1.2.3.4.5.
RecruitmentsourceaRecruitmentmessagebOrganizationalattractivenessOrganizationalpursuitbehaviorcCredibility
M.51.514.69.645.07
SD.50.501.25.481.08
1–.00.28**.03.43**2–.11.15À.09
–.29**.32**–.10
3
4
Note:Allcontinuousvariableswereratedonaseven-pointscale,rangingfrom1¼completelydisagreeto7¼completelyagree.a0,web-basedtestimonial;1,word-of-mouse.b0,individual;1,organization.c0,didnotprovidee-mail;1,providede-mail.po.05.**po.01.
Table3.Meansandstandarddeviations(SDs)ofdependentvariablesbyrecruitmentsourceandrecruitmentmessage(N¼108)
Web-basedtestimonial(n¼53)Organization(n¼27)M
OrganizationalattractivenessOrganizationalpursuitbehavioraCredibility
4.20.564.30
SD1.31.511.15
Individual(n¼26)M4.48.694.91
SD1.23.47.98
Word-of-mouse(n¼55)Organization(n¼28)M5.43.865.62
SD.92.36.83
Individual(n¼27)M4.63.445.42
SD1.23.51.88
Note:Allcontinuousvariableswereratedonaseven-pointscale,rangingfrom1¼completelydisagreeto7¼completelyagree.a0,didnotprovidee-mail;1,providede-mail.
Z2¼.08,andcredibility,F(1,104)¼24.41,po.01,par-tialZ2¼.19.Web-basedword-of-mouthwasassociatedwithhigherorganizationalattractiveness(M¼5.04,SD¼1.15)andwasperceivedasmorecredible(M¼5.52,SD¼.85)thantheweb-basedemployeetestimonial(M¼4.34,SD¼1.26,andM¼4.60,SD¼1.10,respectively).Thelogisticregressionanalysisindicatedthattheeffectofrecruitmentsourceonorganizationalpursuitbehaviorwasnotsignificant,B¼.14,Wald(1)¼.42,p4.05,Exp(B)¼1.16.There-fore,Hypothesis1waspartiallysupported,whereasHypothesis2areceivedfullsupport.
InsupportofHypotheses3and4a,wefoundamultivariateinteractioneffectofrecruitmentsourceandmessage,F(2,103)¼4.30,po.05,partialZ2¼.08.Inspectionofunivariateresultsrevealedthatthisinter-actioneffectwassignificantfororganizationalattrac-tiveness,F(1,104)¼5.62,po.05,partialZ2¼.05,andforcredibility,F(1,104)¼4.81,po.05,partialZ2¼.04.AsshowninTable3,theweb-basedtestimonialwasassociatedwithhigherorganizationalattractivenessandhighercredibilitywhentherecruitmentmessagefo-cusedontheindividualemployeeinsteadofontheorganization.Thereversewastrueforword-of-mouseaspotentialapplicantsweremoreattractedandre-portedhighercredibilitywhentherecruitmentmessageprovidedorganizationinformationinsteadofindividualinformation.Figure1illustratesthisinteractioneffectfororganizationalattractiveness.Inaddition,thelogisticregressionanalysisindicatedthattheinteractioneffectofrecruitmentsourceandmessageonorganizationalpursuitbehaviorwasalsosignificant,B¼.66,
5.65.4Organizational attractiveness5.254.84.64.44.24
Web-based testimonialWord-of-mouseFigure1.Interactioneffectofrecruitmentsourceandrecruitmentmessageonorganizationalattractiveness.
OrganizationIndividualWald(1)¼8.65,po.01,Exp(B)¼1.93.Morepeopleappliedwhentheweb-basedtestimonialemphasizedtheemployee(69%)insteadoftheorganization(56%).Forword-of-mouse,morepeopleappliedwhenthemessagefocusedontheorganization(86%)thanontheemployee(44%).Therefore,fullsupportwasfoundforHypotheses3and4a.Itshouldbenotedthatnoneofthemultivariateorunivariatemaineffectsofrecruit-mentmessageweresignificant.
