I think Phillips does a good job at identifying the traits RJP's that would make them the most effective for positive organizational outcomes. In fact, most of what I have heard/read about RJP's have pointed to mostly positive consequences on organizations and employee morale. However, it would seem to me that the effectiveness of RJP's also would depend on certain individual level characteristics. For instance, applicants who have been in the field for years (and generally have accurate expectations of what the job will entail) might be less influenced by an RJP than candidates who are new to the field. What other individual characteristics could you think of that would alter the effectiveness of RJP's. Are there are any downsides to RJP's?
•Has the use of written method of RJPs reduced since this article and others similar in showing that other methods (i.e., verbal or video) is better for performance and turnover? Also, it would seem that procedural justice would have a mutual influence in accepting a position with RJPs. Has this been looked at together? •It would seem that more extrinsic motivators would be involved in accepting a job offer without having heard or read the RJP yet. Therefore, would the timing of presenting the RJP, in this case before offering the job, have helped to make applicants more intrinsically motivated to accept the job? Have motivators regarding the timing been considered?
Phillips suggests that the timing of RJP applications differentially influences organizational outcomes. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using a RJP in the pre- and post-employment setting? Why might some organizations prefer to apply an RJP before or after hiring?
The authors suggest that the medium of a RJP matters for it's effectiveness. More specifically they suggest that a videotape will be the most effective. What about taking it a step further and having the applicant follow a person who already holds the position on the job. Obviously this makes more work for the organization but do you think the benefits can outweigh the costs?
The author reported that RJPs were negatively related (although slightly) to recruits’ withdrawal from the application process and surmised that this might occur because of a commitment effect. Might this be due to a reduction in uncertainty about the job, where the recruit believes that he or she has more information about the job as a result of the RJP and thus feels more comfortable continuing the application process?
I was a little taken aback when Phillips claimed that it was more difficult for participants to quit lab studies than actual jobs, which affected the generalizability of the research findings on measure of turnover. Don’t you think this would be the other way around? Do you agree?
I think Phillips does a good job at identifying the traits RJP's that would make them the most effective for positive organizational outcomes. In fact, most of what I have heard/read about RJP's have pointed to mostly positive consequences on organizations and employee morale. However, it would seem to me that the effectiveness of RJP's also would depend on certain individual level characteristics. For instance, applicants who have been in the field for years (and generally have accurate expectations of what the job will entail) might be less influenced by an RJP than candidates who are new to the field. What other individual characteristics could you think of that would alter the effectiveness of RJP's. Are there are any downsides to RJP's?
ReplyDelete•Has the use of written method of RJPs reduced since this article and others similar in showing that other methods (i.e., verbal or video) is better for performance and turnover? Also, it would seem that procedural justice would have a mutual influence in accepting a position with RJPs. Has this been looked at together?
ReplyDelete•It would seem that more extrinsic motivators would be involved in accepting a job offer without having heard or read the RJP yet. Therefore, would the timing of presenting the RJP, in this case before offering the job, have helped to make applicants more intrinsically motivated to accept the job? Have motivators regarding the timing been considered?
Phillips suggests that the timing of RJP applications differentially influences organizational outcomes. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using a RJP in the pre- and post-employment setting? Why might some organizations prefer to apply an RJP before or after hiring?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of the finding that presenting a RJP after hiring leads to improved performance? How prevalent are RJP in various industries?
ReplyDeleteThe authors suggest that the medium of a RJP matters for it's effectiveness. More specifically they suggest that a videotape will be the most effective. What about taking it a step further and having the applicant follow a person who already holds the position on the job. Obviously this makes more work for the organization but do you think the benefits can outweigh the costs?
ReplyDeleteThe author reported that RJPs were negatively related (although slightly) to recruits’ withdrawal from the application process and surmised that this might occur because of a commitment effect. Might this be due to a reduction in uncertainty about the job, where the recruit believes that he or she has more information about the job as a result of the RJP and thus feels more comfortable continuing the application process?
ReplyDeleteI was a little taken aback when Phillips claimed that it was more difficult for participants to quit lab studies than actual jobs, which affected the generalizability of the research findings on measure of turnover. Don’t you think this would be the other way around? Do you agree?
ReplyDelete