Effects of Different Selection Procedure Characteristics on Reactions
Gilliland’s largest contribution from his model of application reactions was the 10 procedural justice rules. Since the development of this model, there have been many studies that have provided empirical support for the role that these rules play in determining applicant reactions.
Foundational for much of applicant reactions research, Gilliland’s model has paved the way for other models of applicant reactions. For example, some more recent models have built on Gilliland’s model by adding more antecedents (e.g., organizational characteristics like selection ratio) and moderator variables (e.g., stage in the selection process) to the framework; see Hausknech et al., 2004; Ryan & Ployhart, 2000). It is important to note that these updated applicant reactions models still include Gilliland’s procedural justice rules as central components. Other research (Bauer et al., 2001) has found that Gilliland’s rules can be divided into two dimensions. The first is structure fairness, which relates to the logistical components of the actual selection process (e.g., timing of feedback). The second dimension is social fairness, which taps into more interpersonal aspects of the selection process (e.g., communication with applicants).
In terms of how each of Gilliland’s 10 procedural justice rules relate to applicant reactions and both individual and organizational outcomes, job-relatedness has by far received the most attention in the literature. In their meta-analysis, Hausknecht and colleagues (2004) show that job-relatedness is the most studied rule in the literature and, across studies, it tends to relate to outcomes such as product purchase intentions, offer acceptance intentions, recommendation intentions and organizational attractiveness.
Other rules that have been given some attention in the literature, although notably less than job-relatedness, include interpersonal treatment, propriety of questions and opportunity to perform (Hausknecht et al., 2004). Interestingly, Schleicher, Venkatara- mani, Morgeson and Campion (2006) found that after receiving negative feedback, opportunity to perform was the most important rule. For individuals who were not hired, opportunity to perform was a strong driver of fairness perceptions. Given the number of procedural justice rules that seem to be less studied in the literature, these may provide fruitful areas of research.