Journal of Applied Psychology
2015, Vol. 100, No. 3, 880 – 893
© 2014 American Psychological Association
0021-9010/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038357
Searching for the Right Fit: Development of Applicant Person-Organization
Fit Perceptions During the Recruitment Process
Brian W. Swider
Ryan D. Zimmerman
Georgia Institute of Technology
Virginia Tech
Murray R. Barrick
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Texas A&M University
Numerous studies link applicant fit perceptions measured at a single point in time to recruitment
outcomes. Expanding upon this prior research by incorporating decision-making theory, this study
examines how applicants develop these fit perceptions over the duration of the recruitment process,
showing meaningful changes in fit perceptions across and within organizations overtime. To assess the
development of applicant fit perceptions, eight assessments of person-organization (PO) fit with up to
four different organizations across 169 applicants for 403 job choice decisions were analyzed. Results
showed the presence of initial levels and changes in differentiation of applicant PO fit perceptions across
organizations, which significantly predicted future job choice. In addition, changes in withinorganizational PO fit perceptions across two stages of recruitment predicted applicant job choices among
multiple employers. The implications of these results for accurately understanding the development of fit
perceptions, relationships between fit perceptions and key recruiting outcomes, and possible limitations
of past meta-analytically derived estimates of these relationships are discussed.
Keywords: recruitment, person-organization fit, differentiation-consolidation theory, job choice
and norms (Bretz & Judge, 1994; O’Reilly, Chatman, & Caldwell,
1991). To this end, research studies have repeatedly shown that
applicants who perceive higher levels of overall PO fit with an
organization are more likely to be attracted to and accept offers
from that organization (Chapman et al., 2005; Uggerslev, Fassina,
& Kraichy, 2012). Yet, similar to research on PO fit in other
contexts (Kristof-Brown & Billsberry, 2013), much is known
about the outcomes of applicant PO fit with a specific organization
at one point in time but a lack of knowledge exists regarding when
and how applicants develop and modify these perceptions over the
course of recruitment.
Although understanding and evaluating the development of PO
fit in existing employees is difficult, studying PO fit development
in applicants is even more challenging due to distinctive forces
specific to the recruitment setting. PO fit is broadly defined as “the
compatibility between people and organizations that occurs when
(a) at least one entity provides what the other needs, or (b) they
share similar fundamental characteristics, or (c) both” (see p. 4:
Kristof, 1996). However, extant general PO fit research paradigms
which focus on one dyadic relationship (e.g., a current employee
and his or her current employer) fail to address the complexity of
applicant PO fit perceptions as recruiting requires applicants to
gather information and form evolving perceptions about fit over
the recruitment process (e.g., Dineen, Ash, & Noe, 2002) and
across multiple organizations simultaneously (Barber, 1998). Results of the few recruiting studies using the more “traditional”
approach to studying PO fit development with one organization
indicate that applicant PO fit becomes more important and predictive of recruiting outcomes later in the recruitment process (Cable
& Judge, 1996; Harold & Ployhart, 2008; Uggerslev et al., 2012).
Given the growing competition for talent among organizations,
practitioners as well as researchers have increased their focus on
recruiting, or the activities used to affect applicant attitudes about
the job or organization and subsequent job choices (Chapman,
Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, 2005; Dineen & Soltis,
2011). While numerous applicant perceptions and attitudes have
been studied as predictors of recruiting outcomes, few have garnered as much attention as applicant perceptions of fit with the
organization. The general argument linking PO fit perceptions with
recruiting outcomes is that applicants are expected to respond
more positively to organizations when they have the same values
This article was published Online First December 8, 2014.
Brian W. Swider, Scheller College of Business, Georgia Institute of
Technology; Ryan D. Zimmerman, Pamplin College of Business, Virginia
Tech; Murray R. Barrick, Mays Business School, Texas A&M University.
This article is based on Brian Swider’s doctoral dissertation completed
under the supervision of Murray Barrick (chair), Ryan Zimmerman, Brad
Kirkman, and Stephanie Payne.
We thank Rob Ployhart as well as two anonymous reviewers for their
extremely constructive comments on previous versions of this article.
Additionally, we wish to express our appreciation to Talya Bauer, Derek
Chapman, Tim Judge, and Sara Rynes whose comments helped guide the
dissertation in its early stages. We also thank the “Half-Baked” OB
Research Group at the Georgia Institute of Technology for their comments
on an early draft of this article. Finally, we acknowledge the financial
support of the Mays Business School.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brian W.
Swider, Scheller College of Business, 800 West Peachtree Street NW,
Atlanta, GA 30308-1149. E-mail: [email protected]
880
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PO FIT PERCEPTION DEVELOPMENT DURING RECRUITMENT
While such studies underscore the importance of recognizing that
PO fit perceptions do change over time, there is little, if any,
research indicating when and how changes in PO fit influence
applicant job choice decisions. Furthermore, the recruitment process has been repeatedly shown to be organized into different
stages (Barber, 1998), which could systematically produce meaningful and distinct changes in the development of PO fit perceptions.
To compound this concern, solely focusing on how applicants
develop PO fit perceptions with one organization while ignoring
PO fit perceptions with other job alternatives under consideration
is akin to “missing the forest for the trees.” Thus, a richer understanding of the fit development process during recruitment must
incorporate the degree to which applicant PO fit perceptions differ
across multiple recruiting organizations, called PO fit differentiation, over the duration of recruitment. However, current research is
mute on both the presence and subsequent development of applicant PO fit differentiation and its influence on applicant job choice
decisions as they actually unfold. Thus, in order to understand the
dynamic PO fit development process in recruiting, one must examine changes in applicant PO fit perceptions both within organizations and across organizations over time.
This study makes three contributions. First, we extend the
emergent PO fit development literature (Shipp & Jansen, 2011;
Yu, 2013) as well as the established recruiting literature (Barber,
1998; Rynes & Cable, 2003) by integrating a decision-making
theory (differentiation-consolidation theory; Svenson, 1992) to
posit and test how applicant PO fit perceptions develop during
recruitment. Second, we examine initial and changes in differentiation of applicant PO fit perceptions toward multiple organizations to better understand how these fit perceptions develop simultaneously across several possible future employers and predict
offer acceptance decisions (Ryan & Huth, 2008). Finally, we study
changes in applicant PO fit perceptions for each organization
during recruitment stages and examine the unique impact that PO
fit perception changes over these stages have on applicant decisions to accept or reject job offers. Together, this study provides a
more comprehensive understanding of the development of applicant PO fit perceptions throughout recruitment.
Theoretical Development
Researchers looking to capture the dynamic process of recruitment have coalesced around three time-ordered stages of recruitment: generating suitable applicants, maintaining interest of applicants, and influencing job choice decisions (Barber, 1998; Dineen
& Soltis, 2011). During the first preparatory stage of the recruitment process, organizations are looking to capture the attention of
individuals to drive those individuals to apply for available jobs
(Ma & Allen, 2009). Typically, organizations rely on recruitmentoriented messages to provide individuals with general information
about the organization to furnish the targeted group of individuals
with enough information to decide to apply (Dineen & Soltis,
2011). Once individuals formally become applicants by applying
for jobs, the second, more active, stage of recruitment begins as
organizations assess and measure applicant characteristics necessary for the job while still maintaining the interest of applicants
(Ma & Allen, 2009; Ployhart, 2006). Information transmitted during this stage often occurs during employment interviews or site
881
visits, where interactions and responses by organizational representatives signal the norms, values, culture, and environment of the
organization to applicants (Breaugh, 2008; Walker et al., 2013).
Finally, after applicants have been deemed acceptable and presented with job offers, organizations attempt to convince applicants to accept offers and end the recruitment process (Barber,
1998). Consistent with this study, researchers focused on applicant
PO fit have mainly focused on the first two preparatory and active
stages (Uggerslev et al., 2012), since the final stage is primarily
focused on organizational negotiation tactics (Dineen & Soltis,
2011).
While much is known about correlates of applicant PO fit
perceptions during the first two stages of recruitment (KristofBrown & Guay, 2011; Uggerslev et al., 2012), little is known
about the stability or development of these perceptions over both
of these recruitment stages. Currently, our most established empirical findings on the PO fit-job choice relationship comes in the
form of a meta-analytic correlation (␳ ⫽ .18; Chapman et al.,
2005) which, at best, represents an average estimate across all
recruiting organizations and stages of the recruitment process. At
worst, this meta-analytic correlation is an unstable and unreliable
estimate of the relationship between PO fit and job choice (based
on only k ⫽ 3, N ⫽ 118). Recent theoretical advancements in PO
fit development reinforce the instability of these estimates since
current fit perceptions are thought to reflect individuals’ evolving
view of a given organization (Van Vianen, Stoelhorst, & De
Goede, 2013; Yu, 2013). Specifically, Shipp and Jansen (2011)
argue current fit perceptions are not simply a function of perceptions of congruence with an organization at that instant, but are
also a function of retrospective fit perceptions as well as projected
future fit perceptions with a given organization. Traditional PO
fit-recruiting studies provide some evidence supporting this conceptualization of PO fit development, since applicants not only use
prior job experiences and previous interactions with the recruiting
organization to predict current fit perceptions but also anticipate
high levels of satisfaction if they take a job with an organization
that is more similar or congruent with their values, goals, and
norms (Dineen et al., 2002; Judge & Bretz, 1992). Yet, to date,
explicit incorporation of this important extension to PO fit research
(Kristof-Brown & Billsberry, 2013) has not been attempted in the
recruitment context.
