COMPETENCY-BASED VERSUS TASK-BASED JOB DESCRIPTIONS:

EFFECTS ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION

By

Candace Leann Hawkes

Approved:

Bart L. Weathington Michael D. Biderman

Chair Committee Member

Christopher J. L. Cunningham Jeffery Elwell

Committee Member Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences

A. Jerald Ainsworth
Dean of the Graduate School
COMPETENCY-BASED VERSUS TASK-BASED JOB DESCRIPTIONS:

EFFECTS ON APPLICANT ATTRACTION

By

Candace Leann Hawkes

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the University

of Tennessee at Chattanooga in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirement
of the Degree of Master’s of
Psychology

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Chattanooga, Tennessee

May 2013

ii
 ABSTRACT

In order for organizations to attract applicants, they need to ensure they are using

attractive recruitment materials. Previous research has failed to examine the effect of varying

types of job description formats on applicants’ level of attraction to an organization. This study

examined applicants’ attraction to organizations based on competency-based and task-based job

descriptions. A total of 258 participants were from a Southeastern university, representing three

different majors. The job descriptions were individualized based on academic major.

Participants read both competency and task-based job descriptions and rated their attraction to

each organization. The Big Five and Love of Learning measures were administered, as these

constructs could affect attraction to a particular job description. The results of this study

suggested no difference in organizational attraction based on competencies or tasks. Love of

Learning was not positively related to attraction to the organization with the competency-based

description. Openness to experience was positively related to competency-based job descriptions

for nursing majors. Implications and future research suggestions are discussed.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES vi
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION 1

The Present Study 2

Job Descriptions 4
Competency Modeling 4
Competencies Defined 4
Advantages of the Competency Approach 5
Organizational Use of Competencies 6
From Tasks to Competencies 8
Individual Differences 9
Openness to Experience 9
Love of Learning 11
Attraction 12

II. METHOD 15

Participants 15
Materials 16
Research Conditions 16
Attraction 17
Openness to Experience 17
Love of Learning 18
Procedure 18

III. RESULTS 20

Analyses of Hypothesis 1 20
Analyses of Hypothesis 2 20
Analyses of Hypothesis 3 21
Additional Analyses 27

IV. DISCUSSION 30

Limitations of the Present Study 33

iv
 Practical Implications and Suggestions for Future Research 34

REFERENCES 37

APPENDIX 42

A. MEASURES 41

B. CONSENT FORM 47

C. IRB APPROVAL 49

D. JOB DESCRIPTIONS 51

VITA 58

v
 LIST OF TABLES

1. Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlation Matrix for All Majors 23

2. Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlation Matrix for Finance Majors 24

3. Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlation Matrix for Management Majors 25

4. Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlation Matrix for Nursing Majors 26

5. Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlation Matrix with Personality

Variables for All Majors 29

vi
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Organizations can fail or thrive based on their ability to attract job candidates. As the

United States recovers from the 2007-2009 recession, organizations have more vacant positions

to fill. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (2012), there were 3.8 million job openings at

the end of June 2012. Considering the large number of positions that need to be filled,

organizations need to ensure effective recruiting techniques to attract the best applicants. One

way organizations can attract applicants early in the recruitment phase is to provide an attractive

job description. With the changing nature of work, however, the way jobs and job descriptions

have been defined and organized have evolved.

Historically, jobs have been designed by managers and reflected in job descriptions as a

set of relatively inflexible tasks or activities performed by individuals (Berg, Wrzesniewski, &

Dutton, 2010; Lawler, 1994; Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970). In the 1940s, the primary focus

of job analysis was tasks, with minimal consideration on employee attributes (Landy, Shankster-

Cawley, and Moran, 1995). By 1969, however, McCormick, Jeanneret, and Mecham took an

approach to job analysis that considered employee attributes; they developed the Position

Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ), a job analysis method that includes worker-oriented elements.

The PAQ’s inclusion of these elements was a significant shift from the earlier task-oriented

approaches to a focus on the worker. Analysis of work has progressed throughout the years and

the field continues to develop.

1
 Despite the recent popularity of competencies in organizations, they are not a new

concept. The term appeared in the literature as early as 1973, when McClelland proposed testing

for competencies, instead of intelligence in schools, colleges, and work organizations. The

American Compensation Association (ACA) (1996) noted that competencies are measurable and

represented by sets of behavior combined with knowledge, skills, and personal attributes.

McClelland argued that traditional aptitude and knowledge tests did not predict on-the-job

success. The ACA (1996) noted that since McClelland’s 1973 paper, competencies have been

applied throughout the business world. A reason for the implementation of competency-based

practices may be contributed to the changing nature of the work environment. Sparrow (1998)

noted that organizations are adopting more flexible organizational structures, downsizing the

workforce, and de-layering their structures. Organizations are attempting to increase their

versatility by focusing on the workforces’ competencies, which includes their skills, capabilities,

adaptability, and creativity (Sparrow, 1998). Schippmann et al. (2000) noted that because

organizations are becoming more flat, traditional job analysis procedures for generating task-

based job descriptions may not play a central role in the practices of human resource

management in the future.

The Present Study

Catanzaro, Moore, and Marshall (2010) noted that gaining an understanding of the factors

that affect the attraction phase of the attraction-selection-attrition cycle (ASA) is crucial for

organizations who wish to attract the most qualified applicant pool. Applicants are often

exposed early in the recruitment process to some form of a job description or advertisement.

2
Researchers have yet to examine how competency information in job descriptions affects

applicants’ attraction to organizations.

Attempting to understand how competency-based job descriptions influence applicant

attraction could have significant practical value to organizations. Accordingly, the present study

examined applicants’ attraction to an organization based on the presentation of competency and

task-based information in the job descriptions. Personality characteristics were examined to

determine if any personal characteristics contributed to job description preference.

The following literature highlights why differences in organizational attraction could be

expected based on the type of information in the job descriptions. One possible outcome, as a

result of differing job descriptions, is that applicants are less attracted to organizations with

competency-based job descriptions because they are more comfortable with traditional, task-

based job descriptions (Lawler, 1994). Lawler (1994) proposed an alternate suggestion, noting

that the competencies may contribute significantly in attracting new employees and retaining

existing ones. He further noted that a competency approach, however, may be beneficial for

attracting only certain types of employees; Lawler (1994) noted that applicants who are oriented

toward learning new skills, taking on new responsibilities, and assisting in the management of

business are likely the types of applicants who would be attracted to an organization that uses

competency information. This might suggest that individuals’ attitudes toward learning may

affect their attraction to an organization, depending on the type of job description used. These

research questions are examined in the present study, which examined the attraction to

organizations that used either a competency or task-based job description and explored whether

openness to experience or love of learning affected organizational attraction.

3
 Job Descriptions

Job descriptions typically support key human resource decisions, including those which

link competencies with functions, such as selection, training, career development, pay

determination, and promotion (Lawler & Ledford, 1992; Nybø, 2004; Pavur, 2010).

Accordingly, most organizations begin their approach to organizing these functions with a job

description (Lawler, 1994). Job descriptions generally include a job title, reporting relationships,

a summary of responsibilities, the level of decision-making authorized, and hiring requirements

information (Stybel, 2010). Job descriptions that are used for recruitment are designed to gain

the attention of and attract applicants (Pavur, 2010).

Properly designed job descriptions can be used to ensure that individuals will be

motivated and capable of performing certain jobs (Lawler, 1994). Further, job descriptions can

be used to determine the grouping of individuals into work units and as a rationalization for the

overall structure of the organization (Lawler, 1994). Traditionally, job descriptions took a task-

based format, but with the growing importance of strategically aligning human resources

functions, competency information is appearing more frequently in job descriptions.

