social networking web sites in job search and employee recruitment

Social Networking Web Sites in Job Searchand Employee Recruitment

Ioannis Nikolaou

Department of Management Science and Technology, Athens University of Economics and Business, 76Patission Str., Athens 10434, Greece. [email protected]

The use of professionally and nonprofessionally oriented social networking Web sites(SNWs), such as LinkedIn and Facebook, has become widespread from both sides of the At-lantic. The current paper presents and discusses the results of two surveys conducted inGreece exploring the role of SNWs among employees–job seekers and recruiters–humanresource professionals. The first study explores how SNWs are used during job search ac-tivities and the second how recruiters use them in the attraction recruitment and screeningprocess. Special note is given in the relationship between SNWs and the more establishedInternet job boards. Our results showed that job seekers still seem to use job boards moreextensively than SNWs. It is interesting to note that the association between LinkedInusage and its effectiveness, on the one hand, and time spent on SNWs and LinkedIn effect-iveness, on the other, is stronger for ‘passive’ candidates, demonstrating the important roleof SNWs for attracting ‘passive’ candidates. HR professionals are more engaged in LinkedInthan Facebook and were considering the former as more effective than the latter in the re-cruitment process. The current study sheds more light in the use of SNWs, being one of thefirst studies conducted in a non-English speaking country.

1. Introduction

Social networking Web sites (SNWs) are nowadaysconsidered the most popular Web sites on the Inter-

net. They offer extensive means of communication andpersonal networking providing job seekers with in-creased opportunities to network. Moreover, theyappear to be an increasingly useful tool for human re-source management professionals to advertise job open-ings and seek information about job seekers in anefficient and cost-effective way.

The widespread use of the Internet and SNWs in jobsearch and employee recruitment should not come as asurprise. Most job seekers and human resource profes-sionals use SNWs these days extensively (Stopfer &Gosling, 2013), as demonstrated by a number of recentarticles in the press (e.g., Manjoo, 2010) and surveyscontacted by professional organizations (CharteredInstitute of Personnel & Development, 2010; Society forHuman Resource Management, 2011). However, aca-demic research has been hesitant to follow up and ex-plore issues related to the use of SNWs with a few

exceptions, which will be discussed subsequently.Therefore, the aim of the current paper is twofold: toexplore the usage of SNWs by job seekers during theirjob search activities as well as by human resource pro-fessionals during the recruitment process, adopting asurvey methodology.

2. Job search and SNWs

People join and use an array of different SNWs for vari-ous reasons. Although enjoyment is an important factorin joining SNWs, such as Facebook (Lin & Lu, 2011),perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use are alsoimportant (Lin, 2010). This is especially the case for pro-fessionally oriented SNWs, such as LinkedIn, which pro-vide job seekers with extensive professional networkingopportunities. These can be both between job seekersbut also with human resource professionals and/orother professionals. These SNWs allow users to ‘pre-sent’ themselves and network in various ways, forexample, through participation in professional/alumni

bs_b

s_ba

nner

International Journal of Selection and Assessment Volume 22 Number 2 June 2014

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd,9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main St., Malden, MA, 02148, USA

mailto:[email protected]

groups, ‘following’ the companies they are interested inand/or ‘connecting’ with job seekers and human re-source professionals. SNWs have been recently adoptedin various aspects of management education (Gerard,2012; Michael & Howard, 2012) in an attempt to in-crease students’ awareness of their usefulness duringthe job search process.

Job search has become one of the main reasons whypeople join and use SNWs, especially professionally ori-ented SNWs, such as LinkedIn (Stopfer & Gosling,2013). Most people would agree that the job searchprocess can be nowadays a long, time-consuming anddemanding process. It entails the seeking and gatheringinformation practices about potential jobs and is usuallyoperationalized in terms of intensity and effort (Boswell,Zimmerman, & Swider, 2011). Intensity is defined as thefrequency with which the individual is involved in jobsearch activities, whereas effort reflects the persever-ance and energy the individual shows during the jobsearch period. Job search research has received in-creased attention during the last two decades, as a re-sult of the changes occurring in jobs and the economy ingeneral. Most people in most countries will embark afew times on a job search effort with employees in theUnited States changing jobs an average of 10.2 timesover 20 years (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2005). Most ofthis research has focused on the antecedents, correl-ates, and outcomes of job search in various contexts(Kanfer, Wanberg, & Kantrowitz, 2001). In the mostrecent review of the field, Boswell et al. (2011) dis-cussed the three main research streams in the field ofjob search, according to an individual’s employment sta-tus (i.e., new entrant, job loser, employed job seeker),and provided an integrative framework of research onthese three streams. It is worth noting, however, thatthe role of networking was scarcely discussed whileSNWs were not even mentioned.

