Information Technology and Management

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 59–67 | Cite as

E-recruiting and fairness: the applicant’s point of view

  • Meinald T. Thielsch
  • Lisa Träumer
  • Leoni Pytlik


More and more companies currently recruit online, partly because of cost savings and competitive pressure, and partly because it is the best way to reach their target group of applicants. In our study, applicants’ perceptions of procedural fairness were examined in e-recruiting contexts. Using an adapted form of the Social Process Questionnaire on Selection, we found that 1,373 participants’ expectations regarding fairness were mediocre and always lower than the perceived importance of five procedural fairness aspects. Based on an experimental manipulation, we showed that feedback was particularly important in online application procedures, whereas participation had smaller effects. Furthermore, participants tend to rate procedural fairness for offline application procedures as fairer than for online procedures although they reported generally positive experiences with online applications in the past. Based on our results, we discuss practical implications and limitations.


E-recruiting Justice Fairness Online application Recruiting 



The authors would like to thank Peter Vorholt for helpful comments on previous versions of this manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Allen DG, Mahto RV, Otondo RF (2007) Web-based recruitment: effects of information, organizational brand, and attitudes toward a web site on applicant attraction. J Appl Psychol 92(6):1696–1708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson WD, Patterson M (2010) The role of psychological distance in the formation of fairness judgments. J Appl Soc Psychol 40(11):2888–2903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anseel F, Lievens F (2009) The mediating role of feedback acceptance in the relationship between feedback and attitudinal and performance outcomes. Int J Select Assess 17(4):362–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bauer T, Truxillo D, Paronto M, Weekley JA, Campion MA (2004) Applicant reactions to different selection technology: face-to-face, interactive voice response, and computer-assisted telephone screening interviews. Int J Select Assess 1/2:135–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bauer TN, Truxillo DM, Tucker JS, Weathers V, Bertolino M, Erdogan B, Campion MA (2006) Selection in the information age: the impact of privacy concerns and computer experience on applicant reactions. J Manage 32(5):601–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Braddy PW, Meade AW, Michael JJ, Fleenor JW (2009) Internet recruiting: effects of website content features on viewers’ perceptions of organizational culture. Int J Select Assess 17(1):19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cappelli P (2001) Making the most of on-line recruiting. Harvard Bus Rev 79(3):139–146Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chapman DS, Webster J (2003) The use of technologies in the recruiting screening, and selection processes for job candidates. Int J Select Assess 11(2):113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chapman DS, Uggerslev KL, Webster J (2003) Applicant reactions to face-to-face and technology-mediated interviews: a field investigation. J Appl Psychol 88(5):944–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cober R, Brown DA, Blumental A, Doverspike D, Levy PE (2000) The quest for the qualified job surfer: it’s time the public sector catches the wave. Public Pers Manage 29(4):479–496Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cober RT, Brown DA, Levy PE, Cober AB, Keeping LM (2003) Organizational web sites: web site content and style as determinants of organizational attraction. Int J Select Assess 11(2/3):158–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cober RT, Brown DJ, Levy PE (2004) Form, content, and function: an evaluative methodology for corporate employment web sites. Hum Resource Manage 43(2–3):201–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Erlbaum, MahwahGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cole MS, Bedeian AG, Feild HS (2006) The measurement equivalence of web-based and paper-and-pencil measures of transformational leadership. Organ Res Methods 9(3):339–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Collins CJ, Han J (2004) Exploring applicant pool quantity and quality: the effects of early recruitment practice strategies, corporate advertising, and firm reputation. Pers Psychol 57:685–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Collins CJ, Stevens C (2002) The relationship between early recruitment-related activities and the application decisions of new labor-market entrants: a brand equity approach to recruitment. J Appl Psychol 87(6):1121–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    De Beuckelaer A, Lievens F (2009) Measurement equivalence of paper-and-pencil and inter-net organisational surveys: a large scale examination in 16 countries. Appl Psychol 58(2):336–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Derous E, De Witte K, Stroobants R (2003) Testing the social process model on selection through expert analysis. J Occup Organ Psychol 76:179–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Derous E, Born M, de Witte K (2004) How applicants want and expect to be treated: applicants’ selection treatment beliefs and the Development of the Social Process Questionnaire on Selection. Int J Select Assess 12(1–2):99–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Devonish D, Greenidge D (2010) The effect of organizational justice on contextual performance, counterproductive work behaviors, and task performance: investigating the moderating role of ability-based emotional intelligence. Int J Select Assess 18(1):75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dineen BR, Ash SR, Noe RA (2002) A Web of applicant attraction: person-organization fit in the context of Web-based recruitment. J Appl Psychol 87:723–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dineen BR, Noe RA (2009) Effects of customization on application decisions and applicant pool characteristics in a web-based recruitment context. J Appl Psychol 94(1):224–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Duffy