THE EFFECT OF COLLABORATIVE ONLINE MEDIA ON RECRUITMENT DECISIONS: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY IN THE HOSPITALITY SECTOR

Üngüren, Engin; Türker, Nazlı

doi:10.1590/S0034-759020230504

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista de Administração de Empresas

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ARTICLES • Rev. adm. empres. 63 (5) • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020230504 copy

THE EFFECT OF COLLABORATIVE ONLINE MEDIA ON RECRUITMENT DECISIONS: AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY IN THE HOSPITALITY SECTOR

El efecto de los medios colaborativos online en las decisiones de contratación: Un estudio experimental en el sector de hostelería

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

This research aims to determine whether collaborative hypertext dictionaries (CHDs) offer warranties within the scope of the warranting theory. A fictional script based on recruitment processes was used to examine whether the comments about persons in CHDs offer warranties to recruiters. The study was conducted with a posttest-only control group design from amongst true experimental designs. The sample consisted of 359 persons, including board members of five-star accommodation establishments with recruitment privileges, deputy general managers, accounting managers, and human resources staff. The study concluded that positive or negative comments about applicants in CHDs significantly impact the recruiters’ perspective of them. Also, the research considered important resources in recruitment processes when it comes to offering warranties. The research findings provide a practical contribution by revealing the effect of applicants’ social media content on the recruiter’s choice.

Keywords:
collaborative hypertext dictionary; warranting theory; social media; recruitment decisions; hospitality industry

Groups	Treatment	Posttest
R-C	-	O₁
R-E₁	X₁	O₂
R-E₂	X₂	O₃

	Control Group (n=120)	Experiment Group 1 (n=139)	Experiment Group 2 (n=108)	Total (n=367)
Gender (%)
Female	23.3%	33.8%	35.2%	30.8%
Male	76.7%	66.2%	64.8%	69.2%
Marital Status (%)
Single	32.5	33.1	33.3	33.0
Married	67.5	66.9	66.7	67.0
Age (%)
25-34 age	36.7	43.9	35.2	39.0
35-44 age	38.3	41.7	41.7	40.6
45-54 age	23.3	12.2	14.8	16.6
55 age and above	1.7	2.2	8.3	3.8
Education (%)
Primary education	2.5	0.70	-	1.1
High school	24.2	19.4	12.0	18.8
Associate's degree	26.7	33.8	21.3	27.8
Bachelor's degree	43.3	44.6	65.7	50.4
Postgraduate's degree	3.3	1.4	0.9	1.9
Departments/Positions (%)
HR Manager	18.3	10.1	14.8	14.2
HR Department employee	30.8	34.5	33.3	33.0
General manager	10.0	7.9	8.3	8.7
Deputy general manager	10.0	9.4	8.3	9.3
Board member	10.0	6.5	6.5	7.6
Front-office manager	6.7	12.2	10.2	9.8
Sales and marketing manager	7.5	9.4	9.3	8.7
Accounting and finance manager	6.7	10.1	9.3	8.7
Social media account (%)
Yes	90.0	93.5	88.9	91.0
No	10.0	6.5	11.1	9.0

	Applicant A				Applicant B
	Std. Fac. Load	t values	Skewness	Kurtosis	Std. Fac. Load.	t Values	Skewness	Kurtosis
Evaluation of Competence
Industry experience	0.78	Fixed	-0.65	-0.31	0.87	Fixed	-0.09	-0.36
Managerial experience	0.74	14.495^{^*}	-0.55	-0.74	0.87	22.793^{^*}	0.00	-0.27
Education level	0.72	14.082^{^*}	-0.91	-0.14	0.81	19.961^{^*}	0.21	-0.60
Field of education	0.73	14.178^{^*}	-0.85	-0.25	0.78	18.765^{^*}	0.11	-0.41
Foreign language knowledge	0.63	12.101^{^*}	-0.49	-0.38	0.75	17.614^{^*}	-0.08	-0.56
Competence in using front-office information technologies	0.72	14.012^{^*}	-0.69	-0.30	0.82	20.295^{^*}	-0.09	-0.51
*Person-Organization fit assessments*
This applicant fits with your organization.	0.86	Fixed	-0.52	-0.34	0.77	Fixed	-0.43	-0.25
This applicant is similar to other managers.	0.88	22.959^{^*}	-0.44	-0.42	0.72	13.783^{^*}	-0.68	-0.62
Other department managers will think this applicant fits well in your organization.	0.90	24.261^{^*}	-0.49	0.10	0.83	17.051^{^*}	-0.50	-0.38
This applicant would be compatible with your organization.	0.91	24.797^{^*}	-0.31	0.51	0.91	17.431^{^*}	-0.52	0.26
*Recommendation to hire*
I think he can work as a front-office manager in our company.	0.93	Fixed	-0.35	-1.03	0.86	Fixed	-0.45	-0.32
I invite him for the first interview.	0.94	34.212^{^*}	-0.17	-1.18	0.84	19.848^{^*}	-0.21	-0.87
I believe that if he is hired, he will perform successfully.	0.96	37.815^{^*}	-0.24	-1.12	0.90	21.438^{^*}	-0.22	-0.52

