Efectele Recrutarii Realiste

Management Communication
Quarterly
http://mcq.sagepub.com
Attraction to Organizational Culture Profiles: Effects of Realistic

Recruitment and Vertical and Horizontal
IndividualismCollectivism
William L. Gardner, Brian J. Reithel, Richard T. Foley, Claudia C. Cogliser
and Fred O. Walumbwa
Management Communication Quarterly 2009; 22; 437 originally published
online Dec 1, 2008;
DOI: 10.1177/0893318908327006
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/22/3/437
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Management Communication Quarterly can be

found at:
Email Alerts: http://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://mcq.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://mcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/22/3/437
Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009
Attraction to Organizational
Culture Profiles
Effects of Realistic Recruitment
and Vertical and Horizontal
IndividualismCollectivism
Management
Communication Quarterly
Volume 22 Number 3
February 2009 437-472
2009 Sage Publications
10.1177/0893318908327006
http://mcq.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
William L. Gardner
Texas Tech University
Brian J. Reithel
University of Mississippi
Richard T. Foley
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Claudia C. Cogliser
Texas Tech University
Fred O. Walumbwa
Arizona State University
Todays organizations are challenged with attracting, developing, and retaining
high-quality employees; thus, many firms seek to improve their recruitment
and selection processes. One approach involves using realistic job previews
(RJPs) to communicate a balanced view of the organization. The authors
explored the effects of organizational culture (hierarchy, market, clan, and
adhocracy), recruitment strategy (RJP vs. traditional), and personality (horizontal and vertical individualismcollectivism) on attraction to Web-based
organizational profiles using a sample of 234 undergraduate students in a
mixed two-factor experimental design. Results indicate that the clan culture
is viewed as the most attractive. Traditional versus RJP recruitment produced
higher levels of organizational attraction. Finally, predicted relationships
between the personality framework of horizontal and vertical individualism
collectivism and organizational attraction were supported.
Keywords:
organizational culture; realistic job preview; realistic recruitment; horizontal and vertical individualismcollectivism; organizational attraction
he people make the place (Schneider, 1987). This is the central

thesis underlying Schneiders (1987) attractionselectionattrition
437
438
Management Communication Quarterly
(ASA) model and his observation that people in any organization are
unique in that they are the ones attracted to, chosen by, and who choose to
remain with an organization (p. 440). But many organizations today face
challenges in attracting and retaining the people who make their place
work. Structural changes in the economy and demographic changes in the
workforce make it more difficult for organizations to acquire, develop, and
retain human resources (Breaugh & Starke, 2000; Ployhart, 2006). The
costs of employee replacement, including hidden costs that too often go
unrecognized, provide powerful incentives for organizations to improve
their recruitment and selection processes (OConnell & Kung, 2007; Tracey
& Hinkin, 2008). Drawing on statistics from the Bureau of Labor Research,
OConnell and Kung (2007) estimated that the average cost to replace an
employee in 2005 was $13,996. That same year, 24% of workers left their
jobs, with 89% of these workers doing so voluntarily. For a manufacturing
firm of 1,000 employees, this represents a total replacement cost of $2 million.
In a Web-based survey, Tracey and Hinkin (2008) divided the costs of
employee turnover into five categories: predeparture, recruitment, selection, orientation, and training. They estimated that up to 70% of replacement costs involve productivity losses arising from the inexperience of new
employees as well as from performance deficits from reductions in motivation that precede employee departure. Other hidden costs come from reductions in the morale of remaining employees, errors made by overburdened
workers, and costs from safety violations and injuries incurred by less
skilled replacements (OConnell & Kung, 2007). In the wake of labor
shortages and rising replacement costs, firms are increasingly searching for
ways to raise their recruitment and selection process efficiency to improve
employee retention. One such approach involves the adoption of realistic
job previews (RJPs) to communicate a more balanced view of the organization, including both positive features and less desirable qualities (Reeve,
Highhouse, & Brooks, 2006). RJPs encourage employees who represent a
poor fit with the firm to select themselves out prior to employment.
Although the relationship between RJP and turnover has been extensively
explored (Premack & Wanous, 1985; Wanous, 1992), others point out that
more research is needed into the role that RJPs versus traditional previews
play in attracting recruits to organizations in the first place (e.g.,
Thorsteinson, Palmer, Wulff, & Anderson, 2004).
Authors Note: This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research (Award Number
N00014-00-1-0669). An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2004 Academy of
Management Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Gardner et al. / Organizational Culture Profiles
439
Another prevalent approach to raising employee retention is to apply

measures of personality, values, and job preferences to assess the degree of
personjob and personorganization (P-O) fit (Judge & Cable, 1997;
Kristof, 1996; Verquer, Beeher, & Wagner, 2003). The goal of such efforts
is to screen recruits for those who are attracted to attributes of the organization and suited to perform job requirements. Prior research has confirmed
that early communication about the corporate culture, developmental
opportunities, compensation, and benefits is related to recruits attraction to
the organization, their sense of fit with it, and their satisfaction and retention once they enter the organization (Judge & Cable, 1997; Reeve et al.,
2006; Verquer et al., 2003).
Given these trends, there is a call for greater research into the approaches
firms use to convey information that is attractive to potential recruits and
yet realistic enough to enable those who are unlikely to fit the organizational culture to self-select out of the applicant pool (Reeve et al., 2006;
Thorsteinson et al., 2004). Research on recruitment messages has too often
overlooked the fact that job seekers serve as the receivers of these messages (Highhouse & Hoffman, 2001). To partially redress this void, Reeve
et al. (2006) argued that RJP studies must examine micro processes more
closely, such as how job seekers respond to recruitment messages.
Accordingly, they focused on recruits affective reactions to realistic messages conveyed via career Web sites. In addition, they emphasized the
importance of individual difference variables, noting that recruitment
research has not sufficiently explored the effects of job seekers characteristics on reactions to positive and negative information about organizations.
The purpose of our study is to build on converging trends in corporate
recruitment and associated research by examining the relationships
between RJP versus traditional recruitment, personality characteristics, and
the attraction of potential recruits to Web-based organizational culture profiles. We have chosen to adopt Cameron and Quinns (1999) competing values (CV) taxonomy of organizational cultures and focus on horizontal and
vertical individualism and collectivism (HV-IC; Singelis & Triandis, 1995;
Triandis & Gelfand, 1998) in predicting the attraction of potential recruits
to particular cultures. We used Cameron and Quinns taxonomy because it
possesses a strong theoretical foundation and has received empirical support for four basic cultural types: the hierarchy, clan, market, and adhocracy. We selected HV-IC as our focal personality taxonomy because it is
theoretically aligned with the cultural types identified by Cameron and
Quinn (as explained below) and because it represents the most sophisticated conceptualization and operationalization of two basic cultural values,
440
individualism and collectivism, as they are manifest at the individual level.