Totestifcredibilitymediatedthemaineffectofrecruitmentsource(Hypothesis2b)andtheinteractioneffectofrecruitmentsourceandmessage(Hypothesis4b),wefollowedthethree-stepprocedureforanalyzingmediatingeffectsadvocatedbyBaronandKenny(1986).
InternationalJournalofSelectionandAssessmentVolume15Number4December2007&2007TheAuthors
Journalcompilation&2007BlackwellPublishingLtd
Web-BasedRecruitmentSources
Toestablishmediation,threeconditionsmustbemet:(a)theindependentvariableshouldinfluencethemed-iatingvariable,(b)theindependentvariableshouldinfluencethedependentvariables,and(c)themediatingvariableshouldinfluencethedependentvariableswhilecontrollingfortheindependentvariable,whereastheinfluenceoftheindependentvariableonthedependentvariablesshouldbereducedwhencontrollingforthemediatingvariable.
WithrespecttoHypothesis2b,theMANOVAalreadyindicatedthatalthoughthefirstconditionwasmet,thesecondconditionwasonlyestablishedfororganizationalattractiveness.Totestforthethirdcondition,weregressedorganizationalattractivenessonrecruitmentsourceandcredibility.Whereasorga-nizationalattractivenesswassignificantlyinfluencedbycredibility,b¼.25,po.05,theeffectofrecruitmentsourcefailedtoreachstatisticalsignificancewhencontrollingforcredibility,b¼.18,p4.05.Thisimpliesthattheeffectofrecruitmentsourceonorganizationalattractivenesswasmediatedbycredibility,providingpartialsupportforHypothesis2b.
WithregardtoHypothesis4b,theMANOVAandlogisticregressionanalysisshowedthatthefirsttwoconditionsweremet.Totestforthethirdcondition,tworegressionanalyseswereperformedwithcred-ibilityandtheinteractiontermofrecruitmentsourceandmessageaspredictorsandwithorganizationalattractivenessandorganizationalpursuitbehaviorasrespectivedependentvariables.Fororganizationalpur-suitbehavior,alogisticregressionanalysiswascarriedout.Whilecredibilityinfluencedorganizationalattrac-tiveness,b¼.29,po.01,theinteractiontermfailedtoreachstatisticalsignificance,b¼.17,p4.05,indicatingthatcredibilitymediatedtheinteractioneffectofre-cruitmentsourceandmessageonorganizationalattrac-tiveness.However,credibilitydidnotmediatethisinteractioneffectonorganizationalpursuitbehavior,ascredibilitydidnothaveasignificanteffect,B¼.08,Wald(1)¼.18,p4.05,Exp(B)¼1.09.Therefore,Hypothesis4bwaspartiallysupported.
6.Discussion
Inspiteoftheenormousimpactoftheinternetonrecruitmentpractices,therehasbeenalackofresearchonweb-basedsourcesofemploymentinformationotherthanofficialrecruitmentwebsites(Cable&Turban,2001;Lievens&Harris,2003;Rynes&Cable,2003;Saks,2005;Taylor&Collins,2000).Thecurrentstudycontributestotherecruitmentliteraturebyexaminingweb-basedemployeetestimonialsandweb-basedword-of-mouthascompany-dependentandcom-pany-independentrecruitmentsources,respectively.Giventhedearthofpreviousresearch,thesource
&2007TheAuthors
Journalcompilation&2007BlackwellPublishingLtd379
credibilityframeworkwasappliedtoformulatehypoth-esesregardingtheeffectsofrecruitmentsourceandmessage.
Ourstudyyieldsseveralimportantconclusions.First,wefoundthatpotentialapplicantsweremoreattractedtotheorganizationwhenemploymentinformationwasprovidedthroughword-of-mousethanthroughaweb-basedtestimonial.Inlinewiththesourcecredibilityframework(Eisend,2004;Pornpitakpan,2004),thiseffectwascompletelymediatedbycredibility.Specifi-cally,potentialapplicantsweremorelikelytobelievetheinformationtheyreceivedfromacompany-inde-pendentsourcethanfromtheemployeetestimonialonthecompany’sownwebsite.Itseemsthatthegreaterorganizationalcontrolofweb-basedtestimonialscausesthemtobesomewhatlesscredibleandinfluentialthanweb-basedword-of-mouth(Cable&Turban,2001;Fisheretal.,1979;VanHoye&Lievens,2005).There-fore,ourfindingssuggestthatemployeetestimonialsmaynotfullysucceedinimitatingword-of-mouthasaninterpersonalsourceofemploymentinformation.
