#16084
Running head: APPLICANT ATTRACTION
Individual Differences in Applicant Attraction:
The Role of Person-Organization Fit
Kelly A. Piasentin and Derek S. Chapman
University of Calgary
1
#16084
Abstract
We investigated the extent to which individuals were attracted to organizational recruitment
advertisements that emphasized supplementary fit (i.e., fitting in by being similar) or
complementary fit (i.e., fitting in by adding unique characteristics), and whether there are
individual difference traits that moderate these relationships. Using a within-subjects design,
data from 128 participants revealed that individuals high in openness to experience and
independent self-construal, as well as those with high needs for uniqueness, achievement,
dominance, and autonomy all preferred advertisements that depicted complementary fit.
Implications of these findings are discussed in terms of recruitment strategies aimed at
promoting organizational diversity while selecting for person-organization fit.
2
#16084
3
Individual Differences in Applicant Attraction: The Role of Person-Organization Fit
Understanding how to attract top applicants is becoming increasingly important for
organizations. Economic uncertainty and demographic changes in today’s workforce, coupled
with increasing challenges in finding qualified applicants (Michaels, Handfield-Jones, &
Axelrod, 2001), have created a surge of attention being devoted to organizational recruitment.
One area of interest has been research examining how job advertisements can influence potential
applicants. Recruitment advertisements play a role in the applicant attraction stage of recruiting
where the principle goal is to motivate applicants to apply for a position in a particular
organization (Barber, 1998; Breaugh & Stark, 2001; Rynes, 1991). Accordingly, recruitment
messages are typically designed to elicit favorable attitudes toward the organization. Previous
research has focused on a number of variables of interest that are often presented in job
advertisements. For example, information about pay, location, organizational values, job
characteristics, and the work environment are but a few of the factors that have been studied and
shown to influence applicants’ likelihood of applying for a job (for a detailed list, see the recent
meta-analysis by Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, in press).
Of the various factors found to influence applicant attraction, person-organization (P-O)
fit is thought to play a particularly critical role. P-O fit is generally defined as the extent to
which individual characteristics (e.g., goals, values, and personality) are compatible with
organizational characteristics (Kristof, 1996). Because employees with higher levels of P-O fit
are found to have more positive work attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Cable & DeRue, 2002; Saks
& Ashforth, 2002), recruiters are often advised to seek out individuals who have similar
characteristics with existing organizational characteristics (Bretz & Judge, 1994; Bretz, Rynes, &
Gerhart, 1993; Haptonstahl & Buckley, 2002). P-O fit is also found to be instrumental in
#16084
4
shaping applicants’ attitudes and behaviors towards organizations, as individuals who perceive a
good P-O fit with an organization are more likely to (a) be attracted to the organization, (b)
pursue employment with the organization, and (c) accept a job offer from the organization
(Cable & Judge, 1996; Dineen, Ash, & Noe, 2002; Judge & Cable, 1997; Lauver & KristofBrown, 2001; Turban, Lau, Ngo, Chow, & Si , 2001). Findings from a recent meta-analysis
indicate that P-O fit is actually one of the most important predictors of attitudinal applicant
attraction outcomes (Chapman et al., in press).
Most of our knowledge about how P-O fit influences applicant attraction is based on the
assumption that applicants seek out a supplementary fit with potential organizations; that is,
individuals are thought to make judgments about the extent to which they fit into an organization
based on how similar their characteristics are to organizational characteristics. It has been
speculated, however, that P-O fit may also occur from complementarity between individual and
organizational characteristics (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987); in other words, individuals may
fit into an organization by possessing unique characteristics that add to, or complement, the
organization’s characteristics.
In the context of recruiting, there are several important reasons why some employers
might want to focus on complementary fit rather than supplementary fit. First, as Schneider
(1987) warned, the attraction of individuals who are similar to existing employees will lead to
greater homogeneity of skills, attitudes, and values. This homogeneity is thought to make
organizations less flexible, less able to adapt to change, less innovative, and less capable of
handling complex problems (Powell, 1998; Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). Second,
compliance with employment laws regarding the hiring of underrepresented groups in the
workforce may be compromised by emphasizing supplementary fit over complementary fit.
#16084
5
Third, as Chapman and Jones (2002) pointed out, organizations often experience circumstances
that shrink the potential applicant pool (e.g., unattractive location or resources, tight labor
markets). Under these conditions, organizations may be forced to adopt a complementary
recruitment approach in order to find applicants with suitable skill sets but who may not have
supplementary fit on other criteria. Last, organizations seeking out individuals for management
or leadership positions may also be interested in the potential benefits of complementary fit.
Leaders, by definition, are not only part of an organization, but also stand out from other
employees on some dimensions. It is possible that individuals with leadership aspirations will be
attracted to an organization that values them for their unique characteristics rather than their
similarity to employees whom they might lead. Accordingly, recruiting messages encouraging
complementary fit, whereby individuals recognize that they may have different skill sets,
backgrounds, experiences, and values, but still feel like they belong (i.e., experience subjective
P-O fit), may help organizations realize any benefits of heterogeneity in the workforce and avoid
potential problems associated with an overly homogenous workforce.