B, Smith K, Terhanian G, Bremer J (2005) Comparing data from online and face-to-face surveys. Int J Market Res 47(6):615–639Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Feldman DC, Klaas BS (2002) Internet job hunting: a field study of applicant experiences with on-line recruiting. Hum Resource Manage 41(2):175–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Feldman D, Bearden W, Hardesty D (2006) Varying the content of job advertisements: the effects of message specificity. J Advert 35(1):123–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Garcia-Izquierdo AL, Aguinis H, Ramos-Villagrasa PJ (2010) Science-practice gap in e-recruitment. Int J Selec Assess 18(4):432–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gilliland SW (1993) The perceived fairness of selection systems: an organizational justice perspective. Acad Manage Rev 18:694–734Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harris MM (2006) Internet testing: the examinee perspective. In: Bartram D, Hambleton RK (eds) Computer-based testing and the internet: issues and advances. Wiley, New York, pp 115–133Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hausknecht JP, Day DV, Thomas SC (2004) Applicant reactions to selection procedures: an updated model and meta-analysis. Pers Psychol 57(3):639–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hülsheger U, Anderson N (2009) Applicant perspectives in selection: going beyond preference reactions. Int J Select Assess 17(4):335–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Janssen J, Müller PA, Greifeneder R (2011) Cognitive processes in procedural justice judgments: the role of ease-of-retrieval, uncertainty, and experience. J Organ Behav 32(5):726–750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jones JW, Dages K (2003) Technology trends in staffing and assessment: a practice note. Int J Select Assess 11(2–3):247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kreuter F, Presser S, Tourangeau R (2009) Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys: the effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opin Q 72(5):847–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    LaHuis DM, MacLane CN, Schlessman BR (2007) Do applicants’ perceptions matter? Investigating reapplication behavior using fairness theory. Int J Select Assess 15(4):383–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lievens F, Harris MM (2003) Research on internet recruiting and testing: current status and future directions. Int Rev Indus Organ Psychol 16:131–165Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lievens F, Highhouse S (2003) The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a company’s attractiveness as an employer. Pers Psychol 56:75–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lin H (2010) Applicability of the extended theory of planned behavior in predicting job seeker intentions to use job-search websites. Int J Select Assess 18(1):64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Macan T, Avedon M, Paese M, Smith D (1994) The effects of applicants’ reactions to cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Pers Psychol 47(4):715–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maurer S, Liu Y (2007) Developing effective e-recruiting websites: insights for managers from marketers. Bus Horiz 50(4):305–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ng ES, Burke RJ (2005) Person-organization fit and the war for talent: does diversity management make a difference? Int J Hum Resource Manage 16(7):1195–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pfeffer J (2001) Fighting the war for talent is hazardous to your organization’s health. Organ Dyn 29(4):248–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pfieffelmann B, Wagner SH, Libkuman T (2010) Recruiting on corporate web sites: perceptions of fit and attraction. Int J Select Assess 18(1):40–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ployhart RE (2006) Staffing in the 21st century: new challenges and strategic opportunities. J Manage 32(6):868–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rynes S, Bretz R, Gerhart B (1991) The importance of recruitment in job choice: a different way of looking. Pers Psychol 44(3):487–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Smither JW, Millsap RE, Stoffey RW (1996) An experimental test of the influence of selection procedures on fairness perceptions, attitudes about the organization, and job pursuit intentions. J Bus Psychol 10(3):297–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sylva H, Mol ST (2009) E-recruitment: a study into applicant perceptions of an online application system. Int J Select Assess 17(3):311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Truxillo DM, Bauer TN, Campion MA, Paronto ME (2002) Selection fairness information and applicant reactions: a longitudinal field study. J Appl Psychol 87(6):1020–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Truxillo DM, Steiner DD, Gilliland SW (2004) The importance of organizational justice in personnel selection: defining when selection fairness really matters. Int J Select Assess 12(1/2):39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Truxillo DM, Bauer TN, Campion MA, Paronto ME (2006) A field study of the role of big five personality in applicant perceptions of selection fairness, self, and the hiring organization. Int J Select Assess 14(3):269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2009) World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision Population Database, New York. Available Feb 14, 2012 from
  51. 51.
    Van Vianen AEM, Taris R, Scholten E, Schinkel S (2004) Perceived fairness in personnel selection: determinants and outcomes in different stages of the assessment procedure. Int J Select Assess 12:149–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Williamson I, Lepak D, King J (2003) The effect of company recruitment web site orientation on individuals’ perceptions of organizational attractiveness. J Vocat Behav 63(2):242–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meinald T. Thielsch
    • 1
  • Lisa Träumer
    • 1
  • Leoni Pytlik
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MuensterMünsterGermany
  2. 2.Rewe Group HR Developmenttoom BauMarkt GmbHCologneGermany

Personalised recommendations