Social influence and job choice (1).pdf

7/27/2019 Social influence and job choice (1).pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-influence-and-job-choice-1pdf 1/18

Social influence and job choicedecisions

Mukta Kulkarni Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, Bangalore, India, and

Siddharth Nithyanand Aspiring Minds Assessment Pvt. Ltd, Udyog Vihar, India

Abstract

Purpose – Past research has largely portrayed job choice as a relatively rational and goal-directedbehavior where applicants make decisions contingent on organizational recruitment activities, orevaluations of job and organizational attributes. Research now informs us that job choice decisionsmay also be based on social comparisons and social influence. The purpose of this paper is to add tothis body of knowledge by examining reasons why social influence is a key factor in job choice

decisions of relatively young job seekers.Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on in-depth interview data from graduatingseniors at an elite business school in India.Findings – Respondents did not see themselves as acting based on social influence as much as theyperceived others around them to be. Reasons they noted for others’ socially influenced job choicedecisions were: peers and seniors are seen as more accessible and trustworthy than organizations;organizations do not share all and/or objective data, driving job seekers to other sources; job seekersare clueless and hence follow a “smart” herd; and job seekers make decisions for social statussignaling. Respondents pointed to socially influenced job choices as being rational behaviors undercertain conditions.Research limitations/implications – Generalizability of findings may be limited to young jobseekers or to the Indian context, and the authors encourage replication. The authors also acknowledgethe importance of individual difference variables in job choice decisions, a factor not considered in thepresent research.

Practical implications – Given that job seekers rally around others’ notion of an attractive job or anorganization, the paper outlines several implications for managerial practice.Originality/value – This study, in a yet unexamined cultural context, points to the simultaneous andcombined importance of normative and informational social determinants of job choice, bias blindspots in one’s own job choice perceptions and decisions, gender specific socialization influences on jobchoices, and the notion of job fit in terms of fitment with expectations of important reference groups.

Keywords India, Recruitment, Jobs, Employees behaviour, Influence, Social influence, Job choice

Paper type Research paper

Past research has largely portrayed job choice as a relatively rational and goal-directedbehavior where applicants make decisions contingent on organizational recruitmentactivities (Rynes et al., 1991; Turban, 2001), other evaluations of job, and organizational

attributes (Gatewood et al., 1993), or based on a sense of fit with the job ororganizational attributes (Kristof, 1996). However, a growing body of research nowinforms us that job choice decisions may also be based on social comparisons andsocial influence. This research informs us that individuals compare themselves withand follow similar others when there are fewer other sources of information orinfluence (Kilduff, 1990). This is because the perceived worth of the job choice decisionseems higher when many similar others attest it, and because there may be strongnorms about choosing particular employers in certain social contexts (Higgins, 2001).Further, informal word-of-mouth from credible and strong ties such as friends and

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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm

Employee Relati

Vol. 35 No. 2, 2

pp. 139-

r Emerald Group Publishing Lim

0142-5

DOI 10.1108/01425451311287

13

Social influencand job choic



family also influence perceptions of organizational attractiveness and job choicedecisions (Van Hoye and Lievens, 2007, 2009; Van Hoye and Saks, 2010).

The present interview-based study adds to this body of knowledge by examiningreasons why social influence is a key factor in job choice decisions of relatively

young job seekers. The study specifically focusses on graduating Master of BusinessAdministration (MBA) students. In the present study, we engage with the followingquestions: do these job seekers base job choices on social influence? Why do these jobseekers echo job choices of their peer group? Why do they seemingly follow the herd?Who are the most important sources of influence in job choices (e.g. parents or peers)?

To answer our research questions, we interviewed 37 graduating seniors at an elitebusiness school in India. This school has a strong reputation in India, is featured innational newspapers and business magazines, and has a fairly stringent selectionprocess for the two-year residential MBA program. We noticed over a few years that wehave been here that students seem to make job choice decisions based on socialinfluence more so than intrinsic or job and organization-specific reasons. This isdespite being pursued by various organizations. Armed with knowledge of prior

research, we decided to investigate.Following Gatewood et al. (1993) we define job choice as a series of decisions that

an applicant makes, starting with the applicant’s evaluation of information obtainedfrom various sources, leading to employment pursuance decisions with specificorganizations. The notion of choosing a job thus includes choosing an organization(Kilduff, 1990). Although the link between initial preferences at the job choice stage andfinal chosen job can be weak, such initial decisions can be important in setting the jobchoice path (Boswell et al., 2003). Thus, understanding job choices of applicants earlyin the process is important.

Job seekers’ application decisions have important consequences for both thetargeted or chosen organizations and applicants. For organizations, decisionsdetermine the size and quality of available applicant pool (Barber and Roehling,

1993) and understanding job choice decisions also allows organizations to targetrecruitment practices more effectively (Boswell et al., 2003; Cable and Turban, 2001).If recruiting strategies do not help attract a sizeable and suitable talent pool, or if applicants somehow self-select into target pools, subsequent sophisticated selectionprocesses are of minimal use (Fisher et al., 2006). For individuals, the decision involvescosts such that time spent applying to one organization cannot be spent in otheractivities or in applying to other organizations (Barber and Roehling, 1993). Job choicesalso have implications in terms of fitment with seekers’ job-related needs (Coleman andIrving, 1997) and for self-selection into organizations that may serve as a substitute fororganizational socialization (Cable and Turban, 2001).

With regards career choices of educated workers such as those with MBA degrees,early careers can especially have lasting influence on their future, and job choice

decisions hence assume special importance (Higgins, 2001). Further, a study of jobsatisfaction and attitudinal commitment of recent MBA graduates suggested that bothfeelings were contingent on why a particular job choice decision was made.Specifically, when job choice was made based on intrinsic job features and for internalreasons, individuals reported more satisfaction and commitment as compared withwhen job choice was made because of external constraints such as a concern forfamily and financial considerations (O’Reilly and Caldwell, 1980). Reasons outlinedabove confirm the importance of examining the effect of social influences on jobchoice decisions.

