See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/229806994

Experienced hiring versus college recruiting:

Practices and emerging trends

Article in Personnel Psychology · December 2006

DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb00910.x

CITATIONS READS
150 3,098

3 authors:

Sara L. Rynes Marc Orlitzky

University of Iowa University of Warsaw
101 PUBLICATIONS 20,365 CITATIONS 83 PUBLICATIONS 11,760 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Robert D. Bretz
University of Notre Dame
42 PUBLICATIONS 8,726 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Marc Orlitzky on 17 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY
1997. .W

EXPERIENCED HIRING VERSUS COLLEGE

RECRUITING: PRACTICES AND EMERGING TRENDS

SARA L. RYNES, MARC O. ORLITZKY, ROBERT D. BRETZ, JR.

Department of Management and Organizations
University of Iowa

Although much professional and managerial hiring involves experi-

enced workers, previous recruitment research has focused almost ex-
clusively on new college graduates, i b remedy this imbalance, 251
staffing professionals were surveyed concerning experienced-versus-
college hiring practices in their organizations. Results suggest that a
majority of positions requiring a college degree are filled with expe-
rienced workers. Experienced hires are evaluated more highly than
new graduates on most characteristics (understanding business, knowl-
edge of competition, realistic expectations, technical skills, interper-
sonal skills, writing skills, work ethic, likelihood of success, personal
ethics), although new graduates are evaluated more highly on open-
mindedness and willingness and ability to learn new things. Higher
proportions of experienced hiring are associated with organizational
growth, short-term staffing strategies, older workforces, and less dy-
namic business environments. Perceived success of experienced hiring
is associated with greater use of effective recruitment sources, older .
workforces, and more competitive salary offers.

Until now, the vast majority of recruitment research has been con-
ducted in college placement offices and has focused on new college grad-
uates (Breaugh, 1992; Rynes, 1991). In many ways, the emphasis on
college recruiting has been both justifiable and highly useful. College
recruitment is clearly a major source of hiring for professional, man-
agerial, and technical jobs (Lindquist & Endicott, 1986)^obs that are
increasingly important to the economic success of bothfirmsand nations
(Frank & Cook, 1995; McClelland, 1982; Miner, Ebrahimi, & Wachtel,

The authors thank the National Association of Colleges and Employers for financial
and professional support of this project. We are also grateful to Gale V^rma for sug-
gesting this research topic, and to Michael Forrest, Karen Lyness, Ken Pearlman, Norita
Rehrig, Use Saari, and Gale Varma for comments and suggestions on early versions of
the questionnaire. Finally, we thank Tim Judge and two anonymous reviewers for helpful
comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Sara L. Rynes, De-
partment of Management & Organizations, College of Business Administration, Univer-
sity of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242-1000 or e-mail Sara-Rynes@uiowa.edu.

COPYRIGHT © 1997 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. INC

309
310 PERSONNELPSYCHOLOGY

1995). In addition, certain features of college recruiting (e.g., central-

ization, annual recruiting cycles) make it an ideal setting for conducting
large-sample research on both recruiters and applicants.
On the other hand, a majority of managerial and professional jobs ap-
pear to be filled through sources other than college recruitment
(Breaugh, 1992; Granovetter, 1974; Rosenfeld, 1975). For example,
many such jobs are filled by dissatisfied workers seeking better alter-
natives, or by highly skilled individuals who are lured away by other
employers (Bretz, Boudreau, & Judge, 1994; Fombrun, Tichy, & De-
vanna, 1984; Frank & Cook, 1995; Rosenfeld, 1977). In addition, a
sizeable proportion of positions are filled by managers and profession-
als who have become unemployed (Schwab, Rynes & Aldag, 1987), of-
ten through mass layoffs and downsizings (McKinley, Sanchez & Schick,
1995). Even among college graduates, studies suggest that & majority of
jobs are filled through methods or intermediaries other than the college
placement office (e.g., Chang, 1996; Rosenfeld, 1975).
The fact that nearly all recruitment research has focused on college
placement, while probably fewer than half of managerial and profes-
sional jobs (and still fewer of all jobs) are filled in this fashion, may
place considerable limitations on our ability to generalize previous re-
search findings. College recruitment is unique in a number of ways, in-
cluding its cyclical nature, its relative degree of centralization in cam-
pus placement offices, and the generally low levels of job seeker experi-
ence. Because both job search and recruitment processes are believed
to operate in substantially different ways across different types of va-
cancies, applicants, and markets (e.g., Angresano, 1980; Doeringer &
Piore, 1971; Edwards, Reich & Gordon, 1975; Rynes & Barber, 1990;
Schwab et al., 1987), experts have argued that it is crucially important
for recruitment researchers to expand their investigations beyond the
college placement office (e.g.. Barber, Daly, Giannantonio & Phillips,
1994; Breaugh, 1992).
Recent developments suggest that it may be a particularly appropri-
ate time to study the organizational choice between recruiting new col-
lege graduates, versus recruiting individuals with several years of post-
college experience. Specifically, a number of changes on the demand
side of the employment equation suggest the possibility of a growing
preference for experienced, rather than newly graduated, job applicants.
For example, a wide range of commentators have noted the increas-
ing breadth of skill requirements of jobs (e.g., Cohen & Pfeffer, 1986;
Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Pfeffer, 1995; Snow & Snell, 1993), while
others have noted the increased importance of speed in competitive mar-
kets (House & Price, 1991; Stalk, 1988).
 SARA L. RYNES ET AL. 311

Both trends would be expected to favor workers who have already ac-
quired some on-the-job experience. For example, the demand for speed
would be expected to increase the desirability of recruiting individuals
who will be immediately productive, and immediately available (rather
than available only in December or May). In addition, recent meta-
analyticfindingshave established that work experience is positively asso-
ciated with job performance, particularly when the experience is specifi-
cally related to the job in question (Quiiiones, Ford, & Tfeachout, 1995).
Even when prior experience is not perfectly transferable, both theory
and research suggest that workers with some initial experience are better
able to absorb information from on-the-job training (e.g., McConnell &
Brue, 1992; Morrison & Brantner, 1992), further increasing experienced
workers' competitive advantage in environments that require immediate
productivity. Given thesefindings,it is not surprising that recent descrip-
tions of what organizations are looking for in job applicants include an
increased emphasis on previous experience (e.g., Lindquist, 1992; Na-
tional Association of Colleges and Employers, 1995; Sebolsky, Brady &
Wagner, 1996).
Changing market conditions also appear to have reduced the strength
and viability of many internal labor markets (Breaugh, 1992; Kanter,
1989; Lawrence & Dyer, 1983). In organizations with strong internal
labor markets, outside hiring is typically constrained to entry-level po-
sitions (such as those filled by new college graduates), while higher-
level jobs are reserved for internal candidates through promotion op-
portunities. Because internal labor markets are typically associated with
long-term relationships and strong enculturation processes, new gradu-
ates are typically preferred over experienced workers who have been
socialized in other corporate cultures. Thus, strong internal labor mar-
kets provide career paths in which both new college graduates and cur-
rent employees are largely protected from competition with experienced
workers from other firms (Doeringer & Piore, 1971). As a result, any de-
crease in the strength of internal labor markets, or of business strategies
associated with them (e.g., "defender" strategies; Miles & Snow, 1984),
would be expected to enhance experienced outsiders' prospects relative
to those of both current employees and new graduates.

The Present Research

To examine these issues and to get a better sense of recruitment and

selection practices for experienced hires, we surveyed employer mem-
bers of the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE,
formerly the College Placement Council), an organization specializing
in employment practices and career trends among the college educated.
312 PERSONNELPSYCHOLOGY

