Student And Recruiter Insights On The Importance Of Job Attributes [*].

The same general result holds when the weights assessed by the recruiters are compared with the self-insight weights provided by the students. Recall that the students believe they put more weight on opportunities for advancement/job stability and less weight on compensation than in fact they do. This "self-insight" is more in line with what the recruiters think the students regard as important. However, the students do not see firm type as important as the recruiters think they do (16% compared to 27%). Again, the vector of means is statistically significantly different ([T.sub.2] = 21.77, p = .0113).

Tables 2 and 3 show that this sample of recruiters does not place the same weights on the six job attributes provided as do the students that they may be recruiting. The implications of this result will be discussed in the concluding section of this article.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This study presented evidence on the insight of students and recruiters about the importance (to students) of six job attributes. Insight was evaluated by comparing the weight assigned by the students and recruiters to statistical weights based on the students' decisions. Lack of insight appears when the assessed weight is substantially different from the statistical weight. The largest difference relates to compensation. Both the students and the recruiters underemphasized the importance of compensation. In other words, compensation had a larger impact on the students' evaluations than the students and recruiters thought it did. The second largest effect relates to firm type (CPA firm versus private industry). The recruiters substantially overestimated the importance of firm type, while the students came very close to the statistical weight. Finally, both groups overestimated the importance of opportunities for advancement and job stability.

It cannot be overemphasized that this was not meant to be a policy capturing study. The purpose was to give the participants the best chance for insight into the weightings of the six attributes. These attributes were chosen to have a wide range of desirability with regard to job opportunities. In a sense, the six attributes were biased toward a high level of insight since some attributes were clearly more desirable than others. Moreover, use of a specific, well-defined group, like Beta Alpha Psi students, biases in favor of the null hypothesis of high self-insight and strengthens the statistically significant differences actually observed.

Limitations of this study include the use of students from only one university. Any idiosyncracies in how these students are exposed to the job search environment will weaken the results. Also, although care was taken to have a representative sample of both students and recruiters, all participants were volunteers and have the potential to be different from those who do not volunteer. The representativeness of the sample is an empirical question that can be tested in future research by conducting the same or a similar experiment using students from a variety of schools and matching them to the recruiters who recruit from their specific schools. Finally, the job opportunities were composed of attributes that were collected using a survey. Other (unknown) attributes may be more important to the students when they are faced with a real job opportunity. These limitations can be addressed through further research using different participant pool/recruiter mixes and/or different job attributes. (For instance, argu ably a student who has decided to consider only "Big Six" (i.e., international) firms has already removed the "Firm Type" variable and probably the "Compensation Package" variable.)

Implications for Practice

The lack of insight by the students and recruiters have implications for accounting practice. A growing body of literature exists in accounting that addresses the issue of employee turnover and job dissatisfaction, especially in public accounting firms (see for example, Carcello et al., 1991; Marxen, 1996; Reed and Kratchman, 1989). Part of this problem may stem from students accepting jobs based on factors which they think are important, which actually are not. Recruiters have the opportunity to mitigate the problem by giving students information about the important job attributes. Unfortunately, the results of this study suggest that recruiters may not know what job attributes the students think are important (insight), or what job attributes are actually important to the students (statistical weights). Kirsch et al. (1993) suggest that when students' and recruiters' expectations are inconsistent, more communication needs to take place. They note that accounting educators could play a role in facilitating this communication "... via meetings and office visits tailored to explore the issue" (1993: 66).

A potentially serious problem occurs when the recruiters are primarily from the accounting staffs of the recruiting organization. The lack of self-insight may be generally recognized by personnel professionals, but it is much less likely to be known or understood by others. Rynes reports that "descriptive research has revealed that recruiters are largely untrained" (1990: 439). The accountants who are going to be used as recruiters for the firm should spend much more time being trained by the personnel staff. Trained personnel recruiters are much more likely to be skeptical of the student's professed wants in an ideal job. Recognizing this, the recruiters can help direct the student to a more accurate self-assessment. Using the approach of aiding the student is more likely to result in a well-informed choice, and is less likely, therefore, to result in the student being dissatisfied with the job.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that, contrary to the evidence in this article, large C.P.A. firms regard compensation as much less important than other variables such as firm type or perhaps opportunities for advancement. In fact, if the "Big Six" public accounting firms pay essentially the same, the recruiters from these firms are correct in discounting the weight students may place on compensation, but only if students are fully committed to work for one of these firms. We suspect that the assumption that faculties encourage their students to start at public accounting firms is no longer true, if it ever was. Compensation does matter and firm type matters less, and no amount of public relations work will change that point.

Implications for Surveys in Accounting

The student self-insight reports used in this study are analogous to surveying a sample of students concerning what they look for in a job. If the students lack self-insight, as shown by the corresponding statistical weights, then the results of survey research must be interpreted with caution. Researchers who collect data through survey methods should be aware of the possible discrepancies between actual (statistical) and expressed (self-insight) weights, and may want to consider combining surveys with other methodological approaches (such as judgment modeling illustrated in this article) when possible.

It is also the case that the context in which the questions are asked can have a significant influence on the responses. Consider these two questions from two polls in 1978 as detailed in Scott Plous' book: (1) "If a situation like Vietnam were to develop in another part of the world, do you think the United States should or should not send troops?" and (2) "If a situation like Vietnam were to develop in another part of the world, do you think the United States should or should not send troops to stop a Communist takeover?" (1993: 68). Only 17 percent of those surveyed thought troops should be sent. That more than doubled to 37 percent when the phrase about a Communist takeover was added to the end. A more subtle example of the effect of a wording change is seen when people were asked whether our "country's nuclear weapons made them feel safe." About 40 percent said yes and 50 percent said no. Another poll substituted the word "safer" for "safe" and the results were reversed with 50 percent saying yes and 36 percent saying no (Plous, 1993). The readers of surveys on attitudes or beliefs in accounting contexts should keep in mind that there are few experts in survey methods, and the psychology of wording a question is not always appreciated.

(*.) We gratefully acknowledge the research assistance and comments of Margie Boldt and the comments of F. Ayres, D. Ghosh, C. Russell, J. Sankaran and G. L. Willinger on earlier versions of this paper.

References

Adkins, C. L., C. J. Russell and J. D. Werbel. 1994. "Judgments of fit in the selection process: The role of work value congruence." Personnel Psychology 47: 605-623.

Ashton, R. H. 1974. "Cue utilization and expert judgments: A comparison of independent auditors with other judges." Journal of Applied Psychology 59: 437-44.

Bundy, P. and D. Norris. 1992. "What accounting students consider important in the job selection process." Journal of Applied Business Research 8(2): 1-6.

Cable, D. M. and T. A. Judge. 1994. "Pay preference and job search decisions: a person-organization fit perspective." Personnel Psychology 47: 317-348.

Carcello, J. V., J. E. Copeland Jr., R. H. Hermanson and D. H. Turner. 1991. "A public accounting career: The gap between student expectations and accounting staff experiences." Accounting Horizons 5: 1-11.

Carpenter, C. G. and R. H. Strawser. 1970. "Job selection preferences of accounting students." Journal of Accountancy June: 84-86.

Cochran, W. G. and C. M. Cox. 1957. Experimental designs, 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Hays, W.L. 1981. Statistics. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Joyce, E. J. 1976. "Expert judgment in audit program planning." Journal of Accounting Research (Supplement) 14: 29-60.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates