Applicant reactions are critical to job seekers' attitudes regarding employment opportunities (McCarthy et al. 2017). Often, in the early stages of recruitment, organizations will work to develop familiarity with job seekers and applicants by sending signals via recruitment ads, websites, or testimonials (Dineen et al. 2019; Yu and Cable 2012). Signals refer to the information sent by recruiters, organizations, and third-party sources (Dineen et al. 2019; Theurer et al. 2022; DePatie et al. 2022) to job seekers—this information is carefully crafted to highlight desirable attributes of organizations and influence job seeker attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. For example, one particularly salient attribute is employer prestige. Prestigious organizations are recognized by job seekers as being admired, prominent, or having status (Slaughter et al. 2004). Further, employer prestige may present rewards of social status and acceptance (Thornbury and Brooks 2010; Yu 2014), and pursuing employment with a prestigious employer may fulfill important socioemotional needs, such as self-esteem and social approval (Mignonac et al. 2018). As such, aligning oneself with a prestigious organization, for example, has salient implications for self-worth, self-enhancement, and perceived social standing (Sedikides and Gregg 2008; Dutton and Dukerich 1991; Smidts et al. 2001; Nolan and Harold 2010; Mignonac et al. 2018).

Therefore, a job seeker may seek employment with a prestigious organization to meet self-enhancement needs. This notion supports tenets of social identity theory (Ashforth and Mael 1989) in that organizational prestige can boost self-esteem and suggests employer image as a key driver behind the question: “Why do people want to fit?” (Yu 2013; Follmer et al. 2018). Further, Dineen et al. (2002) and Hu et al. (2007) demonstrated that providing fit feedback can influence job seeker reactions—with “high” PO fit feedback positively influencing attraction and “low” PO fit feedback negatively influencing attraction (Dineen et al. 2002; Hu et al. 2007). No studies, however, have provided insight into how PO fit feedback from differing employer images impacts job seeker reactions. Thus, building on research suggesting employer image information influences job seeker self-enhancement needs (Highhouse et al. 2007; Mignonac et al. 2018; Nolan and Harold 2010), we explore how organizational prestige and PO fit feedback influence applicant attraction.

Drawing on the social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 2004) and the motivational model of PE fit (Yu 2013), we posit that employer image inferences drive job seekers toward discounting misfit feedback. For example, a job seeker may pursue employment in the face of misfit from an impressive employer “in order to enjoy the positive outcomes that come from it” (Yu 2013, p. 24), such as personal status, prestige, or pride (Mignonac et al. 2018; Dutton and Dukerich 1991; Tyler and Blader 2003). As stated by Ashforth and Mael (1989), “Individuals often cognitively … identify themselves with a winner” (p. 25). Thus, in the face of PO misfit fit feedback, we expect job seekers to minimize misfit feedback to continue identifying with the winner. This active management of PO fit feedback helps reduce dissonance and allows the job seeker to continue aligning with the in-group (Yu 2013). Research suggests that such alignment allows job seekers to meet self-enhancement needs (Highhouse et al. 2007).

As such, this study contributes to the recruitment literature by further developing the psychology surrounding PO fit feedback and employer prestige. We highlight the degree to which impressive and respectable organizations influence organizational desirability (a consolidation of attraction and pursuit intentions) in early-stage internet recruitment by providing fit feedback. This approach provides a nuanced understanding of how job seekers process fit feedback and employer prestige. Our findings suggest that job seekers who disagree with misfit feedback report greater organizational desirability when employers are perceived to be prestigious. This suggests job seekers discount misfit feedback from prestigious organizations to meet self-enhancement needs. This approach helps recruiters understand factors that may contribute to job seekers toward ill-fitting situations (Yu 2013). Therefore, the results of this study offer a more complete understanding of how employer image inferences interact with recruitment mechanisms to inform subsequent early-stage recruitment reactions.

Theory and Hypotheses

Person–Organization Fit Feedback

Person–environment (PE) fit theories suggest job seekers exhibit positive responses when they match their environment (Carless 2005; Spokane 1985; Dawis and Lofquist 1984; Holland 1997). This notion is critical to the operationalization of person–organization fit—the compatibility between a job seeker and an organization’s culture, particularly concerning value, belief, and personality congruence (Kristof 1996; Chatman, 1989; Cable and Judge 1994; Turban and Keon 1993). During recruitment, job seekers form perceptions of PO fit through the degree to which they perceive fit between their values, beliefs, and personality and those of a target organization (Cable and Judge, 1996). These notions reflect the seminal PO fit research of both Tom (1971) and Schnieder (1987). Tom (1971), for example, suggests individuals prefer organizations personalities similar to their own; Schneider (1987) proposed the attraction–selection–attrition (ASA) model, which suggests individuals are attracted to, select into, and remain in organizations with incumbents similar to the job seeker. Further, research suggests PO fit has a positive relationship with relevant pre-hire outcomes such as organizational attraction, job choice intentions, job application intentions, and applicant job acceptance (Cable and Judge, 1996; Kristof-Brown et al. 2005, 2014; Van Hooft et al. 2006). Also, a Chapman et al. (2005) meta-analysis found PO fit to explain around 30% of the variance in organizational attraction.