Four primary questions were addressed: (a) How is experienced hiring

conducted in organizations, and how do experienced hiring practices and
outcomes compare with those of college recruitment? (b) What pro-
portion of college-level managerial, professional, and technical hiring
occurs among experienced populations as opposed to new college grad-
uates, and has this proportion changed in recent years? (c) What organi-
zational and environmental characteristics are associated with relatively
more (or less) experienced hiring? and (d) What factors are associated
with perceived success of experienced hiring?
Tliese questions are important for a number of reasons. For exam-
ple, given the almost total lack of information about the recruitment and
selection of experienced individuals, there is a need for basic description
of how experienced hiring is conducted (for an analogous effort in the
college recruiting area, see Rynes & Boudreau, 1986). There is also
a pressing need for recruitment research that focuses on the organiza-
tional unit of analysis (Rynes & Barber, 1990), and that places recruit-
ment practices in a broader organizational and environmental context
(e.g., Jackson, Schuler, & Rivero, 1989; Lengnick-Hall & Lengnick-Hall,
1988; Miles & Snow, 1984).
It is also important to try to determine the extent to which jobs requir-
ing a college education are filled with new college graduates versus expe-
rienced individuals, and whether this ratio appears to be changing in ei-
ther direction. To the extent that experienced hiring reflects a substantial
proportion of all college-educated hiring, the generalizability of previ-
ous recruitment research (which has overwhelmingly been conducted on
college campuses) becomes increasingly questionable. In addition, de-
tection of a trend toward either more (or less) experienced hiring could
have serious implications for different categories of job seekers, as well
as for the intermediaries that help them find employment (e.g., college
placement offices; temporary help agencies).
Knowing the organizational and environmental characteristics asso-
ciated with more (or less) experienced hiring also serves a number of
purposes. First, to the extent that such characteristics are reliably as-
sociated with the extent of experienced hiring, we may be able to use
them as leading indicators of future changes in experienced-versus-new
graduate hiring patterns. Second, a demonstration that hiring patterns
correspond in hypothesized ways to environmental and organizational
variables would provide suggestive evidence that organizations are in-
deed linking their staffing strategies to broader environmental variables
(e.g., Schuler & Jackson, 1987).
Finally, assessing the organizational practices and characteristics as-
sociated with perceived recruitment success can provide useful informa-
 SARA L. RYNES ET AL. 313

tion for organizations seeking to improve their hiring processes and out-
comes (Rynes & Boudreau, 1986). Such analyses also provide an oppor-
tunity to determine the extent to which practices that have been found to
be effective via previous research (e.g., use of valid selection devices) are
actually employed by organizations, or associated with higher degrees of
perceived success (see also Ostroff, 1995; Terpstra & Rozell, 1993).
Based on advice from a number of corporate staffing professionals,
experienced hires were defined as "college-educated individuals with 2
or more years of post-college work experience." Given this definition,
it is important to recognize that the distinction between experienced
hires and new college graduates does not translate into "old" versus
"young" applicants. First, because an individual would be defined as
experienced with only 2 years of post-graduation work, we might be
talking about experienced workers who are still in their early-to-mid 20s.
Second, because many new graduates are individuals who have returned
to college after earlier employment or homemaking experiences, new
graduates cannot necessarily be assumed to be "young," either.
In addition, we recognize that new college graduates are not neces-
sarily devoid of work experience. Indeed, most college graduates have
had at least some experience, particularly in summer, part-time, intern-
ship, or co-op positions. However, organizations typically use substan-
tially different market intermediaries for locating the two types of appli-
cants (e.g., experienced hires are rarely recruited through college place-
ment offices, while new college graduates are rarely recruited through
private search firms; Breaugh, 1992; Granovetter, 1974; Rosenfeld,
1975; Schwab, 1982). This early sorting by labor market intermediaries
has considerable implications for which particular applicants will actu-
ally receive consideration for any given vacancy (e.g., Doeringer & Pi-
ore, 1971; Rynes & Barber, 1990; Schwab, 1982), suggesting that college
graduates and experienced hires compete in substantially segmented la-
bor markets. Thus, although the conceptual boundary between "experi-
enced" and "new graduate" hiring is inherently somewhat fuzzy, the op-
erational definition used here is based on definitions used by employing
organizations, and reflects the fact that new graduates and experienced
hires tend to be recruited through different channels.

Hypotheses

In this section, we offer some tentative predictions about the factors

associated with the relative extent of experienced hiring within firms,
and with perceived success of experienced hiring.
314 PERSONNELPSYCHOLOGY

Factors Associated with Experienced Hiring

One factor that may influence the degree of experienced-versus-

coUege hiring is the size of the salary differential between experienced
and inexperienced workers. Although it seems obvious that all else
equal, employers prefer to pay lower salaries, efficiency wage theory
suggests that under equilibrium conditions, higher salaries for partic-
ular groups (such as experienced workers) may be completely justified
by differences in expected productivity levels (e.g., Rosen, 1974). To the
extent that this assumption holds true, employers should be completely
indifferent between hiring more expensive (but more productive) expe-
rienced workers, and less expensive (but less productive) inexperienced
ones.
However, in the real world, observed wage differentials can reflect
disequilibrium conditions (Freeman, 1975) and are not always "effi-
cient" (i.e., reflective of true productivity differentials; Fleisher & Knies-
ner, 1984). Moreover, even when observed differentials are efficient on
average, employers can never be sure of the actual productivity of spe-
cific applicants, prior to hiring (Akerlof, 1970; Spence, 1974). Finally, as
price differentials between experienced and inexperienced workers in-
crease, the salience of the choice between them also increases. Given
these uncertainties, we would expect that the higher the experienced
wage differential, the more employers will place their bets with less ex-
pensive applicants (e.g., new graduates). Thus:

Hypothesis 1: The larger the salary differential between experienced work-

ers and new college graduates, the lower the proportion of experienced
hiring.

The ratio of experienced-to-new graduate hiring may also be asso-

ciated with an organization's time horizon concerning staffing decisions
(e.g., Greer & Ireland, 1992). Hiring new graduates is usually regarded
as a long-term investment, because new graduates typically require up-
front training costs and a longer period to reach full productivity levels.
In hiring new graduates rather than experienced hires, employers gener-
ally give up some immediate productivity in favor of longer-term growth
potential (e.g., Lawrence, 1989). Therefore, we predict:

Hypothesis 2: Organizations with longer-term staffing strategies will con-

duct relatively less experienced hiring than those with shorter-term hori-
zons.
 SARA L. RYNES ETAL. 315

Another factor that may be associated with the decision to hire ex-
perienced workers versus new college graduates is the age of an orga-
nization's current workforce. Theories and research on organizational
demography (Pfeffer, 1983), person-organization fit (e.g., Kristof, 1996),
and attraction-seiection-attrition processes (Schneider, 1987; Schneider,
Goldstein, & Smith, 1995) all suggest that in general, individuals will pre-
fer to hire others who are similar to themselves (see also Jackson, 1991).
Because age is on average associated with experience, one might expect
organizations with older employees to seek applicants who, like them-
selves, can be presumed to have been already socialized in work envi-
ronments and to hold similar work values and expectations (e.g., Schein,
1978). On the other side of the process, applicants also appear to pre-
fer coworkers who are similar to themselves (e.g., Meyer, 1994; Rynes,
Bretz, & Gerhart, 1991), suggesting thatfirmswith older employees may
be less successful in attracting or retaining new college graduates even if
they desire them. In combination, these factors lead us to predict that:

Hypothesis 3: The higher the median age of an organization's current

workforce, the higher the relative proportion of experienced hiring.

One might also expect preferences for experienced versus new grad-
uate hiring to vary with age of the organization and, by implication, its
life cycle. On average, older organizations are more likely to have for-
malized hierarchical structures (e.g.. Gray & Ariss, 1985) which, in the
career domain, translate into stronger internal labor markets with norms
against hiring experienced workers from other organizations (Doeringer
& Piore, 1971). Older organizations also tend to have narrower and
more specialized job descriptions (Doeringer & Piore, 1971), which are
less likely to require broad previous experience. Thus, we predict that:

Hypothesis 4: The older the organization, the lower the relative proportion
of experienced hiring.

The degree of environmental dynamism, or frequency of change in

an organization's environment (Daft, Sormunen, & Parks, 1988), might
also be expected to influence hiring patterns. Because dynamism ren-
ders organizational environments less predictable (Mintzberg, 1979), it
may also make previous experience less useful or even dysfunctional
(e.g., Falvey, 1987; Guthrie, Grimm, & Smith, 1991; Tosi & Carroll,
1982). For example, the high levels of environmental dynamism in the
computer industry appear to be associated with the general preference
of both Microsoft (Meyer, 1994) and Data General (Kidder, 1981) for
new college graduates. Thus, we predict:
316 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Hypothesis 5: The higher the environmental dynamism in an organiza-

tion's primary industry, the lower the relative extent of experienced hiring.

Finally, there are a few additional variables that might be associated

with experienced-versus-new graduate hiring, but which will be treated
as control variables in the present research because the direction of the
effect cannot be cleanly predicted. One such variable is corporate prof-
itability, which permits organizations to pay the immediate salary differ-
entials required by experienced workers, but which also enables them
to withstand the greater risks, increased training costs, and lower ini-
tial productivity associated with less experienced new graduates. An-
other such variable is the recent change in organizational employment
levels; downsizing may increase the breadth and level of skill demands
for remaining jobs (thus advantaging experienced applicants), while at
the same time decreasing the cultural acceptability of hiring experienced
outsiders (while laying off current employees). In addition, we con-
trolled for the job types recruited by each organization, because different
occupations tend to develop different hiring norms (Angresano, 1980).