Because the complementary model of fit has yet to be examined in the context of
applicant attraction, we believe that it is important to understand the extent to which individuals
rely on different types of fit cues for evaluating their organizational attraction. Thus, in the
current study we examined the extent to which individuals were attracted to organizations based
on the type of fit promoted in the organizational culture (i.e., either supplementary or
complementary). We also examined the role that individual differences play in applicant
attraction to organizations espousing various types of fit. To our knowledge, no researchers have
investigated why individuals might differ in their preferences for supplementary versus
complementary organizational fit. Thus, in the present study we consider several individual
#16084
6
difference variables that might influence the extent to which individuals are attracted to different
recruitment advertisements.
Applicant Attraction and Person-Organization Fit
A preponderance of research suggests that individuals are attracted to organizations that
are congruent with their personal characteristics (Chapman et al., in press). For instance, Cable
and Judge (1996) found that individuals who perceived high levels fit with a particular
organization were more likely to accept an employment offer from that organization. Studies
examining applicant attraction and fit have also discovered that subjective or perceived fit
mediates the relationship between objective P-O fit and attraction to the organization (e.g.,
Dineen, Ash, & Noe, 2002; Judge & Cable, 1997). With few exceptions, however, an
assumption of the majority of studies examining P-O fit and attraction is that (a) individuals
construe fit from a supplementary perspective (where fit is equated to similarity or matching of
person and organization characteristics), and (b) individuals are attracted to organizations where
they will have high supplementary fit.
The complementary model of fit, which explains that individuals fit into an organization
by possessing unique attributes that add to existing organizational attributes, is recognized as
being a potentially important type of P-O fit (Kristof, 1996; Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987), yet
this type of fit has been largely ignored in the literature. We found little research examining how
different types of fit influence applicants’ attitudes about organizations. In one of the few studies
that has examined complementary fit, Piasentin and Chapman (2004) found that both perceived
supplementary fit and perceived complementary fit predicted incremental variance in overall
subjective fit. Thus, there is some evidence to suggest that it may be beneficial to examine
different types of fit and whether there are individual differences that lead to a greater emphasis
#16084
7
on complementary rather than supplementary fit.
As noted earlier, there are circumstances where it may be beneficial or necessary for
organizations to adopt a complementary approach to attracting applicants. In addition, early
evidence suggests that there may be some applicants who actually prefer a complementary fit
with their organization (Piasentin & Chapman, 2004). However, we currently know nothing
about whether applicants will adopt a complementary fit approach when seeking an employer,
nor do we have understanding of whether there are individual differences in fit strategies used by
applicants. Accordingly, we began by searching the individual differences literature to find
constructs related to having a desire to be different and/or independent from others. This search
revealed several potential individual differences that could moderate applicant attraction to
complementary or supplementary messages embedded in job advertisements.
Individual Differences in Applicant Attraction
Several studies on P-O fit have investigated individual differences that moderate the
effects of organizational characteristics on organizational attraction. For example, Judge and
Cable (1997) examined how personality relates to applicants’ preferences for organizational
cultures and proposed that individuals prefer work environments that are congruent with their
personality. They found that individuals high in extraversion were more attracted to teamoriented environments whereas individuals high in openness to experience were more attracted to
innovative work environments. Other evidence for individual differences comes from Bretz,
Ash, and Dreher (1989) who found that that individuals high in need for achievement preferred
organizations with individual based pay systems more than individuals low in need for
achievement.
#16084
8
Various theories on P-O fit can be used to explain why individual characteristics might
moderate the influence of different recruitment messages on organization attractiveness (e.g.,
Byrne’s (1971) Similarity-Attraction model; Schneider’s (1987) Attraction-Selection-Attrition
framework). The fundamental premise of these theories is that different types of people are
attracted to different types of organizations; more specifically, people are attracted to
organizations that value the same things as they do. Thus, organizations placing value on
similarity should be more attractive to applicants who place importance on fitting in by being
similar to others. Alternatively organizations placing value on diversity should be more
attractive to applicants who place importance on fitting in by complementing others.
An important focus of the present investigation is to learn if there are stable individual
characteristics that can predict what type of organizational fit individuals look for in an
organization. For instance, are some individuals more attracted to organizations that promote
complementary fit, while others are more attracted to organizations that promote supplementary
fit? If so, what type of individual difference variables might predict organizational attraction?
Because this study represents a preliminary examination of potential individual differences
affecting applicant P-O fit preferences, we examined several potential variables that might have
significant moderating effects. Four categories of individual difference variables that might
influence applicant attraction to different types of organizations were identified including (a)
self-construal, (b) need motivations, (c) personality, and (d) demographics.
Self-construal. One source of variance among individuals pertains to self-construal or
self-image. Markus and Kitayama (1991) distinguished between independent and interdependent
views of the self and explained how these self-construals influence various aspects of cognition,
emotion, and motivation. The independent self-image is analogous to the individualistic
#16084
9
orientation of Western culture, where self-interest is promoted above the collective, and people
are seen as separate and distinct individuals. People who have an independent self-image focus
on being unique, expressing themselves, and promoting their own goals (Singelis, 1994). These
individuals adhere to notions such as independence, uniqueness, and self-reliance. Because
individuals who have a strong independent self-image enjoy being different from others and
standing out, they should be more likely than individuals low on independence to focus on
complementary fit.
