INDIVIDUAL JOB-CHOICE DECISIONS AND THE

IMPACT OF JOB ATTRIBUTES AND

RECRUITMENT PRACTICES: A LONGITUDINAL
FIELD STUDY

Wendy R. Boswell, Mark V. Roehling, Marcie A. LePine, and

Lisa M. Moynihan

The present research is intended to contribute to the understanding of how job-choice decisions
are made and the role of effective and ineffective recruiting practices in that process. The issues
are examined by tracking job seekers through the job search and choice process. At multiple
points in the process, structured interviews are used to elicit information from the job seekers per-
taining to how they are making their decision and what factors play a role. Residts provide the-
oretical and practical insights into the organizational and job attributes important to job choice,
as well as how specific recruiting practices may exert a significant influence, positive or negative,
on job-choice decisions. For example, our findings reinforced the importance of providing job
seekers the opportunity to meet with multiple (and high-level) organizational constituents, im-
pressive site-visit arrangements, and frequent and prompt follow-up. Also, imposing a deadline
(i.e., "exploding offer") showed little effect on job-choice decisions. Recommendations for re-
cruitment practice and continued research are provided. © 2003 Wile}' Periodicals, Inc.

Introduction sights that will contribute to employers' un-

Competitive pressures, greater recognition of
human resources as a potential source of com-
petitive advantage, and changing workforce
demographics have made the attraction of the
best available talent a top management con-
cern. Critical to an organization's ability to ef-
ficiently and effectively address this concern is
an understanding of how job-choice decisions
are made, the job attributes (e.g., salary, work-
ing conditions) that are most likely to attract
desirable applicants, and the nature of effec-
tive recruitment practices (Barber, 1998;
Rynes & Barber, 1990; Stevens, 1997). The
present research is intended to generate in-
derstanding in these areas. We do this by in-
vestigating the factors important to job choice
(both acceptance and rejection) generally and
the impact of treatment during recruitment
(both effective and ineffective) specifically.
Because our intent is to generate insights (and
not test specific hypotheses), we supplement
more conventional quantitative methods with
an in-depth, qualitative perspective. The spe-
cific issues of focus are discussed next.
Investigating Joh Choice as a Dynamic Process
Job choice is a dynamic decision process in
which job seekers move through various

Correspondence to: Wendy R. Boswell, Department of Management, Mays Business School, Texas A&M Uni-
versity, Coilege Station, TX 77843-4221; telephone: 979-845-4045, fax: 979-845-9641; e-mail:
wboswell@tamu.edu

Human Resource Management, Spring 2003, Vol. 42, No. 1, Pp. 23-37
© 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
DOI: 10.1002/hrm.10062
24 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2003
Stages, making decisions (Barber, 1998). Ar-
guably, factors important to an individual
likely vary at different stages of the job
search and choice process as applicants be-
come more aware of available opportunities
We do note and their own preferences. For example, at
that, currently, the onset of recruitment, an individual sim-
there is mixed ply "estimates" his or her preferences with
evidence re- little context. Indeed, prior work suggests
garding the im-
portance of joh that the link between initial preferences and
attrihutes and the attributes of the job chosen is often ten-
recruitment uous (e.g.. Turban et al., 1993). Yet an indi-
practices on vidual facing an actual job-choice decision
joh-choice can evaluate the relative importance of job
decisions
attributes of differing levels and variation
(Barber, 1998). Accordingly, the present
study tracks job seekers and the factors im-
portant to job choice throughout the process:
at the onset of the recruiting season, after re-
ceiving an offer, and after making a job-
choice decision. By doing so, we aim to gain
a better understanding of how job-choice de-
cisions unfold over time, and the role of re-
cruitment practices in that process.
Our investigation of the job-choice deci-
sion process focuses on two interconnected
sets of factors: job attributes and recruitment
practices. Each set of factors relates to a dis-
tinct strategy for enhancing employers' abil-
ity to attract desirable applicants. One basic
strategy for enhancing applicant attraction is
to identify and improve those characteristics
of the job (e.g., the nature of the work per-
formed, salary offered) or the organization
(e.g., the culture, availability of eldercare)
that enhance the attractiveness of a job to
applicants (Rynes & Barber, 1990). Accord-
ingly, we investigate the extent to which spe-
cific job attributes are consistently identified
as impacting job-choice decisions.
A second strategy for enhancing appli-
cant attraction is to improve the effective-
ness of the organization's recruitment prac-
tices (e.g., the organizational representatives
that are chosen or training that they receive,
how interviews or site visits are conducted).
Recruiting practices may impact applicant
attraction relatively directly (e.g., imposing a
deadline for accepting a job offer that
prompts the job seeker to reject or accept
the offer). In addition, recruitment practices
may influence applicant attraction by signal-
ing information about the job and organiza-
tion. That is, recruiting practices are related
to job attributes in that an employer's re-
cruitment practices may, for better or for
worse, lead job applicants to make infer-
ences about characteristics of the job or the
organization (Behling et al, 1968). For ex-
ample, paying the expenses for an appli-
cant's spouse to accompany him or her on a
site visit may suggest to the applicant that
the company culture is supportive of work-
family issues.
Our intent in this article is to generate
insights regarding the factors important to
job-choice generally and the role of recruit-
ment specifically; thus we do not offer spe-
cific hypotheses. We do note that, currently,
there is mixed evidence regarding the impor-
tance of job attributes and recruitment prac-
tices on job-choice decisions (Barber, 1998;
Rynes et al., 1991). On the one hand, job at-
tributes such as the nature of the work, ad-
vancement opportunities, work location, and
the industry appear to have the strongest and
most consistent impact on job acceptance
decisions (Taylor & Bergmann, 1987). Some
research suggests that, once these job factors
are taken into account, recruitment activities
and recruiter behaviors show little effect on
job-choice decisions (e.g., Powell, 1984; Tur-
ban, 2001). On the other hand, there exists
empirical research (Rynes et al., 1980) as
well as anecdotal contention (e.g.. Anony-
mous, 2000; Battey, 2000) which suggests
that what occurs during the recruitment
process does matter. The present study ex-
plores both factors (i.e., job attributes and
recruitment practices) in the hopes of pro-
viding greater insight into the job-choice
decision process.
With respect to the dynamic process, we
would expect that at the onset of the process,
an array of potential job attributes such as
company culture, nature of work, compensa-
tion and benefits, and advancement opportu-
nities are likely to be deemed important. As a
job seeker progresses through the process
and learns more about specific job and orga-
nizational characteristics, and variance
within companies, we might expect one or
two factors to stand out as particularly im-
portant. New factors are also likely to be-

