Given organizations’ increasing reliance on career websites for recruiting job seekers, the experience a job seeker has on the organization’s website can influence the stream of job applicants and influence organizational success. This research, grounded in social cognitive theory, investigates the linkages between job seekers’ intentions, formed after using an organization’s recruitment website, and factors antecedent to these intentions. Data were collected by questionnaire from a sample of subjects who were representative of recent or current job seekers. The estimation of the proposed model was performed using a structural equations approach. The empirical results indicate that job seekers’ intentions are affected by their satisfaction with the recruitment website. Satisfaction is affected by job seekers’ perceived usefulness of the website; and perceived usefulness is positively affected by website ease of use, engagement, and social norms. Because the trend in recruiting is toward more impersonal contact (e.g., website) with job seekers prior to their decision to apply, it is essential that organizations design websites that increase job seekers’ intentions to apply and not to repel them. The study adds evidence that characteristics of the website communicate additional information to job seekers about the company that is used to form intentions.
BarneyJ., Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management17(1) (1991), 99–120.
2.
HuselidM.A., JacksonS.E. and SchulerR.S., Technical and strategic human resources management effectiveness as determinants of firm performance, Academy of Management Journal40(1) (1997), 171–188.
BreaughJ.A. and StarkeM., Research on employee recruitment: So many studies, so many remaining questions, Journal of Management26(3) (2000), 405–434.
5.
WalkerH.J., BauerT.N., ColeM.S., BernerthJ.B., FeildH.S. and ShortJ.C., Is this how I will be treated? Reducing uncertainty through recruitment interactions, Academy of Management Journal56(5) (2013), 1325–1347.
6.
AllenD.G., MahtoR.V. and OtondoR.F., Web-based recruitment: Effects of information, organizational brand, and attitudes toward a Web site on applicant attraction, Journal of Applied Psychology92(6) (2007), 1696–1708.
7.
CarlsonK.D., ConnerleyM.L. and Mecham IIIR.L., Recruitment evaluation: The case for assessing the quality of applicants attracted, Personnel Psychology55(2) (2002), 461–490.
8.
Van HoyeG. and
LievensF., Tapping the grapevine: A closer look at word-of-mouth as a recruitment source, Journal of Applied Psychology94 (2009), 341–352.
9.
RynesS.L., HenemanH.G.I. and SchwabD.P., Individual reactions to organizational recruiting: A review, Personnel Psychology33 (1980), 529–542.
10.
CableD.M., Aiman-SmithL., MulveyP.W. and EdwardsJ.R., The sources and accuracy of job applicants’ beliefs about organizational culture, Academy of Management Journal43(6) (2000), 1076–1085.
11.
IrvingP.G. and MeyerJ.P., Re-examination of the met-expectations hypothesis: A longitudinal analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology79 (1994), 937–949.
12.
TurbanD.B. and CableD.M., Firm reputation and applicant pool characteristics, Journal of Organizational Behavior24(6) (2003), 733–751.
13.
UggerslevK.L., FassinaN.E. and KraichyD., Recruiting through the stages: A meta-analytic test of predictors of applicant attraction at different stages of the recruiting process, Personnel Psychology65(3) (2012), 597–660.
14.
CarlsonK.D., ConnerleyM.L. and Mecham IIIR.L., Recruitment evaluation: The case for assessing the quality of applicants attracted, Personnel Psychology55(2) (2002), 461–490.
15.
TamA.P., MurphyK.R. and LyallJ.T., Can changes in differential dropout rates reduce adverse impact? A computer simulation study of a multi-wave selection system, Personnel Psychology57(4) (2004), 905–934.
16.
GriepentrogB.K., HaroldC.M., HoltzB.C., KlimoskiR.J. and MarshS.M., Integrating social identity and the theory of planned behavior: Predicting withdrawal from an organizational recruitment process, Personnel Psychology65(4) (2012), 723–753.
17.
RynesS.L., Recruitment, Job Choice, and Post-Hire Consequences: A Call to New Research Directions. In:
DM.D.,
HL.M., editors, Handbook of Industrial and Organizationalsychology Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, 1991, pp. 399–444.
18.
Aiman-SmithL., BauerT.N. and CableD.M., Are you attracted? Do you intend to pursue? A recruiting policy-capturing study, Journal of Business and Psychology16(2) (2001), 219–237.
19.
BarberA.E. and RoehlingM.V., Job postings and the decision to interview: A verbal protocol analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology78(5) (1993), 845–856.
20.
RyanA., HorvathM. and KriskaS., The role of recruitment source informativeness and organizational perceptions in decisions to apply, International Journal of Selection and Assessment13(2) (2005), 235–249.
21.
RobersonQ.M., CollinsC.J. and OregS., The effects of recruitment message specificity on applicant attraction to organizations, Journal of Business and Psychology19 (2005), 319–339.