Finally, consistent with other recent studies of RJP practices (e.g., Reeve et
al., 2006; Thorsteinson et al., 2004), we present the focal organizational
culture using Web-based profiles in recognition of the growing importance
of corporate career Web sites as recruitment devices (Young & Foot, 2006).
Theoretical Foundations
ASA Framework
The values, assumptions, and manifestations of an organizations culture
have important implications for the recruitment process. Indeed, applicant
perceptions of a culture have been related to organizational attraction, job
choice, job satisfaction, P-O fit, and retention (Judge & Cable, 1997;
OReilly, Chatman, & Caldwell, 1991; Verquer et al., 2003). The literature
on organizational choice indicates job seekers are attracted to work settings
that are consistent with their personal attributes (e.g., Judge & Cable, 1997)
and their core values (e.g., Kristof, 1996).
The theoretical foundation for much of this literature is Schneiders ASA
model (Schneider, 1987; Schneider, Goldstein, & Smith, 1995). The ASA
cycle implies that, from the outset, people are differentially attracted to an
organization based on its modal personality (e.g., the most common, representative, and prototypical composite of personality traits held by organizational members) and the manifestation of that personality in its structure,
strategy, and culture. Moreover, the model assumes that people will gravitate toward and be satisfied with organizations that possess modal personalities that are consistent with their own. Hence, the attraction principle
posits that the process by which organizations develop modal personalities
begins before such organizations act to formally choose their members, as
applicants develop preferences for certain types of organizations. Next,
through formal and informal selection processes, organizations select persons who possess attributes that are deemed compatible with those of existing members and the work environment. As such, selection further
contributes to homogeneity and the development of a modal personality by
limiting the types of persons who enter the organization to those who have
interests, skills, and personalities consistent with its goals and culture.
Finally, the perceived fit between new entrants and the organization plays
a critical role in determining who will remain and who will leave. Members
who do not fit tend to leave on their own accord or are forced out involuntarily (Scott et al., 1999).
441
Since the ASA models introduction, extensive support for the model has
accumulated (for a review, see Schneider, Smith, & Goldstein, 2000).
Particularly relevant are studies that suggest that (a) organizations are relatively homogeneous with respect to the personalities of their members (e.g.,
Schaubroeck, Ganster, & Jones, 1998), (b) people are attracted to organizations that fit their own personalities (e.g., Judge & Cable, 1997), and (c)
people are prone to leave organizations in which they do not fit (e.g., Scott
et al., 1999).
The ASA model has implications for organizations experiencing difficulties in recruiting qualified personnel. Indeed, the tendency for an organization to form a modal personality that shapes its strategy, structure, and
culture serves to discourage persons with other personality types from
entering the organization and may cause them to leave prematurely.
Moreover, it implies that if organizations wish to broaden their appeal to
diverse recruits, efforts to communicate organizational attributes that are
more consistent with the personalities and preferences of such recruits are
required. By attracting a more diverse pool of entrants and assigning them
to cultural settings where they fit and can thrive, a more heterogeneous
workforce with a wider array of skills and values can be developed
(Schneider et al., 1995).
Although Web-based recruitment is not a primary focus of our study, we
use a design that provides organizational information through a Web-based
medium. As such, it is noteworthy that prior studies have applied a diverse
set of quantitative and qualitative methods and experimental and nonexperimental designs to gain insight into factors that enhance perceptions of P-O
fit and organizational attraction within the context of Web-based recruitment (e.g., Cober, Brown, Keeping, & Levy, 2004; Dineen, Ash, & Noe,
2002; Young & Foot, 2006). Such studies document the increasingly important role that career Web sites can play in determining recruits perceptions
of fit with and attraction to the organization.
Particularly noteworthy is a recent study by Young and Foot (2006)
where content analysis and rhetorical criticism were applied to a sample of
Fortune 500 company Web sites. Examination of the intentional ordering of
information and hypertextuality provided insight into the processes
whereby potential applicants are moved through Web sites using rhetorical strategies. An in-depth structural analysis revealed four patterns of persuasive movements firms used to attract applicants: (a) introducing the
company (personality, motives, values, credentials); (b) building a case for
the company as an employer of choice; (c) sampling the workplace through
textual and visual representations of the workplace culture, values, and
442
prototypical employees; and (d) enabling the job search and application
process. Young and Foot concluded that career sites are not merely places
to post job openings, but reflect corporations attempts to sell a glorified
image of work, one which positions workers as powerful actors and
employers as kind benefactors (p. 44). As such, we believe the fictitious
corporate Web sites employed in the current study represent an appropriate
and realistic platform for presenting our idealized representations of alternative organizational cultures.
Organizational Culture
Organizational culture refers to a set of values, norms, and beliefs shared
by members of an organization that provides them with meaning and rules
of behavior (Schein, 1985). Specifically, it
is the pattern of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered,
or developed in learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and
internal integration, and that have worked well enough to be considered valid,
and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive,
think, and feel in relation to those problems. (Schein, 1985, p. 4)
Thus, an organizational culture can be viewed as values that specify

socially acceptable modes of behavior and are largely seen as internalized
normative beliefs that guide behavior in an organization (OReilly et al.,
1991). These values are reflected in the language, symbols, rites, rituals,
routines, procedures, myths, and performance that make each organization
unique (Schein, 1985; Vaughn, 1995).
Although several approaches have been proposed to examine organizational culture, we find the CV framework developed by Cameron and Quinn
(1999) especially useful. This framework is empirically derived, its operationalization demonstrates construct validity, and it serves to integrate many
of the dimensions of culture proposed by others (Quinn & Cameron, 1988).
The CV model has 39 indicators of effectiveness that vary along two major
dimensions and are joined together to form four main clusters. The first
dimension distinguishes effectiveness criteria of control, stability, and order
from the criteria that stress discretion, flexibility, and dynamism. The
extremes of this continuum range from organizational stability and longevity
on one end to organizational plasticity and versatility on the other (Cameron
& Quinn, 1999). The second dimension distinguishes between effectiveness
criteria that stress an external orientation, rivalry, and differentiation from
443
criteria that emphasize an internal orientation, unity, and integration. This

continuum ranges from the extremes of organizational independence and
separation on one end to organizational cohesion and harmony on the other.
Taken together, these two dimensions create four quadrants (i.e., clan,
hierarchy, adhocracy, and market), each reflecting a particular set of organizational effectiveness indicators that shape behavior, such as what people
value about an organizations performance (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). As
such, they define the core values that are used to judge organizations. The
extremes of each continuum reflect a value that appears to be the exact
opposite of the value on the other end (e.g., flexibility vs. stability, internal
vs. external); hence, the core values encompassed by each quadrant represent competing values. For instance, the clan with its emphasis on cohesion,
morale, participation, and loyalty is the exact opposite of the market that
stresses production, competition, and goal achievement. Conversely, the
hierarchy that focuses on rules, policies, procedures, efficiency, and control
is the direct opposite of the adhocracy that stresses innovation, flexibility,
creativity, and risk.
As our earlier discussion of the ASA model indicated, perceptions of
organizational culture have been shown to be key determinants of overall
attraction to an organization. Given the fundamental differences in the clan,
hierarchy, adhocracy, and market cultures, we anticipate that potential
recruits may have strong preferences for one or more cultural types and that
such preferences will be reflected in their perceptions of organizational
attractiveness. However, given the exploratory nature of this study and a
dearth of prior research into organizational culture preferences, we have no
theoretical or empirical basis for predicting the cultural types that will be
most appealing to potential recruits. Thus, we anticipate that organizational
culture will account for systematic differences in organizational attraction
without specifying what cultures will produce the highest and lowest levels
of attraction. Accordingly, we explore the following basic research question: Are there differences in the extent to which potential recruits are
attracted to particular organizational culture profiles?
RJP Recruitment
There are fundamental differences in the focus and objectives associated
with traditional job previews versus RJPs (Breaugh & Starke, 2000;
Wanous, 1992). Although traditional recruitment strategies attempt to sell
recruits on the organization, the objective of RJP is to provide a balanced
portrayal of the organization that highlights both positives and negatives.
444
One of the purported benefits of RJP is that it allows individuals to make a

more informed decision before joining an organization, encouraging those
who do not fit the culture to self-select out of the applicant pool (Wanous,
1992). Thus, one would expect a greater proportion of individuals who are
exposed to an RJP strategy that highlights both positive and negative features of an organization to report lower levels of organizational attraction
than will be the case for persons who are presented with only positive information through traditional recruitment.
For the most part, research on RJP has focused on employee retention
rather than applicant attraction (Rynes, 1991; Thorsteinson et al., 2004).
Hence, although meta-analyses (e.g., Phillips, 1998; Shetzer & Stackman,
1991) have provided ample evidence of the effectiveness of RJP in reducing turnover, the effects on organizational attraction are less clear. Early
reviews (e.g., Wanous, 1977, 1992) concluded that RJPs did not impair an
organizations ability to attract recruits, and some empirical support for this
position is available (e.g., Phillips, 1998). In contrast, Bretz and Judge
(1998) identified a negative relationship between the amount of negative
information presented in a job preview and organizational attractiveness.
Finally, Thorsteinson et al. (2004) found that RJP messages presented
through Web-based company profiles yielded higher levels of organizational attraction than did exclusively positive messages. However, they concluded that the realistic information condition in their study was probably
more positive than that employed by Bretz and Judge (they presented information on time challenges and interactions with difficult customers that
was presumed to be negative but may have in fact been perceived as reflective of positive challenges inherent to the job).
With the skyrocketing costs of selection and retention that organizations
now face in the wake of a turbulent economy, we believe that more research
is needed to clarify the contradictory relationships seen in the literature
between realistic recruitment and organizational attraction. We believe our
study represents a step in that direction and provides guidance to practitioners to make efficient decisions about recruitment processes taking
recruit personality factors and cultural preferences into account. From an
information processing perspective (Fiske & Taylor, 1991), persons
exposed to both positive and negative information about an organization
would form less favorable impressions than those who are exposed to positive information only. Consistent with this view, recruitment scholars frequently lament the potential adverse impact of negative information on
organizational attraction (e.g., Saks, Wiesner, & Summers, 1994). Based on
this reasoning and Bretz and Judges (1998) findings, we expect potential
445
recruits who are exposed to RJP versus traditional recruitment messages

will report lower levels of organizational attraction. Thus, we advance the
following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Realistic as opposed to traditional recruitment strategies
will produce lower ratings of organizational attraction.
Organizational Culture Attraction and HV-IC