come salient as individuals learn more about
available opportunities and their own prefer-
ences. In terms of recruiting practices, we
would not expect individuals to initially re-
veal "recruitment" as important to their job
choice. Rather, recruitment experiences are
likely to become more salient as individuals
progress through the process and begin to
make inferences about organizational char-
acteristics based on their experiences (e.g.,
Behling et al., 1968).
Although the primary investigation was
conducted using open-ended questions
which asked job seekers to tell us, in their
own words, how they were making their de-
cision and the factors that played a role,
the present study did explicitly inquire into
the role of one specific recruitment prac-
tice—deadlines for accepting job offers.
Schwab et al. (1987) noted that "employers
also influence job seeker's choices through
the amount of time they allow individuals
to ponder an offer" (p. 159), yet also noted
that prior research has been relatively
silent as to how deadlines work to the ad-
vantage or disadvantage of organizations
and individuals. For example, do job seek-
ers feel pressured by deadlines? If so, is the
net effect to accept the job imposing the
deadline or is there a negative reaction re-
sulting in being less likely to accept that
job? Such exploding offers may serve the
company's interest by forcing a quick ac-
ceptance or restricting a job seeker's ability
to comparison shop, yet imposing a dead-
line may also be perceived as showing lack
of consideration or the failure to act in
good faith (Robinson, 1995). Despite the
likely impact of post-job-offer practices
such as "deadlines" generally and the wide-
spread use of this practice in particular, our
review failed to identify research address-
ing this issue. The present research thus at-
tempts to explore the plausible positive and
negative consequences.
Acceptance versus Rejection Decisions
It has been observed that decisions early in
the process (e.g., the decision to go on a
job visit) are different than accepting an
offer, in that the former does not require
job-Choice Decisions 25
commitment to a job choice (Barber,
1998). While this is an accurate descrip-
tion, we would also note that the same
might be said of the decision to reject an Rejecting a joh
offer where it does not occur simultane- may he very
much like re-
ously with a decision to accept another
jecting a site
offer. Rejecting a job may be very much like visit: you are
rejecting a site visit: you are ruling out an ruling out an
alternative without necessarily making a alternative
commitment. This suggests that factors im- without neces-
portant to job rejection may be different sarily making a
commitment.
than factors important to job acceptance.
Research investigating differences in
decisions to accept versus to reject suggest
that positive features of options (their pros)
are expected to loom larger in choosing,
whereas negative feature of options (their
cons) are expected to weigh more heavily in
rejection (Shafir, 1993). The potential dis-
tinction between rejection versus choosing
or acceptance decisions in job choice has
received little attention from researchers.
An exception is Turban et al. (1993). Fo-
cusing on job seekers that received offers
from a single, large employer, they found
that the a priori values of offer attributes
had a greater impact on acceptance deci-
sions than on rejection decisions. Though
the Turban et al. study does not specifically
address the role of recruitment in the two
types of decisions, it provides evidence that
different factors may play different roles in
decisions to reject a job than in decisions to
accept a job offer.
Rynes et al.'s (1991) study also suggests
that negative recruiting experiences may be
more likely to influence job seekers than pos-
itive recruiting experiences. For example, the
number of participants forming negative im-
pressions of fit on the basis of recruitment
was nearly double the number forming posi-
tive impressions on this basis. Prior research
thus suggests that recruitment may play a
greater role in decisions to reject an organi-
zation than in decisions to accept an organi-
zation. A positive recruitment experience
may be a necessary, but not sufficient, reason
for job-offer acceptance. The present study
tracks both job-offer rejections and job-offer
acceptance decisions, and as a result we are
able to examine the factors important to both
types of decisions.
26 • HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2003

Methods 4.10). Sixty-three percent were undergradu-

ates, 54% male, 61% white, and 91% single. A
Participants comparison between those students who ini-
tially indicated interest in the study and study
Participants were graduating students from participants revealed that the latter group had
four colleges of a major northeastern univer- a significantly higher GPA (Mnonpanicipants =
sity. Participants were recruited via e-mail 3.19, Mparticipants = 3.36, p < .01). There were
with the assistance of the placement directors no significant differences (p < .05) between
for the colleges whose graduating students the two groups on age, sex, race, school, work
participated in the study. We sought to maxi- experience, or student status.
mize the diversity of respondent recruiting ex-
periences and reactions by including a rela- Procedure
tively large number of participants in the
study. One hundred and eighty-five partici- Because qualitative interviews are often used
pants, who were all actively searching for full- to build theory, there is typically an iterative
time employment following graduation, were process of developing the interview questions
recruited to complete an initial survey. These (see Lee, 1999; Rubin & Rubin, 1995). In the
students were later contacted for continua- present study, we tested general themes re-
tion in the study and 109 gave their permis- lated to the recruitment and job-choice
sion to participate in follow-up interviews. Of process in a series of focus groups involving
those students who agreed to continued par- job seekers. Interview questions were then
ticipation, 96 remained throughout the study designed to examine these themes in greater
(a follow-up response rate of 88% and total detail and ensure that we were asking the
response rate of 52%). The end result was a questions that were appropriate for our focus.
sample that was highly diversified in terms of To reduce common method bias and cap-
background characteristics, interviewing pat- ture decision dynamics, data were collected
terns, and number of offers (see Table I). from each participant at three points in time.
The four schools within the university Initial collection was conducted in the first
represented in this sample included the fol- weeks of the fall semester, before campus in-
lowing: engineering (49%), business (6%), terviews had begun. At this time, participants
labor relations (29%), and hotel management completed a survey assessing individual-dif-
(16%). The average respondent was 22.6 ference variables. The respondents also com-
years old (ranging from 19 to 36), had 1.7 pleted a survey asking them to rate the im-
years of full-time work experience (ranging portance of a variety of factors to their
from 0 to 13 years), and had a 3.29 grade job-choice decision and to respond to an
point average (GPA ranging from 2.17 to open-ended question regarding what they