However, given that 89% of organizations report some degree of virtual recruiting capability (Thakkar 2022), job seekers may find themselves interacting with software that provides PO fit feedback. For example, organizations like Harver and Success Finder provide cultural fit assessments that measure and align job seeker values, behaviors, and goals with those of participating organizations (Harver 2023; SuccessFinder 2023). Further, organizations like Pymetrics have leveraged gamification to assess personality fit and provide personalized feedback reports (Stephan and Erickson 2017). As such, these systems provide interactive, tailored, and real-time PO-type fit feedback, which has been shown to influence job seeker attention and attraction (Hu et al. 2007; Dineen et al. 2002; Huang 2022). In fact, previous internet-based PO fit feedback research found that the level of PO fit feedback was highly influential to perceived PO fit and organizational attraction (Dineen et al. 2002; Hu et al. 2007). For example, in one of the first studies on internet recruitment, Dineen et al. (2002) measured the perceived PO fit and organizational attraction of individuals after providing them with randomized fit feedback (e.g., “Your responses indicate that your likely fit with the OfficePro Culture would be 80% [40%]”) (p. 727). Here, those with high (80% fit) PO fit feedback perceived greater subjective PO fit and reported greater organizational attraction than those with low (40%) PO fit feedback. Further, a subsequent web-based recruitment study by Hu et al. (2007) demonstrated that those receiving high PO fit feedback reported greater levels of organizational attraction than those receiving low PO fit feedback and that subjective PO fit was related to organizational attraction. These findings follow the systematic–heuristic model of persuasion (Eagly and Chaiken, 1984) and social information processing theory (Salancik and Pfeffer 1978) in that personalized messages are more likely to play a role in influencing attitudes, in part due to their salience as environmental cues (Dineen et al. 2002). As such, given that previous research (Dineen et al. 2002; Hu et al. 2007) suggests PO fit feedback is influential in forming organizational perceptions, PE fit theories suggest individuals prefer organizational environments similar to themselves, positive recruitment outcomes are associated with PO fit, and positive fit feedback is influential to recruitment outcomes, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1

Participants will report greater Organizational Desirability when PO Fit Feedback is high fit versus high misfit.

Agreement with Person–Organization Fit Feedback

In addition to recognizing the salience of PO fit feedback in job seeker decision-making, it is important to understand that job seekers may not always agree with the feedback provided. This is because PO fit feedback can differ from the job seeker’s subjective fit perceptions (Dineen et al. 2002). For example, Dineen et al. (2002) found that the level of PO fit feedback provided was more strongly related to organizational attraction when agreement with PO fit feedback was high as opposed to low. Moreover, Hu et al. (2007) demonstrated that when PO fit feedback was consistent with subjective PO fit perceptions (e.g., low feedback with low subjective fit; high feedback with high subjective fit), attraction was greater than when it was inconsistent (e.g., high feedback with low subjective fit; low feedback with high subjective fit). These findings speak to the tenets of Schneider’s (1987) ASA model—in that job seekers wish to maintain congruence in forming pre-hire attitudes (Yu 2014).

Further understanding this psychology is important because it uncovers how job seekers manage PO fit during their search and speaks to “why they would want to fit in the first place” (Yu 2013, p. 22). For example, in managing and forming perceptions of fit, Yu’s (2013) motivational model of fit suggests that individuals “strive for consistency among aspects of the self, such as attitudes, beliefs, and behavior” (p. 23). This aspect of the motivational model of fit is considered the drive for consistency and is informed by cognitive dissonance theory (Yu 2013; Festinger 1957). The action-based model of cognitive dissonance theory, for example, helps explain rationalizations surrounding agreement with PO fit in that individuals may commit themselves to a course of action (e.g., perceiving fit) while minimalizing what is thought to be conflicting information (e.g., provided low fit) (Harmon-Jones and Mills 2019). Further, in defining the drive for consistency, Yu (2013) suggests that both positive and negative experiences influence motives to maintain consistency. In this regard, during the job search, a job seeker may agree with high PO fit feedback and intend to pursue employment (e.g., I agree with this PO fit feedback. Therefore, I am interested in this employer) (Yu 2013).

On the other hand, if a job seeker disagrees with low PO fit feedback, they may hold continued interest in employment to maintain consistency (e.g., I disagree with this misfit feedback. I am still interested in this employer) (Fishbach and Finkelstein 2012). As such, sense-making techniques may be employed in navigating one’s agreement with PO fit to either discount or rationalize the feedback (Brett and Atwater 2001; Fiske and Taylor 1991). Therefore, given that job seekers may not equally agree with PO fit feedback, and that this agreement has been demonstrated to influence recruitment outcomes (Dineen et al. 2002), we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2

PO Fit Feedback and Agreement with PO Fit Feedback will interact to affect Organizational Desirability such that when PO Fit Feedback is high fit, participants will report greater Organizational Desirability when Agreement with PO Fit Feedback is high; whereas when PO Fit Feedback is high misfit, participants will report greater Organizational Desirability when Agreement with PO Fit Feedback is low.

Organizational Prestige

Organizational prestige is a trait inference ascribed to an employer’s image (Lievens 2007; Highhouse et al. 2007). Employer image relates to a job seeker's beliefs about an organization as an employer (Cable and Turban 2001; Lievens and Slaughter 2016). Job seekers construe employer image representations into perceptions of external prestige (PEP). These perceptions are recognized as “an individual level interpretation or evaluation of organizational prestige based on [the job seeker’s] own information” on an employer (Ciftcioglu 2010b, p. 251). For example, aspects that influence perceptions of prestige include the quality of services, the ability to attract and retain talent, and the organization’s recognizability (Carmeli 2005; Dalton et al. 2020). Further, job seekers often recognize prestigious employers as being admired, prominent, or having status (Carmeli and Freund 2002; Highhouse et al. 2007; Zhu et al. 2021). For example, Fuller et al. (2006) suggest that perceptions regarding the “general prestige level of the workforce” (p. 834) may signify the organization’s quality, competence, social reputation, value, or worth. Many studies have found a positive relationship between organizational prestige and relevant outcomes such as organizational attraction (Younis and Hammad 2020; Cable and Turban, 2003; Collins and Stevens 2002; Yu 2014), application intentions (Zhang et al. 2022), pursuit intentions (Wayne and Casper 2012), organizational identification (Ciftcioglu 2010a; Mishra 2013), and pre-hire choices (Cable and Turban, 2003; Slaughter et al. 2004; Highhouse et al. 2003).