140

ER35,2



Below, we first draw upon prior research on social influence on job choice decisions(Kilduff, 1990, 1992; Van Hoye and Lievens, 2007, 2009). Next, we leverage the theoryof planned behavior, which is an extension of the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen,1991; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Both these theories state that in addition to people’s

personal attitude toward a particular behavior or decision, their perception of socialpressure to engage in that behavior is an important determinant, also of job choice( Jaidi et al., 2011).

Prior research on social influence and job choice decisionsPrior research highlights the following interrelated points. First, applicants comparethemselves with similar others and act in accordance with what others are doing in theface of decisional ambiguity, when the opinion peers is very important to theindividual, and when other sources of information are relatively unavailable. Kilduff (1990, 1992) contends that students intensely compare themselves with their peers atprestigious business schools. In the two years that students are away from their familyand other previous social contacts, they draw upon peer interactions and the school’s

culture to form and act upon an identity through continuous socialization with peers.Drawing upon the theory of social comparison (Festinger, 1954) Kilduff (1990) foundthat MBA students tended to interview with the same organizations even aftercontrolling for similarities in job preferences and in academic concentrations.

Second, applicants rely on informational social influence or word-of-mouthcommunication from credible strong ties (e.g. friends and family) when making jobchoice decisions (Van Hoye and Lievens, 2007, 2009). Conceptualized as aninterpersonal communication specific to an employer or to jobs, word-of-mouthcommunication is independent of the organization’s recruitment activities. Researchwith graduate students shows that such informational social influence has a strongimpact on perceptions of organizational attractiveness, and negative word-of-mouthinterferes with recruitment advertising effects (Van Hoye and Lievens, 2007). Such

informational social influence was also seen in a sample of potential applicantstargeted by the Belgian defense. This study showed that receiving positiveemployment information through word-of-mouth from strong ties early in therecruitment process was positively associated with perceptions of organizationalattractiveness and actual application decisions (Van Hoye and Lievens, 2009).

Yet another study (Van Hoye and Saks, 2010) also focussed on potential applicantstargeted by the Belgian defense showed that when a person accompanying potentialapplicants to a job fair viewed an organization as attractive, the applicant was alsoinfluenced to view the organization as being attractive. Results showed thatorganizational attraction was dependent slightly more on potential applicants’perceptions of symbolic image dimensions (e.g. organization is prestigious) and thenon instrumental image dimensions (e.g. advancement opportunities available in the

organization). However, attractiveness perceptions of people who accompaniedpotential applicants to a job fair were positively related to applicants’ perceptions of organizational attractiveness over and above variance explained by instrumental andsymbolic image dimensions.

Third, applicants turn to their social context for information when they lackdetailed objective information about organizations and when the job choice decision isviewed by applicants as being extremely important and even emotional (Higgins,2001). Higgins argues that when a large number of people from one’s social group seemmake a particular employment decision, the decision seems worthy to potential

14




applicants. For graduating MBA students, such social proof is ubiquitous as theybelong to schools with distinct and strong cultures where students spend hourstogether and feel part of the same social community which may have its own norms.

Drawing upon the work of Deutsch and Gerard (1955), Higgins (2001) examined

the impact of normative and informational social influence on career decisions of MBAstudents. Normative influence implies conformance to the positive expectations of another and informational influence implies acceptance of information obtainedfrom others as evidence about reality (Deutsch and Gerard, 1955). She found clearevidence that normative sources of social influence have a significant effect oncompliance with the dominant employer choice whereas informational sources of influence, such as one’s network of advisors, do not.

Overall, while objective (e.g. tangible job and organization-specific attributes),subjective (e.g. fit of the organization with applicants values or needs), and criticalcontact factors (e.g. characteristics of the recruiter as perceived during the recruitmentprocess) influence job choice decisions (Behling et al., 1968) there are situationswhere comprehensive objective data about organizations are unavailable for the same

decisions (Coleman and Irving, 1997). In such situations, rational expectancycalculations may give way to choices based on social influences and socialcomparisons (Higgins, 2001). Potential applicants are thus not individual decisionmakers, but rather act based on informational social influences regardingorganizational attractiveness (Van Hoye and Lievens, 2007).

Prior research on the theory of planned behavior and job choice decisionsThe theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) is an extension of the theory of reasonedaction (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Both theories explain that an individual’s intentionto perform a certain behavior influences actual subsequent behaviors. The theoryof planned behavior and the theory of reasoned action have been well supportedin general as well as in the specific context of job choice intentions (Arnold et al., 2006;

Jaidi et al., 2011; Schreurs et al., 2009; Van Hooft et al., 2006) and subsequent job searchbehaviors (Van Hooft et al., 2004; Van Hooft and De Jong, 2009; Vinokur and Caplan,1987; Wanberg et al., 2005).

The theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) suggests that there are threeconceptually independent determinants of behavioral intentions. First, attitude towarda behavior refers to the degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorableevaluation of the focal behavior. Second is a social factor referred to as the subjectivenorm. This implies that behavior is guided by perceived social pressure to engage inthe behavior. Third is the degree of perceived behavioral control which is the perceivedease or difficulty of performing a behavior. This reflects past experience as well asanticipated impediments and obstacles. Finally, personal or moral norms also guideintentions and behaviors.

Aforementioned determinants have been shown to influence intentions to work fora specific occupation (e.g. Arnold et al., 2006) and are applicable to job seekerscurrently unemployed (Vinokur and Caplan, 1987; Wanberg et al., 2005) or to thoseseeking temporary employment (Van Hooft and De Jong, 2009). In a longitudinalstudy, Schreurs et al. (2009) found that the relationship between pretest selectionexpectations and subsequent job pursuit behavior is explained by the theory of planned behavior. This study was based on a sample of applicants for the Belgianmilitary. These researchers specifically noted that pretest selection expectationssuch as warmth or respect are associated with job pursuit behavior. That is, applicants’

142

ER35,2



expectations of forthcoming selection procedures are significant predictors of jobpursuit intention.

