Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Keeping Work in Perspective: Work–Nonwork Considerations and Applicant Decision Making

  • Published:
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The work–nonwork supportiveness of an organization may influence applicant decision making among young applicants. This possibility was tested using a phased narrowing decision making task and three organizational attributes (salary, number of work–nonwork supportive policies/benefits and their related culture supportiveness). Data gathered from a sample of 110 graduating college business majors partially supported the hypotheses (p < 0.05), revealing a dynamic influence of the organizational attributes across decision making stages and a differential impact of the attributes depending on their framing as family-friendly or life-friendly. Salary was especially important in initial screening of organizational options, and the organizational culture support of work–nonwork challenges was increasingly influential as the final choice was formed. Implications for young applicant attraction are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T. N., & Cable, D. M. (2001). Are you attracted? Do you intend to pursue? A recruiting policy-capturing study. Journal of Business & Psychology, 16(2), 219–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1974). Factors influencing intentions and the intention-behavior relation. Human Relations, 27(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, T. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 414–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N., Born, M., & Cunningham-Snell, N. (2002). Recruitment and selection: Applicant perspectives and outcomes. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work, and Organizational Psychology (vol. 1, (pp. 201–218)). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, A. E. (1998). Recruiting employees: Individual and organizational perspectives. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, R., & Hyde, J. (2001). Women, men, work, and family. American Psychologist, 56(10), 781–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach, L. R. (1993). Broadening the definition of decision making: The role of prechoice screening of options. Psychological Science, 4(4), 215–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behling, O., Labovitz, G., & Gainer, M. (1968). College recruiting: A theoretical base. Personnel Journal, 47(1), 13–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behson, S. J. (2001). Which dominates? The relative importance of work-family organizational support and general organizational context on employee outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 53–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blair-Loy, M., & Wharton, A. (2002). Employees’ use of work–family policies and the workplace social context. Social Forces, 80(3), 813–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulding, W., & Kirmani, A. (1993). A consumer-side experimental examination of signaling theory: Do consumers perceive warranties as signals of quality? Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 111–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1994). The role of human resource systems in job applicant decision processes. Journal of Management, 20(3), 531–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, M. E. (2004). Two perspectives on attribute importance in job choice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green.

  • Brooks-Laber, M. E., Russell, S. S., & Highhouse, S. (2001, April). Considering more than just final choice: An application of the phased narrowing technique. Paper presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.

  • Burke, R. J. (1988). Some antecedents and consequences of work–family conflict. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 3(4), 287–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byron, K. (2005). A meta-analytic review of work–family conflict and its antecedents. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 67, 169–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cable, D., & Judge, T. (1994). Pay preferences and job search decisions: A person–organization fit perspective. Personnel Psychology, 47, 317–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carless, S. A., & Wintle, J. (2007). Applicant attraction: The role of recruiter function, work-life balance policies, and career salience. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(4), 394–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, D. S., Kacmar, K. M., & Williams, L. J. (2000). Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(2), 249–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casper, W. J., & Buffardi, L. C. (2004). Work-life benefits and job pursuit intentions: The role of anticipated organizational support. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 391–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casper, W. J., & Harris, C. M. (2008). Work-life benefits and organizational attachment: Self-interest utility and signaling theory models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72, 95–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 928–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Currall, S. C., & Towler, A. J. (2003). Research methods in management and organizational research: Toward integration of qualitative and quantitative techniques. In A. Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research pp. 513–526. Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1933/1998). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. (2000). Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 178–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrhart, K. H., & Ziegert, J. C. (2005). Why are individuals attracted to organizations? Journal of Management, 31(6), 901–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frone, M. R. (2003). Work–family balance. In J. C. Quick, & L. E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology pp. 143–162. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, E. (2001). Toward a new view of work and family life. In R. Hertz, & N. Marshall (Eds.), Working Families: The Transformation of the American Home pp. 168–186. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, E., & Bond, J. (2000). Helping Families with Young Children Navigate Work and Family Life. In E. Appelbaum (Ed.), Balancing Acts: Easing the Burdens & Improving the Options for Working Families (pp. 95–114). Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky, E., Bond, J. T., & Hill, E. J. (2004). When work works: A status report on workplace flexibility. Families and Work Institute. Retrieved, June 8, 2005, from the World Wide Web: http://familiesandwork.org/3w/research/status.html