Even given these recent advancements, extant PO fit-recruiting
studies and fit development frameworks are currently limited in
their ability to describe how applicants develop PO fit perceptions
during recruitment. In addition to focusing on PO fit with one
organization, PO fit at one time, or both (for an exception, see
Carless, 2005; Harold & Ployhart, 2008), PO fit-recruiting studies
and the fit development frameworks also predominately focus on
subsequent individual reactions and attitudes rather than individuals’ decisions (Jansen & Shipp, 2013; Uggerslev et al., 2012).
Together, these shortcomings result in a failure to recognize recruitment as a decision-making process; one in which applicants
know they must differentiate among several alternatives and reach
a job choice decision after multiple information gathering stages
(Barber, 1998; Dineen & Soltis, 2011; Murphy & Tam, 2004). We
believe decision-making research is an appropriate framework for
bridging existing PO fit research with new fit development models
while also addressing theoretical gaps in the recruiting literature.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
882
SWIDER, ZIMMERMAN, AND BARRICK
Theories of individuals’ predecision processes often incorporate
multiple alternatives that are evaluated over time and result in
individuals choosing one alternative and rejecting others (Weber &
Johnson, 2009). Differentiation-consolidation theory (DCT) is particularly relevant to the recruiting setting, since it argues that
decision makers positively or negatively adjust and update preferences and attitudes toward individual alternatives as they gather
more information over time (Svenson, 1992, 2003). Clear differentiation among the alternatives is also produced by decision
makers via adjusting the importance of various attributes of each
alternative over time in such a way that a preliminary superior
alternative emerges among a number of perceived lesser alternatives prior to making a decision and these attitudes and perceptions
are fortified following the choice of the superior alternative (Svenson, 1992, 1996). Creating differentiation simplifies the decisionmaking process as fewer alternatives are considered throughout,
thereby facilitating the final acceptance and rejection decisions
(Brownstein, 2003). Thus, DCT recognizes both the impact of
developing distinct yet evolving perceptions within and between
alternatives before making a decision as well as the benefits to the
decision maker from integrating new information quicker, using
less effort, making decisions easier, and having fewer regrets about
the decision-making process (Russo, Medvec, & Meloy, 1996;
Svenson, 1992).
While DCT addresses both the pre- and postdecision processes
surrounding an individual’s choice (Brownstein, 2003), research
on the predecision, or “differentiation,” portion of DCT is particularly relevant to the understanding of how applicants develop PO
fit perceptions and make decisions during recruitment. In short, the
recruiting context lends itself to DCT, since applicants know they
cannot take multiple jobs (Barber, 1998) and therefore must not
only develop accurate perceptions of PO fit with multiple organizations but also manage (i.e., differentiate) these multiple PO fit
perceptions in such a way that facilitates decision making at the
end of the recruitment process. Next we develop our hypotheses
using the tenets of DCT.
Initial and Dynamic Differentiation
of PO fit Perceptions
The primary process underlying DCT is that of differentiation,
whereby decision makers increase the perceived differences between alternatives under consideration prior to choosing (Svenson,
1996). When applied to applicant PO fit perceptions during the
decision-making process of recruitment, instances when applicants
develop relatively consistent (regardless of mean-level) PO fit
perceptions across all recruiting organizations would be an example of low PO fit differentiation (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Conversely, applicants with higher PO fit differentiation perceive high
levels of PO fit with one or two organizations and lower levels of
PO fit with the remaining three or two organizations. While
researchers often discuss differentiation broadly (Brownstein,
2003), those seeking to untangle how differentiation between
choice alternatives occurs have focused on the presence of two
critical elements of the differentiation process: initial differentiation and changes in differentiation. Initial differentiation of alternatives is often required for the decision maker to recognize that a
decision must be reached while initial differences must also become more pronounced over time to facilitate the selection of one
of the alternatives (Svenson, 2003). Existing research provides
tangential support for DCT tenets, since applicants are expected to
develop PO fit perceptions, presumably across multiple organizations, both very early in the process as well as later when they
receive clearer or more specific information from these organizations in such a way that it facilitates decision-making at the end of
the recruitment process (Uggerslev et al., 2012).
DCT recognizes that applicants are still expected to have formed
preliminary perceptions about organizations based on exposure to
the organization before the recruitment process starts, even though
applicants’ roles prior to the start of, and very early during,
recruitment is often more observant than active (Barber, 1998). For
instance, research findings indicate that organizational characteristics visible prior to the start of the formal recruitment period,
such as those included in business publications, corporate reports,
and organization websites influence early applicant PO fit perceptions (Braddy, Meade, & Kroustalis, 2006; Dineen et al., 2002;
Lievens, Decaesteker, Coetsier, & Geirnaert, 2001). Furthermore,
applicant perceptions of PO fit across multiple organizations based
on prior information encountered are expected to differ both in
direction and intensity. In Rynes, Bretz, and Gerhart’s (1991)
sample, nearly every applicant reported using organizational characteristics to develop distinct good (100% of the sample) and poor
(95% of the sample) initial fit perceptions with organizations.
Given this finding, it is likely that retrospection on prior positive
and negative exposure to organizations before the start of recruiting will influence applicants’ preliminary positive and negative PO
fit perceptions (Shipp & Jansen, 2011), producing significant
initial levels of PO fit differentiation.
Yet, initial differentiation alone has been shown to be insufficient when making complex decisions and decision makers are
expected to continue gathering information in an effort to increase
differentiation over time to further prepare and simplify future
choices (Svenson, 2003). Consistent with this notion, as applicants
progress through the recruitment process, PO fit perceptions are
expected to change as a function of increased interaction with
organizations and their representatives who provide additional
information about norms and values (Saks & Ashforth, 1997;
Uggerslev et al., 2012). According to DCT, the gathering of
additional information is expected to result in increases, or positive
change, in differentiation over the decision-making process. This
change in differentiation can be a function of an increasingly
preferred alternative or decreasingly less preferred alternatives, or
a combination of both (Russo et al., 1996; Simon, Krawczyk, &
Holyoak, 2004). To this end, individuals are expected to use,
manage, and possibly reconfigure their values and goals to differentiate among alternatives when attempting to arrive at a decision
(Svenson, 1996). Consistent with this predecision differentiation
process, it has recently been theorized that employees actively try
to manage their fit perceptions by selectively choosing information
to maximize fit, as well as perhaps maximizing the differences in
perceived fit across alternatives, to reduce uncertainty and exhibit
control over their environment (Shipp & Jansen, 2011; Yu, 2013).
Thus, by gathering more distinct information and doing so in such
a way as to facilitate ultimate decision making, differentiation of
applicant perceptions of PO fit across recruiting organizations is
expected to increases from its initial nonzero levels over time.
Together, these two processes drive the pattern of PO fit perception development that applicants experience as they actively
PO FIT PERCEPTION DEVELOPMENT DURING RECRUITMENT
reduce the discrepancy between their initial state as observant
receivers of recruiting information and their end goal of accepting
an offer from organizations with similar norms and values and
rejecting other offers by the conclusion of recruitment (Johnson,
Taing, Chang, & Kawamoto, 2013; Dineen & Soltis, 2011). Thus:
Hypothesis 1: Applicant PO fit perceptions will be differentiated across recruiting organizations at the start of the recruitment process.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Hypothesis 2: Applicant PO fit perception differentiation will
increase over the recruitment process.
DCT researchers, having established the occurrence of initial
differentiation and changes in differentiation in decision making
settings, have also highlighted the crucial influence that the magnitude of initial and subsequent changes in differentiation have on
predicting decisions. First, high initial levels of differentiation
across alternatives at the start of the predecision process have been
shown to predict decisions among alternatives in a variety of
settings (e.g., consumer behavior; Russo et al., 1996). High levels
of initial differentiation should reflect individuals having a preliminary “favorite” choice alternative, whereas individuals with
low levels of initial differentiation are likely to remain in preliminary information processing longer and delaying their ability to
make a final choice (Svenson, 2003). As applied to the recruiting
setting, applicants with high levels of initial PO fit perception
differentiation among recruiting organizations are expected to consider fewer, or engage in more editing of, alternatives going
forward in the decision-making process. Conversely, applicants
with low levels of initial PO fit perception differentiation likely
have not edited or screened out many possible alternatives and
therefore would be more likely to pursue information about more
alternatives during recruitment (Svenson, 1996). Thus, applicants
who experience higher levels of PO fit perception differentiation
initially should be more likely to accept an offer from one of the
remaining alternatives relative to applicants with lower levels of
PO fit perception differentiation at the start of the decision-making
process.
