Employment interview satisfaction of applicants within the context of a developing country: the case of Turkey

Abstract

This paper develops a deeper understanding of applicant interview satisfaction by examining the construct of ‘applicant satisfaction’, and then by using a presented model, exploring whether some individual-level factors might affect the level of applicant interview satisfaction and whether applicant satisfaction influences the results of interviews. First, an original measurement instrument was developed using qualitative and quantitative approaches. Next, data were collected from real applicants to obtain the final measurement instrument. Finally, the hypothesized relationships were tested using structural equation modelling. The two-dimensional applicant satisfaction scale is statistically meaningful, valid and reliable, whereas hypothesized relationships mostly lead to results parallel to theoretical expectations. Since applicant interview satisfaction has not yet been formally conceptualized and operationalized by academicians, this research will reveal an opportunity for recruiters to obtain deeper understanding of applicant perceptions and also to improve their ability to attract candidates to their organizations.

Keywords:

• developing country
• employment interviews
• gender discrimination
• satisfaction of applicants
• satisfaction with the interviewers
• scale development

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Ahmet Çakmak to the process of collecting data and Seda Turan to the process of drawing figures.

Notes

1. The common interest of both parties in the process of selection and evaluation interview is both ‘to choose’ and ‘being chosen’. Interviewers, the representatives of the institutions, as one party of the process, try to choose ‘the most suitable individual’ who would help achieve their aims in the best way. They would also like to be chosen by the individual who would accomplish this aim. So, they hope that the suitable individuals apply for the job and also want the individuals to accept their offers. The applicants, being the other part of the process, make a selection of the best institutions which would suit their qualifications, abilities and expectations; and also they want to be offered a job or to be chosen by the institution (representer or representers of the institution) which they think would be most suitable for them. Therefore, the effectiveness of the process for both parties means to achieve better results from the selection process.

2. ‘Subsequent interview’ means, in this part, interview which the applicant will join for other jobs.

3. The items of the scale of qualification perceptions (QLF) are ‘I have all the necessary qualifications to work for a good institution,’ ‘If I do not get a job offer I know that it is not because of my incapabilities,’ ‘I don't need to enhance my existing qualifications to be able to get a job offer from any institution I like’ and ‘Because of my weaknesses, I may not get a job offer from some of the organizations I applied to.’

4. ‘I generally trust people,’ ‘I believe it is best to be careful in relationships with other people,’ ‘People are usually helpful’ and ‘I believe that people mostly think of their own interests’ are the items of the scale of respondents' general trust tendency (TRUST).

5. The items of the job-related self-confidence scale (CONF) are ‘I can easily find a job whenever I want,’ ‘I can find a job in a shorter period than my friends whenever I want,’ ‘I think I can find a job with better conditions than my friends have found or will find’ and ‘I believe I will be accepted by all the instutions I will apply to.’

6. Items of the scale of prior beliefs about institution (PKAI) are ‘I gathered some information about the company before the interview,’ ‘I gathered some information about the industry in which the company operates before the interview’ and ‘I believed that I would perform well during the interview for that company.’

7. Since all of the items have drawn on the respons of people who had real job interview (it was explained in the first stage of the study), and they were derived from prior theoretical and empirical studies (e.g. Sullivan et al. 1981; Bauer et al. 2001), their content relevance can be considered appropriate (Gerbing and Anderson 1988; Bagozzi et al. 1991).

8. Means, standard deviations and correlations are available on request from the authors.