Most pertinent here are studies that directly refer to subjective norms or perceivedsocial pressures, and favorable or unfavorable evaluation of the focal behavior.

In a recent study, Jaidi et al. (2011) examined effects of different recruitment-relatedinformation sources on job pursuit of highly educated graduates. This study profferedgeneral support for the theory of planned behavior. Specifically, these researchersfound that recruitment advertising and positive word-of-mouth related positively to jobpursuit intention and behavior. Negative publicity and word-of-mouth partly relatedto job pursuit behavior. On-campus presence related negatively to job pursuitintention and behavior, suggesting that recruiters need to engage in conveyingparsimonious and realistic job-related information. These findings, according to theauthors, imply that job seekers are not individual decision makers, but are decisionmakers who decide based on social influences.

Subjective norms or perceived social pressures are particularly strong predictorsof job search behavior among those who are married or are co-habiting with partners.

This may be because a partner’s opinions may constitute a particularly powerful socialinfluence for the job seeker (Van Hooft et al., 2005). We can extend this argumentto graduates in elite schools where other students are seen as key referents that exert apowerful social influence for the graduating job seeker (cf. Higgins, 2001).

Overall, research indicates that job choices or job choice behaviors are driven byintentions that are influenced by the decision maker’s social context. Thus, if the socialcontext exerts pressures toward certain jobs or makes certain jobs seem unworthy,applicants may tend to act based on such social information or influence. However,all of these studies have been conducted in the western context. There are indeed a fewcomparative studies which indicate that social influence may sway decisions of jobseekers more so when they are from non-western ethnicities (Van Hooft et al., 2004;Van Hooft and De Jong, 2009) but no study has yet examined such processes and their

influence on job choice decisions in India. In the present study, we thus further examinereasons why social influence is a key factor in job choice decisions of young jobseekers, albeit in a different context. Given the lack of such research in the Indiancontext, and the consequent need for capturing respondent perceptions, we havechosen to conduct an interview-based study wherein we engage in description andexplanation rather than in calibration (Bluhm et al., 2011; Lee, 1999). We next turn tothe methodology of the present study.

MethodWe invited graduating students who were in the thick of thinking about job choicedecisions to participate in our study. Respondents were sampled from the populationof all graduating seniors. The study was conducted about a month before the

placement (i.e. recruitment and short listing for interview) sessions began. Therefore,at the time of data collection, students had not been part of organizational interviewsand they had not been shortlisted for any specific organizational interviews. At thetime of interviews, one of the authors was part of the Academic Council. This meantthe author knew almost all graduating students personally and could approachspecific students to maximize variation in the participant profile.

Variation in participant profile is important since, for example, respondent gender(Van Hooft et al., 2004, 2006) and past experience (cf. Higgins, 2001) are known toinfluence job choice decisions, and different respondents may succumb to social

14




pressures differently. Respondent identification was thus driven by theoreticalrelevance and bounds (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Since this a relatively elite schoolwith o400 students where one of us knew almost each student personally, no onewe approached turned us down, allaying our fears of a self-selected or an otherwise

biased sample.The final respondent set of 37 students had 26 males and 11 females. The average

age was 25, with a range from 23 to 29 years. Of our 37 respondents, 26 had priorwork experience in the following sectors: 17 in information technology and technologyenabled services, four in telecom, and five in different sectors such as banking,consulting, media, semi-conductors, and audit and assurance organizations. Averagepast work experience was 31 months, with a range from four months to 60 months.

We asked everyone three interview questions and also asked clarification or promptquestions if needed. Interviews were thus semi-structured. We assured respondentsof anonymity. Questions covered the following. What is the role of the peer groupand family in job choice decisions? Can peers’ and seniors’ perceptions aboutattractiveness of an organization or a job influence job choice decisions at this

school? Do students apply for jobs that seem coveted here, even if they have notheard of these recruiting organizations prior to joining this school? For each questionwe asked respondents if they would act a certain way and if they thought “others”around them would do so. For example, we asked respondents to elaborate if andwhy they would act based on peer or family pressure; and why they thought if and whyothers around them would do so. We stopped collecting data when we encounteredredundant responses, that is, when we obtained no new information from ourrespondents.

Interviews, which lasted for about a half hour on average, were taped andtranscribed verbatim. We analyzed data using basic computer programs (e.g. pivottables in Microsoft Excel). Themes were captured based on theoretically indicatedas well as emergent categories. For example, aforementioned research indicates that

parents or peers influence job choice decisions of individuals. This was noted as atheme for focal respondents and sentences from transcripts were coded onto thistheme. Reasons for why respondents thought “others” around them acted a certain waywere noted as emergent findings. For example, respondents noted the inclination of others to follow social pressures in guiding their decisions as they were otherwise lostor clueless. This was noted as an emergent or new finding. To facilitate the recognitionof emergent patterns, we also used matrices when organizing data (Miles andHuberman, 1994). For example, when coding for parents’ or peers’ influence in jobchoice decisions of respondents, we also noted if such instances were noted by malesor females.

Following the suggestion that data counting be avoided when respondent realitiesare the focus of research (Hannah and Lautsch, 2011) we have chosen to report

all findings, and not only those that are voiced by a certain collective. However,each theme outlined in Findings section was voiced by at least a quarter of therespondents. Though we coded independently, since the both of us had constantconversations about the emergent patterns within data, findings reported are agreedupon by both authors.

FindingsWhile all respondents accepted the pervasive influence of social pressures on jobchoice decisions, only a minority indicated that they personally succumb to social

144

ER35,2



pressures. Almost all indicated that “others” around them do. A common responsewas, “No, I don’t think I would succumb to such pressure, because my goals arequite clear” or “Herd effect and hearsay – that’s THE thing which really influencespeople a lot.”

