Chapter 5: Discussion, Recommendations, and Conclusion
Discussion
The goals of this study were to deepen our understanding of the explanations and evaluations of how a job seeker’s self-presentations influence recruiters’ hiring recommendations in online communities. The results of this study revealed that recruiters positively perceive P–J fit, P–O fit, and P–P fit when a job seeker offers argument quality and source credibility for specific self-presentation categories on LinkedIn, which indicates that there is indeed a commonly shared script (Jansen et al., 2012) that places clear demands on job seekers’ self-presentation in online
communities. Moreover, our findings suggest that recruiters make inferences about job seekers’ P–J fit and P–O fit based on the argument quality in specific
self-presentation categories, which in turn predict recruiters’ intentions to recommend job seekers for hiring.
In particular, we found that volunteer experience and causes, publications, and interests were unrelated to recruiters’ P–J fit perceptions. It is plausible that the relationship between job seekers’ non-work activities and perceived P–J fit depends on undetected moderators. For example, given that involvement with non-work activities is an indicator of job seekers’ vocational interests (Ehrhart, 2007), recruiters may rely more on job seekers’ publications as a basis of their judgements of P–J fit when the job vacancies require occupants to have more artistic (e.g., journalist) than conventional (e.g., human resources) traits.
Our results were consistent with Roulin and Bangerter (2013), which indicates that recruiters use job seekers’ self-presentation signals in online communities to infer
‧
characteristics that are predictive of P–O fit and P–J fit for hiring recommendations, while they focus more on job-related information that is available in online profiles, such as experience and education (Kristof-Brown, 2000).
In applying the ELM to recruitment in an online community context, because recruiters do not always have the ability or the motivation to process job seekers’
qualifications – central route information (Forret & Turban, 1996) – they may be persuaded by identification with the source presented by the job seeker through peripheral route information processing (Bhattacherjee & Sanford, 2006). If the persuasive messages come from a credible source, affective response (e.g., perceived P-P fit) can be evoked (Li, 2013).
However, the relationship between perceived P–P fit and hiring recommendations was non-significant in this study. We propose two possible
explanations for this finding. First, recruiters under high levels of accountability and training load will engage in greater elaboration than recruiters under low levels of accountability and training load, and when recruiters engage in greater elaboration, they will be influenced more by central route information (Forret & Turban, 1996).
Because our participants were all well-trained professional recruiters who are
accountable for the recruiting outcome, they have sufficient motivation and ability to engage in a high level of elaboration for hiring recommendations using central cues (e.g., P–J and P–O fit perceptions) rather than peripheral (e.g., P–P fit perception) cues. Another possible explanation may be the strong correlations between P–P and P–J fit (r=0.41) and between P–P and P–O fit (r=0.30). Thus, the unique effects of P-P fit on hiring recommendations may become non-significant after controlling for the
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
effects of P–J/P–O fit.
Although this study provides interesting results, certain limitations must be discussed. First, to collect data from the actual online profile screening process, we measured all variables on the basis of self-reports from the recruiters, which may cause a CMV problem. CMV is a complex topic, and one can never be certain of the extent to which correlations are inflated or attenuated as a result of the measurement method (Gregory et al., 2013). Although we cannot eliminate the possibility of CMV affecting our correlations, we do not find evidence that the hypotheses were supported solely as a result of CMV.
Second, our convenience samples of recruiters and online profiles were small for some analyses, resulting in limited external validity and generalisation. Thus, our results should be replicated in future studies. Future research may also attempt to replicate the above results in a different online community or SNS (e.g., Facebook).
Although other SNSs were not included within the scope of this study, it is conceivable that members of these sites (who may also include many LinkedIn registrants) are similarly concerned.
Finally, this study used HR professional vacancies for sampling. Different job vacancies may have different targeted job seekers, who may have engaged in different forms of self-presentation. Thus, future research may elucidate different job vacancies to decrease the variance among different job seekers in online communities.