Yet, given that recruitment is a dynamic process of change and
information gathering (Rynes & Cable, 2003), applicant levels of
PO fit differentiation are not expected to remain constant throughout the recruitment process. Information gathering over the course
of the decision-making process of recruiting should facilitate the
screening out of alternatives by possibly influencing memory
retrieval, bringing about new relevant attributes of alternatives, or
restructuring the relative importance of the known attributes of the
alternatives (Svenson, 2003). Even early models of applicant decision making adhere to these concepts of DCT, as applicants are
expected to narrow their job search to a more manageable and
desirable set of organizations (Boswell, Zimmerman, & Swider,
2012; Power & Aldag, 1985; Soelberg, 1967). Consistent with
these decision-making processes, applicants who have greater
(more positive) levels of PO fit differentiation change are expected
to have bolstered the perceived congruence in norms and values
between themselves and a promising alternative, downgraded the
perceived congruence with the other alternatives, or likely both as
the decision-making process continues (Svenson, 1996), making
the likelihood of accepting a job offer with the remaining alternative(s) more likely. In contrast, lower levels (less positive) of
883
differentiation change represent an information gathering process
that has not resulted in many perceived differences in PO fit across
organizations. The subsequent perceived congruence with many
alternatives is likely to result in a lower likelihood of offer acceptance for any one of the remaining job alternatives. Together,
initial and dynamic changes in applicant PO fit differentiation
should influence subsequent job choice decisions such that:
Hypothesis 3: Greater (less) initial PO fit perception differentiation will be positively (negatively) related to job choice.
Hypothesis 4: Greater (less) PO fit perception differentiation
change will be positively (negatively) related to job choice.
PO Fit Perception Change During Recruitment Stages
In addition to the importance of understanding how applicant
PO fit perceptions develop and change across multiple recruiting
organizations, it is also critical to understand how changes in
applicant fit perceptions within each of these organizations influence job choice decisions. This process is described by DCT since
decision makers are expected to gather information about each
alternative over the course of the decision-making process and, in
doing so, update their perceptions about a number of attributes of
that alternative or recognize new attributes altogether (Brownstein,
2003; Svenson, 1992). In fact, Svenson (2003) explicitly speculated how changes in job seeker perceptions of attributes of a job
alternative, such as norms and values, occur over time as positive
(negative) aspects may become even more positive (negative),
negative (positive) aspects may become less negative (positive), or
some combination. However, unlike decision-making situations
where information gathering occurs in a linear fashion, applicants
gather information in two distinct stages that involve different
types of information about organizational norms and values
(Rynes & Cable, 2003). Yet again, DCT accounts for this possibility as “the process of making a decision involves different
stages” (Svenson, 1992, p. 143) and these different stages are
expected to have unique influences on final decisions (Svenson,
1996). One of the few studies addressing PO fit change in the
recruitment process found that the relationship between PO fit and
organizational attraction did vary depending on the stage of the
recruitment and argued that information provided by organizations
was a key driver (Harold & Ployhart, 2008). Additionally, stages
have also been noted by both DCT and recruiting research alike
(Brownstein, 2003; Uggerslev et al., 2012) to drive the degree of
attentiveness to information employed in each stage with peripheral superficial processing likely in the initial preparatory stage
and more deliberative processing likely to be used later in the
decision process. Consistent with these findings, changes in applicant PO fit perceptions with each organization during both the
applicant generation and maintaining applicant interest stages of
recruitment may uniquely influence actual job choice.
Extant research on recruitment and job search suggests a very
specific pattern by which organizations present and applicants
gather information that should influence how applicant PO fit
perceptions about an organization change (Dineen & Soltis, 2011).
As mentioned before, research findings indicate that organizational
characteristics visible prior to the start of the formal recruitment
period from various media sources influence early applicant PO fit
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
884
SWIDER, ZIMMERMAN, AND BARRICK
perceptions (Braddy et al., 2006; Lievens et al., 2001). Furthermore, tactics that are initially employed during the applicant generation stage of recruitment such as job advertisements and recruiting brochures (Collins & Stevens, 2002) are expected to
simply capture the attention of applicants (Barber, 1998). Applicants are not expected to scrutinize in detail, but rather skim over,
information early in the recruitment process such as general information about an organization’s values and norms (Uggerslev et al.,
2012). Yet even when decision makers have little to no prior
information about alternatives, changes in perceptions of alternatives have been shown to develop quickly and are predictive of
future decisions (Russo et al., 1996; Simon et al., 2004). This may
also hold for perceptions of PO fit, as applicants are expected to
develop meaningful perceptions of their similarity with an organization based on interactions early in recruitment, with applicants
self-selecting in or out of the selection process based on perceived
congruence (Cable & Judge, 1996).
Once applicants apply for positions and selection assessments
occur, applicants are expected to see their perceptions of PO fit
with each organization change yet again during this second stage
of recruitment. The initial within-alternative information search is
likely to give way to a more thorough and selective review of
critical attributes of that alternative (Svenson, 2003). DCT research has shown that at different points during the predecision
process the importance of information shifts, such that attributes
initially favored in the decision-maker’s ultimate choice may not
continue to be seen as more favorable, while different attributes of
the same alternative increase in favorability (Svenson & Hill,
1997). Consistent with this notion, Osborn (1990) found that as
applicants progress through the recruitment process, organizations
that fulfilled necessary attributes were initially considered by
applicants, but organizations that matched necessary as well as
specific applicant-desired attributes were more likely to have their
offers accepted. This subsequent distinct change (relative to the
change in the first stage of recruitment) is possible due to the
increase in information detail that is made available and deeper
processing that occurs during the maintaining applicant status
stage. For instance, organizations are likely to withhold more
diagnostic sources of information, such as realistic job previews
and site visits, until later stages of recruitment (Boswell, Roehling,
LePine, & Moynihan, 2003; Phillips, 1998). Thus, positive
changes in applicant perceived PO fit with an organization during
the second stage of recruitment should result from more complete,
personal, and intensive sources of information about the norms and
values of an organization relative to information from the first
stage of recruitment (Walker et al., 2013). Conversely, less positive or even negative changes in PO fit perceptions developed from
more detailed information about organizations may be interpreted
as a warning of a problematic situation and increased risk of
experiencing negative outcomes if the job was accepted (Yu,
2013), resulting in a reduced likelihood of applicants accepting an
offer from that organization.
Together, positive changes in applicant PO fit perceptions during the first (applicant generation) and second (maintaining applicant status) stages of the recruitment process are expected to
provide distinct and additional predictive ability of future job
choice decisions. Thus:
Hypothesis 5: Positive (negative) applicant PO fit perception
change with an organization during the first stage of recruitment will be positively (negatively) related to job choice.
Hypothesis 6: Positive (negative) applicant PO fit perception
change with an organization during the second stage of recruitment will be positively (negatively) related to job choice.
Method
Participants and Procedures
Participants in this study were students enrolled in a combined
graduate degree program in accounting at a large southwestern
university. Students enrolled in the Program for Professional Accountants (PPA) were not only required to finish undergraduate
and graduate course work in five years, but were also required to
obtain an internship to complete the program. The recruiting
process for PPA students was highly structured and regulated by
the department of accounting, which resulted in a number of
natural controls for this study. First, recruiting by organizations
was only allowed to commence at the start of the spring semester
and concluded a month after the end of the same semester. During
that time, every PPA student was guaranteed the opportunity to be
recruited and interviewed by all of the “Big 4” accounting firms
(KPMG, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, and PricewaterhouseCoopers).
Each Big 4 firm was given an equal number of formal opportunities to recruit (e.g., hold information sessions, host receptions,
interview) and were restricted from engaging in other informal
opportunities. Finally, job offers could not be extended before the
conclusion of the recruitment process with offers from all Big 4
firms being extended on the same day (a week after the last
participant survey in this study). Thus, applicant perceptions of PO
fit could be gathered about the same set of firms, these firms were
given equal opportunities to recruit and interview applicants, and
applicants were not able to self-select out because they received an
early offer. Offer information and job choice was provided by PPA
administrators after the recruiting cycle was over.
As part of their degree requirements, all PPA students were
required to enroll in a one-credit course during the spring recruiting semester that covered the career aspects of the accounting
profession. Students were surveyed during six class meetings,
beginning mid-January until the end of the semester. To capture
the entire recruitment process, two additional online surveys were
distributed after the end of the course but prior to offers being
extended. To incentivize participation in the two online surveys,
applicants were given raffle entries for each completed survey, and
a third additional entry if they completed both online surveys, to
win one of five Apple iPads. Each of the in-class and online
surveys included a separate set of items assessing applicant PO fit
perceptions for each of the Big 4 firms. Thus, from mid-January to
early-June, applicant perceptions of PO fit with each firm were
assessed eight times with assessments occurring roughly three
weeks apart. Each set of items were on separate pages (or webpages) of the surveys, with the focal firm replaced in each item.
Firm-specific pages in the survey were counterbalanced over the
eight occasions to account for possible ordering effects.
All 207 PPA students enrolled in the program completed at least
one survey, with complete data for Level 2 variables collected for
PO FIT PERCEPTION DEVELOPMENT DURING RECRUITMENT
169 applicants (82% response rate). The 169 applicants with
complete data reported their PO fit perceptions about each of the
Big 4 firms an average of 7.21 times out of eight possible opportunities (90% response rate). Thus, 4872 observations of PO fit
perceptions with Big 4 firms across 169 applicants and eight
measurement occasions resulted in a 74% total response rate for
the study. The applicants were 61% female and 39% male; 84%
were White and 16% were non-White.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Measures
PO fit perception differentiation. Applicant perceptions of
PO fit with each of the Big 4 firms was measured on all eight
occasions using the same 3-item scale (␣s between .96 and .99)
from Cable and DeRue (2002). Items included “The things that I
value in life are very similar to the things that [the firm] values”
and “My personal values match [the firm]’s values and culture.”