The basic cultural dimensions of individualism and collectivism have
explained differences among cultures based on the underlying assumption
that people from the same culture are relatively homogeneous (Lee & Choi,
2005). This is apparent from the extensive literature that has employed these
constructs to account for differences in communication patterns and content,
business practices, communication style preferences, and responses to personal persuasive appeals (Han & Shavitt, 1994; Hofstede, 1980). However, in
contrast to this assumption of cultural same-mindedness, many authors (e.g.,
Lee & Choi, 2005; Schwartz, 1994; Triandis & Suh, 2002) have argued for
exploring these constructs at the individual level because there is great variance in these values within cultures. Triandis (1995) likewise argued that
these dimensions can be examined as individual differences based on their
relative emphases on horizontal and vertical social relationships. Specifically,
Triandis and Gelfand (1998) suggested that the crossing of individualism and
collectivism with power distance produces four distinct dispositional dimensions: horizontal collectivism, vertical collectivism, horizontal individualism,
and vertical individualism.
In advancing the HV-IC typology, Triandis (1995) identified two sets
and four kinds of selves that arise from the underlying HV-IC dimensions.
Where one falls on the first set of same or different selves is determined by how much one accepts inequality or status differences. The different self corresponds to the dimension of verticality, whereas the same
self represents the dimension of horizontality. The second set involves the
independent versus interdependent selves and is related to individuality and
collectivity, respectively. The combination of these four kinds of self creates the HV-IC typology. Although relatively new, this typology has been
used both as a cultural variable (focusing on comparisons across cultural
groups; e.g., Yearley, 1990) and as an individual difference variable (with a
focus on individuals within a single culture; e.g., Lee & Choi, 2005)
depending on the purpose of the research. We treat HV-IC as an individual
difference variable in our study.
446
Horizontal collectivism reflects an emphasis on equality and an assumption that all members of the collective are the same. Although persons scoring high on vertical collectivism still see themselves as part of the
collective, they accept that there are inequalities within the larger unit.
Equality is stressed by the horizontal individualist, but as a self-reliant individual rather than as an integrated member of the collective. Finally, with
vertical individualism, an acceptance of inequality exists along with an
emphasis on individual autonomy.
Figure 1 depicts the theoretical relationships between the HV-IC dimensions and the CV dimensions posited by Cameron and Quinn (1999). As the
figure indicates, we consider collectivism to be conceptually related to (but
nonetheless theoretically distinct from) the internal focus and integration
dimension of CV because, in both cases, the integrated relationships among
members of the collective (group, organization) are emphasized. In contrast,
individualism appears to be more closely related to the external focus and differentiation dimension because both reflect an emphasis on member independence and attention is focused away from the collective (either on the
external environment or the individual). Similar parallels exist for the horizontal and vertical dimensions. Specifically, the horizontal dimensions focus
on equality appears to be consistent with a cultural emphasis on personal discretion and flexibility, whereas the inequality inherent in the vertical dimension is a common consequence of a cultural emphasis on order, control, and
stability. Thus, there appear to be clear conceptual relationships between the
CV framework of organizational culture and the HV-IC typology.
Further support for our framework is provided by Oishi, Schimmack,
Diener, and Suh (1998), who explored the conceptual and empirical linkages between Schwartzs (1994) theory of values and Triandiss (1995) HVIC typology. Schwartz (1996) defined values as desirable, transsituational
goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in peoples
lives (p. 2). In addition to the view that values serve as motivational goals,
there are two complementary features of Schwartzs theory: (a) the circular
structure and (b) value priorities.
The circular structure proposes that values can be arranged in a circumplex based on conceptual interrelationships and similarity (Schwartz, 1994,
1996). The focal values identified, listed in order of adjacency, are power,
achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, and security, with the first (power) and last
(security) values listed coming full circle to likewise be adjacent (Schwartz,
1994). According to the circular structure, the pursuit of adjacent values
(e.g., power and achievement and stimulation and self-direction) is compatible,
447
Figure 1
Theoretical Relationships Between Organizational Culture Types
and Horizontal and Vertical IndividualismCollectivism
Internal Focus
and
Integration
External Focus
and
Differentiation
Flexibility
and
Discretion
Clan
+ Horizontal Collectivism (H2)
Vertical Individualism (H5)
Stability
and
Control
Hierarchy
+ Vertical Collectivism (H6)
Horizontal Individualism (H9)
Market
+ Vertical Individualism (H4)
Horizontal Collectivism (H3)
Collectivistic
Individualistic
Adhocracy
+ Horizontal Individualism (H8)
Horizontal
Vertical Collectivism (H7)
Vertical
whereas the pursuit of opposite values (e.g., power and universalism) generates conflict (Oishi et al., 1998, p. 1178). For instance, persons who value
power also tend to emphasize achievement and security, whereas those high
in universalism (understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for
the welfare of all people and for nature; Schwartz, 1994, p. 89) place
greater importance on benevolence (preservation and enhancement of the
welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact; Schwartz,
1994, p. 89) and self-direction. Building on these properties of the circular
structure, Schwartz posited that value priorities serve as meaningful predicators of social behavior. Indeed, the relative importance of a given value
over other values is the focal unit of analysis in his theory.
To integrate Schwartzs value theory with the HV-IC typology, Oishi and
colleagues (1998) noted that Triandis associated the values of security and
conformity with collectivism and the values of hedonism and self-direction
with individualism. Moreover, Triandis posited that the vertical dimension
reflects the underlying values of power and achievement, whereas the horizontal dimension reflects the underlying values of universalism and benevolence. Based on Triandiss (1996) analysis, Oishi and associates posited
that vertical individualists would emphasize the values of power and
448
achievement whereas horizontal individualists would stress the value of

self-direction. Similarly, they predicted that vertical collectivists would
emphasize the values of tradition and conformity whereas horizontal collectivists would stress the values of benevolence and universalism. It is
important to note that Oishi and colleagues obtained empirical support for
these predictions using two student samples who completed the
Individualism-Collectivism Scale developed by Singeles, Triandis,
Bhawuk, and Gelfand (1995) and two measures designed to operationalize
Schwartzs value theory: the Schwartz Value Survey (Schwartz, 1994) and
the Pairwise Comparison Value Survey that they created.
As previously noted, values lie at the core of organizational cultures. As
such, the conceptual interrelationships between the CV and HV-IC typologies
identified in our framework (see Figure 1), combined with the linkages
between the HV-IC typology and particular values identified by Oishi and
associates (1998), provide a solid theoretical foundation for hypotheses
about the organizational cultures to which particular personality types will
be attracted.
Clan and Market Attraction Hypotheses

Horizontal collectivism. People who score high on horizontal collectivism stress equality and see all members of the collective as being the
same. Such people emphasize connectedness, common goals, and interdependence and see themselves as similar to other group members; however,
they do not submit easily to authority (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Such
persons see themselves as part of the in-group; their identity is interdependent with the group and cooperation is emphasized. Moreover, as Oishi and
colleagues (1998) posited and empirically confirmed, horizontal collectivists emphasize benevolence and universalismvalues consistent with
those of the clan culture. Indeed, these traits and values appear to be consonant with the team building, cohesion, and participation found in the clan
culture (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). As such, we expect horizontal collectivists to prefer the family environment of the clan culture.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): Horizontal collectivism will be positively related to
potential recruit attraction to a clan culture.
We also expect that horizontal collectivists will have negative views of the
independence, inequality, and focus on achievement found in the market culture. Recall that Schwartz (1994) asserted that the values of benevolence and
449
universalism exist in opposition to power, achievement, and hedonism

values that are embedded within the market culture. It is important to note
that empirical research confirms that horizontal collectivism is negatively
related to achievement and power values (Nelson & Shavitt, 2002; Oishi
et al., 1998) and that both forms of collectivism are negatively related to
competition in work teams (Aritzeta & Balluerka, 2006). Hence, with its
focus on competition, achievement, and accountability, we expect the
market culture to be viewed negatively by recruits looking for benevolence,
inclusion, equality, and participation.
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Horizontal collectivism will be negatively related to
potential recruit attraction to a market culture.
Vertical individualism. People who score high on vertical individualism

display an acceptance of inequality and a high level of autonomy. Such individuals endeavor to be recognized and want to acquire status or outperform
other people. Thus, vertical individualism is characterized by competition
and autonomy (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). This emphasis on independence
and inequality mirrors the intense focus on competitiveness and productivity
of the market culture. In this results-oriented culture, people are judged independently and accountability is paramount (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). A vertical individualist would thus be expected to prefer the goal orientation and
competitiveness of the market culture. Consistent with this prediction, the
values of achievement and power that have been associated with vertical individualism (Nelson & Shavitt, 2002; Oishi et al., 1998) represent central values of the market culture. Moreover, Triandis and Gelfand (1998) found that
vertical individualists value competition more than any other personality
type. Finally, Hang-yue, Foley, and Loi (2006) found that vertical individualism is positively related to a concern for distributive justice, consistent with
the performance-based distribution of rewards found in the market culture.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): Vertical individualism will be positively related to
potential recruit attraction to a market culture.
Conversely, we expect that the winner take all attitude of the vertical
individualist will induce a negative view of the family orientation and focus
on equality of the clan culture. Recall that the values of achievement and
power that have been conceptually and empirically associated with vertical
individualism lie in opposition to the values of benevolence and universalism that appear to be central to the clan culture. Thus, available theory and
research suggest,
450
Hypothesis 5 (H5): Vertical individualism will be negatively related to

potential recruit attraction to a clan culture.
Hierarchy and Adhocracy Attraction Hypotheses