^ ^ ^ ^ Q Demographic and Job Search Variables by School

Industrial Relations Engineering Hotel Admin. Business

Female 59% 33% 63% 20%

White 75% 51% 67% 64%
Graduate 26%a 35%b 37%c 100%abc
Age 21.8d 21.8e 23.8c 28.0de
GPA 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.5
Work experience (yrs.) 1-1% 1.2h 3.If 4.5gh
# of interviews 12.4 14.4 8.9 13.0
# of site visits 3.4 5.1 2.3 4.4
# of job offers 2.8 3.6 2.5 2.4

Note; Those with the same subscript are significantly different at p < .05.

would like their future employer to provide
or do. A resume was also collected from each
participant. At this point in time, no partici-
pant had accepted a position. Participants
were then contacted every two weeks via the
university e-mail system to check on whether
a job offer was received or an acceptance de-
cision had heen made. Once a student indi-
cated receiving a joh offer, he or she was con-
tacted to set a time for a phone interview and
the first phone interview was conducted.
Participants were again periodically con-
tacted via the e-mail system as to whether an
acceptance had heen made. Once the partic-
ipant had indicated accepting a position, the
second phone interview was scheduled and
conducted. The phone interviews were con-
ducted hy one of two researchers, and took
on average 15 minutes for the first interview
and 21 minutes for the second.
Measures
Important factors to joh-choice decision.
Twenty-eight factors important to joh choice
were identified from a search of the academic
and practitioner literature on attrihutes af-
fecting joh choice or attractiveness (e.g.,
Boswell et al., 2001; Posner, 1981; Turhan et
al., 1995). The original 28 items were re-
duced to 14 based on conceptual similarity
(e.g., friendly or fun environment hoth repre-
sent company culture) or dimensions of a
general construct (e.g., tuition reimhurse-
ment and health insurance hoth represent
"benefits"). Respondents rated the impor-
tance of these 14 factors to their job-choice
decision at Time 1 using a Likert-type scale
(1 = not at all important, 7 = extremely im-
portant). Because of the demand characteris-
tics of this measure and the possihility that
we overlooked important job-choice factors,
we also included an open-ended question
asking participants what they would like their
future employer to provide or do for them.
Respondents completed the open-ended
question prior to the rating form.
Reasons for job-offer acceptance or rejection.
Once an offer had heen accepted (Time 3),
participants were asked to describe the impor-
tant factor, or factors, that influenced their de-
foh-Choice Decisions 27
cision to accept the particular job offer. This
open-ended approach allowed individuals to
identify the attrihutes they considered in mak-
ing their decision (Barher, 1998; Barber et al., After an offer
1994). Respondents similarly provided infor- was received
{Time 2) partic-
mation on why an offer was not being consid- ipants were
ered (i.e., reason for joh rejection) during both asked whether
interviews. Responses were content coded by they felt a joh
two of the researchers. There was 89% agree- choice had to
ment hetween the coders, indicating an ac- he made hy a
certain date,
ceptable degree of reliability. The coders re-
and if so, why.
solved the disputed cases through discussion.
Importance of treatment during recruitment.
Participants were asked once an offer had
been accepted (Time 3) the extent to which
they agreed with the following statement:
"How you are treated by the company and its
employees during the recruitment process is
not very important" (1 = strongly disagree, 5
= strongly agree; Rynes et al., 1991). Partici-
pants responding that they disagree or
strongly disagree wdth the statement (i.e.,
those that felt treatment during recruitment
was important) were then asked to provide
specific examples of how a company treated
them during the recruitment process that had
a strong positive (and negative) affect on their
evaluation of the company, making them
more (or less) willing to consider the com-
pany as a future employer. This variable was
recoded such that a high numher would indi-
cate that the respondent strongly agreed that
treatment during recruitment was important.
Deadlines. After an offer was received (Time
2) participants were asked whether they felt a
job choice had to he made by a certain date,
and if so, why. Information was also collected
after an offer had heen accepted (Time 3) as
to whether anything regarding the deadline
(or lack of deadline) had changed.
Number of interviews and number of of-
fers were assessed at each phone interview.
We asked participants during the first inter-
view the numher of interviews participated in
and number of offers received thus far. Once
a position had been accepted, participants
provided the number of additional interviews
and offers received since the first interview.
Total number of interviews and total number
of offers were used in the analyses.
28 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2003

Other information was collected for de-
scriptive purposes and to evaluate response
hias (discussed ahove). This included job-
seeking status (to ensure all participants
where searching for a permanent position)
and demographic (e.g., race, gender) and
applicant quality (e.g., GPA, work experi-
ence) data. This information was coded
from joh seeker resumes where possihle
and supplemented with survey responses
as necessary.
Results
On average, participants attended 13.03
campus interviews and 4.17 site visits, and
received 2.89 joh offers. As such, the results
that follow are based on a total of 1062 cam-
pus interviews, 388 site visits, and 300 job-
offer acceptance or rejection decisions.
Factors Important to Joh Choice
As noted above, participants were asked to
rate the importance of various factors to
their joh choice at Time 1. As shown in
Table II, the most important factors at this
point included company culture, advance-
ment opportunities, and the work itself. The
open-ended question (also assessed at Time
1) revealed a slightly different story. The ma-
jority of respondents again indicated the cul-
ture and the work itself as important factors,
but compensation and benefits were also
frequently mentioned. So, did the important
factors change once the recruitment process
began and job offers were evaluated? The
work itself, culture, advancement opportu-
nities, and compensation were again fre-
quently cited as important to joh choice dur-
ing the phone interviews (Time 2 and 3).
However, new factors emerged as important
such as location, company reputation, and
the industry. Company reputation, for exam-
ple, was one of the deciding factors for al-
most 20% of the respondents. This suggests
that as job seekers progress through the joh-
choice process, important factors influenc-
ing their decision are shaped and/or become
more salient.