Job search behaviors have been largely classified inprevious research along a continuum between formaland informal job search activities (Saks & Ashforth,2000). Formal job search behaviors commonly includeemployment agencies, television/radio/newspaper ad-vertisements, recruiters’ campus visits, and universityplacements. Informal job search behaviors include acurrent or a former employee of an organization,friend, or relative who works or used to work at anorganization, and walk-in applicants. Networking has al-ways been considered as one of the most effective jobsearch activities (Van Hoye, Van Hooft, & Lievens,2009). Wanberg, Kanfer, and Banas (2000) defined jobsearch networking as ‘individual actions directed to-wards contacting friends, acquaintances, and otherpeople to whom the job seeker has been referred forthe main purpose of getting information, leads, or ad-vice on getting a job’ (Wanberg et al., 2000, p. 492).Networking has been considered by most researchers

as an informal job search behavior (e.g., Van Hoyeet al., 2009), and even established measures of jobsearch activities (e.g., Blau, 1993) have included net-working as part of the informal or preparatory jobsearch activities. However, we believe that the extens-ive use of the Internet in job search and especially theincreased adoption of SNWs from job seekers requirea revised classification of formal–informal job searchactivities. The nature of networking has changed rap-idly as a result of job seekers’ increased adoption ofSNWs. Networking should not probably be consideredanymore a supplement to existing methods of jobseeking, as Lievens and Harris (2003) claimed in one ofthe first reviews exploring the role of Internet on re-cruitment and testing. On the contrary, as personaland professional networking through the use of SNWshas recently become one of the most widely used jobsearch methods (Stopfer & Gosling, 2013), this shouldbe considered as an active job search behavior. A firstattempt has been recently made Chen and Lim (2012)who have considered networking and the use of theInternet among active job search behaviors.

Limited research has previously explored the factorsaffecting job seekers to use job search Web sites. Lin(2010) explored how the theory of planned behaviorcan be applied in predicting job seekers’ attitudestoward job search Web sites. She identified that jobseekers’ attitudes, subjective norms, and perceivedbehavioral control significantly affected their intentionsto use job search Web sites. The results confirm thatperceived ease of use and usefulness of a job searchWeb site affect job seekers’ attitudes toward job searchWeb sites. In a recent study exploring applicants per-ceptions of e-recruiting, Thielsch, Träumer, and Pytlik(2012) identified that job seekers appreciate the imme-diate feedback as the most useful aspect of e-recruitingin general, but even this study did not focus on SNWsspecifically. On the other hand, Madera (2012) came upwith disappointing results for the use of SNWs in jobsearch. His study, conducted in the hospitality industry,showed that applicants’ perceived fairness and job pur-suit intentions were lower for an organization that usedSNWs as a selection tool than an organization that didnot. However, the focus in this study was on Facebookrather than professionally oriented SNWs, such as theLinkedIn. This is an important issue especially from anapplicant reactions’ perspective, which was the focus ofMadera’s (2012) study.

Another important issue in online recruitment is theuse of job boards or job search Web sites (such asmonster.com or careerbulider.com). Job search Web siteshave been used widely from job seekers since the later1990s to upload their curricula vitae (CVs) and apply tojob openings. They have also been studied extensively aspart of online recruitment research (e.g., Dineen &Soltis, 2010). They offer a number of advantages to job

180 Ioannis Nikolaou

International Journal of Selection and AssessmentVolume 22 Number 2 June 2014

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

seekers, such as posting their resumes online and accessto an extensive database of jobs for free. For employers,they offer access to continuously expanding database ofresumes, usually with a fee, thus reducing the recruitingcycle time (Lin, 2010). However, most job search Websites are designed for general use and previous researchhas shown that they attract lower quality applicants thanindustry/position specific job boards (Jattuso & Sinar,2003), which have been used more extensively recently(e.g., ishade.com for accountants, researchgate.net for re-searchers). Nevertheless, as job boards have beenaround longer than SNWs and are well established be-tween job seekers compared with new forms of SNWs,we expect that job seekers will use them more extens-ively and also perceive them as more effective thanSNWs. Therefore, we make the following hypotheses:

H1a: Job seekers will use job boards more extensivelyand consider them as more effective compared withSNWs.

H1b: Job seekers will consider professionally orientedSNWs (e.g., LinkedIn) as more effective compared withnonprofessionally oriented SNWs (e.g., Facebook) dur-ing the job search process.

Another advantage of SNWs, often cited by recruitersand HR professionals, is the ease of approaching ‘passivecandidates’, that is, individuals not actively seeking for ajob, a strategy often called ‘poaching’ or ‘talent raiding’among recruiters (Dineen & Soltis, 2010). Recruitersoften use poaching to approach and attract candidates,especially for specialized middle level or senior manage-ment positions. On the other hand, employees’ profileson professionally oriented SNWs, such as LinkedIn,offer the opportunity to potential employers to gothrough job seekers’ biographical information, evenwhen they are not actively pursuing a new job. There-fore, we expect that active job seekers will invest moretime on both job boards and professionally orientedSNWs compared with passive job seekers, who on theother hand will spend more time on personal-orientedSNWs, such as Facebook. Finally, we expect that as act-ive job seekers will invest more time on SNWs, theywill also perceive more favorably the effectiveness of jobboards and professionally oriented SNWs, comparedwith passive job seekers. Therefore, we make the fol-lowing hypotheses:

H2: Active job seekers will use job boards and LinkedInmore extensively, in terms of usage, time spent, and fre-quency of visits compared with passive job seekers.

H3: Job search activity (i.e., passive vs. active job seek-ing) will moderate the relationship between SNWs’usage, time spent, frequency of visits, and the respectivejob search SNWs’ perceptions of effectiveness.