As a trait inference, employer prestige aligns with the symbolic aspect of the instrumental-symbolic framework (Lievens and Highhouse 2003). The instrumental-symbolic framework describes organizations’ tangible and intangible attributes (Lievens and Slaughter 2016). In differentiating potential employers, job seekers focus on instrumental and symbolic attributes (Katz, 1960; Shavitt, 1990; Lievens and Highhouse 2003; Nolan et al. 2013). Instrumental attributes of organizations are recognized as concrete, tangible, and utilitarian (e.g., pay and benefits). Symbolic attributes, on the other hand, are more abstract and relate to “information in the form of imagery and trait inferences” (e.g., prestige or social responsibility) (Lievens and Highhouse 2003, pp. 80–81). Instrumental attributes have been recognized as “hurdle[s]” in employment decisions in that symbolic attributes affected subsequent decisions only if a predetermined level of pay was met (Cable and Judge 1994, p. 320). However, prestigious firms are known to have high pay and desirable career mobility and likely surpass notional predetermined pay levels, for example (Zhu 2016). Further, symbolic attributes play a large role in employer differentiation, account for incremental variance in attraction above and beyond instrumental attributes, and predict job choice (Carter and Highhouse 2014; Lievens and Highhouse 2003; Zhu et al. 2021). Prestige, for example, is particularly salient as a symbolic attribute.

Theoretically, the theory of symbolic attraction (Highhouse et al. 2007) suggests that job seekers highlight and enhance their focus on symbolic attributes based on how they want to be seen by others (Carter and Highhouse 2014; Highhouse et al. 2007). Previous research suggests that individuals differ in the degree to which they are interested in being seen as respectable or impressive (Highhouse et al. 2007) and that both impressive (Highhouse et al. 2003) and respectable (Backhaus et al. 2002; Zhang and Gowan 2012) attributes are perceived to be attractive; yet, it is generally recognized that prestigious organizations are more salient identification targets (Ashforth and Mael 1989; Elstak et al. 2015). In this vein, De Roeck et al. (2016) identified perceived corporate social responsibility as a more distal influence on organizational identification than perceived external prestige. Further, aligning oneself with a prestigious organization has many prominent implications for self-worth, self-enhancement, and perceived social standing (Sedikides and Gregg 2008; Dutton and Dukerich 1991; Smidts et al. 2001; Nolan and Harold 2010; Mignonac et al. 2018). Unlike respectable organizations, job seekers may pursue employment with prestigious organizations to signal status, competence, or prominence to others or “bask in the reflected glory of the company’s success” (Slaughter and Greguras 2009).

As such, employer prestige is influential in the early stages of applicant reactions (Sharma & Tanwar, 2023; Lievens and Slaughter 2016). For example, job seekers may apply held perceptions of prestige and signals received regarding prestige in their initial evaluation of an employer’s products, services, staff, or job attributes. For example, Cable and Turban (2003) found employer reputation to be positively related to evaluations of job attributes, which concerned future earnings, career paths, and challenging work experiences, among others. Further, Daoust (2020) found that job seekers perceived the Big Four as having prestige, smart employees, and exciting work. Further, as mentioned, aligning oneself with a prestigious employer has many prominent implications for self-worth, self-enhancement, and perceived social standing (Sedikides and Gregg 2008; Dutton and Dukerich 1991; Smidts et al. 2001; Nolan and Harold 2010; Mignonac et al. 2018). To meet these needs, job seekers may “cognitively … identify themselves [the prestigious firm]” (Ashforth and Mael 1989, p. 25). These implications are supported by the social identification aspect of social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1985; Ashforth and Mael 1989) by which their subsequent self-image-enhancing rewards are “hugely influential” to job seekers (Yu 2014, p. 76; Wanous 1977). For example, Daoust (2020) found that job seekers perceived employment at prestigious firms to enhance their status and social standing among their peer group. Further, Daoust (2020) suggests that these job seekers “assessed their self-worth in terms of the success or failure of their attempt to obtain a Big Four position” (p. 18). Further, Cable and Turban (2003) found a positive relationship between employer reputation and anticipated pride from membership, which concerned identifying personally with the employer.

Both social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1958) and Yu’s (2013) motivational model of fit suggest individuals will vary in the degree to which they process fit when evaluating the symbolic attributes of employers. Considering social identity theory suggests individuals “strive for positive self-esteem” (Mignonac et al. 2006, p. 479) and that organizational prestige offers self-esteem enhancing implications (Ashforth and Mael 1989), it is expected that when job seekers disagree with provided PO fit feedback, they will discount low feedback from impressive organizations in their pursuit of the socioemotional-boosting benefits of employment. Similarly, the hedonistic aspect of Yu’s (2013) motivational model of fit suggests job seekers want to fit “in order to enjoy the positive outcomes that come from it” (Yu 2013, p. 24), such as personal status, prestige, or pride (Mignonac et al. 2018; Dutton and Dukerich 1991; Tyler and Blader 2003). Thus, an impressive employer image may drive job seekers to pursue employment in the face of misfit via hedonistic means (Yu 2013). Here, job seekers may pursue employment to align themselves with the targeted in-group, making them feel good or allowing them to move closer toward their ideal social self (Nolan and Harold 2010). However, when job seekers disagree with PO fit feedback, as opposed to misfit, they may intend to pursue through a consistency lens: “I disagree with this fit feedback; I am not interested in pursuing employment.” In this case, the prestigious organization and its subsequent in-group are not salient as a target, and the implications provided through employment are not as relevant to the job seeker. Pursuing employment would instigate dissonance and disrupt attitudinal consistency for these job seekers.

Further, research suggests applicants are likely to endure challenging selection practices when applying to prestigious organizations due to the perception that their prestige legitimizes their selection practices (Sumanth and Cable 2011; Hausknecht 2013). For example, while Sumanth and Cable (2011) found that high-status organizations were able to maintain job seeker attraction regardless of the selection test they administered, low-status organizations suffered in attractiveness. As such, it may be more dissonant for job seekers to pursue employment in the face of misfit when an organization is perceived to have low prestige. For example, when disagreeing with misfit feedback, a job seeker may think: “I disagree with the misfit feedback from the organization because I feel the selection test was illegitimate. I also am not interested in the firm. Therefore, I will not pursue.”