  • Gilbride, T. J., & Allenby, G. M. (2004). A choice model with conjunctive, disjunctive, and compensatory screening rules. Marketing Science, 23(3), 391–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, J. L., & Finley, A. (2002). Coverage and effectiveness of family-responsive workplace policies. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 313–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greening, D. W., & Turban, D. B. (2000). Corporate social performance as a competitive advantage in attracting a quality workforce. Business & Society, 39(3), 254–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-responsive human resource policies: The impact of family-friendly policies on the organizational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel Psychology, 48, 271–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grzywacz, J. G., & Butler, A. B. (2005). The impact of job characteristics on work-to-family facilitation: Testing a theory and distinguishing a construct. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 97–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grzywacz, J. G., & Marks, N. F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work–family interface: An ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grzywacz, J. G., Almeida, D. M., & McDonald, D. A. (2002). Work–family spillover and daily reports of work and family stress in the adult labor force. Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied Family Studies, 51(1), 28–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, D. T. (1990). Promoting work/family balance: An organization-change approach. Organizational Dynamics, 18(3), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harold, C. M., & Ployhart, R. E. (2008). What do applicants want? Examining changes in attribute judgments over time. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(2), 191–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Highhouse, S., & Hoffman, J. R. (2001). Organizational attraction and job choice. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (vol. Vol. 16, pp. 37–64). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to organizations. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 63, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honeycutt, T., & Rosen, B. (1997). Family friendly human resource policies, salary levels, and salient identity as predictors of organizational attraction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasper, J. D., & Levin, I. P. (2001). Validating a new process tracing method for decision making. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 33(4), 496–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kofodimos, J. (1995). Beyond work–family programs: Confronting and resolving the underlying causes of work–personal life conflict. Greensboro: Center for Creative Leadership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kropf, M. B. (2002). Reduced work arrangements for managers and professionals: A potential solution to conflicting demands. In D. L. Nelson, & R. J. Burke (Eds.), Gender, work stress, and health pp. 155–167. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I. P., & Jasper, J. D. (1995). Phased narrowing: A new process tracing method for decision making. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 64(1), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I. P., Jasper, J. D., Mittelstaedt, J. D., & Gaeth, G. J. (1993). Attitudes toward “Buy America First” and preferences for American and Japanese cars: A different role for country-of-origin information. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 625–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I. P., Jasper, J. D., & Gaeth, G. J. (1996). Measuring the effects of framing country-of-origin information: a process tracing approach. Advances in Consumer Research, 23, 385–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I. P., Jasper, J. D., & Forbes, W. S. (1998). Choosing versus rejecting options at different stages of decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11, 193–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I. P., Huneke, M. E., & Jasper, J. D. (2000). Information processing at successive stages of decision making: Need for cognition and inclusion–exclusion effects. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 82(2), 171–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughlin, C., & Barling, J. (2001). Young workers’ work values, attitudes, and behaviours. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 543–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moen, P., Harris-Abbott, D., Lee, S., & Roehling, P. (1999, June). Promoting workforce effectiveness and life quality: Early evidence from the Cornell Couples and Careers Study. Paper presented as part of the Economic Policy Institute’s symposium “Balancing Acts: Easing the Burdens and Improving the options for Working Families”. Washington, D.C.

