Attracting Generation 1

8/2/2019 Attracting Generation 1

1/20

Career Development Internationalmerald Article: Attracting Generation Y graduates: Organisationalttributes, likelihood to apply and sex differences

iri Terjesen, Susan Vinnicombe, Cheryl Freeman

rticle information:

o cite this document: Siri Terjesen, Susan Vinnicombe, Cheryl Freeman, (2007),"Attracting Generation Y graduates: Organisational

ributes, likelihood to apply and sex differences", Career Development International, Vol. 12 Iss: 6 pp. 504 - 522

rmanent link to this document:

p://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620430710821994

ownloaded on: 26-03-2012

eferences: This document contains references to 69 other documents

o copy this document: [email protected]

his document has been downloaded 5172 times.

ccess to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MARA

or Authors:

you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service.

formation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Additional help

r authors is available for Emerald subscribers. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

bout Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

ith over forty years' experience, Emerald Group Publishing is a leading independent publisher of global research with impact in


2/20

Attracting Generation Y graduatesOrganisational attributes, likelihood to apply

and sex differences

Siri TerjesenBrisbane Graduate School of Business, Queensland University of Technology,

Brisbane, Australia, and

Susan Vinnicombe and Cheryl FreemanCranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, UK

Abstract

Purpose Building on person-organisation fit and gender self-schema, this research aims to examineUK university final year students perception of the importance of organisational attributes and theirpresence in three major graduate employers. This study also seeks to explore which organisationalattributes attract Generation Y men and women to apply to a management trainee position.

Design/methodology/approach In phase one, 32 repertory grid interviews identify 84 commonconstructs in undergraduates organisational choice. A short list of 20 organisational attributes wascarried forward to the phase two survey of 862 undergraduates in their final year at 22 UKuniversities. The respondents rate the attributes in terms of importance and then evaluate threeemployers in terms of perceived presence of these attributes. The students also provide the likelihood

that they would apply. T-tests, correlation and multiple regression are used to test hypotheses.Findings Among university students, the five most important organisational attributes are: investheavily in the training and development of their employees care about their employees asindividuals clear opportunities for long-term career progression variety in daily work anddynamic, forward-looking approach to their business. Sex differences exist in both the importance oforganisational attributes and the perceived extent of their presence in three organisations. Indescribing an ideal employer, women rate eight attributes as more important than do their malecounterparts: really care about their employees as individuals variety in your daily work friendly,informal culture employ people with whom you feel you will have things in common use yourdegree skills relatively stress-free working environment internationally diverse mix of colleaguesrequire you to work standard working hours only. Compared to women, men rate just one attributeas more important: a very high starting salary. The perception of presence of these importantattributes is significantly linked to likelihood to apply.

Practical implications Recruiting firms can better understand how Generation Y men andwomen graduates perceive the importance of organisational attributes and their presence in firms.

Originality/value The paper represents a seminal study relating organisational attributes to likely

applicant behaviour across a large number of UK university undergraduates.

Keywords Graduates, Recruitment, Employment, Gender, Job applications, United Kingdom

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionAttracting applicants is central to recruiting (Barber, 1998; Rynes, 1991) as firmsestablish a pool of applicants who are both attractive to the organisation and attracted

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2006 Academy of Management Meeting.

CDI12,6

504

Received February 2007Revised May 2007Accepted May 2007

areer Development InternationalVol. 12 No. 6, 2007

p. 504-522q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

362-0436

DOI 10.1108/13620430710821994
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htmhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm


3/20

to the organisation (Wanous, 1992). In the graduate recruitment market, firms investlarge amounts of time and money to attract applications from soon-to-be minteduniversity graduates for management trainee, professional and technical positions(Breaugh, 1992; Rynes and Boudreau, 1986). As women are the fastest growing sectionof the labour force, recruiters are especially interested in attracting female talent.

The graduate recruitment process begins with the organisation communicating valuesand image through publicity and advertising. Potential graduate applicants then evaluatetheir understanding of the organisation and make a decision to apply or not to apply(Herriot, 1984). As organisations are extremely selective with candidates, they need toattract a large number of applications at an early stage to ensure a diverse applicant pool.For example, if there are insufficientapplications fromwomen, the make-up of new joinersto an organisation will inevitably be male-dominated. Significant sex differences in newgraduate applicant attraction outcomes have been noted (Connerley et al., 2003), andscholars and practitioners have called for further research.

In particular,researchershighlight the needfor better understanding of the process anddynamics of recruitment decision making (Breaugh, 1992; Breaugh and Starke, 2000) andfactors related to applicant attraction (Connerley et al., 2003; Powell and Goulet, 1996;Rynes, 1991), including analysis by sex (Thomas and Wise, 1999). A growing body ofresearch explores recruiters perceptions of applicants (Varma et al., 2006), however, weknow little about applicant impressions, particularly of different potential employers.Organisational attributes are a key factor in applicant attraction (Rynes, 1991) and anapplicants positive first impression of an organisation increases the likelihood ofpost-interview attraction (Turban et al., 1998) and offer acceptance (Powell and Goulet,

1996). Following their meta-analysis of 242 US studies of sex differences and similaritiesin job attribute preferences, Konrad et al. (2000) call for research on intrinsic reasons,internalisation of gender roles and stereotypes and nationally representative samples. TheKonrad et al. (2000) meta-analysis also reveals generational differences in job attributepreferences by gender and sex, suggesting the need for research on the next generation to

join the labour force and also on extensions to organisation (rather than job) attributes.Furthermore, graduates initial expectations about future employers influence careerexpectations (Scholarios et al., 2003) and their socialisation in firms (Garavan and Morley,1997). As extant research on applicant attraction is criticised for its atheoretical nature, weanswer calls for research at various recruitment stages and the development of newmodels (Turban and Dougherty, 1992; Wanous and Colella, 1989) and theory-basedapproaches to recruitment (Breaugh and Starke, 2000), sex and gender (Konrad et al.,2000). We incorporate gender self-schemaand person-organisation fit perspectivesinto ananalysis of organisational attribute preferences.

