PERSONNELPSYCHOLOGY

1981, 34

COMPARING RECRUITER, STUDENT, AND

FACULTY PERCEPTIONS OF IMPORTANT
APPLICANT AND JOB CHARACTERISTICS
BARRY Z. POSNER
Management Department
University of Santa Clara

This study investigated the extent to which corporate recruiters,

students and faculty share an understanding of important job appli-
cant characteristics and desirable job factors. Multivariate analyses
revealed significant differences between the three groups. The impli-
cations of these findings for recruitment, selection, and career coun-
seling are discussed.

ONEof the most important personnel decisions organizations make

concems “Who are we going to hire?”. Companies invest considerable
money, effort and time into the processes of recruitment and selection.
Whtle much has been written about how to recruit, sources of job ap-
plicants, interviewing techniques, and the like (e.g., Gleuck, 1978;
Greco, 1975; Yoder and Heneman, 1974) very little is known about
the factors, characteristics, and aptitudes which corporate recruiters
consider in evaluating job applicants. Even less is known about the
degree to which job applicants are aware of the factors considered im-
portant by recruiters. This may also be true for faculty members who
offer advice and counsel to both students and recruiters. This study
sought to systematically investigate the applicant characteristics con-
sidered important by corporate recruiters themselves and how well
these were understood by students and faculty.
In addition, this study investigated the extent to which corporate re-
cruiters (and faculty) were aware of the characteristicsin a job consid-
ered important to students in choosing a job. This is the other side of
the coin: How can organizations make their recruiting programs and
appeals relevant to those they are trying to attract? Greater insights
329
330 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

into these two issues should be to the advantage of all parties con-
cerned and result in more effective (and realistic) job-person matches.
The literature in these areas is replete with anecdotal information
and both individual and organizational advice columns. There is very
little empirical data. Most of what is available suffers from small
sample size and lack of rigorous methodology and analysis. For ex-
ample, one study surveyed “professional interviewers” from 35 North-
western Ohio companies, who from a list of 14 criteria, rank ordered
the top five factors (Kohn, 1975). Another survey of 70 organizations
recruiting at Ohio University asked but four questions which provided
littl? more than descriptive notes (Tschirgi, 1973). Personnel directors
from 141 Fortune 500 firms responded to the question: “What does
your organization look for in MBA holders?” The answer to this com-
plex issue were allegedly derived from responses to four semantic dif-
ferential scales: Specialists were favored over generalists; broad ad-
ministrative skills were favored over technical skills; long range
executive potential was favored over immediate job needs; and more
rather than less work experience was preferred (von der Embse, Delo-
zier, and Costellano, 1973).
Coleman, Siegel, and Sateija (1977) surveyed only 80 college stu-
dents from five East Coast colleges and 15 recruiters to assess the ex-
tent to which student needs (ala Maslow’s hierarchy) meshed with the
recruiters’ perceptions of their organization’s attitudes toward these
needs. What they found was that students’ needs in the physical and
security categories were significantly higher than that expressed by the
organization. There were no significant differences between the two
viewpoints in the other three need categories (affiliation, esteem, and
self-actualization). The authors themselves point out and question
whether organizations really do in fact provide opportunities for the
higher-level need satisfaction of new employees. No information
about the firms represented are offered,. Significant differences in im-
portant employment factors were found between 30 MBA accounting
majors at Youngstown State University and 30 local manufacturing
recruiters (Rahim et al., 1979). The relevance, however, of many of
the factors is questionable (e.g., personal cleanliness, applicant’s
height, armed robbery charges, manners, manslaughter charges, etc.).
A number of researchers have investigated how individuals choose
among jobs. Wanous (1977), for example, has reviewed over 15 stud-
ies of job or occupational choice. These studies generally support both
expectancy theory predictions and the presence of a post organiza-
tional choice-cognitive dissonance effect (O’Reilly and Caldwell,
1980). Our concern here, however, is less complex and more focused
on understanding the extent to which company recruiters understand
 BARRY Z. POSNER 33 1

the factors important to newly recruited job applicants (i.e., students).