‧
Our research also has implications for theory and research. The present study proposed a model that links job seeker self-presentations to recruiter hiring
recommendations in an online community and is rooted in the ELM (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986) and person–environment fit theory (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). The model indicates that self-presentation in online communities may be currently
emerging as a new persuasive message for recruiter hiring recommendations. When the recruiter carefully scrutinises the job seeker's qualifications on job-relevant messages (e.g., P–J and P–O fit), the recruiter is engaging in high elaboration through a central route, and his/her attitude toward the job seeker will be influenced more by the argument quality of the messages. When the recruiter does not carefully process the job seeker's qualifications but is instead influenced by messages (e.g., P–P fit) that are unrelated to job-relevant information, the recruiter is engaging in low elaboration through a peripheral route (Forret & Turban, 1996).
In other words, in online communities, recruiters who perceive P–J and P–O fit from job seekers’ self-presentations might have activated a central route for the elaboration of information, and those who perceived P–P fit from the job seekers’
self-presentations might have followed the peripheral route, which is more immediate and not as deep for hiring recommendations. Future research would benefit from examining how job seekers’ self-presentations actually influence recruiter recommendations based on this study.
LinkedIn has gained popularity in recent years and has become the preferred mode of employment for many professional users. This study provides evidence that
‧
the self-presentation is an integral part of persuasion process occurring on LinkedIn.
Self-presentation, also known as impression management, is the use of behaviours to intentionally regulate the impressions that observers have of oneself (Goffman, 1959).
Jones and Pittman (1982) developed a taxonomy of impression management
techniques that individuals commonly use. Their taxonomy included selfpromotion, ingratiation, exemplification, intimidation, and supplication. Researchers can adopt or expand this taxonomy to study the users’ self-presentation tactics on LinkedIn, which are beyond the scope of this article but which could be explored in future research.
Our results also have practical implications for recruiters and job seekers.
When recruiters want to search potential job candidates, professional SNS (e.g., LinkedIn) profiles may serve as an extended online résumé that allows job applicants and recruiters to exchange detailed job-related information at low cost and without the legal or ethical issues associated with private SNSs (e.g., Facebook). As research shows that recruiters’ perceptions of P–J and P–O fit are good predictors of applicants’
future performance and retention (Tsai et al., 2011), some attempt should be made to ensure that recruiters are instructed in how to assess P–J and P–O fit based on the online profiles.
Since many job seekers build their profiles in this online community for professional use and expect employers to view their profiles (Roulin & Bangerter, 2013), they may have various needs for different personas, necessitating different addresses in the online community (Bohnert & Ross, 2010). Managing multiple online personas is increasingly difficult, and separating one’s social and professional worlds appears to be nearly impossible without the proper mechanisms for exercising
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
such control (Labrecque et al., 2011). Individuals seeking a job or building a career clearly recognise the importance of constructing a consistent personal-professional image online. The key features of self-presentation for job seekers are the profile summary, work experience, and educational background. Furthermore, this study found that a job seekers’ portrait affected perceived P–J fit and P–P fit by recruiters.
LinkedIn users ought to be more aware of their photo appearance to multiple audiences having access to their profile and being perceives to their images in the online space.
‧
In conclusion, this study elucidates the mechanisms (ELM persuasion processes with fit perceptions) that link job seekers’ self-presentations to recruiters’
hiring recommendations in online communities. Our findings provide evidence that the argument quality of self-presentation influences recruiter perceptions of J and P-O fit and that perceived P-J fit and P-P-O fit lead to recruiters’ hiring recommendations.
Future research might explore additional moderators (such as different types of job vacancies) to further clarify the boundary conditions of the proposed model.
Although job seekers’ self-presentation and recruiters’ perception have been studied in other contexts, tracing how these processes take place in the online community realm offers researchers unique insights into the crucial role of
elaboration likelihood model, the complicated nature of ‘persuasion process’ in social networking sites (SNSs), and the person-environment fit implications of screening potential candidates based on the online profiles.
From an organization perspective, the goals and primary processes of workforce recruiting in SNSs, such as LinkedIn, are not that different from those in other online job boards (e.g., Monster, Careerbuilder, and Indeed). What is different is that SNSs offer a fertile source of information concerning“passive” job seekers who are employed and not currently looking for a new opportunity, but would be open to taking a better one. Many employment recruiters or human resources professionals maintain that passive jobseekers are especially desirable because they represent an untapped pool of potential candidates who are not already associated with placement agencies or other recruiting professional (Dekay, 2009).