Our research examines graduate applicants preferences at the beginning of therecruitment process when many make theinitial decision to submit an application. We areinterested in which organisational attributes attract Generation Y men and womengraduates to apply fora job and theperceived presence of these attributes in three popularUK graduate employers: a management consultancy, an investment bank and a mediacorporation.Corporate recruitersare keento attract high numbersof both men and womenapplicants (Barber, 1998) and to understand potential applicants desired organisationalattributes and their assessment of these attributes in their organisation, and we hope ourresearch will also be interesting to these stakeholders. To our knowledge, this is the firststudy to measure sex differences in desired organisational attributes and their presence in

AttractingGeneration Y

graduates

505


4/20

three organisations and the likelihood to apply. Most extant research explores job, ratherthan organisation, attributes (Konrad et al., 2000). We extend earlier work by usingrepertory grid interviews to ask students to identify important organisational attributes.We then evaluate the importance of these attributes in a study of Generation Y final yearuniversity undergraduate students in the UK.

This paper proceeds as follows. First, we review two complementary theories,gender self-schema and person-organisation fit, and develop hypotheses. Second, thesample and two phase, qualitative (repertory grid interview) and quantitative (internetsurvey) methodology is laid out, followed by an explanation of the variables. Third, wepresent our results regarding organisational attributes, perceptions of organisations,

and the relationship to likelihood to apply. We specifically examine these findings inthe context of one employer, a management consultancy. Finally, we discuss ourfindings, offering implications for the recruiting practice as well as future research.

Theoretical backgroundThis paper distinguishes between occupational (e.g. job) choice and organisationalchoice, focusing on the latter. Two theoretical perspectives are reviewed and extended:gender self-schema and person-organisation fit. Both theories are concerned with anindividuals self-assessment, social categorisation and identification.

Gender self-schemaSelf-schema is an individuals psychological construction of self based on a number ofaspects, most commonly gender. Konrad et al. (2000) and Eddleston et al. (2006) describe

how gender self-schemas are developed from childhood and are defined as interrelatednetworks of mental associations representing information about the sexes that influenceinformation processing (Ruble and Martin, 1998, p. 987). There are two classifications ofgender self-schema: male gender self-schema (associated with masculinity and careerroles) and female gender self-schema (associated with femininity and family roles) (Bem,1981). Generally, male gender self-schema are based on roles, norms, values and beliefswhich are considered appropriate for men. In contrast, female gender self-schema arelargely based on roles, norms, values and beliefs held about women. Individuals usuallyseek gender self-schemawhich reflects their sex (Bem, 1981), although there are individualdifferences in the extent of incorporation of gender stereotypes and roles in self-schema.An important component of self-schema is how individuals see themselves in relationshipto others. Relational theory (Miller, 1976) has been used to describe how women develop asense of self and personal worth is shaped by a sense of connection to others. Womenspend a large proportion of their livesto helping others, and develop important skills such

as authenticity, openness, care and compassion. This relational model is in contrast tomainstream male-dominated models, and may emerge from girls relationships with theirmothers, in contrast to boys desired autonomy (Chodorow, 1978).

Most research on gender self-schema and work preferences focuses on individuals atlater stagesof their careers. We areunaware of previous studies of organisational attributesat the applicant attraction phase in the UK However, Konrad et al.s (2000) meta-analysis ofUS studies of job attribute preferences report significant sex differences consistent withgender roles and stereotypes, particularly the gender stereotype that interpersonalrelationships aremore important to women.Based on Williams and Best (1990) and Konradet al. (2000) summarize the masculine roles (and corresponding job attributes) as follows:

CDI12,6

506


5/20

income provider (earnings, benefits, security and openings), dominance (leadership,responsibility and power), aggression (power), achievement (opportunities for promotion,challenge, task significance and accomplishment), autonomy (freedom/autonomy),exhibition (prestige, recognition) and endurance (challenge, not physical workenvironment). Feminine roles (and corresponding job attributes) are as follows:homemaker (good hours, easy commute, location, not opportunities for travel), affiliation(opportunities to make friends, working with people, not solitude), nurturance(opportunities to help others), succorance (good co-workers, good supervisor), deference(not leadership) and abasement (not power) (Konrad et al., 2000).

Early research on men and women managers argues that the traditional role for men

is income provision, hence men should be more likely to place a higher importance onsalary (Lacy et al., 1980). Recent research reports that men are more likely to indicatepreferences for attributes which are consistent with male gender self-schema andmasculine stereotypes. Attributes such as pay and status represent objective careersuccess (Nicholson, 2000). In their careers, womens satisfaction is linked to thedevelopment of interpersonal relationships (Powell and Mainiero, 2003). Whencompared with their female counterparts, Eddleston et al. (2006) finds that malemanagers are more likely to prefer status-based career satisfiers and less likely to prefersocio-emotional career satisfiers. Furthermore, self-schema better explain womenmanagers preferences: women managers gender self-schema mediate the relationshipbetween sex and socioemotional career satisfiers, however men managers self-schemado not mediate the relationship to status-based career satisfiers (Eddleston et al., 2006).Our study differs from this previous work by focusing on organisation, rather than job,attributes and illuminating sex differences. We suspect that women and mensorganisational attribute preferences will be strongly linked to genderself-schema. Basedon the above discussion, we expect the following:

H1. Male students will be more likely than female students to indicate a higherimportance for masculine role and stereotype organisation attributes.

H2. Female students will be more likely than male students to indicate a higherimportance for feminine role and stereotype organisation attributes.

As described above, gender self-schema is focused on the individual level. We nowprobe more deeply at the link to the organisation, and explore theoretical explanationsbased on person-organisation fit.