Factors Associated with Experienced Hiring Success

Previous research has produced a variety of prescriptions for suc-

cessful staffing. However, most of these prescriptions have been derived
from within-organization studies using individual employees as the unit
of analysis, as in selection validation studies (e.g., Latham & Saari, 1984;
Pulakos & Schmitt, 1995) or studies of recruitment source effectiveness
(Breaugh & Mann, 1984; Tkylor & Schmidt, 1983). Thus, there is a need
for research that explicitly examines the relationship between staffing
practices and measures of success at the organizational level, rather than
simply assuming that individual-level results aggregate to organization-
level success (e.g., Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994; Rousseau, 1985).
Nevertheless, in general we expect that the success of experienced
hiring will be associated with the use of prescribed practices from the
normative literature on recruitment and selection. Specifically, we ex-
pect that greater success will be associated with the use of high-validity
selection devices (e.g., Schmidt, Hunter, McKenzie, & Muldrow, 1979;
Schmidt, Hunter, Outerbridge, & Ttattner, 1986), the use of more ef-
fective recruitment sources (e.g., Schwab, 1982; Rynes, 1991), formal
evaluation of recruitment processes and outcomes (e.g., Breaugh, 1992;
Cascio, 1989), and taking a longer-term strategic perspective on staffing
decisions (e.g., Breaugh, 1992; Snow & Snell, 1993). Thus:
 SARA L. RYNES ET AL. 317

Hypothesis 6: Experienced hiring practices will be perceived as more suc-

cessful to the extent that organizations: (a) use more valid selection de-
vices, (b) use more effective recruitment sources, (c) conduct more formal
evaluation processes, and (d) apply a longer-term focus to staffing deci-
sions.

In addition, we expect that the reported success of experienced hiring

programs may depend on the median age of the current workforce, for
reasons similar to those described in Hypothesis 3. Specifically, research
has repeatedly demonstrated that, left to their own devices, most orga-
nizational gatekeepers prefer to hire individuals similar to themselves
(e.g., Jackson, 1991; Jackson, Brett, Sessa, Cooper, Julin, & Peyronnin,
1991; Kanter, 1977; Schneider, 1987). Although hiring more similar ap-
plicants might not translate into higiier levels of objective or long-term
organizational success (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Schneider, 1987;
Schneider et al., 1995), it should be expected to translate into more pos-
itive perceptions of hiring practices and short-term applicant fit. There-
fore, we expect that:

Hypothesis 7: Perceived success of experienced hiring will be positively

associated with the median age of current employees.

Finally, we would expect organizations that display characteristics

typically associated with "good places to work" will be more successful in
locating and attracting high-quality experienced hires than organizations
with the opposite characteristics. Although organizational attractiveness
is to some extent in the eye of the beholder, previous research has sug-
gested that a number of organizational characteristics are typically as-
sociated with positive applicant and employee impressions. These in-
clude organizational profitability, employment growth (associated with
promotion opportunities), high salaries and benefits, and positive rep-
utation (e.g., Gatewood, Gowan, & Lautenschlager, 1993; Levering &
Moskowitz, 1993; Rosenbaum, 1984; Hirban & Greening, 1995). Ac-
cordingly, we predict:

Hypothesis 8: Organizations with (a) higher profitability, (b) higher growth,

(c) more competitive job offers, and (d) more positive reputations will re-
port greater success with experienced hiring than will organizations with
the opposite characteristics.
318 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Method

Sample and Procedures

The research was conducted in partnership with NACE, which re-

viewed early drafts of the survey to increase item clarity, improve survey
layout, and ensure interpretability by their membership. A preliminary
draft was then pretested onfiveresearch-active human resource profes-
sionals, and additional changes made.
The survey was mailed to the entire population {N = 1,192) of NACE
employer members in October 1995. A followup mailing was conducted
in late November. Responses were received from 251 individuals, for a
response rate of approximately 21%. Although this is a relatively low
response rate, it is comparable to those attained in many other recent
examples of surveyfieldresearch (e.g., Arthur & Bennett, 1995; Huselid,
1995; Ostroff, 1995; Tferpstra & Rozell, 1993). Six questionnaires could
not be used due to excessive amounts of missing data.

Dependent Variables

In the survey instructions, respondents were given a definition of ex-

perienced hires ("individuals witli 2 or more years post-college experi-
ence"), and asked to focus only on positions requiring a college degree.
They then answered the following question: "For those positions requir-
ing a college degree, what percentage of all new hires at your company
are filled with new college graduates? What percent are filled by expe-
rienced hires? Please provide estimates both currently and 2 years ago."
Respondents were presented with a 2 x 2 response table, where each
column (currently; 2 years ago) was expected to add to 100%.
Amount of experienced hiring was taken directly from the appropriate
cell. Nine companies had more than one respondent, permitting an
estimate of interrater reliability among a small subsample (intraclass
correlation = .87; Guilford, 1954). In addition, intrarater (test-retest)
reliabilities were calculated 10 months later for a different subsample
(n = 26) of original respondents, resulting in an estimate of .84. Fifty
percent of this subsample indicated that these figures were available
from their human resource information systems, while 50% said they
had to estimate. Examination of actual test-retest figures showed that
50% gave the exact same response 10 months apart; 77% gave figures
that differed by 10% or less, and 85% differed by 20% or less.
Change in experiencedhiringv/as calculated by subtracting the propor-
tion of experienced hiring in 1993 from the proportion in 1995. Respon-
 SARA L. RYNES ET AL. 319

dents who indicated some degree of change over the past 2 years also
provided an open-ended explanation of the main reason for the shift.
Success of experienced hiring was measured subjectively, due to the
previously documented difficulty of obtaining comparable objective mea-
sures in the recruitment area (e.g., Breaugh, 1992; Miner, 1979; Rynes
& Boudreau, 1986). Two types of subjective measures were obtained: a
single-item holistic evaluation (5-point scale) and a 9-item scale reflect-
ing success on various dimensions of experienced hiring (e.g., identifying
candidates, attracting candidates, retaining new hires, cost containment;
fv = .88). The two measures correlated r = .67.

Independent Variables

Salary premium (Hypothesis 1). Respondents indicated the average

salary differential between experienced and new college hires in per-
centage terms (where 0 = no differential).
Long-term staffing strategy (Hypotheses 2 & 6d) was assessed via a se-
ries of questions asking the extent to which the organization's managerial
and professional staffing strategy focused on: the current quarter; cur-
rent year; next 2-3 years; next 5 years, and more than 5 years into the
future. For each time frame, respondents gave a response ranging from
1 (not at all) to 5 (very heavily). Long-term strategic focus was opera-
tionalized as the sum of responses to the last three questions (i.e., focus
on strategies beyond the current year; n = .85).
Median age of employees (Hypotheses 3 & 7). Respondents provided
the approximate median age of current employees in their organization.
A subsample of respondents (n = 26) indicated whether this information
was available in their company's database, or whether they had to esti-
mate it. 73.1% said the figure was available in their database; the rest
had to estimate.
Organizational age (Hypothesis 4) was obtainedfi-omThe Million Dol-
lar Directory (1996). A natural log transformation was applied to reduce
skewness.
Environmental dynamism (Hypothesis 5) was assessed via procedures
described by Snell (1992), Keats and Hitt (1988), and Boyd (1990). Each
responding organization was assigned an SIC code based on its industry.
Then, annual net sales of each industry group, collected for the years
1990 to 1994, were transformed into natural logarithms to reduce skew-
ness (Keats & Hitt, 1988; Snell, 1992). Then, separate regressions were
run for each SIC code. Specifically, sales were regressed against time
to determine the extent to which sales growth was predictable. The an-
tilog of the standard error of each regression slope coefficient served as
320 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

