Ezzi Proposal Final

RUNNING HEAD: ONLINE APPLICANT REACTIONS TO REJECTION: STREAMLINING THE ONLINE APPLICATION PROCESS 1

Online Applicant Reactions to Rejection:

Streamlining the Online Application Process

A Proposed Study

Taylor James Ezzi

Cleveland State University

ONLINE APPLICANT REACTIONS TO REJECTION: STREAMLINING THE ONLINE APPLICATION PROCESS 2

Abstract

This paper is a proposal for a study to be conducted examining the effects of rejected applicants’

reactions to selection processes at to a fake potential job that differs in application processes. The

article starts out with a brief literary review of previous studies and theory regarding applicant

reactions to selection processes and how advancements in technology have shaped the field. Next

the article proposes a study to be conducted examining perceived justice of rejected applicants

and how interpersonal communication can mediate any ill perceptions toward the university of

those rejected. Proposed number of participants, group sizes, methods, experimental structure,

expected results, and limitations are all discussed at length in this article.


Applicant Reactions to Rejection: Minimizing the Fallout of Rejection

Advancement in technology has changed nearly every facet of our lives. Applications to

careers or universities are not untouched by these advances. These advances have left the process

of applying in a somewhat redundant state where applicants are still required to submit a resume

for a completely online application. The use of the internet to enter personal applicant

information into set information slots can feel incredibly tedious when the applicants are still

required to create, perfect, and submit a resume with the same information on it. This proposed

study aims to look at the differences in applicant reactions to selection processes when they have

different procedures they are required to use to convey personal information to a company they

are applying to. This study also aims to see if the level of interpersonal response from the

company will be a moderating factor on negative reactions by applicants to rejection from this

company.

Literature Review

Importance

There has been a good deal of research invested into the field of applicant reactions to

selection processes in the last twenty years. Applicant reactions have received only more

attention as the field of industrial and organizational psychology has grown. This increase in

attention and research can be attributed to the realization of the importance of applicant reactions

and the effects they can have on an organization. The application process is a two way

interaction. It may seem as though the organization is only gathering an impression of an

applicant, but this is not so. The application process is also the time for an applicant to gain an

impression of a company and select which companies they are willing to work for (Rynes, 1993).


It is crucial that an organization leave a good impression on an applicant to have the greatest

chance of the applicant accepting an employment offer.

A negative reaction to selection processes can have a myriad of bad side effects. An

applicant that has a negative reaction to the selection process can share their negative experience

with others leading to a negative view of the organization (Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, &

Stoffey, 1993). Goldman (2001) found that applicants that fail employment tests are more likely

to engage in negative word of mouth behavior. Simply rejecting an applicant can garner this

negative view of an organization may deter possible future applicants or drive them to apply

elsewhere. This spread of information could also make its way to a larger stage and give a bad

reputation in the eyes of the public and consumers, possibly hindering their willingness to be

associated with the organization. Another way the public could be made aware of unfair

procedures is through legal action. An applicant who has a bad experience is more likely to sue

the organization over discrimination than an applicant that has a positive experience (Smither et

al., 1993). Litigation would not only be bad publicity, but could also be lengthy and expensive.

A bad experience in the application process can have a negative effect on someone’s

work quality and work attitudes. A bad experience can also lead to stress, depression, and

anxiety in the applicant (Robertson & Smith, 1989). Lastly, and almost importantly, an applicant

may be compelled to pass on an acceptance and choose to search elsewhere if they have had a

negative application experience (Macan, Avedon, Paese, & Smith, 1994).

Roots in Justice

The field of applicant reactions is rooted heavily in organizational justice theory. Justice

theory is divided into two different types of justice; distributive, and procedural. Distributive


justice is defined as the perceived fairness of the outcomes of a situation (Cohen, 1987). If one

gets what they believe they are deserving of, distributive justice will be high. The opposite is true

as well. If someone has an outcome other than what they feel they deserve, distributive justice

will be low. Procedural justice is defined as the perceived fairness of procedures used in making

decisions (Folger & Greenberg, 1985). Procedural justice is key in the reactions of rejected

applicants. Distributive justice will be low because they have not gotten the job offer, and

therefor procedural justice is all that remains to further influence the applicants’ general feelings

toward the process and company.