Person-organisation fitThe application of the person-organisation fit theory to recruitment is derived from the

attraction-selection-attrition model (Schneider, 1987) which describes how individualsseek organisations which they perceive to have characteristics similar to their own.These ideas were extended to person-organisation fit theory which describes the extentof congruence of patterns between individuals values and those of an organisation(Chatman, 1989). The person-organisation fit literature is concerned with howindividuals select organisations to join and generally focuses on the later stages of therecruitment process. For example, individuals who perceive a closer fit to theorganisation to which they have been recruited are more likely to adjust quickly and feelmost satisfied (Chatman, 1991). Perceived fit is an important early step in the matchingmodel of individuals and organisations in the recruiting process (Wanous, 1992).


graduates

507


6/20

An extensive body of person-organisation fit literature explores how individuals areattracted to organisations with attributes aligned to their personal characteristics(Cable and Judge, 1994, 1996; Chatman, 1989, 1991; Tom, 1971). Person-organisation fitis robust across a range of contexts, including a study of graduate applicants to anAustralian media corporation (Carless, 2005). A recent meta-analysis of 71 studiesreveals that characteristics of organisations predict applicant attraction outcomes(Chapman et al., 2005). Thus, individuals who perceive a strong fit with an organistaionwill be attracted to apply and join that organisation. Coupled with the theory ofreasoned action (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980), person-organisation fitsuggests that, graduates preferences for organisation attributes will influence their

intentions to apply. Following this line of thinking, we propose the following:

H3. There will be a positive relationship between the perceived attractiveness ofthe attributes of the organisation and the likelihood to apply.

Finally, we are interested in the salience of these ideas in the context of a specificemployer, a management consultancy.

Data and methodologyDataThe subjects are Generation Y full-time undergraduates at the top 22 UK universities(identified from the Financial Times 2001 league table of the 100 top UK universities)who were looking for a job, but not yet in possession of an offer. Subjects are alsodisqualified if they reported that they had been in contact with recruiters from one of

the organisations which they were evaluating, as recruiter behaviour can influenceapplicants perceptions (Turban and Dougherty, 1992; Turban et al., 1998) andapplicants ingratiation can also affect outcomes (Varma et al., 2006).

MethodologyThis study is based on a two-phase, dual qualitative and quantitative approach.In phase one, 32 repertory grid interviews identified the attributes that undergraduatesuse to differentiate between ten potential employers. In phase two, a short-list of 20attributes was used in a survey collected from 862 students.

Repertory grid interviews (Phase one)In phase one, we utilised the repertory grid technique, a rigorous and systematiccognitive mapping method which helps individuals make sense of their world.Originally developed for use in psychology by Kelly (1955), repertory grid methodology

has high reliability and has been used to develop many key contributions inmanagement and strategy (Wright, 2006). The repertory grid interview process elicitsrespondents perceptions of elements and helps generate conversation and engagement(CPCS, 1993). See Kelly (1955) and Easterby-Smith (1980) for detailed reviews of therepertory grid methodology and Wright (2004) for an application.

We conducted repertory grid interviews of approximately 90 minutes each with32 students. In this study, the elements were nine potential employers and a tenthconceptual ideal employer. The employers were identified from recent studies of themost popular graduate employers in the UK (Universum, 2004). The names of the tenemployers were written on ten index cards which were laid face down on a table in

CDI12,6

508


7/20

front of the student. The student randomly selected three cards and turned theseface-up in a line, also in view of the researcher. For the purposes of this explanation, letus assume that the student turned over cards with the names of the three most popularemployers in the most recent Times Top 100 Graduate Recruiters study:PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), Civil Service (UK Government) and Accenture(Birchall, 2006). The student was then asked to describe how the first two employers,PWC and the Civil Service, are different from the third, Accenture. To differentiate theorganisation, the student described a list of perceived organisational attributes such ashigher salary and more creative work. These responses are constructs, and theinterviewee was then asked to rate each employer (element) against this attribute(construct). When the student cannot suggest any more attributes, the researcher askedthe student to offer new organisational attributes by comparing employer one (PWC)and employer three (Accenture) to employer two (Civil Service), and then employer two(Civil Service) and employer three (Accenture) to employer one (PWC). Once thestudent cannot identify any more organisational attributes, the three cards were turnedface down, reshuffled into the pile, and the student drew another three cards and theprocess was repeated. The term grid describes the interviewers method of recordingthe conversation. The students were then asked to rate the importance of the attributesidentified, on a seven-point scale.

Although, an inductive approach to first identify important organisationalattributes related to applicant attraction for the graduating student population hasbeen used previously (Lievens and Highhouse, 2003), we believe that this studypioneered the use of repertory grid analysis for early stage recruitment process

research. Furthermore, this multi-university interview and survey method extendsprevious data which was gathered from a population of students at just one university.We piloted both the repertory grid interview and the survey.

Survey (phase two)In phase two, a ten-minute long, internet-based survey was designed based on ashort-list of organisational attributes, and administered to 2,351 final yearundergraduates, generating 862 replies (37 per cent response rate). The respondentswere 35 per cent female science students, 25 per cent female arts students, 30 per centmale science students, and 10 per cent male arts students. The non-respondentsdemographics and reasons for not responding were analysed to ensure that there wasno cause for concern about related bias in the sample. The students were asked tocomplete the survey about three months before the period in which they would make

selection decisions.Undergraduates were asked to rate three top UK employers who participate in

university recruiting: a management consultancy, an investment bank and a mediacorporation. The three firms are multinationals, each employing over 25,000worldwide, including at least 2,500 in the UK, and appear on the Universum (2004)list. The firms identities are concealed in this paper due to a research agreement.

In the internet-based survey, respondents rated the attributes according topersonal importance. The students also provided their perceptions of three majorgraduate employers against the 20 attributes and the likelihood that they wouldapply for a job.


graduates

509


8/20

VariablesRespondents filled in demographic data including sex, university and degree course.The following were asked with respect to each of the twenty organisational attributeslisted in Table I.

Importance. Imagine that a graduate employer existed that was ideal for youpersonally. Please indicate the extent to which you would agree with the followingstatements: My ideal employer would . . . investheavilyin the training and developmentof their employees from 1 to 7 where 1 strongly disagree and 7 strongly agree.

Perception of three organisations. Based on your current perceptions of(management consultancy, media corporation or investment bank), please tell us towhat extent you agree or disagree with the following: The (management consultancy,media corporation or investment bank) offers . . . a very high starting salary from 1to 7 where 1 strongly disagree and 7 strongly agree.

Likelihood to apply. How likely are you to apply to (management consultancy, mediacorporationor investment bank) from 1 to 7 where 1 very unlikely and7 very likely.

Organisational attribute Expected preferencea Mean rating Significance

Invest heavily in the training anddevelopment of their employees

Non-gender-typed intrinsic 6.15

Care about their employees as individuals 6.13 a * * *

Clear opportunities for long-term careerprogression

Masculine stereotype 6.11

Variety in daily work Non-gender-typed intrinsic 6.05 a * * *

Dynamic, forward-looking approach totheir business 5.83Friendly, informal culture Feminine stereotype 5.62 a * *

Opportunity, in the early years, to movearound the organisation and work indifferent areas/role


Freedom to work on your own initiative Non-gender-typed intrinsic 5.43Scope for creativity in your work Non-gender-typed intrinsic 5.41Employ people with whom you feel youwill have things in common

Feminine stereotype 5.24 a *

A pure meritocracy (rewards andpromotions based on performance) 5.13Opportunity for international travel 4.98Use your degree skills Non-gender-typed intrinsic 4.97 a * *

Widely regarded as a highly prestigiousemployer


Very high starting salary Masculine gender role 4.92 b * * *Relatively stress-free workingenvironment 4.91 a * *

Opportunity to work (and live) abroad 4.70Internationally diverse mix of colleagues 4.51 a * * *

Require you to work standard workinghours only

Feminine gender role 3.89 a * * *

A small organization 3.38

Notes: aKonrad et al.s (2000) sex differences in job attribute preferences; significant differences:a women rate higher; b men rate higher, * p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01; * * * p , 0.001

Table I.Mean ratings oforganisational attributesby importance

CDI12,6

510


9/20

AnalysisThe goal of phase one was to identify the students most common constructs regardingthe ten potential employers. The 32 interviews produced 545 constructs. One of theauthors and a second researcher coded all of the constructs, seeking commonmeanings. Working separately, the researchers developed a list of 84 commonconstructs, with 99 per cent inter-rater reliability. The constructs importance wasbased on frequency (number of mentions across 32 interviews) and importanceindicated. As it was not practical to include all 84 constructs in phase two, a short-listof 20 constructs, or organisational attributes, was then created using a combination ofthose that were ranked highest by the sample overall and separately by men and

women. A provisional analysis was made, based on these data, of the importance of theattributes to the men and women.

We weighted the data to reflect the UK university population by sex and degreecourse. To test our hypotheses, we used SPSS and a two-tailed test at 95 per centsignificance level.

ResultsOrganisational attributesWe begin with our first set of hypotheses that based on gender self-schema, men andwomen students will have different ratings of organisational attributes. We identifynine significant differences. Men rate only one attribute as significantly higher thanwomen do in importance: a very high starting salary. In contrast, the women indicatesignificantly higher preference for eight attributes. These attributes are, in order of

significance: really care about their employees as individuals variety in daily workinternationally diverse mix of colleagues require standard working hours onlyfriendly, informal culture use your degree skills relatively stress-free workingenvironment and employ people with whom you feel you will have things incommon. Taken together, these results confirm H1 and H2. All findings are reportedin Table I.

Perception of three organisationsT-tests reveal differences between the graduate mean ratings of the three organisationson nearly all of the attributes, significant at p , 0.01 and p , 0.05 levels (Table II).This confirms that students are able to differentiate between employers, even at thisrelatively early stage of the job search process. For example, students perceive themedia corporation to offer more scope for creativity at work (5.44) and a relativelystress-free working environment (3.74) than the management consultancy (4.56, 3.06)

or the investment bank (3.94, 2.51) (all p , 0.01).

Organisational attractiveness and likelihood to applyWe then test our H3, that there will be a positive relationship between theattractiveness of organisational attributes and likelihood to apply. Previous studiesidentify a positive relationship between organisational attributes and initial attraction(Turban et al., 1998) and job acceptance (Powell and Goulet, 1996). We extend this workby examining applicants self-reported likelihood to apply using a correlation analysisdue to the scaled nature of the data. Correlation tests for the total attractiveness scoreswith likelihood of application for each of the three organisations reveal a positive and


graduates

511


10/20

Organisationalattribute

Management

consultancymean

rating

Media

corporation

meanrating

Investm

ent

bankmean

rating

Management

consultancyvsmedia

corporation

Management

consultancyvs

investmentbank

Mediacorporation

vsinvestment

bank

Investheavilyinthe

traininganddevelopment

oftheiremployees

5.83

4.73

5.46

**

**

**

Careabouttheir

employeesasindividuals

4.41

4.50

4.08

*

**

**

Clearopportunitiesfor

longtermcareer

progression

5.61

4.91

5.48

**

**

**

Varietyindailywork

4.91

5.28

4.32

**

**

**

Dynamic,

forward-looking

approachtotheir

business

5.84

4.73

5.51

**

**

**

Friendly,informalculture

4.20

4.59

3.51

**

**

**

Opportunity,intheearly

years,tomovearoundthe

organisationandworkin

differentareas/roles

5.13

4.82

4.79

**

**

Freedomtoworkonyour

owninitiatives

4.68

4.84

4.30

**

**

**

Scopeforcreativityin

yourwork

4.56

5.44

3.94

**

**

**

Employpeoplewith

whomyoufeelyouwill

havethingsincommon

4.21

4.68

3.95

**

**

**

Apuremeritocracy

5.04

4.11

5.16

**

**

**

Opportunityfor

internationaltravel

5.39

5.15

5.44

**

**

Useyourdegreeskills

4.16

3.95

4.03

**

*

(continued)

Table II.Mean ratings anddifferences in perceptionsof managementconsultancy, mediacorporation andnvestment bank (t-tests)

CDI12,6

512


11/20

Organisationalattribute

Management

consultancymean

rating

Media

corporation

meanrating

Investm

ent

bankmean

rating

Management

consultancyvsmedia

corporation

Management

consultancyvs

investmentbank

Mediacorporation

vsinvestment

bank

Widelyregardedasa

highlyprestigious

employer

6.12

5.69

6.07

**

**

Veryhighstartingsalary

5.78

3.83

5.95

**

**

**

Relativelystress-free

workingenvironment

3.06

3.74

2.51

**

**

**

Opportunitytowork(and

live)abroad

5.22

4.90

5.29

**

*

**

Provideaninternationally

diversemixofcolleagues

5.39

5.32

5.42

*

Requireyoutowork

standardworkinghours

only

2.81

3.14

2.70

**

*

**

Asmallorganization

1.80

1.61

1.91

**

**

**

Notes:*p,

0.05;**p,

0.01

Table II.


graduates

513


12/20

significant relationship (all p , 0.001). The correlations for the managementconsultancy, media corporation and the investment bank are 0.440, 0.332 and 0.436,respectively. These findings confirm H3.

Regression: likelihood to applyWe use multiple regression to examine the relationship between likelihood to submitan application to the management consultancy (dependent variable) and perceptions oforganisational attractiveness (independent variables). The analysis is conducted forboth the total sample and the men and women respondents separately.

Table III reports those attributes that are significant in predicting likelihood toapply to the management consultancy, together with associated betas indicating thesize and direction of effect. All of the organisational attributes reported are statisticallysignificant (p , 0.001), however the R2 is low. This may be due to the reduction of the84 common constructs identified in phase one to a short-list of 20 for the phase twosurvey. It is interesting that the attributes explain more of the likelihood to apply formen students (R2 0.333) than for women students (R2 0.240).

Table III also reveals that the most important predictor of likelihood to apply to themanagement consultancy, for the sample as a whole, is employs people with whomyou feel you will have things in common. In descending order of importance, the otherkey attributes for the population of men and women students are offer the opportunityfor international travel really care about their employees as people friendly,informal culture a very high starting salary use your degree skills scope forcreativity in your work and a dynamic, forward-looking approach to their business.Two attributes are negatively related to applicants preference: an internationallydiverse mix of colleagues and require you to work standard working hours only.Interestingly, in the case of the former, students indicate a preference for employersthat will provide them with the opportunity for international travel (0.127), e.g. to go

Organisational attributeTotal

stand. coeff.Women

stand. coeff.Men

stand. coeff.

Employ people with whom you feel you will have things incommon 0.199 0.173 0.178Friendly, informal culture 0.110 0.136 0.261Offer the opportunity for international travel 0.127Internationally diverse mix of colleagues 20.104 0.128Use your degree skills 0.096 0.130

Really care about their employees as individuals 0.112 0.108 0.148Offer a very high starting salary 0.098Dynamic, forward-looking approach to their business 0.073 0.108Require you to work standard working hours only 20.079Scope for creativity in your work 0.088Widely regarded as a highly prestigious employer 0.089Opportunity, in the early years, to move around theorganisation and work in different areas/roles 20.123

R2 0.274 0.240 0.333

Note: All attributes reported are statistically significant at p , 0.001

Table III.Relationship betweenattractiveness andikelihood to apply to

managementconsultancy: summary ofmultiple regressionesults

CDI12,6

514


13/20

out and see the world, but not to an internationally diverse mix of colleagues,e.g. being surrounded by foreigners (20.104).

The results provide further evidence of differences between men and womenrespondents in relation to their assessments of the attractiveness and likelihood to applyto the management consultancy. Secondly, the results suggest that women who rate themanagement consultancy highly on the following attributes, in descending order ofimportance, are most likely to apply: employ people with whom you feel you will havethings in common friendly, informal culture really care about their employees asindividuals and dynamic, forward-looking approach to their business. Sevenattributes are significant for the men, providing further evidence of differences between

thesexesin their assessments of the managementconsulting firms attractiveness and ofthe effect of graduates assessments on their likelihood to apply. For men, the positiveattributes, in descending order of importance, are opportunity for international travelemploypeoplewith whom you feel you will havethingsin common very high startingsalary really care about their employees as individuals use your degree skills andwidely regarded as a prestigious employer. Interestingly, for men, the opportunity, inthe early years, to move around the organisation and work in different areas/roles isnegatively related to organisational attractiveness.

DiscussionWe begin by reflecting on the 20 most sought organisation attributes (Table I). Konradet al.s (2000) meta-analysis identified 39 commonly-identified job attributes from 242previous studies. While many attributes are also identified in our sample, we note the

absence of students mention of benefits (e.g. medical, life insurance), job security,physical work environment, solitude, easy commute, geographical location andfeedback. This provides some at least anecdotal evidence that, compared with previousgenerations, Generation Y are looking for slightly different qualities in their employers.

We extend earlier research by analysing likelihood to apply to three organisationsby women and men undergraduates, and explore the relationship to organisationalattractiveness. Our findings corroborate the importance of certain organisationalattributes for applicant attraction (Rynes, 1991; Wanous, 1992) and with regard tosex and gender. Organisational attractiveness is operationalised as the product of theimportance of organisational attributes and the perceived extent of their presence in aparticular organisation. Differences in likelihood to apply to an organisation may bedue to sex differences in either of those components. This study finds sex differencesexist in both the importance of organisational attributes and the perceived extent oftheir presence in three organisations that recruit heavily from the graduate market.