Vertical collectivism. People who score high on vertical collectivism
demonstrate a high level of acceptance of inequality. Although these individuals see themselves as part of the in-group, they also acknowledge that
some members have more status than others (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998).
This acceptance of inequality would seem to relate to the multiple levels of
a hierarchy culture, characterized by standardized rules and procedures
used in conjunction with accountability to ascertain who deserves to move
up the organizational ladder (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). We therefore
expect vertical collectivists to prefer the structure and levels of a hierarchy
culture. Consistent with this assertion, Ng and Van Dyne (2001) found that
influence targets high on vertical collectivism demonstrated higher quality
decisions when the influence agent held a high-status position, suggesting
a desire for hierarchical relationships. It is also noteworthy that vertical collectivism has been linked to the values of conformity, security, and tradition
(Nelson & Shavitt, 2002) that are consonant with the focus on rules, policies, and standardized procedures that characterize the hierarchy culture.
Thus, we advance,
Hypothesis 6 (H6): Vertical collectivism will be positively related to
potential recruit attraction to a hierarchy culture.
We also expect vertical collectivists to be uncomfortable with the flexible, uncertain, and equal environment of the adhocracy culture. Recall that
the values of security, conformity, and tradition that have been linked to
vertical collectivism lie in opposition to the values of self-direction and
stimulation (consonant with the focus on innovation, flexibility, and autonomy that characterizes the adhocracy culture). Thus, we advance,
Hypothesis 7 (H7): Vertical collectivism will be negatively related to
potential recruit attraction to an adhocracy culture.
Horizontal individualism. People who score high on horizontal individualism want to be unique and distinct from other groups and tend to be
highly self-reliant; however, they do not want to be distinguished from
other group members as having high status. Thus, equality is stressed in
451
horizontal individualism, but only for autonomous individuals and not as

part of the collective (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). This pattern most closely
resembles the innovative, risk-taking atmosphere of an adhocracy culture
(Cameron & Quinn, 1999). In this dynamic cultural type, people are continually coming together to analyze and solve problems. It does not matter
where they come from in the organization, as long as they can contribute to
problem solving. We thus expect the horizontal individualist to prefer the
innovative yet equal environment of the adhocracy culture. Here again, horizontal individualism has been related to the values of self-direction and
stimulation (Nelson & Shavitt, 2002), which are aligned with the focus on
autonomy and creativity that is the hallmark of an adhocracy culture.
Hypothesis 8 (H8): Horizontal individualism will be positively related to
potential recruit attraction to an adhocracy culture.
We also expect the horizontal individualist to have a negative view of the

structured, control-laden, and inequitable hierarchy culture. Recall that the
values of self-direction and stimulation linked to horizontal individualism
are theoretically juxtaposed by the values of conformity, security, and tradition found in the hierarchy culture. Accordingly, we expect horizontal
individualists to view the focus on rules, policies, and standardized procedures found in the hierarchy culture to be the antithesis of the creative and
flexible cultures they desire.
Hypothesis 9 (H9): Horizontal individualism will be negatively related to
potential recruit attraction to a hierarchy culture.
Method
Participants
Participants were undergraduate students enrolled in introduction to
management and management and information systems courses at a midsized public university located in the Southeastern United States who
agreed to participate in exchange for extra credit. Because college students
are extensively recruited by organizations for postgraduation employment,
they constitute an appropriate sample for examining the effects of recruitment strategies, Web-based presentations of organizational cultures, and
personality on organizational attraction (Judge & Cable, 1997). Data were
collected in two phases as described below.
452
During Phase I, the organizational culture and recruitment strategy treatments were administered to 265 undergraduate students, and measures of
organizational attractiveness were collected. Basic demographic data
including gender, age, race/ethnicity, and academic major were also collected. To heighten participants motivation to participate in the study in a
diligent fashion, we held a raffle in which two participants were randomly
awarded their choice between two prizes: (a) a Visor/PalmPilot personal
organizer or (b) dinner for four at a local restaurant.
We conducted Phase II of the study 2 weeks after Phase I to reduce the
potential effects of common method variance and maximize data accuracy
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Lee, 2003). Of the participants who
completed Phase I, 234 also completed Phase II. During this phase, participants completed additional demographic measures including academic
standing and part-time and full-time work experience, along with the HVIC measures. Once again, a raffle was organized to motivate participants to
take part. Only data from participants who completed both Phases I and II
are included in the analysis.
The average age of participants was 20.48 years (SD = 1.96), with 50.0%
males. In all, 82.0% (192) were Caucasian, 12.4% (29) African American,
2.1% (5) Asian American or Native American, and 3.4% (8) Other or
unidentified. The academic standing of the respondents was as follows: 2
(0.9%) freshmen, 112 (47.9%) sophomores, 75 (32.1%) juniors, 44 (18.8%)
seniors, and 1 (0.4%) graduate student. Most had some part-time work
experience, including 4 (1.7%) with more than 10 years, 32 (13.7%) with 6
to 10 years, 113 (48.2%) with 3 to 5 years, 45 (19.2%) with 1 to 2 years, 26
(11.1%) with less than 1 year, and only 14 (6.0%) with none. The majority
(118; 50.4%) had no full-time work experience, followed by 60 (25.6%)
with less than a year, 34 (14.5%) with 1 to 2 years, 19 (8.1%) with 3 to 5
years, and 3 (1.3%) with more than 10 years. Most (176; 75.2%) of the participants were business students, with 44 (18.8%) liberal arts majors and 14
(6.0%) undecided or other.
Procedure
A mixed-factor design was adopted, with organizational culture serving
as a four-level within-subjects factor and recruitment strategy as a two-level
between-subjects factor. Organizational culture was included as a withinsubjects factor to allow for the assessment of organizational attraction for
each respondent across the four cultural profiles.
453
Phase I. We solicited participation of students early in the semester.

They signed up for 1 of 10 experimental sessions in an experimental
research laboratory. On their arrival, participants received a user name and
password for the Web page containing the experimental materials. Various
combinations of the recruitment strategy treatments (traditional job preview
vs. RJP) and orderings for the four organizational cultures were randomly
generated in advance and assigned to particular user names and passwords.
Once participants entered their user name and password, this information
was recorded in the experimental database along with a record of their
treatment group and subsequent responses.
After logging in, participants were asked to enter their name to receive
course credit (confidentiality was assured) as well as their gender, race/ethnicity, age, and academic major. They were then directed to one of the eight
organizational profiles created from the combination of the four cultural
types and the two recruitment strategies (described further in a following
section). After reading about the organization, participants evaluated the
culture of the first organization using the Organizational Culture
Assessment Instrument (OCAI; Cameron & Quinn, 1999) as a manipulation check on organizational culture. Next, they completed the organizational attraction scales for the profiled organization. The second, third, and
fourth cultural profiles were then sequentially presented and evaluated with
the organizational attraction measure. After all measures were completed,
respondents were automatically logged out.
Phase II. Participants were assigned the same user name as in Phase I
but received a new password. Once they logged on, they were asked to enter
their name for course credit (confidentiality was again assured) before proceeding to the personality measures. The order in which the HV-IC measures were presented to participants was randomized.
Manipulations
Consistent with recent research on RJP (e.g., Reeve et al., 2006), we presented the experimental manipulations through custom-designed Web-based
organizational profiles. The treatments included four organizational culture
types (hierarchy, market, clan, and adhocracy) and two recruitment strategies (traditional job preview vs. RJP). To manipulate organizational culture,
participants were routed electronically to a Web page with an organizational
profile that reflected one of the four cultural types selected at random. Based
on the CV framework, the organizational profiles were varied to reflect the
454
form of leadership, source of bonding, effectiveness criteria, and underlying managerial assumptions that are characteristic of the culture being presented (a sample organizational profile for the clan cultural type is included
in the appendix). Once a participant had read and evaluated the first profile,
second, third, and fourth organizational Web pages profiling the remaining
organizational cultures were sequentially presented and evaluated. Thus,
organizational culture served as a within-subjects treatment with four levels.
For the recruitment strategy manipulation, we exposed participants in
the traditional recruitment treatment to exclusively positive information
about the organization and its culture. For the RJP treatment, we exposed
participants to the same set of organizational benefits presented under the
traditional condition, along with information on some potential limitations
of the culture. In addition, the introductory paragraph of the profile
included a statement regarding the organizations belief in providing a realistic portrayal of both its positive and potentially negative features. (The
added material presented in the RJP treatment is indicated by italics in the
clan profile included in the appendix.) Because the recruitment strategy
presented in the initial organizational culture was held constant across the
remaining profiles, it is a between-subjects treatment with two levels (traditional job preview vs. RJP).
We pilot tested the software and manipulations with 117 undergraduate
students before Phases I and II. We presented these participants with the
experimental materials and measures; all necessary corrections to the
experimental software were made following the pilot study.
Measures
OCAI. The OCAI was developed to serve as a measure of perceived
organizational culture (Cameron & Quinn, 1999). After participants read
the initial organizational profile, they were administered the OCAI as a
manipulation check to assess the effectiveness of the profile in communicating the attributes of the featured culture. The OCAI was not completed
for the second, third, and fourth organization culture profiles to avoid
making the experimental materials appear excessively long and redundant
and subject to respondent fatigue.
The OCAI includes six items that correspond to the six basic dimensions
of organizational culture identified by Cameron and Quinn (1999): (a) the
dominant characteristics of the organization (i.e., what the overall organization is like), (b) organizational leadership, (c) the management of
employees or the style that reflects how employees are treated and what the
455
work environment is like, (d) the organization glue or means of bonding