Competency Modeling

Competency Defined

Campion et al. (2011) stated, “Competency models are much easier to use in creating HR

systems than traditional job analysis information…” as a reason competency models might be

becoming more popular in organizations (p. 251). The development of competency models

requires a whole-person assessment, with an emphasis on individuals’ potential (Rodriguez,

Patel, Bright, Gregory, & Gowing, 2002). Campion et al. noted that companies such as The

4
Boeing Company, Microsoft, and the U.S. Department of State are already using competency

models for several different processes, including selection, appraisal, promotion, and training.

Despite the growing popularity of competency modeling in organizations, research on

competency modeling has not garnered the same attention, as evidenced by the lack of a precise

definition of what constitutes a competency (Lievens, Sanchez, & de Corte, 2004). Schippmann

et al. (2000) found a wide range of definitions for “competency” by surveying similarly trained

subject matter experts (SMEs) and reviewing published scientific and business literature. Two

examples of SMEs’ definitions given were: “The knowledge, skills, and attributes that

differentiate high performers from average performers” and “Observable, behavioral capabilities

that are important for performing key responsibilities of a role or job.” (Schippmann et al., 2000,

p. 706). Woodruffe (1993) wrote that, “A competency is the set of behavior patterns that the

incumbent needs to bring to a position in order to perform its tasks and functions with

competence” (p. 29). Halim and Abhyankar (2011) defined a competency as the part of a

person’s behavior that can be observed or demonstrated, which contributes to performance of the

job. The competency-based approach is also often referred to as a skill-based approach, due to

the focus on workers’ skills instead of a position’s tasks (Lawler, 1994).

Advantages of the Competency Approach

There are many benefits associated with using competencies in organizations.

Competency models are useful for distinguishing top performers from average performers,

making the link to performance more prominent than task-based models (Campion et al, 2011).

Campion et al. (2011) noted that competency models are often tied to business objectives and

strategies. Aligning strategy and objectives through the use of a competency model streamlines

5
business process, a seemingly effective and convenient approach. Lievens et al. (2004) noted

that competency modeling arrived on the HR radar just in time for a business environment that

requires strategic alignment of practices. Competency models are most often presented in a

manner that facilities understanding, lasting impressions, and ease of use (Campion et al., 2011).

Edgar and Lockwood (2011) noted that identifying and using core competencies to create

products and services results in significant, positive contributions to corporate competiveness.

The use of a competency-based approach may result in new and more flexible approaches

to organizing (Lawler, 1994). Organizations that use the competency models can take advantage

of a more flexible workforce by using competencies to recruit, select, and train individuals with

the skills required for successful performance. Lawler (1994) noted that organizations that use

competency models can directly target the learning of new skills; this flexible approach results in

a competitive advantage. With competencies’ focus on individuals’ skills and potential, it would

seem as if competencies would be highly attractive to individuals who seek out opportunities to

learn and grown in the organization. Additionally, competency approaches are more likely to

emphasize long-term organizational fit as opposed to a shorter-term job match (Schippmann et

al., 2000). Turnover is reduced when competencies are used in selection to determine which

candidates fit in the best with the organization.

Organizational Use of Competencies

Competencies are often used to match a job with an individual during employee selection

(Heinsman, de Hoogh, Koopman, & van Muijen, 2007). Unlike the task-based approach,

however, the goal of selecting applicants using competencies is not to match a person to a set of

tasks. It is understood that successful demonstration of competencies should lead to successful

6
job performance. Therefore, competency-based job descriptions state the competencies

individuals need for successful performance (Garman, Tyler, & Darnall, 2004).

Halim and Abhyankar (2011) noted that because of the need to identify job candidates

who have the required skills, knowledge, and capabilities for an open position, organizations are

adopting competency-based job descriptions to determine candidates’ fit with the job opening

and organization. Individuals who possess certain characteristics, for example good

communication, are able to perform a variety of functions associated with those knowledge,

skills, and behaviors. This allows for more flexibility across workers and aids in strategically

aligning HR processes (Lawler, 1994; Lawler & Ledford, 1992; Soderquist, Papalexandris,

Ioannou, & Prastacos, 2010).

Due to the demand for moving away from traditional task-based job structures,

competency modeling has seen a sharp increase in popularity among organizations since their

introduction (Schippmann et al., 2000). In 1996, the ACA reported that out of 1,844 total

participants from organizations, 371 had competency-based applications in practice and 886

were studying or developing competency practices for their organizations (p. 11). Lawler (1994)

stated that more competency-based organizations will appear in the future for a number of

reasons and noted that it is important to research how individuals respond to competency-based

organizations. In 2005, Hewitt Associates surveyed HR executives from 373 public and private

U.S. companies and found that 100% of the top twenty companies and 73% of all other

companies integrated competencies into their business practices. More recently, Soderquist et al.

(2010) noted that the management of HR in an organization needs to continuously evolve to

match the new requirements demanded by the environment and competitors. For organizations

to meet these demands, they should focus more on individuals’ competencies.

7
From Tasks to Competencies

The traditional approach to HR focuses on the jobs as a function, and careers are thought

to evolve within one or two firms in a linear progression (Sullivan, 1999). In the past, most

organizations structured their job descriptions around specific duties and activities, a task-based

approach (Lawler, 1994). Lawler (1994) noted that the task-based approach can be traced back

to the era of scientific management, with Frederick Taylor’s notion that jobs could be studied

and specified, and the work methods used for jobs could be improved and rationalized.

Task-based descriptions are often criticized for their focus on how the job has been done

in the past and their failure to recognize an individual’s ability to contribute to the organization

in ways that are not currently described (Lawler & Ledford, 1992). Task-based descriptions do

not take into account the changing nature of work requirements; it is assumed that selecting

individuals who can perform the current set of tasks associated with a position will result in the

most effective organization. Cascio (1995) noted that traditional, task-based jobs represent

clusters of similar tasks that are assigned to specialist workers. Rodriguez et al. (2002) noted

several disadvantages of task-based analysis and information: cost of time and resources,

quickness to become outdated, lack of ability to make comparisons across jobs, and they are not

easily integrated into other HR practices.

Despite the differences between task-based and competency-based practices, there is a

considerable amount of overlap between the two concepts. Many researchers have made note of

the concept of an inferential leap (Goffin & Woycheshin, 2006; Lievens et al., 2004; Soderquist

et al., 2010). An inferential leap, in this case, refers to the use of task-related job position

information to determine the knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics (KSAOs) and

8
competencies that are needed for that same position (Goffin & Woycheshin, 2006; Lievens et al.,

2004). The “leap” made is the inference of KSAOs and competencies that are required to

perform previously identified tasks (Goffin & Woycheshin, 2006). This approach to identifying

competency information uses information directly from the tasks.

Because competencies are often derived directly from task information, this suggests that

competency job descriptions are fundamentally similar to task-based descriptions. The approach

of identifying a position’s requirements and the implications of each approach, however, is

different. The differences between the descriptions may result in varying reactions from

applicants; attraction to an organization may vary depending on whether a task-based or

competency based job description is used. Based on the millennial generations’ propensity to

change jobs, it would seem likely that they would be more attracted to an organization with a job

description that focuses on skills rather than position-specific tasks (Thompson & Gregory,

2012). Further, individuals may find the focus on the individual more attractive than a focus on

the job. Therefore, I hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 1: Individuals are more attracted to an organization that describes jobs in terms of
required competencies than required job tasks

This difference in job description format preference likely results from different personal

characteristics of applicants, but there currently is no research on this issue (Lawler, 1994). This

study examined two types of individual differences, attitude toward learning and openness to

experience and their effects on organizational attraction.

Individual Differences

Openness to Experience

9
 Individuals’ personalities affect many of their life decisions, from who they choose as

friends to the hobbies they take up. Accordingly, personality affects individuals’ behaviors in an

organizational context, as well. People are attracted to different careers as a product of their

personality (Schneider, 1987). Further, personality constructs have been useful for explaining

and predicting attitudes, behaviors, performance, and outcomes in organizations (Ones, Dilchert,

Viswesvaran, & Judge, 2007). Based on this information, it would seem likely that individuals

would also have different preferences for job descriptions based on their personality

characteristics. The different types of information may attract applicants with different

personality traits.