On the other hand, the drive for consistency aspect of Yu’s (2013) motivational model of fit would suggest that, in perceiving similar fit from either misfit or fit feedback, these job seekers are acting in ways that are congruent to being seen as honorable or good, similar to the respectable organization being evaluated. As such, a job seeker disagreeing with fit feedback from a prestigious organization may think, “I disagree with this fit feedback; like them, I have integrity and am good, so I must be honorable in my assessment and will not pursue.” Thus, job seekers may be more likely to discount misfit feedback and pursue employment at a prestigious organization to satisfy their social identity needs and maintain cognitive consistency. Therefore, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3

There will be a three-way interaction of PO Fit Feedback, Agreement with PO Fit Feedback, and Employer Image on Organizational Desirability such that when PO Fit Feedback is high misfit and Agreement with PO Fit Feedback is low, Organizational Desirability will be higher when the Employer Image is Prestigious (versus Respectable); whereas when PO Fit Feedback is high fit and Agreement with PO Fit Feedback is low, there will be no difference in Organizational Desirability between Prestigious or Respectable Employer Images.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Data were collected via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), which allowed an online population to investigate attitudes concerning online recruitment. The final sample was N = 413. These individuals were United States job seekers who passed study filter-outs and attention checks. Participants were determined to be job seekers by answering either Active (regularly searching for and applying to jobs) or Passive (open to alternative employment opportunities, but not actively applying) to the following filter-out question: Which choice most appropriately reflects your job seeker status? Participants were screened out if they (1) did not want to participate in the study (No, I do not want to participate in the study; N = 7), (2) were not searching for a job (Not searching (not considering alternative employment opportunities); N = 140), and/or (3) responded that they were full-time MTurk Workers (Yes; N = 524). 32 prospective participants did not answer the MTurk question and were therefore removed. In total, 703 prospective participants were screened out of the survey.

As mentioned, attention checks were used throughout the survey to mitigate insufficient response effort (Keith et al. 2017). Our attention check strategy included direct data screening methodology (DeSimone et al. 2015; Keith et al. 2017), which included several self-report indices throughout the survey (e.g., Please respond “Neither Agree nor Disagree;” Please respond “Strongly Agree”). For example, participants encountered attention checks in the following three parts of the survey: (1) the Organizational Culture Profile (OCP) questionnaire, (2) their randomly assigned condition, and (3) the individual difference measure section. N = 7 failed the OCP attention check, N = 44 failed the randomly assigned condition attention check, and N = 6 failed the individual difference attention check. In total, 57 participants failed attention checks and were removed from the final dataset.

The final sample reported a mean age of 34.23 years (SD = 9.42) and an average current job tenure of 5.84 years (SD = 5.43). 62.23% of participants identified as men and 37.50% identified as women. The majority of participants were White (76.33%), followed by Black or African American (11.44%), Hispanic or Latino (7.18%), Asian or Pacific Islander (3.19%), and American Indian and Alaska Native (1.86%). The majority of the sample held a bachelor’s degree (59.57%), followed by a master’s degree (29.26%), some college, no degree (3.46%), an associates degree (3.46%), a high school diploma or equivalent (2.13%), a doctoral or professional degree (1.86%), and less than high school (0.27%). The five most common industries were financial activities (21.81%), manufacturing (17.82%), professional and business services (16.22%), and management, administrative, and waste services (14.89%).

Participants completed a survey that was done in one sitting. The survey began by informing participants that they would engage with recruitment software built by the (fictitious) Hofstra University Industrial-Organizational Psychology Machine Learning Lab (HUIOMLL; see Fig. 1). Participants were unaware that the HUIOMLL was fictitious. We stated that the lab was dedicated to creating and testing new and innovative recruitment practices to benefit job seekers and organizations. Participants were informed that the system was designed to analyze work environment fit. Participants first answered twenty adapted items from O’Reilly et al.’s (1991) OCP to simulate matching software. The OCP acted as a bogus pipeline to legitimize the HUIOMLL back-end processes. This provided a medium to collect information about participants and convince them that the system was designed to compare their compatibility with participating organizations in the system. We did not analyze any data regarding the OCP. After the OCP, participants were informed that the HUIOMLL would determine their fit with one of the 50+ participating organizations (see Fig. 2). Participants were told company names were redacted for legal reasons but that participating organizations were from a wide variety of educational and occupational backgrounds. After, participants waited while the feedback system matched them with an organization (see Fig. 3). After a 5-s wait time, participants were informed they were matched with an organization and would first encounter a company description provided by the HUIOMLL. After, participants received fit feedback regarding the “similarity between [their] attributes and the company’s work environment.”

Fig. 1
figure 1

Study prompt 1 with detail encountered by job seekers

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Study prompt 2 encountered by job seekers

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Survey loading segue encountered by job seekers

Full size image

Company information contained a general description and an employer image description (see Figs. 4, 5). The general description detailed product, workforce, and client information (e.g., “Whether you’re a midsize organization or Fortune 50 company, our cloud-based systems give you deep insight into your business and the agility to adapt to change”). The employer image information was randomly assigned and was categorized by the HUIOMLL (e.g., The Hofstra University Industrial-Organizational Psychology Machine Learning Lab classifies [REDACTED] as prestigious [or socially responsible]). The categorization system was similar to a third-party ranking, identifying the organization as either prestigious or socially responsible. Employer image information was adapted from Carter and Highhouse (2014). Participants were then informed that they would be asked about their attitudes toward the organization. After, participants were randomly assigned PO fit feedback with the organization they evaluated. Feedback consisted of either high misfit, moderate misfit, moderate fit, or high fit. For example, participants receiving high fit received feedback stating, “It appears there are multiple noteworthy similarities between the culture of this organization and the ways you see yourself.” Following Dineen et al. (2002), we presented a graphic of fit feedback, which was provided irrespective of participant OCP responses. This graphic displayed the following range of fit feedback: High Misfit, Moderate Misfit, Moderate Fit, High Fit (see Fig. 6). We approached our manipulation of PO misfit through a construct specification lens, where misfit (as opposed to low fit) is meant to refine theory through its application to existing theory (Fisher and Aguinis 2017).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Impressive company manipulation encountered by job seekers

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Respectable company manipulation encountered by job seekers

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Graphic depicting “High Fit”

Full size image

We then measured agreement with PO fit feedback, organizational attractiveness, pursuit intentions, social-adjustment concern, and value-expression concern. All items were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale, with 1 being Strongly Disagree and 5 being Strongly Agree. Last, participants filled out demographic information and were given an MTurk survey code to receive credit.