This interest is certainly within the framework of examining organiza-
tional entry from the individual’s, as opposed to the organization’s,
perspective (Wanous, 1977).
In one of the few studies employing a large sample size (over 2500
college seniors from 46 universities) it was reported that the most im-
portant factors influencing students in selecting companies for em-
ployment were type of work or service performed, amount of chal-
lenge or responsibility associated with work, chances for advancement
and salary (Behling and Rodkin, 1969). These researchers concluded,
however, that considerable research in this area was sorely needed.
Little, if any, has followed. There may be no other studies, for ex-
ample, which have compared the preferences of students with the per-
ceptions of recruiters or faculty. This seems surprising because both
recruiters and faculty have been found to be highly influential in stu-
dent’s actual employment decisions (Gleuck, 1974; Sorensen, 1967).
The purpose of this study was to explore the congruence between
recruiter, student, and faculty perceptions. Specifically, it examined
(1) the extent to which students and faculty were aware of how corpo-
rate recruiters evaluate applicant characteristics, and (2) the extent to
which recruiters and faculty understand the importance of various po-
tential job factors/characteristics to students. The dearth of previous
research makes the formation of specific hypotheses difficult. The null
hypothesis of no multivariate differences between the three groups
(recruiters, students, and faculty) was adopted.

Research Method
Sample and setting
The sample consisted of corporate recruiters (N= 198) who had re-
cruited and interviewed business students in the Placement Center of
a private university located within a fast-growing and relatively plen-
tiful job market. At the conclusion of the recruiting season, they were
mailed questionnaires which were returned directly to a researcher
unaffiliated with the Placement Center. The questionnaires were vol-
untary, responses anonymous, and took approximately 60 minutes to
complete. Usable questionnaires were returned by 102 recruiters. This
response rate (52%) to mail questionnaires is considered quite good
(Warwick and Lininger, 1975).
The average age of the recruiters was 35 and they had almost five
years of recruiting experience (one year at a minimum). Recruiting
entailed about one-half of their total job responsibilities and more
332 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

than 65% had been with their present employer three or more years.
Approximately one-fourth of the recruiters were women.
Senior business majors who had interviewed through the Placement
Center were also surveyed (N= 148; response rate = 65%). The typical
student respondent was 22 years old with a 2.6 G.P.A., who had par-
ticipated in 3-4 extracurricular activities while in college and accumu-
lated almost 14 months of work experience (mostly over the summer).
The faculty of the College of Business completed an abbreviated ver-
sion of the questionnaire. Approximately 87% responded (N=3 l), rep-
resenting the fields of management, marketing, finance, accounting,
economics, and quantitative methods.
Measures
Recruiters were presented with a list of factors about a potential job
applicant and were asked to rate each on a seven-point Likert scale
from Not Very Important (1) to Very Important (7). These items were
selected from previous studies of criteria commonly used by recruiters
when interviewing and hiring job candidates for entry-level positions
(Anton & Russell, 1974; Hake1 and Schuh, 1971; Kohn, 1975,
Tschirgi, 1973). The list included: Personal appearance, scholastic rec-
ords (grades), communications ability, future potential, personality,
future ambitions, extra-cumcular activities, faculty recommendations,
personal recommendations, good health, sense of humor, maturity,
work experience, and preparation (knowledge about company or job
opening). Students and faculty responded to a similar listing in terms
of how important they felt these factors would be to corporate recruit-
ers. This list was seen as generally exhaustive by several personnel and
placement office officials.
Students were asked to rate 18 characteristics or factors associated
with a potential job on a seven-point Likert scale in terms of how im-
portant each was to them in choosing a job/employer (1 = not very
important; 7 = very important). The list of potential employment
characteristics was adapted from items used in previous studies (Beh-
ling and Rodkin, 1969; Gleuck, 1974) and the suggestions of place-
ment office directors. The list included Job security, opportunity to
learn, freedom to do the job my own way, opportunity to use my abih-
ties, variety of activities, job title, opportunity for rapid advancement,
type of work or service performed, challenging/interesting work, com-
petent/sociable co-workers, opportunity to show superiors that I can
perform effectively, location of work or company, salary, fringe bene-
fits, reputation of company, size of company, training programs, and
opportunity for extensive travel. Recruiters and faculty rated these
 BARRY Z. POSNER 333