3. Employee screening, recruitment,and SNWs

More than a decade ago Bartram (2000) conducted thefirst systematic review on the role of Internet on re-cruitment and selection. The emphasis then was still onthe use of the Internet as a supplementary tool in re-cruitment and selection, along with the existing tradi-tional methods. Soon after, Lievens, Van Dam, andAnderson (2002) identified the Internet and other tech-nological challenges, such as e-recruitment and onlinetesting, as the number one trend/challenge in personnelselection. However, things have rapidly changed sincethen with the appearance and the extensive use ofSNWs in employee recruitment and selection, similarlyto the field of job search, although there is still a signific-ant lack in research published in peer-reviewed outletsexploring how SNWs are used for recruitment and se-lection purposes (Brown & Vaughn, 2011). It is worthnoting, for example, that the most recent qualitative re-view on employee recruitment published in the AnnualReview of Psychology (Breaugh, 2013) does not refer at allthe role and the use of SNWs in employee recruitment,apparently due to lack of adequate published researchon this topic.

Davison, Maraist, and Bing (2011) have recently sug-gested that the extensive use of SNWs for screeningand recruiting purposes may be attributed to its closerelation to the ‘traditional’ act of posting a job advertise-ment on the Internet. However, we think that althoughthis might be a valid explanation for job boards, it is in-sufficient to explain the widespread use of SNWs as arecruitment and screening tool. Brown and Vaughn(2011) claim that ‘Social networking sites provide areadily available public forum to research candidateswhile incurring minimal cost, allowing even small busi-nesses to engage in such practices’ (p. 220). Therefore,ease of access to information, usefulness, and cost mightbe important determinants for recruiters in their de-cision to use SNWs in recruitment and screening jobapplicants.

However, there are a number of issues recruiters andhuman resource management professionals should takeinto consideration when using SNWs for recruitmentpurposes. Slovensky and Ross (2012) explored the mainmanagerial and legal issues associated with the use ofSNWs for employee selection, whereas Brown andVaughn (2011) focused on Facebook and how it affectshiring decisions. Clark and Roberts (2010) discussed ex-tensively the issue of privacy in employer uses and mis-uses of SNWs for recruitment and selection. Theoverall conclusion of these studies and the major issuebehind the use of SNWs in screening, recruitment, andselection has to do with the risks associated with themisuse of SNWs. Their misuse might raise concernsabout job candidates’ privacy and unfair discrimination,

Using Social Networking Web Sites 181

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd International Journal of Selection and AssessmentVolume 22 Number 2 June 2014

based on the information identified for them in theSNWs. In most countries, the lawmaker has fallen be-hind in setting up specific guidelines for the use andabuse of SNWs in staffing, as in the case for other re-cruitment and selection issues, such as racial/gender dis-crimination (Myors et al., 2008).

Recruiters typically use SNWs as an alternative totraditional background checking, that is, they seek foradditional information about their candidates once theyknow a few things about them, for example, followingthe submission of their CV/application form or followingthe first screening interview. From a research perspect-ive, limited research has explored how SNWs are usedin staffing and the ways the information retrieved fromSNWs might affect hiring decisions. Chang and Madera(2012), in a study focusing in the hospitality industry,found that 50% of their sample of hospitality recruitersreported using social network sites to screen applicants.They rated the negative information obtained from theInternet as more important than positive, and they alsoused SNWs more for management-level and front-of-the-house employees than entry-level and back-of-the-house applicants. In another recent study, Roulin andBangerter (2013) adopted signaling theory (Bangerter,Roulin, & Konig, 2012) to explore the use of SNWs inpersonnel selection. They found that recruiters usedprofessionally oriented SNWs, such as LinkedIn, to inferapplicants’ person–job fit and personal SNWs, such asFacebook, to assess person–organization fit. As a resultof the lack of research in SNWs in employee selection,Davison, Maraist, Hamilton, and Bing (2011) have calledfor research in using SNW-derived information, as itssuitability in recruitment and selection processes hasnot yet been systematically scrutinized, despite its ex-tensive usage from recruiters (Kluemper, Rosen, &Mossholder, 2012). Therefore, the aim of the secondpart of our study is to shed light on the usage of SNWsfrom recruiters and human resource management pro-fessionals during the screening and recruitment process.

In our study, we will explore the extent of SNWs’usage from recruiters and HR professionals. Profession-ally oriented SNWs often act as a portal providing re-cruiters with useful information and current news forthe recruitment industry and the job market, along withinformation of the people the recruiter is connectedwith. These are often professional contacts rather thanpersonal contacts and friends, which is the case forSNWs such as Facebook. They also provide a wealth ofinformation for potential candidates, even if they are notactively seeking for a job. People provide informationabout their current and previous jobs, projects they areinvolved with, membership in professional associationsand/or groups, etc. On the other hand, innonprofessionally oriented SNWs, such as Facebook,people typically upload personal information, such aspersonal news, views, and photos (Stopfer & Gosling,

2013). Extensive use of this nonwork-related informa-tion for recruitment and screening purposes from re-cruiters and HR professionals raises the risk of unfairdiscrimination against applicants. Therefore, we makethe following hypothesis:

H4: Recruiters and HR professionals will be more act-ively engaged with professionally oriented SNWs, suchas LinkedIn, compared with nonprofessionally orientedSNWs, such as Facebook.

In a similar vein, recruiters will use professionally ori-ented SNWs such as LinkedIn more extensively for re-cruitment and screening purposes, compared withnonprofessionally oriented SNWs, such as Facebook.Consequently, they will also consider LinkedIn as amore effective SNW for recruitment and screening,compared with Facebook. Therefore, we make the fol-lowing hypotheses:

H5: LinkedIn will be used more extensively for recruit-ment and screening purposes compared with Facebook.

