Procedural Justice in Selection from the Lens of Psychological Contract Theory

IF 1.5 Q3 MANAGEMENT Organizacija Pub Date : 2020-01-11 DOI:10.2478/orga-2020-0018
Phuong Tran Huy, N. H. Vu, Hue Thi Hoang, Hanh Thi Hai Nguyen
{"title":"Procedural Justice in Selection from the Lens of Psychological Contract Theory","authors":"Phuong Tran Huy, N. H. Vu, Hue Thi Hoang, Hanh Thi Hai Nguyen","doi":"10.2478/orga-2020-0018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background and purpose: In recruitment and selection, job applicants do not only base their justice judgment on the actual experience but also compare what happens and what they expect. This study, therefore, investigates applicants’ reaction to procedural justice in recruitment selection through the lens of psychological contract framework. Psychological contract theory highlights the role of expectations, discrepancies between perception and expectation, and perceived contract breach on individual outcomes. Methodology: Two surveys were conducted with job seekers in Vietnam, one before and one after the selection process. Printed questionnaires were administered to job seekers in the first survey, while the second used online survey. Structural Equation Modeling technique was adopted to analyze the data. Results: Data from a sample of 232 job seekers indicated that previous job experience and source of candidates were significantly related to justice expectations. In addition, perceived unmet expectations were found to predict procedural contract breach, which in turn negatively influenced job acceptance intention and recommendation intention. Conclusion: The research highlights the role of unmet justice expectation, the perceived discrepancy between what happened and what was supposed to be, in predicting intention to accept offer and to recommend others. The results suggest that firms should provide updated and official information regarding the selection process to all parties such as internal employees, recruitment agency and job search website to reduce over-expectation.","PeriodicalId":44901,"journal":{"name":"Organizacija","volume":"53 1","pages":"272 - 286"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Organizacija","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2020-0018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Abstract Background and purpose: In recruitment and selection, job applicants do not only base their justice judgment on the actual experience but also compare what happens and what they expect. This study, therefore, investigates applicants’ reaction to procedural justice in recruitment selection through the lens of psychological contract framework. Psychological contract theory highlights the role of expectations, discrepancies between perception and expectation, and perceived contract breach on individual outcomes. Methodology: Two surveys were conducted with job seekers in Vietnam, one before and one after the selection process. Printed questionnaires were administered to job seekers in the first survey, while the second used online survey. Structural Equation Modeling technique was adopted to analyze the data. Results: Data from a sample of 232 job seekers indicated that previous job experience and source of candidates were significantly related to justice expectations. In addition, perceived unmet expectations were found to predict procedural contract breach, which in turn negatively influenced job acceptance intention and recommendation intention. Conclusion: The research highlights the role of unmet justice expectation, the perceived discrepancy between what happened and what was supposed to be, in predicting intention to accept offer and to recommend others. The results suggest that firms should provide updated and official information regarding the selection process to all parties such as internal employees, recruitment agency and job search website to reduce over-expectation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
心理契约理论视角下的程序正义选择
背景与目的:在招聘和选择过程中,求职者不仅会根据实际经验做出公正的判断,还会将实际发生的情况与自己的期望进行比较。因此,本研究通过心理契约框架的视角来考察应聘者在招聘选择过程中对程序公正的反应。心理契约理论强调了期望、感知与期望之间的差异以及感知到的契约违约对个体结果的影响。方法:对越南的求职者进行了两次调查,一次在选择过程之前,一次在选择过程之后。在第一次调查中,向求职者发放了打印的问卷,而第二次调查则使用了在线调查。采用结构方程建模技术对数据进行分析。结果:232名求职者的样本数据表明,以往工作经历和候选人来源与公平期望显著相关。感知未满足期望对程序性合同违约具有预测作用,进而对工作接受意愿和推荐意愿产生负向影响。结论:本研究强调了未满足的公平期望,即发生的事情与应该发生的事情之间的感知差异,在预测接受提议和推荐他人的意愿方面的作用。结果表明,企业应向内部员工、招聘机构和求职网站等各方提供有关选拔过程的最新和官方信息,以减少过高的期望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Organizacija
Organizacija MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
15.80%
发文量
15
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Organizacija (Journal of Management, Information Systems and Human Resources) is an interdisciplinary peer reviewed journal that seeks both theoretical and practical papers devoted to managerial aspects of the subject matter indicated in the title. In particular the journal focuses on papers which cover state-of art developments in the subject area of the journal, its implementation and use in the organizational practice. Organizacija is covered by numerous Abstracting & Indexing services, including SCOPUS.
期刊最新文献
Narcissistic Leadership and Project Success: The Role of Knowledge Sharing and Collectivism in IT Firms Can Machiavellianism and Money Intentions Influence Entrepreneurial Intention? Motherhood Gap and Employer Discrimination. A Qualitative Investigation in the German Context Role of Hotel Management Crisis in Covid-19 and Post-Covid-19 Period: A Case Study of Opatija Riviera Micro-Region in Croatia Born Globals and Born Sustainables: Motives of Accumulating Wealth and of Making a Difference in the World
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1