Manipulation Check

In a pilot test, participants reported the impressive organization as more prestigious than the respectable organization t(74) = 2.71, p < 0.01, d = 0.62. This was measured using the following item: “This company is likely a prestigious employer.” Pilot data were not included in the final sample.

Regarding the HUIOMLL software, participants answered the following: “The feedback I received was informative” (M = 3.87, SD = 0.96), “Feedback like this would help me make better employment decisions” (M = 3.90, SD = 0.94), and “Feedback like this would be useful on company websites” (M = 3.79, SD = 0.95). These results suggest that job seekers found the feedback system informative, helpful, and useful.

Measures

Agreement with P–O Fit Feedback

We developed four items to assess participant agreement with P–O fit feedback. Items were as follows: “The feedback I received seemed accurate,” “I agree with the feedback I received,” “I think this feedback was correct,” and “The feedback I received was informative.” This scale demonstrated good reliability (α = 0.80).

Organizational Attractiveness

Organizational attractiveness was measured using four adapted items from Highhouse et al. (2003). Items were as follows: “I think this company would be a good place for me to work,” “This company is attractive to me as a potential employer,” “I’m interested in learning more about this company as an employer,” and “A job at this company is appealing to me.” This scale demonstrated acceptable reliability (α = 0.71).

Pursuit Intentions

Pursuit intentions were measured using two items, one adapted, from Highhouse et al. (2003). Items were as follows: “If this company invited me for a job interview, I would go” and “I would apply to a job at this company.” This scale demonstrated non-acceptable reliability (α = 0.58).

However, organizational attractiveness and pursuit intentions are often highly correlated (Turban and Keon 1993). Given the high correlation between organizational attractiveness and pursuit intentions in our study, it was worth investigating whether or not to collapse organizational attractiveness and pursuit intentions into one generalized factor (Cho et al. 2013). To test whether or not we should collapse these two measures, we conducted three separate confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). First, a two-factor CFA was conducted on organizational attractiveness and pursuit intentions and demonstrated adequate fit [CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.10, χ2(8) = 42.76, p < 0.001]. Second, a one-factor model tested all six items in one factor. This one-factor model demonstrated adequate fit: [CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.09, χ2(9) = 45.08, p < 0.001]. Last, a one-factor model was conducted that tested four select items from the organizational attractiveness (“This company is attractive to me as a potential employer” and “I’m interested in learning more about this company as an employer”) and pursuit intentions (“If this company invited me for a job interview, I would go” and “I would apply to a job at this company”) measures. Results supported this one-factor model as having the best fit: [CFI = 1.00, TLI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00, χ2(2) = 1.15, p = 0.56]. Therefore, we collapsed organizational attractiveness and pursuit intentions to create an Organizational Desirability measure.

Organizational Desirability

Organizational desirability was measured by combining two organizational attractiveness and two adapted pursuit intentions items from Highhouse et al. (2003). Items were as follows: “This company is attractive to me as a potential employer,” “I’m interested in learning more about this company as an employer,” “If this company invited me for a job interview, I would go,” and “I would apply to a job at this company.” This scale demonstrated acceptable reliability (α = 0.74).

Control Variables

Social-Adjustment Concern

Social-adjustment concern was measured using four items from Highhouse et al. (2007). The items were as follows: “It is important that the company I work for be popular and prestigious,” “Working for an impressive company would make me seem impressive to others,” “I want to work for a company that is perceived to be impressive,” and “I wonder if strangers would be impressed by where I work.” Given the job-seeking context (Schwarz 2007) of the study, we adapted the wording of the original item “It is important that the company [I work for] be popular and prestigious” by adding the phrase “…I work for….” This scale demonstrated minimally acceptable reliability (α = 0.68).

Value-Expression Concern

Value-expression concern was measured using four items from Highhouse et al. (2007). The items were as follows: “I would hope that the company I work for has an honorable reputation in the community,” “I believe where you work is an important part of who you are,” “It is important to work for a company that is scandal-free,” and “I want to be proud of the company I work for.” This scale demonstrated minimally acceptable reliability (α = 0.63).

However, previous studies (e.g., DeArmond and Crawford, 2011; Zhu et al. 2021) demonstrate a positive correlation between social-adjustment and value-expression concern and have investigated the two variables together (e.g., Searle et al. 2018; Younis and Hammad 2020). Therefore, given the correlation between and the current psychometric properties of our social-adjustment and value-expression concern measures, we explored collapsing them to create a single Self-Presentation Concern (Searle et al. 2018) measure. Our examination consisted of three separate CFAs. First, we conducted a two-factor CFA on social-adjustment concern and value-expression concern, which demonstrated marginal fit [CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.89, RMSEA = 0.07, χ2(19) = 61.67, p < 0.001]. Second, we conducted a one-factor model that tested all eight social-adjustment and value-expression concern items. This one-factor model demonstrated mediocre fit: [CFI = 0.86, TLI = 0.81, RMSEA = 0.09, χ2(20) = 93.91, p < 0.001]. Last, a one-factor model was conducted that tested four items from the social-adjustment concern measure (“It is important that the company I work for be popular and prestigious,” “Working for an impressive company would make me seem impressive to others,” “I want to work for a company that is perceived to be impressive,” and “I wonder if strangers would be impressed by where I work.”) and two items from the value-expression concern measure (“I believe where you work is an important part of who you are” and “It is important to work for a company that is scandal-free”). Results suggest this one-factor model had the best fit: [CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.06, χ2(9) = 23.26, p < 0.01]. Therefore, we collapsed social-adjustment concern and value-expression concern to create a self-presentation concern measure.