Gilliland (1993) laid the groundwork for most of the empirical data we have in the field

of applicant reactions today. His work in 1993 was the first major overview to look at applicant

reactions and the structure of these selection processes. In his model procedural justice was

divided into three different sub categories; Formal characteristics, explanation, and interpersonal

treatment. Gilliland’s model also subdivides distributive justice into three categories; equity,

equality, and needs. If all of these sub areas are met with fairness the entire application process

should be devoid of negative reactions.

Two subdivisions of Gilland’s model that are important to this proposed study are

interpersonal effectiveness and two-way communication. Interpersonal effectiveness refers to the

degree to which applicants are treated with warmth and respect. Interpersonal effectiveness is

important to this study through the form of potential rejections the applicants will receive. Two

way communication refers to the opportunity for applicants to offer input and ability to influence

the way the company sees them (Gilliland 1993). This is related to the proposed study through

the different types of applications the applicants will be undergoing. Thiabut & Walker (1975)


also found that procedures are perceived to be fairer when affected individuals have an

opportunity to either influence the decision process or offer input.

Selection Tools

There are many methods that companies will use during an application process to get an

accurate profile of the applicant. The more a company screens applicants and puts them through

testing the greater the feeling of familiarity with the applicant.

Hausknecht, Thomas, and Day (2004) ran a Meta-analysis that included a large amount

of information on the perceived fairness of common selection tools. Hausknect et al. found “that

applicants rated interviews (M = 3.84) most favorably, followed by work samples (M = 3.63),

resumes (M = 3.57), and references (M = 3.33). Cognitive ability testing received moderate

favorability ratings (M = 3.14), as did personality testing (M = 2.88) and biodata (M = 2.81).

Personal contacts (M = 2.51), honesty tests (M = 2.47), and graphology (i.e. handwriting

analysis: M = 1.76) were rated relatively unfavorably.” (Where M = Mean).

The two most relevant selection processes Hausknecht et. al. looked at for this proposed

study are resumes and biodata. Resumes scored well on their scales and this is important to note

due to the use of resumes in the proposed procedure. The other process worth noting is biodata

which scored relatively low to other processes. This is worth noting as the online data entry and

both entry groups in this proposed study will be entering mainly biodata into the system as a

potential decision making tool for who a company hires.

Thibaut and Walker’s (1975) previous findings of the ability for an applicant to influence

the process having higher levels of perceived fairness follows this data. All four positively rated

procedures (interviews, work sample, resume, and references) all allow for the applicant to feel

as though they had the opportunity to shape their own outcome. On the lower end of the


spectrum are biodata, personal contacts, honesty tests, and handwriting analysis. Biodata,

honesty tests, personality tests and handwriting analysis have all received low ratings and are

also low on applicants being able to influence the outcomes. These procedures which scored

below moderate are seen as out of the realm of control for an applicant. The applicant can try to

moderate their own answers, but they also do not know what answers are what the company is

looking for.

Madigan and Macan (2005) found that two way communications, participation,

transparency, interpersonal treatment, consistency of administration, and uncertainty reduction

are all related to perceptions of fairness (roughly in that order of magnitude). An important point

of note from this study is two way communication having the highest correlation with

perceptions of fairness. Organizations should start to look at the application process as more of a

conversation than a one sided judgment of someone. Opening up the process with information

and two way communications allows the applicant to be involved in the process leading to higher

justice levels.

Rejection & Feedback

A portion of applicant reactions this proposed study aims to look at is the applicant who

gets rejected and a way to possibly mitigate the fallout this can have on an individual. The

majority of research into applicant reactions deals with the organization, the applicants who get

offered a job, and avoiding litigation and lawsuits. There is some, but relatively little about the

lasting effects rejection can have on a person, even if they do not view the process as unfair.

On the front of mental health in those rejected, Schinkel, Van Dierendonck, Van Vianen,

and Ryan (2011) found that substandard test performance can cause declines in self-esteem and

wellbeing. This research shows that a bad experience with selection tools can have a lasting


effect on the applicant after the process is over. There is no immediate benefit to an organization

by trying to limit this, but it is a moral obligation of everyone to avoid causing damage when

possible.