same characteristics in terms of how important they thought each

would be to graduating college seniors. Students also rated 13 items
relating to the importance of various types of pay and fringe benefits
in their decision to accept a job (1 = not very important; 7 = very im-
portant). This list was taken from Gleuck (1974): High beginning base
salary, frequent salary increases, bonuses, stock options, retirement
plans, vacation plans, medical insurance benefits, life insurance bene-
fits, management development programs, health services, credit
union, recreational facilities/programs, and counseling services. Re-
cruiters and faculty were asked to rate the extent to which they felt
these “benefits” were important to students in their job decisions.
Multivariate analysis of variance procedures were used within each
of the three categories (applicant characteristics, desirable job charac-
teristics, and important benefits) to test the null hypothesis of no sta-
tistical significance in the set of differences between recruiters, stu-
dents, and faculty. Differences between pairs of groups on each item
were further tested using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (p c .05).
Results
The results of the multivariate analysis of variance of applicant
characteristics, important job characteristics, and benefits for recruit-
ers, students, and faculty are presented in Tables 1-3. Also indicated
are the significant differences between (a) recruiters and students, (b)
recruiters and faculty, and (c) students and faculty.
The importance attached to various characteristicsof job applicants
by corporate recruiters was significantly different between the groups
(Table 1). Recruiters assessed the set of Characteristics differently than
did students (F = 3.70, p c .Owl) and faculty (F = 2.47, p < .003).
Student and faculty evaluations were also significantly different (F =
5.08, .- :.OO01). Students perceived recruiters placing more impor-
tance on personal recommendations than did the recruiters themselves
and weighted less heavily the importance of maturity and a sense of
humor compared to recruiters. The faculty believed that recruiters
would be strongly influenced by the applicant’s personal appearance
much more so than did the actual recruiters (or the students). Con-
versely, the faculty underestimated the importance attached by re-
cruiters to future ambitions and a sense of humor.
There were substantial differencesbetween the three groups in their
assessments of how students would rate the importance of various
characteristics about a job (Table 2). Recruiters rated job security,
fringe benefits, job freedom, variety, performance, and co-workers to
be all less important to students in making a job choice than did the
334 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 1
Importance of Job Applicant Characteristics to Company Recruiters as Perceived by
Recruiters, Students, and Faculty
(Mean Scores)

Characteristics ofjob applicants Recruiters Students Faculty

Future potential 6.41 6.21 6.10
Communicationsability 6.30 6.24 6.32
Maturity" 6.11 5.72 5.81
Personality 5.69 5.71 5.13
Future ambitionsb.' 5.55 5.79 4.14
Personal appearanceb." 5.55 5.74 6.19
Scholastic records (grades) 5.36 5.35 5.45
Work experience 5.26 5.38 4.90
Preparation (knowledge about company
or job opening) 5.03 5.23 4.65
Sense of humoPb 4.11 4.36 4.33
Good health 4.7 1 4.36 4.65
Faculty recommendations 4.42 4.24 4.06
Extra-curricularactivities 4.32 4.46 4.29
Personal recommendationsa 3.68 4.08 3.71
Multiple analysis of variance ("ilks' lambda = 3.25, df
Significant difference between recruiters and students.
- 28/532, p < .oOol)

Significant difference between recruiters and faculty.

'Significant diaerence between students and faculty.

students. Recruiters believed that the company's reputation would be

more important than it was to students. The differences between stu-
dents and recruiters were statistically significant (F= 4.42, p < .0001).
The faculty were also at substantial odds with what the students re-
ported as being important in a job (F = 5.08, p < .0001) and with re-
cruiter's evaluations (F= 3.20, p < .OOOl). The faculty rated job secu-
rity, variety, co-workers, performance, company reputation,
opportunity to learn, job freedom, use abilities, challenge, work/serv-
ice performed, fringe benefits, and training as significantly less impor-
tant to students than did the students themselves. While not statisti-
cally different, the only items faculty rated higher in importance for
students than students actually did was salary, location, and travel.
The faculty were consistently below the evaluations provided by re-
cruiters in almost an identical pattern as were their comparisons with
the students.
Finally, the three groups differed significantly in how important
they felt various benefits would be to studenis in their job selection
(Table 3). The assessments of students varied considerably with those
of recruiters ( F = 7.48, p < .OOOl) and faculty (F = 4.56, p < .OOOl).
Recruiters and faculty were also in disagreement with one another (F
= 3.12, p < .0002). The importance for students of a high beginning
base salary was consistently overestimated by both recruiters and fac-
 BARRY Z. POSNER 335