Self-Presentation Concern

Self-presentation concern was measured using four items from the social-adjustment concern scale and two from the value-expression concern scale. The items from the social-adjustment concern scale were as follows: “It is important that the company I work for be popular and prestigious,” “Working for an impressive company would make me seem impressive to others,” “I want to work for a company that is perceived to be impressive,” and “I wonder if strangers would be impressed by where I work.” The items from the value-expression concern scale were as follows: “I believe where you work is an important part of who you are” and “It is important to work for a company that is scandal-free.” This scale demonstrated acceptable reliability (α = 0.72).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We assessed the overall model fit in jamovi 2.3.18 (The Jamovi Project 2021). We tested three models: (1) a five-factor model (agreement with PO fit feedback, organizational attractiveness, pursuit intentions, social-adjustment concern, and value-expression concern), (2) a four-factor model (agreement with PO fit feedback, organizational desirability, social-adjustment concern, and value-expression concern), and (3) a three-factor model (agreement with PO fit feedback, organizational desirability, and self-presentation concern). The five-factor model demonstrated adequate fit: [CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.04, χ2(125) = 200.7, p < 0.001]. The four-factor model demonstrated improved fit: [CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.03, χ2(98) = 140.3, p < 0.001]. Last, the three-factor model demonstrated the best fit: [CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.02, χ2(74) = 83.96, p = 0.20]. Given these fit statistics, we proceeded with the three-factor model.

Results

To test our hypotheses, we employed a general linear model (GLM) with a 4 (PO Fit Feedback: high misfit, moderate misfit, moderate fit, high fit) × 2 (Employer Image: Impressive, Respectable) × Continuous (Agreement with PO Fit Feedback) between-subjects design, incorporating Self-Presentation Concern as a control variable. The GLM unifies analysis of variance (ANOVA) and multiple-regression analysis techniques (Feingold 2013), which allows for categorical and continuous independent variables. PO Fit Feedback and Employer Image were subjected to dummy coding in jamovi. The continuous variables, Agreement with PO Fit Feedback and Self-Presentation Concern, were mean-centered in jamovi. This mean-centering procedure was instrumental in reducing multicollinearity and enhancing the interpretability of the interaction effects within the GLM.

The GLM tested the main effects of PO Fit Feedback, Agreement with PO Fit Feedback, and Employer Image. The GLM also tested the interaction between PO Fit Feedback and Agreement with PO Fit Feedback. This was operationalized by multiplying the dummy variables of PO Fit Feedback with the mean-centered Agreement with PO Fit Feedback. Last, a higher-order, three-way interaction term was also constructed, combining PO Fit Feedback, Agreement with PO Fit Feedback, and Employer Image. This involved multiplying the two-way interaction terms with the dummy variable for Employer Image. By including these interaction terms, the model was equipped to explore the nuanced interplay between fit feedback, agreement levels, and employer image in shaping Organizational Desirability, while controlling for the effects of Self-Presentation Concern. The means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations of study-relevant variables are reported in Table 1.

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations for study-relevant variables
Full size table

First, we investigated the main effect of PO Fit Feedback on Organizational Desirability. Hypothesis 1 proposed that participants who received high fit PO Fit Feedback would perceive greater Organizational Desirability than those who received high misfit PO Fit Feedback. We did not find support for this hypothesis, F(3, 412) = 1.42, p = 0.24, η2 < 0.001.

Next, we investigated the interaction of PO Fit Feedback and Agreement with PO Fit Feedback on Organizational Desirability. Hypothesis 2 proposed that when PO Fit Feedback is high fit, participants would report greater Organizational Desirability when Agreement with PO Fit Feedback is high; whereas when PO Fit Feedback is high misfit, participants would report greater Organizational Desirability when Agreement with PO Fit Feedback is low. Results suggest a significant interaction between PO Fit Feedback and Agreement with PO Fit Feedback on Organizational Desirability, F(4, 412) = 4.38, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.02. Simple effects analyses were conducted to further investigate Hypothesis 2. Results suggest that when Agreement with PO Fit Feedback is high, Organizational Desirability was greater when PO Fit Feedback was high fit (M = 4.28, 95% CI 4.13 to 4.43) versus high misfit (M = 4.01, 95% CI 3.87 to 4.16, t =  − 2.56, p < 0.05). Further, simple effects results suggest that when Agreement with PO Fit Feedback is low, Organizational Desirability was greater when PO Fit Feedback was high misfit (M = 3.59, 95% CI 3.46 to 3.72) versus high fit (M = 3.25, 95% CI 3.05 to 3.44, t = 2.87, p < 0.01). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

Last, we investigated the three-way interaction of PO Fit Feedback, Agreement with PO Fit Feedback, and Employer Image on Organizational Desirability. Hypothesis 3 proposed that when PO Fit Feedback is high misfit and Agreement with PO Fit Feedback is low, Organizational Desirability would be higher when the Employer Image is Prestigious (versus Respectable); whereas when PO Fit Feedback is high fit and Agreement with PO Fit Feedback is low, there would be no difference in Organizational Desirability between Prestigious or Respectable Employer Images. As shown in Table 2, Hypothesis 3 was found to be significant, F(4, 412) = 4.51 p < 0.001, η2 = 0.02. Simple effects tests (see Table 3) were conducted to investigate Hypothesis 3 further. Simple effects results suggest that when PO Fit Feedback is high misfit and Agreement with PO Fit Feedback is low, Organizational Desirability was greater when the Employer Image was Prestigious (M = 3.76, 95% CI 3.59 to 3.93) versus Respectable (M = 3.43, 95% CI 3.27 to 3.58, t =  − 3.26, p < 0.001). Further, results suggest that there is no difference in Organizational Desirability between Prestigious or Respectable Employer Images when PO Fit Feedback is high fit and Agreement with PO Fit Feedback is low (t =  − 0.39, p = 0.69). See Table 4 for estimated marginal means. These findings support Hypothesis 3. It is important to note that the higher-order three-way interaction (see Figs. 7, 8), demonstrated in Hypothesis 3, supersedes the lower-order interaction of PO Fit Feedback and Agreement with PO Fit Feedback in Hypothesis 2.