that pull members of the organization together, (e) the strategic emphases
that determine what areas of emphasis are reflected in the organizations
strategy, and (f) the criteria for success that determine how success is identified and who gets rewarded. Each item has four alternatives reflecting the
four basic cultural types. For each item, respondents divide 100 points
among the four alternatives to indicate how much they are characteristic of
the organization being evaluated. Points allocated to the response associated with a given culture are averaged across scale items to provide an overall indication of the degree to which attributes of that culture are present in
the organization under evaluation. The OCAI is reliable and has been used
in past research (Quinn & Spreitzer, 1991). The reliabilities obtained in this
study were as follows: = .81 (clan), = .79 (market), = .68 (hierarchy),
and = .72 (adhocracy).
Organizational attraction. We used a slightly modified version of a
three-item scale developed by Judge and Cable (1997) to measure organizational attraction; we modified the items to include the phrase the profiled organization as opposed to this organization. These items are How
would you rate your overall attraction to the profiled organization? (1 =
not attracted, 7 = very attracted); How likely would you be to seriously
consider interviewing with the profiled organization? (1 = very unlikely,
7 = very likely); and How likely would you be to accept a job offer from
the profiled organization, if offered? (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). As
shown in Table 1, the following coefficient alphas were obtained for the
attraction of respondents to the four cultural types: = .90 (clan), = .92
(market), = .92 (hierarchy), and = .93 (adhocracy).
HV-IC. The HV-IC scale (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998) was used to measure
horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. This 32-item measure
includes eight items per scale. Sample items include I often do my own
thing (horizontal individualism), It annoys me when other people perform
better than I do (vertical individualism), The well-being of my coworkers
is important to me (horizontal collectivism), and I would sacrifice an activity that I enjoy very much if my family did not approve of it (vertical collectivism). Ratings were made on a 9-point Likert-type scale anchored by 1
(never or definitely no) and 9 (always or definitely yes). As shown in Table 1,
the following coefficient alphas were obtained for the HV-IC scale: = .70
(horizontal individualism), = .82 (vertical individualism), = .83 (horizontal collectivism), and = .69 (vertical collectivism).
456
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Coefficient Alphas, and Correlations
for the Organizational Attraction and Horizontal and Vertical
Individualism and Collectivism (HV-IC) Measures
Variable
Organizational attraction
1. Clan
2. Market
3. Hierarchy
4. Adhocracy
HV-IC scales
5. Horizontal collectivism
6. Vertical individualism
7. Vertical collectivism
8. Horizontal individualism
SD
233
230
230
229
5.20
4.47
4.29
4.35
1.34 .90
1.48 .13*
1.55 .06
1.58 .07
.92
.07
.05
233
233
233
233
7.29
5.46
5.92
6.86
1.07 .29**
1.54 .26*
1.21 .12
1.01 .05
.01
.09 .09 .83
.30** .05
.17* .15* .82
.11
.16* .11 .39** .10 .69
.16* .03
.09 .24** .18** .10 .70
.92
.26** .93
Note: Coefficient alphas appear on the diagonals in italics.

*p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed.
Results
Table 1 provides a summary of the number of respondents, means, standard deviations, coefficient alphas, and intercorrelations for the HV-IC and
organizational attraction scales for each cultural type. In general, the correlations between the HV-IC scales and attraction to particular cultures are
consistent with our hypotheses predictions.
Manipulation Check
As noted above, the OCAI was administered following the presentation of
the initial profiled organization to determine if the manipulation was effective
in communicating the intended organizational culture. For each culture type,
t tests revealed significant differences in these means (p < .001). That is, treatment groups who received the clan, hierarchy, adhocracy, and market profiles, respectively, rated the organizational culture as possessing more
attributes of a clan, hierarchy, adhocracy, or market than did groups who
received different cultural profiles. Specifically, scores for those who received
the clan, hierarchy, adhocracy and market profiles had means of 312.58,
258.13, 259.60, and 234.24, respectively, as compared with means for those
who did not receive the profile of 106.07, 111.12, 98.51, and 126.46. Thus, it
appears that the organizational culture manipulation was effective.
457
Table 2
Repeated Measures ANOVA: Recruitment Strategy by
Organizational Culture for Organizational Attraction
Effects and Variables
Within-subjects effects
Organizational culture
Between-subjects effects
Recruitment strategy
Interaction effects
organizational culture
Multivariate F
(Wilks Lambda)
Partial
Eta-Squared
Univariate
Fa
Partial
Eta-Squared
23.90***
.23
18.52***
.07
8.42**
.03
0.80
.00
0.63
.01
Note: N = 213 because of missing values.

a. Because Mauchlys Test of Sphericity was significant for organizational attraction (Mauchlys W =
.892, approximate c2 = 27.40, p = .000), the Greenhouse-Geisser corrected F test is reported for the
within-subjects main and interaction effects as recommended by Keppel (1991) and Tabachnick and
Fidell (1989).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Tests of the Organizational Culture and

Recruitment Strategy Hypotheses
To test the hypotheses, a repeated measures ANOVA was performed.
Table 2 presents univariate F tests and partial eta-square values for the
within- and between-subjects effects and multivariate F tests (Wilks
Lambda) for the within-subjects effects on the repeated measure of organizational attraction. The cell sizes, cell means, standard deviations, and confidence intervals for organizational culture by recruitment strategy are
presented in Table 3.
As Table 2 indicates, significant effects for attraction were obtained for
organizational culture. Hence, the answer to our basic research question is
affirmative; there are differences in the extent to which potential recruits are
attracted to particular cultural types. Post hoc analyses using the least significant differences test revealed that the means for attraction to the clan
culture were significantly higher than those for any other culture. No significant differences were found for the other cultures. With respect to H1,
Table 2 indicates that the F tests for recruitment strategy were significant,
revealing a higher level of attraction for traditional (M = 4.65, SD = 1.35)
versus RJP (M = 4.46, SD = 1.62) recruitment. The interaction of recruitment strategy with organizational culture was not significant.
458
Table 3
Organizational Culture Recruitment Strategy: Cell Sizes, Means,
and Standard Deviations for Organizational Attraction
Traditional
Realistic
Recruitment Recruitment Overall
Culture
Clan
Market
Hierarchy
Adhocracy
Overall Mean
95% Confidence
Interval
Statistic
(n = 116)
(n = 106)
(n = 222)
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
5.36
1.23
4.50
1.40
4.50
1.43
4.41
1.40
5.01
1.51
4.42
1.47
4.06
1.63
4.31
1.74
5.19
1.38
4.46
1.48
4.29
1.54
4.36
1.57
5.02
5.38
4.26
4.65
4.06
4.47
4.10
4.53
Note: The least significant difference post hoc comparison method revealed the following
significant differences between cell means: MClan > MMarket = MHierarchy = MAdhocracy
Tests of Hypotheses for HV-IC

The HV-IC hypotheses were tested through a series of hierarchical
regression analyses, with recruitment strategy and gender included as control variables. Gender was included as a control because it has been related
to occupational roles, propensity to take risks, and preferences for organizational values (Byrnes, Miller, & Schafer, 1999; Cejka & Eagly, 1999).
The control variables were entered in Step 1 and the predictor in Step 2.
The results of the hierarchical regression analyses are summarized in Table
4 and discussed below.
An examination of Table 4 reveals that all of our hypotheses predicting
positive relationships between HV-IC personality dimensions and the
attraction of potential recruits to particular organizational cultures were
supported. Specifically, the results reveal significant positive relationships
between (a) horizontal collectivism and attraction to the clan culture (H2),
(b) vertical individualism and attraction to the market culture (H4), (c) vertical collectivism and attraction to the hierarchy culture (H6), and (d) horizontal individualism and attraction to the adhocracy culture (H8). In
addition, two of the hypotheses predicting negative relationships between
the personality dimensions and attraction to specific cultures were supported. Specifically, we identified significant negative relationships
between (a) vertical individualism and attraction to the clan cultures (H5)
459
Table 4
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Horizontal and
Vertical Individualism and Collectivism on Organizational Attraction
Clan a
(n = 222)
Variable
Step 1: Control variables
Genderb
R2
Step 2: Hypothesized predictors
Horizontal collectivism
Vertical individualism
Vertical collectivism
Horizontal individualism
R2
R2 for Step 2
Market
(n = 219)
.12
.13
.03*
.01
.07
.01
.27***
.22**
.06
.32***
.15***
.12***
.09***
.09***
Hierarchy
(n = 220)
Adhocracy
(n = 219)
.10
.01
.01
.02
.15*
.03
.17*
.07
.04
.03*
.16*
.15*
.07**
.04*
a. = standardized regression weights.