Response choices ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). To capture applicant PO fit perception differentiation,
within-applicant standard deviation of PO fit perceptions with
recruiting organizations at each measurement occasion was calculated (Harrison & Klein, 2007). Lower levels of applicant PO fit
differentiation indicate that applicants perceive relatively similar
levels of PO fit across Big 4 firms at that measurement occasion,
whereas higher levels of PO fit differentiation indicate applicants
have divergent levels of PO fit perception across Big 4 firms at that
measurement occasion (Chan, 1998). The variable representing
initial differentiation was calculated as applicant PO fit perception
differentiation during the first measurement occasion.
All temporal change variables for each applicant (i.e., differentiation change) or organization recruiting the applicant (i.e., stage
1 and stage PO fit perception change) in this study were calculated
using values generated from empirical Bayes slope estimates provided by HLM 7.0 (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & du
Toit, 2011). To obtain empirical Bayes slope estimates, the focal
variable (e.g., PO fit perception differentiation) is regressed on the
relevant time factor (coded 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 for measurement occasions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively) with more
positive slope values indicating greater increase in the focal variable while less positive or negative values indicate smaller increases or even decreases in the focal variable. This approach has
been used to model changes of various variables including performance, turnover intentions, and satisfaction (Chen, 2005; Chen,
Ployhart, Thomas, Anderson, & Bliese, 2011; Liu, Mitchell, Lee,
Holtom, & Hinkin, 2012). In this study, differentiation change was
calculated as the Bayes slope estimate of each applicant’s PO fit
perception differentiation trajectory, based on PO fit perception
differentiation at each of the eight measurement occasions. More
positive differentiation change values indicate applicants who experienced greater increases in PO fit perception differentiation
over the course of the recruitment process compared to applicants
with less positive differentiation change values.
PO fit perception change. As described above, the recruiting
process for PPA students was highly structured and every PPA
student was guaranteed the opportunity to be interviewed by all of
the Big 4 firms. These initial interviews, which indicated the
change from the generating applicants phase (stage 1) to the
maintaining applicant status phase (stage 2) of recruitment, took
place between the fifth and sixth measurement occasion. Thus, to
885
capture the stage 1 PO fit change variable, applicant PO fit
perceptions with each firm were regressed on a time factor that
captured only the first five measurement occasions (coded as 0, 1,
2, 3, and 4 for Times 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively) to generate
empirical Bayes slope estimates. Similarly, the stage 2 PO fit
change variable was calculated by generating empirical Bayes
slope estimates which required each applicant’s PO fit perceptions
with each firm to be regressed on a time factor that captured only
the final three measurement occasions (coded as 0, 1, and 2 for
Times 6, 7, and 8, respectively). So, for example, if an applicant
did not perceive much change in PO fit with a firm during the first
stage of recruitment but then did perceive increased PO fit with
that firm in the second stage, then the applicant would have a
change term near 0 for stage 1 PO fit perception change and a
positive change term for stage 2 PO fit perception change.
Job choice. Applicant job choice decisions to accept and
reject job offers received from Big 4 firms were provided by PPA
administrators. Job choice was coded 0 if the offer was rejected
and 1 if the offer was accepted by the applicant.
Controls. To control for applicant quality, applicant grade
point average (GPA) was gathered from resumes on file with the
PPA office. Applicant self-reported gender and race, collected
during the first measurement occasion, were also used as control
variables in this study as all Big 4 firms had publicized diversity
management programs that are expected to result in tailored recruitment efforts by organizations for underrepresented groups
(Avery & McKay, 2006).
Analyses
To test Hypotheses 1 and 2 concerning initial and changes in
applicant PO fit perception differentiation, respectively, a growth
modeling framework using random coefficient modeling specification in HLM 7.0 was required (Raudenbush et al., 2011). Researchers testing growth models have adopted a sequential modelfitting process which was followed in this study and consists of
four steps to examine growth model assumptions before hypotheses can be explicitly tested (Bliese & Ployhart, 2002). First,
intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated at the applicant
level for PO fit perception differentiation and results indicated that
between-applicant factors explained 21.8% of the variance in PO
fit perception differentiation while within-applicant factors explained 78.2% the variance in PO fit perception differentiation.
Second, linear fixed effects for time were added to the model and
found to be significant and positive (␥ ⫽ .09; p ⱕ .01). Third,
accounting for random variability at Level 2 for the growth term
significantly improved the model (⌬␹2(2) ⫽ 84.19; p ⱕ .01).
Finally, alternative error structures were tested with a heterogeneous error structure significantly improving the model (⌬␹2(7) ⫽
78.23; p ⬍ .01) over a homogeneous error structure. Thus, the
model fits the necessary assumptions and is specified appropriately
to allow for formal hypothesis testing. When formally testing
Hypotheses 1 and 2, Level 1 variables were not centered to ensure
effects for time remained in their original metric, while Level 2
variables were grand-mean centered (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998).
Our hypotheses concerning applicant job choice (Hypotheses 3
through 6) were tested with models developed in HLM 7.0 to
account for the nonindependence of the observations (Raudenbush
et al., 2011) given that changes in perceptions of PO fit with each
SWIDER, ZIMMERMAN, AND BARRICK
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
886
organization over stage 1 and stage 2 of recruiting as well as job
choice decisions were nested within applicants. Furthermore, the
HLM models developed were specified to follow a Bernoulli
distribution, rather than a normal distribution, since job choice was
a binary outcome. In all analyses, Level 1 predictors (i.e., stage 1
PO fit perception change, stage 2 PO fit perception change) were
group-mean centered while Level 2 predictors (i.e., control variables, initial perception differentiation, differentiation perception
change) were grand-mean centered to accurately estimate the relationships between applicant PO fit differentiation, PO fit change,
and job choice with an organization relative to PO fit differentiation, PO fit change, and job choice with other organizations that
extended offers to the applicant (i.e., distinguishing within- and
between-applicant effects; Enders & Tofighi, 2007; Hofmann &
Gavin, 1998).
Results
Descriptive Statistics and Zero-Order Correlations
Table 1 and 2 list the descriptive statistics and zero-order
correlations between study variables at both Level 1 and Level 2.
While applicant GPA did not have a significant relationship with
PO fit perception change in either the first or second recruiting
stage (r ⫽ .03, p ⱖ .10 and r ⫽ ⫺.03, p ⱖ .10, respectively),
applicant GPA was negatively related to PO fit perception differentiation change since applicants with lower GPA were more
likely to experience PO fit perception differentiation change,
r ⫽ ⫺.16, p ⱕ .05. Additionally, correlational evidence suggests
that nonwhite applicants were more likely to have higher levels of
initial PO fit perception differentiation than white applicants,
r ⫽ ⫺.23, p ⱕ .01. Finally, stage 1 and stage 2 PO fit perception
change were not significantly related, r ⫽ ⫺.01, p ⱖ .10, possibly
indicating the distinctiveness of the information provided in these
two phases of the recruitment process.
Test of Hypotheses
Results of the model testing Hypotheses 1 and 2 are reported in
Table 3. Hypothesis 1 stated that applicant PO fit perceptions of
recruiting organizations would be differentiated at the start of the
recruitment process. Model 1 of Table 3 indicates the formal test
of this hypothesis. Supporting Hypothesis 1, after including con-
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Hypotheses 1
and 2
Variable
1.
2.
3.
4.
GPA
Gender
Race
PO fit perception
differentiation
M
SD
1
2
3.66
0.39
0.84
0.26
0.49
0.36
.01
⫺.01
⫺.05
0.41
0.48
.03
⫺.04
⫺.02
3
⫺.01
⫺.05
⫺.11ⴱⴱ
Note. Level 1 correlations appear below the diagonal. Level 2 correlations appear above the diagonal. Level 2, N ⫽ 169; Level 1, N ⫽ 1218.
GPA ⫽ grade point average. Gender was coded male ⫽ 1 and female ⫽ 0.
Race was coded White ⫽ 1 and Non-White ⫽ 0.
ⴱ
p ⱕ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⱕ .01.
trol variables, the intercept term was significant (␥ ⫽ .43, p ⱕ .01),
indicating that applicant PO fit perception differentiation at the
start of the recruitment process was significantly different from
zero. Hypothesis 2 predicted applicant PO fit perception differentiation would increase over the course of the recruitment process.
In order to test Hypothesis 2, an additional term for time was
entered into Model 1 of Table 3 to capture the trajectory of PO fit
perception differentiation. Results reported in Model 2 of Table 3
indicate that the term for time, or the trajectory of applicant PO fit
differentiation, was significant and positive (␥ ⫽ .09, p ⱕ .01).
That is, on average, applicant PO fit perception differentiation
increased over the course of the recruitment process. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
Next, results of the model testing Hypotheses 3 through 6 are
reported in Table 4 where control variables were first entered in
Model 1, followed by applicant initial and changes in PO fit
perception differentiation in Model 2, then stage 1 and stage 2 PO
fit perception change in Model 3, and finally all study variables
were included in Model 4 to predict job choice. Hypothesis 3
stated that greater initial PO fit perception differentiation would be
positively related to future job choice. Model 2 of Table 4 reports
the results of the formal test of this hypothesis. Consistent with
Hypothesis 3, the initial differentiation term in the model was
significant (␤ ⫽ 0.16; p ⱕ .05) indicating that applicant initial
levels of PO fit perception differentiation were positively related to
job choice. Thus, applicants with higher initial levels of PO fit
perception differentiation were more likely to accept a given job
offer than applicants with lower initial PO fit perception differentiation. Hypothesis 4 predicted greater applicant PO fit perception
differentiation change would be positively related to job choice.