the dynamism score for all firms in that SIC code, because large stan-
dard errors reflect a high degree of environmental turbulence and un-
predictability.
Use of high-validity selection devices (Hypothesis 6a). Based on previ-
ous validity evidence (e.g.. Hunter and Hunter, 1984; McDaniel, Whet-
zel, Schmidt, & Maurer, 1994; Noe, Hollenbeck, Gerhart, & Wright,
1994), the following selection devices were included in an index assess-
ing the extent of use (1 = never; 5 = always) of high-validity selection de-
vices: ability and aptitude tests, work samples, trial work periods, assess-
ment centers, biodata, drug testing, and structured interviews. Excluded
were selection devices with more modest validities (reference checks,
unstructured interviews, and grade point averages).
Use of effective recruiting sources (Hypothesis 6b). Respondents in-
dicated the extent to which they used (1 = not at all; 5 = a great deal)
each of nine recruitment sources for experienced hiring (e.g., newspa-
per advertisements, private search firms). In addition, they indicated
the effectiveness of each source on a 5-point scale. These assessments
(effectiveness and extent of use) were then multiplied to estimate the
extent to which each firm used the most effective sources.
Recruitment evaluation (Hypothesis 6c) was assessed in two ways: an
overall assessment of the extent to which respondents' companies for-
mally evaluate the success of experienced hiring efforts (5-point scale),
and dichotomous responses indicating whether or not formal evaluation
is conducted in each of four sub areas (cost per hire, time to hire, em-
ployee retention, employee performance). Because employers did not
tend to be consistent in their evaluation of various outcomes (i.e., eval-
uation of any one dimension was not strongly associated with evaluation
of the others), the holistic measure was used in subsequent analyses.
Profitability (Hypothesis 8a). Average return on assets (ROA) over
the 3 years prior to the survey (1992-1994) was calculated using Com-
pustat-PC. A 3-year average was used to minimize high levels of single-
year volatility in this measure (Daft et al., 1988).
Organizatiormlgrowth (Hypothesis 8b) was provided by respondents,
who indicated whether their organization had grown in terms of number
of employees (coded 1), stayed the same (0), or downsized (-1) over
the preceding 2-3 years. Although some respondents also provided ex-
act percentage changes in the number of employees, large amounts of
missing data forced us to use the three-category measure.
Competitiveness of offers (Hypothesis 8c). Respondents indicated the
competitiveness of the company's job offers to experienced applicants,
relative to those of competing employers (1 = not very competitive; 5 =
extremely competitive).
 SARA L. RYNES ET AL. 321

Reputation (Hypothesis 8d). Company reputation was assessed us-

ing Fortune's 1995 Corporate Reputation rankings (Fisher, 1996). Re-
sponding companies were assigned to an industry category, depending
on the business that contributed most to their revenues (using Standard
& Poor's, 1995). Companies that were ranked in the top 10 for their
industry were coded according to their actual rank; nonranked compa-
nies were coded as "11." These rankings were then reverse-coded so that
a positive coefficient would refiect greater success for firms with more
positive reputations.
Organizational size, operationalized as number of employees, was
collected from Standard & Poor's Register of Corporations, Directors and
Executives (1995). A natural log transformation was applied to reduce
data skewness.

Results

Characteristics of respondents and their organizations are presented

in Tkble 1. A comparison of current respondents with respondents to
NACE's most recent College Relations Survey (NACE, 1995) revealed
a very similar distribution of responses by broad industrial category (i.e.,
53% in services in the current survey vs. 50% in NACE's survey; 42% in
manufacturing vs. 43% in the earlier survey, and 5% in government or
nonprofit vs. 7% previously). Respondents were also similar in terms of
years of experience (10.4 years in the organization; 10.0 years in staffing)
and organizational size (mean = 16,740 employees; median = 6,000).
Although we did not have means and standard deviations for these vari-
ables from the earlier NACE survey, we were able to compare the per-
centages of respondents in various categories using Wilcoxon's rank-sum
test, which suggested for each variable tested that the two samples came
from the same population. Thus, respondents seemed to be generally
similar to the NACE membership as a whole. We should note, however,
that NACE employer-members tend to be larger on average than most
U.S. firms (see Kalleberg & Van Buren, 1996), although organizational
size did not appear to be correlated with extent of experienced hiring (r
= -.02; ns).
Eighty-one per cent (81%) of respondents were located at corpo-
rate headquarters. They represented a wide range of job titles, with the
most common category (25%) being Manager/Director of Staffing, Re-
cruitment, or Employment. Despite having a variety of job titles, re-
spondents reported that they were highly familiar with both college and
experienced hiring in their firms. Specifically, respondents evaluated
themselves 4.9 (college) and 4.6 (experienced) on 5-point scales of fa-
miliarity with their organization's hiring practices. Ninety-two per cent
322 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 1
Respondent Characteristics
Industry Percent
Services (total) 53.2
Manufacturing 41.9
Government or nonprofit agencies 4.9
Oreanization size
< .SOO employees 10.4
501-1,000 7.8
1,001-5,000 30.3
5,001-10,000 14.7
> 10,000 36.8
Most freauent hirine catesories*
Engineering 45.3
Computer science/information systems 23.0
Sales 17.7
Management/management trainee 16.5
Accounting 14.0
Finance 8.2
Marketing 8.2
Consulting 2.9
Human resources 1.6
Respondent experience (In organization') (In staffing)
Less than 1 year 9.9 6.2
1-3 years 19.4 20.7
4-6 years 15.7 17.8
7-10 years 14.9 16.5
> 10 years 40.1 38.8
Respondent iob jitle
Mgr./dir. of staffing, recruitment or employment 62
Human resources manager 38
Mgr./dir. of college or university relations 36
HR generalist 30
Recruitment/employment/staffing specialist 13
Mgr./dir. of college recruiting 12
Corporate or regional recruiter. 12
Mgr. of training and organizational development 8
VP of human resources 8
Director of human resources 7
Other 11
* Some respondents checked more than one category, so percentages do not sum to 100.

of respondents indicated that they were extremely familiar ("5") with

college hiring, while 71% listed themselves as extremely familiar with
experienced hiring, and 19% as very familiar ("4").
Tkble 2 reports some differences in employers' practices with respect
 SARA L. RYNES ET AL. 323

TABLE 2
College Ursus Experienced Hiring Practices
Extent of centralization Ave. ratine Percent of resimndents (N = 2351
Centralized Decentralized
1 2 3 4 5
College hiring 2.39 47 14 11 9 19
Experienced hiring 3.13 25 11 17 20 27
Extent of formal evaluation Colleee hirine Experienced hirine
Overall extent of evaluation' 3.60 3.23
% evaluating cost per hire 67% 65%
% evaluating time to hire 51% 64%
% evaluating employee retention 76% 66%
% evaluating new hire performance 72% 68%
Use of selection procedure^ 1New grads Exp. t 95% confidence
interval for d
Grade point average 3.97 2.54 19.61** (1.29, 1.57)
TVial work periods (e.g., interns. 2.80 1.99 10.91** (.67, .96)
temps)
Structured interviews 3.99 3.84 3.50** (.07, .24)
Drug tests 3.44 3.43 .29 (-.05, .06)
Biodata/numerically scored 1.16 1.15 .19 (-.04, .04)
applications
Aptitude or ability tests 1.58 1.65 -1.55 (-.16, .02)
Unstructured interviews 2.92 2.98 -1.60 (-.14, .02)
Personality tests or assessments 1.45 1.56 -3.23** (-.19, -.05)
Assessment centers 1.16 1.30 -3.48** (-.22, -.06)
Reference checks 4.20 4.47 -5.24** (-.37, -.17)
Work samples 2.06 2.35 -5.29** (-.39, -.18)
' (1) = Not at all; (5) = To a great extent;
' (I) = Never; (3) = Sometimes; (5) = Always;
*p< .05; **p< .01

to college versus experienced hiring. This table suggests that experi-

enced hiring activities are more likely to be decentralized than those as-
sociated with college recruitment (d = .74; p < .01), and also that experi-
enced hiring is somewhat less likely to be formally evaluated than college
recruiting (d = .37; p < .01). However, examination ofthe specific types
of evaluation done for the two populations suggests that college hiring
is more likely (than experienced hiring) to be evaluated with respect to
new employee retention, while experienced hiring is more likely (than
college hiring) to be evaluated with respect to hiring speed.
TJible 2 also suggests that there are a number of differences in the
procedures used to screen new graduates versus experienced hires. For
example, new graduates were more likely than experienced workers to
be screened via grade point averages (d = 1.43), trial work periods
(d = .81), and to a lesser extent, structured interviews (d = .15). The first
324 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE3
Relative Desirability of Experienced Applicants versus
New College Graduates on Various Characteristics
Characteristic Average rating' t 95% conf. interval for d

Understanding how business works 4.14 27.82* (1.07, 1.23)

Knowledge of competition 4.12 20.97* ' (1.02, 1.23)
Realistic career expectations 3.98 20.15* ' (.89, 1.08)
Ifechnical skills 3.66 10.20* (.53, .79)
Interpersonal skills 3.38 7.29* (.28, .49)
Work ethic & work-related attitudes 3.32 6.50* (.23, .42)
Likelihood of success on the job 3.28 5.16* (.17, .39)
Personal and business ethics 3.27 6.37* (.19, .35)
Writing skills 3.24 4.33*' (.14, .37)
Adaptability to corporate culture 3.10 1.30 (-.05, .25)
Loyalty & commitment 3.08 1.26 (-.05, .21)
Cost effectiveness (value for salary) 2.92 .97 (-.23, .07)
Ability to work in teams 2.90 1.77 (-.22, .01)
Creativity, new ideas 2.88 2.00* (-.23, -.01)
Ability to learn new things 2.56 7.95* ' (-.54, -.32)
Open-mindedness 2.43 11.13* (-.67, -.47)
Willingness to learn new things 2.29 15.11* (-.81, -.61)
' I = new graduates far superior; 5 = experienced hires far superioi^t and d statistics reQect
difference from 3 (no difference);
*p< .05; **p< .01.