Individuals who are open to experience tend to be curious, creative, nonconforming, and

autonomous (Judge & Cable, 1997). Mussel, Winter, Gelleri, and Schuler (2011) noted that

openness to experience is highly relevant in business domains such as job advertisements,

competence profiles, and definitions of organizational culture; they listed creativity, willingness

to learn, thinking out of the box, curiosity, flexibility, open-mindedness, and adaptability as the

openness attributes that are most likely to be expressed in job advertisements. Competency-

based information is not often included in job descriptions, and thus, may appear to be a new

form of displaying information about a position. Individuals who are open to experience are

likely to be more attracted to organizations that use competencies in job descriptions. As

previously mentioned, flexibility is a key component of competency-based models, and

individuals who are more flexible are likely to be attracted to organizations with a more flexible

structure (Lawler, 1994; Lawler & Ledford, 1992; Soderquist et al., 2010). Flexibility is

expressed through the listing of skills, instead of specific job tasks. Individuals who are not

bound by the comfort of traditional, task-based job descriptions and are open to experience are

10
expected to be more attracted to organizations that use competency-based job description. It was

expected that individuals who score higher in openness to experience will be more attracted to

organizations that highlight individual traits, competencies, than organizations that use specific

inflexible task-based descriptions. Therefore, I hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2: The difference between individuals’ competency-based and task-based

organizational attraction ratings is greater for individuals who are more open to
experience.

The literature does not suggest any links between neuroticism, extraversion,

agreeableness, or conscientiousness with attraction to different organizational structures or job

description formats. These four traits will not likely affect applicants’ attraction to organizations

using different formats of the job descriptions. The willingness to learn component of openness

to experience is particularly relevant to the present study, and thus, attitude toward learning was

investigated further.

Love of Learning

Due to the constantly evolving work environment, organizations have begun to focus on

more strategic and dynamic approaches to organizing work (Pang, Chua, & Chu, 2008). This

shift is in line with competency-based job descriptions. With organizations beginning to view

employees as human capital assets, it is important that employees have the characteristics that

match a position’s needed competencies. Some individuals, however, may not find the

competency approach attractive. Some individuals may be used to jobs being defined in terms of

tasks; individuals may prefer knowing the details of the job they will be doing rather than what

traits an ideal candidate possesses. Applicants and incumbents who are flexible in the way they

11
do their work and seek opportunities to learn and grow would have a good fit with organizations

that use competency-based practices.

The set of skills an individual starts a job with may not be the same required for high

performance 10 years after being hired; for many jobs, especially knowledge-based jobs,

employees must be willing to continually learn in order to capitalize on the assets he or she

brings to his or her position (Ward, 2007). The American Society of Training and Development

(2011) stated that competencies provide a means to discuss various career paths and ways for

employees to develop and leverage their strengths.

Lawler (1994) suggested that employees who are oriented toward learning new skills are

more likely than those who are not oriented toward learning to be attracted to competencies.

Therefore, attitude toward learning could affect the relationship between attraction to

organizations and the type of job description information the organizations present.

Organizations may be able to take advantage of competency-based descriptions to attract

applicants who are likely to be devoted to learning. Attracting these types of employees,

however, would be most beneficial to organizations that emphasize a learning culture as well as

knowledge-based and service-based workforces.

Hypothesis 3: The difference between individuals’ competency and task-based organizational

attraction ratings is greater for individuals with a more positive attitude toward
learning.

Attraction

Applicant attraction is an attitude or general, positive emotion of an individual toward an

organization (Aiman-Smith, Bauer, & Cable, 2001). Braddy, Meade, Michael, and Fleenor

(2009) noted that the attraction component of Schneider’s (1987) ASA model suggests that job

seekers obtain information about an organization, including the organization’s culture, from the

12
sources that are available to decide if they should pursue employment with the organization. The

sources by which applicants obtain employment information act as a primary influence on initial

attitudes toward the recruiting organizations (Zottoli & Wanous, 2000). General impressions of

an organization’s recruitment images are strong predictors of applicants’ attraction and job

choice decisions (Lee, Hwang, Yeh, 2013). In the present study, the only difference in

organizational image is the presentation of requirements in either the form of competencies

(applicant-focused) or tasks (job-focused). Attraction to an organization, as a result of early

impressions, is related to job acceptance decisions (Powell & Goulet, 1996).

It is important to understand how individuals interpret information, and thus affects their

attraction to organizations. Signaling theory proposes that applicants interpret the information

they have about an organization as signals of organizational characteristics in the absence of

complete information (Turban, 2001). The theory does not specify which variables applicants

interpret to make their decisions but can explain the influence of many predictors on

organizational attraction (Ehrhart & Ziegert, 2005). The job description information in the

present study was manipulated so that only the type of requirements differed, and would elicit

different interpretations of the organizations advertising the positions.

Schneider, Goldstein, and Smith (1995) noted that the organizational attraction process is

related to the fact that people’s preferences for particular organizations are based on judgments

of the congruence of their personal characteristics and the characteristics of potential work

organizations. In other words, because people differ in terms of their values and preferences, the

attractiveness of organizations will also differ because of variability in the characteristics of the

organizations. In the present study, a point of interest was whether the personal characteristics of

openness to experience or love of learning affected attraction to an organization on the basis of

13
either competency or task-based information in job descriptions. It is unknown, however,

whether attraction to the same position, in the same organization would differ depending on

whether the job description is presented with competency-based or task-based information.

Previous research has not examined the usefulness of competencies to attract applicants.

14
 CHAPTER II

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 258 undergraduate students from a midsized, public university in the

southern United States. Data collection targeted junior and senior level undergraduates who were

nearing graduation and actively searching for employment within one year. Finance (n= 111,

43%), management (n= 82, 31.8%), and nursing majors (n= 65, 25.2%) participated in this study.

Of the participants, 50% were male and the average age was 23.37 years (SD=5.32). In terms of

race/ethnicity, 220 participants reported being Caucasian (85.3%), 22 African American (8.4%),

5 Asian (1.9%), 4 Hispanic (1.6%), and 7 “other” (2.7%).

A total of 132 participants (51.4%) reported having previous work experience in their

field of study, while 125 (48.6%) reported no previous experience. A total of 247 participants

(95.7%) reported that they would be seeking a job within their field of study upon graduation,

and 11 participants (4.3%) reported they would not seek a job within their field upon graduation.

A total of 99 participants (38.5%) reported they were currently seeking a job in their field

compared to 157 (61.1%) who indicated they were not currently seeking a job, and one

participant did not respond to this question (0.4%). A total of 214 participants (82.9%) indicated

they would be searching for a job in the next 6 months to one year and 44 (17.1%) indicated they

would not be searching for a job in the next 6 months to one year. A total of 37 participants

15
(14.4%) reported working full-time, 138 (53.7%) part-time, 81 unemployed (31.5%), and one

participant did not respond (0.4%).

Materials

All scales are included in Appendix A.

Research Conditions

The descriptions for each field of study represented the same position advertised, but the

competency-based description listed the competencies required for the position and the task-

based description listed the tasks an applicant is required to perform. Finance majors viewed

descriptions for a financial analyst position. Management majors viewed descriptions for a

general manager position. Nursing majors viewed job descriptions for a registered nurse

position. All other aspects of the descriptions were parallel to each other to ensure the only

difference in the descriptions was the type of information included for the position’s

requirements. In addition to the use of SMEs and pilot data, participants were asked to rate the

readability of each job description and their understanding of the information on a seven-point

Likert scale, where one indicated difficult to read and understand and seven indicated easy to

read and understand, to control for any affects these variable could have had on ratings of

attraction.

Competency-based descriptions (M = 5.77, SD = 1.38) and task-based descriptions (M =

5.79, SD =1.34) were similar in terms of ease of read, t (257) = -.13, p =.89. Competency-based

descriptions (M = 5.87, SD = 1.32) and task-based descriptions (M = 5.89, SD = 1.24) did not

differ significantly in individuals’ ability to understand the information presented t (256) = -.19,

16
p = .85. Thus, any differences in organizational attraction ratings cannot be contributed to the

readability or the understanding of the information in the descriptions.

Attraction

The attraction measure (Highhouse et al., 2003) consisted of 10 items, with two highly

correlated subscales, general attraction and intentions to pursue employment. The attraction

measure was included twice in the study, once for attraction to the organization using the

competency-based job description and again for the organization using the task-based

description. Because the scales are so highly correlated for organizations using competency (r =

.83, p < .01) and task-based (r = .85, p < .01), they were analyzed as one measure of attraction in

the present study. The attraction measure used for analysis, thus consisted of 10 items on a 7-

point scale. This was a modification from the original 5-point scale, (1=strongly disagree;

7=strongly agree). A high score indicated a high level of attraction to an organization. The

attraction measure was reliable for the organization with the competency-based description (α =

.94) and the organization with the task-based description (α = .95).

Personality

To assess personality traits, the 50-item Big Five measure was used. A high score on

each of the five personality sub-scales indicated a greater association between that personality

trait and the individual. The answer responses were presented using a 7-point Likert response

format. A high score on each scale indicated a greater association with the personality trait

(1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree). Extraversion (α = .91), conscientiousness (α = .81),

17
neuroticism (α = .85), agreeableness (α = .84), and openness to experience (α = .79) were

measured.

Love of Learning

Attitude toward learning was measured using the Love of Learning scale, which is a 10-

item scale (α = .75) from the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP). This was presented

using a 7-point Likert scale response format (1=strongly disagree; 7=strongly agree). A high

score on the Love of Learning scale indicated a more positive attitude toward learning.

Procedure

Prior to data collection, the present study was approved by the Institutional Review

Board. A pilot study was conducted with 33 participants to evaluate participants’ feedback on

the job descriptions. In the pilot study, the participants completed all portions of the study; they

were given a consent form, rated their attraction to the organizations based on the two job

descriptions, rated their love of learning, rated their personality, and filled out demographic

information. As a result of the pilot study, the length of time participants viewed each job

description was shortened, salary information was included, and some job tasks were revised to

more accurately represent the field of interest. The remaining procedures were the same for the

pilot and actual study.

The competency-based and task-based job descriptions were tailored to an entry-level job

one would expect to obtain with a bachelor’s degree in each field of study. The job descriptions

were developed through an analysis of current online job advertisements, job descriptions,

competency libraries, O*NET profiles, and the pilot study. Five industrial-organizational

18
psychology specialists and HR representatives were given the job descriptions for each field of

study to ensure the competencies and tasks represented the same job, the formats of each type of

job description were similar, and the wording was similar. The competency and task-based

descriptions both had the same tense of words, number of bullet points (requirements), and

similar word counts to control for any extraneous effects on attraction to the organizations.

Students from each of the three major fields targeted for this study were recruited with

the assistance of professors from each of the three academic majors. The informed consent form

was first administered to each participant. The informed consent form provided contact

information for the primary researcher as well as the contact e-mail address of the supervising

faculty. Before proceeding to the study, the researcher verbally indicated that participation was

voluntary and then briefly explained that participation would require the students to view two

different job descriptions for a type of position they could expect upon graduation.

Participants read and studied the first job description (the order of the job descriptions

were randomly assigned) for two and a half minutes. After the two and a half minutes were over,

participants rated their attraction to the organization using either a competency or task-based

description on Highhouse et al.’s (2003) attraction measure. Participants were asked what

influenced their ratings to gain additional insight to their preferences. After viewing and rating

the first job description, participants were given two and a half minutes to view the second

description; after the time was up, they rated their attraction to the second organization’s job

description. If the first job description seen was competency-based then the second description

was task-based and vice versa. Participants then responded to the measures of attitude toward

learning, personality traits, and demographic characteristics.

19
 CHAPER III

RESULTS

Correlations and descriptive statistics for all majors are presented in Table 1. Finance

majors’ correlations and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 2. Management majors’

correlations and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 3. Nursing majors’ correlations and

descriptive statistics are presented in Table 4.

Analysis of Hypothesis 1

A Paired samples t-test analysis were conducted to test the hypothesis that the

organization using competency-based job descriptions would be rated as more attractive than the

organization that used task-based descriptions. There was not a significant difference in the

overall attraction rating between the organization using the competency-based description (M =

51.34, SD = 11.60) and the organization using the task-based description (M = 50.45, SD =

12.46), t (257) = 1.13, p = .26. Cohen’s effect size value (d = .07) suggested low practical

significance. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was not supported.

Analyses of Hypothesis 2

A bivariate Pearson correlation was conducted to analyze the relationship between the

difference score of competency-based minus task-based overall attraction ratings with openness

to experience. It was expected that higher openness to experience scores would be positively

20
related to competency minus task overall attraction difference scores. Openness to experience

was not related to greater overall attraction to organizations with competency-based descriptions

(r = -.01, p = .83). When an analysis which was filtered by major was conducted, however, it

was found that openness to experience was significantly, positively related to the competency-

task difference overall attraction score (r = .25, p < .05) for nursing majors. Further openness

was significantly, positively related to the competency base scores for general attraction (r = .34,

p < .01) and intentions to pursue employment for nursing majors (r= .27, p= .03), with openness’

relationship to general attraction achieving a moderate effect size. The opposite effect was found

for the relationship between openness to experience and competency-task overall attraction

difference scores (r =-.25, p =.03) and for the base scale for intentions to pursue employment

based on the competency description for management majors (r= -.32, p<.01), which

demonstrated a moderate effect size for the relationship between openness and intentions to

pursue. Based on analysis of the individual majors’ responses, partial support was found for

Hypothesis 2.

Analyses of Hypothesis 3

A bivariate Pearson correlation was conducted to analyze the relationship between the

competency-task overall attraction difference scores with Love of Learning scores. It was

expected that individuals who reported a higher Love of Learning score would be more attracted

to organizations with competency-based descriptions than organizations with task-based

descriptions. When all majors were included in the analysis, a significant relationship between

the competency-task overall attraction difference score and Love of Learning score was not

found (r = -.07, p = .27). When cases were filtered by major, it was found that a higher Love of

21
Learning score was significantly negatively related to the competency-task overall attraction

difference score (r = -.23, p = .04) for management majors, a relatively small effect size. Thus,

no support was found for Hypothesis 3.

22
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlation Matrix for All Majors
Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Competency Overall Attraction 51.34 11.60 --
2. Task Overall Attraction 50.45 12.46 .45 ** --
3. Competency General Attraction 25.51 6.39 .96 ** .41 ** --
4. Task General Attraction 25.06 6.82 .45 ** .97 ** .45 ** --
5.Competency Intentions 25.83 5.73 .95 ** .44 ** .83 ** .40 ** --
6. Task Intentions 25.38 6.14 .41 ** .96 ** .34 ** .85 ** .45 ** --
7. Overall Attraction Difference Score .45 6.34 .48 ** -.58 ** .48 ** -.54 ** .43 ** -.57 ** --
8. General Attraction Difference Score .45 6.96 .45 ** -.57 ** .48 ** -.57 ** .37 ** -.52 ** .97 ** --
9. Intentions Difference Score .45 6.21 .47 ** -.54 ** .43 ** -.47 ** .47 ** -.57 ** .96 ** .86 ** --
10. Love of Learning 52.92 7.83 -.03 .04 -.05 .04 -.02 .04 -.07 -.08 -.05 --
11.Openness to Experience 51.20 7.62 .05 .06 .05 .05 .04 .07 -.01 .00 -.03 .42 ** --

23
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics Pearson Correlation Matrix for Finance Majors
Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Competency Overall Attraction 50.05 13.32 --
2. Task Overall Attraction 49.55 14.60 .49 ** --
3. Competency General Attraction 24.61 7.45 .97 ** .45 ** --
4. Task General Attraction 24.23 8.14 .47 ** .98 ** .46 ** --
5.Competency Intentions 25.43 6.41 .95 ** .50 ** .84 ** .44 ** --
6. Task Intentions 25.32 6.89 .48 ** .97 ** .41 ** .88 ** .52 ** --
7. Overall Attraction Difference Score .25 7.10 .44 ** -.57 ** .45 ** -.56 ** .39 ** -.55 ** --
8. General Attraction Difference Score .39 8.15 .42 ** -.57 ** .46 ** -.58 ** .33 ** -.51 ** .97 ** --
9. Intentions Difference Score .11 6.56 .43 ** -.53 ** .40 ** -.50 ** .44 ** -.55 ** .96 ** .86 ** --
10. Love of Learning 52.26 8.60 -.05 -.01 -.07 -.01 -.03 -.02 -.04 -.06 -.01 --
11.Openness to Experience 51.11 7.65 .05 .05 .04 .05 .05 .06 -.01 -.01 -.02 .48 ** --
*p < .05. **p < .01.

24
Table 3 Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlation Matrix for Management Majors
Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Competency Overall Attraction 51.61 10.49 --
2. Task Overall Attraction 49.96 11.17 .51 ** --
3. Competency General Attraction 25.73 5.75 .96 ** .47 ** --
4. Task General Attraction 25.07 6.02 .54 ** .95 ** .55 ** --
5.Competency Intentions 25.88 5.25 .95 ** .51 ** .82 ** .49 ** --
6. Task Intentions 24.89 5.73 .43 ** .95 ** .34 ** .81 ** .48 ** --
7. Overall Attraction Difference Score .83 5.36 .48 ** -.54 ** .45 ** -.46 ** .40 ** -.57 ** --
8. General Attraction Difference Score .66 5.60 .40 ** -.54 ** .44 ** -.51 ** .32 ** -.52 ** .95 ** --
9. Intentions Difference Score .99 5.63 .45 ** -.49 ** .42 ** -.37 ** .45 ** -.57 ** .95 ** .82 ** --
10. Love of Learning 51.74 6.31 -.17 .06 -.18 .04 -.14 .07 -.23 * -.24 * -.20 --
11.Openness to Experience 51.54 7.71 -.16 .09 -.10 .05 -.21 .13 -.25 * -.16 -.32 ** .36 ** --
*p < .05. **p < .01.

25
Table 4 Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlation Matrix for Nursing Majors
Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Competency Overall Attraction 53.22 9.48 --
2. Task Overall Attraction 52.58 9.66 .16 --
3. Competency General Attraction 26.77 4.87 .95 ** .12 --
4. Task General Attraction 26.48 4.88 .13 .95 ** .16 --
5.Competency Intentions 26.45 5.06 .96 ** .18 .82 ** .10 --
6. Task Intentions 26.11 5.21 .17 .96 ** .09 .83 ** .24 --
7. Overall Attraction Difference Score .32 6.20 .64 ** -.66 ** .63 ** -.64 ** .59 ** -.62 ** --
8. General Attraction Difference Score .29 6.34 .63 ** -.64 ** .65 ** -.65 ** .55 ** -.57 ** .98 ** --
9. Intentions Difference Score .34 6.34 .62 ** -.65 ** .59 ** -.60 ** .60 ** -.63 ** .98 ** .91 ** --
10. Love of Learning 55.54 7.69 .09 .07 .07 .08 .09 .06 .01 -.01 .03 --
11.Openness to Experience 50.94 7.55 .37 ** .05 .34 ** .06 .37 ** .03 .25 * .21 .27 ** .42 ** --
*p < .05. **p < .01.

26
 Additional Analyses

A hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine which variables

predict the overall attraction score. Age, sex, and grade point average (GPA) were entered in the

first step as control variables, and openness to experience and Love of Learning were entered

second. The three demographic measures accounted for a non-significant amount of variability

in attraction differences, R2 = .01, F (3, 246) = .55, p = .65. Openness to experience and Love of

Learning did not account for a significant proportion of difference in attraction variance after

controlling for the effects of age, sex, and GPA, R2 change = .01, F (2, 244) = .87, p = .51.

All personality variables were included in a correlation analysis (see Table 5).

Neuroticism was found to be significantly negatively related to general attractiveness of

competency descriptions (r = .15, p = .02), general attractiveness of task descriptions (r = .19, p

< .01), intentions to pursue employment for competency descriptions (r = -.15, p = .02), and

intentions to pursue employment for task descriptions (r = .22, p < .01). Agreeableness was

significantly positively related to general attractiveness of task-based descriptions (r = .20, p <

.01) and intentions to pursue employment for task-base descriptions (r = .16, p < .01). Further,

agreeableness was negatively related to the difference between competency and task general

attraction scores (r = -.12, p < .05).

The correlations conducted with all personality, attraction, and Love of Learning

variables, filtered by major, indicated that nursing majors’ openness to experiences was

positively related to general attraction (r = .34, p < .01) and intentions to pursue employment (

r= .37, p < .01) for competency-based descriptions. The relationship between openness to

experience and intentions to pursue employment for competency-based descriptions approached

significance (r = -.21, p = .06) for management majors. Agreeableness was significantly

27
negatively related to the competency minus task intentions difference score (r = -.29, p= .02) for

nursing majors. Agreeableness was significantly positively related to task general attraction (r =

.20, p = .04) for finance majors.

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine if any differences across variables were

affected by academic major. Agreeableness differed significantly across the majors, F (2, 255) =

10.23, p< .01. Love of Learning scores also differed significantly across the majors, F (2, 255) =

5.11, < .01. Tukey post-hoc comparisons of the three groups indicated that nursing majors (M =

59.03) rated themselves as significantly more agreeable than finance (M = 54.25) and

management (M = 53.73) majors. Post-hoc analyses indicated that nursing majors (M = 55.54)

rated themselves as having a greater love of learning than finance (M =52.26) or management (M

= 51.74) majors.

28
Table 5 Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Correlation Matrix with Personality Variables for All Majors
Measure M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1. Competency Overall Attraction 51.34 11.60 --
2. Task Overall Attraction 50.45 12.46 .45 ** --
3. Competency General Attraction 25.51 6.39 .96 ** .41 ** --
4. Task General Attraction 25.06 6.82 .45 ** .97 ** .45 ** --
5.Competency Intentions 25.83 5.73 .95 ** .44 ** .83 ** .40 ** --
6. Task Intentions 25.38 6.14 .41 ** .96 ** .34 ** .85 ** .45 ** --
7. Overall Attraction Difference Score .45 6.34 .48 ** -.58 ** .48 ** -.54 ** .43 ** -.57 ** --
8. General Attraction Difference Score .45 6.96 .45 ** -.57 ** .48 ** -.57 ** .37 ** -.52 ** .97 ** --
9. Intentions Difference Score .45 6.21 .47 ** -.54 ** .43 ** -.47 ** .47 ** -.57 ** .96 ** .86 ** --
10. Extraversion 46.67 11.29 .08 -.03 .06 -.02 .09 -.04 .10 .07 .12 --
11. Agreeableness 55.29 8.02 .08 .19 ** .08 .20 ** .06 .16 ** -.12 -.12 * -.10 .18 ** --
12.Conscientiousness 52.26 8.45 .09 .04 .06 .04 .11 .05 .04 .02 .06 .00 .15 * --
13. Neuroticisim 33.01 9.86 -.15 * -.21 ** -.15 * -.19 ** -.15 * -.22 .07 .05 .09 -.19 ** -.04 -.06 --
*p < .05. **p < .01.

29
 CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

It was the aim of this study to examine the effects of competency-based information

presented in job descriptions on applicants’ attraction to an organization. Participants did not

rate competency-based job descriptions as more overall attractive than task-based job

descriptions, as was proposed in Hypothesis 1. As Lawler (1994) discussed, individuals may be

used to and therefore more comfortable with task information in a job description. It may take

more exposure to competencies in organizations and job descriptions before the use of

competencies are well received. Individuals may not have felt attracted to competency-based

descriptions if they had not experienced the use of competencies in an organization before.

Presenting only competency information in job descriptions, an artificial manipulation of the

present study, does not appear to be significantly more useful in attracting applicants to an

organization than presenting only task-based information.

Participants may not have made the distinction between the competency and task-based

descriptions. Additional information about the jobs and organizations was provided, and no

measures were taken to ensure participants read all parts of the job description. Applicants may

have chosen information, other than the competency or task information to make their decisions.

Overall attraction to organizations with competency-based descriptions was significantly,

positively related to overall attraction to organizations with task-based descriptions for finance

and management participants (See Tables 2 and 3). Thus, these participants may not have made

30
the distinction. Participants may have made their decisions based on the information that was

common between job descriptions (salary, years of experience, educational requirements, etc.).

Salary is one of the most influential factors for organizational attraction (Rynes & Barber, 1990).

The salary information in the present study, however, was the same for both organizations’

descriptions and may have lead individuals to find the organizations equally attractive based on

salary (Cunningham, 2008).

Hypothesis 2 was partially supported. Overall, higher openness to experience scores

were not correlated with higher competency-task overall attraction difference scores. Higher

openness to experience scores, however, were associated with a greater competency-task overall

attraction and intention difference scores for nursing majors. Openness to experience was also

positively and significantly related to general attraction and intentions to pursue employment

scale scores for competency-based descriptions among nursing students. It was expected that the

more open to experience an individual is, the more he or she would be attracted to a flexible,

competency-based job description. This relationship was present for nursing majors.

A potential explanation for this finding may be a result of the actual competencies listed

as requirements for the different job positions, which varied by major. The competency

adaptability was listed for the registered nurse and financial analyst positions, but it was not

listed for the general manager position. Considering adaptability is a component of openness,

the ASA theory would suggest that individuals who are open to experience would be more

attracted to organizations who value openness to experience; individuals who are high in

openness to experience would likely be more attracted to organizations with open-oriented

information (i.e. adaptability requirement) presented in their job descriptions (Schneider, 1987).

Since no key descriptors of openness were included in the general management competency

31
description, this may have negatively affected the relationship between openness to experience

and attraction to organizations with competency information.

Hypothesis 3 was not supported. It was actually found that there was a significant

relationship between Love of Learning scores and competency-task overall attraction difference

scores for management majors, but this relationship was not in the direction it was expected.

Higher scores on the Love of Learning scale were associated with a lower competency-task

difference score on overall attractiveness for management majors. This indicates that a greater

love of learning, or a more positive attitude about learning, does not result in greater attraction to

competency-based job descriptions for management majors. Further, a regression analysis

revealed that while controlling for age, sex, and GPA, openness to experience and Love of

Learning were not predictors of attraction to organizations using either competency or task-based

information.

The findings from Hypothesis 3 do not agree with Lawler’s (1994) suggestion that

employees who are oriented toward learning new skills would be the most attracted to a

competency-based model. It certainly was not expected that higher Love of Learning scores

would be negatively related to the difference between competency and task general attraction

ratings. Since competencies are focused on individuals’ skills and their potential, individuals

who had a higher Love of Learning score were expected to rate competency-based descriptions

as more generally attractive (Rodriguez et al., 2002). It may be the case, however, that

individuals who viewed the general manager position did not view that particular position as

having room for growth and the ability to further learn and develop skills.

While a focus on individuals’ competencies typically indicates an organization’s

willingness to invest in employees, simply listing the required competencies instead of tasks does

32
make a clear link to investment in employees’ knowledge and skills. Even if individuals were

able to make the distinction between the job description with competencies and the one with

tasks, there was no direct indication that the organization with the competency information was

willing to invest in employees’ skills through continuous learning and training opportunities.

This may explain why a positive correlation between Love of Learning scores and competency-

task general attraction and intentions to pursue employment difference scores was not found.

Limitations of the Present Study

As with any study, the present one has its limitations. First, although the study recruited

students in junior and senior level courses in hopes that such a population would be currently or

soon to be applying for jobs, other class levels participated as well. Thus, the results may not

generalize to other populations. A total of 158 of the participants in the study were not currently

seeking employment; 214 participants, however, indicated they would be actively seeking

employment in the next six months to a year. Since the purpose of the study was to examine job

applicants’ preferences for particular job descriptions, it would have been ideal to collect data

from individuals who were seeking employment at the time of the study.

The same company name and description were used for both job descriptions. As

previously mentioned, the competency and task-based descriptions were similar; efforts were

taken in this study to make sure the competencies represented the tasks in the descriptions. In

fact, organizational attraction based on competencies was highly correlated with organizational

attraction based on tasks. Both job descriptions provided little organization-specific information,

had the same salary information, listed the same educational and previous experience

requirements, and included the same company name and description; this may have resulted in

33
participants rating the descriptions similarly. As previously mentioned, participants may not

have read or been able to distinguish the competency and task information portions of the job

descriptions.

Practical Implications and Suggestions for Future Research

Although not a hypothesis of this study, it was found through additional analyses that

agreeableness was significantly and positively related to general attraction and intentions to

pursue employment based on task-descriptions. Individuals who are agreeable may not have

wanted to challenge the way job descriptions have traditionally been presented. Individuals who

are high in neuroticism were less likely to report being attracted to or rate high intentions to

pursue employment based on either description. It would seem likely that other personal traits

would affect attraction to competencies or tasks.

The results from this study suggest that competencies may not be useful for attracting

applicants to organizations. Organizations are able to align many HR functions, such as

selection assessment, training needs assessment, promotion, and pay determination through the

use of competencies (Lievens et al., 2004). Competencies are prevalent and invasive in many

organizations, and thus, future research should examine how the use of competency models

affects employee satisfaction with various competency-focused functions. While organizations

may not rely on providing competency information to recruit employees, competencies are

useful for organizations in many other domains; it is important to examine employees’ attitudinal

and behavioral responses to such practices.

Although one of the present study’s aims was to contribute to the competency literature,

the main outcome variable was organizational attraction. Attracting talented and qualified

34
applicants to organizations is an imperative function for organizational success. Future research

could examine what applicants are attracted to in an organization by having participants create

their own, ideal job descriptions. Participants could write what they are looking for and most

attracted to in a job description/advertisement. Basic guidelines could be given for the creation

of the job descriptions, and the information participants included could be analyzed. Instead of

presenting applicants with information that may seem attractive to employers and HR specialists,

information that actual job applicants want in a job description could be identified and used to

attract individuals.

The present study has implications for practice in organizations. The incorporation of

competency modeling has many strategic benefits for organizations. Competencies help align

business functions and allow for more flexibility (Lievens et al., 2004). While it was expected

that competencies would also be beneficial for attracting talent to organizations, the present

study did not find evidence that competency-based descriptions are more effective at attracting

applicants than task-based descriptions. Since competencies have clear benefits for aligning HR

functions, they should not be left out of the recruitment phase. Organizations would likely

benefit from providing both task and competency information in a single job description.

Providing details about the job itself (task information), as well as a description of the type of

person who would succeed on the job (competency information) gives candidates more

information to help determine fit and attraction to the organization.

Despite the limitations, the present study contributed to the organizational competency

literature. Previous studies had not examined the effects of competencies on job applicants.

While this study found no significant difference in attraction to organizations using either a

competency or task-based description, future research could examine variables that may affect

35
attraction that were not included in this study. Future research should also examine why

different variables for differing fields of study affected attraction to organizations.

36
 REFERENCES

Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T. N., & Cable, D. M. (2001). Are you attracted? Do you intend to
pursue? A recruiting policy-capturing study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16(2),
219-237. doi:10.1023/A:1011157116322

American Compensation Association. (1996). Raising the bar: Using competencies to enhance
employee performance. Scottsdale, AZ: ACA.

American Society for Training & Development. (2011). Why organizations use competencies.
Retrieved from http://www.astd.org/Publications/Newsletters/ASTD-Links/ASTD-Links-
Articles/2011/07/Why-Organizations-Use-Competencies#sthash.WErq6l1z.dpuf

Berg, J. M., Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. (2010). Perceiving and responding to challenges
in job crafting at different ranks: When proactivity requires adaptivity. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 31(2-3), 158-186. doi:10.1002/job.645

Braddy, P. W., Meade, A. W., Michael, J. J., & Fleenor, J. W. (2009). Internet recruiting: Effects
of website content features on viewers' perceptions of organizational culture.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 17(1), 19-34. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2389.2009.00448.x

Campion, M. A., Fink, A. A., Ruggeberg, B. J., Carr, L., Phillips, G. M., & Odman, R. B.
(2011). Doing competencies well: Best practices in competency modeling. Personnel
Psychology, 64(1), 225-262.

Cascio, W. F. (1995). Whither industrial and organizational psychology in a changing world of

work?. American Psychologist, 50(11), 928-939. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.11.928

Catanzaro, D., Moore, H., & Marshall, T. R. (2010). The impact of organizational culture on
attraction and recruitment of job applicants. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(4),
649-662. doi:10.1007/s10869-010-9179-0

Cunningham, C. J. L. (2008). Keeping work in perspective: Work–nonwork considerations and

applicant decision making. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 21(2), 89–113.
doi:10.1007/s10672-008-9095-x

Edgar, W. B., & Lockwood, C.A. (2011) Understanding, finding, and applying core
competencies: A framework, guide, and description for corporate managers and research
professionals. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 19(2), 61-82.

37
Ehrhart, K., & Ziegert, J. C. (2005). Why Are Individuals Attracted to Organizations?. Journal of
Management, 31(6), 901-919. doi:10.1177/0149206305279759

Garman, A. N., Tyler, J. L., & Darnall, J. S. (2004). Development and Validation of a 360-
degree-feedback instrument for healthcare administrators. Journal of Healthcare
Management, 49(5), 307-322.

Goffin, R. D., & Woycheshin, D. E. (2006). An empirical method of determining employee

competencies/KSAOs from task-based job analysis. Military Psychology, 18(2), 121-130.
doi:10.1207/s15327876mp1802_2

Halim, A. H., & Abhyankar, S. C. (2011). Validation on behavioural competencies of a

performance appraisal tool. Journal of Psychosocial Research, 6(2), 281-290.

Heinsman, H., de Hoogh, A. B., Koopman, P. L., & van Muijen, J. J. (2007). Competencies
through the eyes of psychologists: A closer look at assessing competencies. International
Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(4), 412-427. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2389.2007.00400.x

Hewitt Associates (2005). Research highlights: How the top 20 companies grow great leaders.
Retrieved from
http://www.inspireimagineinnovate.com/pdf/Top_Companies_2005_Report.pdf

Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to organizations.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(6), 986-1001.

Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and
organization attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 359-394. doi:10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1997.tb00912.x

Landy, F. J., Shankster-Cawley, L., & Moran, S. K. (1995). Advancing personnel selection and
placement methods. In A. Howard (Ed.), The changing nature of work. (252-289). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Lawler, E. E. (1994). From job-based to competency-based organizations. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 15(1), 3-15. doi:10.1002/job.4030150103

Lawler, E. E. and Ledford, G. E. (1992). A skill-based approach to human resource management,

European Management Journal, 10, 383-391.

Lee, C., Hwang, F., & Yeh, Y. (2013). The impact of publicity and subsequent intervention in
recruitment advertising on job searching freshmen's attraction to an organization and job
pursuit intention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), 1-13. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2012.00975.x

38
Lievens, F., Sanchez, J. I., & De Corte, W. (2004). Easing the inferential leap in competency
modelling: The effects of task-related information and subject matter expertise.
Personnel Psychology, 57(4), 881-904. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00009.x

McClelland, D. C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for 'intelligence.'. American
Psychologist, 28(1), 1-14. doi:10.1037/h0034092

McCormick, E. J., Jeanneret, P. R., & Mecham, R. C. (1969). Position analysis questionnaire.
Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Mussel, P., Winter, C., Gelléri, P., & Schuler, H. (2011). Explicating the openness to experience
construct and its subdimensions and facets in a work setting. International Journal of
Selection And Assessment, 19(2), 145-156. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2011.00542.x

Nybø, G. (2004). Personnel development for dissolving jobs: Towards a competency-based

approach?. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(3), 549-564.
doi:10.1080/0958519042000181250

Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality
assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60(4), 995-1027.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00099.x

Pang, M., Chua, B., & Chu, C. L. (2008). Learning to stay ahead in an uncertain environment.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(7), 1383-1394.
doi:10.1080/09585190802110307

Pavur, E. R. (2010). Use job descriptions to support leadership. The Psychologist-Manager

Journal, 13(2), 119-122. doi:10.1080/10887151003776596

Powell, G. N., & Goulet, L. R. (1996). Recruiters' and applicants' reactions to campus interviews
and employment decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1619-1640.
doi:10.2307/257071

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150-163. doi:10.2307/2391486

Rodriguez, D., Patel, R., Bright, A., Gregory, D., & Gowing, M. K. (2002). Developing
competency models to promote integrated human resource practices. Human Resource
Management 41(3), 309-324. doi: 10.1002/hrm.10043

Rynes, S. L., & Barber, A. E. (1990). Applicant attraction strategies: An organizational

perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 286-310. doi:10.2307/258158

Schippmann, J. S., Ash, R. A., Battista, M., Carr, L., Eyde, L. D., Hesketh, B., & ... Sanchez, J. I.
(2000). The practice of competency modeling. Personnel Psychology, 53(3), 703-740.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00220.x

39
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-453.
doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x

Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. (1995). The ASA framework: An update.
Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 747-773. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01780.x

Soderquist, K., Papalexandris, A., Ioannou, G., & Prastacos, G. (2010). From task-based to
competency-based: A typology and process supporting a critical HRM transition.
Personnel Review, 39(3), 325-346. doi:10.1108/00483481011030520

Sparrow, P. (1998). The pursuit of multiple and parallel organizational flexibilities:

Reconstituting jobs. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7(1), 79-
95. doi:10.1080/135943298398970

Stybel, L. J. (2010). Managing the inner contradictions of job descriptions: A technique for use
in recruitment. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 13(2), 105-110.
doi:10.1080/10887151003776554

Sullivan, S. E. (1999). The changing nature of careers: A review and research agenda. Journal of
Management, 25(3), 457-484. doi:10.1177/014920639902500308

Thompson, C., & Gregory, J. (2012). Managing millennials: A framework for improving
attraction, motivation, and retention. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 15(4), 237-246.
doi:10.1080/10887156.2012.730444

Turban, D. B. (2001). Organizational attractiveness as an employer on college campuses: An

examination of the applicant population. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58(2), 293-312.
doi:10.1006/jvbe.2000.1765

United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Job openings and labor
turnover survey news release (USDL Publication No. 12-1587). Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.htm

Ward, M. (2007). How knowledge companies succeed. Journal of Knowledge Management,

11(6), 16-27. doi:10.1108/13673270710832136

Woodruffe, C. (1993). What is meant by a competency?. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 14(1), 29-36. doi:10.1108/eb053651

Zottoli, M. A., & Wanous, J. P. (2000). Recruitment source research: Current status and future
directions. Human Resource Management Review, 10(4), 353-382. doi:10.1016/S1053-
4822(00)00032-2

40
APPENDIX A

MEASURES

41
 General Attractiveness Items
(Highhouse et al., 2003)
Consider the job description you have just read. Please read each item and respond using the
following 7-point response scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Neither Agree or Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree

1 For me, this company would be a good place to work

2 I would not be interested in this company except as a last resort

3 This company is attractive to me as a place for employment.

4 I am interested in learning more about this company

5 A job at this company is very appealing to me.

Intentions to Pursue Items

(Highhouse et al., 2003)
Consider the job description you have just read. Please read each item and respond using the
following 7-point response scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Neither Agree or Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree

1 I would accept a job offer for this job position.

2 I would make this company one of my first choices as an employer.

3 If this company invited me for a job interview, I would go.

4 I would exert a great deal of effort to submit an application to this company

5 I would recommend this company to a friend looking for a job

42
 Love of Learning
IPIP

The following items describe attitudes and behaviors. Please indicate the level of accuracy in which the
statement describes you. So that you can describe yourself in an honest manner, your responses will be
kept in absolute confidence. Please read each statement carefully, and then fill in your response that
corresponds to the number on the scale.

