RECRUITMENT EVALUATION: THE CASE FOR ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF APPLICANTS ATTRACTED

Authors

  • KEVIN D. CARLSON,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Management Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
      and requests for reprints should be addressed to Kevin D. Carlson, 2118 Pamplin Hall, Department of Management, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061; kevinc@vt.edu.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • MARY L. CONNERLEY,

    1. Department of Management Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
    Search for more papers by this author
  • ROSS L. MECHAM III

    1. Department of Management Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
    Search for more papers by this author

  • The authors thank Jeff Arthur, T.W. Bonham, Terry Cobb, Robert Madigan and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. We also acknowledge the invaluable assistance of Jim Malone and Marc Hunter.

and requests for reprints should be addressed to Kevin D. Carlson, 2118 Pamplin Hall, Department of Management, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061; kevinc@vt.edu.

Abstract

We argue that assessing attraction outcomes is critical to systematic improvement of recruitment effectiveness and offer a new assessment framework that can be adapted by all organizations for any position in any staffing scheme. These methods (a) permit outcomes of different recruitment processes–attraction, status maintenance, and gaining job acceptance–to be evaluated independently, (b) support concurrent evaluations of attraction outcomes, (c) enable cost-benefit analyses of alternative recruitment processes, (d) allow meaningful comparisons of applicants from different recruitment events, and (e) support more aggressive management of the recruitment function than is otherwise possible. An illustrative example demonstrates these methods using attraction outcome data from 5 organizations' recruitment of associate engineers and shows that not only do attraction outcomes differ, the value of those differences can be substantial.

Ancillary