However,ourresultsindicatethatthecontentoftherecruitmentmessagecanmoderatetheeffectofre-cruitmentsource.Infact,arecruitmentmessageabouttheorganizationasawholewasmoreeffectiveforword-of-mousewhereasamessageaboutindividualemployeeswasmoreeffectivefortheweb-basedtestimonial.Thiswasarobustfindingasitwasobservedfororganizationalattractivenessaswellasforactualapplicationbehavior.Theeffectonattractivenesswascompletelymediatedbycredibility,providingsupportforthesourcecredibilityframework(Eisend,2004;Pornpitakpan,2004).Fortheweb-basedtestimonial,potentialapplicantsweremorelikelytobelievetheinformationthattheemployeeprovidedaboutherselfthanabouttheorganizationasawhole,suggestingthattheulteriorrecruitmentmotiveoftryingtoselltheorganizationwaslessobviousincaseofanindividualmessage(Fisheretal.,1979).Withrespecttoword-of-mouse,informationattheorganizationallevelwasperceivedasmorecrediblethaninformationattheindividuallevel.Thismightindicatethatpotentialappli-cantsconsideredthemessagefocusingontheemployeetobelessrepresentativeandthuslessrelevantfortheirorganizationalperceptions(Cable&Turban,2001).Intermsoffutureresearch,ourfindingssuggestthatthesourcecredibilityframework(Eisend,2004;Porn-pitakpan,2004)canbeausefultheoreticalframeworkforexaminingcompany-dependentandcompany-inde-pendentrecruitmentsources.First,itcanbeappliedtostudytheeffectsofweb-basedsourcesofemploymentinformationotherthanemployeetestimonialsandword-of-mouth.Examplesincludelivechatswithcom-panyrecruitersandindependentnewssites.Infact,ZottoliandWanous(2000)suggestedthatdifferencesnotonlybetweencategoriesofrecruitmentsources
InternationalJournalofSelectionandAssessment
Volume15Number4December2007
380
butalsobetweenandevenwithinspecificsourcesshouldbeinvestigated.Second,otherpremisesofthesourcecredibilityframeworkcouldbetestedinfuturerecruitmentsourceresearch.Forinstance,apartfrommessagecontent,theframeworkpostulatesthattheeffectofsourcecredibilityonpersuasioncanalsobemoderatedbyothervariablessuchasthetimingofsourceidentificationandthetypeoforganization(Pornpitakpan,2004).
Giventhatthiswasthefirststudyaboutweb-basedemployeetestimonials,moreresearchisneededtounderstandtheireffectsmorefully.Forinstance,futureresearchshouldinvestigatetheimpactofmultipleemployeetestimonialsonorganizationalattraction.Alongtheselines,theattributiontheorymightserveasafruitfultheoreticalframework,especiallythepre-dictionsconcerningconsensusinformation(Kelley&Michela,1980).Furthermore,theeffectivenessofweb-basedtestimonialsshouldbecomparedwithotherweb-basedrecruitmentsources,bothcompany-dependent(e.g.,onlinejobad)andcompany-independent(e.g.,newssite).
Ourfindingssuggestthatword-of-mousecanbeacredibleandinfluentialrecruitmentsource.Eventhoughsomeotherstudieshavealsoindicatedthatword-of-mouthcaninfluenceorganizationalattractionforpotentialapplicants(Collins&Stevens,2002;VanHoye&Lievens,2005,2007),knowledgeaboutthespecificconditionsunderwhichword-of-mouthismostorleasteffectiveisstillscarce.Thecurrentstudystartstoaddressthisgapintheliteraturebyshowingthattheeffectivenessofweb-basedword-of-mouthcanbeincreasedbyprovidinginformationabouttheorganiza-tionasawholeinsteadofaboutemployees.Alongtheselines,futureresearchneedstogainabetterunder-standingofwhichfactorsmightinfluencetheimpactofword-of-mouth.Examplesincludesources’andrecipi-ents’motivesforengaginginword-of-mouth(Mangold,Miller,&Brockway,1999)andemployerbrandequity(Laczniak,DeCarlo,&Motley,1996).