Results of the formal tests for Hypothesis 4 are also reported in
Model 2 of Table 4 and show that the term for PO fit perception
differentiation change was both significant and positive (␤ ⫽ 0.17;
p ⱕ .05). These results indicate that applicants who experienced
greater increases in differentiation over the course of the recruitment process were more likely to accept a given job offer than
applicants who had less positive changes in PO fit perception
differentiation during recruitment. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was
supported.
Results of the analyses testing Hypothesis 5 can be found in
Model 3 of Table 4. Hypothesis 5 posited that positive applicant
PO fit perception change with an organization during the first stage
of recruitment (generating applicants phase) would be positively
related to job choice. Model 3 of Table 4 indicates that PO fit
change during the first stage of recruitment was significantly
positively related to job choice (␤ ⫽ 3.41; p ⱕ .05). That is,
applicants who had more positive change in PO fit perceptions
with an organization during the generating applicants phase of
recruitment were more likely to accept a job offer from that
organization relative to organizations with which they had less
positive (or negative) change in PO fit perceptions during the first
stage of recruitment. Thus, Hypothesis 5 was supported.
Hypothesis 6 argued that positive applicant PO fit perception
change with an organization during the second stage of the recruitment process (maintaining applicant status) would be positively
related to job choice. Results of the formal tests for this hypothesis
are also reported in Model 3 of Table 4. Consistent with Hypothesis 6, results indicate that applicant PO fit perception change with
an organization during stage 2 of recruitment was significantly
PO FIT PERCEPTION DEVELOPMENT DURING RECRUITMENT
887
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Hypotheses 3, 4, 5, and 6
Variable
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
M
GPA
Gender
Race
Initial PO fit perception differentiation
PO fit perception differentiation change
Stage 1 PO fit perception change
Stage 2 PO fit perception change
Job choice
3.66
0.39
0.84
0.12
0.09
0.07
⫺0.03
0.41
SD
1
0.26
0.49
0.36
0.25
0.05
0.11
0.15
0.49
2
3
⫺.02
⫺.02
.02
.16ⴱⴱ
⫺.14ⴱⴱ
.03
⫺.03
⫺.09
⫺.09
⫺.10ⴱ
.04
.14ⴱⴱ
.14ⴱⴱ
.03
⫺.01
⫺.05
⫺.18ⴱⴱ
.08
.13ⴱⴱ
.06
⫺.01
4
.15
⫺.06
⫺.23ⴱⴱ
⫺.57ⴱⴱ
.01
⫺.15ⴱⴱ
.02
5
6
7
⫺.01
.01
.15ⴱⴱ
ⴱ
⫺.16
.02
.13
⫺.55ⴱⴱ
.08
.10ⴱ
.05
Note. Level 2 correlations appear above the diagonal. Level 1 correlations appear below the diagonal. Level 2, N ⫽ 169; Level 1, N ⫽ 403. GPA ⫽ grade point
average. Gender was coded male ⫽ 1 and female ⫽ 0. Race was coded White ⫽ 1 and Non-White ⫽ 0. Job choice was coded Accept ⫽ 1 and Reject ⫽ 0.
ⴱ
p ⱕ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⱕ .01.
related to accepting a job with that organization (␤ ⫽ 2.00; p ⱕ
.01). These results indicate that in addition to changes during the
first stage of recruitment, applicants who had more positive change
in PO fit perceptions with an organization during the second stage
of recruitment were more likely to accept a job offer from that
organization relative to organizations with which they had less
positive (or negative) levels of change in PO fit perceptions during
the second stage. Thus, Hypothesis 6 was supported. Interestingly,
the standardized coefficients, which indicate the relative importance of different predictors (Kaufman, 1996), for stage 2 PO fit
perception change was smaller than the standardized coefficient
for stage 1 PO fit perception change, indicating that stage 1 PO fit
change had a stronger relative contribution in predicting job
choice.
Finally, Model 4 in Table 4 provides further support for Hypotheses 3 through 6. Terms for initial differentiation (␤ ⫽ 0.17;
p ⱕ .05), differentiation change (␤ ⫽ 0.17; p ⱕ .05), stage 1 PO
fit change (␤ ⫽ 3.34; p ⱕ .05), and stage 2 PO fit change (␤ ⫽
2.00; p ⱕ .01) were all statistically significant and in the hypothesized direction when simultaneously entered into the model predicting job choice. Therefore, Hypotheses 3, 4, 5, and 6 were all
fully supported.
Additional Analyses
It was suggested we investigate the possible usefulness of absolute levels of applicant PO fit perceptions at the last measure-
ment period (Time 8) in our model of PO fit perception changes
predicting job choice. We ran two sets of supplemental analyses to
Model 3 in Table 4 by adding in Time 8 PO fit perceptions to
address the value of this information above and beyond the predictive validity of PO fit perception changes in stage 1 and stage
2. However, we should note that participant attrition was highest at
Time 8 and the necessary number of Level 1 observations to
estimate four random effects in the model was only satisfied by 14
of 124 remaining applicants and therefore the stability and robustness of the supplemental analyses may be problematic.
For the first set of analyses, we entered Time 8 PO fit perceptions grand-mean centered to reflect how useful this information
would be to a recruiting organization trying to predict offer acceptance, as the organization may know the applicant’s PO fit
perceptions with their company at Time 8 (but not know the
applicant’s PO fit perceptions of all other organizations under
consideration). Results of these analyses indicate that the Time 8
PO fit perception term was positive and significant (␤ ⫽ 1.04; p ⱕ
.01), along with both stage 1 (␤ ⫽ 3.54; p ⱕ .05) and stage 2 (␤ ⫽
1.16; p ⱕ .01) change terms. That is, from an organization’s
perspective, absolute levels of PO fit perceptions at the end of
recruitment, as well as stage 1 and stage 2 PO fit perception
changes, significantly predict job offer acceptance. Our second set
of analyses addressed the applicants’ perspective, with Time 8 PO
fit perceptions entered group-mean centered, since applicants
should know where their PO fit perceptions with one organization
Table 3
Multilevel Model Predicting PO Fit Perception Differentiation
Model 1
Variable
Level 2
Intercept
GPA
Gender
Race
Level 1
Time
Variance components
Intercept
Time
Model 2
Coefficient
Coefficient SE
t
Coefficient
Coefficient SE
t
0.43ⴱⴱ
0.07
⫺0.05
⫺0.13ⴱ
0.02
0.08
0.04
0.07
20.70ⴱⴱ
0.89
⫺1.13
⫺2.07ⴱ
0.12ⴱⴱ
0.07
⫺0.04
⫺0.14ⴱⴱ
0.03
0.08
0.04
0.07
4.32ⴱⴱ
0.88
⫺0.83
⫺2.10ⴱⴱ
0.09ⴱⴱ
0.01
13.35ⴱⴱ
0.05ⴱⴱ
0.10ⴱⴱ
0.01ⴱⴱ
Note. Level 2, N ⫽ 169; Level 1, N ⫽ 1218. GPA ⫽ grade point average. Gender was coded male ⫽ 1 and
female ⫽ 0. Race was coded White ⫽ 1 and Non-White ⫽ 0.
ⴱ
p ⱕ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⱕ .01.
SWIDER, ZIMMERMAN, AND BARRICK
888
Table 4
Hierarchical Multilevel Logistic Regression Analysis Predicting Job Choice
Model 1
␤
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Variable
Level 2
Intercept
⫺0.35ⴱⴱ
GPA
⫺0.17ⴱⴱ
Gender
0.05
Race
⫺0.02
Initial PO fit perception differentiation
PO fit perception differentiation change
Level 1
Stage 1 PO fit perception change
Stage 2 PO fit perception change
Variance components
Intercept
0.01
Stage 1 PO fit perception change
Stage 2 PO fit perception change
Model 2
␤
SE (␤) Exp (␤)
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.71ⴱⴱ ⫺0.34ⴱⴱ
0.84ⴱⴱ ⫺0.18ⴱⴱ
1.05
0.06
0.98
⫺0.01
0.16ⴱ
0.17ⴱ
0.01
Model 3
SE (␤) Exp (␤)
0.05
0.06
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.07
␤
Model 4
SE (␤) Exp (␤)
0.72ⴱⴱ ⫺0.37ⴱⴱ
0.84ⴱⴱ ⫺0.19ⴱⴱ
1.06
0.06
1.00 ⫺0.02
1.17ⴱ
1.18ⴱ
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.06
3.41ⴱ
2.00ⴱⴱ
1.45
0.37
0.01
28.40†
3.32
␤
0.69ⴱⴱ ⫺0.36ⴱⴱ
0.83ⴱⴱ ⫺0.19ⴱⴱ
1.06
0.07
0.98 ⫺0.01
0.17ⴱ
0.17ⴱ
30.27ⴱ
7.38ⴱⴱ
3.34ⴱ
2.00ⴱⴱ
SE (␤) Exp (␤)
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.06
0.08
0.07
0.70ⴱⴱ
0.83ⴱⴱ
1.07
1.00
1.18ⴱ
1.18ⴱ
1.45
0.37
28.32ⴱ
7.42ⴱⴱ
0.01
26.52†
3.32
Note. Level 2, N ⫽ 169; Level 1, N ⫽ 403. GPA ⫽ grade point average. Gender was coded male ⫽ 1 and female ⫽ 0. Race was coded White ⫽ 1 and
Non-White ⫽ 0. Job choice was coded accept ⫽ 1 and reject ⫽ 0.