^ ^ ^ ^ Q Factors Important to Job-Choice Decisions

Rate the What I'm What influenced What influenced

importance of looking for in my acceptance my rejection
the following an employer decision decision
factors (Time 1) {Time 1) {Time 2&3) {Time 2&3)

Factor Mean Percent Percent Percent

rating mentioned mentioned mentioned

Company culture" 6.2 62.8 36.5 19.0

Advancement opportunities'' 6.0 37.2 25.8 9.6
Nature of work (e.g., challenging) 5.9 51.9 37.6 40.5
Training provided 5.7 49.7 8.6 2.4
Work/non-work balance 5.5 31.1 3.2 0.0
Monetary compensation 5.3 71.0 19.4 23.8
Benefits 5.2 51.9 1.1 0.0
Location 5.0 0.0 37.6 26.2
Vacation time 4.6 21.9 0.0 0.0
Level of job security 3.9 11.5 1.1 4.8
Size of company 3.7 0.0 4.3 9.5
International assignments 3.3 4.4 2.2 0.0
Reputation of the company — 0.0 19.4 0.0
Industry — 0.0 14.0 11.9

''Includes survey rating and mention in interviews of "personally like your coworkers."
''Includes survey rating and mention in interviews of "personal growth."

Rejection Decisions
We also explored whether the factors associ-
ated with accepting a joh differ from those
associated with rejecting a joh. The common
reasons for accepting joh offers were dis-
cussed ahove. Comparing the reasons given
for acceptance to those given for rejection
(see Tahle II), we first see that there were
multiple consistencies. The work itself was
most frequently mentioned as the reason for
hoth accepting and rejecting a joh offer. Lo-
cation and company culture were also con-
sistently mentioned for hoth acceptance and
rejection decisions. However, reasons for ac-
cepting a joh offer did diverge from reasons
given for rejecting an offer. In terms of
human resource policies, opportunity for
promotion or advancement appears to he an
important driver of attraction while concerns
over compensation was a common reason for
rejection. Interestingly, a few respondents
noted the site visit as a reason why an offer
was turned down (see Tahle IV). Though no
participants directly stated that a positive site
visit was the reason for their joh acceptance,
a negative experience appears to loom larger.
This supports the contention that recruit-
ment practices, specifically those that occur
later in the process, may play a greater role in
decisions to reject an organization than in
decisions to accept an organization.
Treatment during the Recruitment Process
Eighty-three percent of the participants
agreed or strongly agreed that how they were
treated during recruitment was important to
joh choice, while no respondents strongly
disagreed. In fact, responses to this question
did not significantly vary hy individual differ-
ence variahles such as gender, race, major,
and work experience. Thus it appears that
joh applicants generally feel that how they
were treated during the recruitment process
is important to joh choice. This is reflected
in the following quotes:
The way you are treated during recruit-
ment is a good indicator of how the com-
pany treats its employees (male, under-
graduate engineering student).
Job-Choice Decisions 29
How a company treats you during the re-
cruitment process reflects the company's
personality and how you will be treated as
an employee (female, undergraduate engi-
neering student).
We also asked respondents to provide ex-
amples of how a company treated them dur-
ing the recruitment process that had a strong
positive (and negative) effect thus influenc-
ing their joh-choice decision. To facilitate
candid responses, we did not ask respon-
dents the name of the company to which
they were referring; however, of the 36 re-
spondents that mentioned the company's
name for an example of positive recruitment
treatment, 31 accepted that company's offer,
thus suggesting the importance of positive
treatment. The following general experiences
were frequently cited hy participants as ex-
amples of treatment during the recruitment
process that had a particularly positive im-
pact (see Tahle III); opportunities to meet
with multiple people, site-visit arrangements.
Treatment during Recruitment
Process Having a Positive Effect
Factor • Mentioning
Site-visit opportunities to meet
with people: 53
• Meeting people in position
applied for
• Meeting with VP/other high
ranking person
• Meeting similar (e.g., age) types
of people
Site-visit arrangements: 51
• Impressive hotel/dinner arrangements
• Flexible in accommodating student
• Well-organized
• Allowed to bring along significant other
Follow-up 46
• Frequent contact/called to see
if any questions
• Quick or prompt responses
• Gifts, cards, etc.
Interviewer behavior/attitude 8
30 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2003
and follow-up by the company. More specific
examples of treatment viewed as positive are
shown in Tahle III and discussed next.
In regards to meeting people, respon-
dents indicated meeting with a variety of
people (15%), a high-ranking person (10%),
and those he or she will be working with
(8%) as particularly positive. In addition,
though some job seekers were impressed
with follow-up gifts (6%), simply receiving
frequent contact (31%) and prompt re-
sponses (13%) were viewed as positive as re-
flected in the following quotes:
They called regularly to see if I had any
questions. That showed they were really
interested in me (male, graduate engi-
neering student).
I got a message from an analyst on my ma-
chine encouraging me to call him with any
questions that I might have. It made me
feel good to know that someone cared
enough to call (female, undergraduate hos-
pitality management student).
Specific site-visit arrangements noted by
respondents as positive recruitment treat-
ment included: flexible (7%), including a
significant other (7%), and well organized
(6%). As reflected in the following quotes,
many respondents were particularly im-
pressed with lavish treatment (39%) during
a site visit.
They flew me down, had me meet with
lots of people, took me to a dinner, cock-
tails, and a play. That really swayed it for
me—they cared (female, graduate labor-
relations student).
They took me to dinner and a party—that
made me feel wanted (male, graduate en-
gineering student).
We also note that respondents used
common descriptors when asked to ac-
count examples of "positive" treatment. In-
cidents were frequently described as made
to feel "wanted'Vpersonal interest (27%),
relaxed or informal (14%), friendly (13%),
and comfortable (6%).
The recruiter really went out [of] his way
to make me feel wanted, calling to see if I
needed information, and offering the
phone numbers of additional people I
could contact if I had additional questions
(male, engineering student).
... treated me like I was wanted, calling me
a lot, going out of the way to get lots of
people from the company to talk to me
(male, graduate engineering student).
My mom was ill and I had to cancel a site
visit. They sent me a huge bouquet of flow-
ers...they made me feel important (female,
undergraduate engineering student).
The following general experiences were
frequently cited by participants as examples
of treatment during the recruitment process
that had a particularly negative impact (see
Table IV): poor interviewer behavior; prob-
lems with the site visit; no follow-up, slow
getting hack, and delays; and poor interviewer
attitude. Consistent with examples of positive
recruitment experiences, a common theme
running through most of these responses was
a failure on the company's part to make the
job seeker feel "special" or "wanted."
The interview was impersonal...almost all
technical questions. It was like a test. I
had the feeling that they didn't care who
was working for them—it could be any-
body. It just didn't matter to them what
type of person (female, undergraduate en-
gineering student).
They were not really interested in me per-
sonally. During the interview they just
asked questions about financial ratios
(job-knowledge questions). They did not
take the time to ask about my interests
(female, undergraduate hospitality-man-
agement student).
In explaining the terms of their job offer,
[tbe company] said that they do not have to
pay higher because tbere are five people
waiting in line behind me to take the job.
Basically, tbey told me I'm dispensable
(male, graduate business student).

