Applicant Reactions to Selection Events: Four studies into the role of attributional style and fairness perceptions

In four studies, applicants’ (N = 478) organizational attractiveness perceptions and recommendation intentions following selection outcomes were measured. In three field studies, actual applicants’ perceptions were measured in authentic, high‐stakes application contexts, both preprocedure and postoutcome. A fourth, hypothetical, study was added to increase internal validity. Consistent positive relationships between procedural fairness and reactions were found. Further, attributional style moderated the distributive fairness–attractiveness relationship in the field studies, but not in the laboratory study. In general, optimistically attributing applicants reported higher organization attraction than less optimistic individuals when the outcome was perceived as fair, but lower attraction when the outcome was perceived as unfair. For recommendation intentions, results were less consistent. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.     

The Role of Attributions and Fairness in Understanding Job Applicant Reactions to Selection Procedures and Decisions

Purpose

Drawing mainly upon Applicant Attribution-Reaction Theory (AART), we clarify and underscore the role of attribution dimensions (personal control, external control, and stability) in forming applicant fairness perceptions, attitudes, and behavioral reactions.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Students seeking (or about to seek) jobs (N = 264) participated in an experimental study in which procedural justice rules and outcome favorability (selected or rejected) were manipulated. Participants reported their attributions, fairness perceptions, and behavioral intentions. Hypotheses were tested through SEM and bootstrapping.

Findings

Applicant attributions were predicted by outcome favorability and the extent to which the interview process satisfied/violated procedural justice rules. In line with AART, process fairness perceptions mediated relationships between applicant attribution dimensions and both organizational perceptions and behavioral intentions.

Implications

Organizations should satisfy justice rules in employee selection processes because such rules affect applicant attributions, which in turn predict perceptions and behavioral intentions. In addition to identifying antecedents and consequences of fairness perceptions, antecedents and consequences of applicant attributions should be investigated, as both relate to important organizational outcomes.

Originality/Value

This study is one of a very few to test propositions from AART. Through an experimental design of high internal validity, we show that outcome favorability and the satisfaction/violation of justice rules predict job applicant attributions (personal control, external control, and stability). We further show that applicants’ attributions explain unique variance in their perceptions of the employing organization and in their behavioral intentions (e.g., recommend organization to others; litigate) beyond that explained by selection outcome and fairness perceptions.     

Selection Fairness and Outcomes: A field study of interactive effects on applicant reactions

Despite the vast amount of applicant reactions studies, few have examined combined effects of selection outcomes with perceived procedural and distributive fairness on both personal and organizational reactions. Further, most have been conducted in laboratory settings, limiting external validity. The present study examined these effects with a longitudinal design, measuring actual applicants' well‐being and organizational attractiveness preinterview and postoutcome. As expected, several interactions between outcomes and fairness were found. Applicants who were hired reported both highest well‐being and organizational attractiveness when they perceived the outcome as fair. In contrast, applicants who were rejected reported highest well‐being when they thought the outcome was unfair. Selection outcome and procedural fairness interacted for organizational attractiveness, with higher procedural fairness leading to higher attractiveness for rejected applicants.     

Person–job fit versus person–organization fit as predictors of organizational attraction and job acceptance intentions: A longitudinal study

This longitudinal field study examined the relationship between perceived person–job (PJ) and person–organization (PO) fit and organizational attraction, intentions to accept a job offer, and actual job offer decision. Data were collected from 193 graduate applicants prior to the selection process, during the selection process, at the end of the selection process, and after job acceptance decision. The findings showed support for the hypothesis that perceptions of PJ and PO fit influenced attraction at different stages of selection. The second hypothesis that the relationship between perceptions of PJ and PO fit and intentions to accept a job offer are mediated by organizational attraction was partially supported. Mid‐selection, the relationship between PJ fit perceptions and intentions to accept a job offer was mediated by organizational attraction; in contrast, at the end of the selection process, there was a direct relationship between PJ fit perceptions and intentions. PO fit perceptions were unrelated to intentions to accept a job offer. PJ and PO fit perceptions (before and during the selection process) were unrelated to actual job acceptance decision. These findings highlight the importance of ensuring that applicants have sufficient information about the job during the recruitment and selection process.     

Engagement,procedural fairness,and perceived fit as predictors of applicant withdrawal intentions: A longitudinal field study

The current study draws upon image theory to identify predictors of applicant withdrawal intentions and behavior. Applicants from a U.S. manufacturing organization completed measures of engagement, procedural justice, perceived fit, offer expectancy, perceived alternatives, and withdrawal intentions. Results indicate that withdrawal intentions were lower when candidates were more engaged in the selection process, perceived a higher level of procedural justice in the application process, perceived a greater degree of fit, and had higher offer expectancies. Additionally, the person–job fit–withdrawal intentions relationship was moderated by perceived alternatives such that this relationship was strongest when candidates reported having more alternatives. Withdrawal behavior was significantly predicted by person–organization fit, engagement, and withdrawal intentions. These results suggest that withdrawal intentions may be reduced via the development of engaging and procedurally fair selection procedures that help candidates determine their fit with the job and the organization.     

PROCEDURAL AND DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE IN THE EDITORIAL REVIEW PROCESS

Based on organizational justice theories, a model of procedural and distributive justice is proposed to explain authors' reactions to editorial decisions and the editorial review process. Authors ( n = 106) provided justice perceptions and future journal submission intentions upon receiving an editorial decision letter. The editor provided information on editorial decisions and review processes. Explanation and interpersonal sensitivity were important procedural justice dimensions in predicting distributive justice reactions and intentions to submit future work to the journal. Explanations appear particularly important when the decision is negative. Journal submission intentions were positively related to distributive justice reactions for inexperienced, but not experienced, authors. In addition, journal submission intentions were positively related to the perceived explanation received for experienced, but not inexperienced, authors. Discussion focuses on implications for organizational justice theories and for journal publishing and HR practices.     

Do Applicants' Perceptions Matter? Investigating Reapplication Behavior Using Fairness Theory

This study used a fairness theory approach to examine a link between applicants' perceptions and their actual reapplication behavior. We suggested that applicants who do not receive job offers form ‘Would’ counterfactuals based on perceived performance and ‘Should’ counterfactuals based on two procedural justice rules (job relatedness and opportunity to perform). Participants (N=542) were applicants for a United States federal government position. After not being hired in the initial selection process, 9% of the applicants reapplied for the job the following year. We found some support for the hypothesized interactions. The job relatedness–perceived performance interaction was not significant, but the opportunity to perform–perceived performance interaction was. Opportunity to perform had a stronger influence when perceived performance was higher.     

Consequences of organizational justice expectations in a selection system

This study examined several consequences of applicants' expectations of organizational justice at multiple stages in a selection process. The authors assessed the justice expectations of 1,832 job applicants prior to their participation in a testing process and examined how these expectations influenced their pretest attitudes and intentions as well as their perceptions of the testing process. Results revealed that applicants with higher expectations of justice reported higher levels of pretest motivation and more positive job acceptance and recommendation intentions. Justice expectations were also positively related to applicants' perceptions of justice in the testing process. Results provided some evidence that justice expectations have a moderating influence, such that justice perceptions have a greater influence on applicants' affective and cognitive states when expectations of justice are high. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed in the context of research on organizational justice and applicant perceptions.     

Judging the fairness of voice-based participation across multiple and interrelated stages of decision making

Recent multifoci research reports that multiple sources of justice exist in organizations. In expanding this framework, we address how judgments of overall procedural fairness and behavioral intentions are influenced by different experiences of voice-based participation across a multi-stage decision-making process. The results of two experiments were consistent with a fairness theory framework. Overall, decision procedures were judged to be the fairest and the intention to volunteer was highest when participants were allowed voice in their team and when their team was allowed voice by organizational authorities. When voice was denied by both the team and the organization or was denied by either party, fairness ratings, and participant intentions were depressed and did not significantly differ from each other. This pattern of results suggests that individuals are influenced by transactions across decision-making stages and that such interdependence should be considered when attempting to understand the meaningfulness of voice-based participation.     

A trickle-down model of organizational justice: relating employees' and customers' perceptions of and reactions to fairness

This study developed and tested a trickle-down model of organizational justice that hypothesized that employees' perceptions of fairness should affect their attitudes toward the organization, subsequently influencing their behaviors toward customers. In turn, customers should interpret these behaviors as signals of fair treatment, causing them to react positively to both the employee and the organization. The model was tested on a sample of 187 instructors and their students. The results revealed that instructors who perceived high distributive and procedural justice reported higher organizational commitment. In turn, their students reported higher levels of instructor effort, prosocial behaviors, and fairness, as well as more positive reactions to the instructor. Overall, the results imply that fair treatment of employees has important organizational consequences because of customers' attitudes and future intentions toward key service employees.     

Procedural Fairness,the Economy,and Support for Political Authorities

A vast literature in social and organizational psychology suggests that support for authorities is driven both by the outcomes they deliver to people and by the extent to which they employ fair decision making processes. Furthermore, some of that literature describes a process‐outcome interaction, through which the effect of outcome favorability is reduced as process fairness increases. However, very few studies have been conducted to determine whether such interaction is also present in the explanation of support for political authorities. Here, we start by analyzing whether individual perceptions of the political system’s procedural fairness moderate the well‐known individual‐level relationship between perceived economic performance and government approval. Then, we explore the implications of such process‐outcome interaction to the phenomenon of “economic voting,” testing whether impartiality in governance moderates the effect of objective economic performance on aggregate incumbent parties’ support. In both cases, we show that the interaction between processes and outcomes seems to extend beyond the organizational contexts where it has been previously observed, with important implications for the study of political support.     

Fairness from the Applicant's Perspective: Reactions to Employee Selection Procedures

Applicants' reactions to selection procedures were examined in terms of the satisfaction and/or violation of 10 procedural justice rules. Critical incidents (n= 237) of fair and unfair treatment during selection were collected from 31 individuals who had recently experienced job search and hiring processes. Incidents were categorized into 10 procedural justice rules and the distribution of these incidents was examined for different hiring outcomes and different selection procedures. Dominant procedural concerns reflected selection procedure job relatedness and interpersonal treatment applicants received. Accepted applicants were primarily concerned about consistency of treatment, while rejected applicants were more concerned with timely feedback and blatant bias. Ease of faking was the primary procedural concern of applicants taking honesty and personality tests, while job relatedness was the primary concern with ability and work sample tests. Research issues were discussed and a number of practical suggestions were offered in terms of minimizing applicants' negative reactions to the selection process.     

A Longitudinal Study of Applicant Reactions to Multiple Selection Procedures and Job and Organizational Characteristics

This longitudinal field study aimed to: (a) examine the relative importance of reactions to psychological tests compared to interviews; (b) compare reactions to selection procedures with perceptions of job and organizational attributes; and (c) examine the relative importance of job acceptance intentions assessed at different stages. Graduate applicants were surveyed at four time points: pre‐selection, after an external interview, after psychological tests and internal interviews, and after actual job acceptance decision. Reactions to psychological tests were unrelated to attractiveness and acceptance intentions, whereas mixed findings were reported on reactions to interviews. Mostly, the findings showed that perceptions of job and organizational attributes explained significant variance in attractiveness and job acceptance intentions, whereas reactions to selection procedures were unrelated. The hypothesis that acceptance intentions closest in time to job acceptance decision would be more strongly related to job acceptance decision compared to intentions assessed at early stages was not supported. In general, the results emphasised the relative importance of initial attitudes of applicants in understanding applicant reactions.     

Fairness Perceptions in Web‐based Selection: Impact on applicants’ pursuit intentions,recommendation intentions,and intentions to reapply

This study examines the Gilliland model of applicants’ reactions to selection procedures in a Web‐based context, revealing new theoretical and empirical insights. We extend existing research by further considering a reflective first‐order formative second‐order model consisting of three second‐order justice factors of formal characteristics, explanation, and interpersonal treatment modeled by 11 formative indicators representing the procedural justice rules. Partial least squares path modeling analysis revealed that formal characteristics and interpersonal treatment are positively related to perceptions of process fairness in Web‐based selection. Most salient procedural justice rules revealed were treatment of the applicants, opportunity to perform, propriety of questions, and reconsideration opportunity. Furthermore, process fairness, which was positively related to applicants’ reactions, fully mediated the relationship between justice factors and applicants’ reactions.     

Event justice perceptions and employees' reactions: perceptions of social entity justice as a moderator

Building on 2 paradigms in organizational justice research and on fairness heuristic theory, the author argues that employees' perceptions about the fairness of social entities (their supervisor and their organization) moderate the relationship between their perceptions about the fairness of specific events and their reactions. A survey of 265 supervisor-employee pairs in 4 companies was conducted to test this argument. Hierarchical linear modeling analyses showed that when employees perceived their organization to be generally fair, this perception moderated the relationship between the perceived justice of a particular event and their reactions to the organization (organizational commitment and organization-directed citizenship behavior). In addition, employees' perceptions of the fairness of their supervisor were found to moderate the relationship between the perceived justice of a particular event and their supervisor-directed responses (trust in managers and supervisor-directed citizenship behavior) and their organization-directed responses. The results suggest that employee attitudes and behavior can be better understood when both event justice perceptions and social entity justice perceptions are considered together.     

从归因视角探讨组织公正感产生机制

目前组织公正感研究的重点是组织公正与后续行为之间的关系,但某一特定事件的公平/不公平感产生的过程却未得到实验检验.本研究旨在将归因理论的观点和方法纳入到公正判断之中,从归因的视角探讨组织公正感的产生机制.研究结果表明,归因过程是公平判断的认知前提,对公平判断有显著的预测作用.     

Absolute vs Relative Performance Rating Formats: Implications for fairness and organizational justice

The choice of performance rating format may influence employees' fairness perceptions. Participants in two studies, one consisting of 208 participants and the other of 393 participants, evaluated the fairness of common relative and absolute rating formats. The participants in the second study also evaluated the fairness of two rating formats, one absolute and one relative, presented in organizational contexts of varying procedural and distributive justice. Results indicate that not only are absolute formats perceived as more fair than relative formats, but differences in fairness perceptions also occur among relative and absolute formats. Furthermore, it appears that rating format influences procedural justice, especially when outcomes are perceived as fair. Implications for organizations' appraisal practices are discussed.     

The Role of Affect in the Relationship Between Distributive Justice Expectations and Applicants' Recommendation and Litigation Intentions

This paper examined the moderating role of positive and negative affect in the relationship between distributive justice expectations and applicants' intentions to recommend the organization or to litigate. Specifically, it was suggested and supported in two samples of, respectively, 1,409 and 486 applicants, that the positive relationship between distributive justice expectations and recommendation intentions was stronger for applicants high in positive affect. In the second sample, it was further found that the negative relationship between distributive justice expectations and litigation intentions was stronger among applicants high in negative affect. This research is the first to identify the distinct roles of positive and negative affect in shaping responses to expectations of (un)fairness in the personnel selection literature. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

Who cares about organizational justice? How personality moderates the effects of perceived fairness on organizational attachment

The present article tests whether two theoretically relevant individual differences moderate the impact of perceived fairness on organizational attachment among young professionals in a large Dutch multinational firm. Drawing on the relational and control perspectives on organizational justice, we predict that any relationship between perceived fairness and organizational attachment will differ between individuals with varying beliefs in personal control and will be stronger for individuals with high interdependent self-construal (ISC). The findings revealed that almost all positive main effects of perceived fairness on organizational attachment were indeed moderated by either type of personality. As a result, we found support for both the relational as well as the control perspective, depending on the type of attachment considered. “Hard” reciprocation through extrarole behaviour seems to be inspired by the empowering impact of control through fairness. “Soft” reciprocation by affection and staying intentions (cognitions) on the other hand, results from the relational bond that is strengthened by fair treatment.     

Organizational justice and Black applicants' reactions to affirmative action

Using organizational justice as a guiding framework, the authors studied perceptions of affirmative action programs by presumed beneficiaries. Three conceptual issues were addressed: (a) the content of different affirmative action plans; (b) the 3-way interaction among distributive, procedural, and interactional justice; and (c) the distinction between outcome favorability and distributive justice. These ideas were tested with a sample of Black engineering students who responded to 1 of 6 plans. Participants distinguished among the various plans, with some policies being viewed as more fair than others. In addition, a 3-way interaction among the 3 types of organizational justice was observed. Specifically, the 2-way interaction between distributive and interactional fairness was only significant when procedural justice was low. Implications for organizational justice and for the design of affirmative action programs are discussed.