†
p ⱕ .10. ⴱ p ⱕ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⱕ .01.
stood relative to their perceptions with all other organizations.
Research on fit development suggests tests of mediation for these
analyses, with the PO fit development process and actual job
choice being mediated by the most proximal PO fit perception (i.e.,
Time 8 PO fit), since current PO fit perceptions are expected to be
a function of past experiences and prior PO fit perceptions with the
organization and subsequently influence future behavior (i.e., job
choice decisions; Shipp & Jansen, 2011). Thus, we first ran a
multilevel model with stage 1 and stage 2 PO fit perception change
predicting applicant PO fit perceptions at Time 8. Results indicate
that PO fit perceptions at Time 8 were significantly and positively
predicted by stage 1 (␤ ⫽ 1.73 p ⱕ .01) and stage 2 (␤ ⫽ 1.19; p ⱕ
.01) PO fit perception change. When PO fit perceptions at Time 8
was then entered into the model, acting as a mediator, it was a
significantly positive predictor of job choice (␤ ⫽ 2.53; p ⱕ .01)
while both PO fit perception change terms were no longer significant, thereby indicating mediation.
Discussion
Increasingly positive applicant perceptions of PO fit significantly improve selection utility by lowering the selection ratio,
whether by inducing the applicant to decide to apply, to agree to
engage in high stakes testing, and/or to accept a job offer once
extended by the recruiting organization. Yet, relatively little is
known about how applicants develop PO fit perceptions over the
duration of the recruitment process or how those perceptions
influence actual employment decisions. Using a longitudinal design focused on the decision-making process of actual job seekers,
we found significant initial differentiation in PO fit perceptions
across recruiting organizations at the start of the recruitment process. Furthermore, results indicated that the extent of differentiation in these PO fit perceptions increased over the duration of the
recruitment process. Based on the magnitude of differentiation
held by the applicant, we hypothesized that initial and changes in
differentiation of applicant PO fit perceptions across multiple
recruiting organizations would significantly predict future job
choice. We also hypothesized that dynamic changes in withinorganizational PO fit perceptions across two critical stages of
recruitment would significantly predict future job choice. The
results confirmed all of our hypotheses and underscored the importance of adopting a decision-making framework when studying
outcomes from the recruiting process and the development of
applicant PO fit perceptions across multiple recruiting organizations.
Theoretical Implications
Using the tenets of decision-making paradigm DCT, we extend
existing theory on the fundamental fit-job choice relationship by
detailing how applicant PO fit perceptions across multiple recruiting organizations and over temporally distinct recruitment stages
influence subsequent job choice decisions. By focusing on just one
company, prior research on PO fit has yet to fully recognize and
delineate the decision-making process for applicants. As summarized in Table 4, our overarching contribution suggests that to
better understand recruiting outcomes, a fundamental necessity is
to examine how applicants develop PO fit perceptions across and
within organizations during the recruitment process. By incorporating a decision-making perspective, we clarify that recruiting is
a context in which applicants know they must differentiate among
a number of alternatives throughout multiple information gathering stages to consolidate onto one superior job choice while
rejecting other perceived lesser alternatives (Dineen & Soltis,
2011; Weber & Johnson, 2009). The results of this study underscore the necessity of taking a richer, more nuanced, view of PO
fit, its differentiation across multiple organizations, and its change
over the course of the recruitment process when studying applicant
job choice decisions.
Second, our findings reveal that when applicant PO fit perceptions about recruiting organizations are more differentiated, it
significantly improves our ability to predict job choice. As DCT
argues, we find that applicants engage in decision making by
differentiating perceptions of PO fit across recruiting organizations
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PO FIT PERCEPTION DEVELOPMENT DURING RECRUITMENT
in such a way that a preliminary superior alternative emerges, yet
also dynamically adjust perceptions of alternatives throughout
recruitment as perceptions are fortified to consolidate the choice of
one superior job alternative. This meaningful differentiation in
perceptions of organizational values and norms occurs as early as
the start of the predecision process (Soelberg, 1967; Svenson,
2003), since we found greater initial differentiation in PO fit was
more predictive of future job choices. These findings underscore
the conclusion that perceptions at the start of recruiting, based on
early information, play a meaningful role in actual decisions about
which job to accept (Breaugh, 2013; Dineen & Soltis, 2011).
Furthermore, our results also show that greater change in PO fit
perception differentiation over time predicted job choice decisions.
A pessimistic, yet salient, extension; a larger degree of initial
differentiation along with increasing differentiation over time may
set up a soon-to-be new employee for a larger fall once employment begins and the employment “honeymoon,” or DCT’s “consolidation,” period ends (Boswell, Shipp, Payne, & Culbertson,
2009).
Third, our results show applicant PO fit perceptions of each
recruiting organization over the decision-making process are inherently unstable, emphasizing that PO fit perceptions meaningfully change across two recruitment stages linked to (1) applying
for a job and (2) maintaining interest during selection processes.
While meta-analytic results reveal PO fit perceptions are only
modestly related to job choice (␳ ⫽ .18; Chapman et al., 2005), the
zero-order correlations between applicant perceptions of PO fit
and ultimate job choice in this study were lower early in the
recruitment process (r̄ ⫽ .06 over the first five assessments) and
steadily increased as the assessments grew nearer to the job choice
decision (r ⫽ .22, .33, and .48, respectively after the interview).
Thus, applicant generation and maintaining applicant status stages
of recruiting capture distinct processes that feature meaningful
changes in PO fit perceptions which predict future job choice
decisions and should be studied as such. Tracking how fit perceptions dynamically change over stages of the recruitment process
answers the call to empirically establish how these predictors
evolve over meaningful durations of time (Kristof-Brown & Billsberry, 2013). The consequential implication is that applicants, and
perhaps current employees, do not manage and develop their fit
perceptions in a linear fashion (Shipp & Jansen, 2011), but instead
do so in more disjointed or distinct development patterns which
differentially influence meaningful outcomes.
Taken together, these results reveal that utilizing longitudinal
data and recognizing that multiple organizations may be involved
are significant advances in understanding PO fit perceptions during recruitment. Nearly all empirical findings obtained in past
research rely on PO fit perceptions from one organization at one
time. Conclusions about the “representativeness” of meta-analytic
average correlations (Chapman et al., 2005; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005) will be a function of when these
estimates were obtained during each study. For example, if PO fit
was assessed during a screening interview early in recruiting
instead of during the final selection interview, then our results
suggest that the observed correlation with job choice would be
substantially lower in the former compared to the latter case while
also failing to account for the role of differentiation. To the extent
applicant PO fit perceptions are obtained at or near the same point
during the recruiting process (e.g., all primary studies assess PO fit
889
once during the campus interview) and with similar levels of
differentiation across alternatives being considered, the representativeness of prior research findings are likely relevant only for
that particular point of the recruiting process. Overall, the inclusion of DCT into recruiting research has provided additional
grounds for considering how individuals evaluate and make decisions when faced with future and approaching decisions among
multiple but uncertain options. We believe further refinement and
application of decision-making theory will advance the recruitment literature substantially.
Practical Implications
These findings have two critically important practical implications for organizations attempting to recruit applicants. First, these
results highlight the importance of each organization actively
managing the information they make available to applicants, including the information shared right at the start of the recruiting
process. This study shows that the higher and more differentiated
an applicant’s PO fit perception is throughout the recruiting process for a specific organization, the stronger the relationship with
later job choices. This underscores the importance of recruiting
materials that organizations create to engender applicants to develop positive PO fit perceptions with their companies, including
how organizations design their websites and utilize customized PO
fit feedback (Braddy et al., 2006; Dineen et al., 2002), even before
applicants apply to the organizations. While much of the prior
research on the importance of information provided early in the
recruitment process has been focused on how organizations can
establish positive applicant perceptions initially (Cober, Brown,
Keeping, & Levy, 2004; Collins & Han, 2004), results here indicate it also is important to identify ways organizations can keep
applicant perceptions from becoming less positive or even more
negative. Additionally, following initial information, the findings
illustrate how critical it is that organizations take steps to ensure
that applicant PO fit perceptions continue to increase, and do not
drop, throughout the recruiting process.