Treatment during Recruitment
Process Having a Negative Effect
Factor I Mentioning
Interviewer bebavior: 41
• Disorganized and/or not prepared
in general
• Use of structured questions
• Uninformed/not able to answer
questions
Site-visit arrangements: 40
• Student required to pay for plane,
etc. in advance
• Unimpressive/cbeap hotel, etc.
• Arrangements not organized
• Site-visit "other" (e.g., inappropriate
bebavior of host)
Lack of prompt follow-up/failure
to keep informed 33
Interviewer attitudes: 25
• Lack of interest
• Arrogant or "cocky"
• Rude/condescending
Specific examples of poor behaviors in-
cluded interviewers being disorganized or un-
prepared (14%), being uninformed (6%), and
the use of structured questions (8%). Not sur-
prisingly, interviewers that acted uninterested
(11%), arrogant (8%), and/or rude or conde-
scending (7%) were reported as having a neg-
ative influence on job-choice decisions.
It is also important to note the types of ex-
periences deemed negative regarding the site
visit. Specifically, examples of negative experi-
ences included the following: the student had
to pay for the airfare and hotel in advance and
seek reimhursement from the company
(14%), unimpressive arrangements (6%), and
a disorganized process (3%). One respondent
perhaps summed it up hest, "...and I thought
to myself, if this is the way that they treat you
when they are recruiting you, how are they
going to treat you once you're an employee?"
Summary of Important Joh-Choice Factors
Taken as a whole, the ahove results suggest
both job attrihutes and recruitment practices
job-Choice Decisions 31
that "pull" or "push" applicants to or away
from a joh acceptance. At the onset of re-
cruitment, joh seekers appear most con-
cerned with company culture, nature of the
work, compensation, benefits, training, and
opportunities for advancement. These same
joh attrihutes (with the exception of benefits
and training) were also important when it
came to making an actual joh-choice deci-
sion, yet joh location and company reputation
also became important. In terms of recruit-
ment practices, meeting with multiple (and
high-level) people, impressive site-visit
arrangements, and frequent and prompt fol-
low-up appeared to have the strongest impact
on job acceptance. A somewhat similar story
emerged in regards to rejection decisions.
That is, joh attrihutes such as company cul-
ture, nature of work, compensation, and lo-
cation as well as recruitment practices such
as unimpressive site-visit arrangements and
lack of prompt follow-up played an important
role. The main differences were that factors
such as company size and industry as well as
interviewer hehaviors and attitudes played
more of a role in pushing job seekers away
than pulling them toward a company. More-
over, as shown in Tahle II, various factors that
were deemed important to joh acceptance at
some point in the process (e.g., henefits,
company reputation, work/non-work halance)
played little role in rejecting an offer.
Role of Deadlines
Eighty-one percent of participants felt they
had to make a joh choice hy a certain date,
with 63% of these due to a company-imposed
deadline and 37% heing self-imposed (e.g.,
trip planned, just wanted to get it decided).
Twenty-three percent of those with a com-
pany deadline were given an extension, and
another 6% indicated they did have a dead-
line hut were not concerned hecause they
felt like it could he extended. Thus, 35 of the
participants were arguahly restricted in their
job search hy a deadline imposed hy a re-
cruiting company.
There was little indication of a hacklash
due to company deadlines. Only one respon-
dent stated that a deadline was the reason
why he or she rejected an offer. Two respon-
32 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2003
dents stated that receiving a company dead-
line was an example of poor treatment during
the recruitment process, negatively affecting
their evaluation of that company and making
them less willing to consider the company as
Even an employer. On the other hand, there were
compensation, examples where moving fast and imposing a
which was deadline allowed a company to "outrecruit"
mentioned by other companies. One respondent indicated
the vast
majority of canceling other interviews due to a com-
respondents as pany's deadline. Another respondent stated:
important at
the onset of I accepted an offer from a company (not an
recruitment, initial favorite) by the deadline set by the
was much less
company. I subsequently received an offer
likely to he the
reason for }oh from one of my initial favorites, but because
acceptance. it came after the first company deadline and
acceptance, I could not accept the offer
from the initial favorite (male, undergradu-
ate hospitality-administration student).
However, as noted, it appears that many
participants were able to extend company
deadlines rather than turn down a Job be-
cause of a tight deadline. Even among those
job seekers "restricted" by deadlines, there
appeared to be little negative reaction toward
the company. Indeed, many of our partici-
pants indicated imposing a deadline on
themselves, suggesting the desire to make an
expeditious job-choice decision. Deadlines
may create pressure on job seekers to limit
their search (e.g., cancel interviews) but
there is little evidence that they cause em-
ployers to lose interested candidates.
Discussion
This study was intended to contribute to the
understanding of how job decisions are made
and the role of effective and ineffective recruit-
ment in that process. In the following section
we discuss the major areas in which results of
this study inform research and practice.
Research Findings and Practical Implications
Our results suggest that factors important to
job-choice change as an individual progresses
through the job search and choice process.
Indeed, job attributes deemed important at
the onset of the job-search process may only
loosely reflect actual job-choice decisions.
For example, factors such as benefits and
training were particularly important to job
seekers at the onset of recruitment, but ap-
peared to play less of a role in actual job-
choice decisions. Even compensation, which
was mentioned by the vast majority of re-
spondents as important at the onset of re-
cruitment, was much less likely to be the rea-
son for job acceptance. On the other hand,
organizational-level factors such as company
reputation, industry, and firm size surfaced as
important factors later in the process. This
suggests an important potential role for re-
cruitment. For example, information con-
veyed through recruitment activities may help
shape final job-choice decisions by making
salient important characteristics of the job.
It is also important to note that the num-
bers reported in the last three columns of
Table II are percentages of respondents indi-
cating a particular factor as important to
their job-choice decision. Inspection of these
percentages reveals that at the onset of the
process, any one job seeker listed an array of
factors as important. However, later in the
process, the relative percentages indicate
that fewer job seekers indicated any particu-
lar factor as important. This suggests that joh
seekers focus in on a few key factors when
making an actual job-choice decision (either
acceptance or rejection).
Rynes et al. (1991) found that recruitment
plays an important role in influencing job-
choice decisions. For example, the "typical" re-
spondent in Rynes et al. thought recruitment
was important, though the mean was just
above "neutral." Our results provide additional
support for the perceived role of recruitment—
83% of our respondents felt that treatment
during recruitment was important to job
choice, wdth the average respondent falling be-
tween "agreeing" and "strongly agreeing" wdth
the statement. We also found continued sup-
port for the negative influence of delays and
poor recruiter behaviors (e.g., rudeness, arro-
gance) and the positive influence of providing
recruits opportunities to meet wdth multiple
organizational constituents and more generally
making a recruit feel "wanted". It thus appears
that as an individual progresses through the re-
cruitment process, his or her experiences (pos-

