The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

PR
40,6 Organizational attractiveness and
prospective applicants’ intentions
to apply
684
Daniel Gomes
Polytechnic Institution of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal, and
José Neves
ISCTE-IUL Lisbon University Institute, Lisbon Portugal

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to clarify the process that leads prospective applicants to apply for a job
vacancy when one is being evaluated. It proposes that prospective applicants evaluate a job vacancy
based on the characteristics of the job and the organizational attributes. This will determine
organizational attractiveness perception, and will result in the intention to apply for a job vacancy.
Design/methodology/approach – An adapted employment ad that described a job and an
organization were presented to 51 marketing professionals and to 73 undergraduate marketing
students, who were asked to respond to a questionnaire that contained the measures of the study
variables. The hypotheses were tested using linear regression methodology.
Findings – Organizational attractiveness fully mediates the relations between the job characteristics
and the organizational attributes with intention to apply for a job vacancy. Analysis over the
compared importance of each factor has outlined the major importance of the organizational attributes
and feedback of the job for determining this process.
Research limitations/implications – Future research should clarify the role of organizational
image as an employer and organizational familiarity in this process.
Practical implications – Recruitment messages in employment ads should place preferential focus
on the elements of organization attributes and feedback of the job. These elements will more strongly
determine attractiveness perception, and consequentially, predict intention to apply to a job vacancy.
Originality/value – The study clarifies the role of organizational attractiveness in the process that
leads to intention to apply for a job vacancy. A significant part of the proposed model was based on
clues retrieved from existing research.
Keywords Intention to apply, Attractiveness, Job characteristics, Organizational attributes,
Job applications, Organizations
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Recruitment is a sequential and multi-stage process that permits an organization to
target prospective employees with specific skills (Barber, 1998; Aiman-Smith et al.,
2001). Organizations usually first identify a need for hiring, and then develop job
requirements and profile. In the final stage of this process, organizations make efforts
to attract applicants (Smith and Robertson, 1993). Organizational attraction refers to
the way employers strategically attempt to exploit their strengths in order to attract
Personnel Review applicants. Gathering a pool of prospective employees with profiles matching the
Vol. 40 No. 6, 2011
pp. 684-699 organizations’ requirements is critical for competitive organizations (Luce et al., 2001).
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited Recruitment has received considerable academic attention in recent years (e.g. Cable
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/00483481111169634 and Turban, 2001; Kickul, 2001), likely as a result of socio-economic trends including
growth of labor forces and increasingly competitive markets (Highhouse et al., 2003). Prospective
Despite this fact, several questions remain unaddressed over the attraction aspect of
recruitment, especially from the applicants’ point of view (Robertson and Smith, 2001).
applicants’
One of the main results of the attraction stage of a recruitment process is generating intentions
intentions within targeted applicants to apply to a job vacancy. Research has provided
some evidence regarding determinants of individuals’ intention to apply for a position,
an important outcome of the attraction stage. 685
Understanding the factors leading to the intention to apply is critical for effective
recruitment. In this research we propose and test a process model to better understand
what leads applicants to form intentions to apply for a job. Specifically, we investigate
whether perceptions of organizational attractiveness mediate the path between
applicant evaluation of a job vacancy and the intention to apply for the job.

2. Determining the intention to apply for a job

Research examining factors determining applicant intentions in recruitment and
selection processes has tended to focus on three main types of intentions (e.g. Cable and
Judge, 1994; Porter et al., 2004; Robertson et al., 2005):
(1) intentions to apply to a job vacancy;
(2) intentions to pursue a job; and
(3) intentions to accept a job.
Intention to apply to a job vacancy (IAJV) is a strong predictor of behavior in the
attraction stage of recruitment (Barber and Roehling, 1993), and is critical for
understanding applicant job choice. Social and organizational psychologists have
shown clearly that intentions predict action (e.g. Gibbons et al., 1998; Albarracı́n et al.,
2001), e.g. Fishbein and Ajzen’s (1975) theory of reasoned action. It is therefore
reasonable to assume that in the case of recruitment, IAJV will be a strong predictor of
actual applications to job vacancies.
The intention to apply to a job vacancy has been examined in two closely related
areas of research: job choice and organizational attraction. The job choice area of
research is focused on understanding the processes that result in applicant decisions
regarding job vacancies (Gatewood et al., 1993, p. 414). Following Behling et al.’s (1968)
initial theoretical guidelines for understanding job choice, considerable research has
focused on the individual applicant (Pounder and Merril, 2001). The importance of the
recruitment process to the study of job choice has also motivated research aimed at
better understanding what attracts applicants (Chapman et al., 2005). By better
explaining applicants’ decisions in the attraction stage, understanding the
determinants of IAJV can make an important contribution to the job choice area of
research. Also, given the labor shortages in many markets and the need for an efficient
recruitment process, better understanding the arguments organizations should use to
increase applicants’ IAJV is of considerable practical importance to organizations.
Job pursuit intention (JPI) and job acceptance intention ( JAI) also represent
important outcomes in the selection process. JPI refers to “the intention to pursue a job
or to remain in the applicant pool” (p. 929) whereas JAI is “the likelihood that an
applicant would accept a job offer if one were forthcoming” (Chapman et al., 2005,
p. 929). Despite the importance of JPI and JAI in selection contexts, this research
focuses instead on the attraction stage of recruitment and more specifically on IAJV.
PR Nevertheless, predictors of both JPI and JAI represent important clues for
40,6 understanding the factors that predict applicants’ behavioral intentions.
Though research has investigated a variety of applicant intentions in the attraction
stage, the factors predicting IAJV remains an important and open question in the
organizational attraction literature. For this reason, we address the following research
question: what is the process that results in prospective applicants’ submitting an
686 application for a job vacancy?
Previous studies in the organizational attraction area of research have shown that
job choice decisions may be determined by several factors, including job
characteristics, organizational attributes, and applicant perceptions of organizational
attractiveness (e.g. Barber and Roehling, 1993; Ryan et al., 2005; Robertson et al., 2005;
Van Hooft et al., 2006). Each of these is considered in turn.

