The authors found that the applicant's perception of fit would have an impact on the decision to accept or decline a particular job. This would seem easier to do in a small business as compared to a large, multinational corporation. How can organizations aim recruitment at the population that would best fit the job? How can the recruitment be personalized to reach the best-fitting talent but still be efficient from a cost/benefit standpoint? How does a company's reputation help with this fit issue?
•When the organization is striving for the right fit w/applicants, is this in some sense bias or discriminating? •Based on the results in this meta-analysis, should companies strive to present different and more gender specific attractions (e.g., location and pay benefits) for jobs in order to attract a diverse workforce? How do companies do this without discriminating against males and negatively effecting the selection attraction by having a negative view of procedural justice from the men applicants, since they are more sensitive based on this study?
The model proposed by the authors only takes into accounts at the level of the individual and the level of the organization. It does not take into account some of the broader llevels. What broaders level variables might affect the outcome variables that they have named here. For instance, what influence might the economy play on these outcome variables?
The image of the organization and characteristics of the job seem to be important influences on applicant intention to pursue and accept job offers. What can be done to market these characteristics to applicants? What types of impression management techniques might organizations use in the recruitment process?
I had not heard about this term ‘war for talent’ (Michaels et al., 2001).
This was a big project to study the content of various potential predictors described in the various studies and determine categories of both predictors and outcomes to conduct the meta-analyses. This study makes a valuable contribution – to propose and test various models regarding the role of acceptance intentions and job-org attraction (attitudes) in predicting job choice and what predictors impact these two mediators. Person-organizational fit was the strongest predictor of job pursuit intentions (along with the strong related effects of type of work and perceived work environment.) The authors explain that for the most part, general recruiting done well (personable, accurate info, fair treatment) is effective and the special tailored kind that tailors to particular needs and values of particular applicants is not necessary except for top applicants. I found that interesting. I was also surprised that few moderation effects were found for gender or race. What struck you from this huge study?
The authors found that while how recruiting is done affects job pursuit intentions of recruits, who does the recruiting does not. However, as the authors state, only demographic characteristics of recruiters were considered in the studies that made up the meta-analysis. What impact might recruiters whose characteristics such as personality, intelligence, and personal grooming/dress reflect the characteristics an organization desires in new hires have on the recruits’ job pursuit intensions? Might this occur because people tend to be attracted to people who are like themselves?
I think that the authors should have elaborated more on some of the characteristics of their variables. It seems like the variable – perceived fit, for example – was just cruised past. Did not find the article useful in terms of practice – Thoughts?
The authors found that the applicant's perception of fit would have an impact on the decision to accept or decline a particular job. This would seem easier to do in a small business as compared to a large, multinational corporation. How can organizations aim recruitment at the population that would best fit the job? How can the recruitment be personalized to reach the best-fitting talent but still be efficient from a cost/benefit standpoint? How does a company's reputation help with this fit issue?
ReplyDelete•When the organization is striving for the right fit w/applicants, is this in some sense bias or discriminating?
ReplyDelete•Based on the results in this meta-analysis, should companies strive to present different and more gender specific attractions (e.g., location and pay benefits) for jobs in order to attract a diverse workforce? How do companies do this without discriminating against males and negatively effecting the selection attraction by having a negative view of procedural justice from the men applicants, since they are more sensitive based on this study?
The model proposed by the authors only takes into accounts at the level of the individual and the level of the organization. It does not take into account some of the broader llevels. What broaders level variables might affect the outcome variables that they have named here. For instance, what influence might the economy play on these outcome variables?
ReplyDeleteThe image of the organization and characteristics of the job seem to be important influences on applicant intention to pursue and accept job offers. What can be done to market these characteristics to applicants? What types of impression management techniques might organizations use in the recruitment process?
ReplyDeleteI had not heard about this term ‘war for talent’ (Michaels et al., 2001).
ReplyDeleteThis was a big project to study the content of various potential predictors described in the various studies and determine categories of both predictors and outcomes to conduct the meta-analyses. This study makes a valuable contribution – to propose and test various models regarding the role of acceptance intentions and job-org attraction (attitudes) in predicting job choice and what predictors impact these two mediators. Person-organizational fit was the strongest predictor of job pursuit intentions (along with the strong related effects of type of work and perceived work environment.) The authors explain that for the most part, general recruiting done well (personable, accurate info, fair treatment) is effective and the special tailored kind that tailors to particular needs and values of particular applicants is not necessary except for top applicants. I found that interesting. I was also surprised that few moderation effects were found for gender or race. What struck you from this huge study?
The authors found that while how recruiting is done affects job pursuit intentions of recruits, who does the recruiting does not. However, as the authors state, only demographic characteristics of recruiters were considered in the studies that made up the meta-analysis. What impact might recruiters whose characteristics such as personality, intelligence, and personal grooming/dress reflect the characteristics an organization desires in new hires have on the recruits’ job pursuit intensions? Might this occur because people tend to be attracted to people who are like themselves?
ReplyDeleteI think that the authors should have elaborated more on some of the characteristics of their variables. It seems like the variable – perceived fit, for example – was just cruised past. Did not find the article useful in terms of practice – Thoughts?
ReplyDelete