In line with earlier work on gender self-schema, our results suggest that men placegreater importance on a high starting salary. We had expected the male students toidentify with this masculine gender role. However, we had also expected men studentsto identify more with the masculine stereotype for the following three attributes: clearopportunities for long-term career progression opportunity, in the early years, tomove around the organisation and work in different roles and widely regarded as aprestigious employer. In fact, none of these attributes revealed differences that weresignificantly more significant for men. This suggests that Generation Y men andwomen are more similar than different with regards to these traditionally masculinestereotypes.


graduates

515


14/20

We found that women indicate a greater preference for feminine organisationalattributes. Based on the Konrad et al. (2000) meta-analysis, we suspected women studentsto more strongly identify with thefemininestereotypes of friendly, informal culture andemploy people with whom you feel you will have things in common and the femininegender role require you to work standard hours only. Indeed, all were true andsignificant. Interestingly, the non-gender typed intrinsic attributes variety in your dailywork and use your degree skills were also more true and significant for the women inour sample. We did not have any expectations about three other attributes: care abouttheir employees as individuals relatively stress-free working environment andinternationally diverse mix of colleagues however all were found to be significantly

more important for women. Taken together, our findings suggest organisationalattributes explain more of Generation Y womens preferences than those of their malecounterparts. It may be that women, even at the career entry stage, adapt behaviourswhich are more associated with traditionally masculine gender roles and stereotypes.

LimitationsWe recognise several limitations in our study. The sample is non-random and manysurveys are incomplete, however the non-respondents demographics and reasons fornot responding were analysed to ensure that there was no cause for concern aboutrelated bias in the sample. The initial list of 84 constructs was culled to 20, which mayhave limited the impact of organisational attributes on likelihood to apply. Althoughrecent studies highlight the need for applicant quality (GPA in Connerley et al., 2003),we do not measure quality as we made two assumptions:

(1) as the three firms regularly recruit from the top 22 universities, there was agood base of quality applicants among those sampled; and

(2) a firm which attracts a large number of applications can then select the mostqualified applicants.

Although we control for labour market differences by gathering survey data during atwo-month period, there may be other factors, apart from organisational attractiveness,that influence initial job application behaviour such as the level of difficulty, effort orspecific timing of a particular organisations application processes. We acknowledgethe concern that perceptions are not an appropriate proxy for actual applicantspreferences (Ryan and Ployhart, 2000), however our student sample are futureapplicants and our study is scoped to focus on those at the applicant attraction stage.

Although our study focuses on applicants intention to apply, our results might beextended to suggest actual behaviour. Ajzens (1991) theory of reasoned action

suggests a strong relationship between intention and later actions, although thisweakens over time (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Given the time frame of our study andthe recruiting market, these students are reporting intentions within approximatelythree months of their real-decision timeline.

Conclusions and implicationsThis study of graduating university students perceptions of organisational attributesand reported likelihood of application offers several key contributions for academicsand practitioners. First, we add to the emerging body of early applicant impressions oforganisations (Cable and Graham, 2000; Gatewood et al., 1993; Highhouse et al., 1999)

CDI12,6

516


15/20

by identifying the organisational attributes used by UK undergraduates todifferentiate among potential employers at the job application stage. Building ongender self-schema, we distinguish sex differences with regard to attributes on twolevels: importance of ascribed benefits and the attributes favoured more highly bywomen can be related to female gender self-schemas emphasis on relationship-basedorganisational characteristics and career satisfiers. The study finds that men andwomen respondents held different perceptions of three potential employers. Finally, asexpected by person-organisation fit theory, desirability of perceived organisationalattributes is linked to likelihood to apply.

Taken together, our repertory grid interviews with Generation Y students produce alist of desired organisational attributes which vary from earlier work in the field(Posner, 1981). These findings are not surprising given that most Generation Ystudents (born 1977-1994) were not even born when Posners (1981) and other studies oflabour force perceptions were published. Our samples five most preferred attributesare invest heavily in the training and development of their employees care abouttheir employees as individuals clear opportunities for long-term career progressionvariety in daily work and dynamic, forward-looking approach to their business.These findings answer Konrad et al. (2000) and others calls for a focus on intrinsicreasons and extend work by Heslin (2005) who identified the importance of bothintrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Prior studies indicate that Generation Y workers, whencompared to their generation X and Baby Boomer counterparts, are more adaptable,confident, able to multi-task and technologically savvy (NAS Recruitment, 2006).Generation Y employees plan to move around and want to work faster and harder than

their colleagues and want to be climbing the corporate ladder by their sixth month onthe job (NAS Recruitment, 2006, p. 6). The implications of the importance of thisgenerations preference for organisational attributes cannot be understated as, in thenot too distant future, Generation Y will replace retiring Baby Boomers.

Implications for recruiting professionals include the need to become familiar withthe organisational attributes desired by Generation Y graduates. Following scholarlywork on the importance of realistic job presentation (Wanous, 1992; Wanous andColella, 1989), it is important that recruiters should only advertise those attributeswhich are true for the organisation. Firms that emphasise unrealistic attributes willquickly be found out by the new graduate recruits who depart for other organisationswhich they perceive to have these attributes. New recruits who do not sense a strong fitwith the organisation are more likely to leave (Chatman, 1991) and the churning ofgraduate employees constitutes a great cost to the firm in terms of lost time, moraleand possibly customer trust and goodwill. Furthermore, it takes time for new

employees to become productive, impacting firm performance (Watson Wyatt, 2006).Private UK employers seek applicants from the over 125,000 degree graduates each

year. One of the main implications of the study to practice is that a segmentedapproach is needed if the male and female Generation Y undergraduate population areto be assessed effectively. There is little evidence of sex segmentation activity in theexisting recruitment marketplace. Regardless of the popular view that the values ofyoung men and women are increasingly converging and possibly contrary to theprofessed view of young women themselves, women undergraduates value, to agreater extent than men, organisational characteristics that reflect genderself-schemas. This presents both a considerable challenge and a great opportunity


graduates

517


16/20

to organisations wishing to increase their representation of women. Employers maywish to consider gender roles and stereotyping and sex in a broader sense.