2.1 Perceived job characteristics

JAI is related to general perceptions regarding job characteristics, specifically, job
tasks (e.g. Powell, 1984; Rynes and Barber, 1990; Taylor and Bergman, 1987; Turban
et al., 1998), compensation and job security (e.g. Powell, 1984; Porter et al., 2004;
Chapman et al., 2005), and the type of work to be performed (e.g. Chapman et al., 2005;
Carless, 2003). It has also been found that JPI is related to pay (e.g. Aiman-Smith et al.,
2001). However, to our knowledge, little research has used perceived job characteristics
in a process model to predict IAJV. In addition, it has not been clearly established what
are the most relevant job characteristics for predicting IAJV. This is a gap in the
research that we intend to address with this study.
Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) highly influential Job Characteristics Model ( JCM)
proposes five main characteristics that structure jobs: task diversity; task identity; task
significance; job feedback; and autonomy. According to the JCM, these five job
characteristics relate to three underlying psychological states: work meaningfulness,
knowledge of results, and sense of responsibility. Task diversity, task identity and task
significance contribute to work meaningfulness. Job feedback contributes to
knowledge of results, which allows the performer of a task to feel efficacious.
Autonomy results from discretion in how tasks are performed and contributes to
feelings of responsibility. Our first hypothesis is therefore that job characteristics
predict IAJV.
In addition to job characteristics, organizational attributes should also be important
to understanding job choice decisions.

2.2 Organizational attributes

Organizational attributes refer to perceptions regarding an organization’s policies and
work conditions (e.g. Robertson et al., 2005). As with job characteristics, organizational
attributes are frequently used elements in job vacancy advertisements. Several
evidences support the relationship between organizational attributes and job choice
intentions (e.g. Cable and Judge, 1996; Judge and Bretz, 1992; Judge and Cable, 1997;
Ryan et al., 2005). JAI is predicted by perceptions of work policies (e.g. Powell, 1984;
Chapman et al., 2005), and JPI is related to perceptions regarding lay-off practices
(Aiman-Smith et al., 2001), and other organizational policies (e.g. Powell, 1984). As yet,
research has not used an organizational attributes theoretical model or framework to
test this relationship, and thus the main organizational attributes predicting IAJV have
still to be identified. Collins and Stevens’ (2002) theoretical framework identifies several Prospective
organizational attributes commonly used in recruitment (for example: career applicants’
perspectives; work environment; stability and job security). Our second hypothesis
is that organizational attributes will positively relate to IAJV. intentions