Hypothesis 1a: Individuals with higher independent self-images will be more attracted to
recruitment advertisements that emphasize complementary fit and less attracted to
recruitment advertisements emphasizing supplementary fit than individuals lower in
independent self-image.
Another type of self-construal is referred to as the interdependent self. The
interdependent view is analogous to non-Western collectivist values of connectedness, social
context, and relationships (Singelis, 1994). Individuals who view themselves as interdependent
tend to value belonging and fitting in, and are subservient to the wishes of the ingroup. Thus,
people who have a strong interdependent self-image should be more likely than individuals low
in interdependence to focus on the supplementary model of fit.
Hypothesis 1b: Individuals with higher interdependent self-image will be more attracted
to recruitment advertisements that emphasize supplementary fit and less attracted to
recruitment advertisements emphasizing complementary fit than individuals low in
interdependent self-image.
Need motivations. Another source of individual differences pertains to peoples’ need
motivations; specifically, needs for achievement, dominance, affiliation, and autonomy, as well
#16084
10
as need for uniqueness. The theory of work adjustment (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984) explains that a
person will be satisfied with work only if his or her needs are fulfilled by the environment.
Individuals high in need for achievement are typically characterized as goal seekers; they react
positively to competition and consistently aspire to accomplish difficult tasks (Jackson, 1989).
These individuals tend to desire personal responsibility and strive to maintain high standards.
They are also thought to be more innovative than individuals low on this need (Turban & Keon,
1993). Because individuals with a high need for achievement attach great importance to
distinguishing themselves from others (Atkinson & Raynor, 1974), it is assumed that these
individuals will likely place more emphasis on complementary fit than supplementary fit.
Hypothesis 2a: Individuals higher in need for achievement will be more attracted to
recruitment advertisements that emphasize complementary fit and less attracted to
recruitment advertisements emphasizing supplementary fit than individuals lower in need
for achievement.
Individuals with a high need for affiliation tend to focus their energy on being with
friends and people in general, and on maintaining emotional ties with others (Jackson, 1989).
Because individuals with a high need for affiliation seek acceptance and strive to appease others
by doing whatever is perceived to be valued by others, these individuals may be more likely to
value being similar to others as opposed to complementing others.
Hypothesis 2b: Individuals higher in need for affiliation will be more attracted to
recruitment advertisements that emphasize supplementary fit and less attracted to
recruitment advertisements emphasizing supplementary fit than individuals lower in need
for affiliation.
#16084
11
Individuals high in need for dominance tend to seek leadership opportunities. They
typically desire control and authority over other people and attempt to influence others by
making suggestions, by giving their opinions and evaluations, and by controlling the activities of
others (Steers, 1991). We expect that individuals with high dominance needs are more likely to
seek out environments where they stand out amongst others, and will therefore prefer
organizations that promote complementary fit.
Hypothesis 2c: Individuals higher in need for dominance will be more attracted to
recruitment advertisements that emphasize complementary fit and less attracted to
recruitment advertisements emphasizing supplementary fit than individuals lower in need
for dominance.
Individuals high in need for autonomy generally value independence of thought; they
prefer self-directed work, care less about others’ opinions and rules, and prefer to make decisions
alone (Steers, 1991). These individuals tend not to respond to external pressures for conformity
to group norms and tend to perform better when they are allowed freedom to control their own
work pace. Because individuals with high autonomy needs are less likely to be concerned with
conforming to others in the organization, we expect that these individuals will also prefer
environments that emphasize complementary fit.
Hypothesis 2d: Individuals higher in need for autonomy will be more attracted to
recruitment advertisements that emphasize complementary fit and less attracted to
recruitment advertisements emphasizing supplementary fit than individuals lower in need
for autonomy.
Individuals who value being unique and independent are considered to be high in need
for uniqueness. According to Snyder and Fromkin (1977), these individuals strive to express
#16084
12
themselves as unique and special individuals by differentiating themselves from other
individuals and focusing on what sets them apart from others. From a fit perceptive, individuals
with a high need for uniqueness may experience fit only when their needs for “standing out” are
met. Thus, for these individuals, P-O fit may not reflect feelings of being similar to others (i.e.,
supplementary fit); rather, it is possible that fit is experienced for these individuals by feeling
that they add unique value to the organization (i.e., complementary fit). Therefore, individuals
high in need for uniqueness should be more likely than individuals low in need for uniqueness to
focus on complementary fit.
Hypothesis 2e: Individuals higher in need for uniqueness will be more attracted to
recruitment advertisements that emphasize complementary fit and less attracted to
recruitment advertisements emphasizing supplementary fit than individuals lower in need
for uniqueness.