Our study suggests a number of future research directions. First, while it is criticalto study the earliest phases of the graduate recruitment process, our work could beextended to later career stages to examine men and womens perceptions of desirableorganisational attributes. Further studies could explore mens and womens changingperceptions of the attributes of their employer and how this influences their likelihoodof seeking alternate employment. For example, are women more attachedto organisations with their preferred attributes and are men more likely to joinanother organisation that offers a higher starting salary? Further research of alongitudinal nature could examine how Generation Y graduates organisationalattribute preferences change over time, for example given additional work experienceand family responsibilities (Corrigall and Konrad, 2006).

Finally, this study focuses on graduates perceptions of large multinationalemployers. As an increasing number of Generation Y university students are enrollingin entrepreneurship classes (Katz, 2003), and considering entrepreneurial careers(Mainiero et al., 2007), future research might explore students perceptions of thesepossibilities.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991), The theory of planned behavior, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Barber, A.E. (1998), Recruiting Employees: Individual and Organizational Perspectives, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Bem, S.L. (1981), Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sextyping, Psychological Review,Vol. 4, pp. 354-64.

Birchall, M. (2006), The times top 100 graduate recruiters 2005/6, Times, September 14,available at: www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,8171-2354899.html

Breaugh, J.A. (1992), Recruitment: Science and Practice, PWS-Kent, Boston, MA.

Breaugh, J.A. and Starke, M. (2000), Research on employee recruitment: so many studies, somany remaining questions, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 405-34.

CPCS (1993), RepGrid 2 Manual, University of Calgary: Centre for Person Computer Studies,Calgary.

Cable, D.M. and Graham, M.E. (2000), The determinants of job seekers reputation perceptions,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 929-47.

Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1994), Pay preferences and job search decision:a person-organization fit perspective, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 317-48.

Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1996), Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, andorganizational entry, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67No. 3, pp. 394-411.

Carless, S.A. (2005), Person-job fit versus person-organization fit as predictors of organizationalattraction and job acceptance intentions: a longitudinal study, Journal of Occupational &Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 411-29.

CDI12,6

518


17/20

Chapman, D.S., Uggerslev, K.L., Carroll, S.A., Piasentin, K.A. and Jones, D.A. (2005), Applicantattraction to organizations and job choice: a meta-analytic review of the correlates of

recruiting outcomes, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 928-44.

Chatman, J.A. (1989), Improving interactional organizational research: a model ofperson-organization fit, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 333-49.

Chatman, J.A. (1991), Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization inaccounting firms, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 459-84.

Chodorow, N. (1978), The Reproduction of Mothering, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Connerley, M.L., Carlson, K.D. and Mecham, R.L. III (2003), Evidence of differences in applicant

pool quality, Personnel Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 22-39.Corrigall, E.A. and Konrad, A.M. (2006), The relationship of job attribute preferences to

employment, hours of paid work, and family responsibilities: an analysis comparingwomen and men, Sex Roles, Vol. 54 Nos 1/2, pp. 95-111.

Easterby-Smith, M. (1980), The design, analysis and interpretation of repertory grids, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 13, pp. 3-24.

Eddleston, K.A., Veiga, J.F. and Powell, G.N. (2006), Explaining sex differences in managerial

career satisfier preferences: the role of gender self-schema, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 437-45.

Garavan, T.N. and Morley, M. (1997), The socialization of high-potential graduates into theorganization: initial expectations, experiences and outcomes, Journal of ManagerialPsychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 118-37.

Gatewood, R.D., Gowan, M.A. and Lautenschlager, G.J. (1993), Corporate image, recruitment

image and initial job choice, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 414-27.Herriot, P. (1984), Down from the Ivory Tower: Graduates and Their Jobs , Wiley, Chichester.

Heslin, P.A. (2005), Conceptualizing and evaluating careeer success, Journal of Organizational

Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 113-36.

Highhouse, S., Stierwalt, S.L., Bachiochi, P., Elder, A.E. and Fisher, G. (1999), Effects of

advertised human resource management practices on attraction of African-Americanapplicants, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 425-42.

Katz, J.A. (2003), The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurshipeducation, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, pp. 283-300.

Kelly, G.A. (1955), The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York, NY.

Konrad, A.M., Ritchie, J.E. Jr, Lieb, P. and Corrigall, E. (2000), Sex differences and similarities in

job attribute preferences: a meta-analysis, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, pp. 593-641.

Lacy, W.G., Bokemeier, J. and Shepard, J.M. (1980), Job attribute preferences and work

commitment of men and women in the United States, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 36,pp. 315-29.

Lievens, F. and Highhouse, S. (2003), The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a

companys attractiveness as an employer, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 75-102.

Mainiero, L., Sullivan, S. and Terjesen, S. (2007), The kaleidoscope career model, Encyclopediaof HRIS: Challenges in e-HRM, Idea, Toronto.

Miller, J.B. (1976), Toward a New Psychology of Women, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.

NAS Recruitment (2006), Generation Y: the millenials: ready or not, here they come, Whitepaper, available at: www.nasrecruitment.com/TalentTips/NASinsights/GenerationY.pdf


graduates

519


18/20

Nicholson, N. (2000), Motivation-selection-connection: an evolutionary model of careerdevelopment, in Peiperl, M., Arthur, M., Goffee, R. and Morris, T. (Eds), CareerFrontiers: New Concepts of Working Life, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 54-75.

Posner, B.Z. (1981), Comparing recruiter, student, and faculty perceptions of applicant and jobcharacteristics, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 329-39.

Powell, G.N. and Goulet, L.R. (1996), Recruiters and applicants reactions to campus interviewsand employment decisions, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 1619-40.

Powell, G.N. and Mainiero, L.M. (2003), Cross-currents in the river of time: conceptualizing thecomplexities of womens careers, Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp. 215-37.

Ruble, D.N. and Martin, C.L. (1998), Gender development, in Eisenberg, N. (Ed.), Handbook ofChild Psychology,Vol. 3, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 993-1016.

Ryan, A.M. and Ployhart, R.E. (2000), Applicants perceptions of selection procedures anddecisions: a critical review and agenda for the future, Journal of Management, Vol. 26,pp. 565-606.