2.3 Perceptions of organizational attractiveness

Applicants’ impressions regarding a prospective employer, including perceptions of an 687
organization’s attractiveness, are key to organizational success in attracting applicants
(e.g. Williams and Bauer, 1994; Albinger and Freeman, 2000; Carless, 2003).
Perceptions of organizational attractiveness refers to the degree to which a person
favorably perceives an organization as a place to work (Rynes et al., 1991), or the
general perceived desirability of working for an organization (Aiman-Smith et al.,
2001). Research suggests a strong relationship between applicant perceptions of
organizational attractiveness and job choice decisions. Perceptions of attractiveness
predict JAI (e.g. Carless, 2005; Porter et al., 2004), JPI (e.g. Saks et al., 1995), as well as
IAJV (e.g. Saks et al., 1995; Robertson et al., 2005).
The importance of organizational attractiveness to recruitment has been explored in
related areas of research in human resources and in marketing. For example, in
research on employer “brands” Ambler and Barrow (1996) have shown the importance
to recruitment outcomes of the image of the organization as an employer. Employer
image refers to knowledge regarding an organization (Tom, 1971) and the general
impression of the organization held by those outside the organization (Barber, 1998). It
results from the promotion, both within and outside the organization, of the benefits,
values and behaviors identified with the organization, which reveal and define the
employer brand. Employer brand is an important aspect of organizational image and
specifically refers to what is mostly associated with and known about the organization
as an employer (Ambler and Barrow, 1996). Other research has called attention to
organizational reputation (e.g. the Employer Knowledge framework, Cable and
Turban, 2001), which refers to the public and social evaluation of an organization, and
has also been related to attractiveness (Turban and Greening, 1997). Though
conceptually distinct, research has shown a strong positive relationship between
organizational attractiveness and image, employer brand, and reputation (Lievens and
Highhouse, 2003; Berthon et al., 2005).
Despite the strong evidence in different literatures relating organizational
attractiveness to job choice intentions, research has not systematically examined the
role of attractiveness within the recruitment process leading to IAJV. Robertson et al.
(2005) suggest that organizational attractiveness may mediate the relationship
between recruitment message specificity and IAJV. Other researchers suggest that
organizational attractiveness is predicted by job characteristics (e.g. Pounder and
Merril, 2001; Lievens et al., 2005) as well as by organizational attributes (e.g. Cable and
Judge, 1994; Albinger and Freeman, 2000), providing preliminary support for the
proposed model. It is logical to expect that prospective applicants evaluate a job
vacancy based on job characteristics and organizational attributes. In turn, this
evaluation should lead to perceptions of organizational attractiveness, which will lead
to IAJV. Thus, our third hypothesis is that organizational attractiveness will relate
positively to IAJV. Our fourth hypothesis is: organizational attractiveness will mediate
the relation between job characteristics/organizational attributes and IAJV.
PR The sequence of relations of our model of analysis is justified according to the
40,6 propositions of the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). It is a
comprehensive theory, which specifies a limited set of factors that can influence actual
behavior, notably: beliefs, attitudes, behavioral intention (Albarracı́n et al., 2001). The
authors define beliefs as the person’s subjective probability judgments concerning a
category of an object. A persons’ attitude towards an object is a function of his beliefs
688 that the object has certain attributes and his evaluation of those attributes. An attitude
refers to a person’s placement in an evaluative or affective continuum with respect to
an object, and as such, represents the general feeling of favorableness towards the
object (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). A persons’ behavioral intention is a function of his
beliefs and attitudes.
According to Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), individuals may form beliefs in a number
of ways:
.
descriptively (formed on the basis of observable events and direct experiences);
.
inferentially (based on individual inferences that go beyond directly observable
events or experiences);
.
informationally (based on the acceptance of outside information regarding the
object).

Regardless of the type of beliefs formed, they refer to the perceivers’ evaluation
regarding an object category (attribute). As it is usual for prospective applicants to
evaluate organizations and jobs through the information contained in job
advertisements, this may be a major source for belief formation. Following this
reasoning, the attributes of an organization and the job characteristics constitute
examples of informationally-based beliefs (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).
In sum, we propose to test whether IAJV is predicted by the job characteristics
proposed by Hackman and Oldham (1976) and the organizational attributes proposed
by Collins and Stevens (2002), and whether these relationships are mediated by
perceived organizational attractiveness. Thus we address our research question: what
is the process that results in prospective applicants’ submitting an application for a job
vacancy?
Figure 1 presents the simplified model of the process considered in this study.

3. Method
3.1 Sample and procedure
Participants were 73 undergraduate marketing students from two universities and 51
marketing professionals (35.4 percent with more than two years prior work
experience). Participants had an average age of 23.5 years (SD ¼ 6:4) and 61.5 percent

Figure 1.
Simplified model of
analysis
were women. This convenience sample includes participants who indicated they were Prospective
actively searching for a job (10.7 percent). Participants were told that they were applicants’
participating in a study to understand how applicants evaluate an organization. They
received a modified employment advertisement that described a job and an intentions
organization, and were asked to respond to questionnaire measures of the study
variables.
689
3.2 Measures
Unless otherwise indicated, items were measured using a seven-point scale ranging
from 1 ¼ Strongly disagree to 7 ¼ Strongly agree.
.
Organizational attractiveness. Five items from Bauer and Aiman-Smith (1996),
Fisher et al. (1979) and Turban and Keon (1993) were used to measure
organizational attractiveness. These items were also used by Aiman-Smith et al.
(2001) and Highhouse et al. (2003). Items include: “This would be a good
company to work for”.
.
Job characteristics. Nine items from Hackman and Oldham’s (1976) Job
Characteristics Model were used to measure job characteristics. Two items were
used to measure autonomy, feedback, task variety, and task identity. A single
item was used to measure task significance. Items include: “This job would allow
strong autonomy and independence in the way activities are to be performed”.
.
Organizational attributes. Five items from Collins and Stevens (2002), that were
also used by Robertson et al. (2005), were used to measure organizational
attributes. The items relate to adequate pay; training and development
programs; stability and safety on the job; opportunity to learn new skills; and
extra-salary benefits. Items include: “This organization would provide good
career perspectives to its employees”. Items were measured using a scale ranging
form 1 ¼ Highly unlikely to 7 ¼ Highly likely.
.
Intention to apply to a job vacancy. Four items adapted from Taylor and Bergman
(1987) and Robertson et al. (2005) were used to measure IAJV. Items include: “If I
were searching for a job, I would apply to this organization”.
.
Control variables. Powell and Goulet (1996), Cable and Judge (1996) and
Highhouse et al. (1999) suggest that the assessment of an organization and the
willingness to act towards it may be affected by several contextual variables. We
controlled for the following: urgency in finding a job; professional versus student
groups; participant age; and individual vs. team tasks preferences.

