Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Applicant Reactions in Greece
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Applicant Reactions in Greece

950

Published on

Nikolaou, I. (2006). Applicant reactions to personnel selection methods: Does personality matter? 26th International Congress of Applied Psychology, Athens, Greece.

Nikolaou, I. (2006). Applicant reactions to personnel selection methods: Does personality matter? 26th International Congress of Applied Psychology, Athens, Greece.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
950
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Transcript

    • 1. Applicant Reactions to Personnel Selection Methods: Does Personality Matter? Ioannis Nikolaou Department of Management Science & Technology Athens University of Economics & Business, Greece
    • 2. Defining Applicant Reactions
      • “ The attitudes, emotions or cognitions an individual might have about the recruitment and selection process ”
    • 3. Why should we care?
      • They are related to:
        • Job attractiveness
        • Job acceptance intentions
        • Organizational image and
        • Subsequent behaviours (e.g. future product/service purchases, recommendations to others, etc.)
      The process sends a signal (Rynes, 1993)
    • 4. Fairness reactions to selection methods
      • The theory behind fairness reactions
        • Socialization impact (Anderson, 2001)
        • Selection as a social process (Herriot, 1989)
        • Social validity (Schuler, 1993)
        • Organizational justice (Gilliland, 1993)
    • 5. Organizational Justice in Selection Settings Procedural Justice Refers to the perceived fairness of the selection procedure that is used to arrive at selection decision Distributive Justice Refers to the perceived fairness of the selection decision
    • 6. What are the characteristics of the well-accepted methods?
      • They are more job-related
      • They are less personally intrusive
      • They do not contradict applicants procedural or distributive justice expectations
      • They give the candidates the opportunity to meet in person with assessors (Anderson , Born & Cunningham - Snell, 2001)
    • 7. Previous findings
      • Work samples
      • Interviews
      • Assessment centres
      • Application blanks
      • Resumes
      • Personality tests
      • Biodata
      • Integrity tests
      • Graphology
    • 8. The role of individual differences
      • Does personality matter in applicant reactions?
      • Is there a selection-friendly personality type?
        • Positive relationship between locus of control and feedback acceptance
    • 9. The role of individual differences (2) Core-Self Evaluations Self - esteem Generalized Self - Efficacy Locus of Control Emotional Stability
    • 10. Our Research Questions
      • A replication of similar findings in USA vs. France (Steiner & Gilliland, 1996) & Spain vs. Portugal (Moscoso & Salgado, 2004) using for the first time an employee sample and not students
      • Exploring the role of CSES in applicant reactions
    • 11. Methodology - Measures
      • Steiner & Gilliland ( 1996) & Moscoso & Salgado ( 2004) measure assessing:
        • Process favourability
        • Procedural dimensions:
          • Scientific evidence
          • Face validity
          • Opportunity to perform
          • Interpersonal warmth
          • The employer’s right to obtain information
          • Respectful of privacy
          • The frequency of use
      • Judge , Erez , Bono & Thoresen (2003) measure of CSES
      • Interviews
      • Resumes
      • Work-sample tests
      • Biodata
      • Ability tests
      • Personal references
      • Personality tests
      • Integrity tests
      • Personal contacts
      • Graphology
    • 12. Methodology - Participants Response Rate: 41% 95%
    • 13. Results - Process Favourability
    • 14. Results - Correlations between Greek, Spanish, Portuguese, US and French Student Samples across the 10 Methods on Process Favorability and Procedural Dimensions
    • 15. Results – Procedural Dimensions
      • Scientific evidence
        • Ability tests
        • Personality tests
        • Work samples
        • Interviews
        • Biodata
        • Resumes
        • Integrity tests
        • Personal contacts
        • Personal references
        • Graphology
      • Face validity
        • Interviews
        • Work samples
        • Resumes
        • Ability tests
        • Biodata
        • Personality tests
        • Integrity tests
        • Personal references
        • Personal contacts
        • Graphology
      • Opportunity to perform
        • Interviews
        • Work samples
        • Ability tests
        • Personality tests
        • Resumes
        • Biodata
        • Personal references
        • Integrity tests
        • Personal contacts
        • Graphology
    • 16. Results – Procedural Dimensions (2)
      • Interpersonal warmth
        • Interviews
        • Personal contacts
        • Personal references
        • Work samples
        • Biodata
        • Resumes
        • Personality tests
        • Ability tests
        • Integrity tests
        • Graphology
      • Employer’s right
        • Interviews
        • Resumes
        • Work samples
        • Biodata
        • Ability tests
        • Personal references
        • Personality tests
        • Integrity tests
        • Personal contacts
        • Graphology
      • Respectful of privacy
        • Work samples
        • Resumes
        • Interviews
        • Personal references
        • Personal contacts
        • Biodata
        • Ability tests
        • Graphology
        • Personality tests
        • Integrity tests
    • 17. Results – Procedural Dimensions (3)
      • Frequency of use
        • Interviews
        • Resumes
        • Work samples
        • Biodata
        • Ability tests
        • Personal references
        • Personality tests
        • Integrity tests
        • Personal contacts
        • Graphology
    • 18. Individual differences and fairness reactions (employee sub-sample) CSES +
      • Process Favourability
      • Interviews (.20*)
      • Resumes (.19*)
      +
      • Procedural Dimensions
      • Scientific evidence of
        • Interviews (.22**)
        • Resumes (.17*)
        • Biodata (.22**)
        • Ability tests (.21*)
      • Frequency of use of
        • Interviews (.18*)
        • Resumes (.25**)
        • Work samples (.17*)
    • 19. Summary of results
        • Interviews
        • Resumes
        • Work samples
        • Ability tests
        • Biodata
        • Personal references
        • Personality tests
        • Personal contacts
        • Integrity tests
        • Graphology
        • Interviews
        • Work samples
        • Resumes
        • Ability tests
        • Personality tests
        • Biodata
        • Integrity tests
        • Personal references
        • Personal contacts
        • Graphology
      Employees Students Methods with higher acceptability:
    • 20. Conclusions
      • Dominance of interview in Greece compared to other countries
      • Greek students have positive attitudes towards psychological tests
      • Similar findings between Greece and other countries in process favourability and the procedural dimensions of selection methods
      • Small effect of CSES
    • 21. For more information….
      • Please contact:
      Ioannis Nikolaou (inikol@aueb.gr) Department of Management Science & Technology Athens University of Economics & Business, Greece

    ×