Whether focusing on early or later recruiting materials and
processes to enhance applicant PO fit perceptions, because of the
importance in applicants differentiating their perceptions across
organizations, a given firm should also engage in market research
as to the recruiting efforts undertaken by their competitors for
labor. This is important in both absolute terms as well as in relative
terms for a particularly desirable applicant. In an absolute sense,
firms must know how their recruiting materials, especially those
used by applicants in establishing fit perceptions, compare to the
materials for their primary competitors for labor. For highly desirable applicants, organizations would be served by proactively
identifying other organizations under consideration by the applicants and recruiting against them in an effort to produce differentiation. This could be done positively, by highlighting aspects of
their organization that would appeal to the applicant (i.e., enhancing the positive PO fit trajectory the applicant has for their organization; Dineen & Noe, 2009) or it could be done negatively, by
bringing to the forefront aspects of the other organizations that
would not be appealing to the applicant (i.e., by promoting a
negative PO fit trajectory in the applicant for the other organizations; Van Hoye & Lievens, 2009).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
890
SWIDER, ZIMMERMAN, AND BARRICK
From an applicant perspective, given some of the change in PO
fit perception differentiation may be produced to aid in the
decision-making process rather than by objectively rating alternatives (Svenson, 2003), one implication of this study is that applicants should consider being more strategic in not just planning
their job search (Van Hooft & Noordzij, 2009) but also as they
progress through the recruitment process. Utilizing decisionmaking techniques such as creating T-charts (i.e., listing pros and
cons of each choice) or decision matrices (i.e., assigning point
values for decision criteria) may be useful to counteract potential
decision-making biases. Additionally, if changes in PO fit perception differentiation are (partially) biasing applicant decisions, then
applicants may also employ strategies such as making evaluations
of organizations public to family or friends, allowing themselves
more time to make job choice decisions, evaluating recruiting
information in less aroused states, or expecting to provide justification for their final decisions to help attenuate these effects
(Brownstein, 2003). While utilizing such practices may curtail the
benefits derived from the differentiation process (e.g., using less
effort, making decisions easier; Russo et al., 1996), the long-term
benefits may outweigh the associated short-term costs.
Overall, we believe it is critical that recruitment research continues to determine the impact of recruitment activities and decisions on applicant PO fit perceptions (and other recruitmentrelated attitudes) longitudinally, in order to establish the utility of
various managerial and applicant activities in changing PO fit
perceptions over the duration of recruiting. The importance of
various job and organizational attributes as well as recruiter and
manager actions are likely to be critical in shaping applicant
perceptions of PO fit (Cable & Judge, 1996; Saks & Ashforth,
1997). However the criticality of those factors, and specifically
when they are most influential during recruiting, has yet to be
ascertained temporally.
Limitations and Future Research
One limitation of this study is the focus on investigating perceived subjective PO fit of applicants during the duration of the
recruitment process. Perceived, or molar, assessments of PO fit are
expected to be more affect-laden than alternative operationalizations of PO fit. Nevertheless, they often are the most proximal
predictor of outcomes in recent models of fit, including models
predicting recruiting outcomes, compared to objective or indirect
PO fit measurements (Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, &
Shipp, 2006). While research indicates that applicant PO fit perceptions may develop from objective PO fit and that the effect of
objective PO fit is mediated by applicant perceived PO fit (Cable
& Judge, 1996; Dineen et al., 2002; Judge & Cable, 1997), future
research should examine if alternative operationalizations of fit
produce similar findings to those of this study. However, an
important and interesting caveat to this suggestion lies in researchers studying indirect objective fit in the recruitment process. Given
that it is calculated by using perception-independent comparisons
of the person and organization (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), indirect objective fit and the relationship with recruiting outcomes may
be invariant regardless of when PO fit was measured as applicant
and organization characteristics are likely to be relatively stable
across the recruitment process. Thus, studies addressing changes,
or lack thereof, in other measures of applicant fit (e.g., indirect
subjective fit) is a critical next step for researchers.
While applicants in this study were seeking full-time employment with large multinational organizations rather than participating in a simulated experiment involving freshmen or sophomores
in college (Darnold & Rynes, 2012), these full-time jobs were
temporary (internships) and applicants may approach this type of
recruitment process differently. However, both anecdotal and empirical evidence indicates that applicants in this study treated the
recruitment process as a serious step toward securing permanent
jobs with the Big 4 firms. Directors of the PPA program noted that
at the conclusion of the internship in prior years, over 95% of all
interns are extended full-time job offers. The concern that internship recruitment was approached differently by applicants was
further attenuated by applicant mean responses to three items
assessing the extent to which they expected their internships to
result in a full-time job offer (M ⫽ 4.7 out of 5-point scale) and
three items assessing their motivation to get an internship (M ⫽ 4.8
out of 5-point scale). Thus, in this study both organizations and
applicants should be expected to value the internship recruitment
process and treat it as they would a search for permanent employment. Future studies should look at samples of applicants who are
applying for permanent employment since their job choice decisions may be differently influenced by impending financial needs
or family demands (Boswell et al., 2012).
This study addressed the relationship between the applicant PO
fit perception development process over a number of organizations
and subsequent job choice decisions; yet it was unable to account
for possible differences in the specifics of the actual jobs. Research
indicates that characteristics of job offers such as pay, type of
work, and location all have significant effects on recruiting outcomes (Chapman et al., 2005). However, concerns about drastic
differences in these potential confounds are somewhat limited in
this sample. Specifically, applicants in this sample were applying
for similar jobs at the same level in each of the Big 4 firms. Also,
PPA administrators noted that within a given recruiting year, very
little variance in compensation exists across applicants and between organizations. Another potential confound, location of job,
was also not expected to have a large influence on findings of this
study. Each of the Big 4 firms had multiple offices (M ⫽ 5) within
200 miles of the university from which these applicants were
recruited from and greater than 90% of offers accepted were for
positions within that distance. However, future research should
broaden the heterogeneity in aspects of the recruiting organizations
compared to the four firms examined in this study. For instance,
would white-collar applicants evaluate organizations differently
than blue-collar applicants, perhaps with the former focusing more
on fit with the organization and the latter focusing more on fit with
the job (e.g., based on the pay, job characteristics, and location
factors mentioned previously)? Despite the significant effects
found for applicant PO fit perceptions over the recruiting process,
utilizing a more diverse sample of organizations may yield different, and perhaps even larger, effects.
Additional questions regarding the generalizability of either the
sample of applicants used or the nature of the recruiting process
could be answered by future research. First, as the participants in
this study were “active” job seekers, one could wonder how the
recruitment of more passive job seekers who may only apply to
one organization would differ. Additionally, as the likelihood of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PO FIT PERCEPTION DEVELOPMENT DURING RECRUITMENT
receiving an offer has also been shown to affect recruitment
(Uggerslev et al., 2012), applicants being recruited by fewer or
even one possible employer may develop PO fit perceptions more
strongly or quickly. Another issue is that all applicants in this
sample progressed through the recruitment process with all interested recruiting organizations in a relatively parallel manner and
were ensured of the opportunity to interview with all four organizations. However, it would be interesting to examine the development of PO fit perceptions for applicants whose recruitment by
multiple organizations were not so synchronous. For example,
would applicants who are far along in the recruitment process with
one organization reevaluate their PO fit perceptions if new recruiting organizations entered into the process? Perhaps how the applicant would respond to the new organization would depend on
whether the applicant’s perceptions of PO fit were increasing or
decreasing for their existing job alternative, as well as the current
level of perceived fit with the existing organization compared to
the initial level of fit perceived with the new organization. Similarly, for currently employed job seekers, what would the difference in fit perceptions need to be between their current employers
compared to new potential employers in order for the individuals
to continue the recruiting process with the new potential employers? Clearly, future studies using longitudinal designs are needed
to address these possibilities.
Conclusion
Extending beyond the few studies that have examined timerelated processes (Becker, Connolly, & Slaughter, 2010; Boswell
et al., 2003; Harold & Ployhart, 2008; Rees, 1966; Rynes et al.,
1991; Soelberg, 1967), we argue that to accurately understand the
antecedents and consequences of applicant PO fit perceptions, it is
critical to assess PO fit differentiation and test the role of PO fit
across and within organizations repeatedly over the entire recruiting process. In an effort to advance recruitment research by conducting descriptive field research and developing empirically
grounded inductive theories of psychological recruitment, we call
for an aggressive shift from cross-sectional single organizationfocused research to longitudinal methodologies addressing multiple recruiting organizations. Recruitment is a decision-making
process whereby applicants gather information about alternatives
to facilitate a job choice decision. To extend beyond simply
generating estimates of relationships at just one point of the
recruitment process often with just one organization, estimates that
do not accurately depict the predictive validity of the same relationships at other points in time across multiple organizations or
the typical recruitment process for either the applicant or organization, future research should assess the strength of these relationships at multiple points in time across multiple organizations to
better capture the underlying processes reflected in decisionmaking theories such as DCT.
References
Avery, D. R., & McKay, P. F. (2006). Target practice: An organizational
impression management approach to attracting minority and female
job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 59, 157–187. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00807.x
Barber, A. E. (1998). Recruiting employees: Individual and organizational
perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
891
Becker, W. J., Connolly, T., & Slaughter, J. E. (2010). The effect of job
offer timing on offer acceptance, performance, and turnover. Personnel
Psychology, 63, 223–241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009
.01167.x
Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Growth modeling using random
coefficient models: Model building, testing, and illustrations. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 362–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
109442802237116
Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., LePine, M. A., & Moynihan, L. M.
(2003). Individual job-choice decisions and the impact of job attributes
and recruitment practices: A longitudinal field study. Human Resource
Management, 42, 23–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.10062
Boswell, W. R., Shipp, A. J., Payne, S. C., & Culbertson, S. S. (2009).