4. Results
The Harman technique was performed to test for common method bias. If a significant
amount of common method bias exists in data, then a factor analysis (unrotated
solution) of all the variables in the model is expected to give rise to a single factor
accounting for most of the variance (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Our results showed that the
data is, in fact, robust to significant common method bias errors. Subsequently, in
order to confirm the dimensionality of the questionnaire and to guarantee that each
variable constitutes an independent construct for this sample an exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation was conducted including all the items measuring
the variables of our model. Several items from the original scales were deleted as they
PR presented distribution problems. Table I shows the results of the EFA performed, with
40,6 the imposition of a six factor structure, which corresponded to the study variables (one
factor for each of organizational attractiveness, intention to apply for a job vacancy,
and organizational attributes; and three factors for the psychological states in
Hackman and Oldham’s JCM Model). The six factors accounted for 84.5 percent of the
cumulative variance.
690 Table II shows the means, standard deviations, inter-item correlations, and
reliabilities for all variables. The multi-item scale reliabilities were all acceptable and
the inter-item-correlations (for variables composed with only two items) all correlated
at p # 0:01.

Factor
Items loaded 1 2 3 4 5 6

Organizational attractiveness
I find this a very attractive company 0.828 0.297 0.249 0.164 0.150 0.137
For me, this company would be a great place to
work 0.802 0.377 0.266 0.196 0.140 0.128
This company is attractive to me as a place for
employment 0.737 0.339 0.269 0.247 0.243 0.071
Intention to apply to a job vacancy
If I were searching for a job, there would be a
strong probability of applying to this offer 0.324 0.877 0.184 0.155 0.139 0.110
If I were searching for a job, I would apply to this
organization 0.383 0.866 0.162 0.077 0.103 0.111
Organizational attributes
This organization would provide suitable pay 0.207 0.064 0.833 0.152 0.093 0.135
This organization would provide good benefits 0.213 0.248 0.750 0.255 0.058 0.142
This organization would provide access to
training and development programs 0.476 0.175 0.562 0.003 0.273 0.105
Responsibility
This job would allow strong autonomy and
independence in the organization of activities to
perform 0.065 0.118 0.160 0.884 0.069 109
This job would allow freedom and independency
in the choice of procedures to perform 0.255 0.115 0.189 0.751 0.268 0.088
Knowledge of results
It will be usual chief staffs to comment on the
results of job performances 0.119 0.255 0.115 0.043 0.888 0.143
Chief staffs will provide feedback about the way
how the job is performed 0.214 0.150 0.167 0.257 0.809 0.056
Work meaningfulness
This job will require new technical learning skills
frequently 0.059 0.226 0.302 0.074 0.261 0.823
This job will require very different tasks,
Table I. involving diversified skills 0.338 2 0.018 0.044 0.558 20.011 0.663
Factor analysis of the
variables included in the Notes: Each item highest loading is presented in italics; Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
study (varimax rotation) Normalization; KMO: 0.846
H1 and H2 were supported. Job characteristics and organizational attributes were both Prospective
positively correlated with intention to apply to a job vacancy (responsibility (r ¼ 0:35); applicants’
knowledge of results (r ¼ 0:35); work meaningfulness (r ¼ 0:38); organizational
attributes (r ¼ 0:52)). H3 was also supported, as organizational attractiveness was intentions
positively correlated with intention to apply to a job vacancy (r ¼ 0:71).
We followed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure[1] to test our mediation
hypothesis. First, we verified that organizational attractiveness and organizational 691
attributes (step one) were positively related (b ¼ 0:668; p , 0:01) and organizational
attributes and IAJV (step two) were also positively related (b ¼ 0:519; p , 0:01;
R 2 Adjust ¼ 0:246). When controlling for organizational attractiveness (Table III) in
the relation between organizational attributes and IAJV (step three), the effect of
organizational attributes on IAJV became non-significant (b ¼ 0:080; p . 0:05),
whereas the effect of organizational attractiveness on IAJV was positive and
significant (b ¼ 0:658; p , 0:01; R 2 Adjust: ¼ 0:502). Thus, the relationship between
organizational attributes and intention to apply to a job vacancy (IAJV) was fully
mediated by organizational attractiveness.
None of the control variables related significantly to attractiveness ((urgency in
finding a job (r ¼ 0:174; p . 0:05); professionals and student groups (r ¼ 20:002;
p . 0:05); age (r ¼ 2 0.005; p . 0:05); individual vs team tasks preferences
(r ¼ 2 0.102; p . 0:05)), either with IAJV ((urgency in finding a job (r ¼ 0.076;
p . 0:05); professionals and student groups (r ¼ 2 0.027; p . 0:05); age (2 0.045;
p . 0:05); individual vs team tasks preferences (2 0.057; p . 0:05)).
According to these results, when controlling for organizational attractiveness, the
relationship between perceived organizational attributes and IAJV is non-significant.

