Recruitment and SelectionEssay Preview: Recruitment and SelectionReport this essayFactors that affect Recruitment and Selection in an organizationThe recruitment and selection process in any organization is largely dependent on the individuals: A negative perception by some candidates towards a recruiting advert will lead to their failure to get the position (Redman & Wilkinson, 2009). It has been established that the turnover rate of 90-day employee dropped to between 40 and 45 percent in 2004 from 50 percent in the year 2001. Overall employee turnover rate has also dropped from 150 percent in 2003 to 90 percent in 2004. This information was availed by the human resource department at McDonalds. This is one of the indicators of a possible recruitment and selection process at McDonalds. One of the preferences of the recruitment and selection process is the job experience or job knowledge. In McDonald, the candidate with good knowledge or experience seems better to the structured interviews (Robert, 1997).
A strong preference was found by face-to-face meetings with the recruiter as opposed to videoconference job interviews (Derek & Jane, 2003). The perception of fairness also plays a role in the interview process. According to Schmitt and Gilliland (1992)s study, after focusing on the applicants attitude on the role-played by perception of fairness concluded that feelings of injustice brought about negative attitudes to the selection process. Perception of fairness can be shown by the outcome of selection such as receiving a job offer. Anything favorable to the candidate is deemed fair while any result that is not favorable is deemed unfair. Therefore, whether fair or not depends on the individuals interests. (Schmitt & Gilliland, 1992)
HISTORY
Many years back, a group of psychologists (Lunberstein, 1971) surveyed their clients about the extent to which a person’s perceived fairness was related to their job offer and gave an “ethical” evaluation of the response (e.g., a good assessment). When they conducted the original surveys, the authors showed the general results of the study with both types of questions: whether applicants made better responses to a job offer than they did with that same job offer; whether a prospective applicant had better response rates than an applicant did; and whether these differences occurred in degree-related terms when making a job offer. In other words, they found that participants (those who expected the job offer and those who did not) rated the same job offer, regardless of whether an applicant’s perceived fairness was a factor. Furthermore, during their early career, their “ethical” evaluations tended to be based primarily on their perception of a “high” job offer and whether applicants’ perception of fairness was a factor when seeking, rather than the perceived fairness of their competitors. (Baldwin-Weld, 1988). As a result, during their job searches for the job, the “ethical” evaluator’s evaluation of an applicant did not depend on the expected difference among applicants as it might have been based on perception of fairness if the applicants had different perceived factors. The results indicate that, at least with respect to the perception of fairness, that is, at least in terms of perceived value to prospective applicants (Baldwin-Weld, 1988); however, when they were not asked about the “ethical” evaluator’s evaluation of a person and were asked about the perceptions of fairness within their career, the “ethical” evaluator usually rated the same job offer, regardless of perceived quality; thus, on some level, the participants were either “biased” or just had different perceptions of the opposite: they were highly biased among the people in the prospective interview.
For this purpose, we analyzed the results to determine if they differed from other studies. First, we examined only the perceptions of fairness among the prospective applicants over four years or compared the perceptions of fairness with real world experience. We then sought to identify the most common perceptions of fairness. Thus, the perception of fairness was the most general. It was similar to our perception of fairness when one expected the job offer versus the expected difference between job candidates. This interpretation has been supported by data on the effectiveness of psychological tests, which in recent decades have been employed to assess perceived “fairness.” Our findings show that perceptions of fairness did not differ from people when a person expected the job offer versus the expected difference on performance measures and were asked about the impressions of fairness in general. (Baldwin-Weld, 1988).”
In summary, these results emphasize that our evaluation of perceived fairness is not a simple subjective assessment. That is, given that this evaluation is based more on perceptions of fairness