TABLE 2
Importance of Job Characteristics to Students as Reported by Students, Faculty, and
Recruiters
(Mean Scores)
Job characteristics Students Faculty Recruiters
Challenging/interesting workb.’ 6.19 5.52 6.36
Opportunity to use abilitiesb,” 6.13 5.23 6.23
Opportunity to learnb*’ 6.08 5.35 6.28
Opportunity to show superiors effective
5.96 4.94 5.68
Variety of 5.81 4.55 5.41
Competent/sociable co-workersa.b~C 5.75 4.70 5.25
Opportunity for rapid advancement 5.54 5.45 5.73
Type of work or service performedb.’ 5.53 4.74 5.49
Salary 5.50 5.61 5.58
Training programsb.’ 5.39 4.8 1 5.41
Freedom to do the job my own waya*c 5.22 4.29 4.67
Job securitPbsc 5.21 3.71 4.45
Reputation of companya,b~c 5.10 4.61 5.41
Location of work or company 4.98 5.10 4.95
Fringe benefitF 4.78 3.97 4.12
Job title 3.82 3.77 3.95
Size of companyb 3.79 3.35 4.04
Opportunity for extensive travel 3.46 3.55 3.42
Multiple analysis of variance (Wilks’ lambda = 3.85, df- 36/524, p < .oOol)
a Significant difference between students and recruiters.
Significant diaerence between recruiters and faculty.
Significant difference between students and faculty.

ulty. Conversely, the importance of basically non-monetary benefits

for sthdents (e.g., retirement and vacation plans, medical and life in-
surance benefits, health services, and stock options) was under-
estimated by recruiters. Faculty generally underestimated these same
benefits, in addition to credit unions, counseling services, and man-
--,gement development programs. Students generally rated all of the
benefits higher than the other two groups. There were only three areas
of general agreement: Frequent salary increases, bonuses, and recrea-
tional facilities/programs.
Discussion
What stands out most from the findings regarding important job
applicant characteristics are not the differences, but rather the similar-
ities between recruiters, students, and faculty. Communications ability
and future potential are seen as the most important job applicant
characteristics. Grades and work experience are somewhat in the
middle in terms of importance, although these may be seen as predic-
tors, or incorporated into the assessments, of “future potential.” Ex-
tra-cumcular activities and recommendations (personal as well as fac-
336 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

TABLE 3
Importance of Various Benefits in Students' Job Decisions as Rated by Students, Faculty,
and Recruiters
(Mean Scores)

Benefits Students Faculty Recruiters

Medical insurance 5.46 4.26 4.86
Management development programsb.' 5.3 1 4.14 5.52
Frequent salary increases 5.3 1 5.55 5.58
Vacation plans"*b 5.13 4.39 4.90
High beginning base salary".' 4.81 5.84 5.89
Health servicesa*' 4.19 4.13 4.11
Bonuses 4.6 1 4.45 4.36
Life insurance benefitsa,' 4.59 3.76 4.14
Retirement plans",' 4.14 3.10 2.87
Stock optionsa*b 4.11 3.29 3.81
Credit unionsb." 3.85 2.65 3.57
Recreational facilities/programs 3.70 3.19 3.61
Counseling servicesb,' 3.11 2.26 3.42
-
Multiple analysis of variance (Wilks' lambda 5.23, df = 26/534, p < .ooO1)
a SignificantdilTerence between students and recruiters.
Significantdifference between recruiters and faculty.
SigniEcant difTerence between students and faculty.