Variables Meana S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6

b
1. Organizational attractiveness 4.60 1.52 (0.92)
2. Intention to apply 5.03 1.76 0.71 (0.92)c
3. Organizational attributes 4.84 1.04 0.67 0.52 (0.78)b
4. Responsibility 4.21 1.32 0.49 0.35 0.45 (0.60)c
5. Knowledge of results 5.09 1.12 0.46 0.35 0.40 0.39 (0.63)c
6. Work meaningfulness 5.30 1.02 0.49 0.38 0.49 0.55 0.37 (0.63)c
Table II.
Notes: aSeven points Likert scales; bCronbach alpha reported in parenthesis; cInter-item correlations Descriptive statistics and
reported in parenthesis correlations

Unstandardized
coefficients Standardized coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 Organizational attributes 0.892 0.134 0.519 6,659 0.000 Table III.

2 Organizational attributes 0.137 0.148 0.080 0,923 0.358 Regression of the
Organizational attractiveness 0.773 0.101 0.658 7,632 0.000 predictor variable on the
criteria, controlling the
Notes: Dependent variable: intention to apply (IAJV) mediator
PR From the prospective applicant perspective, perceived organizational attributes lead to
40,6 perceptions of organizational attractiveness, which, in turn, lead to IAJV.
The relation between the perceived job characteristic “responsibility” and IAJV was
fully mediated by organizational attractiveness. Organizational attractiveness and
responsibility (step one) were positively related (b ¼ 0.488; p , 0:01) and
responsibility and IAJV (step two) were also positively related (b ¼ 0.352; p , 0:01;
692 R 2 Adjust. ¼ 0.116). When controlling for organizational attractiveness (Table IV) in
the relation between responsibility and IAJV (step three), the effect of responsibility in
IAJV was non-significant (b ¼ 0.006; p . 0:05), and the effect of organizational
attractiveness in IAJV was positive and significant (b ¼ 0.709; p , 0:01;
R 2 Adjust: ¼ 0:498), demonstrating full mediation by organizational attractiveness.
From the perspective of the prospective applicant, therefore, the perceived job
characteristic “responsibility” of the advertised job leads to perceptions of
organizational attractiveness, which, in turn, leads to IAJV.
In addition, results revealed that the relationship between the perceived job
characteristic, “knowledge of results” and IAJV is fully mediated by organizational
attractiveness. Organizational attractiveness and knowledge of results (step one) were
positively related (b ¼ 0.457; p , 0:01) and knowledge of results and IAJV (step two)
were also positively related (b ¼ 0.349; p , 0:01; R 2 Adjust. ¼ 0.115). When
controlling for organizational attractiveness (Table V) in the relation between
knowledge of results and IAJV (step three), the effect of knowledge of results on IAJV
became non-significant (b ¼ 0.030; p . 0:05), whereas the effect of organizational
attractiveness on IAJV was positive and significant (b ¼ 0.698; p , 0:01;
R 2 Adjust: ¼ 0:499), demonstrating full mediation by organizational attractiveness.
From the perspective of the prospective applicant, the perceived job characteristic
“knowledge of results” relating to an advertised job leads to organizational
attractiveness, which, in turn, leads to IAJV.

Unstandardized
coefficients Standardized coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.
Table IV. 1 Responsibility 0.474 0.115 0.352 4,117 0.000
Regression of the 2 Responsibility 0.008 0.099 0.006 0,082 0.935
predictor variable on the Organizational attractiveness 0.832 0.087 0.709 9,602 0.000
criteria, controlling the
mediator Notes: Dependent variable: intention to apply (IAJV)