H6: LinkedIn will be considered more effective for re-cruitment and screening purposes compared withFacebook.

4. Overview of the present studies

We conducted two studies to evaluate the use ofSNWs from active job seekers and human resourceprofessionals, respectively, following a survey methodo-logy. The primary purpose of Study 1 is to explore howjob seekers use SNWs, how often, how effective theythink they are, and how useful they found them duringtheir job search pursuit. Study 2 explores how HR pro-fessionals use SNWs, focusing on recruitment, how theyuse them in the recruitment process, and how effectivethey also think they are. Both studies were conducted inGreece, at the end of 2009 beginning of 2010, beforethe outburst of the financial crisis. During that period,although the first signs of the crisis had started to ap-pear, the employment outlook was still positive withcompanies offering employment opportunities and ad-vertising them accordingly.

5. Method

5.1. Samples and procedure

Study 1 participants (n = 417) included both nonworking(25.4%) and working individuals (74.6%). They were re-cruited through various means, such as universities’ ca-reer offices and alumni groups and SNWs. We removedfrom subsequent analyses those individuals indicatingthat they never use SNWs (10.1%), leaving us with asample of n = 375. Study 2 participants (n = 122) were




mainly recruited through the membership registry of theGreek People Management Association, the professionalassociation of human resource professionals in Greece.Similarly to the employee sample, we removed those in-dividuals who indicated that they never use SNWs(12.3%), reducing the sample to n = 107.

The majority of the participants in Study 1 were fe-males (62.1%), holders of a university (33.3%) or a post-graduate degree (57.6%), with a mean age of 29.01 yearsand 5.8 years of work experience. Most of them wereeither actively looking for a job (22.1%) or would con-sider new job opportunities (42.4%). Similarly, in Study2, the majority were females (65.4%), with a university(15.9%) or postgraduate degree (81.3%), mean age of34.91 years and 11.27 years of work experience.

6. Measures

We used online questionnaires in both studies, and re-spondents’ identities were checked by their e-mail andIP address, when the questionnaires were received, toavoid duplications.

6.1. Study 16.1.1. SNW engagementParticipants indicated on a 5-degree scale, ranging from1 (I do not use it) to 5 (a lot) how actively engaged theyare on LinkedIn (M: 1.35, standard deviation [SD]: 1.34)and Facebook (M: 2.62, SD: 1.29), respectively.

6.1.2. Job search SNW usageParticipants were asked to indicate on a 5-degree scale,ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always) how often they usedLinkedIn (M: 2.26, SD: 1.33), Facebook (M: 1.45, SD:0.77), and job boards (M: 3.87, SD: 1.42), respectively,during their job search activities.

6.1.3. Job search SNW effectivenessThis was again measured with single-item questions andrespondents indicated their perceptions of LinkedIn’s(M: 1.40, SD: 1.34), Facebook’s (M: 0.83, SD: 0.84), andjob boards’ (M: 2.76, SD: 1.29) effectiveness during theirjob search activities with a 5-degree scale, ranging from0 (I do not use it) to 4 (very effective).

6.1.4. SNW time spentIt was measured with the question ‘How much time doyou spend on SNWs on average when visiting?’, with re-sponses ranging from 1 (less than 10 min) to 8 (over 3 hr;M: 1.40, SD: 1.33).

6.1.5. SNW frequency of visitsIt was measured with the question ‘How often do youvisit SNWs?’, with responses ranging from 1 (very rarely)to 5 (more than twice a day; M: 3.98, SD: 0.98).

6.1.6. Job search activityThis was measured with a multiple-choice question (Areyou currently looking for a job?) with three responses (‘Iam actively looking for a job’, ‘Not actively, but I wouldconsider new job opportunities’, and ‘I am not currentlylooking for a job’).

6.2. Study 2

6.2.1. SNW engagementIt was measured with single-item questions on a5-degree scale, ranging from 1 (I do not use it) to 5 (a lot)how actively engaged they were on LinkedIn (M: 3.24,SD: 1.18) and Facebook (M: 2.78, SD: 1.43), respectively.

6.2.2. Recruitment screening usageThis was measured with three questions where particip-ants indicated on a 5-degree scale ranging from 1 (never)to 5 (always) how often they used LinkedIn (M: 2.90, SD:0.99) for recruitment and screening across entry-level,middle-level, and senior management positions (α: .77).Similar information was obtained for Facebook (M: 1.83,SD: 1.11) (α: .91). A sample item is ‘How often do youuse LinkedIn in the recruitment/screening process ofentry-level employees?’

6.2.3. Recruitment screening effectivenessThis was again measured with three questions and re-spondents indicated their perceptions of LinkedIn ef-fectiveness (M: 3.30, SD: 0.86) across entry-level,middle-level, and senior management positions with a4-degree scale, ranging from 1 (not effective) to 4 (veryeffective; α: .70). A sample item is ‘How would yourate LinkedIn’s effectiveness in the recruitment/screening process of entry-level employees?’ Similar in-formation was obtained about Facebook (M: 2.02, SD:1.06; α: .79).