The steps that can be taken to lessen the emotional fallout of those rejected are certainly

worth the potential negation of bad feelings. An example would be the research by Farago and

Zide (2013) whose work found that high interviewer interpersonal ratings can significantly

increase fairness ratings by applicants in cases of rejection. This proposed study aims to take this

idea of using interpersonal communication to negate feelings of being treated unfairly and

translate it into online rejection emails. Taking steps as small as picking an interpersonal or

warm person to conduct an interview can lead to higher fairness perceptions and it might only

take something as small as a warmly worded email to significantly influence someone’s views of

a process and company that has rejected them.

The act of letting an applicant know where they are in the application process, alerting

them to the official termination of their application, and general performance on any selection

tests are all forms of feedback. Waung and Brice (2007) found that applicants feel that

organizations have a commitment to let them know of their status in application processes. They

found that if there was no communication from the organization that applicants felt the

organization has failed in its duties. This practice of not giving any semblance of feedback was

found to be commonplace among companies. 62% of organizations failed to send rejection

letters of any kind to a rejected applicant (Waung and Brice, 1995). Some of these organizations

failed to send rejection letters even after many interviews or the applicant making it fairly far

along in the process. Waung and Brice (2000) found that the most negative reactions to rejection


letters came with a long time interval before receiving a letter. It was also found that the worst

response to rejection was when the email failed to explicitly state that the applicant was rejected.

Feinberg, Meoli-Stanton, & Gable (1996) discovered that positively worded rejection

letters can mitigate effects of rejection and negatively worded acceptance letters can impair the

perceived level of positivity of acceptance. They believe that writings letters of acceptance and

rejection should communicate with prospective recruits in a positive manner no matter what the

letter’s message to avoid potential negative feelings in the applicant. The proposed rejection

letters in this proposed study will be neutrally and positively worded.

Technology

The biggest difference between where we are globally compared to when the field of

applicant reactions was being formed is the technology. Everything is online today. Everyone is

connected to each other and sharing so much information. It is much easier today to get in touch

with someone who is interested in applying to a company than it was twenty years ago.

Application processes are starting to shift to being able to be completed strictly online, without

the need for paper applications, or preliminary phone calls.

More and more companies are adopting the practice of having an entirely online

application process. Would a jump completely to online selection be perceived as fair even for

those who are not necessarily familiar with the internet, or would it make more sense to offer

“paper and pencil” approach in addition to the new online method? Sylva and Mol (2009) found

that general reactions to an online approach to applications were perceived as fair. Those who

were previously familiar with the internet as well as those who were not familiar met the online

application system with positive reviews.


Konradt, Warszta, & Ellwart (2013) applied Gilliland’s (1993) model of justice theory of

applicant reactions to and online web based selection process. Konradt et. al (2013) found that

the model of justice theory crossed over to an internet platform well. Using structural equation

modeling they were able to take Gilliland’s (1993) factors and show that they do not change

when the application process is in an online setting opposed to paper and pencil applications.

Dineen, Noe, & Wang (2004) conducted an experiment which found that human decision

making in the application process was perceived as significantly more procedurally fair then

when there was an automated design of decision making. The proposed study will have a place

for the work of Dineen et. al as it is logical to think that online entered data will be run through a

program at some point to eliminate those who are immediately unqualified for the job based on

their answers which would be selection by an automated system.

Proposal

Shifting focus to the future in relation to advances in technology there are certainly some

areas that the field has not addressed yet. With a shift in technology, a good portion of the

application process is now online. A look at redundancy is needed and how applicants react.

Often resumes are required as part of an online process and can be submitted as a separate

document. In addition to this, most organizations have their own system for where the applicant

is required to submit their information line by line. I postulate that this process of submitted a

resume in addition to reentering one’s information can affect the applicants reactions to the

process. This redundancy in the system could leave the applicants with a sense that no one is

actually looking at the intangibles on their resumes and that they are just another set of data to be

plugged into an algorithm. This can limit the sense of two way communication and the

applicant’s ability to affect the decision process leading to a low sense of procedural fairness.


I propose a lab study to solidify my theories about this particular occurrence. A fake job

under the premise of a university internship will be posted on popular online job listing sites,

announcements in the weekly campus email, asking for professors across departments to make

announcements to their students, and postings on cork boards/bulletins around campus will alert

participants to email the researchers about applying. Potential applicants for company will be

placed into one of three groups; resume only, online data entry only, and a both group.