Unstandardized
coefficients Standardized coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.
Table V. 1 Knowledge of results 0.553 0.136 0.349 4,083 0.000
Regression of the 2 Knowledge of results 0.048 0.115 0.030 0,417 0.677
predictor variable on the Organizational attractiveness 0.819 0.085 0.698 9,640 0.000
criteria, controlling the
mediator Notes: Dependent variable: intention to apply (IAJV)
Finally, we verified that organizational attractiveness and the job characteristic “work Prospective
meaningfulness” (step one) were positively related (b ¼ 0.490 p , 0:01) and work applicants’
meaningfulness and IAJV (step two) were also positively related (b ¼ 0.378; p , 0:01;
R 2 Adjust. ¼ 0.136). As shown in Table VI, when controlling for organizational intentions
attractiveness in the relationship between work meaningfulness and IAJV (step three),
the effect of work meaningfulness on IAJV became non-significant (b ¼ 0.038;
p . 0:05), whereas the effect of organizational attractiveness on IAJV was positive and 693
significant (b ¼ 0.693; p , 0:01; R 2 Adjust. ¼ 0.500), demonstrating full mediation by
organizational attractiveness.
From the perspective of the prospective applicant, the perceived job characteristic
“work meaningfulness” leads to perceptions of organizational attractiveness, which, in
turn, leads to IAJV.
These results fully support this study’s fourth hypothesis. Figure 2 shows the
simplified results of the proposed model. The accompanying Sobel Test results confirm
the mediation findings.
We were also interested in evaluating the relative importance of each factor in the
proposed mediation model. Using Baron and Kenny’s (1986) linear regression method
(Table VII), we regressed all factors simultaneously on organizational attractiveness
and verified that only organizational attributes (b ¼ 0.483; p , 0:01) and the job
characteristic “knowledge of results” (b ¼ 0.166; p , 0:05) were positively related
(first step). Then, we regressed, simultaneously, the organizational attributes and
knowledge of results factors on to IAJV (second step). Organizational attributes was
significantly related with IAJV (b ¼ 0.456; p , 0:01), as well as knowledge of results

Unstandardized
coefficients Standardized coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 Work meaningfulness 0.661 0.149 0.378 4,452 0.000 Table VI.

2 Work meaningfulness 0.066 0.130 0.038 0,511 0.611 Regression of the
Organizational attractiveness 0.814 0.087 0.693 9,357 0.000 predictor variable on the
criteria, controlling the
Notes: Dependent variable: intention to apply (IAJV) mediator

Figure 2.
Simplified results of the
proposed model
PR (b ¼ 0.070; p ¼ 0:054) (this step had R 2 Adjust. ¼ 0.292). In the third step, we
40,6 controlled for the mediator, and verified that the relation between organizational
attributes and IAJV was fully mediated by organizational attractiveness (b ¼ 0.076;
p . 0:05), as well as the relation between knowledge of results and IAJV (b ¼ 0.020;
p . 0:05). The effect of organizational attractiveness on IAJV was positive and
significant (b ¼ 0.652; p , 0:01; R 2 Adjust. ¼ 0.498).
694 Thus, perceived organizational attributes and the perceived job characteristic
“knowledge of results” relating to an advertised job vacancy were most important to
prospective applicant’s perceptions of organizational attractiveness, which, in turn,
lead to IAJV. These results suggest that in order to attract potential applicants
recruiters should emphasize information related to knowledge of results and to
organizational attributes. Figure 3 shows the simplified results of the proposed model
when comparing importance of the predictive factors.

5. Discussion and conclusions

Our findings suggest that organizational attractiveness can play a key-role in explaining
the process that leads to IAJV (e.g. Saks et al., 1995; Robertson et al., 2005). IAJV was
predicted by both the perceived job characteristics proposed by Hackman and Oldham
(1976), as well as the organizational attributes proposed by Collins and Stevens (2002). In
addition, organizational attractiveness fully mediated these relationships.
Though our study was exploratory in nature, the results obtained are consistent
with related findings in the literature (Carless, 2005; Saks et al., 1995). This increases
the value of our model which sheds light on the determinants of and processes leading

Unstandardized
coefficients Standardized coefficients
Model B Std. error Beta t Sig.

1 Organizational attributes 0.777 0.145 0.452 5,352 0.000

Knowledge of results 0.260 0.134 0.164 1,945 0.054
Table VII. 2 Organizational attributes 0.130 0.151 0.076 0,865 0.389
Regression of the Knowledge of results 0.032 0.116 0.020 0,276 0.783
predictor variables on the Organizational attractiveness 0.765 0.106 0.652 7,243 0.000
criteria, controlling the
mediator Notes: Dependent variable: intention to apply (IAJV)