two findings are not very surprising, given that the use of GPA and trial
work periods (co-ops, internships, and summer employment) as screen-
ing devices is well established in college populations, but less so in expe-
rienced ones (e.g., many experienced workers do not list GPA on their
resumes). The slightly greater use of structured interviews in college re-
cruiting is probably due to the more centralized, concentrated, and cycli-
cal nature of the process, which facilitates formal training in structured
interviewing methods.
On the other hand, experienced hires were slightly more likely than
new grads to be screened via work samples (d = .29), reference checks
(d = .27), assessment centers {d = .14), and personality tests {d = .11).
However, with the exception of reference checks, none of these methods
was used very extensively in either applicant population.
Tkble 3 shows respondents' perceptions of the relative strengths and
weaknesses of new college graduates versus outside experienced hires in
their own organizations. Overall, experienced hires appear to be eval-
uated somewhat more favorably than new graduates (e.g., the average
rating across all items was 3.21, where 5 = experienced hires far superior
and 3= no difference; d = .21), particularly with respect to understanding
how business works (d = 1.15), knowledge of the competition (d= 1.13),
 SARA L. RYNES ET AL. 325

TABLE4
Recruiting Success: College Hiring Programs Versus Experienced Hiring Programs
95% confidence
Success factor^ College Exp. t interval for d
Identifying qualified applicants 4.06 3.73 5.13** (.20, .46)
Getting adequate pre-hire 3.86 3.57 4.59** (.16, .41)
information
Containing costs 3.65 3.34 4.45** (17, .44)
Attracting candidates 3.79 3.71 1.25 (-.05, .22)
Acclimating new employees to 3.71 3.64 1.13 (-.05, .20)
culture
Hiring high-performing employees 3.89 3.88 .08 (-11, .12)
Getting new ideas from new hires 3.60 3.62 -.36 (-.12, .09)
Retaining new hires 3.63 3.67 -.66 (-.17, .08)
Speed in getting employees up & 3.45 3.94 -7.49** (-.62, -.36)
running
Overall success 3.90 3.82 1.52 (-.02, .18)
' (1) = Not at all successful; (3) = Somewhat successful; (5) = Extremely successful;
**P< .01.

realistic career expectations (d = .99), and technical skills (d = .66).

On the other hand, new graduates were evaluated significantly more
positively with respect to willingness (d = .71) and ability (d = .43) to
learn new things, open-mindedness (d = .57), and creativity and new
ideas (d = .12).
Although respondents tended to evaluate experienced workers more
positively than new graduates, they did not evaluate their experienced
hiring programs more positively than college recruitment programs (Tk-
ble 4). Overall, respondents perceived both types of recruiting programs
to be quite successful (3.90 and 3.82 on 5-point scales for college and
experienced recruiting, respectively). However, college recruiting pro-
grams were seen to have advantages over experienced recruitment in
terms of identifying qualified applicants (d = .33), obtaining adequate
pre-hire information (d = .29), and containing recruitment costs (d =
.31). In contrast, experienced recruiting was regarded as superior in
terms of the speed with which new employees are brought to full pro-
ductivity (d = -.49).
The second substantive question concerned the extent of experi-
enced versus college hiring, and recent changes in experienced-to-new
graduate hiring ratios. Overall, respondents reported that in 1995, ap-
proximately three-fifths (62.5%) of positions requiring a college degree
were filled through experienced hiring. Examination of recent changes
in experienced versus new graduate hiring suggested that, on average,
experienced hiring increased 2.6% (1.6 percentage points) between 1993
326 PERSONNELPSYCHOLOGY

and 1995 (p = .18, ns). However, the most notable thing about reported
changes in hiring patterns was their variability across employers. For
example, the number of employers that shifted away from experienced
hires was almost as large (n = 82) as the number that shifted toward
them (n = 87). Fifty employers reported no change in hiring patterns.
Among the 39.7% of respondents who had shifted toward more
experienced hiring, open-ended responses suggested that two reasons
dominated: either the jobs available in their organizations had become
broader, more skilled, or more demanding (n = 33), or they required
more immediate productivity from new hires (n = 22). This latter re-
sponse is consistent with the earlier finding that employers were more
likely to evaluate "time to hire" in experienced populations. Less fre-
quent reasons included the increased availability of experienced hires
(n = 7) and their greater maturity (n = 4).
Among the group moving away from experienced hiring (37.4%), the
reasons were more diverse. The inost frequently reported factor (n =
22) involved changes in management personnel and/or the implemen-
tation of new management initiatives believed to be compatible with
college hiring (e.g., internship, job rotation, or internal training pro-
grams). The interesting thing about this category of responses was that
in most cases, the root causes of the shift in managerial preferences or
programs were not identified. The second most common reason, how-
ever, was more tangible: the greater affordability of new graduates (n =
14). Other responses included the desire to revitalize the organization
by bringing in new blood (n = 11), an increase in the number of entry-
level jobs (/I = 7), inability to fmd or to attract experienced workers (n
= 5), and higher perceived quality or better skills of new graduates (« =
5).
The third research question concerned the factors associated with
higher proportions of experienced hiring. Tkble 5 shows the simple cor-
relations between experienced hiring and other major variables, while
Thble 6 reports the regression results.
Tkble 6 shows that, as predicted, higher proportions of experienced
hiring were associated with shorter-term staffing strategies (Hypothe-
sis 2), older current employees (Hypothesis 3), and less dynamic envi-
ronments (Hypothesis 5). Experienced hiring was also proportionately
greater in organizations that had experienced faster employment growth
(a control variable) over the past 2 years. This finding, although not
explicitly hypothesized, is nevertheless consistent with previous specula-
tion that the pursuit of growth strategies requires a higher proportion of
e^qjerienced outside hiring (e.g., Fombrun et al., 1984; Schuler & Jack-
son, 1987).
 SARA L. RYNES ETAL. 327

ss

I I
*
• • * «
g fO m t-> >O Ul

I I

00

I 8
rr

5 B
I I I

s I I I

I J:! 8S
I
«

I
«

s
§

!0 •
S- ft.
« If

•l
V
a

IJ'
328 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 6
Regression Analysis Predicting Extent of Experienced Hiring
Variables Reduced model Full model

beta t beta t
Controls:
ROA(avg., 1992-94) .01 .14 .01 .17
Organizational size (In.) .02 .30 .01 .16
Organizational growth .22" 3.43 .26" 3.91
Consulting -.06 -.86 -.03 -.47
Computer science/info, systems .11 1.57 .09 1.37
Engineering .05 .73 -.06 -.81
Finance .01 .08 .00 -.06
Mgnit./mgnit. trainee .09 1.33 .07 1.06
Marketing .11 1.56 .12 1.75
Sales -.03 -.38 -.02 -.36
ft' .08
Adj. ft' .04
F 3.12^
Theoretical variables:
Salary premium -.03 -.43
Lxjng-term focus -.13" -2.11
Median employee age .26" 3.72
Organizational age (In.) -.10 -1.46
Environmental dynamism -.14* -2.27
ft' .18
Adj. ft' .12
F 3.12"
Incr. F 5.14"
•p< .05; " p < .01

However, our expectation that larger salary differentials for e;q)eri-

enced hires would be associated with lower levels of experienced hiring
(Hypothesis 1) was not supported. This result could mean that salary
premia for experienced hires are roughly in line with their average ex-
pected productivity advantage. Alternatively, it could reflect error in re-
spondents' assessments of salary differentials between experienced and
new graduate hires (e.g., due to lack of knowledge, or to averaging across
job categories). Similarly, we did not find support for our ex{>ectation
that older organizations would do less outside experienced hiring (Hy-
pothesis 4).
Tkble 7 shows variables associated with the two measures of experi-
enced hiring success: the 9-item index (see Tkble 4) and the single-item
holistic assessment. Perhaps the most notable outcome of these analy-
ses concerns the rather limited ability of the hypothesized variables to
 SARA L. RYNES ET AL. 329

TABLE 7
Regression Anafysis of Experienced Hiring Success

Variables Success index Holistic success

beta t beta t
Controls:
Respondent experience .04 .72 .12 1.85
Respondent at headquarters -.03 -.54 .00 .07
Familiarity w/experienced hiring .17 • • 2.78 .09 1.34
.07 .06
Adj. R" .06 .05
F 6.23" 5.02"
Theoretical variables:
Use of valid selection devices -.01 -.21 -.03 -.54
Use of effective sources .40" 6.74 .17" 2.69
Formal evaluation .00 .06 .11 1.60
Lx)ng-term strategy .11 1.84 .03 .48
Median employee age .08 1.36 .15* 2.33
3-yr. ROA -.02 -.32 .00 -.03
Organizational growth .02 .47 .09 1.41
Competitive offers .04 .65 .14* 2.17
Reputation .08 1.37 .11 1.72
R^ .27 .19
Adj. fl^ .23 .15
F 7.04" 4.43"
Incremental F 6.86" 4.04"
•p<.05;

predict perceived success under either operationalization. For exam-

ple, only one hypothesized variable (use of effective recruiting sources.
Hypothesis 7b) was reliably associated with both measures of success.
Descriptive statistics showed that, on average, the sources perceived to
be most effective (averaging across organizations on a 5-point scale)
were: informal referrals (3.72); newspaper advertisements (3.45); pri-
vate searchfirms(3.20); formal referrals from other companies and busi-
ness units (3.16); direct applications (3.14); college (alumni) placement
services (2.80); professional associations (2.78); temporary employment
agencies (2.61), and on-line employment exchanges (1.92). In addition,
the holistic measure of success was also associated with median em-
ployee age (Hypothesis 7) and with the competitiveness of offers to ex-
perienced hires (Hypothesis 8c).
Finally, one respondent characteristic, familiarity with experienced
hiring (a control variable), was positively associated with the success in-
dex. This result might reflect a self-serving bias, in that respondents who
are more familiar with experienced recruitment might also have more
330 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

direct responsibility for it. A similar finding was reported by Rynes &
Boudreau (1986), whose respondents (corporate HR professionals) re-
ported higher success for college recruiting when recruiting activities
were centralized in headquarters and conducted largely by staff (vs. line)
professionals. Alternatively, those with lower familiarity might have
been more inclined to give noncommittal (less positive) evaluations be-
cause of their more limited information. It should be remembered, how-
ever, that the vast majority of respondents reported themselves to be very
familiar with experienced hiring.

Discussion

Based on our survey, we estimate that more than half of externally

filled jobs requiring a college degree are filled by experienced applicants
rather than by new college graduates. Although we do not know the pre-
cise generalizability of our sample with respect to all U.S. employers, the
size of the experienced hiring estimate in this study (62.5%) lends clear
empirical support to the argument that more recruitment research needs
to be conducted outside college placement offices. Indeed, the fact that
our estimate comes from members of NACE (which has historically fo-
cused on college recruitment rather than experienced hiring) raises the
distinct possibility that, if anything, the proportion of experienced hiring
may be even higher among the general population of employers.
In addition, our findings revealed that firms vary greatly in their over-
all ratios of new graduate-to-experienced hiring, as well as in their ten-
dencies to shift toward more (or less) experienced hiring in recent years.
Consistent with recent work suggesting the importance of organizational
and environmental variables for the design of human resource practices
(e.g. Schuler & Jackson, 1987; Snell & Dean, 1992), differences in hir-
ing patterns appear to be at least somewhat predictable on the basis of
organizational and environmental characteristics.
For example, evidence that broader environmental factors play a role
was obtained from both the regression analysis (e.g., the negative rela-
tionship with environmental dynamism and the positive relationship with
employment growth) and the open-ended responses (more experienced
hiring in firms with increasingly demanding jobs and greater pressure
for speed). In addition, there was evidence that organizational demo-
graphics play a role, as suggested by the positive relationship betweeen
experienced hiring and median age of the current workforce. Although
this latter finding is consistent with previous research on similarity biases
(e.g., Jackson, 1991; Schneider, 1987), it raises questions about whether
(and how) organizations can ensure sufficient workforce heterogeneity
 SARA L. RYNES ET AL. 331

to obtain the presumed benefits of diverse perspectives (e.g., Jackson

1991).
In addition, we also gained preliminary insights into some of the fac-
tors that might be associated with greater degrees of experienced hiring
success. For example, perceived success was associated with greater use
of effective recruitment sources. In addition, the holistic evaluation of
success was associated with more competitive job offers and older work-
forces. On the other hand, effect sizes and variance explained were both
quite modest, and there was no evidence that perceived success was as-
sociated with several hypothesized correlates (e.g., use of valid selection
devices, long-term staffing strategies).
One possible reason for these limited findings has to do with the diffi-
culty of building scales with high internal consistency in the experienced
hiring context, particularly when those scales are based on the actual
use of procedures (as opposed to perceived effectiveness of procedures,
where response biases, halo, and method variance might all act to in-
crease scale reliabilities and variance explained). For example, none of
our practice indexes (i.e., use of valid selection devices, use of useful
sources, formal evaluation of subdimensions of recruiting success) fac-
tored in any meaningful way, or combined to create internally consistent
scales (o: = .47, .51 and .44, respectively). Examination of the raw data
suggests that these low reliabilities are due to the fact that organizations
tended to use one or two selection devices (or sources) but not others, or
to evaluate one or two aspects of recruitment outcomes but not others.
Moreover, similar to results reported by Terpstra and Rozell (1993), the
particular devices used, or aspects evaluated, varied considerably from
organization to organization.
A different explanation for the low variance explained might be that
recruiting professionals are somewhat uncertain about how to evaluate
the success of their experienced hiring practices. Support for this conjec-
ture can be found in Ostroff (1995), whose findings suggest that practi-
tioners are not good judges of either the importance, or the effectiveness,
of staffing practices. For example, despite the fact that Ostroff found
selection practices to be one of the strongest human resource correlates
of organizational financial success, respondents to her survey reported
both low levels of "best practices" in this area (particularly with respect
to selection validation and assessment of applicant fit) and low perceived
importance of these practices to organizational effectiveness and success
(see also Tferpstra & Rozell, 1993).

Limitations

Given the lack of both previous research and publicly available data
332 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

on this topic, conditions dictated that we obtain most of our data from
a single source—organizational members of NACE. In any study where
a substantial portion of the data are provided by a single individual, it
is always possible that some observed results reflect common method
variance rather than true relationships among variables (e.g., Campbell,
1982; Crampton & Wagner, 1994; Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Although
this possibility can never be entirely ruled out, we did take a number of
steps in the design phase to try to minimize the likelihood of contamina-
tion from common method variance.
For example, in many cases, our measures were obtained from pub-
licly available databases (e.g., organizational profitability, dynamism,
size, and age), or required relatively objective information on the part
of respondents (e.g., age of current employees, extent of source us-
age). Second, many of the items would not have caused respondents to
feel that they themselves were being evaluated (e.g., relative desirabil-
ity of college-versus-experienced hires, usefulness of different recruiting
sources, extent of experienced hiring), hopefully minimizing pressures
on subjects to present a good face or a consistent story throughout the
questionnaire. Third, a variety of different response formats were em-
ployed (e.g., open-ended, yes-no, percentages, Likert scales).
Beyond the steps taken in the design phase, our analyses revealed
that in only one instance did any individual respondent characteristic
explain a significant portion of the variance in any dependent variable
(respondent familiarity with experienced hiring was associated with its
perceived success). In addition, in no case did the results for theoretical
variables change, depending on whether or not respondent character-
istics were included in these equations. Still, because many of the ob-
served effects involve respondent-reported variables (e.g., median em-
ployee age, long-term focus, source usage), the possibility of contamina-
tion from method variance can not be ruled out.
Another limitation of the database concerns the relatively high pro-
portion of single-item measures. In some cases (e.g., median employee
age), a single item seemed to be the most appropriate operationalization.
However, in other cases, the use of single-item measures resulted from
the low internal consistency of possible multi-item alternatives (e.g., ex-
tent of formal evaluation), or from a desire to minimize survey length
and complexity. For example, in cases where organizations conduct
hiring in several job categories, it would have been preferable to use
salary differentials that were estimated separately for each job type, and
then weighted by hiring proportions. However, maximum survey length
requirements, uncertainty about data availability, and concerns about
questionnaire complexity prohibited such detailed data collection.
 SARA L. RYNES ETAL. 333