Rynes, S.L. (1991), Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: a call for new researchdirections, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, 2nd ed.,Vol. 2, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alta, CA,pp. 399-444.

Rynes, S.L. and Boudreau, J.W. (1986), College recruiting in large organizations: practice,evaluation, and research implications, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39, pp. 729-57.

Schneider, B. (1987), The people make the place, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 437-53.

Scholarios, D., Lockyer, C. and Johnson, H. (2003), Anticipatory socialisation: the effect of

recruitment and selection experiences on career expectations, Career DevelopmentInternational, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 182-97.

Thomas, K.M. and Wise, P.G. (1999), Organizational attractiveness and individual differences:are diverse applicants attracted by different factors?, Journal of Business and Psychology,Vol. 13, pp. 375-90.

Tom, V. (1971), The role of personality and organizational images in the recruiting process,Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 6, pp. 573-92.

Turban, D.B. and Dougherty, T.E. (1992), Influences of campus recruiting on applicantattraction to firms, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 739-65.

Turban, D.B., Forret, M.L. and Hendrickson, C.L. (1998), Applicant attraction to firms:influences of organizational reputation, job and organizational attributes, and recruiterbehaviors, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 24-44.

Universum (2004) Universum graduate study: 2004, Universum, London, UK Edition.

Varma, A., Toh, S.M. and Pichler, S. (2006), Ingratiation in job applications: impact on selectiondecisions, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 200-11.

Wanous, J.P. (1992), Organizational Entry: Recruitment, Selection and Socialization ofNewcomers, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Wanous, J.P. and Colella, A. (1989), Organizational entry research: current status and futuredirections, in Ferris, G.R. and Rowland, K.M. (Eds), Research in Personnel and HumanResources Management,Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 59-120.

Watson Wyatt (2006), Maximizing the returns on investments in human capital: lessons fromseven years of global studies, available at: www.watsonwyatt.com/us/pubs/insider/showarticle.asp?ArticleID 15205

CDI12,6

520


19/20

Williams, J.E. and Best, D.L. (1990), Sex and Psyche: Gender and Self Viewed Cross-Culturally,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Wright, R.P. (2004), Mapping cognitions to better understand attitudinal and behavioralresponses in appraisal research, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 339-74.

Wright, R.P. (2006), Rigor and relevance using repertory grid technique in strategy research, inKetchen, D.J. and Bergh, D.D. (Eds), Research Methodology in Strategy andManagement,Vol. 3, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 295-348.

Further reading

Bem, S.L. (1974), The measurement of psychological androgyny, Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 155-62.

Hall, D.T. and Moss, J.E. (1998), The new protean career contract: helping organizations andemployees adapt, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 22-38.

Her Majestys (HM) Treasury (2001), Productivity in the UK: Progress Towards a ProductiveEconomy, The Stationery Office, London.

Jackson, L.A. (2006), Its cheaper to keep em, Black Enterprise, Vol. 36 No. 7, p. 72.

Kepner-Tregoe (1999), Avoiding the brain drain: what companies are doing to lock in theirtalent, White paper, available at: www.kepner-tregoe.com/PDFs/Avoiding_Brain_exec_KL457a.pdf

Lauver, K.J. and Kristof-Brown, A.L. (2001), Distinguishing between employees perceptions ofperson-job and person-organization fit,Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 59, pp. 454-70.

Liden, R.C. and Parsons, C.K. (1986), A field study of job applicant interview perceptions,alternative opportunities, and demographic characteristics, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39No. 1, pp. 109-22.

Lievens, F., van Dam, K. and Anderson, N. (2002), Recent trends and challenges in personnelselection, Personnel Review, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 580-601.

Moncrief, W.C., Babakus, E., Cravens, D.W. and Johnston, M.W. (2000), Examining genderdifferences in field sales organizations, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 3,pp. 245-57.

PersonnelZone (2006), Direct archive, PersonnelZone, May.

Rynes, S.L. and Lawler, J. (1983), A policy-capturing investigation of the role of expectancies indecisions to pursue job alternatives, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 4,pp. 620-31.

Rynes, S.L., Bretz, R.D. Jr and Gerhard, B. (1991), The importance of recruitment in job choice:a different way of looking, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 487-521.

Sturges, J. (1999), What it means to succeed: personal conceptions of career success held by male

andfemale managers at different ages,British Journal of Management, Vol. 10, pp. 239-52.Wanous, J.P., Stumpf, S.A. and Bedrosian, H. (1979), Job survival of new employees, Personnel

Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 651-62.

About the authorsSiri Terjesen is a Senior Lecturer at the Brisbane Graduate School of Business at QueenslandUniversity of Technology. Concurrently, she is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Max PlanckInstitute of Economics in Jena, Germany. She has published in journals including StrategicManagement Journal, Small Business Economics, Journal of Business Ethics, EntrepreneurshipTheory & Practice and Venture Capital and is co-author (with Anne Huff, Steve Floyd and


graduates

521


20/20

Hugh Sherman) of Strategic Management (Wiley, 2008). She is on the boards of CorporateResearch Board, NPRC and Silicon Capital. Siri Terjesen is the corresponding author and can becontacted at: [email protected]

Susan Vinnicombes particular research interests are womens leadership styles, the issuesinvolved in women developing their managerial careers and gender diversity on corporateboards. Her research centre is unique in the UK with its focus on women leaders and the annualFemale FTSE 100 Index is regarded as the UKs premier research resource on women directors.She publishes in a range of journals including International Human Resource ManagementJournal, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Women in Management Review andBritish Journal of Management and is on the editorial board of four management journals.She has written eight books and is currently working on The Global Challenge of Diversity

(with J. Bank) and International Women on Boards (with D. Bilimoria, R. Burke, M. Husen andV. Singh). Susan was awarded an OBE for her Services to Diversity in the Queens New YearsHonour List in 2005. E-mail: [email protected]

Cheryl Freeman was formerly a DBA student at Cranfield School of Management.

CDI12,6

522

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Attracting Generation 1

Documents

Transcript of Attracting Generation 1