Thisstudyhassomelimitationsthatshouldbeacknowledged.First,giventhelackofpreviousre-search,wedidnotdistinguishbetweendifferenttypesofweb-basedword-of-mouth.Withrespecttofutureresearch,itmightbeinterestingtoexaminethedistincteffectsofe-mails,weblogs,chatrooms,electronicbul-letinboards,independentwebsitespresentinginterper-sonalcompanyinformation,andsoforth.Second,ouroperationalizationofrecruitmentmessagewasbasedonorganizationalandindividualagreeableness.Ourresultsmighthavebeendifferentiftherecruitmentmessagehadbeendescribedintermsofotherperson-alityfactors,values,orgoals(Rentsch&McEwen,2002).Finally,weinvestigatedBelgiannurses’attractiontoapositionasaheadnurseinamedium-sizedregionalhospital.Itmightbethatthisspecificcontextaffected
InternationalJournalofSelectionandAssessmentVolume15Number4December2007GreetVanHoyeandFilipLievens
someoftheobservedrelationships.Therefore,futureresearchshouldexaminethegeneralizabilityofourfindingsinotherpopulations,settings,andcultures.Severalpracticalimplicationsfollowfromourstudy.Althoughrecruitmentwebsitesincreasinglyfeatureemployeestestifyingabouttheirworkexperiences,therehasbeennoresearchabouttheactualimpactofweb-basedtestimonialsonorganizationalattraction.Ourfindingssuggestaneasyandinexpensivewayinwhichtheeffectivenessofemployeetestimonialsmightbeincreased.Itseemsthatpotentialapplicantsaremoreattractedtotheorganizationwhenthetestimo-nialsubtlyfocusesonthefitwiththeorganization’scurrentemployeesinsteadofwiththeorganizationasawhole.Atapracticallevel,thisimpliesthatthecred-ibilityandimpactoftestimonialsmightbeincreasedbyhavingemployeesdescribethemselvesinsteadoftheorganization.Tothisend,organizationsneedtogainabetterunderstandingofthepotentialapplicantstheywishtoattract.Aprestudysuchastheoneconductedinthepresentstudycanprovideorganizationswithcrucialinformationfordevelopinganeffectivetargetedemployeetestimonial,whichshouldemphasizesimila-ritiesbetweenthecharacteristicsofdesiredpotentialapplicantsandcurrentemployees.
Ourresultsfurtherindicatethatemploymentinfor-mationprovidedthroughword-of-mouthmightbemorecredibleandattractivethaninformationfromanemployeetestimonial.Hence,itremainsimportanttostimulatepositiveword-of-mouthabouttheorganiza-tionandtoavoidnegativeword-of-mouth.Eventhoughword-of-mouthisacompany-independentrecruitmentsource,organizationscantrytoinfluenceitindirectlythroughotherrecruitmentactivitiessuchasimagemanagement,campusrecruitment,buildingrelationshipswithkeyinfluentials,andopinionleaders(e.g.,careercounselor,classpresident),employeereferralprograms(e.g.,providingreferralbonuses),orinternships.
Acknowledgements
Apreviousversionofthismanuscriptwaspresentedatthe20thAnnualConferenceoftheSocietyforIndus-trialandOrganizationalPsychology,LosAngeles,CA(April,2005).WewouldliketothankDanTurbanforhisvaluablecommentsonapreviousversionofthispaper.
References
Allen,D.G.,VanScotter,J.R.andOtondo,R.F.(2004)Recruit-mentCommunicationMedia:Impactonprehireoutcomes.PersonnelPsychology,57,143–171.
Barber,A.E.(1998)RecruitingEmployees:Individualandorgani-zationalperspectives.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.
&2007TheAuthors
Journalcompilation&2007BlackwellPublishingLtd
Web-BasedRecruitmentSources
Barber,A.E.andRoehling,M.V.(1993)JobPostingsandtheDecisiontoInterview:Averbalprotocolanalysis.JournalofAppliedPsychology,78,845–856.
