Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 331–344 | Cite as

What If the Preferred Applicant Rejects a Job Offer? A Look at Smaller Applicant Pools

Article

Abstract

Purpose

This article presents the first theoretical framework for examining how expected new-hire performance is affected in situations where the preferred applicant in a small pool rejects a job offer. It addresses questions such as: What is the expected decrease in performance when a lower ranked (as opposed to the top) candidate in an already small pool is hired? What is the likelihood that a lower ranked candidate in that small pool will perform as well as, or better than, the first choice would have? And under what conditions might it be advantageous, from either a performance or a financial perspective, for the employer to seek additional applicants rather than offer a position to a lower ranked candidate?

Design/Methodology/Approach

Order statistics provide a conceptual framework for answering these questions.

Findings

This method estimates expected decreases in performance if a second- or third-ranked candidate, rather than the first choice, is hired. It can also show the likelihood that the top-choice’s job performance would be better than a lower choice candidate’s. The order statistics approach is combined with utility analysis to address the question of when the expected value of generating more applicants might exceed the expected value of hiring a lower ranked candidate.

Implications/Originality/Value

This article presents the first rigorous framework for understanding the probable impact of offer rejections on expected new-hire quality and for determining what is most likely to be the best response to an offer rejection in the small-pool context.

Keywords

Personnel selection Small business Order statistics Utility analysis Rejected job offers Applicant pools Small applicant pools Small n hiring 

References

  1. Alexander, R. A., Barrett, G. V., & Doverspike, D. (1983). An explication of the selection ratio and its relationship to hiring rate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 342–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker, B. E., & Huselid, M. A. (1992). Direct estimates of SDy and the implications for utility analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 227–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bobko, P., & Potosky, D. (2011). Strategic human resource staffing and organization research: Are they one-size-fits-all endeavors? In D. Bergh & D. Ketchen (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management: Building methodological bridges (Vol. 6, pp. 69–87). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. Brogden, H. E. (1946). On the interpretation of the correlation coefficient as a measure of predictive efficiency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 37, 65–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cascio, W. F., & Boudreau, J. W. (2008). Investing in people: Financial impact of human resource initiatives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cronbach, L. J., & Gleser, G. C. (1965). Psychological tests and personnel decisions (2nd ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  7. DeCorte, W. (1999). A note on the success ratio and the utility of fixed hiring rate personnel selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 952–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeCorte, W. (2000). Using order statistics to assess the sampling variability of personnel selection utility estimates. Journal of Applied Statistics, 27, 703–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deshpande, S. P., & Golhar, D. Y. (1994). HRM practices in large and small manufacturing firms: A comparative study. Journal of Small Business Management, 32, 49–56.Google Scholar
  10. Gatewood, R. D., & Field, H. S. (1987). A personnel selection program for small business. Journal of Small Business Management, 25(4), 16–24.Google Scholar
  11. Gillett, R. (1991). Population comparison based on an extreme fraction of the sample: A caveat. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 44, 289–297.Google Scholar
  12. Harter, H. L. (1961). Expected values of normal order statistics. Biometrika, 48, 151–165.Google Scholar
  13. Headd, B. (2010). An analysis of small business and jobs. Downloaded on 09/27/2012 from http://sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/ananalysisofsmallbusinessandjobs(1).pdf.
  14. Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1976). Optimal strategies for personnel selection when candidates can reject offers. Journal of Business, 49, 478–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Judiesch, M. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Mount, M. K. (1992). Estimates of the dollar value of employee output in utility analyses: An empirical test of two theories. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 234–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murphy, K. R. (1986). When your top choice turns you down: Effect of rejected offers on the utility of selection tests. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 133–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  21. Sackett, P. R., & Arvey, R. D. (1993). Selection in small N settings. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Sarhan, A. E., & Greenberg, B. G. (1956). Estimation of location and scale parameters by order statistics in singly and doubly censored samples. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 27, 427–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scherbaum, C. A. (2005). Synthetic validity: Past, present, and future. Personnel Psychology, 58, 481–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., McKenzie, R. C., & Muldrow, T. W. (1979). Impact of valid selection procedures on work-force productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 609–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wackerly, D. D., Mendenhall, W, I. I. I., & Schaeffer, R. L. (2008). Mathematical statistics with applications (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  26. Wyatt, M. R. R., Pathak, S. B., & Zibarras, L. D. (2010). Advancing selection in an SME: Is best practice methodology applicable? International Small Business Journal, 28, 258–273.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Business and Public AdministrationDrake UniversityDes MoinesUSA

Personalised recommendations