b. Gender coding: 0 = female, 1 = male.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
and (b) vertical collectivism and attraction to the adhocracy culture (H7).
Finally, no support was found for the predicted negative relationships
between (a) horizontal collectivism and attraction to the market culture (H3)
and (b) horizontal individualism and attraction to the hierarchy culture (H9).
Discussion
Organizational Culture Results
A focal question driving our research asked if respondents ratings of organizational attraction would vary as a function of culture type. An affirmative
answer was obtained, as a significant main effect of cultural type for organizational attraction was revealed. Post hoc analyses indicated that the means
for organizational attraction were significantly higher for the clan culture than
those of any other culture. No significant differences in the mean ratings of
any other culture were identified. It is interesting that a national study of 4year colleges and universities by Zammuto and Krakower (1991) revealed
that although relatively high standard scores for the clan (or group) culture
were found within small institutions, moderate and low scores were more
common in large institutions. To the extent these results generalize to other
settings, they suggest that students with strong clan preferences may achieve
460
higher degrees of fit with small as opposed to large organizations, which are
more likely to embody the family-like atmosphere they desire.
Recruitment Strategy Results

Consistent with H1, respondents exposed to the traditional as opposed to
the RJP strategy were more attracted to the profiled organizations. Scholars
have argued that RJP helps job seekers obtain more balanced information
on the strengths and weaknesses of particular cultures (Smith, Montagno,
& Kuzmenko, 2004; Wanous, 1992). The previews provided in our study
may have likewise served this function; that is, to the extent that RJP provided balanced cultural portrayals with both positive and negative information, potential recruits were in a better position to identify cultures as
unattractive. Alternatively, it is possible that because RJP in organizations
remains the exception rather than the norm, respondents interpreted such
profiles as a signal that something is wrong within the organization beyond
the negative features. That is, the relative novelty of RJP may cause potential recruits to become unduly concerned when they see an organization
convey caution about certain elements of their culture.
Although lower ratings of organizational attractiveness may initially
appear to be an undesirable outcome (Saks et al., 1994), a counterargument
can be made that such ratings reflect more realistic organizational assessments, which in turn should contribute to higher levels of job performance,
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and retention among those who
join the organization (Phillips, 1998). Indeed, prior research has suggested
that such RJP facilitates the process of self-selection whereby recruits opt
out of undesirable cultures, thereby enhancing the prospects for P-O fit
once they enter the organization (Verquer et al., 2003). To the extent that
RJP is effective in facilitating improved P-O fit, it constitutes a promising
approach to reversing the escalating spiral of employee replacement costs
(Tracey & Hinkin, 2008).
Our findings of a negative relationship between RJP and organizational
attraction contrast with those obtained by Thorsteinson and colleagues
(2004). We find their study of particular interest for two reasons: (a) Webbased job profiles were employed and (b) the RJP profiles conveyed information about position challenges that appeared to enhance, rather than
reduce, organizational attractiveness. Together, these features imply that
organizations may be able to develop realistic Web-based previews that
enable recruits who find the culture undesirable to self-select out of the
applicant pool while simultaneously attracting those who see the purportedly
461
negative qualities as being either offset by more positive features or desirable in their own right. The net result is a potentially smaller applicant pool
but a higher yield of applicants who choose to join and stay in the organizationgood news for organizations that are struggling to recruit and
retain qualified workers (Ployhart, 2006). Of course, the inherent danger of
more attractive realistic profiles is that they will be viewed as desirable
to most recruits, thereby undermining the self-selection benefits. Thus, a
promising direction for research and practice is to focus on the development of realistic message content that effectively serves the dual functions
of attracting qualified candidates while simultaneously facilitating selfselection by those who best fit the culture.
Potential insight into how these dual functions can be achieved is provided
by Reeve and associates (2006), who adopted a Web-based platform and
computer program to both present RJPs versus traditional organizational previews and measure the immediate affective reactions of participants. The
results revealed that the overall assessment of the organization was affected
more by the average intensity of participants affective reactions than the relative balance of the positive and negative information presented. The implication is that organizations engaged in realistic recruitment should minimize
the inclusion of content that elicits extreme negative emotions because such
negative affect can easily offset the alluring effects of positive content.
Indeed, the optimal profile may contain a mixture of positive content that
elicits positive affect coupled with sufficient factual information on less desirable qualities to facilitate self-selection without invoking strong negative
emotions. Thus, another promising area for future research would be to investigate the optimal framing of RJP profiles to produce positive affective reactions among recruits while simultaneously encouraging those who do not fit
the culture to seek employment elsewhere.
Horizontal and Vertical Dimensions of

Collectivism and Individualism Results
Recruitment scholars have argued that greater research is needed into how
and why the receivers of recruitment messages exhibit different responses
to such messages (Highhouse & Hoffman, 2001). Toward this end, scholars
have called for investigation into personality factors that affect how much
recruits are attracted to (Reeve et al., 2006) and perceive a fit with (Kristof,
1996) focal organizations. Our study takes a positive step in this direction by
demonstrating the utility of the HV-IC typology in predicting the attraction of
specific personality types to particular organizational cultures.
462
Our results indicate that participants who embrace horizontal collectivism are attracted to the family-like atmosphere found in the clan culture
(H2). Perhaps this is because they value benevolence and universalism
(Oishi et al., 1998), which are consonant with the clan culture, and because
they see themselves as interdependent with and similar to others (Triandis
& Gelfand, 1998). In addition, our prediction (H5) that the vertical individualist would be less attracted to the clan culture was likewise supported,
suggesting that persons who tolerate inequalities and value autonomy view
the cohesion and equality of the clan as unattractive.
Results also indicate that vertical collectivists are more attracted to the
hierarchy culture (H6), presumably because this profile is consistent with
the importance they place on security, tradition, and conformity (Oishi
et al., 1998). In addition, they also tend to perceive themselves as part of
the in-group, recognizing that some individuals merit greater status than
others (Triandis & Gelfand, 1998), a perspective that is well aligned with
the status differentials found in the hierarchy culture. Our prediction that
horizontal individualism would be negatively related to attraction to the
hierarchy culture (H9) was not supported. Thus, there was no evidence that
persons who value both equality and individualism perceive low levels of
attraction to the hierarchy culture because of the differential levels of status
and authority and limited levels of discretion and autonomy. In sum, our
results suggest that the profile of the potential recruit who finds the hierarchy culture to be most appealing is a person who values security, compliance, and membership in the collective but is nonetheless accepting of
inequality across its members (i.e., possesses vertical collectivism values).
Support was also received for our prediction that vertical individualism
would be positively related to attraction to the market culture (H4). This
finding suggests that vertical individualists tend to find the market culture
especially appealing, perhaps because they anticipate that their needs for
competition and autonomy (Oishi et al., 1998) can be fulfilled in a culture
that enables them to distinguish themselves and achieve success in a highly
competitive atmosphere. The corollary hypothesis that horizontal collectivists would find the market culture unappealing (H3) was not supported.
Finally, support was obtained for the predictions that horizontal individualists would be especially attracted to an adhocracy culture (H8) whereas
vertical collectivists would find an adhocracy unattractive (H7). These findings suggest that the innovative and risk-taking character of the adhocracy,
when coupled with an emphasis on equal opportunities among members,
has considerable appeal to horizontal individualists who tend to be selfreliant and value equity. Conversely, vertical collectivists are much less
463
drawn to an adhocracy culture, presumably because they have relatively

high needs for structure, are accepting of status differences, and have a
desire for group inclusion (qualities uncommon in an adhocracy).
Overall, we obtained support for six of eight hypotheses regarding the
relationships between the HV-IC dimensions and the CV model of organizational culture. Thus, our findings provide considerable support for the
proposed linkages between HV-IC and preferences for alternative organizational cultures depicted in Figure 1. Indeed, all of the hypotheses that predicted positive relationships between HV-IC dimensions and particular
cultures were confirmed, suggesting that it is somewhat easier to predict the
types of cultures potential recruits will be attracted to using these dimensions than it is to predict the cultures they will find unattractive. It is also
noteworthy that both of the nonsupported hypotheses involved the horizontal dimension of Triandiss (1995) typology, suggesting that the preferences
of recruits for equality and egalitarian values are unrelated to the types of
cultures they find unappealing.
The present study has some unique features that should be recognized.
First, this is the first study to explore the relationships of the HV-IC dimensions with potential recruits assessments of the cultural types included in
Cameron and Quinns (1999) CV framework. Thus, although our results are
preliminary, this study contributes to the literature by empirically demonstrating that HV-IC scales can be used as individual-level measures of cultural values to predict recruits preferences for the clan, market, hierarchy,
and adhocracy cultures. Furthermore, we demonstrate that recruits are able
to get an accurate picture of an organizations culture in terms of the CV
framework and can distinguish one type from another via information presented through a corporate Web site.
Limitations and Future Directions