Baron,R.M.andKenny,D.A.(1986)TheModerator–MediatorVariableDistinctioninSocialPsychologicalResearch:Con-ceptual,strategic,andstatisticalconsiderations.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,51,1173–1182.
Bone,P.F.(1995)Word-of-MouthEffectsonShort-TermandLong-TermProductJudgements.JournalofBusinessRe-search,32,213–223.
Breaugh,J.A.andStarke,M.(2000)ResearchonEmployeeRecruitment:Somanystudies,somanyremainingques-tions.JournalofManagement,26,405–434.
Byrne,D.(1971)TheAttractionParadigm.NewYork:AcademicPress.
Cable,D.M.,Aiman-Smith,L.,Mulvey,P.W.andEdwards,J.R.(2000)TheSourcesandAccuracyofJobApplicants’BeliefsaboutOrganizationalCulture.AcademyofManagementJournal,43,1076–1085.
Cable,D.M.andJudge,T.A.(1994)PayPreferencesandJobSearchDecisions:Aperson–organizationfitperspective.PersonnelPsychology,47,317–348.
Cable,D.M.andJudge,T.A.(1996)Person–OrganizationFit,JobChoiceDecisions,andOrganizationalEntry.Organiza-tionalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses,67,294–311.Cable,D.M.andTurban,D.B.(2001)EstablishingtheDimen-sions,SourcesandValueofJobSeekers’EmployerKnowl-edgeduringRecruitment.In:Ferris,G.R.(ed.),ResearchinPersonnelandHumanResourcesManagement,Vol.2.NewYork:ElsevierScience,pp.115–163.
Cialdini,R.B.(2001)Influence:Scienceandpractice.Boston:Allyn&Bacon.
Cober,R.T.,Brown,D.J.,Blumental,A.J.,Doverspike,D.andLevy,P.(2000)TheQuestfortheQualifiedJobSurfer:It’stimethepublicsectorcatchesthewave.PublicPersonnelManagement,29,479–496.
Cober,R.T.,Brown,D.J.,Levy,P.E.,Cober,A.B.andKeeping,L.M.(2003)OrganizationalWebSites:Websitecontentandstyleasdeterminantsoforganizationalattrac-tion.InternationalJournalofSelectionandAssessment,11,158–169.
Collins,C.J.andStevens,C.K.(2002)TheRelationshipbetweenEarlyRecruitment-RelatedActivitiesandtheApplicationDecisionsofNewLabor-MarketEntrants:Abrandequityapproachtorecruitment.JournalofAppliedPsychology,87,1121–1133.
Crow,S.M.andHartman,S.J.(2005)NurseAttritionasaProcess.HealthCareManager,24,276–283.
Day,D.V.andBedeian,A.G.(1995)PersonalitySimilarityandWork-RelatedOutcomesamongAfrican-AmericanNur-singPersonnel:Atestofthesupplementarymodelofperson–environmentcongruence.JournalofVocationalBe-havior,46,55–70.
Dellarocas,C.(2003)TheDigitizationofWordofMouth:Promiseandchallengesofonlinefeedbackmechanisms.ManagementScience,49,1407–1424.
Dineen,B.R.,Ash,S.R.andNoe,R.A.(2002)AWebofApplicantAttraction:Person–organizationfitinthecontextofweb-basedrecruitment.JournalofAppliedPsychology,87,723–734.
&2007TheAuthors
Journalcompilation&2007BlackwellPublishingLtd381
Eisend,M.(2004)IsitStillWorthtobeCredible?AMeta-AnalysisofTemporalPatternsofSourceCredibilityEffectsinMarketing.AdvancesinConsumerResearch,31,352–357.Feick,L.andHigie,R.A.(1992)TheEffectsofPreferenceHeterogeneityandSourceCharacteristicsonAdProces-singandJudgementsaboutEndorsers.JournalofAdvertising,21,2,9–25.
Fisher,C.D.,Ilgen,D.R.andHoyer,W.D.(1979)SourceCredibility,InformationFavorability,andJobOfferAccep-tance.AcademyofManagementJournal,22,94–103.
Frei,R.L.andMcDaniel,M.A.(1998)ValidityofCustomerServiceMeasuresinPersonnelSelection:Areviewofcriterionandconstructevidence.HumanPerformance,11,1–27.