Table 2 Results of GLM ANCOVA Omnibus tests demonstrating a three-way interaction of PO Fit Feedback, Agreement with PO Fit Feedback, and Employer Image on Organizational Desirability
Full size table
Table 3 Simple effects of Employer Image
Full size table
Table 4 Estimated marginal means for the three-way interaction of PO Fit Feedback, Agreement with PO Fit Feedback, and Employer Image on Organizational Desirability
Full size table
Fig. 7
figure 7

The interaction of PO Fit Feedback, Agreement with PO Fit Feedback, and Employer Image on Organizational Desirability at the High Misfit level

Full size image
Fig. 8
figure 8

The interaction of PO Fit Feedback, Agreement with PO Fit Feedback, and Employer Image on Organizational Desirability at the High Fit level

Full size image

Discussion

PO fit research is commonly recognized through the lens of actual self-congruence (Wille et al. 2018). However, research has called for the need to better understand “what drives individuals toward … misfit” (Yu 2013, p. 21). To further investigate this phenomenon, we built upon Dineen et al. (2002), applied PO misfit to an online fit feedback mechanism, and investigated job seeker reactions to misfit pre-hire. We also investigated the qualifying effect of employer image on job seeker construal of misfit, given that it is an important predictor of many pre-hire outcomes (Younis and Hammad 2020; Cable and Turban, 2003; Collins and Stevens 2002; Ciftcioglu 2010a; Mishra 2013) and may offer self-enhancing benefits. We aimed to legitimize the symbolic attributes of our impressive and respectable organizations by categorizing them via a third-party mechanism (Dineen et al. 2019). Thus, building off tenets of cognitive dissonance theory (Harmon-Jones & Mills 2019), the motivational model of PE fit (Yu 2013), social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1985), and the theory of symbolic attraction (Highhouse et al. 2007), we put forth the idea that when job seekers disagreed with misfit feedback, they would discount it when evaluating an impressive or prestigious organization. This is due to the notion that organizational prestige has various implications for self-enhancement. In pursuit of these temporary image-enhancement effects, our research suggests that impressive employer images may drive job seekers toward ill-fitting situations.

Further, our study contributes a novel perspective to understanding job seeker reactions to PO fit feedback. Previously, it has been posited that positive PO fit feedback would enhance pre-hire reactions (Dineen et al. 2002; Hu et al. 2007). However, misfit is believed to be “malleable and subject to modification by … cognitions and actions” (Follmer et al. 2018, p. 3). This notion provides a potential theoretical explanation for why high misfit did not affect job seeker perceptions as low fit did in Dineen et al. (2002) and Hu et al. (2007). Yet, our findings offer a more nuanced scenario in which agreement with PO fit feedback plays a salient role. Results from our second hypothesis suggest job seekers engage in processes where they assess and manage PO fit feedback in a way that provides cognitive consistency. This finding is in line with Yu’s (2013) motivational model of fit and the notion that job seekers “strive for consistency” when faced with fit-based decision scenarios (p. 23). For example, relative to high misfit feedback, we found that organizational desirability was higher when job seekers agreed with high fit feedback and lower when they disagreed with high fit feedback. This finding aligns with the consistency notions proposed earlier: I agree with this PO fit feedback; Therefore, I am interested in this employer, and I disagree with this misfit feedback; I am still interested in this employer. Therefore, this result suggests that job seekers do not just passively accept the feedback provided during recruitment. Rather, they carefully process feedback and work to maintain consistency in the degree to which they believe the feedback to be true.

Finally, the main finding of our study suggests that job seekers dismiss misfit feedback from prestigious organizations. This suggests job seekers continue to find employment at prestigious firms, as opposed to respectable ones, desirable due to the unique salience of their instrumental and symbolic attributes. For example, many prestigious organizations yield significant instrumental benefits such as financial independence and access to wealth (Donnelly and Gamsu 2019; Cui 2020), “attractive” career opportunities beyond employment (Zhu 2016, p. 14), and access to social and professional networks (Zhu 2016; Cui 2020). On the other hand, the symbolic attributes of prestigious employers offer job seekers self-enhancement benefits and enhanced social status and standing (Donnelly and Gamsu 2019; Mignonac et al. 2018). For example, our third hypothesis suggests that job seekers who disagreed with high misfit feedback found the prestigious organization more desirable. As mentioned, this suggests job seekers actively assess PO fit feedback against their career aspirations and self-perceptions. This process reflects a job seekers’ pursuit of congruence between their self-identity and organization they wish to join (Nolan and Harold 2010). However, in the context of recruitment, misfit feedback from a prestigious organization may generate dissonance between the job seekers’ desire to align with a high-status employer and the reality of a potential misfit. This suggests that the allure of prestige may lead job seekers to rationalize or minimize adverse aspects of recruitment feedback, such as misfit. Therefore, our findings underscore a potential risk for both the job seeker, who may pursue an ill-fitting role or organizational culture to satisfy self- or career-enhancing needs, and the organization, which may hire a candidate who is not the best fit.

Theoretical Implications

Our work makes several notable theoretical contributions to the recruitment literature. First, we attempt to refine and elaborate theory (Fisher and Aguinis 2017) through the inclusion of misfit (Follmer et al. 2018) in our fit feedback mechanism. While Dineen et al. (2002) and Hu et al. (2007) apply a high-low approach to PO fit feedback, our study includes four levels of fit: high fit, moderate fit, moderate misfit, and high misfit. Second, our study is the first to examine employer image and organizational prestige in a fit feedback context. Understanding the role employer image plays in job seeker perceptions of fit is critical in that symbolic attributes are salient differentiators of organizations among noise and account for incremental variance in attraction over instrumental attributes (Carter and Highhouse 2014; Lievens and Highhouse 2003). Further, given the self-enhancing aspects of prestigious organizations, we thought it would be possible that job seekers would discount misfit feedback in their pursuit of working toward their ideal self, working to meet self-enhancing needs, or working to meet career-enhancing needs. This is consistent with social identity theory, which, in an organizational context (Ashforth and Mael 1989), emphasizes the effect of prestige on in-group identification. It is also consistent with the hedonistic drive of the motivational model of fit (Yu 2013) and image congruity theory (Nolan and Harold 2010). As such, our findings demonstrate the salience of employer image in this context. We found that, when disagreeing with misfit feedback, job seekers reported greater organizational desirability for impressive organizations over respectable organizations. This finding suggests that when job seekers received misfit feedback from the prestigious organization, they disagreed with the feedback in an effort to align themselves with this prestigious in-group and momentarily gain a boost in self-worth or perceived social status (Mignonac et al. 2018).

