Paradigma constructivista

In identifying the studied e-Recruiting processes, themes and perspectives within the academic literature to date, one may then proceed to link that knowledge up to the one recent model that is fundamental: the work by Lee (2007). In comparison to Bartram’s (2000), Lee’s paper describe in depth the e-Recruiting process of corporate career websites. It consists of eleven consecutive steps divided into four clusters. The first cluster includes the following steps: identification of hiring needs, submission of job requisition, approval of job requisition and job posting on the Internet. The second cluster includes online job search by applicants. and the submission of applications. The third cluster involves searching the applicant database, evaluation of résumé/application and interviewing by hiring managers. The fourth and final cluster considers pre-employment screening, job offers and employment contracts. Alongside these processes Lee provided a component-based architecture for holistic e- Recruiting systems (Lee, 2007).

The eleven consecutive steps of the e-Recruiting process that Lee suggested for corporate career websites seem relevant and applicable for commercial recruiting websites: particularly if the architecture of holistic e-Recruiting systems is eliminated and two steps are added: jobseeker posts résumé and searching jobseeker database (see figure 5). These two steps form a parallel path from the jobseekers’ online job search to the evaluation, along with the submission of applications and searching the applicant database. We derived this addition from our applicant and recruiter perspective, as well as from themes one, eight and nine. From an applicant perspective, a résumé is posted on a commercial recruiting website as part of a job search process. From a recruiter perspective the jobseeker database is searched. Both applicant and recruiter use the features available on commercial recruiting websites. Notice the difference between a jobseeker and an applicant; a jobseeker becomes an applicant when he/she applies for a job. This subtle transformation is something that seems not yet clearly defined in e-Recruiting literature.

67

Figure 5

Extending Lee’s model, incorporating the applicant perspective

Furthermore, we projected the identified ten themes onto the eleven consecutive steps of Lee: depicted in Figure 6. Like the sequence of three events of Bartram (2000), theme five is not related to any of Lee’s steps. Surprisingly, there has not yet been research addressed to Lee’s first three steps - identification of hiring needs, submission of job requisition and approval of

job requisition. Although these steps seem more relevant to management research, it is

feasible that they are influenced by Lee’s other steps of the e-Recruitment process, and would be seen to change during or due to the switch from traditional to online recruiting. In this context Parry and Tyson (2008) state that the shift from traditional to online recruiting may not be as simple as swapping the means. They argue that the use of the Internet may require a basic change in the wider recruitment process.

The fourth step (posting a job on the Internet) and the fifth step (online job search by applicants) have been addressed in numerous articles examining organization familiarity, image, attraction, website navigational ease, information, style and the job search process itself (Allen et al., 2007; Braddy et al., 2003; Braddy et al., 2006; Braddy et al., 2008; Bratina & Bratina, 1998; Cober et al., 2003; Cober et al., 2004; Dineen et al., 2002; Dineen et al.,

68

2007; Dineen & Noe, 2009; Feldman & Klaas, 2002; Hu et al., 2007; Jansen et al, 2005; Robbins & Stylianou, 2003; Thompson et al., 2008; Thomas & Ray, 2000; Van Hoye & Lievens, 2007; Williamson et al., 2003; Zusman & Landis, 2002).

Lee’s suggested sixth step (submission of applications) is discussed in several of the analyzed papers, categorized in theme six which reflects applicants’ decision or willingness to apply online; and theme nine addressing résumés (Allen et al., 2007; Braddy et al., 2003; Elgin & Clapham, 2004; Jansen et al., 2005; Maurer & Liu, 2007; Zusman & Landis, 2002).

The seventh step (searching applicant databases) and the eighth step, (evaluation of résumés and applications) have to date barely been studied in the academic literature. An exception is Smith (2004) who encourages elimination of further human elements in data collection, and the alternative examination of applications strictly via statistical prediction, in an effort to lower the recruiting costs.