Personality. One of the most popular sources of individual difference includes the
various personality factors identified through factor analysis. This vast body of research suggests
that a five-factor model of personality including extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
emotional stability, and openness to experience may be an optimal way of categorizing
personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992). More recently, researchers have been pointing to a six
factor model that includes honesty/humility in addition to the ‘Big Five’ noted earlier (e.g.,
Ashton et al., 2004; Lee & Ashton, 2004). Of these personality variables, we judged that
openness to experience would be the most likely to moderate applicant impressions of recruiting
ads advocating complementary or supplementary fit. Individuals who are high in openness to
experience tend to be imaginative, original, autonomous, and broad-minded; they often seek out
new and unconventional experiences and, in doing so, tend to stand out from others (Barrick &
#16084
13
Mount, 1991). Conversely, people who are low in openness to experience tend to be more
conventional and prefer familiarity to novelty. These individuals also tend to exhibit less
creativity and divergent thinking than people high in openness to experience (Costa & McCrae,
1992). Thus, it is expected that individuals who are high in openness to experience may be more
likely than individuals who are low on this trait to be attracted to organizations that depict a
complementary fit with their organization.
Hypothesis 3: Individuals high in openness to experience will be more attracted to
recruitment advertisements that emphasize complementary fit and less attracted to
recruitment advertisements emphasizing supplementary fit than individuals lower in
openness to experience.
Demographic variables. As noted earlier, one of the goals of a complementarity-based
recruiting strategy is to promote diversity and ensure compliance with legislation covering
protected groups. While we believe that true diversity of values, knowledge, skills, and abilities
should be the goal of organizations, most legislation and research focuses on demographic
characteristics as a proxy variable for diversity of values, or explicitly focuses on racial/gender
diversity as a goal. Accordingly, this study examines the role of three demographic variables
(age, gender, and race) on the attraction to supplementary and complementary focused
recruitment advertisements. A handful of studies in the recruiting literature have examined the
role that applicant demographics play in the attraction to jobs. Most have examined the
influence of Affirmative Action statements on targeted groups’ attraction to the organization.
The results of these studies suggest that the generic statements encouraging applications from
women and minorities are typically viewed favorably by those groups, but that those statements
have no effect on attraction for males and Caucasians (Avery, 2003). Given that complementary
#16084
14
fit is worded to be inclusive of individuals with various backgrounds, we expect that females and
visible minorities should be more attracted to those environments. Accordingly we predict:
Hypothesis 4a: Females will be more attracted to recruitment advertisements
emphasizing complementary fit and less attracted to recruitment advertisements
emphasizing supplementary fit than males.
Hypothesis 4b: Racial minorities will be more attracted to recruitment advertisements
that emphasize complementary fit and less attracted to recruitment advertisements
emphasizing supplementary fit than Caucasians.
Hollander’s (1958) theory of idiosyncrasy credits is useful for explaining why individuals
with more work experience and tenure may be more able to engage in behaviors that deviate
from the norm, without being sanctioned. In other words, longer-term members of
organizations can accrue a certain amount of idiosyncrasy credits, which allows them freedom to
deviate from normatively prescribed behavior (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Because older individuals
tend to have more experience and are generally perceived as being more valuable in the
workplace, they may be more likely to seek out ways that they can express their individuality.
On the other hand, younger people generally have less work experience and are more likely to
rely on cues in the environment for how to behave in the workplace (Miceli & Near, 1992).
Accordingly, we expect that age will have a moderating effect on the relationship between the
type of recruitment advertisement and applicant attraction.
Hypothesis 4c: Younger applicants will be more attracted to recruitment advertisements
that emphasize supplementary fit and less attracted to recruitment advertisements
emphasizing complementary fit than older applicants.
#16084
15
Method
Participants
Participants were 128 undergraduate students from a medium-sized Canadian University
who received course credit for their participation. The average age of participants was 23 years
(SD = 4.87), 86% were female, 62% were Caucasian, and 67% were currently employed either
part-time or full-time.
Experimental Design
A mixed experimental design was used, incorporating both within-persons and betweenpersons components. Each participant was presented with six recruitment advertisements, three
of which emphasized supplementary fit, and three of which depicted emphasized complementary
fit. Participants received one of 32 versions of the survey, which counterbalanced the order of
presentation of the recruitment advertisements.
Recruitment Advertisement Descriptions
Recruiting advertisements were created to look like typical job advertisements that might
be found in a newspaper or on a web site (see Appendix A). The ads were designed to be generic
and only provided information about the organization to avoid unwanted variance due to
systematic differences in preferences for specific types of jobs. Each advertisement contained a
manipulation which either emphasized a supplementary fit or a complementary fit.
Prior to reading the recruitment advertisements, each participant was instructed to adopt
the role of a job seeker in that: (1) they are actively seeking a job; (2) the job market is excellent,
providing many job opportunities; (3) each organization would provide them with job
opportunities in their area of interest; (4) each organization would provide excellent promotion
opportunities; (5) the pay and benefits offered by each organization are competitive and
#16084
16
equivalent; and (6) each organization is in their preferred geographic location. Feedback from
participants suggested that adopting a job seeking role was familiar to them and easy to do.
Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which each recruitment advertisement was
realistic and overall, a majority of participants rated the ads as at least somewhat realistic.
Shultz, Jones, and Chapman (2004) reported that undergraduate students, whether they are
currently employed or unemployed, frequently look at newspaper ads or scan internet job ads to
determine the availability of jobs, suggesting that most participants were familiar with a job
seeking role. Meta-analytic results also indicate that experimental manipulations are successful
in modeling job applicant behaviors and cognitions, particularly in the early stages of recruitment
being simulated in this study (Chapman et al., in press).
Individual Difference Measures
Prior to reading the recruitment advertisements, participants completed five individual
difference scales. All items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 =
strongly agree).
Self-image. Items adapted from Singelis’ (1994) Self-Construal Scale were used to
assess the independent and interdependent views of self. Ten items were used to assess the
independent self-image ( = .72), including “I enjoy being unique and different from others in
many respects” and “I am comfortable being singled out for praise or rewards.” An additional
10 items were used to assess the interdependent self-image ( = .71), including “It is important
for me to maintain harmony within my group” and “I respect people who are modest about
themselves”.
Need motivations. The Manifest Needs Questionnaire (Steers & Braunstein, 1976)
contains 20 items designed to measure four different need motivations: achievement (e.g., “I try
#16084
17
to perform my best at work”), affiliation (e.g., “When I have a choice, I try to work in a group
instead of by myself”), dominance (e.g., “I seek an active role in the leadership of a group”), and
autonomy (e.g., “I would like a job where I can plan my work schedule myself”). Internal
consistencies for these subscales in this sample were found to be .73, .70, .84, and .66,
respectively.
Snyder and Fromkin’s (1977) Need for Uniqueness Scale was used to measure
participants’ need for uniqueness ( = .85). This scale contains 32 items designed to measure
the extent to which individuals are nonconformists and prefer to stand out as opposed to blend in
amongst others. Sample items include “I prefer being different from other people” and “Being a
success in one’s career means making a contribution that no one else has made”.
Personality. Openness to experience was measured using a subscale from the NEO FiveFactor Inventory – Form S (Costa & McCrae, 1992). This subscale comprises 12 items including
“I have a lot of intellectual curiosity” and “I often enjoy playing with theories or abstract ideas”
( = .76).
Demographic variables. Single items were designed to collect information on participant
age, gender and race. Race was later re-coded into Caucasian and Minority.
Dependent variable. Organization attraction was measured with two items: “How
attractive would you find this organization as a place to work?” (1 = very unattractive; 7 = very
attractive) and “How likely is it that you would apply for a job in this organization?” (1 = very
unlikely; 7 = very likely). These items were rated for each recruitment ad independently (internal
consistencies across the six ads ranged from .88 to .93).
#16084
18
Results
Correlations between the individual difference measures and organizational attraction are
presented in Table 1. As expected, the main effect of ad type was not statistically significant, t
(127) = 1.89, p = .06, although complementary-focused recruitment ads were rated as being
slightly more attractive (M = 4.94, SD = .88) than supplementary-focused recruitment ads (M =
4.74, SD = .92).
P-O Fit Analyses
To investigate whether the individual difference variables moderated the effects of the
type of recruitment advertisement on organizational attraction we conducted moderated
regression analyses. For these analyses, organizational attributes (i.e., supplementary vs.
complementary fit) were dummy coded. We then computed the interaction terms between the
organizational attributes and each of the individual difference variables. When the interaction
explained a significant portion of variability in the dependent variable, we plotted the interaction
effects following procedures discussed by Cohen and Cohen (1983). Specifically, we plotted the
slopes for high and low values (±1 SD from the mean) of the individual characteristic for each
type of recruitment advertisement. As shown in Figure 1, individuals with a strong independent
self-image were more attracted to organizations emphasizing complementary fit than
organizations emphasizing supplementary fit (β = .133, p = .03). Surprisingly, however,
individuals with a strong interdependent image were also more attracted to organizations
promoting complementary fit than organizations promoting supplementary fit (β = .149, p = .02).
Thus, Hypothesis 1 was only partially supported.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that individual differences in need motivations would moderate
the relationship between organizational attributes and applicant attraction. As shown in Figure 2,
#16084
19
individuals high in need for achievement were more attracted to organizations that fostered a
complementary fit than organizations fostering a supplementary fit (β = .14, p = .03). This same
pattern was found for individuals high in need for dominance (β = .14, p = .03), and need for
autonomy ((β = .149, p = .02), thus providing support for Hypothesis 2. Contrary to prediction,
individuals high in need for affiliation were not significantly more likely to be attracted to
organizations fostering a supplementary fit as opposed to a complementary fit (β = .122, p > .05).
In further support of Hypothesis 2, individuals high in need for uniqueness (β = .147, p =
.02) were more attracted to organizations promoting a complementary fit than individuals low in
need for uniqueness. Hypothesis 3 predicted that individuals high in openness to experience
would be more attracted to organizations promoting a complementary fit than individuals low in
openness to experience. As Figure 3 illustrates, this hypothesis was also supported (β = .175, p <
.01).