Applicants in each group will also be placed into one of two subgroups. One group will be a high

interpersonal group that receives a warmly worded email letting them know they have been

rejected from consideration for the job among other positive things about their resume or

personal skills and background. The other group will be a low interpersonal feedback group that

will receive a rejection email from the company simply stating that they will go no further in

consideration for the position. After receiving their group’s rejection email I will give them

incentive to perform a self-survey that allows them a chance to air their grievances with the

process and the how the university handled the application process. The survey will be composed

of two measures; The Selection Procedural Justice Scale (SPJS for short) by Bauer, Truxillo,

Sanchez, Craig, Ferrara, & Campion (2001), and Highhouse, Lievens, and Sinar’s (2003)

measure of applicant attraction to the company. After the survey has been completed there will

be a debriefing for all the rejected applicants to alleviate any ill feelings the participants may

have. The debriefing will also make all participants aware of the goals of the study as well as let

them know that all participants have been rejected. Incentive will still be given for participation.

Hypotheses

I propose three hypotheses. (1) Participants in either the resume only or online data only

groups will have higher perceived levels of procedural justice than those in the both group. (2)


Participants in the resume only group will have the highest levels of procedural justice. (3)

Participants in the high interpersonal communication group will have a higher perceived

procedural justice and a more overall positive view of the company than those in the low

interpersonal communication group.

Methods

Participants and Measures

This study requires a fake job listing at a university strictly for use in this experiment.

The proposed number of participants for this study is 450 students, who are actively searching

for a job or internship. An even 225-225 split between female and male is ideal to reduce the

chance for any bias or possible limitation to the study. 150 participants will be randomly placed

into one of the three applicant groups (resume only, online data only, both). In each of these

three groups 75 will then also be randomly assigned to either the high or low interpersonal

communication group.

The two different measurements (SPJS & Highhouse attraction) will be used to gain

ratings of perceived procedural justice of each applicant’s application process as well as their

general attraction and feelings about the university offering the job. One tool will needed to be

created for this proposed study and that is the set of emails the applicants will receive depending

upon their interpersonal group placement.


A mockup of the High Interpersonal Email can be seen below.


A mockup of the Low Interpersonal Email can be seen below.

Procedure

Participants searching for a job will find a job listing online at numerous career websites

(indeed.com, monster.com, careerlink.com, careerbuilder.com, glassdoor.com, etc.). Also the

job will be placed in announcements in the weekly campus email, as well as asking for

professors across departments to make announcements to their students, and postings on cork

boards/bulletins around campus to alert participants to email the researchers about applying.

Upon following the job listing link on online job websites, the applicant will be given an email to

contact about applying. The email will be given in the campus email, placed on the cork/bulletin


flyers, and also handed out by professors helping recruit for the study. Once the applicant has

decided they wish to apply they will contact that email listed previously and be given an

application ID number. This number will be used to ensure the applicant is directed to the correct

application procedure (resume, online code, both) according to their random assignment. The

applicant will falsely believe this ID number necessary only for the company can keep track of

their application, and will give the applicant no reason to believe the application process is

different for all applicants.

After entering their application ID number the applicant will then be transported to their

correct form of the application process. The resume group will simply arrive at a webpage with

company headers and footers with a place for them to attach a standard file type of their resume

or CV. Once attached the webpage will confirm the submission has gone through correctly and

that the individuals in charge of hiring have received their resume. The online data entry group

will arrive at a series of webpages that require the applicant to fill out lines of data about

themselves. These lines of data will consist of general information that would be found on a

resume. There will be a personal information, education, previous employments, and skills and

abilities pages the applicant will be required to fill out. Once completed the final webpage will

confirm the submission has gone through correctly and the individuals in charge of hiring have

received their resume. Lastly, the both group will be directed to a page identical to the resume

group. However, upon completing the submission of their resume, the both group will then be

directed to the same webpages the online data group arrived at. Upon completing both the

resume submission and the online data previously mentioned, the webpage will confirm the

submission of their resume and data has gone through correctly and that the individuals in charge

of hiring have received both.


One week after finishing their submission the applicants will receive their letter of

rejection. According to which interpersonal feedback group each applicant has been placed in,

they will be sent a matching email notifying them of their rejection from being hired for the

applied position. The second part of the email will have a link to the post application

questionnaire. Rejected applicants will be informed of the incentive of either money, a gift card,

or an entry into a raffle for either money or a gift card upon completing the self-survey. All

rejected applicants will receive the same post application questionnaire regardless of any

previous group conditions they were placed in. Upon completing the online survey the

participant will be thanked for their participation and be given their incentive promised earlier or

confirmed their entry into the raffle.