7. Results

Tables 1 and 2 present descriptive statistics and theintercorrelation matrix of the studies’ variables. Beforewe examine our hypotheses, it is interesting to notethat gender seems to associate with some aspects ofSNWs usage and engagement among job seekers inStudy 1. For instance, males tend to be more activethan females on LinkedIn, in terms of engagement,usage, and perceptions of its effectiveness. Females, on



the other hand, tend to spend more time using SNWs,especially job boards in the job search purposes. InStudy 2, male HR professionals also seem to be moreactive on LinkedIn. As far as age is concerned, there isa differential pattern with older job seekers usingLinkedIn, and younger using Facebook and job boards.Younger participants tend to spend more time onlineon SNWs and visit them more regularly, an expectedfinding. Similar patterns are also followed in Study 2,with younger HR professionals being more active onFacebook. Furthermore, higher levels of educationtend to associate with LinkedIn engagement, job searchusage, and perceptions of effectiveness. This is not thecase for Facebook, though. SNW engagement is alsoperceived differently between the two samples. InStudy 1, the lack of a correlation (r: .06, p = n/s) indic-ates the lack of a relationship between LinkedIn andFacebook engagement. On the contrary, HR profes-sionals of Study 2 are moderately engaged across bothSNWs (r: .21, p < .05). Finally, SNWs usage and effect-iveness demonstrate high intercorrelations among jobseekers. A possible explanation could be that they con-sider those three means of job searching as effectiveand this is the reason why they use them. Among thethree, Facebook usage and effectiveness demonstratesthe lower correlation, suggesting that the highintercorrelations between usage and effectiveness isprobably not a construct validity issue.

In order to explore hypothesis H1a, we conductedpaired samples t-tests. The hypothesis was confirmed, asjob seekers were indeed using job boards more extens-ively and also consider them more effective than bothLinkedIn (usage: t = −13.83 [df = 324], p < .00; effective-ness: t = −13.55 [df = 324], p < .00) and Facebook (usage:t = −28.62 [df = 324], p < .00; effectiveness: t = −24.29[df = 324], p < .00). Similarly, H1b was also confirmed,with job seekers considering LinkedIn as more effectivethan Facebook during the job search process (t = 6.99[df = 324], p < .00).

In order to explore H2, we conducted independentsample t-tests between individuals actively looking for ajob (active job seekers) and those who would considernew job opportunities, although they indicated that theydo not actively look for a job (passive job seekers). Thehypothesis was rejected, as we did not come up withany statistically significant differences between active andpassive job seekers, with one exception: Active jobseekers visited SNWs more often than passive job seek-ers (t: 2.08 [240]; p < .05).

The third hypothesis (H3) was explored with a num-ber of moderated multiple regressions (MMR), followingthe guidelines of Stone (1988) and Frazier, Tix, andBaron (2004). We run nine MMRs in order to exploreH3. Table 3 presents the results of those with statistic-ally significant results.1 The results demonstrate thattype of job search activity (i.e., active vs. passive jobT

able

1.In

terc

orre

latio

nm

atri

xof

Stud

y1

12

34

56

78

910

1112

13

1.G

ende

r2.

Age

−.19

**3.

Educ

atio

n−.

10*

.03

4.W

ork

expe

rien

ce−.

11*

.89*

*−.

14**

5.SN

Wen

gage

men

t–

Link

edIn

−.17

**.1

7**

.24*

*.1

3*6.

SNW

enga

gem

ent

–Fa

cebo

ok−.

01−.

17**

−.08

−.13

*.0

67.

Job

sear

chus

age

–Li

nked

In−.

20**

.11

.26*

*.0

6.8

0**

.04

8.Jo

bse

arch

usag

e–

Face

book

−.07

−.02

−.05

−.01

−.02

.34*

*.0

79.

Job

sear

chus

age

–jo

bbo

ards

.12*

−.15

**.0

2−.

14*

−.01

.22*

*−.

01.1

2*10

.Jo

bse

arch

effe

ctiv

enes

s–

Link

edIn

−.20

**.1

0.2

3**

.08

.77*

*.0

2.8

5**

.05

−.02

11.

Job

sear

chef

fect

iven

ess

–Fa

cebo

ok− .

02−.

11*

−.04

−.06

−.02

.37*

*.0

4.6

6**

.11*

.15*

*12

.Jo

bse

arch

effe

ctiv

enes

s–

job

boar

ds.0

8−.

15**

.03

−.14

**.0

4.2

**.0

3.1

1*.7

7**

.06

.15*

*13

.SN

Wtim

esp

ent

.15*

*−.

12*

−.16

**−.

06−.

07.4

4**

.04

.32*

*.0

8−.

01.2

5**

.09

14.

SNW

regu

lari

ty−.

05−.

17**

−.10

−.14

0**

.11*

.62*

*.1

0.2

7**

.15*

*.0

7.2

7**

.14*

.34*

*

Not

es:

Gen

der

was

code

das

mal

e=

1,fe

mal

e=

2.Ed

ucat

iona

lle

vel

was

code

das

high

scho

ol=

1,po

stse

cond

ary

tech

nica

led

ucat

ion

=2,

univ

ersi

tyde

gree

=3,

MSc

/pos

tgra

duat

ede

gree

=4,

PhD

=5.

SNW

=so

cial

netw

orki

ngW

ebsi

te.*

p<

.05,

**p

<.0

1;n

=10

7.




seeking) moderates slightly the relationship betweenLinkedIn usage and LinkedIn effectiveness, with the cor-relation to be stronger for passive job seekers (Fig-ure 1). Similarly, type of job search activity moderatesthe relationship between SNWs time spent and LinkedIneffectiveness, with the correlation again to be strongerfor passive job seekers (Figure 2).