Future Research

First and foremost, our results suggest the importance of directing

a larger proportion of future recruitment research away from college
placement offices, toward other types of job seekers and employment
intermediaries. Of all the research that might be done, we think four
categories may prove to be particularly fruitful: (a) process-rich investi-
gations of the origins and evolution of organization-specific recruitment
practices; (b) research to develop improved recruitment measurement
and evaluation, perhaps in conjunction with employer associations, con-
sultingfirms,or benchmarking groups; (c) fresh examination of recruit-
ment sources and labor market intermediaries, and (d) from the appli-
cant side, longitudinal research on the effects of different career patterns
(e.g., spells of temporary or part-time work, temporary unemployment,
or labor force withdrawal) on long-term career and salary attainment.
Like Breaugh (1992), we believe that recruitment research would
benefit greatly from studies that collect more process-rich information
about the dynamics of recruitment decision making. Although we ob-
served wide differences in preferences for experienced hires versus new
college graduates in the current study, we were able to explain only mod-
est amounts of this variance with our regression models. Furthermore,
open-ended explanations of organizational changes in recruiting pref-
erences suggested a substantial role for managerial beliefs concerning
the relative desirability of experienced applicants versus new graduates.
Together, thesefindingssuggest that a more complete understanding of
recruitment systems may be achieved by supplementing traditional sur-
vey methods with more qualitative methodologies. For example, inter-
view or critical incident methods might be used to examine why certain
recruitment practices are chosen over others, who makes the decisions,
and what incidents trigger change. In this way, additional explanatory
variables might be revealed, and their effects on recruitment outcomes
examined.
We also believe that further knowledge about how to improve re-
cruitment processes is unlikely to emerge without the development of
more standardized procedures for measuring recruitment processes and
outcomes. At present, evaluation of recruitment programs (and thus,
knowledge of how to improve them) is hampered by inconsistent cross-
organizational operationalizations of such concepts as "applicant pool,"
"experienced hire," "yield ratio," "starting salary," "cost per hire," and
"successful hire." Just as assessments of organizational financial success
would be severely hampered by the absence of generally accepted ac-
counting procedures, research on recruiting effectiveness is hampered
by the use of noncomparable measurement systems and the continued
334 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

(but necessary) reliance on subjective assessments of recruitment suc-

cess in cross-organizational research. We believe that progress in this
area is unlikely to occur unless researchers join forces with employer
organizations such as NACE, the Employment Management Associa-
tion, the Society for Human Resource Management, or the Mayflower
Group, or consulting firms such as the Gallup Organization or the
Saratoga Institute. In partnership with one another, researchers and
consultants or employer groups might work to (a) develop common def-
initions, recording procedures, and measures across organizations, and
(b) analyze relationships among these variables to discover the most im-
portant drivers of recruitment success.
Once standardized measures are in place across a sufficient number
of organizations, research could be designed to address specific problem
areas suggested by the present research. For example, our results sug-
gest that in comparison with college recruitment, employers have greater
difficulty identifying qualified experienced applicants, getting adequate
pre-hire information about them, and controlling experienced hiring
costs. As such, these would appear to be important priorities for ap-
plied research in the experienced hiring area. Another important ques-
tion concerns whether there is some optimal ratio of experienced-to-new
graduate hiring, or whether optimal hiring patterns depend on broader
organizational or environmental factors.
It would also appear to be a good time to re-examine questions
concerning recruitment sources and labor market intermediaries such
as private search firms, referrals, and advertisements. Tb date, re-
search on sources or methods has been less prevalent than research in
some other recruitment areas, and less consistent in its findings as well
(Breaugh, 1992; Rynes, 1991). Interesting questions are raised by the ex-
plosive growth of certain intermediaries (e.g., private search firms, tem-
porary employment agencies for managers or professionals), and the re-
cent emergence of others (e.g., the Internet). Although early research
seemed to suggest that informal market intermediaries generally pro-
vided superior outcomes (e.g., Schwab, 1982), the explosive growth in
formal intermediaries and the generally high evaluations of such sources
in this study (e.g., newspaper advertisements, private search firms) sug-
gest that recent changes in labor markets may be shifting the relative
efficacy of formal versus informal methods of recruiting.
Finally, the fact that (external) experienced hiring appears to be so
common suggests that it may be a good time to conduct new longitudi-
nal research on the relationships between different kinds of career pat-
terns and their resultant payoffs. Although conventional wisdom sug-
gested that individuals who wanted to switch employers probably had
 SARA L. RYNES ET AL. 335

something to hide, more recent evidence suggests that voluntary job-

switching is often associated with both higher individual productivity
(e.g., Schwab, 1991) and unusually high economic returns (e.g., Frank
& Cook, 1995). Similarly, while conventional wisdom held that early ca-
reer failures were likely to seriously impede career progress (e.g., Kan-
ter, 1977; Lazear & Rosen, 1981; Rosenbaum, 1984), anecdotal evidence
provides many counter examples (e.g.. Sellers, 1995). Given that career
patterns seem to be in a considerable state of flux, there is an important
role for large-sample research that might help to reveal the psychological
and economic implications of careers spent in internal versus external
labor markets, temporary versus "permanent" employment, one func-
tional area versus several, in and out of entrepreneurship, and the like.
The most critical point, however, is that in order to conduct such studies,
researchers will have to supplement data from college placement offices
with information obtained from somewhere (and someone) else.

REFERENCES
Akerlof GA. (1970). The market for "lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mech-
anism. Quarterly Joumai of Economics, 84, 488-500.
Ancona DG, Caldwell DF. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and perfor-
mance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterfy, 37, 634-665.
Angresano J. (1980). Resultsofasurvey of employer hiring practices. Vocational Guidance
Quarterly, 28, 335-43.
Arthur W, Bennett W. (1995). The international asignee: The relative importance of
factors perceived to contribute to success, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. 48, 99-114.
Barber AE, Daly CL, Giannantonio CM, Phillips JM. (1994). Job search activities: An
examination of changes over time, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. 47, 739-765.
Boyd B. (1990). Corporate linkages and organizational environment: A test of the re-
source dependence model. Strategic Management Journal, 11, 419-430.
Breaugh JA, (1992). Recruitment: Science and practice. Boston: PWS-Kent,
Breaugh JA, Mann RB, (1984). Recruiting source effects: A test of two alternative expla-
nations. Joumai of Occupational Psychology, 57, 261-167.
Bretz RD Jr, Boudreau J W, Judge TA. (1994). Job search behavior of employed managers.
PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 47, 275-302.
Campbell JP. (1982). Editorial: Some remarksfrom the outgoing editor. younuj/o/Vlp/j/jed
Psychology, 67, 691-700.
Cascio WF. (1989). Managing human resources. New York: McGraw-Hill,
Cohen Y, Pfeffer J. (1986), Organizational hiring standards. Administrative Science Quar-
terfy, 31, 1-24.
Chang W. (1996). 77ie role of networks in the process of transition from college to the world
of work. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
Crampton SM, Wagner JA IH. (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational
research, Joumalof Applied Ptychology, 79, 67-76.
Daft RL, Sormunen J, Parks D. (1988). Chief executive scanning, environmental char-
acteristics, and company performance: An empirical study. Stratepc Management
Journal, 9, 123-139.
Doeringer PB, Piore M. (1971), Internal tabor markets and manpower anafysis. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
336 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

Edwards RC, Reich M, Gordon DM. (1975). Labor rjiarket segmentation. Lexington, MA:
Heath Publishing.
Falvey J. (1987, April 16). Best corporate culture is a melting pot. Wall Street Journal,
A-18.
Fisher AB. (1996, March 4). America's most admired corporations. Fortune, 133 (4), 90-
98.
FleisherBM, KniesnerTJ. (1984). Labor economics: Theory, evidence and policy {ixAtd.).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fombrun CJ, Tichy NM, Devanna MA. (1984). Strate^ human resource management
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Frank RH, Cook PJ.(1995). The winner-take all society. New York: The Free Press.
Freeman RB. (1975). Supply and salary adjustments to the changing science manpower
markets: Physics, 1948-1973. American Economic Review, 65, 27-39.
Gatewood RD, Gowan MA, Lautenschlager JL. (1993). Corporate image, recruitment
image, and initial job choice decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 414-
427.
Granovetter MS. (1974). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Gray B, Ariss SS. (1985). Politics and strategic change across organizational life cycles.
Academy of Management Review, 10, 707-723.
Greer CR, Ireland TC. (1992). Organizational and financial correlates of a "contrarian"
human resource investment strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 956-
984.
Guilford JP (1954). Psychometric methods, (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 395-
398.
Guthrie JP, Grimm CM, Smith KG. (1991). Environmental change and management
staffing: An empirical study./OU/TW/o/Management 17, 735-748.
House CH, Price RL. (1991). The return map: Tracking product teams. Harvard Business
/Jevteiv, 69(1), 92-100.
Hunter JE, Hunter RF. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job perfor-
mance. Psychologjical Bulletin, 96, 72-98.
Huselid MA. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 38, 635-672.
Jackson S. (1991). Ifeam composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing an
increasingly diverse workforce. In Worchel S, Woods W, Simpson J (Eds.), Group
processes and productivity (pp. 138-173). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jackson SE, Brett JF, Sessa VI, Cooper DM, Julin JA, Peyronnin K. (1991). Some dif-
ferences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as
correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology,
76, 675-689.
Jackson SE, Schuler RS, Rivero JC. (1989). Organizational characteristics as predictors
of personnel practices, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 42, 727-86.
Kalleberg AL, Vkn Buren ME. (1996). Is bigger better? Explaining the relationship
between organization size and job rewards. American Sociological Review, 61, 47-
66.
Kanter RM. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kanter RM. (1989). When giants learn to dance: Mastering the challenge of strategy, man-
agement, and careers in the 1990s. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Katzenbach J, Smith D. (1993). The wisdom of teams. New York: Harper Business.
Keats BW, Hitt MA. (1988). Acausal model of linkages among environmental dimensions.
 SARA L. RYNES E T A L . 337

macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management

Journal, 31, 570-598.
) . Soul of a new machine. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Klein KJ, Dansereau F, Hall RJ. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collec-
tion, and analysis./Icat/emy c>/iV/ana$eme/i</teWeiv, 19, 195-229.
Kristof AL. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualiza-
tions, measurement and implications. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. 49, 1-50.
Latham OP, Saari L.(1984). Do people do what they say? Further studies on the situational
interview. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 69, 569-573.
Lawrence S. (1989). Voices of HR experience. Personnel Journal, 68 (4), 64-75.
Lawrence PR, Dyer D. (1983). Renewing American industry. New York: The Free Press.
Lazear E, Rosen S. (1981). Rank-order tournaments as an optimum labor contract. Jour-
nal of Political Economy, 89, 841-864.
Lengnick-Hall CA, Lengnick-Hall ML. (1988). Strategic human resources management:
A review of the literature and a proposed typology. Academy of Management Re-
view, 13, 454-470.
Levering R, Moskowitz M. (1993). The 100 best companies to work for in America. New
York: Currency-Doubleday.
tjndquist V (1992). Lindquist-Endicott Repon: Thends in the employment of college and
university graduates in business and industry (47th annual report). Evanston, IL:
Northwestern University.
Lindquist V, Endicott FS. (1986). Trends in the employment of college and university grad-
uates in business and industry (40th annual report). Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University.
McClelland DC. (1982). Motivation and society. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
McConnell CR, Brue SL. (1992). Contemporary labor economics (3d ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
McDaniel MA, Whetzel DL, Schmidt FL, Maurer SD. (1994). The validity of employ-
ment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 599-^16.
McKinley W, Sanchez CM, Schick A C (1995). Organizational downsizing: Constraining,
cloning, learning. Academy of Management Executive, 9, 32-42.
Meyer M. (1994, July 11). Culture club. Newsweek, 32-36.
Miles RE, Snow CC. (1984). Designing strategic human resources systems. Organizational
Dynamics, 75(1), 36-52.
Million dollar directory: America's leadingpublic and private companies. (1996). Bethlehem,
PA: Dun & Bradstreet.
Miner JB, Ebrahimi B, Wachtel JM. (1995). How deficiencies in motivation to manage
contribute to the United States' competitiveness problem (and what can be done
about it). Human Resource Management, 34, 363-387.
Miner MG. (1979). Recruiting policies and practices. W^hington, DC: Bureau of National
Affairs.
Mintzberg H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Morrison RF, Brantner TM. (1992). What enhances or inhibits learning a new job? A
basic career issue. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 77, 926-940.
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (1995). A measure of the recruitment
function. Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 55 (3), 37-49.
Noe RA, Hollenbeck JR, Gerhart B, Wright PM. (1994). Human resource management:
Gaining a competitive advantage. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
Ostroff C. (1995). 1995 SHRM/CCH Survey: Bottom-line reasons support HR's place at
338 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

CEO's table. Human Resources Management, 356(2), 1-12. Chicago: Commerce

Clearing House.
Pfeffer J. (1983). Organizational demography. In Cummings LL, Staw BM (Eds.), Re-
search in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 299-357). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pfeffer J. (1995). Competitive advantage throu^ people. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Podsakoff PM, Organ DW (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Joumai of Management, 12, 531-544.
Pulakos ED, Schmitt N. (1995). Experience-based and situational interview questions:
Studies of validity, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. 48, 289-308.
Quinones MA, Ford JK, Ifeachout MS. (1995). The relationship between work experi-
ence and job performance: A conceptual and meta-analytic review, PERSONNEL
PSYCHOLOGY. 4 ^ 887-910.
Ratan S. (1993, October 4). Generational tension in the office: Why busters hate boomers.
Fortune, 128 (8), 56-70.
Robinson SL, Rousseau DM. (1994). Violating the psychological contract: Not the excep-
tion but the norm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 245-259.
Rosen S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets. Joumai of Political Economy, 82,
34-55.
RosenbaumJE. (1984). Career mobility in a corporate hierarchy. Orlando: Academic Press.
Rosenfeld C. (1975). Job seeking methods used by American workers. Monthly Labor
Review, 98 (8), 39-42.
Rosenfeld C. (1977). Theextentof job search by employed workers. Monthly Labor Review,
700(3). 58-62.
Rousseau D. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multilevel and cross-
level perspectives. In Cummings LL, Staw BM (Eds.), Research in organizational
behavior, 7, 1-37. Greenwich, Cl\ JAI Press.
Rynes SL. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A call for new re-
search directions. In Dunnette MD, Hough LM (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology, (2nd ed., vol. 2, pp. 399-444). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Rynes SL, Barber AE. (1990). Applicant attraction strategies: An organizational perspec-
tive. Academy of Management Review, 15 (2), 286-310.
Rynes SL, Boudreau JW. (1986). College recruiting in large organizations: Practice, eval-
uation, and research implications, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 39, 729-757.
Rynes SL, Bretz RD, Gerhart B. (1991). The importance of recruitment in job choice: A
different way of looking, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 44, 487-521.
Schein EH. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Read-
ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Schmidt FL, Hunter JE, McKenzie RC, Muldrow TW. (1979). The impact of valid selection
procedures on workforce productivity. Joumai ofApplied Psychology, 64, 609-626.
Schmidt FL, Hunter JE, Outerbridge AN, TVattner HM. (1986). The economic impact of
job selection methods on size, productivity, and payroll costs of the federal work
force: An empirically based demonstration, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, J9, 1-30.
Schneider B. (1987). The people make the place, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. 40, 437-454.
Schneider B, Goldstein HW, Smith DB. (1995). The ASA framework: An update, PER-
SONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 44 747-773.
Schuler RS, Jackson SE. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human resource
management practices. Academy of Management Executive, I, 207-220.
Schwab DR (1982). Recruiting and organizational participation. In Rowland KM, Ferris
GR (Eds.), Personnel management, 103-128. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
 SARA L. RYNES E T AL. 339

Schwab DR (1991). Contextual variables in employee performance-turnover relation-

ships. Acader?^ of Management Journal, 34, 966-975.
Schwab DP, Rynes SL, Aldag RJ. (1987). Theories and research on job search and choice.
In Rowland KM, Ferris GR (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources
management, (pp. 129-166). Greenwich, CTi JAI Press.
Sebolsky JR, Brady AL, Wagner S. (1996). Want an applied job? - Get experience!! The
Industrial Psychologist, 33 (4), 65-70.
Sellers P. (1995, ISlay 1). So you fail. Now bounce back! Fortune, t31 (8), 48-.^.
Snell SA. (1992). Control theory in strategic human resource management: The mediating
effect of administrative information. Acaderny of Management Journal, 35, 292-327.
Snell SA, Dean JW (1992). Integrated manufacturing and human resource management:
A human capital perspective. Academy of Managemera Journal, 35, 467-504.
Snow CC, Snell SA. (1993). Staffing as strategy. In Borman W, Schmitt N (Eds.), Personnel
selection in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 448-478.
Spence MA. (1974). Market signaling: Informational transfer in hiring and related screening
processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Stalk G Jr. (1988). Time-the next source of competitive advantage. Harvard Business
Review, 66 (4), 41-51.
Standard & Poor's. (1995). tiegister of corporations, directors and executives. New York:
Standard & Poor's Corp.
Tiylor MS, Schmidt DW. (1983). A process-oriented investigation of recruitment source
effectiveness, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 36, 343-354.
Tferpstra DE, Rozell EI. (1993). The relationship of staffing practices to organizational
level measures of performance, PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY. 4(5; 27-48.
Tbsi H, Carroll SJ. (1982). Management (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Tbrban DB, Greening DW. (1995, August). Corporate social performance and organiza-
tional attractiveness to prospective employees. Paper presented at the 1995 Academy
of Management Meetings, Vancouver.
View publication stats