As is the case for any research, there are some limitations of this study that
should be recognized. Because college students served as the only source of
data and the online self-report measures constituted the only method of data
collection, the results are susceptible to mono-method and mono-source bias.
However, the potential effects of such biases were reduced by collecting the
organizational attraction and HV-IC measures at separate time periods. In
addition, the fact that the HV-IC scales generally correlated significantly with
the predicted cultural ratings and not with those associated with other cultures
suggests that the effects of common source and method bias were minimal.
Thus, although we cannot rule out the possibility that some of the relationships
464
identified are spurious and attributable to common method or source variance, the pattern of our findings suggests otherwise. Nonetheless, future studies should consider employing multiple sources of data collection.
Another limitation stems from the exclusive use of college students as
respondents. In one respect, concerns about generalizability related to the use
of college student samples (Gordon, Slade, & Schmitt, 1986) are less serious
in this study because the students participating were also potential recruits,
most of whom were either currently or soon to be searching for jobs. On the
other hand, it is possible that respondents with greater work experience would
have reacted more favorably to the RJP strategy, finding it to be refreshing in
comparison to their prior experiences with firms that employed traditional
and perhaps deceptive recruitment strategies. Future research using samples
with more extensive and diverse work experience is needed to assess how
much work experience moderates the effects of RJP on attraction.
Although our results indicate that the RJP versus traditional recruitment
elicited lower levels of organizational attraction, the extent to which such
previews would produce self-selection decisions by recruits that yield
higher levels of P-O fit, and the associated positive outcomes (e.g., greater
job satisfaction, commitment, and retention), was not explored. Thus, our
results could be extended to determine how much RJP yields higher levels
of P-O fit after recruits have entered the organization (Chatman, 1989) as
well as to determine anticipated gains in employee satisfaction, commitment, and retention (Wanous, 1992). To investigate these relationships, a
longitudinal design could be adopted where job applicants are initially
exposed to either a realistic or a traditional preview of the organizations
culture and measures of attraction are collected from applicants prior to
hire, as are P-O fit measures at subsequent points in time.
Another limitation stems from the exclusive use of the Web as a medium
for communicating the organizational culture profiles. Our decision to keep
the communication medium constant was made to avoid the added complexity and sample size requirements that would have accompanied the
inclusion of a communication media treatment. By adopting the Web as the
sole medium for displaying organizational profiles, we were able to demonstrate that it is a viable medium for influencing potential recruits attraction
to a particular culture. Nonetheless, this decision prevented us from drawing any conclusions about the relative utility of the Internet in comparison
to other media (e.g., print, radio, television) as an avenue for employee
recruitment. To address this shortcoming, our research design could be
extended to examine whether participants organizational culture preferences remain constant or vary as a function of the communication medium.
465
Moreover, it would be possible to assess how much they understand and

retain information about each culture as a function of the medium. If a particular medium produces more favorable evaluations of a given culture than
others (e.g., television produces more favorable evaluations of the clan culture, whereas the Web yields more favorable impressions of the market culture), organizations for which this culture is dominant may want to employ
this medium more prominently in their recruitment program.
Lee and Chois (2005) study of the role of HV-IC in online consumer
responses to persuasive communication provides further insight into the
potential benefits of such a research program. Their results revealed that
although horizontal individualists rated their Web skills higher than did the
other personality types, they also rated Web advertising as less informative
and entertaining and expressed less favorable overall attitudes toward Web
advertising. Lee and Choi speculated that although the Web is often viewed
as an ideal medium for customizing messages to permit a high degree of
user control, horizontal individualists may nevertheless view Web messages
as targeted for a mass audience and hence not adequately reflective of their
personal uniqueness. Moreover, the fact that horizontal individualists
reported the highest levels of Web skills suggests that they may be striving
to gain as many Web skills as possible to exert control over what they view
on the Web and may alter the content and format of persuasive messages to
satisfy their desire to remain unique.
One implication of Lee and Chois findings is that personality factors,
such as HV-IC, are likely to play a key role in explaining the favorability of
audience reactions to organizational information presented via alternative
media. A second is that these results reinforce the utility demonstrated by
our study of considering personality variables, and the HV-IC typology in
particular, as determinants of receiver reactions to persuasive organizational communications. Hence, exploration of the separate and interactive
effects that personality variables and alternative communication media
exert on the responses of potential recruits to persuasive organizational
messages represents a particularly promising avenue for future research.
Practical Implications
There are several practical implications of our results. The finding that the
clan culture was rated most favorably suggests that recruiters seeking to
attract college students may want to realistically portray elements that are
consistent with the clan culture. As Cameron and Quinn (1999) emphasized,
all organizations contain elements of each cultural type, even though some
466
types may be far more prominent than others. For recruits who prefer the clan
culture, efforts should be made to identify pockets of the organization that
embody this culture and make them observable to recruits (both in Web-based
recruiting and traditional forms). Moreover, when such persons join the organization, it is important that they be assigned to a work group that is congruent with their cultural preferences to achieve a high level of P-O fit.
The HV-IC measures provided insight into the personalities of participants
who favored particular cultures. Our findings suggest an alternative approach
to securing personnel who fit the organizations culture that may be preferred
if cultural change is deemed to be undesirable or not feasible. Specifically, a
concerted effort could be made to appeal to recruits who are likely to be particularly attracted to the organizations existing culture. For example, if an
organizations dominant culture most closely resembles a hierarchy, our findings suggest that vertical collectivists will view it as highly attractive. Hence,
organizational profiles that emphasize tradition and securityvalues that
appeal to vertical collectivists (Nelson & Shavitt, 2002)may be very effective in attracting recruits who fit the firms culture. Similarly, because vertical individualists value power and achievement, firms with dominant market
cultures may find a recruitment strategy that highlights realistic opportunities
for advancement to be highly effective in attracting a cadre of vertical individualist recruits who fit the culture particularly well.
Given the potential benefits for job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and retention arising from improved P-O fit, the adoption of this
approach merits consideration. Note however that organizations adopting a
strategy that targets personalities that find the dominant culture most appealing run the risk of fostering a homogeneous workforce that lacks diversity and
perhaps creativity and innovation as a result (Milliken & Martins, 1996).
Alternatively, to the extent that the organization embodies components of multiple cultures, it may be beneficial to develop a more complex and inclusive
recruitment message that highlights these subcultures, thereby communicating
the potential for achieving P-O fit with diverse personality types. In light of the
inherent flexibility of the Internet in allowing users to efficiently collect information at their discretion, customized Web pages such as those employed in
our study may provide a powerful platform for organizations to tailor their
recruitment messages to best address the diverse interests and personalities of
recruits. Moreover, because the people make the place, we believe that efforts
to attract recruits with diverse personalities will enable the organizations culture to evolve and change to capitalize on the varied strengths of its members.
Thus, we believe our results possess considerable promise for organizations
seeking to attract and retain high-quality human resources by helping people
of all types find their place at work.
467
Appendix
Welcome to TEAM, Inc. [Clan Profile]
Since its inception, TEAM, Inc. has been blessed with a clear sense of identity
and purpose. A strong commitment to our core values has served as the key to
TEAMs ongoing success. For many of our employees, such values translate into
real benefits that make our company a truly great place to work. However, TEAM is
not for everyone.
We want you to have a realistic preview of life at TEAM, so that you can make
an informed decision about how well you would fit in. For this reason, we
describe our core values, as well as their associated benefits and potential limitations, below.
Our Core Values
A Family Atmosphere. We take pride in our close-knit, family-like work climate.
In our extended family, it is the leaders job to build strong internal teams, secure
employee commitment, and maintain morale; many members affectionately view
our leaders as parent figures. High trust among members allows us to operate with
an informal and flexible structure.
Benefits:
Employees form close friendships with one another and enjoy an overall
sense of we-ness and cohesion.
People enjoy a positive and cordial work environment that is characterized by high levels of trust, commitment, and morale.
Limitations:
0ur emphasis on cohesion and collegiality can create peer pressures for
employees to conform that inhibit their individual creativity.
Teamwork. As our name implies, we especially value teamwork and collaboration.
We place a premium on loyalty, commitment, and tradition, which serve as the glue
that binds our people together. Employees and customers alike are treated as partners in teams who work together on shared goals.
Benefits:
Through teamwork and cooperation employees experience a sense of synergy and team spirit.
Loyalty and tradition foster a sense of belonging and organizational
attachment among employees.
(continued)
468
Appendix (continued)
Limitations:
One danger of our emphasis on close-knit teams is the creation of
cliques that jockey with one another for influence and prestige.
Decisions by Consensus. We share a strong belief in decision-making through consensus. We seek participation and input from all parties who will be affected by, and
can contribute to, the decision.
Benefits:
Consensus decision making process improves employees understanding
of, and commitment to, selected courses of action.
Once consensus is achieved, members understanding and commitment
increase the rapidity and quality with which a decision can be implemented.
Limitations:
One disadvantage of our reliance on consensus decisions and employee
involvement is that we are sometimes slow to respond to unexpected challenges.
Human Resource Development. We emphasize the long-term development of our
human resources and attach great importance to employee morale. Our managers
serve as mentors, facilitators, and champions whose main concerns are employee
well-being, development, and empowerment.
Benefits:
Our emphasis on human resource development provides employees with
ample opportunities for growth and empowerment.
Employees who demonstrate enthusiasm, loyalty, cooperation, networking and social skills, and sensitivity to customers and fellow employees
concerns, tend to thrive at TEAM.
Limitations:
Highly individualistic persons who prefer to work alone may feel out of
place at TEAM.
Note: The organizational culture profiles were adapted from cultural type descriptions provided by Cameron and Quinn (1999). Italicized text appeared only in the realistic job preview treatments.
469
References
Aritzeta, A., & Balluerka, N. (2006). Cooperation, competition and goal interdependence in
work teams: A multilevel approach. Psicothema, 18(4), 757-765.
Breaugh, J. A., & Starke, M. (2000). Research on employee recruitment: So many studies, so
many remaining questions. Journal of Management, 26, 405-434.
Bretz, R. D., Jr., & Judge, T. A. (1998). Realistic job previews: A test of the adverse self-selection
hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 330-337.
Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367-383.
Cameron, K. S., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture
based on the competing values framework. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to
the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413-423.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of personorganization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333-349.
Cober, R. T., Brown, D. J., Keeping, L. M., & Levy, P. E. (2004). Recruitment on the net: How
do organizational Web site characteristics influence applicant attraction? Journal of
Management, 30, 623-646.
Dineen, B. R., Ash, S. R., & Noe, R. A. (2002). A web of application attraction: Personorganization fit in the context of Web-based recruitment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87, 723-734.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gordon, M. E., Slade, L. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The science of the sophomore revisited:
From conjecture to empiricism. Academy of Management Review, 11, 191-207.
Han, S.-P., & Shavitt, S. (1994). Persuasion and culture: Advertising appeals in individualistic
and collectivistic cultures. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 326-350.
Hang-yue, N., Foley, S., & Loi, R. (2006). The effects of cultural types on perceptions of justice and gender inequity in the workplace. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 17, 983-998.
Highhouse, S., & Hoffman, J. R. (2001). Organizational attraction and job choice. In C. L.
Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 16, pp. 37-64). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in work related values.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359-393.
Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: A researchers handbook (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.
Lee, W.-N., & Choi, S. M. (2005). The role of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism in online consumers responses toward persuasive communication on the Web.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 317-336.
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the
multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21,
402-433.
470
Nelson, M. R., & Shavitt, S. (2002). Horizontal and vertical individualism and achievement
values: A multimethod examination of Denmark and the United States. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 33, 439-458.
Ng, K. Y., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Individualismcollectivism as a boundary condition for
effectiveness of minority influence in decision making. Organization Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 84, 198-255.
OConnell, M., & Kung, M.-C. (2007). The cost of employee turnover. Industrial Management,
49(1), 14-19.
Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1998). The measurement of values and
individualism-collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1177-1189.
OReilly, C. A., III, Chatman, J., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People and organizational culture:
A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Academy of
Management Journal, 34, 487-516.
Phillips, J. M. (1998). Effects or realistic job previews on multiple organizational outcomes:
A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 673-690.
Ployhart, R. E. (2006). Staffing in the 21st century: New challenges and strategic opportunities. Journal of Management, 32, 868-897.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J.-Y. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Premack, S. L., & Wanous, J. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of realistic job preview experiments.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 706-719.
Quinn, R. E., & Cameron, K. S. (1988). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of
change in organization and management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values culture
instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life.
Research in Organizational Change and Development, 5, 115-142.
Reeve, C. L., Highhouse, S., & Brooks, M. E. (2006). A closer look at reactions to realistic
recruitment messages. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14(1), 1-15.
Rynes, S. L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A call for new
research directions. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 399-444). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Saks, A. M., Wiesner, W. H., & Summers, R. J. (1994). Effects of job previews on self-selection
and job choice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 44, 297-316.
Schaubroeck, J., Ganster, D. C., & Jones, J. R. (1998). Organization and occupation influences
in the attractionselectionattrition process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 869-891.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437-453.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). ASA framework: An update.
Personnel Psychology, 48, 747-773.
Schneider, B., Smith, D. B., & Goldstein, H. W. (2000). Attractionselectionattrition: Toward
a person-environment psychology of organizations. In W. B. Walsh, K. H. Craik, & R. H.
Price (Eds.), Person-environment psychology: New directions and perspectives (2nd ed.,
pp. 61-85). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schwartz, S. A. (1994). Beyond individualism and collectivism: New cultural dimensions of
values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.),
Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. 85-119). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
471
Schwartz, S. H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value
systems. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values: The
Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 1-24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Scott, C. R., Connaughton, S. L., Diaz-Saenz, H. R., Maguire, K., Ramirez, R., Richardson, B.,
et al. (1999). The impacts of communication and multiple identifications on intent to leave:
A multimethodological exploration. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 400-435.
Shetzer, L., & Stackman, R. W. (1991). The career path component of realistic job previews:
A meta-analysis and proposed integration. Applied HRM Research, 2, 153-169.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and vertical
dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement.
Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 29, 240-275.
Smith, B. N., Montagno, R. V., & Kuzmenko, T. N. (2004). Transformational and servant leadership: Content and contextual comparisons. Journal of Leadership and Organizational
Studies, 10(4), 80-91.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1989). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper Collins.
Thorsteinson, T. J., Palmer, E. M., Wulff, C., & Anderson, A. (2004). Too good to be true?
Using realism to enhance applicant attraction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(1),
125-137.
Tracey, J. B., & Hinkin, T. R. (2008). Contextual factors and cost profiles associated with
employee turnover. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 49(1), 12-27.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CA: Westview.
Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American
Psychologist, 51, 407-415.
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical
individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118-128.
Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 133-160.
Vaughn, M. A. (1995). Organizational symbols: An analysis of their types and functions in a
reborn organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 219-250.
Verquer, M. L., Beeher, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between
person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473-489.
Wanous, J. P. (1977). Organizational entry: Newcomers moving from outside to inside.
Psychological Bulletin, 84, 601-618.
Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and socialization of newcomers (2nd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Yearley, L. H. (1990). Mencius and Acquinas: Theories of virtue and conceptions of courage.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Young, J., & Foot, K. (2006). Corporate e-cruiting: The construction of work in Fortune 500
recruiting Web sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11(1), 44-71.
Zammuto, R. F., & Krakower, J. Y. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative studies of organizational culture. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in organizational
change and development (Vol. 5, pp. 83-114). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
William L. Gardner (DBA, Florida State University, 1984) is the Jerry S. Rawls Professor of
Organizational Behavior and Leadership in the Area of Management, Rawls College of
Business at Texas Tech University, USA. His main research interests include leadership,
impression management, causal attributions, business ethics, and organizational recruitment
and socialization processes.
472
Brian J. Reithel (PhD, Texas Tech University, 1992) is a professor of management information systems and a past dean of the School of Business Administration at the University of
Mississippi, USA. His main research interests include the strategic use of information technology and other social issues (including computer forensics) surrounding interactions
between people and technology.
Richard T. Foley (MBA, Duquesne University, 1990) is an independent consultant in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. His research interests are in the areas of human resource management, international management, and organizational behavior.
Claudia C. Cogliser (PhD, University of Miami, 1997) is an assistant professor in the Area
of Management, Rawls College of Business at Texas Tech University, USA. Her main research
interests include leadership, entrepreneurship, and research methods.
Fred O. Walumbwa (PhD, University of IllinoisChampaign-Urbana, 2002) is an associate
professor of Management at Arizona State University, USA. He is also a senior scientist with
the Gallup Organization, USA. His main research interests include leadership development,
organizational culture and identity, justice, and multilevel issues in research.