Geisheker,P.C.WritingJobAdvertisementsThatAttractTopTalent:Jobdescriptions.August15,2001.RetrievedMay26,2005,fromhttp://www.vault.com
Goldberg,L.R.(1992)TheDevelopmentofMarkersfortheBig-FiveFactorStructure.PsychologicalAssessment,4,26–42.
Herr,P.M.,Kardes,F.R.andKim,J.(1991)EffectsofWord-of-MouthandProduct-AttributeInformationonPersuasion:Anaccessibility–diagnosticityperspective.JournalofConsu-merResearch,17,454–462.
Highhouse,S.andHoffman,J.R.(2001)OrganizationalAttrac-tionandJobChoice.In:Cooper,C.L.andRobertson,I.T.(eds),InternationalReviewofIndustrialandOrganizationalPsychology,Vol.16.Chichester,UK:JohnWiley,pp.37–64.Highhouse,S.,Hoffman,J.R.,Greve,E.M.andCollins,A.E.(2002)PersuasiveImpactofOrganizationalValueState-mentsinaRecruitmentContext.JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology,32,1737–1755.
Highhouse,S.,Lievens,F.andSinar,E.F.(2003)MeasuringAttractiontoOrganizations.EducationalandPsychologicalMeasurement,63,986–1001.
Judge,T.A.andBretz,R.D.Jr.(1992)EffectsofWorkValuesonJobChoiceDecisions.JournalofAppliedPsychology,77,261–271.
Judge,T.A.andCable,D.M.(1997)ApplicantPersonality,OrganizationalCultureandOrganizationAttraction.Per-sonnelPsychology,50,359–394.
Kelley,H.H.andMichela,J.L.(1980)AttributionTheoryandResearch.AnnualReviewofPsychology,31,457–501.
Kotler,P.andKeller,K.L.(2005)MarketingManagement(12thedn).UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall.
Kristof,A.L.(1996)Person–OrganizationFit:Anintegrativereviewofitsconceptualizations,measurement,andimplica-tions.PersonnelPsychology,49,1–49.
Kristof-Brown,A.L.,Zimmerman,R.D.andJohnson,E.C.(2005)ConsequencesofIndividuals’FitatWork:Ameta-analysisofperson–job,person–organization,person–group,andperson–supervisorfit.PersonnelPsychology,58,281–342.
Laczniak,R.N.,DeCarlo,T.E.andMotley,C.M.(1996)RetailEquityPerceptionsandConsumers’ProcessingofNegativeWord-of-MouthCommunication.JournalofMarketingThe-oryandPractice,4,4,37–48.
Lievens,F.andHarris,M.M.(2003)ResearchonInternetRecruitingandTesting:Currentstatusandfuturedirec-tions.In:Cooper,C.L.andRobertson,I.T.(eds),Interna-
InternationalJournalofSelectionandAssessment
Volume15Number4December2007
382
tionalReviewofIndustrialandOrganizationalPsychology,Vol.18.Chichester,UK:JohnWiley,pp.131–165.
Mangold,W.G.,Miller,F.andBrockway,G.R.(1999)Word-of-MouthCommunicationintheServiceMarketplace.JournalofServicesMarketing,13,73–89.
Mervielde,I.(1992)TheB5BBS-25:AFlemishsetofbipolarmarkersforthe‘big-five’personalityfactors.PsychologicaBelgica,32,195–210.
Mittelstaedt,J.D.,Riesz,P.C.andBurns,W.J.(2000)WhyareEndorsementsEffective?SortingamongTheoriesofPro-ductandEndorserEffects.JournalofCurrentIssuesandResearchinAdvertising,22,1,55–65.
Pornpitakpan,C.(2004)ThePersuasivenessofSourceCred-ibility:Acriticalreviewoffivedecades’evidence.JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology,34,243–281.
Rentsch,J.R.andMcEwen,A.H.(2002)ComparingPersonalityCharacteristics,Values,andGoalsasAntecedentsofOr-ganizationalAttractiveness.InternationalJournalofSelectionandAssessment,10,225–234.