ulty/academic) were seen as the least important job applicant

characteristics.
That faculty perceived personal appearance to be of significant im-
portance may be explained in several ways. Possibly, the faculty are
familiar with the laboratory findings that show college students being
influenced by personal attractiveness themselves in evaluating job ap-
plicant resumes (e.g., Dipboye et al., 1975, 1977). More likely, faculty
are somewhat cynical of recruiters' competence in evaluating job ap-
plicants. Given the seriousness (and anxiety) with which students gen-
erally undertake a recruiting/employment interview (typified by fresh
haircuts and "dress-up" clothes) it may not be surprising that recruit-
ers attached more importance to a "sense of humor" than did students
or faculty. Interviewees are generally advised that joking or humor is
very risky to try in an interview (Medley, 1978). In a relative sense,
however, this factor was seen as unimportant by all three groups.
What emerges from the remaining findings is a tendency for recruit-
ers and faculty to possibly project their own personal preferences into
their assessments of students' choices. Even if this result emerged from
an inadequate understanding of the questions originally asked (i.e.,
answer as you believe students would), it is likely that this same "bias
effect" would influence their perceptions and recruiting (i.e., per-
suasive) strategies with potential job applicants. Such misperceptions
are likely to lead to significant communications problems not only for
 BARRY [Link] 337

the individual recruiter and student but between “business” and “stu-
dents” in general. This pre-entry disenchantment with the business
world may contribute to more serious alienation in their future rela-
tions. The data from students clearly suggests an interest in intrinsic
job factors and non-extrinsic (i.e., monetary) benefits. Recruiting pro-
grams designed to appeal to these factors are likely to be more favor-
ably received by students. Other studies have found a direct relation-
ship between job choice based upon intrinsic factors and subsequent
job commitment and turnover (O’Reilly and Caldwell, 1980).
The results may also be interpreted as evidence for organizations to
monitor more closely their training and selection of recruiters. Less
than 60 percent of the recruiters surveyed indicated receiving any sort
of formal training by their company. Additionally, studies have found
the personal characteristics of recruiters (e.g, degree of author-
itarianism, value systems, sex-role identification) to affect their prefer-
ences for job applicants and subsequent hiring decisions (Simas and
McCarrey, 1979; Vecchiotti and Korn, 1980; Whately and England,
1977).
Among the students surveyed they rated only about half of the re-
cruiters as generally effective in providing them with a clear under-
standing of the job opening and organization and, in turn, obtaining
an accurate picture of themselves. In reporting how “good” and
“poor” recruiters described available jobs the students stated that the
best recruiters spent their time talking about the job in human terms
( e g , career plans, challenges, kinds of supervision). The “worst” re-
cruitkrs were ones who spent minimal effort in describing the job in
human terms but rather emphasized the technical (e.g., necessary skills
and/or training) aspects of the job. This result seems consistent with
students’ assessments of important employment factors (Table 2 and
3)-
The faculty appear to be particularly dismal judges of what stu-
dents want from a job; a tinding often suggested by placement offi-
cials (e.g., Shingleton and Bao, 1977). They rated 12 of 18job charac-
teristics as significantly less important to students than did the
students themselves. They disagreed with students’ assessments of im-
portant benefits on 10 out of 13 items. The personal opinions of fac-
ulty on a particular college campus may not be too helpful to recruit-
ers in trying to ascertain how to “pitch” their organizations and job
openings of students. Nor may students find their faculty (in general)
particularly insightful or empathetic when it comes time to look for
and talk about jobs (e.g., “What should I do when I graduate?”). It
would be interesting to know whether faculty in other disciplines are
more or less perceptive in this regard.
338 PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

The overall findings provide strong support to the importance of re-

alistic job previews (Wanous, 1975) and the need for improved career
counseling and education (Faux and Kotter, 1977; Jelinek, 1979). Re-
gardless of the accuracy of the students’ perceptions (or faculty and
recruiters for that matter) they are clearly out of synch with those who
have a significant impact and influence on their entry into business or-
ganizations. Recruiters need to be more sensitive to the many mis-
perceptions which students (and possibly their faculty mentors) have
about what their organizations hold in store for them. For example,
much of the difference between student’s assessments of important
benefits and those reported by recruiters and faculty is probably due
to the students’ lack of organizational experience. Part of the inter-
view/recruiting process might be directed toward education and val-
ues clarification. That is, helping students understand more clearly
what they really want from a job, what they are willing to com-
promise, trade off, etc., and how these may or may not be available
from a particular employer(s). Greater dialogue and more programs
promoting interaction between corporations and new college gradu-
ates are also needed (cf., Schein, 1968).
Finally, a number of future research issues emerge from this data.
For example, do recruiters with accurate perceptions of the students’
perceptions have an easier time attracting good job candidates? What
impact do various personal characteristics of recruiters have on their
sensitivity to students’ interests? Do students really know what they
want from a job? In other words, just how reliable and valid are stu-
dents’ opinions about “jobs” before they have one? In what ways (if at
all) do the importance of various job characteristics and benefits
change with work experience? Does career counseling, or talking with
faculty, affect students’ orientations to work-does it make it more or
less difficult? Further investigations into such questions as these, and
others, especially involving more diverse populations and settings, are
warranted.
REFERENCES
Anton, J. L. and Russell, M. L. Employer attitudes and opinions regarding potential
college graduate employees. Western College Placement Association, 1974.
Behling, 0. and Rodkin, H. R. How college students find jobs: A national survey. Per-
sonnel Adminstration, 1911, 32, 35-42.
Coleman, C. J., Siegel, S. R., and Sateja, J. J., Jr. Who wants what from the interview.
Journal of College Placement, 1911, 31, 53-56.
Dipboye, R. L., Arvey, R. D., and Terpstra, D. E. Sex and physical attractivenessof ra-
ter and applicants as determinants of resume evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychol-
O ~ Y ,1917, 62, 288-294.
Dipboye, R. L., Fromkin, H. L., and Wiback, K. Relative importance. of applicant sex,
 BARRY Z. POSNER 339

attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes. Jour-

nal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 39-43.
Faux, V.A. and Kotter, J. P. Sey-assessment and career development. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1977.
Gleuck, W. F. Decision making: Organization choice. PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, 1974,
27, 17-93.
Gleuck, W. F. Personnel: A diagnostic approach. Dallas: Business Publications, 1978.
Greco, B. How to get a job thar’s right for you. Chicago: Dow Jones-Irwin, 1975.
Hakel, M. D. and Schuh, A. J. Job applicant attributes judged important across seven
diverse occupations. PERSONNEL PSCHOLOGY, 1971,24,45-52.
Jelinek, M. Career management for the individual and the organization. Chicago: St.
Clair, 1979.
Kohn, M. What off-campus interviewers look for in young job seekers. Advanced Man-
agement Journal, 1975, 40, 59-62.
Medley, H. A. Sweaty palms: The neglected art of being interviewed. Belmont, CA Life-
time Learning Publications, 1978.
OReiUy, C. A. I11 and Caldwell, D. F. Job choice: The impact of intrinsic and extrinsic
factors on subsequent satisfaction and commitment. Journal of Applied P~ychology,
1980, 65, 559-565.
Rahim, R., Artista, E., and Siddiqui, I. Employment factors considered important by
MBA students and their recruiters: A discriminant analysis. Proceedings of the Ameri-
can Institute for Decision Sciences (Western), 1979, 8, 527-529.
Schein, E. H. How to break in the college graduate. Harvard Business Review, 1964,42,
68-76.
Schein, E. H. Organizational socialization and the profession of management. Indus-
trial Management Review, 1968, 9, 1-16.
Simas, [Link] McCarrey, [Link] of recruiter authoritarianism and applicant sex on
evaluation and selection decisions in a recruitment interview analogue study. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 1979, 64, 483-491.
Sorensen, J. E. Professionalism and bureaucratic organization in the public accounting
[Link] Accounting Review, 1967, 42, 553-565.
Tschirgi, H. D. What do recruiters really look for in candidates? Journal of College
Placement, 1973, 33, 75-79.
Vecchiotti, D. I., and Korn, J. H. Comparison of student and recruiter values. Journal
of Vocational Behavior, 1980, 16, 43-50.
Von Der Embse, T. J., Delozier, D. W. and Costellano, J. F. Three views of the ideal
MBA. Business Horizons, 1973, 16, 85-91.
Wanous, J. P. A job preview makes recruiting more effective. Harvard Business Review,
1975, 53, 166168.
Wanous, J. P. Organizational entry: Newcomers moving from outside to inside. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 1977, 84, 601-618.
Warwick, D. and Lininger, C. A. The sample survey: Theory and practice. New York
McGraw-Hill, 1975.
Whitely, W. and England, G. [Link] values as a reflection of culture and the
process of industrialization. Academy of Management Journal, 1977, 20,439453.
Yoder, D. and Heneman, H. (Ed) Staffing policies and strategies. Vol. 1, ASPA Hand-
book of Personnel and Industrial Relations. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National
Affairs, 1975.