Due to the large sample size of this proposed study and the fact that all applicants will be

rejected there will be a serious debriefing after the entire process has been completed by

participants. The debriefing will consist of another email alerting all participants that the

potential job was part of a study and that all applicants were rejected. There will also be some

information about the aims and goals of the study as well as information about the potential long

lasting effects of rejection and how to help combat these feelings. The email will lastly thank

them for taking the time to participate and will let the participants know the incentive will still be

given for all participants who have completed the entire process.

Design

The design for this proposed study is a 3 (Resume, Online Data, Both) X 2 (High

Interpersonal Feedback, Low Interpersonal Feedback) design. One third (150) of the participants

will be assigned randomly to one of the three previously mentioned application process groups.


In each of these groups, half (75) will be randomly assigned one of the two previously mentioned

interpersonal feedback groups.

Analysis

For the analysis I would run a two-way between subjects MANOVA. The between

subjects factors are application process (resume, online data, both) and interpersonal feedback

(high vs low). The dependent variables would be ratings of perceived procedural justice and

overall views towards the company.

Results

To start the expected results section, I will address my 3 predicted hypotheses.

Hypothesis (1) is that participants in either the resume only or online data only groups will have

higher perceived levels of procedural justice than those in the both group. I expect to see data

that directly supports this hypothesis. I expect to see this hypothesis proven true based on the

lack of redundancy of reentering information twice. Applicants should feel as though what they

are saying in an application either through resume or online data is actually being looked at. A


streamlined process involving only one entry method should also make a company appear more

competent. I would expect to see a graph in the following light comparing means between the

three application process groups.

Hypothesis (2) is that participants in the resume only group will have the highest levels of

procedural justice. The most important hypothesis in this study, I believe that those in the resume

only group will have the highest overall procedural justice ratings. I believe firmly in this

hypothesis because an applicant has total autonomy and control over what their resume looks

like and will say about them. This influence by the applicant should help them feel as though

they have received a fair look, and also that they have been given an outcome based on their

merits alone. The both category which also contains a resume will not have the same effect as the

redundancy and also the reentry of information already in their resume will give them a feeling

of being just another statistic with the online data. As mentioned in the lit review applicants have


higher justice levels when dealing with a person making decisions opposed to an automated

system. I believe the online data entry in the both and data entry groups will give applicants the

sense of some automation making decisions lowering their percieved justice. The previous graph

is expected and would support this hypothesis (2).

Hypothesis (3) is that Participants in the high interpersonal communication group will

have a higher perceived procedural justice and a more overall positive view of the company than

those in the low interpersonal communication group. I would expect the data from this study to

produce data that directly supports this hypothesis. I believe the simply gesture of high

interpersonal feedback will leave applicants with a better general feeling about how their

rejection was handled by the company. As stated in the lit review warmly worded

communication and two way communication can lead to higher levels of justice. I would expect

to see data resembling the graph below.


Discussion

Expected Conclusions

From this proposed study I believe many things can be discovered. Primarily I would

expect new data about the way companies have been requiring data entry on almost universally

online application processes. Submitting a resume and also filling out pages of online code is not

only redundant, but can leave the applicant with the feeling of “why did I even take the time to

make a resume if no one is going to look at it?” It should be noted that having a resume

submission and also online data entry is nearly commonplace for entry and lower level positions

at most companies with an online application process. This study will either show that this

practice is either problematic or not. Both outcomes are still worthwhile.

I also believe that this study could show whether or not online data entry is viewed in a

better light if it is paired or separate from submitting a resume. Again I would expect the

redundancy to leave the applicant with a sense of not being able to put their own spin on how the

company will first view them. It might be possible that online data entry by itself has a higher

rating alone than paired with a resume submission. Both of these conclusions I would expect

companies to take into account when creating or refining their online application process.

Lastly, more information will be presented about one possible way to mediate the fallout

of rejection. The use of high interpersonal communication and feedback will be tested to see if it

can reduce the negative feelings of someone who has been rejected by a company. If something

as small as the way an email is worded can have a substantial effect on a person’s wellbeing I

believe any company has an obligation to inflict as little harm as possible.