Figure 3.
Simplified results of the
proposed model for
evaluating the compared
importance of the
predictive factors
to applicants’ IAJV. Using the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), Prospective
we were able to confirm the importance of organizational attractiveness to IAJV. This applicants’
clearly shows the importance of perceptions of organizational attractiveness to
understanding the attraction stage of the recruitment process. Though we do not have intentions
an empirical or theoretical basis for proposing mediators or moderators of the
attractiveness-IAJV relationship, this remains an interesting area for future research.
We were also interested in exploring the relative importance of organizational 695
attributes and job characteristics in the processes leading to IAJV. In our study,
organizational attributes and the perceived job characteristic “knowledge of results”
proved to be the strongest predictors of IAJV. Because this informs our understanding
of the relative importance paid to organizational versus job factors, we consider this
finding to be of both theoretical and practical importance.
This study represents an important empirical test of several factors that can lead to
IAJV. Our results show that the perception of organizational attractiveness is a
key-variable in the attraction stage of the recruitment process, by playing a mediating
role in predicting IAJV. These results extend our knowledge of the antecedents and
consequences of organizational attractiveness (e.g. Cable and Judge, 1994; Pounder and
Merril, 2001; Lievens et al., 2005; Carless and Imber, 2007), Also, our results suggest
that researchers should consider including organizational attractiveness in their
models of job choice.
From a practical point of view, this study has implications for improving employee
recruitment activities through increasing applicant attraction. In particular, human
resource managers should keep in mind that when evaluating a job vacancy applicants
can attach importance, as they did in this study, to both job characteristics and
organizational attributes. However, it appears that in the attraction stage human
resource managers should, in their job advertisements emphasize, those organizational
attributes identified by Collins and Stevens (2002) and job characteristics relating to
knowledge of results. According to our study, these are more likely to predict
attractiveness perception and to determine IAJV.