The results for the demographic variables were mixed. The slopes of the relationships
between gender and attraction to the complementary-focused recruitment ads (r = -.02, p = .86)
and the supplementary-focused recruitment ads (r = -.01, p = .90) show that gender did not play
a role in our sample and, therefore, Hypothesis 4a was not supported. Perhaps more intriguing
was the result for ethnic minorities in that the opposite results were found to what was expected.
Table 1 reveals that race had no effect on the attractiveness of complementary-focused
recruitment ads (r = .03, p = .74) but that ethnic minorities were more attracted to the
supplementary-focused advertisements than Caucasians (r = .27, p = .003). Thus, Hypothesis 4b
was not supported. Hypothesis 4c predicted that younger participants would be more attracted to
recruitment ads that emphasized supplementary fit and less attracted to ads that emphasized
complementary fit. Although the slopes for these relationships were in the predicted direction (r
#16084
20
= .08, p = .41 and r = -.16, p = .08 for supplementary and complementary ads, respectively), they
failed to reach statistical significance. Thus, Hypothesis 4c was not supported.
Discussion
A primary goal of this study was to examine whether individuals are differentially
attracted to environments fostering a supplementary or complementary fit. The results suggest
that individual differences did play a role in attraction to organizations employing ads
emphasizing complementary or supplementary P-O fit. Although the effect sizes were not large,
significant interactions were found for most of the potential moderators tested. Self-construal of
independence versus interdependence differentially predicted attraction to complementary and
supplementary based recruitment ads. This finding has implications for understanding how P-O
fit might be evaluated in cultures that emphasize interdependence (e.g., Japan, China), where
supplementary fit should prove to be more important than in countries emphasizing
independence (e.g., the United States).
Moderators involving individual differences in need motivations also proved to be
successful in differentiating between applicants focused on complementary fit and those more
focused on supplementary fit. Individuals higher in need for achievement, dominance,
uniqueness, and autonomy were all more attracted to complementary-focused recruitment ads.
This finding may be important for practitioners who are recruiting for positions where these
characteristics are desirable (e.g., leadership, management, innovation, and working with little
supervision).
Personality also played a role in perceptions of the attractiveness of the complementaryand supplementary-focused recruitment advertisements. In fact, personality proved to be the
strongest moderator of this relationship. Individuals higher in Openness to Experience were
#16084
21
more attracted to complementary recruitment ads than supplementary recruitment ads. For
practitioners seeking applicants where openness to experience is desirable, we would recommend
that job ads emphasizing complementary fit would be more effective. For researchers, we
suggest that openness to experience may be the best single moderator for identifying individuals
who may place a greater emphasis on complementary rather than supplementary fit.
Demographic variables did not play a strong role in perceptions of recruitment
advertisements that vary only on their complementary/supplementary focus. Neither gender nor
age was significantly related to applicant attraction, whereas ethnicity played a somewhat
contradictory role than what we expected. A finer grained analysis of our data may have
revealed why this counterintuitive result was found. Most of the ethnic minorities in our sample
were of Chinese (20%) or other Asian origins (11%). These cultures are among the highest with
respect to an interdependent self-construal. Table 1 reveals that there was a significant
relationship between ethnicity and an interdependent self-construal. Accordingly, it is likely that
ethnic minorities were more attracted to supplementary-focused recruitment ads because they
emphasized values of interdependence and similarity rather than independence and uniqueness.
This result may be different for other ethnic minorities.
Strengths and Limitations
We believe that the strength of this study derives from the fact that it represents the first
study that has examined the extent to which applicant attraction relates to different types of P-O
fit. An important contribution of this study to the P-O fit literature is the investigation of
potential individual differences that influence applicant attraction to organizations that foster
different organizational cultures.
#16084
22
The design of this study has limitations. We created recruitment advertisements based on
fictitious companies, and the information provided to participants about each company was
limited to descriptions of the type of culture promoted in the organization (i.e., one based on
supplementarity or complementarity). Another limitation is that study participants were not
actual job applicants but undergraduate students. Although 70% of the participants indicated that
they were presently employed either on at least a part-time basis and 20% of participants
indicated that they were presently searching for employment, these individuals may not be
representative of actual applicants, nor are the recruitment advertisements likely to accurately
reflect typical advertisements they would come across in their job search.
Implications and Directions for Future Research
Due to economic and demographic changes in today’s workforce, organizations will be
forced to consider recruitment strategies that will attract and retain a diverse workforce. With an
increasingly diverse workforce (Powell, 1998) and rising awareness among corporations to
promote organizational diversity (Richard, 2000), it may not be feasible or even desirable to
target recruitment and selection efforts around a supplementary model of fit. In fact, finding
individuals who value complementarity may give an organization a competitive advantage by
allowing for greater creativity, innovation, and flexibility in the organization (Schneider, 1987).
In terms of understanding individual difference variables that can predict the types of fit that
individuals value, organizational recruiters may be able to judge the likelihood that an applicant
will fit their culture by considering the applicants' personality, needs, and self-construal, which
would also aid in their efforts to target recruitment strategies based on the type of fit they are
looking for.