Social influence and job choice behaviors of self Respondents indicated only two reasons why social influence may impact their own

job choice decisions. The first and more predominant reason was pressure from theirfamilies; a pressure that stemmed from the family’s expectations of jobs and expectedcompensation based on media or other sources, or the family’s insistence on clearingeducational loans. The second reason was proving their worth to their peer groups.When talking about social influence from parents informed by media, a respondentmentioned:

From a family pressure point of view, that is also huge primarily because the hype that themedia creates around [institute name]. It is almost as if everyone who comes here goes outwith a salary pay package of something say like 50 Lakhs per annum or something. So the

pressure from the family is also huge in terms of getting into firms which are well known andwhich are generally quoted in the media [y] If you get into something else, it is almost as if you did not perform well or you were lagging behind as far as your batch is concerned (male,age 24, R9[1]).

Yet another respondent told us about the family’s insistence on clearing educationalloans:

Supposing that people come with a heavy loan and they want to clear that loan as quickly aspossible [y] they would aim for such companies, without looking much into their job profiles[y] they would just go by the salary figures (male, age 29, R16).

When talking about proving their worth to their peer groups, respondents spokeabout being “considered an equal,” “not want to be looked down upon,” and acting

based on social influence because “you know everyone is measuring you.” Notably,gender of the respondent added a nuance to this finding. While only one femalerespondent spoke about family pressure leading to her job choice, an equivalentnumber of males and females spoke about basing job choices to prove their worth totheir peer groups.

Social influence and job choice behaviors of “others”While respondents were not forthcoming about their own job choices as determined bysocial influences, they were articulate about why they thought other job seekers thinkand act based on social pressures. Analysis of responses pointed to four reasons whyrespondents thought others acted based on social influences, namely, peers and seniorsare more accessible as well as trustworthy as compared with organizations;

organizations do not share all and/or objective data; students are clueless and hencethink it is best to follow a “smart” herd; and people act a certain way as they engage insocial comparisons and signaling.

Peers and seniors are more accessible and trustworthy as compared withorganizations. Respondents explained that students made their job choice decisionsbased on peers’ and seniors’ recommendations as they were more accessible andtrustworthy as compared with organizations. Respondents spoke of these sources of information as being “legitimate,” “trustworthy” and ones that job seekers knew“on a personal level” or could “talk to more easily.” As one respondent captured this

14




sentiment, “Internal information is little more trustworthy than external information.”Some of our respondents explained the reasoning of others around them:

I am getting an insider’s view about it, which I feel is better than what I will get from apresentation that a company makes (female, age 23, R15).

So it is not as if a firm gets a reputation on campus just on the basis of only one year. It goesover a period of time, may be 3 or 4 years or 5 years. That is generally the time it takes toestablish your reputation on campus. So there are reasons for trusting [peers and seniors](male, age 24, R9).

Organizations do not share all and objective information. Respondent commentsreflected a slight distrust of organizational recruitment communication. This, theyargued, was one of the key reasons why job seekers chose to follow other sourcesof information such as those from their friends who had graduated earlier and knewof the “realities” within recruiting organizations. Respondents spoke of gettinginformation from the “horse’s mouth” and avoiding organizational “hard sell.”Respondents explained how friends may help more than organizations:

[y

] there is insider knowledge. What is the culture of the firm? Is there any bureaucracy? Isthe environment open? The kind of assignment that they are getting – is it challengingenough? [y] While sitting on other side of the desk, and when the presentation is happening,each and every company will try to sell itself, say some good things about itself (female,age 25, R22).

There is a pre placement talk, which is a very small talk, wherein every company puts up agood show. So you just see the fac ¸ade of the company, you can’t really understand if thecompany is really good or not. So the seniors’ influence is very high (male, age 25, R8).

Students are clueless and hence follow a “ smart ” herd . Respondents articulated that theythought it was “rational” and “sensible” that others followed a “smart herd” if “none of us have any idea” or that they suffer from “lack of time” or “lack of knowledge” about

certain supposedly “star” organizations recruiting on campus. One of our respondents’explained:

There is certain comfort in doing what the group does. Because it reduces your effort. Reducesyour uncertainty. There is a general perception that, if ten smart guys are doing it, it must beright (male, age 25, R7).

Many of our respondents explained that job seekers may not know specific organizationsbefore starting the MBA program, and these previously unknown organizations maybe quite coveted on campus. This is because most students are from an engineeringbackground, while organizations recruiting on campus come from other sectors such asconsulting or banking:

Some of these top firms which students are vying to get into are firms which

they wouldn’t have even heard of before they joined [school] [y

] See it is basicallythe kind of word-of-mouth that plays the most important factor in this campus (male,age 24, R12).

Students engage in social comparisons and signaling . If there was one theme aroundwhich all our respondents rallied passionately, it was about students around thempursuing jobs and organizations to signal a social standing. Respondents indicatedthat job seekers around them worried a great deal about getting into specificorganizations for fears such as “what others will say about me.” Job seekersalso, according to respondents, sought coveted organizations because of a “glamour

146

ER35,2



quotient” or “just to feel good” as compared with their peers. We thus noticed a strongelement of competition for specific jobs and organizations aimed at achievingpeer recognition at the end of the placement process. One respondent summed upthis sense of competition by saying that getting specific jobs was “a question of

convincing people” of your worth. Some other respondents captured this sense of race among peers:

See, if you consider the kind of background people come from, right, they have been achieversthroughout [y] that’s the reason why [present school] would have taken you also. So in a wayit’s also kind of proving a point your peers. Peer recognition is something, that’s the bestrecognition actually (male, age 26, R33).

If it basically all boils down to one thing, it is peer pressure. Sheer peer pressure. Because it islike, see at the end of the day, it boils down to whether your batch mates regard you as havinggotten into a decent enough firm. That is it (male, age 24, R12).

Respondent comments did not indicate if male or female job seekers succumbed moreor less to social influences. Respondents did note, however, that job seekers with

more work experience may be less susceptible to social influences in job choicedecisions as compared with job seekers with relatively less or no work experience.A respondent stated:

Let’s say those who have worked earlier. They would probably ask around, youknow, their friends, who they would have met in their undergraduate days, theirrelatives [y] it would not be [y] a single senior’s opinion that will influencetheir judgment. So, it would be a multiple thing. They would ask but make their ownchoice (female, age 26, R3).

DiscussionSituated in the growing recognition that job choice decisions may be based on socialcomparisons and social influence, we examined job choice decisions of graduating

MBA students at an elite business school in India. Our interview-based study wasaimed at exploring why students thought they themselves and others around themmade job choice decisions based on influences from significant others such as theirparents, peers, and seniors (i.e. those who have graduated in the recent past).

Findings indicated that respondents did not see themselves as acting based onsocial influence as much as they perceived others around them to be. Those few whoindicated they made job choice decisions based on social influence pointed to theirparents as the dominant influence followed by peers. Parents influenced job choicesby pointing to media-driven expectations of salary packages or for paying backeducational loans. Peers seemed to influence choices because of social comparisons.Only one female and all male respondents spoke about family influence, while bothfemale and male respondents referred to peer influence.

Respondents eagerly articulated reasons why they thought other job seekersaround them act based on social influence. Reasons they noted ranged from peers andseniors seen as more accessible and trustworthy as compared with organizations;organizations not sharing all and/or objective data driving job seekers to other sources;students being clueless and hence following a “smart” herd; and people making jobchoices given social comparisons and signaling. Respondents did not note job choicedifferences based on gender, but did note that job seekers with more work experiencemay be less susceptible to social influences in job choice decisions. Notably,despite preferences often being skewed by forced conceptions of “good” or “must have”

14




jobs as signaled by significant others, respondents mostly saw acting based on socialinfluence as being “rational.”

Present findings reflect as well as extend past research. For example, similar toprior research, job seekers indeed compared themselves with similar others (e.g.

Kilduff, 1990, 1992) or relied on information from strong ties such as with familymembers (e.g. Van Hoye and Lievens, 2007, 2009) and made decisions approved bythem when other sources of information were relatively unavailable (Higgins, 2001).Decisions made by many in the social group further fuelled others’ similar employmentdecisions, as these decisions seemed correct or worthy (Higgins, 2001).

Findings also contribute to prior research by pointing out that both normative andinformational social influences determine job choice, especially when informationalsources are close ties who have the job seeker’s best interests at heart (e.g. familymembers) (cf. Higgins, 2001). That is, job seekers conformed to positive expectationsof trusted others and accepted their information as evidence of organizationalreality. Overall, also as posited by the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991),subjective norms and socially created favorable attitudes toward certain jobs, seem to

guide job choices.That respondents saw others as being swayed more than them can be explained

drawing upon the literature on “bias blind spots” (Pronin et al., 2002). Individualssee biases and other motivational issues in others more than in themselves. Forexample, people think they are better than the average citizen in their country, or arebetter than their classmates. When individuals do recognize that they act like others,they may attribute this to added insight about themselves rather than attribute theiractions to a bias. There is thus a perceived asymmetry in perceptions of biases amongself and others around oneself (Ehrlinger et al., 2005; Pronin et al., 2002). Presentfindings thus contribute to prior job choice research by pointing to a bias blindspot in one’s job choice or employer choice behaviors, a rationalized choice driven bysignificant others.

The finding that more males than females made job choices based on parentalpressures can be explained by drawing upon gender-based socialization research. Forexample, women may be socialized more so into communal values reflecting a concernfor others, or selflessness while men may be socialized more so into agentic values suchas self-expansion, self-assertion, and competence (Eagly, 1987). Recent research alsoshows that even highly talented and ambitious women in India and other emergingmarkets face pressures in terms of traditions or social obligations (e.g. elder care) whenmaking career decisions (Hewlett and Rashid, 2010).

Parents in the present sample may have socialized present job seekers accordinglysuch that daughters faced minimal or no pressures to obtain specific types of orhigh-paying jobs. Sons in this school, on the other hand, may have faced parentalpressures for certain jobs reflecting traditional Indian idea of men being the dominant

(and oftentimes the only) earner. It is thus possible that present finding is specific toIndian job seekers or job seekers in relatively more community-oriented countriesAlong these lines, when research points out that female job seekers report jobapplication intentions driven by subjective norms (Van Hooft et al., 2006), it may not beso much a contradiction to present findings as it may offer a nuance to “where” or“who” the subjective norm stems from, and “what form” norms assume in differentcultural contexts – a notion worthy of examination in future research.

Present findings thus further add to the job choice literature by pointing out thatthere are gender-specific socialization influences on job choices in addition to gender

148

ER35,2



differences influencing job choice through job attribute preferences, reactions to jobadvertisements, or reactions to organizational selection procedures (see Chapman et al.,2005 for a review). The finding that female job seekers themselves wanted to signalcompetence by obtaining the same jobs as male job seekers, however, tempers the

gender-specific socialization or socio-cultural influences on job choices. Female jobseekers today seem to have moved away from gender-specific socialization andattitudes held by the earlier generation, at least at this elite institution.

The finding that job seekers with more work experience are seen as less susceptibleto social influences in job choice decisions can also be explained leveragingprior research. It is likely that those with prior work experience know (and can signal)their needs, sense of fit, or values as relates to their workplaces more so than thosewithout any prior organizational experience or as compared with those who haverelatively less prior organizational experience (cf. Holland, 1997; Kristof, 1996).

The notion of fit was not so much about matching one abilities and needs with theenvironment or the organization (e.g. Holland, 1997; Kristof, 1996) but about “fitting”social expectations of important others. The study thus also contributes to our

understanding about the notion of fit in job choice in terms of fitment with expectationsof important reference groups (e.g. graduating cohort) or specific significant people(e.g. parents). Job seekers thus likely consider fit not only with objective externalindicators or subjective perceived values, but also with social expectations. The findingthat socially influenced decisions of others are generally perceived as “rational” is alsonotable. Decisions of others thus seem controlled and deliberate to our respondents,but from a reference point of peer expectations and not so much from the referencepoints of job or organizational attributes. The social context thus seems to be makingcertain job and organization attributes more positively or negatively salient in theminds of job seekers.