5.1 Study limitations and future research suggestions

This research has several limitations that could limit the internal and external validity
of the findings. First, the results were based on a convenience sample and may not be
generalizable to other populations. Future research should seek to replicate these
findings in other contexts and populations, including professions other than
marketing. Second, in spite of the procedures and efforts to minimize potential
errors relating to common method bias, the measurement context might have led to
systematic common method errors.
As the process leading prospective applicants to apply to a job vacancy is clarified,
we strongly encourage future researchers to further explore the impact of employer
branding in this process. The growing research attention on issues relating to
employer branding suggest that its role in our model merits further exploration. We
also suggest that future research should investigate whether organizational image is a
moderator in our theoretical model. We believe it is likely that image as an employer
could influence the direction and strength of our model, and so we posit the following
question: is the process that leads to intentions to apply to a job vacancy stronger in
situations of positive organizational image and weaker when this image is negative?
 We also encourage future research to integrate the issue of familiarity in our
theoretical model. Organizational familiarity refers to the degree of awareness and the
level of exposure an organization has for prospective applicants (Cable and Turban,
2001). Existing research has shown positive associations of this variable with
organizational attractiveness, and has suggested that it is an important variable to take
into account in organizational attraction contexts (e.g. Lievens et al., 2005). Future
Bauer, T. and Aiman-Smith, L. (1996), “Green career choices: the influence of ecological stance on Prospective
recruiting”, Journal of Business and Society, Vol. 10, pp. 445-58.
applicants’
Behling, O., Labovitz, G. and Gainer, M. (1968), “College recruiting: a theoretical base”, Personnel
Journal, Vol. 47, pp. 13-19. intentions
Berthon, P., Ewing, M. and Hah, L.L. (2005), “Captivating company: dimensions of attractiveness
in employer branding”, International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24, pp. 151-72.
Cable, D. and Judge, T. (1994), “Pay preferences and job decisions: a person-organization fit 697
perspective”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 317-48.
Cable, D. and Judge, T. (1996), “Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational
entry”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67, pp. 294-311.
Cable, D. and Turban, D. (2001), “Establishing the dimensions, sources and value of job seekers
employer knowledge during recruitment”, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and
Human Resources Management, Elsevier Science, New York, NY, pp. 115-63.
Carless, S. (2003), “A longitudinal study of applicant reactions to multiple selection procedures
and job and organizational characteristics”, International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, Vol. 11, pp. 345-51.
Carless, S. (2005), “Person-job fit versus person-organization fit as predictors of organizational
attraction and job acceptance intentions: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 411-29.
Carless, S. and Imber, A. (2007), “Job and organizational characteristics. A construct evaluation
of applicant perceptions”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 67, pp. 328-41.
Chapman, D., Uggerlev, K., Carroll, S., Piasentin, K. and Jones, D. (2005), “Applicant attraction to
organizations and job choice: a meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting
outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90, pp. 928-44.
Collins, C. and Stevens, C. (2002), “The relationship between early recruitment-related activities
and the application decisions of new labor-market entrants: a brand equity approach to
recruitment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 1121-33.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Fisher, C., Ilgen, D. and Hoyer, W. (1979), “Source credibility, information favourability, and job
offer acceptance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 94-103.
Gatewood, R., Gowan, M. and Lautenschlager, G. (1993), “Corporate image, recruitment image,
and initial job decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 414-27.
Gibbons, F., Gerrard, M., Blanton, H. and Russel, D. (1998), “Reasoned action and social reaction:
willingness and intention as independent predictors of health risk”, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 1164-80.
Hackman, J. and Oldham, G. (1976), “Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory”,
Organizational Behaviour & Human Performance, Vol. 16, pp. 250-79.
Highhouse, S., Lievens, F. and Sinar, E. (2003), “Measuring attraction to organizations”,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 63, pp. 986-1001.
Highhouse, S., Luong, A. and Sarkar-Barney, S. (1999), “Research design, measurement, and
effects of attribute range on job choice: more than meets the eye”, Organizational Research
Methods, Vol. 2, pp. 37-48.
Judge, T. and Bretz, R. (1992), “Effects of values on job choice decisions”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 261-71.
PR Judge, T. and Cable, D. (1997), “Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization
attraction”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 359-94.
40,6
Kickul, J. (2001), “Promises made, promises broken: an exploration of small business attraction
and retention practices”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 39, pp. 320-35.
Lievens, F. and Highhouse, S. (2003), “The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a
company’s attractiveness as an employer”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 75-102.
698 Lievens, F., Van Hoye, G. and Schreurs, B. (2005), “Examining the relationship between employer
knowledge dimensions and organizational attractiveness: an application in a military
context”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 553-72.
Luce, R., Barber, A. and Hillman, A. (2001), “Good deeds and misdeeds: a mediated model of the
effect of corporate social performance on organizational attractiveness”, Business and
Society, Vol. 40, pp. 397-415.
Podsakoff, P., Mackenzie, S., Lee, J. and Podsakoff, N. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 879-903.
Porter, C., Conlon, D. and Barber, A. (2004), “The dynamics of salary negotiations: effects on
applicants’ justice perceptions and recruitment decisions”, The International Journal of
Conflict Management, Vol. 15, pp. 273-303.
Pounder, D. and Merril, R. (2001), “Job desirability of the high-school principalship: a job choice
theory perspective”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 37, pp. 27-57.
Powell, G. (1984), “Effects of job attributes and recruiting practices on applicant decisions:
a comparison”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 37, pp. 721-32.
Powell, G. and Goulet, L. (1996), “Recruiters’ and applicant’ reactions to campus interviews and
employment decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 1619-40.
Ryan, A., Kriska, S. and Horvath, M. (2005), “The role of recruitment source informativeness and
organizational perceptions in decisions to apply”, International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, Vol. 13, pp. 235-49.
Rynes, S. and Barber, A. (1990), “Applicant attraction strategies: an organizational perspective”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15, pp. 286-310.
Rynes, S., Bretz, R. and Gerhart, B. (1991), “The importance of recruitment in job choice:
a different way of looking”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 487-521.
Robertson, I. and Smith, M. (2001), “Personnel selection”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 74, pp. 441-72.
Robertson, Q., Collins, C. and Oreg, S. (2005), “The effects of recruitment message specificity on
applicant attraction to organizations”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19,
pp. 319-39.
Saks, A., Leck, J. and Saunders, D. (1995), “Effects of application blanks and employment equity
on applicant reactions and job pursuit intentions”, Journal of Organizational Behaviour,
Vol. 16, pp. 415-30.
Smith, M. and Roberston, I. (1993), Systematic Personnel Selection, Macmillan, London.
Taylor, M. and Bergman, T. (1987), “Organizational recruitment activities and applicants’
reactions at different stages of the recruitment process”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40,
pp. 261-85.
Tom, V. (1971), “The role of personality and organizational images in the recruiting process”,
Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, Vol. 6, pp. 573-92.
Turban, D. and Greening, D. (1997), “Corporate social performance and organizational Prospective
attractiveness to prospective employees”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40,
pp. 658-72. applicants’
Turban, D. and Keon, T. (1993), “Organizational attractiveness: an interactionist perspective”, intentions
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 184-93.
Turban, D., Forret, M. and Hendrickson, C. (1998), “Applicant attraction to firms: influences of
organization reputation and organizational attributes, and recruiter behaviors”, Journal of 699
Vocational Behavior, Vol. 52, pp. 24-44.
Van Hooft, J., Born, M., Taris, T. and Van der Flier, H. (2006), “Ethnic and gender differences in
applicants’ decision-making processes: an application of the theory of reasoned action”,
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 14, pp. 156-66.
Williams, M. and Bauer, T. (1994), “The effect of managing diversity policy on organizational
attractiveness”, Group & Organizational Management, Vol. 19, pp. 295-308.

Further reading
Boonzaier, B., Ficker, B. and Rust, B. (2000), “A review of the job characteristics model and the
attendant job diagnostic survey”, South African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 32,
pp. 11-34.
Foddy, W. (1993), Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires: Theory and Practice
in Social Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sobel, M.E. (1982), “Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation
models”, in Leinhardt, S. (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1982, American Sociological
Association, Washington, DC, pp. 290-312.

Corresponding author
Daniel Gomes can be contacted at: drmgomes@esec.pt

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints