Previous research has suggested that corporate social performance is positively related to firms’ attractiveness as employers. The authors propose and test an alternative model whereby job applicants’ familiarity with employers mediates the relationship between corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness. Applicants’familiarity with firms may serve as a signal of firms’suitability as employers, with more familiar firms considered more attractive. Furthermore, a firm’s overall level of corporate social activity (whether “good deeds” or “ misdeeds”) may contribute directly to firm familiarity and indirectly to attractiveness through familiarity. The authors’ results support this model; firm familiarity completely mediates the relationship between corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Atkinson, A. A.
, Waterhouse, J. H.,& Wells, R. B. (1997). A stakeholder approach to strategic performance measurement. Sloan Management Review, 38(3), 25-37.
2.
Barber, A. E.
, Wesson, M. J., Roberson, Q. M.,& Taylor, M. S. (1999). Atale of two job markets: Organizational size and its effects on hiring practices and job search behavior. Personnel Psychology, 52, 841-867.
3.
Baron, R. M.
,& Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
4.
Bazerman, M.
(1998). Judgment in managerial decision making. New York: John Wiley.
5.
Behling, O.
, Labovitz, G., & Gainer, M. (1968). College recruiting: A theoretical base. Personnel Journal, 47, 13-19.
6.
Belt, J. A.
,& Paolillo, J.G.P. (1982). The influence of corporate image and specificity of candidate qualifications on response to recruitment advertisement. Journal of Management, 8, 105-112.
7.
Carroll, A.
(1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497-505.
8.
Clarkson, M.B.E.
(1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20, 92-117.
9.
DiMaggio, P. J.
,& Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147-160.
10.
Fombrun, C.
, & Shanley, M. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 233-258.
11.
Freeman, R. E.
(1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
12.
Gatewood, R. D.
, Gowan, M. A., & Lautenschlager, G. J. (1993). Corporate image, recruitment image, and initial job choice decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 414-427.
13.
Good works—and great profits
. (1999, February 16). Business Week, 8-8.
14.
Graves, S. B.
, & Waddock, S. A. (1994). Institutional owners and corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1035-1046.
15.
Greenhaus, J. H.
, Sugalski, T., & Crispin, G. (1978). Relationships between perceptions of organizational size and the organizational choice perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 113-125.
16.
Highhouse, S.
, Zickar, M. J., Thorsteinson, T. J., Stierwalt, S. L., & Slaughter, J. E. (1999). Assessing company employment image: An example in the fast food industry. Personnel Psychology, 52, 151-172.
17.
Jones, T.
(1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404-437.
18.
Meyerson, A. R.
(1999, January 31). Techies discover the joys of giving. New York Times, pp. 1-1, 11-11.
19.
Neter, J.
, Wasserman, W.,& Kutner, M. H. (1990). Applied linear statistical models. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
20.
Pfeffer, J.
, & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper & Row.
21.
Reich, R. R.
(1998). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 40(2), 8-17.
22.
Reynolds, L. G.
(1951). The structure of labor markets. New York: Harper.
23.
Riordan, C. M.
, Gatewood, R. D.,& Bill, J. B. (1997). Corporate image: Employee reactions and implications for managing corporate social performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 401-412.
24.
Rynes, S. L.
,& Miller, H. E. (1983). Recruiter and job influences on candidates for employment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 147-154.
25.
Sharfman, M.
(1996). The construct validity of the Kinder, Lydenberg, and Domini social performance ratings data. Journal of Business Ethics, 15, 287-296.
26.
Spence, M.
(1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87, 355-374.
27.
Stigler, G. J.
(1962). Information in the labor market. Journal of Political Economy, 70, 49-73.
28.
Strand, R.
, Levine, R., & Montgomery, D. (1981). Organizational entry preferences based upon social and personnel policies: An information integration perspective. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 27, 50-68.
29.
Swanson, D.
(1995). Addressing a theoretical problem by reorienting the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 20, 43-64.
30.
Tom, V. R.
(1971). The role of personality and organizational images in the recruiting process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 573-592.
31.
Turban, D. B.
, & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 658-672.
32.
Turban, D. B.
, & Keon, T. L. (1993). Organizational attractiveness: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 184-193.
33.
Tversky, A.
, & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
34.
Waddock, S. A.
,& Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance–financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 303-319.
35.
Wartick, S.
,& Cochran, P. (1985). The evolution of the corporate social performance model. Academy of Management Review, 10, 758-769.
36.
Wood, D. J.
(1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16, 691-718.