itive or negative) play a role in shaping the job-
choice decision.
On the other hand, and as noted above,
job attributes were stated as the most impor-
tant factors shaping job-choice decisions.
Though, again, these attributes are commonly
conveyed through recruitment efforts, specific
recruitment experiences appeared to play less
of a role in influencing job seekers' final job
choice. The same could generally be said of re-
jection decisions though we found somewhat
stronger recruitment effects, particularly site
visits, when it came to making the decision not
to consider a particular job. In sum, although
on average, recruitment practices may not be
the most important influence on job choice,
the vast majority of job seekers in the present
study viewed it as an important factor.
Recruiting practices may also be easily
changeable and therefore of practical value
or utility to improve. So what can employers
do to try to ensure that the influence of re-
cruitment is a positive one? Our findings
suggest the basis for a number of practical
recommendations.
Continuous comm^unication. Employers would
be wise to incorporate more timely and proac-
tive feedback to recruits throughout the re-
cruitment and selection process. Continual
updates with job seekers informing them of the
status of their application is very important in
helping the company appear to be organized
and the applicant to feel wanted. Recruiters
should also provide explanations for certain
practices such as structured interviews, neces-
sary delays, and inability to provide specific job
details, as we found that applicants respond
negatively to these practices if they are made
to feel "like a number". Additionally, this study
found compelling evidence of the negative ef-
fect of delays, again supporting the importance
of timely communication as well as moving
quickly in recruitment.
Building a reputation. The importance of com-
pany reputation (or image) and its influence
on applicant attraction as noted in prior work
(e.g.. Cable & Turban, 2000; Catewood et al.,
1993; Turban & Creening, 1997) was also
supported in our study. Company reputation
was a job-choice factor that emerged as impor-
foh-Choice Decisions
tant later in the search process (see Table II)
when it came to accepting a job yet indicated
little effect on rejection decisions. It is perhaps
not surprising that individuals want to "work Company repu-
for a winner". This is further supported by tation was a joh-
choice factor
prior research showing a strong positive effect that emerged as
for perceived organizational success on reten- important later
tion-related variables (e.g., Boudreau et al., in the search
2001; Bretz et al., 1994). A positive company process {see
reputation can be highlighted by company re- Tahle II) when
it came to ac-
cruiters during the recruitment process to per- cepting a joh yet
haps make this factor more salient to recruits. indicated little
on rejec-
Building relationships. Employment involves tion decisions.
relationships with people—the expected
quality of those relationships count. We
found consistent support, from the onset of
tbe job search process to the time when an
offer was accepted, that relational issues in-
fluenced job-choice decisions. This was evi-
dent from the importance of cultural issues
(Table II) to job seekers throughout the
search and choice process as well as by the
examples provided regarding positive and
negative recruitment experiences. Through
recruitment, organizations signal the kind of
relationships employees can expect (Roehling
& Winters, 2000; Rynes, 1991; Turban,
2001), thus supporting the importance of
personal, flexible, and well-organized treat-
ment of recruits. It is important to recognize
that in the absence of information, job appli-
cants make inferences and manage their job
search and choice accordingly. Inferences
may be positive (e.g., flexibility may lead to
the inference that the employer values em-
ployees and treats them well), or they may be
negative (e.g., delays in getting back to an ap-
plicant may lead to the inference that the
company is not enthusiastic about the candi-
date or that the company is poorly run).
There was also evidence supporting the
contention that applicants want to meet with
those people (e.g., job incumbents, supervi-
sors) most knowledgeable of the job (e.g..
Fisher et al., 1979). Indeed, job seekers in our
study indicated a strong desire to interact with
multiple company constituents. Organizations
could incorporate meetings with high-level
managers, future coworkers, and employees
similar to the recruit (e.g., age, experience,
race) during the recruitment process in order
34 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2003
to provide applicants with the most complete
and presumably favorable impression.
Deadline or no deadline? Conversations wdth
recruiters reveal a significant level of concern
Where possihle, regarding the effect that imposing a deadline
recruiters may have on landing (or losing) candidates.
should heflexi- The present findings indicated that deadlines
hle in terms of
deadlines,
have little negative effect on job-seeker reac-
scheduling, and tions. Rather, it appears that job seekers desire
the like. This an expeditious job-decision process, as further
signals to the evidenced by our findings that many job seek-
applicant that ers in our study imposed a deadline on them-
they are cared selves. It should be noted, however, that
for as a person.
though the majority of the job seekers in our
study were given a company-imposed dead-
line, many of the "deadlines" were negotiable.
Companies that impose a very rigid or "quick"
deadline may be perceived as attempting to
coerce a job seeker into the job. Yet building
relationships also means responding to the ap-
plicant needs. Where possible, recruiters
should be flexible in terms of deadlines,
scheduling, and the like. This signals to the
applicant that they are cared for as a person.
Select and train recruiters well. Consistent
with Rynes et al. (1991), our results suggest a
somewhat stronger role for recruitment and
the role of recruiter in job choice than that
suggested by previous studies (e.g., Powell,
1984; Taylor & Bergmann, 1987). Indeed, our
findings suggest recruiters can impact job-
choice decisions, and thus underscore the im-
portance of providing interviewer training. The
frequency with which poor interviewer behav-
iors and attitudes affected applicant assess-
ment of hiring organizations strongly supports
this need (see Table IV). Like those recruiters
in Rynes et al.'s (1991) study over a decade
ago, 51 % of our respondents indicated that ei-
ther recruiter behaviors (e.g., disorganized, un-
informed) or recruiter attitudes (e.g., rude,
cocky) had a significant negative impact. It ap-
pears that while "good" interview behavior may
not have a strong effect, bad behavior may in-
deed. This is consistent with prior work show-
ing negative outcomes tend to be more salient
and are given greater weight than positive ones
(e.g., Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Behaviors
and traits to emphasize through recruiter train-
ing should include organizational skills, ob-
taining and conveying complete and accurate
information, and demonstrating interest and a
positive attitude toward applicants.
Lim.itations and Future Research
There are limitations with this study that
should be noted when interpreting the re-
sults. First, though our sample size was
larger than prior research in this area, em-
ploying a larger sample would allow more so-
phisticated statistical analyses and better ad-
dress potential confounding influences. The
generalizability of the sample could also be
viewed as a limitation. For example, the pres-
ent study focused on relatively young and in-
experienced job seekers yet prior research
suggests that recruitment may be less impor-
tant to job choice for more "seasoned" job
seekers (Behling et al., 1968). Though stu-
dent job seekers are an important group to
investigate, research on the role of recruit-
ment in job choice could be extended to em-
ployed individuals or those reentering the
workforce after a longer period of unemploy-
ment (e.g., due to family leave or layoffs).
There was also little indication that indi-
viduals vary in the importance they placed on
recruitment treatment in influencing their
job-choice decision—the vast majority of our
sample reported that experiences during re-
cruitment were indeed important in influenc-
ing their job choice. Yet the lack of variance
in the "importance of recruitment" variable
may also be viewed as a limitation of this
study. On the one hand, the lack of variance
prevented us from fully assessing how the
role of recruitment in job choice varies based
on individual differences. On the other hand,
our results suggest that job seekers, regard-
less of gender, race, major, or experience,
generally report that recruitment plays an im-
portant role in job-choice decisions. Future
research could further explore the role of in-
dividual differences, assessing whether par-
ticular job seekers are more (or less) influ-
enced by and able to take into account
recruitment experiences when making a job-
choice decision.
Another limitation of this research is our
focus on self-reports of the factors important
to job choice. Specifically, prior research has
 Joh-Choice Decisions 35