	Applicant A								Applicant B
	1	2	3	α	AVE	CR	MSV	ASV	1	2	3	α	AVE	CR	MSV	ASV
(1)EVACOM	[0.72]^a			0.86	0.52	0.87	0.49	0.39	[0.82]^a			0.92	0.67	0.92	0.36	0.27
(2) PORFIT	0.55^{^ p < 0.01, α = Cronbach, a = The square root of the AVE = Average Variance Extracted, MSV = Maximum Shared Variance, ASV = Average Shared Squared Variance}	[0.89]^a		0.93	0.79	0.94	0.69	0.49	.44^{^ p < 0.01, α = Cronbach, a = The square root of the AVE = Average Variance Extracted, MSV = Maximum Shared Variance, ASV = Average Shared Squared Variance}	[0.81]^a		0.87	0.66	0.88	0.21	0.20
(3)RECTOH	0.70^{^ p < 0.01, α = Cronbach, a = The square root of the AVE = Average Variance Extracted, MSV = Maximum Shared Variance, ASV = Average Shared Squared Variance}	0.83^{^ p < 0.01, α = Cronbach, a = The square root of the AVE = Average Variance Extracted, MSV = Maximum Shared Variance, ASV = Average Shared Squared Variance}	[0.94]^a	0.95	0.89	0.96	0.69	0.58	.60^{^ p < 0.01, α = Cronbach, a = The square root of the AVE = Average Variance Extracted, MSV = Maximum Shared Variance, ASV = Average Shared Squared Variance}	.46^{^ p < 0.01, α = Cronbach, a = The square root of the AVE = Average Variance Extracted, MSV = Maximum Shared Variance, ASV = Average Shared Squared Variance}	[0.87]^a	0.89	0.75	0.90	0.36	0.28

	Control Group (n = 120)				Experiment Group 1 (n = 139)				Experiment Group 2 (n = 108)
	Applicant A	Applicant B			Applicant A	Applicant B			Applicant A	Applicant B
	Mean	Mean	t	d	Mean	Mean	t	d	Mean	Mean	t	d
EVACOM	6.83	4.39	39.03^{^*}	4.91	5.93	5.29	9.74^{^*}	1.23	6.29	5.76	8.35^{^*}	1.18
PORFIT	4.59	5.51	-9.59^{^*}	1.32	2.65	6.17	-40.47^{^*}	4.6	4.13	6.25	-29.88^{^*}	3.81
RECTOH	6.37	4.4	28.13^{^*}	3.38	2.98	5.88	-27.30^{^*}	2.79	4.63	6.17	-19.87^{^*}	2.74

Applicant	Dependent Variable	GROUP	n	Mean	Std. Error	95% Confidence Interval		F	η²	Post Hoc
Applicant	Dependent Variable	GROUP	n	Mean	Std. Error	Lower Bound	Upper Bound	F	η²	Post Hoc
Applicant A	EVACOM	Control Group ^(a)	120	6.83	0.04	6.76	6.90	58.58^{^*}	0.466	a^b.c. b^a.c. c^a.b
		Experiment Negative ^(b)	139	5.93	0.03	5.87	6.00
		Experiment Positive ^(c)	108	6.29	0.04	6.21	6.36
	PORFIT	Control Group ^(a)	120	4.59	0.07	4.46	4.72	250.32^{^*}	0.579	a^b.c. b^a.c. c^a.b
		Experiment Negative ^(b)	139	2.65	0.06	2.53	2.77
		Experiment Positive ^(c)	108	4.13	0.07	3.99	4.27
	RECTOH	Control Group ^(a)	120	6.37	0.09	6.20	6.53	430.67^{^*}	0.703	a^b.c. b^a.c. c^a.b
		Experiment Negative ^(b)	139	2.98	0.08	2.83	3.14
		Experiment Positive ^(c)	108	4.63	0.09	4.45	4.80
Applicant B	EVACOM	Control Group ^(a)	120	4.39	0.05	4.28	4.49	174.94	0.490	a^b.c. b^a.c. c^a.b
		Experiment Negative ^(b)	139	5.29	0.05	5.19	5.38
		Experiment Positive ^(c)	108	5.76	0.06	5.65	5.87
	PORFIT	Control Group ^(a)	120	5.51	0.06	5.40	5.63	48.41	0.210	a^b.c. b^a. c^a
		Experiment Negative ^(b)	139	6.17	0.05	6.07	6.28
		Experiment Positive ^(c)	108	6.25	0.06	6.13	6.37
	RECTOH	Control Group ^(a)	120	4.40	0.06	4.29	4.51	288.26	0.613	a^b.c. b^a.c. c^a.b
		Experiment Negative ^(b)	139	5.88	0.05	5.78	5.98
		Experiment Positive ^(c)	108	6.17	0.06	6.05	6.29

Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola de Administração de Empresas de S.Paulo Av 9 de Julho, 2029, 01313-902 S. Paulo - SP Brasil, Tel.: (55 11) 3799-7999, Fax: (55 11) 3799-7871 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: rae@fgv.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author