Efectele Recrutarii Realiste

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Efectele Recrutarii Realiste

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Management Communication

Attraction to Organizational Culture Profiles: Effects of Realistic

Additional services and information for Management Communication Quarterly can be

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

he people make the place (Schneider, 1987). This is the central

Management Communication Quarterly

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Gardner et al. / Organizational Culture Profiles

Another prevalent approach to raising employee retention is to apply

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Management Communication Quarterly

individualism and collectivism, as they are manifest at the individual level.

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Gardner et al. / Organizational Culture Profiles

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Management Communication Quarterly

Thus, an organizational culture can be viewed as values that specify

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Gardner et al. / Organizational Culture Profiles

criteria that emphasize an internal orientation, unity, and integration. This

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Management Communication Quarterly

One of the purported benefits of RJP is that it allows individuals to make a

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Gardner et al. / Organizational Culture Profiles

recruits who are exposed to RJP versus traditional recruitment messages

Organizational Culture Attraction and HV-IC

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Management Communication Quarterly

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Gardner et al. / Organizational Culture Profiles

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Management Communication Quarterly

achievement whereas horizontal individualists would stress the value of

Clan and Market Attraction Hypotheses

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Gardner et al. / Organizational Culture Profiles

universalism exist in opposition to power, achievement, and hedonism

Vertical individualism. People who score high on vertical individualism

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Management Communication Quarterly

Hypothesis 5 (H5): Vertical individualism will be negatively related to

Hierarchy and Adhocracy Attraction Hypotheses

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Gardner et al. / Organizational Culture Profiles

horizontal individualism, but only for autonomous individuals and not as

We also expect the horizontal individualist to have a negative view of the

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Management Communication Quarterly

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Gardner et al. / Organizational Culture Profiles

Phase I. We solicited participation of students early in the semester.

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Management Communication Quarterly

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Gardner et al. / Organizational Culture Profiles

work environment is like, (d) the organization glue or means of bonding

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Management Communication Quarterly

Note: Coefficient alphas appear on the diagonals in italics.

Downloaded from http://mcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on August 15, 2009

Gardner et al. / Organizational Culture Profiles

Note: N = 213 because of missing values.