shown that people often lack self insight and
rely on implicit causal theories (Nisbett &
Wilson, 1977), and thus such reports may
not reflect true preferences. In addition, re-
spondent rating of the importance of various
factors (Time 1) may hring up concerns re-
garding demand characteristics, and indeed
these responses somewhat diverged from the
open-ended responses. It should also be
noted that individuals reported their reasons
for job acceptance (and rejection) in hind-
sight. Responses may thus suffer from retro-
spective biases or postdecision dissonance
reduction. Yet a primary impetus for tracking
individuals as they progress through the
process was that important factors may
change and that factors seemingly important
may later be recalled as unimportant. Thus
by interviewing job seekers at multiple, criti-
cal points in their job search process (and as
close as possible to a particular event, e.g.,
job acceptance), we attempted to capture the
important factors and reduce biases.
Nonetheless, future research would benefit
by research designs that more indirectly
(e.g., policy capturing) assess important job-
choice factors thereby minimizing problems
associated with potential biases.
As noted above, there is very little research
investigating how practices (e.g., relocation ex-
penses, additional site visits) that occur as or
after an offer is made influence job choice
(Barber, 1998). The present research at-
tempted to address this limitation by investi-
gating the role of deadlines and tracking job
seekers throughout the job-choice decision
process including site visits. However, future
research could investigate the effect of specific
post-offer recruitment practices as well as as-
sess job-seekers' decision processes more fre-
quently, perhaps through the use of diaries.
In sum, the present research was in-
tended to contribute to the understanding of
how job decisions are made and the role of re-
cruitment in that process. By supplementing
more conventional quantitative methods with
an in-depth, longitudinal perspective, we
aimed to offer unique insight into the recruit-
ment and job-choice process, important issues
confronting organizations in this dynamic and
competitive business environment.
We thank Christopher Collins, Daniel
Feldman, and two anonymous reviewers
for helpful comments on an earlier draft of
this manuscript.

WENDY R. BOSWELL is an assistant professor in the Department of Management, Mays

Business School, Texas A&M University. She received her Ph.D. in Human Resource
Studies from the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University. Her
specific research interests include employee attraction and retention, strategic em-
ployee alignment, work-related stress, and employee job search activity. Her work has
appeared in such journals as Journal of Applied Psychology, Human Resource Manage-
ment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Personnel Psychology, and Journal of Management.

MARK V. ROEHLING is an assistant professor in the School of Labor & Industrial Re-
lations, Michigan State University. He received his Ph.D. in Human Resource Man-
agement from Michigan State University and his J.D. from the University of Michi-
gan. Dr. Roehling's research interests include recruiting and job choice, the changing
nature of employment, and legal studies in human resource management. His work
has appeared in scholarly journals (e.g.. Personnel Psychology, Jotirnal of Applied Psy-
chology, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal), practitioner-oriented publica-
tions {e.g., Journal of Career Planning and Employment), and the popular press (e.g..
Wall Street Journal, New York Times).

MARCIE A. LEPINE is a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Management

in the Warrington College of Business, University of Florida. She received her Ph.D.
in Human Resources and Industrial Relations from the Carlson School of Manage-
ment, University of Minnesota, in 1997. Her published work has appeared in Journal
36 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, Spring 2003

of Applied Psychology, Human Resource Management, Journal of Vocational Behavior,

and Journal of Organizational Behavior and has been presented at the Academy of
Management Meetings and the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Conferences. Her current research focuses on developmental challenges, stress, and
recruitment and job search processes.

LISA M . MOYNIHAN is an assistant professor of organizational behavior at London

Business School. She earned her Ph.D. in human resource management at Cornell
University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Prior to coming to Cornell, she
earned a B.A. in psychology From Mount Holyoke College and an M.A. in organiza-
tional psychology from Columbia University. She also worked as a human resources
generalist prior to pursuing doctoral studies. Lisa's research interests include strate-
gic human resource management, high performance work systems, and teams and
knowledge transfer. Her work has appeared in Research in Organizational Behavior,
Personnel Psychology, and Human Resource Management.

REFERENCES Fisher, G., llgen, D.W., & Hoyer, W. (1979), Source

Anonymous. (2000). Recruiting tips: How to get peo-
ple to want to work for you. HR Focus, 77, 15.
Barber, A.E, (1998). Recruiting employees: Individ-
ual and organizational perspectives. Founda-
tions for organizational science. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Barber, A.E., Daly, C.L., Giannantonio, CM., &
Phillips, J.M, (1994). Job search activities: An
examination of changes over time. Personnel
Psychology, 47, 739-766.
Battey, J. (2000). The keys to recruiting success. In-
foWorld, 22, 73-76.
Behling, C , Labovitz, G,, & Gainer, M, (1968), Gol-
lege recruiting: A theoretical basis. Personnel
Journal, 47, 13-19.
Boswell, W.R., Moynihan, L.M., Roehling, M.V., &
Gavanaugh, M.A, (2001), Responsibilities in
the "new employment relationship": An empiri-
cal test of an assumed phenomenon. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 13, 307-327.
Boudreau, J.W, Boswell, W.R., Judge, TA., & Bretz,
R.D. (2001). Personality and cognitive ability as
predictors of job search among employed man-
agers. Personnel Psychology, 54, 25-50.
Bretz, R.D., Boudreau, J.W,, & Judge, TA, (1994),
Job search behavior of employed managers. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 47, 275-301,
Gable, D.M., & Turban, D.B. (2000). The value of
organizational image in the recruitment con-
text: A brand equity perspective. Paper pre-
sented at the 15th Annual Gonference of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psy-
chology, New Orleans, LA.
credibility, information favorability, and job
offer acceptance. Academy of Management
Journal, 22, 94-103.
Gatewood, R.D., Gowan, M.A., & Lautenschlager,
G.J, (1993), Gorporate image, recruitment
image, and initial job choice decisions. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 36, 414—427.
Lee, T.W. (1999). Using qualitative methods in or-
ganizational research. Thousand Oaks, GA:
Sage Publications,
Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, TD, (1977), Telling more
than we can know: Verbal reports on mental
processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231—259,
Posner, B,Z, 1981. Gomparing recruiter, student,
and faculty perceptions of important applicant
and job. Personnel Psychology, 34, 329-339.
Powell, G.N. (1984), Effect of job attributes and re-
cruiting practices on applicant decisions: A com-
parison. Personnel Psychology, 37, 721—732,
Robinson, R,J, (1995), Defusing the exploding offer:
The farpoint gambit. Negotiation Journal, 11,
277-285.
Roehling, M.V., & Winters, D. (2000). Job security
rights: The effects of specific policies and prac-
tices on the evaluation of employers. Employee
Responsibilities & Rights Journal, 12, 25-38.
Rubin, H.J,, & Rubin, I.S. (1995), Qualitative inter-
viewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand
Oaks, GA: Sage Publications,
Rynes, S.L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and
post-hire consequences. In M,D, Dunnette &
L,M, Hough (Eds,), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology. Palo Alto, GA: Gon-
sulting Psychologists Press,

Rynes, S.L., & Barber, A.E. (1990). Applicant attrac-
tion strategies: An organizational perspective.
Academy of Management Review, 15, 286-310.
Rynes, S.L., Bretz, R.D., & Gerhart, B. (1991). The
importance of recruitment in job choice: A dif-
ferent way of looking. Personnel Psychology, 44,
487-521.
Rynes, S.L., Heneman, H.G. Ill, & Schwab, D.P.
(1980). Individual reactions to organizational
recruiting: A review. Personnel Psychology, 33,
529-542.
Sehwab, D.R, Rynes, S.L., & Aldag, R.J. (1987).
Theories and research on job search and
choice. In K.M. Rowland & G.R. Ferris (Eds.),
Research in personnel and human resources
management, volume 5 (pp. 129—166). Green-
wich, GT: JAI Press.
Shafir, E. (1993). Ghoosing versus rejecting: Why
some options are both better and worse than
others. Memory and Gognition, 21, 546-556.
Stevens, G.K. (1997). Effects of preinterview beliefs
on applicants' reactions to campus interviews.
Academy of Management Journal, 40, 947—996.
foh-Choice Decisions 37
Taylor, M.S., & Bergmann, T.J. (1987). Organiza-
tional recruitment activities and applicants' re-
actions at different stages of the recruitment
process. Personnel Psychology, 40, 261—285.
Turban, D.B. (2001). Organizational attractiveness
as an employer on college campuses: An exami-
nation of the applicant population. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 58, 293-312.
Turban, D.B., Gampion, j.E., & Eyring, A.R. (1995).
Factors related to job acceptance decisions of
college recruits. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
47, 193-213.
Turban, D.B., Eyring, A.R., & Gampion, J.E. (1993).
Job attributes: preferences compared with rea-
sons given for accepting and rejecting job of-
fers. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 66, 71—81.
Turban, D.B., & Greening, D.W. (1997). Gorporate
social performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 40, 658-672.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of
decisions and the psychology of choice. Sci-
ence, 211,453-458.