Practical Implications

Our study suggests the image-enhancing benefits of prestigious organizations are alluring to job seekers, enough that job seekers are willing to pursue prestigious organizations in the face of misfit. Given the established links between pursuit intentions and job acceptance intentions (e.g., Saks et al., 1995), job seekers would likely be attracted to and self-select into organizations where they are recognized misfits. This process is problematic not only because misfit is recognized to cause pain and discomfort (Follmer et al. 2018), but also because low PO fit is more strongly related to turnover (Kristof-Brown et al. 2005).

Many anecdotal accounts highlight this discomfort in blogs and the popular press. For example, headlines such as “Graduates who flock to Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and big law in search of prestige might be in for a harsh wake-up call only a few years later” (Lebowitz 2018), “The Unhealthy Desire For Prestige And Money Is Ruining Your Life” (Financial Samurai, 2020), and “How Top-Performing College Grads Fall Into the ‘Prestige Career’ Trap” (Sofian, 2019) suggest a recognized prestige-seeking misfit cycle. For example, Daoust (2020) noted that students felt “devastated,” “emotionally distraught,” and like their “life was over” when they were out of the running for employment at prestigious organizations (p. 14). Nevertheless, many were so invested in obtaining employment at a prestigious firm that they “could not let go of [their] desire to keep on playing” (p. 15).

As such, this study offers a useful perspective for job applicants to be more discerning in their job search by considering the consequences of pursuing employment with organizations where there is a misfit.

Provided applicants are willing to invest more bandwidth in these applicants, organizations may benefit from gathering more applicant information to assist in screening out employees who may be misaligned. Job applicants and organizations may simultaneously benefit from the further customization of fit feedback of these assessments. Enhancing the salience of the experience of misfit may be enough to nudge job seekers toward a more well-fitting situation. Further, raising awareness of potential misfit situations and encouraging applicants to consider further professional or skill development before proceeding may be helpful in nudging job seekers away from misfit. The findings of assessment feedback and potential misfit may benefit career counselors, professional development coaches, and third-party recruitment agencies.

Next, organizations may consider including anecdotal accounts of those who decided the process was not for them. Enhanced transparency and accounts from current or previous employees may offer more accurate descriptions of the organizational culture and allow applicants to opt out of the selection process. This approach may be practical because many websites and recruitment materials contain only positive accounts of the organization and alignment with organizational branding and marketing initiatives. Allowing potential employees to experience the organization's authenticity through strategic branding can encourage applicants to make more informed decisions. These implications can positively impact job applicants, talent acquisition and human resource teams, recruitment agencies, and organizations. Future research would be needed to explore this notion. Last, prestigious organizations can enact buddy systems for misfits interested in employment. These systems may help misfits maintain a sense of identity with the desired in-group, while taking a step back to work on the professional or technical skills necessary for employment.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Research Directions

Our study offers several strengths. First, we are the first to incorporate and investigate employer image and organizational prestige in a web-based feedback context. This approach allowed us to uncover symbolic attributes’ salience in driving job seekers to pursue employment, particularly in the face of misfit. Second, the experimental nature of our design allows for causal inference in our claims regarding the effect PO fit feedback has on organizational desirability. Last, the diversity and representativeness of our sample suggests generalizability to the greater population of job seekers. Our study, however, is not without limitations.

First, while PO fit feedback and employer image were manipulated, study variables agreement with PO fit feedback, organizational attraction, pursuit intentions, social-adjustment concern, and value-expression concern were self-reported in one sitting. This raises concerns surrounding common method bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003). However, we believe the self-reported nature of measuring agreement with PO fit feedback, organizational attraction, pursuit intentions, social-adjustment concern, and value-expression concern in one sitting is justified in that job seekers are often evaluating and becoming familiar with organizations on the spot (Uggerslev et al. 2012; Hu et al. 2007). However, we invite future research to replicate our findings by applying different designs or data collection methods. Further, while we were interested in the motivations behind pursuit intentions through PO fit and organizational prestige effects, future research might consider investigating their effect on other relevant outcomes to the recruitment literature.

Second, while we recognize the importance of thorough scale utilization for robust psychometric properties, we opted to include fewer items per scale across each measure included in our study. Our decision to minimize the number of items per measure was driven by a concern for participant fatigue, redundancy, and a desire to enhance overall engagement (Schwarz 2007). However, our reduction of items may have negatively impacted scale αs, as indicated by low α coefficient across Pursuit Intentions, Social-Adjustment Concern, and Value-Expression Concern measures, in particular. This led us to collapse Organizational Attraction and Pursuit Intentions into an Organizational Desirability measure and Social-Adjustment Concern and Value-Expression Concern into a Self-Presentation Concern measure. Future research could benefit from exploring our findings using psychometrically robust measures and participant-friendly designs.

Last, research may consider more nuanced approaches in their fit feedback, such as anchoring an average level of fit compared to the job seeker’s fit. Moreover, more research is needed on the misfit construct and how job seekers respond to it during the search. While previous research suggested low-fitting job seekers would perceive lower organizational attraction, attitudes toward PO misfit, in particular, may differ from those regarding low PO fit. For example, one justification for why support was not found for hypothesis 1 is that misfit is believed to be “malleable and subject to modification by … cognitions and actions” (Follmer et al. 2018, p. 3).

Conclusion

In this study, we demonstrated the effect employer image has on organizational desirability. This finding is notable in that it highlights a key driver behind the motivation to fit. Prestigious organizations supply job seekers with a number of self-enhancing benefits. Job seekers may be willing to endure misfit in their pursuit of those benefits. In particular, our three-way interaction of PO fit feedback, agreement with PO fit, and employer image provides evidence for the notion that job seekers dismiss unfavorable feedback from prestigious employers. The self-enhancing benefits of aligning oneself with a prestigious in-group may to temporarily cancel out the negative connotations behind misfit. These findings align with established theories of cognitive dissonance, social identity, and motivational models of fit. We hope this work will inspire more researchers to investigate the implications misfit and organizational prestige hold in applicant reactions and job choice.