#16084
23
References
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., De Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., Boies, K., & De
Raad, B. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions
from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86, 356-366.
Atkinson, J. W., & Raynor, J. O. (1974). Motivation and achievement. New York:
Winston & Sons.
Avery, D. R. (2003). Reactions to diversity in recruitment advertising – Are differences black
and white? Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 672-679.
Barber, A.E. (1998). Recruiting employees: Individual and organization perspectives. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job
performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26.
Breaugh, J.A., & Starke, M. (2000). Research on employee recruitment: So many studies, so
many remaining questions. Journal of Management, 26, 405-434.
Bretz, R. D., Ash, R. A., & Dreher, G. F. (1989). Do people make the place? An examination of
the attraction-selection-attrition hypothesis. Personnel Psychology, 42, 561-582.
Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). Person-organization fit and the theory of work adjustment:
Implications for satisfaction, tenure, and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
44, 32 -54.
Bretz, R. D., Rynes, S. L., & Gerhart, B. (1993). Recruiter perceptions of applicant fit:
Implications for individual career preparation and job search behavior. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 43, 310-327.
#16084
24
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit
perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875-884.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and
organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3),
294-311.
Chapman, D. S., & Jones, D.A. (2002, August). Recruiting as persuasion: Making the square
hole appear round and making the round peg feel square. In D. J. Cohen (Chair),
Recruitment and Retention. Symposium conducted at the 62nd annual meeting of the
Academy of Management, Denver, CO.
Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (in press). A
meta-analytic review of factors influencing applicant attraction to organizations and job
choice. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Cohen, J, & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Dineen, B. R., Ash, S. R., & Noe, R. A. (2002). A web of applicant attraction: Personorganization fit in the context of web-based recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(4), 723-734.
Haptonstahl, D. E., & Buckley, T. (2002). Applicant fit: A three-dimensional investigation of
#16084
25
recruiter perceptions. Paper presented at the 17th annual meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada.
Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65,
117-127.
Jackson, D. N. (1989). Personality Research Form Manual, 3rd ed. Port Huron, MI: Research
Psychologists Press, Inc.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and
organizational attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359-394.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York:
Wiley.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-28.
Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of
person-job and person-organization fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 454-470.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality
Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,
and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1988). Individual and situational correlates of whistle-blowing.
Personnel Psychology, 41, 267-281.
Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B (2001). The war for talent. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence?
#16084
26
Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31,
268-277.
Piasentin, K. A., & Chapman, D. S. Piasentin, K. A., & Chapman, D. S. (2004, April).
Perceived Similarity and Complementarity as Predictors of Subjective PersonOrganization Fit. Poster presented at the 19th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, Illinois.
Powell, G. N. (1998). Reinforcing and extending today’s organizations: The simultaneous
pursuit of person-organization fit and diversity. Organizational Dynamics, 26, 50-62.
Richard, O. C. (2000). Racial diversity, business strategy, and firm performance: A resourcebased view. Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 184-177.
Rynes, S. L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A call for new
research directions. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial
and organizational psychology, (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 399-444). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). Is job search related to employment quality? It all
depends on the fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 646-654.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA framework: An
update. Personnel Psychology, 48 (4), 747-762.
Shultz, J., Jones, D.A. & Chapman, D.S. (2004, April). The Elaboration Likelihood Model Job
Ads and Job Choices. Poster presented at the 19th annual meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, Illinois.
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The
#16084
27
development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness, Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 86, 518-527.
Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self constructs.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580-591.
Steers, R. M. (1991). Introduction to organizational behavior (4th ed.). New York: Harpers
Collins.
Steers, R. M., & Braunstein, D. N. (1976). A behaviorally-based measure of manifest needs in
work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 251-266.
Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist
perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 184-193.
Turban, D. B, Lau, C., Ngo, H., Chow, I. H. & Si, S.X. (2001). Organizational attractiveness of
firms in the People’s Republic of China: A person-organization fit perspective. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 86, 194-206.
#16084
6
5.8
5.6
Organization Attraction
5.4
High Independence
Low Independence
5.2
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
Supplementary
Complementary
Type of Recruitment Ad
Figure 1a. The relationship between type of recruitment advertisement and organization
attraction for individuals high in independence and individuals low in independence.
6
5.8
5.6
Organization Attraction
5.4
5.2
High Interdependence
Low Interdependence
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
Supplementary
Complementary
Type of Recruitment Ad
Figure 1b. The relationship between type of recruitment advertisement and organization
attraction for individuals high in interdependence and individuals low in interdependence.
28
#16084
29
6
5.8
5.6
Organization Attraction
5.4
5.2
High Achievement
Low Achievement
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
Supplementary
Complementary
Tyoe of Recruitment Ad
Figure 2a. The relationship between type of recruitment advertisement and organization
attraction for individuals high in need for achievement and individuals low in need for
achievement.
6
5.8
5.6
Organization Attraction
5.4
5.2
High Dominance
Low Domincance
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
Supplementary
Complementary
Type of Recruitment Ad
Figure 2c. The relationship between type of recruitment advertisement and organization
attraction for individuals high in need for dominance and individuals low in need for dominance.