Implications

The implications from a study like this would firstly be a contribution further to the field

of applicant reactions. Any new information gained from this study or even information that

backs previously held beliefs about applicant reactions to selection processes is worthwhile.

More specifically this study could have major implications on how online application

processes are created and reviewed in the future. If it is found that a resume only, or online data

only entry has a significant change on how applicants feel about the process, companies may

need to take a look at their own process and even change it to reflect what is found.

If my hypothesis are affirmed by this proposed study, rejection can be looked at in a

whole new light by prospective companies. I believe rejection when applying to a job is harsh no

matter how nicely worded it is communicated to the applicant. I believe this is also why some

companies do not even reply if someone is rejected, but this can also cause serious emotional

fallout in the applicant as they are left in a limbo state of wondering if the company even

reviewed them as an option for the job. If the data affirms my beliefs there will be a chance for a

company to see that it is worthwhile to have high interpersonal feedback with those rejected to

reduce bad word of mouth, and possibly any litigation arises from the application process.

Limitations

Some limitations of the current proposed study in its current state will be relevant if this

study affirms my hypotheses. It is my belief that the group sizes are sufficient for a study like

this, but I do worry that they could be bigger. Having more data is generally always more

beneficial to any of the findings in the study.


Another limitation is that all of the respondents will have been rejected. It would be

interesting to look at the differences in those who are accepted and those rejected. The problem

arises though that it will be rare for a company to have hired 450 people, let alone get them all to

agree to participate in the study. That being said, if hired applicants can be added to the data set

and be large enough statistically to be a sound addition it is worth looking into.

As I stated earlier it is not uncommon for a company to send no notice of rejection to an

applicant. Companies will do this to never officially close the door on a potential applicant that

could fill a need elsewhere in the company or in the future at this position. It is a limitation of

this type of proposed study that a rejection letter be sent to all who participate to have the

moment of interpersonal feedback be worthwhile. It is also necessary that a letter of rejection be

sent to let the applicant know that the post application survey can be started.

Other potential limitations would possibly arise as the company name being used for this

study has an already withstanding reputation either positive or negative. The quality of applicants

could also rise to be a potential limitation depending on the job title and requirements.

Participants may start to resemble a non-random population and that would not be ideal. That is

something that would have to be addressed as the study gets underway. One would want to avoid

uniform group status such as gender, race, education level, and geography if possible.

Future Directions

Most of the future directions would stem from the limitations or the conclusions that are

supported by this study. Firstly a future direction that is very interesting is the inclusion of hired

applicants to the data pool. This would allow for the experimenter to see even more intricacies of

the application and hiring process and how it makes applicants feel. It would be interesting to see


if the application processes (resume, online data, both) would have any differences if the

applicant was hired. Also it would be interesting to see if interpersonal communication had any

effect, positive or negative towards those applicants who were hired compared to those rejected.

Another future direction that would be worth looking at would be to look at the

differences between rejected applicants who are contacted and given a firm rejection and those

applicants that are never fully given any response yes or no about their application outcome. I

would expect those that are still within the time period to believe they have a chance to be hired

to still have positive views on the application process and company. However, if too much time

has passed between the companies communicating with the applicants I believe they will start to

resent the company for not even letting them know they have been rejected. I would expect their

views to be more negative than even those who were outright rejected and notified. It is certainly

a possibility that could be looked at in future studies.

Lastly another future direction that could come from this type of research would be

looking at these same effects among jobs that are at different levels. I would expect a high level

job with a large salary and many skill requirements to differ dramatically with how the

application process is set up, and then how those applying feel when they are hired, rejected,

contacted, or ignored. It is certainly worth a look if this proposed study has significant findings.

Conclusion

I feel I have made a valid case for the possibility and theoretical foundation of this study

to be performed. The literature has shown the connection between applicant reactions and justice

theory. Also the literature shows that the more applicants feel they have been able to reflect their

own personalities and effect the application process the higher their overall rating of that


application process. Literature on rejection has shown that it can have serious emotional side

effects especially if handled poorly. Combining theories about rejection and what applicants feel

positively about in application processes I believe that avoiding a redundant application process,

one that allows the applicant to submit their own resume they have created will lead to higher

levels of perceived distributive and procedural justice. I also believe that having a high level of

interpersonal feedback in their rejection notice will lead to a better general overview of the

company than those who simply have been told they have been reject. It is a small task I believe

a company can do to limit the emotional fallout and pain of rejection, and I believe that is every

person and company’s responsibility to do so when applicable. Thank you for your

consideration.