Overall, our study points to certain contributions such as the simultaneousand combined importance of normative and informational social determinants of job

choice, bias blind spots in one’s own job choice perceptions and decisions, the gender-specific socialization influences on job choices, and the notion of fit in terms of fitmentwith expectations of important reference groups or of important persons.

Limitations and implications for future researchOne of the first potential limitations is with reference to generalizability of our findings.We acknowledge that it is likely our findings are restricted to these or similar otherMBA students. However, to the extent that young job seekers are impressionableand do face social pressures from significant others, the study can inform us of possibleactions of such job seekers. The context of our study also poses a limitation in the formof a strong situation where ambitious and bright job seekers race for relatively rareand hence coveted jobs and the pressures to demonstrate excellence in all spheres

especially drives social comparisons and influences. The two-year residential programmay also proffer a specific and strong situation. The study thus needs to be replicatedin more and in diverse job choice contexts with diverse job seekers.

As a related point, some readers may contend that the study poses an undulypessimistic picture in that these young job seekers seem to be miscalculating theirfuture utility by focussing on peer-pressure-driven decisions leading to short-termhedonism. We agree and note that a longitudinal study may help us understand if such

job choice decisions indeed lead to suboptimal personal and workplace outcomes orwhether there are indeed benefits of following a “smart herd”. Furthermore, we did not

14




take note of actual job choice decisions. We thus do not know if actual decisionsfollowed stated or expected paths of actions.

We also acknowledge research which points to the importance of individualdifference variables in job choice decisions. For example, self-monitoring (Snyder, 1974)

and social uniqueness (Snyder and Fromkin, 1980) may moderate social influenceson choices as they differentiate between individuals on the basis of susceptibility tosocial comparisons. Some research shows that both high self-monitors and lowuniqueness people (or people who do not think they are unique) make choices similar tothose of others in peer groups (Kilduff, 1992). Future research can thus examine if,for example, signaling among peer groups or acting based on parental pressure isspecific to certain types of individuals.

We noted perceptions of only job seekers such that they informed us about thespecific social influences pertinent to them. While their perception alludes to their jobchoice realities, we would have a more robust understanding if we can simultaneouslycapture the job choice influences of respondent’s parents and peers or seniors. Sucha multi-actor perspective would help us identify the relative influence of each type

of actor. Finally, future studies could also focus on a finer grained analysis of the bias blind spot in job choice decisions. Here we noted a rather crude form of a blind spot such that respondents did not see the impact of social influences onself-decisions. Future research can examine if such blind spots are noted closer to theactual job choice or if certain individuals are more prone to such blind spots morethan others.

Finally, our study was conducted in India and this context may also offer someboundaries to generalizability of present findings. Research shows that job seekersmay construe themselves as either being independent of – or interdependentwith others around them (Markus and Kitayama, 1991). Thus, while those in morewestern contexts who see themselves as being independent, may make choices basedmore so on personal attitudes while those in more eastern contexts who see themselves

as being part of a social collective may make choices driven by the larger collective(Bagozzi et al., 2000; Markus and Kitayama, 1991).

Research by Van Hooft and colleagues (Van Hooft et al., 2004; Van Hooftand De Jong, 2009) conducted in the Dutch context does indeed demonstratethe importance of cultural ideologies in the job choice context, supporting the ideasof Markus and Kitayama (1991). Comparative longitudinal research across disparatecontexts may not only bolster this theoretical stream, but will also directly influencemanagerial practice in global organizations as well as in local yet diverseorganizations.

To extend further research on this topic, we build upon present findings, limitationsof the study, and prior research, to offer a conceptual model that can be tested acrosssubject pools and contexts. Here, we argue that if accessibility of realistic

organizational information is high, job seekers may reduce their engagement with ordependence on social sources of information. This situation may imply reducedchances for social comparisons, social pressures (real or perceived), and social statussignaling. Accessibility of organizational information and social information sourcesmay also influence each other such that, for example, peer information may bolsterorganizational information dissemination (i.e. positive word-of-mouth) or dampen it(i.e. negative word-of-mouth). Further, social influences may directly impact job choiceintentions and actual job pursuit actions (e.g. parents or siblings making their childrenlean toward certain jobs).

150

ER35,2



Ultimate job choice intentions and decisions though, social influences or not, mayalso be based on the graduating job seeker’s characteristics such as culturalbackground (e.g. self-conception as being individualistic or interdependent) age,gender, work experience (amount and quality), and the type of school they have

attended (elite and high pressure v. local community or commuter college). Forexample, those with more and high quality of prior work experience may make theirown informed choices, and not seek opinions of others. Such individual job seekercharacteristics may also moderate the relationship between, for example, socialinformation and felt social pressure. Continuing with the example, someone with priorexperience may seek social information but may not be swayed by it. We have collatedthese ideas in Figure 1.

Implications for managerial practiceDespite limitations, we believe the study can guide employers and hiring managersin their recruitment process. Given that students rally around others’ notion of what isan attractive job or an organization, and such word-of-mouth is a non-organization

recruitment source, employers can manage it indirectly through building relationshipswith influential social actors or opinion leaders on campus, or inviting applicants’friends and family to open houses or job fairs (Van Hoye and Lievens, 2009). Forexample, employers can engage student representatives early on in the recruitmentprocess to cultivate a positive image of the organization in the minds of job seekers.Employers can also signal an image and make themselves salient in the minds of jobseekers through various activities such as participating in campus annual festivalsthrough sponsorships, or sending senior managers as panelists on various campusevents, or sponsoring students through merit-based or diversity-based scholarships.Realistic engagement with job seekers early on is especially important as cascadinginfluence over time can cement a certain picture of the organization in minds of jobseekers (cf. Jaidi et al., 2011).

The finding that students follow opinions of non-organizational sources whenorganizational sources are seen as relatively unavailable or when organizationinformation is seen as incomplete is also worthy of note to employers and human

Information sourceaccessibility

Accessibility of realisticorganizational information

Accessibility of key socialactors

Social influences

• Socialcomparisons

• Social pressures(perceived/real)

• Social statussignaling

Job choice intentionsand actions

Job seeker characteristics

• Age

• Gender

• Prior work experience

• Status of school

• Cultural background

Figure A social influence model

job choice behavio

15




resource professionals. It may be worth the effort to understand what specific setsof job seekers seek and how the organization can craft its recruitment materials forsuch sets of important stakeholders.

If job seekers are indeed making choices for signaling their worth to their peer

groups, organizations would do well to highlight their accomplishments and theirsymbolic dimensions forcefully. For example, organizations could highlightsymbolic attributes such as intelligence, reliability, honesty, and so forth throughtheir recruitment brochures, their web sites, and in various face-to-face engagementswith job seekers. This may be especially fruitful as research shows that applicantsare attracted to organizations which convey such attributes (Lievens and Highhouse,2003; Turban and Cable, 2003). This is because job seekers may feel like they canenhance their self-concepts by associating themselves with companies with certaintraits or dispositions (Turban and Cable, 2003). Thus, such organizational signalingmay help job seekers stray respectfully from herd-driven expectations and actions.

Considering the present study reinforces findings from prior research as wellas extends prior research by highlighting new findings, we have outlined a few

evidence-based recommendations for practice (cf. Rousseau, 2006) in Table I.

Research findings regarding socialinfluence and job choice Implications for employers

Parents, peers, and seniors are a dominantinfluence

Include important stakeholders in therecruitment practice. Inclusion can be in the formof invitations to placement-related open houses oronsite organizational visits for guests of jobseekers

Peers and seniors are seen as more accessible andtrustworthy sources of organizationalinformation as compared with organizationalmaterials

Have (if possible) current employees recruitedfrom same source act as brand ambassadors of the organizationConduct informal chat and information sessionsin small groups so that peers of/and job seekerssense and appreciate individualized attentionSignal accessibility through posting dedicatedpersonnel for answering job seeker questions inimportant labor pools

Organizations are perceived as not sharing alland/or relevant objective data

Try to forcefully signal facts and realisticpreviews in specifically targeted recruitmentmaterials and in face-to-face engagementsElicit questions from job seekers to signalsharing of relevant organizational informationPersonalize the organization’s career webpage

per type of stakeholder (e.g. campus v.experienced applicant)People make job choices given socialcomparisons and signaling

Signal both instrumental and symbolicdimensions of organization explicitly so thattarget applicants can carve niches for themselvesand signal a certain self-concept as derived fromassociation with the recruiting organization

Social influence can cascade across campuscohorts and cement organizational images inminds of potential applicants

Actively form ties every year with applicantsfrom various sources to craft and signal a desiredimage of the organization

Table I.Evidence-basedrecommendationsfor improving theorganizationalrecruitment process

152

ER35,2



In conclusion, given the importance of job choice to both individuals seeking jobsand organizations employing them, we hope the present research serves as aspringboard for further theoretical conversations regarding job choice decisions basedon social influence and social pressures. Considering that a key aim of recruiting is

influencing applicant attraction (Barber, 1998) or “marketing” jobs to applicants(Maurer and Liu, 2007), employers may do well by understanding that social influenceis also a key determinant of job seekers behaviors, and thus tweak and target theirrecruitment practices accordingly.

Note

1. R9 implies respondent number 9.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior ,Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Arnold, J., Loan-Clarke, J., Coombs, C., Wilkinson, A., Park, J. and Preston, D. (2006), “How wellcan the theory of planned behavior account for occupational intentions?”, Journal of Vocational Behavior , Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 374-90.

Bagozzi, R.P., Wong, N., Abe, S. and Bergami, M. (2000), “Cultural and situational contingenciesand the theory of reasoned action: application to fast food restaurant consumption”,

Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 97-106.

Barber, A.E. (1998), Recruiting Employees: Individual and Organizational Perspectives, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Barber, A.E. and Roehling, M.V. (1993), “Job postings and the decision to interview: a verbalprotocol analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 845-56.

Behling, O., Labovitz, G. and Gainer, M. (1968), “College recruiting: a theoretical basis”, Personnel Journal , Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 13-19.

Bluhm, D.J., Harman, W., Lee, T.W. and Mitchell, T.R. (2011), “Qualitative research inmanagement: a decade of progress”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 48 No. 8,pp. 1866-91.

Boswell, W.R., Roehling, M.V., LePine, M.A. and Moynihan, L.M. (2003), “Individual job-choicedecisions and the impact of job attributes and recruitment practices: a longitudinal fieldstudy”, Human Resource Management , Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 23-37.

Cable, D.M. and Turban, D.B. (2001), “Establishing the dimensions, sources and value of jobseekers’ employer knowledge during recruitment”, in Ferris, G.R. (Ed.), Research in

Personnel and Human Resources Management , Vol. 20, Elsevier Science, New York, NY,pp. 115-63.

Chapman, D.S., Uggerslev, K.L., Carroll, S.A., Piasentin, K.A. and Jones, D.A. (2005), “Applicantattraction to organizations and job choice: a meta-analytic review of the correlates of recruiting outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 928-44.

Coleman, D.F. and Irving, P.G. (1997), “The influence of source credibility attributions onexpectancy theory predictions of organizational choice”, Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 122-31.

Deutsch, M. and Gerard, H.B. (1955), “A study of normative and informational social influenceupon individual judgment”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 3,pp. 629-36.

15




Eagly, A.H. (1987), Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation , LawrenceErlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Ehrlinger, J., Gilovich, T. and Ross, L. (2005), “Peering into the bias blind spot: people’sassessments of bias in themselves and others”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 680-92.Festinger, L. (1954), “A theory of social comparison processes”, Human Relations, Vol. 7 No. 2,

pp. 117-40.

Fisher, C.D., Schoenfeldt, L.F. and Shaw, J.B. (2006), Human Resource Management , HoughtonMifflin, New Delhi.

Gatewood, R.D., Gowan, M.A. and Lautenschlager, G.J. (1993), “Corporate image, recruitmentimage, and initial job choice decisions”, The Academy of Management Journal , Vol. 36No. 2, pp. 414-27.