Changes in newcomer job satisfaction over time: Examining the pattern
of honeymoons and hangovers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
844 – 858. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014975
Boswell, W. R., Zimmerman, R. D., & Swider, B. W. (2012). Employee
job search: Toward an understanding of search context and search objectives. Journal of Management, 38, 129 –163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0149206311421829
Braddy, P. W., Meade, A. W., & Kroustalis, C. M. (2006). Organizational
recruitment website effects on viewers’ perceptions of organizational
culture. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 525–543. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/s10869-005-9003-4
Breaugh, J. A. (2008). Employee recruitment: Current knowledge and
important areas for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 103–118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.003
Breaugh, J. A. (2013). Employee recruitment. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 389 – 416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011143757
Bretz, R. D., Jr., & Judge, T. A. (1994). The role of human resource
systems in job applicant decision processes. Journal of Management, 20,
531–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0149-2063(94)90001-9
Brownstein, A. L. (2003). Biased predecision processing. Psychological
Bulletin, 129, 545–568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.545
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant
validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
875– 884. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.875
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person– organization fit, job choice
decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294 –311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd
.1996.0081
Carless, S. A. (2005). Person-job fit versus person-organization fit as
predictors of organizational attraction and job acceptance intentions: A
longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 411– 429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/096317905X25995
Chan, D. (1998). Functional Relations among Constructs in the Same
Content Domain at Different Levels of Analysis: A Typology of Composition Models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234 –246. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.234
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones,
D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A
meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90, 928 –944. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010
.90.5.928
Chen, G. (2005). Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents
and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 101–116. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2005.15993147
Chen, G., Ployhart, R. E., Thomas, H. C., Anderson, N., & Bliese, P. D.
(2011). The power of momentum: A new model of dynamic relationships between job satisfaction change and turnover decisions. Academy
of Management Journal, 54, 159 –181. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ
.2011.59215089
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
892
SWIDER, ZIMMERMAN, AND BARRICK
Cober, R. T., Brown, D. J., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2004).
Recruitment on the Net: How do organizational Web site characteristics
influence. Journal of Management, 30, 623– 646. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jm.2004.03.001
Collins, C. J., & Han, J. (2004). Exploring applicant pool quantity and
quality: The effects of early recruitment practice strategies, corporate
advertising, and firm reputation. Personnel Psychology, 57, 685–717.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00004.x
Collins, C. J., & Stevens, C. K. (2002). The relationship between early
recruitment-related activities and the application decisions of new labormarket entrants: A brand equity approach to recruitment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 1121–1133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00219010.87.6.1121
Darnold, T. C., & Rynes, S. (2012). Recruitment and job choice research:
Same as it ever was? In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski
(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 104 –142). Hoboken, NJ; Wiley.
Dineen, B. R., Ash, S. R., & Noe, R. A. (2002). A Web of applicant
attraction: Person-organization fit in the context of Web-based recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 723–734. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.723
Dineen, B. R., & Noe, R. A. (2009). Effects of customization on application decisions and applicant pool characteristics in a web-based recruitment context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 224 –234. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/a0012832
Dineen, B. R., & Soltis, S. M. (2011). Recruitment: A review of research
and emerging directions. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial
and organizational Psychology: Vol. 2. Selecting and developing members for the organization (pp. 43– 66). Washington: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12170-002
Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp,
A. J. (2006). The phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of person-environment fit. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 91, 802– 827. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00219010.91.4.802
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in
cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12
.2.121
Harold, C. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2008). What do applicants want?
Examining changes in attribute judgments over time. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 191–218. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1348/096317907X235774
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity
constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. The Academy
of Management Review, 32, 1199 –1228. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR
.2007.26586096
Hofmann, D., & Gavin, M. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical
linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of
Management,
24,
623– 641.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
014920639802400504
Jansen, K. J., & Shipp, A. J. (2013). A review and agenda for incorporating
time in fit research. Organizational Fit: Key Issues and New Directions,
195–221.
Johnson, R. E., Taing, M. U., Chang, C., & Kawamoto, C. K. (2013). A
self-regulation approach to person-environment fit. Organizational Fit:
Key Issues and New Directions, 74 –98.
Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1992). Effects of work values on job choice
decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 261–271. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.3.261
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational
culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359 –
394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00912.x
Kaufman, R. L. (1996). Comparing effects in dichotomous logistic regression: A variety of standardized coefficients. Social Science Quarterly,
77, 90 –109.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its
conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1– 49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01790.x
Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Billsberry, J. (2013). Fit for the Future. Organizational Fit: Key Issues and New Directions, 1–18.
Kristof-Brown, A., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person-environment fit. In
Zedeck S. (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1–50). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005).
Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job,
person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel
Psychology, 58, 281–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005
.00672.x
Lievens, F., Decaesteker, C., Coetsier, P., & Geirnaert, J. (2001). Organizational attractiveness for prospective applicants: A person-organisation
fit perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 30 –
51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00047
Liu, D., Mitchell, T. R., Lee, T. W., Holtom, B. C., & Hinkin, T. R. (2012).
When employees are out of step with coworkers: How job satisfaction
trajectory and dispersion influence individual- and unit-level voluntary
turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 1360 –1380. http://dx
.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0920
Ma, R., & Allen, D. G. (2009). Recruiting across cultures: A value-based
model of recruitment. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 334 –
346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.001
Murphy, K. R., & Tam, A. P. (2004). The decisions job applicants must
make: Insights from a Bayesian perspective. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 12, 66 –74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0965075X.2004.00264.x
O’Reilly, C. A., Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and
organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing
person– organization fit. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487–
516. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256404
Osborn, D. P. (1990). A reexamination of the organizational choice process. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36, 45– 60. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0001-8791(90)90014-S
Phillips, J. M. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational outcomes: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 673– 690. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256964
Ployhart, R. E. (2006). Staffing in the 21st century: New challenges and
strategic opportunities. Journal of Management, 32, 868 – 897. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/0149206306293625
Power, D. J., & Aldag, R. J. (1985). Soelberg’s job search and choice
model: A clarification, review, and critique. The Academy of Management Review, 10, 48 –58.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R. T., & du Toit,
M. (2011). HLM 7. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Rees, A. (1966). Information networks in labor markets. The American
Economic Review, 56(1/2), 559 –566.
Russo, J. E., Medvec, V. H., & Meloy, M. G. (1996). The distortion of
information during decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66, 102–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996
.0041
Ryan, A. M., & Huth, M. (2008). Not much more than platitudes? A critical
look at the utility of applicant reactions research. Human Resource
Management Review, 18, 119 –132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr
.2008.07.004
Rynes, S. L., Bretz, R. D., Jr., & Gerhart, B. (1991). The importance of
recruitment in job choice: A different way of looking. Personnel Psy-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
PO FIT PERCEPTION DEVELOPMENT DURING RECRUITMENT
chology, 44, 487–521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991
.tb02402.x
Rynes, S. L., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Recruitment research in the twentyfirst century. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.),
Handbook of psychology: Vol. 12. Industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 55–76). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Ltd.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the
relationships between job information sources, applicant perceptions of
fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 50, 395– 426. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00913.x
Shipp, A. J., & Jansen, K. J. (2011). Reinterpreting time in fit theory:
Crafting and recrafting narratives of fit in medias res. The Academy of
Management Review, 36, 76 –101. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2011
.55662565
Simon, D., Krawczyk, D. C., & Holyoak, K. J. (2004). Construction of
preferences by constraint satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15, 331–
336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00678.x
Soelberg, P. (1967). Unprogrammed decision making. Industrial Management Review, 8, 19 –29.
Svenson, O. (1992). Differentiation and consolidation theory of human
decision making: A frame of reference for the study of pre- and postdecision processes. Acta Psychologica, 80, 143–168. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/0001-6918(92)90044-E
Svenson, O. (1996). Decision making and the search for fundamental
psychological regularities: What can be learned from a process perspective? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65,
252–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0026
Svenson, O. (2003). Values, affect and processes in human decision
making: A differentiation and consolidation theory perspective. In S. L.
Schneider & J. Shanteau (Eds.) Emerging perspectives on judgment and
decision research (pp. 287–326). New York: Cambridge University
Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609978.011
893
Svenson, O., & Hill, T. (1997). Turning prior disadvantages into advantages: Differentiation and consolidation in real-life decision making. In
R. Ranyard, W. R. Crozier, & O. Svenson (Eds.), Decision making:
Cognitive models and explanations (pp. 218 –232). London: Routledge.
Uggerslev, K. L., Fassina, N. E., & Kraichy, D. (2012). Recruiting through
the stages: A meta-analytic test of predictors of applicant attraction at
different stages of the recruiting process. Personnel Psychology, 65,
597– 660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01254.x
van Hooft, E. A., & Noordzij, G. (2009). The effects of goal orientation on
job search and reemployment: A field experiment among unemployed
job seekers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1581–1590. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/a0017592
Van Hoye, G., & Lievens, F. (2009). Tapping the grapevine: A closer look
at word-of-mouth as a recruitment source. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 341–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014066
Van Vianen, A. E., Stoelhorst, J. W., & De Goede, M. E. (2013). The
construal of person– organization fit during the ASA stages: Content,
source, and focus of comparison. Organizational Fit: Key Issues and
New Directions, 143–169.
Walker, H. J., Bauer, T. N., Cole, M. S., Bernerth, J. B., Feild, H. S., &
Short, J. C. (2013). Is this how I will be treated? Reducing uncertainty
through recruitment interactions. Academy of Management Journal, 56,
1325–1347. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0196
Weber, E. U., & Johnson, E. J. (2009). Mindful judgment and decision
making. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 53– 85. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163633
Yu, K. Y. T. (2013). A Motivational Model of Person–Environment Fit:
Psychological Motives as Drivers of Change. Organizational Fit: Key
Issues and New Directions, 19 – 49.
Received October 2, 2013
Revision received October 10, 2014
Accepted October 14, 2014 䡲