The next hypothesis (H4) dealt with how recruitersand HR professionals use SNWs. We expected thatthey will engage more actively with professionally ori-ented SNWs, that is, LinkedIn, compared with Face-book. In order to explore this hypothesis, weconducted paired samples t-tests. The hypothesis wasconfirmed, as HR professionals were indeed more en-gaged in LinkedIn (t = 2.93 [df = 106], p < .01).

Hypothesis (H5) deals with how HR professionals useSNWs in the recruitment and screening process. Thehypothesis was confirmed with LinkedIn being usedmore extensively than Facebook in recruitment andscreening (t = 7.79 [df = 76], p < .00). A similar hypo-thesis was conducted for participants’ perceptions ofSNWs’ effectiveness in recruitment and screening (H6).The results were similar to H5, with LinkedIn being per-ceived as more effective than Facebook in recruitmentand screening (t = 8.77 [df = 67], p < .00), thus confirm-ing our hypothesis.

8. Discussion

The emergence of SNWs has changed the scenery inthe job search and the recruitment process. SNWs offerthe opportunity to job seekers to widen their jobsearch tools beyond traditional methods, such as thepress, career days, company Web sites, job boards, etc.On the other hand, they also provide recruiters and HRprofessionals with additional means of attracting, re-cruiting, and background checking on candidates.

The current paper dealt with two studies conductedin Greece, among employees–job seekers and HR pro-fessionals in the recruitment and screening process. Fol-lowing a survey methodology, we explored a number ofhypotheses, with the use of simple single-item questions.The first interesting result was that gender and ageseem to play a role in SNWs usage. Males and olderemployees–job seekers tend to use LinkedIn whereasyounger job seekers, but also younger HR professionals,were using Facebook more extensively. Education wasalso positively associated with LinkedIn usage. HR pro-fessionals are moderately engaged in both SNWs, butthis is not the case for employees–job seekers. The lat-ter result suggests that Greek employees–job seekersdo not consider the two SNWs as being associated inany way, whereas HR professionals have a different

Table 2. Intercorrelation matrix of Study 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Gender2. Age −.31**3. Education .01 .144. Work experience −.19 .93** .105. SNW engagement – LinkedIn −.27** .00 .03 −.076. SNW engagement – Facebook −.03 −.28** .00 −.29** .21*7. Recruitment–selection usage – LinkedIn −.09 −.19 −.01 −.20 .52** .23*8. Recruitment–selection usage – Facebook −.09 −.06 −.13 −.05 .07 .47** .34**9. Recruitment–selection effectiveness – LinkedIn −.07 .04 .07 .05 .49** .08 .72** .10

10. Recruitment–selection effectiveness – Facebook −.04 .18 −.03 .15 .07 .42** .22 .77** .23

Notes: Gender was coded as male = 1, female = 2. Educational level was coded as high school = 1, postsecondary technical education = 2, universitydegree =3, MSc/postgraduate degree = 4, PhD = 5. SNW = social networking Web site. *p < .05, **p < .01; n = 375.

Table 3. Hierarchical regression analysis examining the moderating effect of job search activity on usage, time spent, and job searcheffectiveness

Variable

Job search effectiveness – LinkedIn

R2 R2 change F change β

Step 1: LinkedIn usage .71 .71 819.47 .95***Step 2: type of job search activity .71 .00 3.06 .18Step 3: interaction .73 .02 6.50 −.19*Step 1: SNWs time spent .00 .00 1.78 .29**Step 2: type of job search activity .03 .03 10.81 .79***Step 3: interaction .05 .02 8.00 −.65**

Notes: ‘βs’ are taken from the last equation. SNW = social networking Web site. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .00.



0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

hgiHdeMwoL

Lin

ked

In e

ffec

tive

nes

s

LinkedIn usage

Job search activity

Active

Passive

Figure 1. The moderating effect of job search activity on LinkedIn usage and effectiveness.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

hgiHdeMwoL

Lin

ked

in e

ffec

tive

nes

s

SNW frequency of visits

Job search activity

Active

Passive

Figure 2. The moderating effect of job search activity on social networking Web site (SNW) frequency of visits and LinkedIn effectiveness.




perspective, apparently due to the way they use the twonetworks.

Another interesting finding, confirming H1a, was thatdespite the increased use of SNWs in job search, tra-ditional Internet job boards, such as monster.com andcareerbuilder.com still remain a top priority for jobseekers. They have been around long enough and theireffectiveness has been proven among job seekers(Lievens et al., 2002); therefore, they are still consid-ered a valid option for job seeking. However, what wemight see more in the future is a ‘combination’ of tra-ditional Internet job boards with SNWs, that is, jobboards offering the opportunity for professional net-working and increased opportunities of interaction be-tween job seekers and companies (e.g., glassdoor.com).Job seekers in Greece however can understand the dif-ferent functions that LinkedIn and Facebook have, andas a result they consider the former as more effectivethan the latter in job search process, thus confirmingH1b. On the other hand, the partial confirmation ofH2 indicated that active job seekers visited SNWsmore regularly than passive ones, but this was nottranslated into increased time spent and/or usage ofSNWs.