Hannah, D.R. and Lautsch, B.A. (2011), “Counting in qualitative research: why to conduct it,when to avoid it, and when to closet it”, Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 20 No. 1,pp. 14-22.

Hewlett, S.A. and Rashid, R. (2010), “The battle for female talent in emerging markets”, Harvard

Business Review, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 101-6.

Higgins, M.C. (2001), “Follow the leader? The effects of social influence on employer choice”,Group & Organization Management , Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 255-82.

Holland, J.L. (1997), Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Vocational Personalities and Work Environments, 3rd ed., PAR, Odessa, FL.

Jaidi, Y., Van Hooft, E.A.J. and Arends, L.R. (2011), “Recruiting highly educated graduates: astudy on the relationship between recruitment information sources, the theoryof planned behavior, and actual job pursuit”, Human Performance, Vol. 24 No. 2,pp. 135-57.

Kilduff, M. (1990), “The interpersonal structure of decision making: a social comparisonapproach to organizational choice”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 270-88.

Kilduff, M. (1992), “The friendship network as a decision-making resource: dispositionalmoderators of social influences on organizational choice”, Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 168-80.

Kristof, A.L. (1996), “Person-organization fit: an integrative review of its conceptualizations,measurement, and implications”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 1-49.

Lee, T.W. (1999), Using Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, Sage, ThousandOaks, CA.

Lievens, F. and Highhouse, S. (2003), “The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributesto a company’s attractiveness as an employer”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1,pp. 75-102.

Markus, H.R. and Kitayama, S. (1991), “Culture and the self: implications for cognition, emotion,

and motivation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 224-53.Maurer, S.D. and Liu, Y. (2007), “Developing effective e-recruiting websites: insights for managers

from marketers”, Business Horizons, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 305-14.

Miles, M. and Huberman, M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

O’Reilly, C.A. and Caldwell, D.F. (1980), “Job choice: the impact of intrinsic and extrinsic factorson subsequent satisfaction and commitment”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 65 No. 5,pp. 559-65.

Pronin, E., Lin, D.Y. and Ross, L. (2002), “The bias blind spot: perceptions of bias in self versusothers”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 369-81.

154

ER35,2



Rousseau, D. (2006), “Is there such a thing as ‘evidence-based’ management?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 256-69.

Rynes, S.L., Bretz, R.D. Jr and Gerhart, B. (1991), “The importance of recruitment in job choice:a different way of looking”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 487-521.

Schreurs, B., Derous, E., Van Hooft, E.A.J., Proost, K. and De Witte, K. (2009), “Predictingapplicants’ job pursuit behavior from their selection expectations: the mediating roleof the theory of planned behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior , Vol. 30 No. 6,pp. 761-83.

Snyder, C.R. and Fromkin, H.L. (1980), Uniqueness: The Human Pursuit of Difference, PlenumPress, New York, NY.

Snyder, M. (1974), “The self-monitoring of expressive behavior”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 526-37.

Turban, D.B. (2001), “Organizational attractiveness as an employer on college campuses:an examination of the applicant population”, Journal of Vocational Behavior , Vol. 58 No. 2,pp. 293-312.

Turban, D.B. and Cable, D.M. (2003), “Firm reputation and applicant pool characteristics”,

Journal of Organizational Behavior , Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 733-51.

Van Hooft, E.A.J. and De Jong, M. (2009), “Predicting job seeking for temporary employmentusing the theory of planned behaviour: the moderating role of individualism andcollectivism”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2,pp. 295-316.

Van Hooft, E.A.J., Born, M.Ph., Taris, T.W. and Van der Flier, H. (2004), “Job search behavior andthe theory of planned behavior: minority – majority group differences in the Netherlands”,

Journal of Vocational Behavior , Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 366-90.

Van Hooft, E.A.J., Born, M.Ph., Taris, T.W. and van der Flier, H. (2005), “Predictors and outcomesof job search behavior: the moderating effects of gender and family situation”, Journal of Vocational Behavior , Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 133-52.

Van Hooft, E.A.J., Born, M.Ph., Taris, T.W. and Van der Flier, H. (2006), “Ethnic and genderdifferences in applicants’ decision-making processes: an application of the theory of reasoned action”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment , Vol. 14 No. 2,pp. 156-66.

Van Hoye, G. and Lievens, F. (2007), “Social influences on organizational attractiveness:investigating if and when word of mouth matters”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,Vol. 37 No. 9, pp. 2024-47.

Van Hoye, G. and Lievens, F. (2009), “Tapping the grapevine: a closer look at word-of-mouth as arecruitment source”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2, pp. 341-52.

Van Hoye, G. and Saks, A.M. (2010), “The instrumental-symbolic framework: organisationalimage and attractiveness of potential applicants and their companions at a job fair”,

Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 311-35.

Vinokur, A.D. and Caplan, R.D. (1987), “Attitudes and social support: determinants of job-seekingbehavior and well-being among the unemployed”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology,Vol. 17 No. 12, pp. 1007-24.

Wanberg, C.R., Glomb, T.M., Song, Z. and Sorenson, S. (2005), “Job-search persistence duringunemployment: a 10-wave longitudinal study”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 3,pp. 411-30.

About the authors

Mukta Kulkarni is an Associate Professor of Management at the Indian Institute of

Management Bangalore. She received her PhD in Organization and Management Studies

15




from the University of Texas at San Antonio. Her work has been published in journals

such as the Academy of Management Journal, Human Resource Development Review,

Human Resource Management, Leadership Quarterly and Public Management Review.

Mukta Kulkarni is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: mkulkarni@iimb.

ernet.inSiddharth Nithyanand currently works as a Client Engagement Manager at Aspiring Minds

Assessment Pvt. Ltd. He completed his Post Graduate Diploma in Management at the Indian

Institute of Management Bangalore.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

156

ER35,2

Social influence and job choice (1).pdf

Documents

Transcript of Social influence and job choice (1).pdf