Fairness from the Applicant's Perspective

Reactions to Employee Selection Procedures

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

55 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Applicants' reactions to selection procedures were examined in terms of the satisfaction and/or violation of 10 procedural justice rules. Critical incidents (n= 237) of fair and unfair treatment during selection were collected from 31 individuals who had recently experienced job search and hiring processes. Incidents were categorized into 10 procedural justice rules and the distribution of these incidents was examined for different hiring outcomes and different selection procedures. Dominant procedural concerns reflected selection procedure job relatedness and interpersonal treatment applicants received. Accepted applicants were primarily concerned about consistency of treatment, while rejected applicants were more concerned with timely feedback and blatant bias. Ease of faking was the primary procedural concern of applicants taking honesty and personality tests, while job relatedness was the primary concern with ability and work sample tests. Research issues were discussed and a number of practical suggestions were offered in terms of minimizing applicants' negative reactions to the selection process.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)11-18
Number of pages8
JournalInternational Journal of Selection and Assessment
Volume3
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 1995
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Social Justice
Personnel
Feedback
Personality Tests
Aptitude
Research
Employee selection
Fairness
Incidents
Procedural justice
Hiring
Honesty
Research issues
Personality tests
Critical incidents
Job search
Faking
Selection process
Applicant reactions
Violations

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Business, Management and Accounting(all)
  • Applied Psychology
  • Psychology(all)
  • Strategy and Management
  • Management of Technology and Innovation

Cite this

@article{7a5651a4994d4093a8f11cf7764f9ede,
title = "Fairness from the Applicant's Perspective: Reactions to Employee Selection Procedures",
abstract = "Applicants' reactions to selection procedures were examined in terms of the satisfaction and/or violation of 10 procedural justice rules. Critical incidents (n= 237) of fair and unfair treatment during selection were collected from 31 individuals who had recently experienced job search and hiring processes. Incidents were categorized into 10 procedural justice rules and the distribution of these incidents was examined for different hiring outcomes and different selection procedures. Dominant procedural concerns reflected selection procedure job relatedness and interpersonal treatment applicants received. Accepted applicants were primarily concerned about consistency of treatment, while rejected applicants were more concerned with timely feedback and blatant bias. Ease of faking was the primary procedural concern of applicants taking honesty and personality tests, while job relatedness was the primary concern with ability and work sample tests. Research issues were discussed and a number of practical suggestions were offered in terms of minimizing applicants' negative reactions to the selection process.",
author = "Gilliland, {Stephen W}",
year = "1995",
doi = "10.1111/j.1468-2389.1995.tb00002.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
pages = "11--18",
journal = "International Journal of Selection and Assessment",
issn = "0965-075X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fairness from the Applicant's Perspective

T2 - Reactions to Employee Selection Procedures

AU - Gilliland, Stephen W

PY - 1995

Y1 - 1995

N2 - Applicants' reactions to selection procedures were examined in terms of the satisfaction and/or violation of 10 procedural justice rules. Critical incidents (n= 237) of fair and unfair treatment during selection were collected from 31 individuals who had recently experienced job search and hiring processes. Incidents were categorized into 10 procedural justice rules and the distribution of these incidents was examined for different hiring outcomes and different selection procedures. Dominant procedural concerns reflected selection procedure job relatedness and interpersonal treatment applicants received. Accepted applicants were primarily concerned about consistency of treatment, while rejected applicants were more concerned with timely feedback and blatant bias. Ease of faking was the primary procedural concern of applicants taking honesty and personality tests, while job relatedness was the primary concern with ability and work sample tests. Research issues were discussed and a number of practical suggestions were offered in terms of minimizing applicants' negative reactions to the selection process.

AB - Applicants' reactions to selection procedures were examined in terms of the satisfaction and/or violation of 10 procedural justice rules. Critical incidents (n= 237) of fair and unfair treatment during selection were collected from 31 individuals who had recently experienced job search and hiring processes. Incidents were categorized into 10 procedural justice rules and the distribution of these incidents was examined for different hiring outcomes and different selection procedures. Dominant procedural concerns reflected selection procedure job relatedness and interpersonal treatment applicants received. Accepted applicants were primarily concerned about consistency of treatment, while rejected applicants were more concerned with timely feedback and blatant bias. Ease of faking was the primary procedural concern of applicants taking honesty and personality tests, while job relatedness was the primary concern with ability and work sample tests. Research issues were discussed and a number of practical suggestions were offered in terms of minimizing applicants' negative reactions to the selection process.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84991197375&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84991197375&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1468-2389.1995.tb00002.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1468-2389.1995.tb00002.x

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 11

EP - 18

JO - International Journal of Selection and Assessment

JF - International Journal of Selection and Assessment

SN - 0965-075X

IS - 1

ER -