Response Options
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Neither Inaccurate Very
Inaccurate nor Accurate Accurate

1 Go out of my way to attend educational events.

2 Don't like to learn new things.

3 Am thrilled when I learn something new.

4 Am a true life-long learner.

5 Read all the time.

6 Consult the library or the Internet immediately if I want to know something.

7 Do not like to visit museums.

8 Don't read nonfiction books for fun.

9 Read a large variety of books.

10 Look forward to the opportunity to learn and grow.

Big Five Personality

IPIP

Instructions
On the following pages, there are phrases describing people's behaviors. Please use the rating
scale below to describe how accurately each statement describes you. Describe yourself as you
generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe yourself as you honestly see
yourself, in relation to other people you know of your same sex, and roughly your same age. So
that you can describe yourself in an honest manner, your responses will be kept in absolute

43
confidence. Please read each statement carefully, and then fill in your response that corresponds
to the number on the scale.
Response Options
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Neither Inaccurate Very
Inaccurate nor Accurate Accurate

1 I am the life of the party.

2 I feel little concern for others.
3 I am always prepared.
4 I get stressed out easily.
5 I have a rich vocabulary.
6 I don't talk a lot.
7 I am interested in people.
8 I leave my belongings around.
9 I am relaxed most of the time.
10 I have difficulty understanding abstract ideas.
11 I feel comfortable around people.
12 I insult people.
13 I pay attention to details.
14 I worry about things.
15 I have a vivid imagination.
16 I keep in the background.
17 I sympathize with others' feelings.
18 I make a mess of things.
19 I seldom feel blue.
20 I am not interested in abstract ideas.
21 I start conversations.
22 I am not interested in other people's problems.
23 I get chores done right away.
24 I am easily disturbed.
25 I have excellent ideas.

44
 26 I have little to say.
27 I have a soft heart.
28 I often forget to put things back in their proper place.
29 I get upset easily.
30 I do not have a good imagination.
31 I talk to a lot of different people at parties.
32 I am not really interested in others.
33 I like order.
34 I change my mood a lot.
35 I am quick to understand things.
36 I don't like to draw attention to myself.
37 I take time out for others.
38 I shirk my duties.
39 I have frequent mood swings.
40 I use difficult words.
41 I don't mind being the center of attention.
42 I feel others' emotions.
43 I follow a schedule.
44 I get irritated easily.
45 I spend time reflecting on things.
46 I am quiet around strangers.
47 I make people feel at ease.
48 I am exacting in my work.
49 I often feel blue.
50 I am full of ideas.
Demographics
The following items are designed solely to collect background information of the research
participants. Please respond to all items truthfully. All responses will be kept anonymous and
confidential.

What is your current age? _____

Please indicate your gender: _____ Male _____ Female

45
Please indicate your ethnical background

____Caucasian, ____African American, ____Asian, ____Hispanic, ____Other

What is your current major and concentration?

__________________________________________________________________

Have you had any previous work experience in your field of interest?

_____Yes, ______No

What is your current GPA? _____

Upon graduation, do you intend to utilize your degree and seek employment in your field of
interest? _____Yes, _____No

Are you currently seeking employment? _____ Yes, _____ No

Will you be actively seeking employment within the next 6 months to one year? _____Yes,
_____No

What is your current school status? _____ Freshman, _____Sophomore, _____ Junior, _____
Senior, ______ Graduate, _____ Other (please explain) _______________

Please indicate your current work status.

_____Full-time _____Part-time _____Unemployed

If you are currently employed, what is your estimated monthly income? __________

If you depend on someone else (i.e., parent, spouse, etc.) for financial support, what is your
estimated total monthly income for your family as a whole? __________

Did you rate one job description as more attractive than the other? Yes: 1 st ___, 2nd___,
No:___

If yes, what characteristics about the job description influenced your higher rating?
______________________________________________________________________________

46
 APPENDIX B

CONSENT FORM

47
 Consent to Be a Research Participant in the Study:

Examining Job Preference

A research project on job preference is being conducted by Candace Hawkes in the Department
of Psychology at The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. The purpose of the study is to
examine what types of organizations people prefer based on information provided in job
descriptions and if certain personal characteristics affect preference.

You are being asked to take part in this study by reviewing job information for two different
organizations and completing a series of questionnaires. Your participation will take
approximately 30-45 minutes. Please be aware that you are not required to participate in this
research and you may discontinue your participation at any time without penalty. You may also
omit any items on the questionnaire(s) you prefer not to answer.

Although we are collecting your names, this is only to ensure that participants do not take the
survey more than once. There will be no direct benefit to you from participating in this research
study. The anticipated benefit of this research is a better understanding of what factors affect an
employee’s attraction to an organization.

There are no risks, other than the rare potential for mild boredom and/or emotional discomfort
associated with answering personal questions, involved in participating in this research. If you
should experience this, please be aware that you may contact the principal investigator, Candace
Hawkes, for assistance.

If you have questions regarding this study or would like to be informed of the results when the
study is completed, please feel free to contact Candace Hawkes through email at Candace-
[email protected] or Dr. Bart Weathington at [email protected]. If you have
questions or concerns regarding the manner in which the study is conducted, you may contact
Dr. Bart Weathington, the chair of the Institutional Review Board at (423) 425-4289. Additional
contact information is available at www.utc.edu/irb. (IRB # 12- 170)

Signature_______________________ Date____________________

48
 APPENDIX C

IRB APPROVAL

49
MEMORANDUM

TO: Candace Hawkes IRB # 12- 170

Dr. Bart Weathington

FROM: Lindsay Pardue, Director of Research Integrity

DATE: October 29, 2012

SUBJECT: IRB # 12-170: Competency-based versus task-based job descriptions: Effects on

applicant attraction

The Institutional Review Board has reviewed and approved your application and assigned you the IRB
number listed above. You must include the following approval statement on research materials seen by
participants and used in research reports:

The Institutional Review Board of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (FWA00004149) has
approved this research project #12-170.

Please remember that you must complete a Certification for Changes, Annual Review, or Project
Termination/Completion Form when the project is completed or provide an annual report if the project
takes over one year to complete. The IRB Committee will make every effort to remind you prior to your
anniversary date; however, it is your responsibility to ensure that this additional step is satisfied.

Please remember to contact the IRB Committee immediately and submit a new project proposal for
review if significant changes occur in your research design or in any instruments used in conducting the
study. You should also contact the IRB Committee immediately if you encounter any adverse effects
during your project that pose a risk to your subjects.

For any additional information, please consult our web page http://www.utc.edu/irb or email
[email protected]

Best wishes for a successful research project.

50
 APPENDIX D

JOB DESCRIPTIONS

51
52
53
54
55
56
57
 VITA

Candace Hawkes is from Johnson City, Tennessee. She earned her Bachelor of Science

in Psychology, with a minor in Management at East Tennessee State University. She relocated

to Chattanooga, Tennessee to attend graduate school and earn her Master of Science in

Industrial-Organizational Psychology. Candace is currently a graduate assistant at the University

of Tennessee and is looking forward to obtaining her degree so she can use the knowledge and

skills she has learned to contribute to an organization.

58