As we mentioned in the introduction, one of the mainadvantages of SNWs is the opportunity they offer to re-cruiters to approach and attract ‘passive’ candidates.Our results showed that the association betweenLinkedIn usage and LinkedIn effectiveness, on the onehand, and time spent on SNWs and LinkedIn effective-ness, on the other, is stronger for ‘passive’ candidates,as demonstrated in H3. Although one would expect thatthe opposite would be true, that is, the associationwould be stronger for active job seekers, this result alsomakes sense from a job search perspective. Passive can-didates, with a presence on LinkedIn, create and main-tain their professional profiles because, similar to activejob seekers, they expect (or wish) that it will bring themcloser to recruiters and job opportunities, although theyare not actively looking for a job or respond to jobopenings.

Study 2 explored the recruiters’ perspective on theuse of SNWs in the recruitment and screening process.HR professionals, as expected, were more engaged withLinkedIn compared with Facebook and were using itmore extensively for recruitment and screening pur-poses, considering it also as more effective. These find-ings replicated in Greece the positive findings evidencedin other countries on the use of professionally orientedSNWs in the recruitment and selection process(Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development,2010; Society for Human Resource Management, 2011).However, we could question the validity of these find-ings, as HR professionals might be reluctant to admitusing Facebook for recruitment and screening purposes.In countries such as the United States, it is illegal and is

considered as an invasion of privacy to recruit in Face-book. On the other hand, the law is not so severe inother countries, and especially in Greece where thecurrent study took place, there is no legal frameworkdealing with this issue; thus, we expect that in the cur-rent anonymous survey, participants responded withhonesty in this part of the survey. The use of SNWs inrecruitment and selection has attracted increased atten-tion from the media, entailing a number of issues thatrecruiters and HR professionals should take into con-sideration in order to avoid litigation for negligent hir-ing. Kluemper (2013) discusses the issues of privacy,unfair discrimination, negligent hiring validity, reliability,generalizability, impression management, applicant reac-tions, and utility in the use of SNWs for recruitmentand selection purposes.

8.1. Limitations

There were a number of methodological limitations inthe current studies. First, data were collected at a singlepoint in time, through self-report measures, using a sur-vey methodology. The first point suggests the lack of an‘external’ criterion in order to assess more objective is-sues, such as SNWs’ actual effectiveness, rather thanperceptions. It would also help to ‘validate’ the usage ofSNWs in recruitment and selection, which is a very im-portant criterion in selection research. Also, the use ofcross-sectional research in a survey methodology designlimits the ability to make firm conclusions about thecausal relationships among the study variables.

The use of self-reports is very common with this typeof research (e.g., Chang & Madera, 2012; Roulin &Bangerter, 2013), as this is probably the only methodone may apply when exploring this type of researchquestions. A solution to this problem might have beenthe use of two or more informants from the sameorganization, one responding about Facebook use andthe other about LinkedIn. Nevertheless, this would beimpossible in Greece, where more than 95% of compa-nies are small and medium enterprises, meaning that inmost cases, only one person is in charge of screeningand recruiting job applicants.

Another important limitation of our study is the useof simple measures to assess most of the study’s vari-ables, especially in Study 1. We understand that this isa serious limitation, reflecting the lack of the researchin the field, but SNWs in employee selection is a newarea of research and when the current research wasconducted (early 2010), there were hardly any pub-lished studies exploring this topic. Most of the similarstudies use short scales (e.g., Madera, 2012); therefore,special attention should be given in the future in thedevelopment of well-defined and thoroughly con-structed measures.



8.2. Implications for research and practice

These results have a number of implications both for re-search and practice. Future studies exploring the role ofSNWs should conduct more elaborative and ideally lon-gitudinal studies on the predictive validity on SNWs injob search, recruitment, and selection. Thus, the actualusefulness of SNWs among job seekers and recruiterswill be demonstrated more accurately. More studiesshould also explore the intersection of SNWs withother established job search methods, such as the tradi-tional networking. Similarly, in the field of recruitmentand selection, how the applicants’ screening and attrac-tion through the use of SNWs interacts with the exist-ing and well-established recruitment and selectionmethods.

SNWs are increasingly becoming an integral part bothamong job seekers in the job search process and amongHR professionals in recruitment and selection. Being anunder-investigated topic in human resources manage-ment research despite its widespread usage between jobseekers and recruiters suggests that more research isneeded in order to cover the gap with practice andminimize risks that might be associated with SNWs’ im-proper use.

Note

1. The results of the remaining MMR analyses regarding H3are not presented for economy of space, but they areavailable from the author.

References

Bangerter, A., Roulin, N., & Konig, C. J. (2012). Personnel se-lection as a signaling game. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,719–738.

Bartram, D. (2000). Internet recruitment and selection: Kissingfrogs to find princes. International Journal of Selection and As-sessment, 8, 261–274.

Blau, G. (1993). Further exploring the relationship betweenjob search and voluntary individual turnover. Personnel Psy-chology, 46, 313–330.

Boswell, W. R., Zimmerman, R. D., & Swider, B. W. (2011).Employee job search: Toward an understanding of searchcontext and search objectives. Journal of Management, 38,129–163.

Breaugh, J. A. (2013). Employee recruitment. Annual Review ofPsychology, 64, 389–416.

Brown, V. R., & Vaughn, E. D. (2011). The writing on the(Facebook) wall: The use of social networking sites inhiring decisions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 219–225.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2005). National longitudinal sur-veys. Available at http://www.bls.gov/nls/nlsfaqs.htm#anch(accessed 1 March 2012).