#16084
30
6
5.8
5.6
Organization Attraction
5.4
5.2
High Autonomy
Low Autonomy
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
Supplementary
Complementary
Type of Recruitment Ad
Figure 2d. The relationship between type of recruitment advertisement and organization
attraction for individuals high in need for autonomy and individuals low in need for autonomy.
6
5.8
5.6
Organization Attraction
5.4
High Uniqueness
Low Uniqueness
5.2
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
Supplementary
Complementary
Type of Recruitment Ad
Figure 2e. The relationship between type of recruitment advertisement and organization
attraction for individuals high in need for uniqueness and individuals low in need for uniqueness.
#16084
6
5.8
5.6
Organization Attraction
5.4
5.2
High Openness
Low Openness
5
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4
Supplementary
Complementary
Tyoe of Recruitment Ad
Figure 3. The relationship between type of recruitment advertisement and organization
attraction for individuals high in openness to experience and individuals low in openness to
experience.
31
#16084
32
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations among Study Variables
Variable
M
SD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. Age
22.79
4.87
--
2. Gender
1.86
.35
.03
--
3. Ethnicity
1.38
.49
-.08
-.01
--
4. Need for Uniqueness
4.15
.62
.09
-.17
-.06
(.85)
5. Need for Achievement
6.01
.68
.14
.10
-.14
-.04
(.73)
6. Need for Affiliation
4.08
.93
-.16
-.02
-.06
.04
.00
(.70)
7. Need for Dominance
4.64
1.12
.09
-.08
.05
.52
.17
.13
(.84)
8. Need for Autonomy
5.52
.78
.15
-.16
.03
.47
.14
-.19
.39
(.66)
9. Interdependent Self-Image
4.55
.67
-.19
-.11
.23
-.41
.17
.07
-.24
-.30
(.71)
10. Independent Self-Image
4.83
.75
.03
-.07
-.02
.57
.17
.13
.45
.37
-.20
(.72)
11. Openness to Experience
4.98
.79
.13
-.05
.10
.45
.02
.05
.28
.24
-.25
.29
(.76)
12. Supplementary Attraction
4.74
.92
.08
-.01
.27
.03
.12
.07
.09
.03
.19
.03
.00
(.??)
13. Complementary Attraction
4.94
.88
-.16
-.02
.03
.17
.11
.05
.10
.18
.09
.11
.28
.12
13
(.??)
Note. Values greater than .17 are significant at p < .05, values greater than .23 are significant at p < .01, values greater than .30 are
significant at p < .001. Because of missing data, Ns range from 124 to 128. Gender was coded as 1=male, 2=female.
Ethnicity was coded as 1=Caucasian, 2=other. Internal consistencies appear on the diagonal in parentheses.
#16084
33
Appendix A – Recruitment Advertisements
Careers at Casiko, Inc.
Careers at Vexica
Join our growing team and enjoy a continuous
learning experience in a fast-paced, friendly
environment!
Join our growing team and enjoy a continuous
learning experience in a fast-paced, friendly
environment!
In our organization, every employee is equal
and contributes equally to the identity of the
organization.
In our organization, every employee is unique
and contributes uniquely to the company’s
goals.
Unity of thought is the key to our success
Diversity of thought is the key to our success
We are always looking for highly motivated
individuals who enjoy working with others who
share similar abilities and perspectives.
We are always looking for highly motivated
individuals who strive to express their unique
abilities and perspectives.
For more information about our career opportunities visit
www.casiko/careers.ca
For more information about our career opportunities visit
www.vexica/careers.ca
Are you looking for an exciting
Career Opportunity?
Are you looking for an exciting
Career Opportunity?
Be part of one of the fastest growing
industries in Canada
Be part of one of the fastest growing
industries in North America
At Sentena, we pride ourselves in providing a
working environment where like-minded people
strive for the best solutions.
At DXI, we pride ourselves in being open and
direct, pushing employees to think “outside the
box”, and to consider new perspectives.
We are looking for individuals who enjoy
working with similar others and who aspire to
the same common values.
We are looking for individuals who seek to
express their values, their ideas, and their
creativity.
Contact us today at www.sentena/careers.com
Contact us today at www.dxi/careers.com
Join our team!
Join our team!
Looking for an organization where you can
blend in amongst your co-workers and work
collectively with other talented people like you?
Looking for an organization where you can
stand out amongst your co-workers and really
express your creativity?
Our workplace operates as a family where
individuals share similar work styles, abilities,
and skills, and our employees are committed to
the same universal values.
Our workplace fosters a variety of work styles,
abilities, and skills and our employees are
committed to a variety of diverse values.
We are seeking talented individuals who aspire
to the same common work ethic – people who
work together to ensure the success of the
organization.
We are seeking talented individuals who aspire
to be different – people who are not afraid to
express themselves as individuals.
Visit www.hartland.com to learn more about us
Visit www.mckenziegroup.com to learn more
about us
Hartland Corp.
McKenzie Group