On the last three of Lee’s steps, practically no academic publications have appeared. Only one of the set of 45 articles examines computer-assisted screening interviews. This is surprising inasmuch as researchers a decade ago had already pointed out that selection duties were increasingly being influenced by e-Recruiting processes (Bartram, 2000; Smith & Rupp, 2004).

A comparison of Bartram’s three events for online recruitment and the 11 consecutive steps of Lee are depicted in figure 7. Theme five (Organizations’ decisions to recruit online

and/or its implications) is not represented in this figure. This is because it is a prerequisite for

e-Recruiting. In the predominant definitions of e-Recruiting, the process only starts when the decision to recruit online is already made. Only after that decision starts do we see the first step of Lee. Those first three business processes are not discussed in Bartram’s sequence. Hence one may conclude that both Lee and Bartram, each in their own way, defined the e- Recruiting sequences too narrowly.

69

Figure 6

Projecting the ten e-Recruitment themes onto the eleven consecutive steps of Lee

Figure 7

Comparison between Bartram’s sequence of three and Lee’s 11 consecutive steps

70

We found, moreover, that current e-Recruiting literature is primarily concerned with investigating Lee’s steps four (posting a job on the Internet), five (online job search by applicants) and six (submission of applications). The research to date on these steps has two points of major agreement.

First, navigational usability affects applicants’ organizational attraction. In 2003 Braddy et al. (2003) and Cober et al. (2003) noted that navigational usability can affect organizational attraction. Williamson et al. (2003) tested a model showing that the orientation of a website and individual differences of applicants may have an indirect influence on organizational attraction, in the main due to the perception of a website’s usability. Following up on the research of Williamson et al. (2003), Cober et al. (2004) showed that individual’s perceptions of a website’s usability impacts applicants’ evaluations of employers. He showed that recruiting websites with a logical navigational flow positively affect applicants’ views on employers. In this context, Braddy et al. (2008) showed that organizations with easily navigational websites received more favorable organizational evaluations. Putting these findings together, if organizations put up easy-to-navigate (recruiting) websites, they will tend to have a positive influence on applicants’ organizational attraction.

The second point of agreement is that organizational familiarity is not related to organizational attraction. Allen et al. (2007) has found that mere familiarity with an organization may not be sufficient to enhance applicants’ attraction to an organization. Braddy et al. (2008) follow up on this point, showing even more generally that the effect recruitment websites have on applicants’ perception of an organization is not a function of the familiarity the applicant had with the organization. This research of Braddy et al. shows that Allen et al. did not take into account the possibility that applicants might be more likely to visit websites of organizations that they are familiar with. This is a major challenge within current e-Recruiting research: a better more focused understanding of the motivation behind applicants’ search for and choice of recruiting website is sorely needed. We may hypothesize that the estimated strong market penetration of dominant recruiting sites such as monster.com play a dominant role; however, that being said, it is also highly probably that a host of other factors such as branch affiliation when using industry specific job sites, or regional presence of job sites may be equally attractive for many applicants. Similarly, Dineen et al. (2002) has critically mentioned the lack of e-Recruiting studies on applicants’ online search and choice processes.

Koong et al. (2002) identified important attributes of commercial recruiting websites, drawing the conclusion that not all have equal “capabilities.” They found difference in the

71

number of attributes and the types of resources differed greatly. Most research to date suggests that commercial recruiting websites lack the same capabilities and types of attributes as corporate career websites. Corporate recruiters are often supported by established and mature organizational resources, and robust internal human resources information systems (Lee, 2007; Koong et al., 2002). This may imply that recruiters prefer using their internal corporate career website to external commercial recruiting websites, provided the internal systems are perceived to meet their recruitment needs (Pearce & Tuten, 2001). However, because commercial recruiting websites often allow applicants to advertise themselves by posting their own application homepage, along with direct applications for a specific job, it would be interesting to have analytics and know precisely who is interested in such public presentations (i.e. job seekers, recruiters, marketers), and if recruiters continue to use such a feature to find applicants in light of the obvious flaw that online applicant pools tend to be overwhelmingly outdated overnight. .