References

Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Sanchez, R. J., Craig, J. M., Ferrara, P., & Campion, M. A. (2001).

Applicant reactions to selection: Development of the selection procedural justice scale

(SPJS). Personnel Psychology, 54(2), 388-420.

Bynes, S. L. 1993. Who's selecting whom? Effects of selection practices on applicant attitudes

and behaviors. In N. Schmitt & W. Borman (Eds.), Personnei selection in organizations:

240-274. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cohen, R. L. 1987. Distributive justice: Theory and research. Social Justice flesearch, 1: 19-

40.

Farago, B., Zide, J. S., & Shahani-Denning, C. (2013). Selection interviews: Role of interviewer

warmth, interview structure, and interview outcome in applicants’ perceptions of

organizations. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice And Research, 65(3), 224-239.

Feinberg, R. A., Meoli-Stanton, J., & Gable, M. (1996). Employment rejection and acceptance

letters and their unintended consequences on image, self-concept, and intentions. Journal

Of Business And Psychology, 11(1), 63-71.

Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. 1985. Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel

systems. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management. 3: 141-183.

Dineen, B. R., Noe, R. A., & Wang, C. (2004). Perceived Fairness of Web-Based Applicant

Screening Procedures: Weighing the Rules of Justice and the Role of Individual

Differences. Human Resource Management, 43(2-3), 127-145

Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice

perspective. The Academy Of Management Review, 18(4), 694-734.

Goldman, B. M. (2001), Toward an Understanding of Employment Discrimination Claiming: An

Integration of Ogranizational Justice and Social Information Processing Theories.

Personnel Psychology, 54: 361–386.

Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection

procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57(3), 639-683.


Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring Attraction to Organizations.

Educational And Psychological Measurement, 63(6), 986-1001

Konradt, U., Warszta, T., & Ellwart, T. (2013). Fairness perceptions in Web‐based selection:

Impact on applicants’ pursuit intentions, recommendation intentions, and intentions to

reapply. International Journal Of Selection And Assessment, 21(2), 155-169

Macan, T. H., Avedon, M. J., Paese, M., & Smith, D. E. (1994). The effects of applicants'

reactions to cognitive ability tests and an assessment center. Personnel Psychology,

47(4), 715-738

Madigan, J., & Macan, T. H. (2005). Improving Applicant Reactions by Altering Test

Administration. Applied H.R.M. Research, 10(1), 73-88.

Robertson, I. T., & Smith, M. 1989. Personnel selection methods. In M. Smith & I. Robertson

(Eds.), Advances in selection and assessment: 83-112. Chichester, England: Wiley.

Schinkel, S., van Dierendonck, D., & Anderson, N. (2004). The Impact of Selection Encounters

on Applicants: An Experimental Study into Feedback Effects after a Negative Selection

Decision. International Journal Of Selection And Assessment, 12(1-2), 197-205.

Schinkel, S., van Dierendonck, D., van Vianen, A., & Ryan, A. M. (2011). Applicant reactions to

rejection: Feedback, fairness, and attributional style effects. Journal Of Personnel

Psychology, 10(4), 146-156.

Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey. R. W. 1333. Applicant

reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology. 46: 43-76.

Sieverding, M. (2009). 'Be cool!': Emotional costs of hiding feelings in a job interview.

International Journal Of Selection And Assessment, 17(4), 391-401.

Sylva, H., & Mol, S. T. (2009). E-recruitment: A study into applicant perceptions of an online

application system. International Journal Of Selection And Assessment, 17(3), 311-323.

Thibaut, J., & Walker. L. 1975. Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Waung, M., & Brice, T. S. (2000). Communicating negative hire decisions to applicants:

Fulfilling psychological contracts. Journal Of Business And Psychology, 15(2), 247-263.


Waung, M., & Brice, T. S. (2007). The effect of acceptance/rejection status, status notification,

and organizational obligation fulfillment on applicant intentions. Journal Of Applied

Social Psychology, 37(9), 2048-2071.

Waung, M., & Brice, T. S. (1995). Applicant Rejection Letters: Are Businesses Sending the

Wrong Message?. Business Horizons, March-April, 59-62.

Ezzi Proposal Final

Documents

Transcript of Ezzi Proposal Final