  • Moss, M. K., & Frieze, I. H. (1993). Job preferences in the anticipatory socialization phase: a comparison of two matching models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 282–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78(2), 311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, D. P. (1990). A reexamination of the organizational choice process. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 36(1), 45–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L., & Allen, T. D. (2001). Work/family benefits: Variables related to employees’ fairness perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 453–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poelmans, S., Chinchilla, N., & Cardona, P. (2003). The adoption of family-friendly HRM policies: Competing for scarce resources in the labour market. International Journal of Manpower, 24(2), 128–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Posner, B. Z. (1981). Comparing recruiter, student, and faculty perceptions of important applicant and job characteristics. Personnel Psychology, 34, 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rau, B., & Hyland, M. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work arrangements: The effects on applicant attraction. Personnel Psychology, 55, 111–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosin, H., & Korabik, K. (2002). Do family-friendly policies fulfill their promise? An investigation of their impact on work–family conflict and work and personal outcomes. In D. Nelson, & R. Burke (Eds.), Gender, work stress, and health pp. 211–226. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ruderman, M. N., Ohlott, P. J., Panzer, K., & King, S. N. (2002). Benefits of multiple roles for managerial women. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rynes, S. L., & Barber, A. E. (1990). Applicant attraction strategies: An organizational perspective. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 286–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rynes, S. L., & Boudreau, J. W. (1986). College recruiting in large organizations: Practice, evaluation, and research implications. Personnel Psychology, 39, 729–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rynes, S. L., Gerhart, B., & Minette, K. A. (2004). The importance of pay in employee motivation: Discrepancies between what people say and what they do. Human Resource Management, 43(4), 381–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saks, A. M., Wiesner, W. H., & Summers, R. J. (1996). Effects of job previews and compensation policy on applicant attraction and job choice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 68–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, S. D. (1974). Toward a theory of role accumulation. American Sociological Review, 39, 567–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, L., & Ganster, D. (1995). Impact of family-supportive work variables on work-family conflict and strain: A control perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(1), 6–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work–family benefits are not enough: The influence of work–family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work–family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54(3), 392–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Towers Perrin. (2003). Working today: Understanding what drives employee engagement. The 2003 Towers Perrin Report, retrieved online January 1, 2006 from http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=hrs/usa/2003/200309/talent_2003.pdf.

  • Turban, D. B., Eyring, A. R., & Campion, J. E. (1993). Job attributes: Preferences compared with reasons given for accepting and rejecting job offers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turban, D. B., & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 184–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects. A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4), 281–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voydanoff, P. (2004). Implications of work and community demands and resources for work-to-family conflict and facilitation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9(4), 275–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. L., & Bauer, T. N. (1994). The effect of managing diversity policy on organizational attractiveness. Group & Organization Management, 19, 295–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolk, D. (2005). The New Crop. Workforce Online. Retrieved, June 9, 2005 from: http://www.workforce.com/section/06/article/24/07/42_printer.html.

  • Wright, P., Ferris, S. P., Hiller, J. S., & Kroll, M. (1995). Competitiveness through management of diversity: Effects on stock price valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 272–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department 2803 (Psychology), The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, 615 McCallie Ave., Chattanooga, TN, 37403, USA

    Christopher J. L. Cunningham

Authors
  1. Christopher J. L. Cunningham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher J. L. Cunningham.

Appendix: Phased Narrowing Illustration

Appendix: Phased Narrowing Illustration

Participants were first asked to read through the set of 12 options (framed either as family- or life-friendly and included here as Table 2). Then they followed these instructions:

Now, having read the definitions on page 1, please take a couple minutes to carefully read through the different organization options described on page 2.

After reading the 12 options, choose the 6 that are most appealing to you as a potential job seeker. Write the letters of these 6 organizations on the lines below:

______________ ______________ ______________

______________ ______________ ______________

Please turn over and continue on page 4…

Page 3

**************************

Examine the set of 6 options that you just chose (on page 3) and decide on the three (3) that you would seriously consider applying to if they had job openings for soon-to-be college graduates. Write the letters of these 3 organizations on the lines below:

______________ ______________ ______________

Please continue on page 5…

Page 4

**************************

From this set of 3 options (on page 4), select the one (1) that you would most like to work for, based on the information you have been given in the organization descriptions. Write its letter below:

______________

Based on the organizational information you were given, why did you select this organization (i.e., how did you arrive at this choice)?

______________________________________________________________________________

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cunningham, C.J.L. Keeping Work in Perspective: Work–Nonwork Considerations and Applicant Decision Making. Employ Respons Rights J 21, 89–113 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-008-9095-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-008-9095-x

Key words

Search

Navigation