Rynes,S.L.andCable,D.M.(2003)RecruitmentResearchintheTwenty-FirstCentury.In:Borman,W.C.,Ilgen,D.R.andKlimoski,R.J.(eds),HandbookofPsychology,Volume12,IndustrialandOrganizationalPsychology.Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley,pp.55–76.
Saks,A.M.(2005)TheImpracticalityofRecruitmentResearch.In:Evers,A.,Anderson,N.andVoskuijl,O.(eds),HandbookofPersonnelSelection.Oxford,UK:Blackwell,pp.419–439.Schneider,B.(1987)ThePeopleMakethePlace.PersonnelPsychology,40,437–453.
Smith,R.E.andVogt,C.A.(1995)TheEffectsofIntegratingAdvertisingandNegativeWord-of-MouthCommunica-tionsonMessageProcessingandResponse.JournalofConsumerPsychology,4,133–151.
Strauss,J.P.,Barrick,M.R.andConnerley,M.L.(2001)AnInvestigationofPersonalitySimilarityEffects(RelationalandPerceived)onPeerandSupervisorRatingsandtheRoleofFamiliarityandLiking.JournalofOccupationalandOrganiza-tionalPsychology,74,637–658.
Taylor,M.S.andCollins,C.J.(2000)OrganizationalRecruit-ment:Enhancingtheintersectionofresearchandpractice.In:Cooper,C.L.andLocke,E.A.(eds),Industrialand
InternationalJournalofSelectionandAssessmentVolume15Number4December2007GreetVanHoyeandFilipLievens
OrganizationalPsychology:Linkingtheorywithpractice.Oxford,UK:Blackwell,pp.304–334.
Till,B.D.(1998)UsingCelebrityEndorsersEffectively:Les-sonsfromassociativelearning.JournalofProductandBrandManagement,7,400–409.
Tong,J.P.C.,Duffy,V.G.,Cross,G.W.,Tsung,F.andYen,B.P.C.(2005)EvaluatingtheIndustrialErgonomicsofServiceQualityforOnlineRecruitmentWebsites.InternationalJournalofIndustrialErgonomics,35,697–711.
Tsui,A.S.,Egan,T.D.andO’Reilly,C.A.III(1992)BeingDifferent:Relationaldemographyandorganizationalattach-ment.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,37,549–579.
Turban,D.B.andKeon,T.L.(1993)OrganizationalAttractive-ness:Aninteractionistperspective.JournalofAppliedPsy-chology,78,184–193.
VanHoye,G.andLievens,F.(2005)Recruitment-RelatedInformationSourcesandOrganizationalAttractiveness:Cansomethingbedoneaboutnegativepublicity?Interna-tionalJournalofSelectionandAssessment,13,179–187.VanHoye,G.andLievens,F.(2007)SocialInfluencesonOrganizationalAttractiveness:Investigatingifandwhenword-of-mouthmatters.JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology,37,2024–2047.
VanOudenhoven,J.P.,Prins,K.S.,Bakker,W.,Schipper,M.andTromp,N.(2003)OrganizationalCultureinTermsofPersonality:Abigfive-basedquestionnaire.Gedrag&Orga-nisatie,16,355–369.
VanRooy,D.L.,Alonso,A.andFairchild,Z.(2003)InwiththeNew,OutwiththeOld:Hasthetechnologicalrevolutioneliminatedthetraditionaljobsearchprocess?InternationalJournalofSelectionandAssessment,11,170–174.
VanVianen,A.E.M.(2005)AreviewofPerson–EnvironmentFitResearch:Prospectsforpersonnelselection.In:Evers,A.,Anderson,N.andVoskuijl,O.(eds),HandbookofPersonnelSelection.Oxford,UK:Blackwell,pp.419–439.Williamson,I.O.,Lepak,D.P.andKing,J.(2003)TheEffectofCompanyRecruitmentWebSiteOrientationonIndivi-duals’PerceptionsofOrganizationalAttractiveness.JournalofVocationalBehavior,63,242–263.
Zottoli,M.A.andWanous,J.P.(2000)RecruitmentSourceResearch:Currentstatusandfuturedirections.HumanResourceManagementReview,10,353–382.
&2007TheAuthors
Journalcompilation&2007BlackwellPublishingLtd
因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容