‧
LinkedIn states that 30% – an impressive percentage – of their views for job posts come from passive job seekers. What’s more, nearly 1 in 5 of those who already have a job said that they have been approached by a recruiter for a position they never applied for. That’s truly passive job seeking. And it proves the importance of self-presentation on LinkedIn.
From an individual perspective, it appears that the online community may be providing a new ways to maintain an active job search through self-presentation without tipping off the job seekers’ current employer that they are looking elsewhere.
This study has attempted to elucidate and explain some of self-presentation
categorises as a persuasive messages to influence recruiter’s hiring recommendation on LinkedIn. According to the Washington Post, LinkedIn has changed the way businesses hunt talent, and it has also shaken up the job candidate experience for workers of all sorts. Satisfied employees in high-demand fields are frequently getting unexpected nibbles to gauge their interest in new opportunities. And active job seekers might now face increased competition, as they’re often vying with candidates who do not necessarily need a new job (Halzack, 2013).
As SNS technologies advance, they continue to change the recruitment landscape for job seekers and professional recruiters alike (Cook, 2012). Cober, Brown, Blumenthal, Doverspike, and Levy (2000) predicted that recruitment in SNSs (called “social recruiting”) will continue to replace traditional methods such as job fairs, newspaper ads, word of mouth, and campus recruiting. This study is only a first step in investigating the potential of social recruiting with empirical evidence and calls for more research including real job seekers and recruiters.
‧
Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American
Psychologist, 36(7), 715–729.
Adams, S. (2013, February 5). New survey: LinkedIn more dominant than ever among job seekers and recruiters, but Facebook poised to gain. Forbes, 28–
29.
Arthur, W., Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., & Doverspike, D. (2006). The use of person-organization fit in employment decision making: An assessment of its criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 786–801.
Bailenson, J. N., Iyengar, S., Yee, N., & Collins, N. A. (2008). Facial similarity between voters and candidates causes influence. Public Opinion Quarterly,
72(5), 935–961.
Barnes, N. G., & Lescault, A. M. (2012, November 2). The 2012 Inc. 500 social media update: Blogging declines as newer tools rule. Retrieved from www.umassd.edu/cmr/studiesandresearch/2012inc500socialmediaupdate/
Banikiotes, P. G., & Neimeyer, G. J. (1981). Construct importance and rating similarity as determinants of interpersonal attraction. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 20, 259–263.
Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena.
Psychological Bulletin, 91(1), 3–26.
Bhattacherjee, A., & Sanford, C. C. (2006). Influence processes for information technology acceptance. An elaboration likelihood model. MIS Quarterly,
30(4), 805–825.
Birnbaum, M. G. (2013). The fronts students use: Facebook and the standardization
‧
of self-presentations. Journal of College Student Development, 54(2), 155–
171.
Bohnert, D., & Ross, W. H. (2010). The influence of social networking web sites on the evaluation of job candidates. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social
Networking, 13(3), 341–347.
Boller, G. W., Swasy, J. L., & Munch, J. M. (1990). Conceptualizing argument quality via argument structure. Advances in Consumer Research, 17(1), 321–328.
Breaugh, J. A. (2009). The use of biodata for employee selection: Past research and future directions. Human Resource Management Review, 19(3), 219–231.
Burkell, J., Fortier, A., Wong, L. Y. C., & Simpson, J. L. (2014). Facebook: Public space, or private space? Information, Communication & Society, 19(1), 1–
12.
Byrne, D., & Clore, G. L. (1970). A reinforcement model of evaluative responses.
Personality: An International Journal, 1, 103–128.
Byrne, D. E. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 875–884.
Caers, R., & Castelyns, V. (2011). LinkedIn and Facebook in Belgium: The influences and biases of social network sites in recruitment and selection procedures. Social Science Computer Review, 29(4), 437–448.