Chang, W., & Madera, J. M. (2012). Using social network sitesfor selection purposes: An investigation of hospitality re-cruiters. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality & Tourism,11, 183–196.

Chartered Institute of Personnel & Development. (2010).Resourcing and talent planning 2010. Available at http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/survey-reports/resourcing-talent-planning-2010.aspx (accessed 24 February 2012).

Chen, D. J. Q., & Lim, V. K. G. (2012). Strength in adversity:The influence of psychological capital on job search. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 33, 811–839.

Clark, L., & Roberts, S. (2010). Employer’s use of social net-working sites: A socially irresponsible practice. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 95, 507–525.

Davison, H. K., Maraist, C., & Bing, M. N. (2011). Friend orfoe? The promise and pitfalls of using social networking sitesfor HR decisions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26, 153–159.

Davison, H. K., Maraist, C. C., Hamilton, R. H., & Bing, M. N.(2011). To screen or not to screen? Using the internet forselection decisions. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Jour-nal, 24, 1–21.

Dineen, B. R., & Soltis, S. M. (2010). Recruitment: A reviewof research and emerging directions. In S. Zedeck (Ed.),APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology(pp. 43–66). Washington, DC: American Psychological As-sociation.

Frazier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Baron, K. E. (2004). Testing mod-erator and mediator effects in counseling psychology re-search. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134.

Gerard, J. G. (2012). Linking in with linkedin®: Three exer-cises that enhance professional social networking and careerbuilding. Journal of Management Education, 36, 866–897.

Jattuso, M. L., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Source effects in Internet-based screening procedures. International Journal of Selectionand Assessment, 11, 137–140.

Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C. R., & Kantrowitz, T. M. (2001). Jobsearch and employment: A personality–motivational analysisand meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,837–855.

Kluemper, D. H. (2013). Social network screening: Pitfalls,possibilities, and parallels in employment selection. In T.Bondarouk & M. Olivas-Lujan (Eds.), Advanced series inmanagement (pp. 1–21). Bingly: Emerald Group PublishingLtd.

Kluemper, D. H., Rosen, P. A., & Mossholder, K. W. (2012).Social networking websites, personality ratings, and the or-ganizational context: More than meets the eye? Journal of Ap-plied Social Psychology, 42, 1143–1172.

Lievens, F., & Harris, M. (2003). Research on internet recruit-ing and testing: Current status and future directions. In C. L.Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of indus-trial and organizational psychology 2003 (pp. 131–165). Chich-ester: Wiley.

Lievens, F., van Dam, K., & Anderson, N. (2002). Recenttrends and challenges in personnel selection. Personnel Re-view, 31, 580–601.

Lin, H. F. (2010). Applicability of the extended theory ofplanned behavior in predicting job seeker intentions to usejob-search websites. International Journal of Selection and As-sessment, 18, 64–74.




http://www.bls.gov/nls/nlsfaqs.htm#anch

http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/survey-reports/resourcing-talent-planning-2010.aspx



Lin, K. Y., & Lu, H. P. (2011). Why people use social network-ing sites: An empirical study integrating network externalit-ies and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27,1152–1161.

Madera, J. M. (2012). Using social networking websites as a se-lection tool: The role of selection process fairness and jobpursuit intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Manage-ment, 31, 1276–1282.

Manjoo, F. (2010). Social networking your way to a new job.Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/education/26SOCIAL.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (accessed 8 Novem-ber 2012).

Michael, T., & Howard, T. (2012). Using new social media andWeb 2.0 technologies in business school teaching and learn-ing. Journal of Management Development, 31, 358–367.

Myors, B., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., Van Hoye, G., Cronshaw,S. F., Mladinic, A., & Sackett, P. R. (2008). International per-spectives on the legal environment for selection. Industrialand Organizational Psychology, 1, 206–246.

Roulin, N., & Bangerter, A. (2013). Social networking websitesin personnel selection. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12,143–151.

Saks, A., & Ashforth, B. (2000). Change in job search behaviorsand employment outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56,277–287.

Slovensky, R., & Ross, W. H. (2012). Should human resourcemanagers use social media to screen job applicants? Manage-rial and legal issues in the USA. Info, 14, 55–69.

Society for Human Resource Management. (2011). Social net-working websites and online search Engines as HR tools. Avail-able at http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Pages/default.aspx (accessed 24 February 2012).

Stone, E. F. (1988). Moderator variables inresearch: A reviewand analysis of conceptual and methodological issues. Re-search in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 6,191–229.

Stopfer, J. M., & Gosling, S. D. (2013). Online social networksin the work context. In D. Derks & A. Bakker (Eds.), Thepsychology of digital media at work (pp. 39–59). London: Psy-chology Press.

Thielsch, M., Träumer, L., & Pytlik, L. (2012). E-recruiting andfairness: The applicant’s point of view. Information Technologyand Management, 13, 59–67.

Van Hoye, G., van Hooft, E. A. J., & Lievens, F. (2009). Net-working as a job search behaviour: A social network per-spective. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,82, 661–682.

Wanberg, C. R., Kanfer, R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictorsand outcomes of networking intensity among unemployedjob seekers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 491–503.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/education/26SOCIAL.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/education/26SOCIAL.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.shrm.org/Research/SurveyFindings/Pages/default.aspx

social networking web sites in job search and employee recruitment

Documents