22.
Van HooftE.A.,
BornM.P.,
TarisT.W. and Van der FlierH., Ethnic and gender differences in applicants’ decision-making processes: An application of the theory of reasoned action, International Journal of Selection and Assessment14(2) (2006), 156–166.
23.
GregoryC.K., MeadeA.W. and ThompsonL.F., Understanding internet recruitment via signaling theory and the elaboration likelihood model, Computers in Human Behavior29(5) (2013), 1949–1959.
24.
KashiK. and ZhengC., Extending technology acceptance model to the E-recruitment context in Iran, International Journal of Selection and Assessment21(1) (2013), 121–129.
25.
BreaughJ.A., Employee recruitment: Current knowledge and important areas for future research, Human Resource Management Review18(3) (2008), 103–118.
26.
LarsenD.A. and PhillipsJ.I., Effect of recruiter on attraction to the firm: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model, Journal of Business and Psychology16(3) (2002), 347–364.
27.
PettyR.E. and CacioppoJ.T., The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion, In: Socialsychology: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer; 1986.
28.
CoberR.T., BrownD.J., KeepingL.M. and LevyP.E., Recruitment on the net: How do organizational web site characteristics influence, Journal of Management30(5) (2004), 623–646.
29.
BanduraA., Self-Efficacy mechanism in human agency, American Psychologist37 (1982), 122–147.
30.
BaronasA.K. and LouisM.R., Restoring a sense of control during implementation: How user involvement leads to system acceptance, MIS Quarterly12(1) (1988), 111–124.
31.
HasanB., The influence of specific computer experiences on computer self-efficacy beliefs, Computers in Human Behavior19(4) (2003), 443–450.
32.
HavelkaD., Predicting software self efficacy among business students: A preliminary assessment, Journal of Information Systems Education14(2) (2003), 145–152.
33.
MartinkoM.J., HenryJ.W. and ZmudR.W., An attributional explanation of individual resistance to the introduction of information technologies in the workplace, Behaviour & Information Technology15(5) (1996), 313–330.
34.
PotoskyD., A field study of computer efficacy beliefs as an outcome of training: The role of computer playfulness, computer knowledge, and performance during training, Computers in Human Behavior18(3) (2002), 241–255.
35.
StaplesD.S., HullandJ.S. and HigginsC.A., A self-efficacy theory explanation for the management of remote workers in virtual organizations, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication3(4) (1998), 758–776.
36.
StoneR.W. and HenryJ.W., Computer self-efficacy and outcome expectations and their impacts on behavioral intentions to use computers in non-volitional settings, Journal of Business and Management6(1) (1998), 45–58.
37.
VenkateshV., MorrisM.G., DavisG.B. and DavisF.D., User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view, MIS Quarterly27(3) (2003), 425–478.
38.
BraddyP.W., MAW. and KCM., Online recruiting: The effects of organizational familiarity, website usability, and website attractiveness on viewers’ impressions of organizations, Computers in Human Behavior24(6) (2008), 2992–3001.
39.
ChoiG. and ChungH., Applying the technology acceptance model to social networking sites (SNS): Impact of subjective norm and social capital on the acceptance of SNS, Journal of Human-Computer Interaction29(10) (2013), 619–628.
40.
JonasG.A. and NormanC.S., Textbook websites: User technology acceptance behaviour, Behaviour & Information Technology30(2) (2011), 147–159.
41.
Rainer JrR.K. and
HarrisonA.W., Toward development of the end user computing construct in a university setting, Decision Sciences Journal24(6) (1993), 1187–1202.
42.
NunnallyJ., Psychometric Methods, 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
43.
IgbariaM., ZinatelliN., CraggP. and CavayeA.L.M., Personal computing acceptance factors in small firms: A structural equation model, MIS Quarterly21(3) (1997).
44.
FornellC. and LarckerD.F., Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research18(1) (1981), 39–50.
45.
Hair JrJ.,
AndersonR.E.,
TathamR.L. and BlackW.C., Multivariate data analysis: With readings. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company; 1992.
46.
HooperD., CoughlanJ. and MullenM., Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods6(1) (2008), 53–60.
47.
De GoedeM.E.,
Van VianenA.E. and KleeU., Attracting applicants on the web: PO fit, industry culture stereotypes, and website design, International Journal of Selection and Assessment19(1) (2011), 51–61.
48.
WalkerH.J., FeildH.S., GilesW.F. and BernerthJ.B., The interactive effects of job advertisement characteristics and applicant experience on reactions to recruitment messages, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology8(4) (2008), 619–638.
49.
DineenB.R. and AllenD.G., Internet recruiting 2.0: Shifting paradigms. In:
CableDM,
YuKYT, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Recruitment. New York: Oxford University Press; 2013.