Caplan, R. D., & Harrison, R. V. (1993). Person-environment fit theory: Some history, recent developments, and future directions. Journal of Social Issues,
49(4), 253–275.
‧
Cashmore, P. (2007). Classmates.com, granddaddy of social networks, going IPO.
Retrieved Jan 11, 2014, from mashable.com/2007/08/13/classmates/
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an electronic mail
emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217.
Choi, S. M., & Salmon, C. T. (2003). The elaboration likelihood model of
persuasion after two decades: A review of criticisms and contributions. The
Kentucky Journal of Communication, 22(1), 47–77.
Claudia, I. (2012). The effect of control variables when using technology acceptant model to predict consumer’s intentions to buy online. Academy Research
International, 3(1), 137-145.
Cober, R.T., Brown, D.J., Blumental, A.J., Doverspike, D., & Levy, P. (2000). The quest for the qualified job surfer: It’s time the public sector catches the wave. Public Personnel Management, 29(4), 479–494.
Cole, M. S., Rubin, R. S., Feild, H. S., & Giles, W. F. (2007). Recruiters’
perceptions and use of applicant résumé information: Screening the recent graduate. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56(2), 319–343.
Cole, M. S., Field, H. S., & Giles, W. F. (2003). Using recruiter assessment of applicants’ résumé´ content to predict applicant mental ability and Big Five personality dimensions. International Journal of Selection & Assessment,
11(1), 78–88.
Cook, K. (2012). Social Recruiting: The Role of Social Networking Websites in the Hiring Practices of Major Advertising and Public Relations Firms. The
‧
Senior Honors Thesis from Honors Program of Liberty University.
Damnianović, V., Matović, V., Kostić, S. C., & Okanović, M. (2012). The role of the LinkedIn social media in building the personal image.
Management-Časopis za Teoriju i Praksu Menadžmenta, 65(1), 15–23.
Daneshgar, F., & Ho, S. (2008). Sociological factors affecting trust development in virtual communities. International Journal of Networking and Virtual
Organisations, 5(1), 51–63.
Davison, H. K., Maraist, C., & Bing, M. N. (2011). Friend or foe? The promise and pitfalls of using social networking sites for HR decisions. Journal of
Business Psychology, 26(2), 153–159.
DeAndrea, D. C., & Walther, J. B. (2011). Attributions for inconsistencies between online and offline self-presentations. Communication Research, 38(6), 805–
825.
Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A. K., & Hughes, B. N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 83–108.
Dekay, S. (2009). Are business-oriented social networking web sites useful resources for locating passive jobseekers? Results of a recent study.
Business Communication Quarterly, 72(1), 101–105.
Dineen, B. R., Ash, S. R., & Noe, R. A. (2002). A web of applicant attraction:
Person-organization fit in the context of web-based recruitment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87(4), 723–734.
Edwards, J. R. (1991). Person–job fit: A conceptual integration, literature review, and methodological critique. International Review of Industrial and
‧
Organizational Psychology, 6, 283–357.
Ehrhart, K. H. (2007). Testing vocational interests and personality as predictors of person-vocation and person-job Fit. Journal of Career Assessment, 15(2), 206–226.
Fawley, N. (2013). LinkedIn as an Information Source for Human Resources, Competitive Intelligence. Online Search, (Mar/Apr), 31–50.
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing
Research, 19(4), 440–452.
Fornell, C. R., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Forret, M. L., & Turban, D. B. (1996). Implications of the elaboration likelihood model for interviewer decision processes. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 10(4), 415–428.
Garcia, M. F., Posthuma, R. A., & Colella, A. (2008). Fit perceptions in the employment interview: The role of similarity, liking, and expectations.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(2), 173–189.
Gerard, J. G. (2011). Linking in with LinkedIn: Three exercises that enhance professional social networking and career building. Journal of Management
Education, 36(6), 866–897.
Gioia, D. A., & Poole, P. P. (1984). Scripts in organizational behavior. Academy of
Management Review, 9(3), 449–459.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York, NY:
‧
Gregory, C. K., Meade, A. W., & Thompson, L. F. (2013). Understanding internet recruitment via signaling theory and the elaboration likelihood model.
Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 1949–1959.
Guillory, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2012). The effect of Linkedin on deception in resumes. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15(3), 135–
140.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate
data analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Halzack, S. (2013). LinkedIn has changed the way businesses hunt talent. The
Washington Post. Available on www.washingtonpost.com.
Higgins, C. A., & Judge, T. A. (2004). The effect of applicant influence tactics on recruiter perceptions of fit and hiring recommendations: A field study.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 622–632.
Highhouse, S. (2008). Stubborn reliance on intuition and subjectivity in employee selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on
Science and Practice, 1(3), 333–342.
Hornsey, M. J., Grice, T., Jetten, J., Paulsen, N., & Callan, V. (2007). Group-directed criticisms and recommendations for change: Why newcomers arouse more resistance than old-timers. Personality & Social Psychology
Bulletin, 33(7), 1036–1048.
Howard, J. L., & Ferris, G. R. (1996). The employment interview context: Social and situational influences on interviewer decisions. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 26(2), 112–136.
‧
Hu, C., Thomas, K. M., & Lance, C. E. (2008). Intentions to initiate mentoring relationships: Understanding the impact of race, proactivity, feelings of deprivation, and relationship roles. The Journal of Social Psychology,
148(6), 727–744.
Ikenberry, J., Hibel, A., & Freedman, R. (2010). How technology has changed (and will change) higher education employee recruitment. Metropolitan
Universities, 21(2), 44–52.
Jansen, A., König, C. J., Stadelmann, E. H., & Kleinmann, M. (2012). Applicants’
self-presentational behavior: What do recruiters expect and what do they get? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 11(2), 77–85.
Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives of the self (pp.
231-261). Hillsdale, NJ: Eribaum.
Kaptein, M., Castaneda, D., Fernandez, N., & Nass, C. (2014). Extending the Similarity-Attraction Effect: The Effects of When-Similarity in Computer-Mediated Communication. Journal of Computer-Computer-Mediated Communication,
19(3), 342–257.
Klein, R., Rai, A., & Straub, D. W. (2007). Competitive and cooperative
positioning in supply chain logistics relationships. Decision Sciences, 38(4), 611–646.
Kristof-Brown, A. L. (2000). Distinguishing between recruiters’ perceptions of person-job and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 643–
671.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences
‧
of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel
Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person–organization fit: An integrative review of its
conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology,
49(1), 1–49.
Labrecque, L. I., Markos, E., & Milne, G. R. (2011). Online personal branding:
processes, challenges, and implications. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
25(1), 37–50.
Leary, M. R. (1995). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal
behavior. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Leary, M. R. (1993). The interplay of private self-processes and interpersonal factors in self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on
the self (Vol. 4, pp. 127–155). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Li, C. Y. (2013). Persuasive messages on information system acceptance: A theoretical extension of elaboration likelihood model and social influence theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 264–275.
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems:
The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 59–87.
Lievens, F., & Peeters, H. (2008). Interviewers’ sensitivity to impression management tactics in structured interviews. European Journal of
Psychological Assessment, 24(3), 174–180.
Lodato, M. A., Highhouse, S., & Brooks, M. E. (2011). Predicting professional
‧
preferences for intuition-based hiring. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
26(5), 352–365.
Madera, J. M. (2012). Using social networking websites as a selection tool: The role of selection process fairness and job pursuit intentions. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(4), 1276–1282.
Mak, B., Schmitt, B. H., & Lyytinen, K. (1997). User participation in knowledge update of expert systems. Information and Management, 32(2), 55–63.
Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Patil, A. (2006). Common method variance in IS research: A comparison of alternative approaches and a re-analysis of past research. Management Science, 52(12), 1865–1883.
Marcus, B. (2009). ‘Faking’ from the applicant's perspective: A theory of self-presentation in personnel selection settings. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 17(4), 417–430.
Nemanick, R. C., & Clark, E. M. (2002). The differential effects of extracurricular activities on attributions in résumé evaluation. International Journal of
Selection and Assessment, 10(3), 206–217.
O'Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory & research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of