Comparing the Efficacy of Policy-Capturing Weights and Direct Estimates for Predicting Job Choice

Abstract

When studying applicants' job attribute preferences, researchers have used either direct estimates (DE) of importance or regression-derived statistical weights from policy-capturing (PC) studies. Although each methodology has been criticized, no research has examined the efficacy of weights derived from either method for predicting choices among job offers. In this study, participants were assigned to either a DE or PC condition, and weights for 14 attribute preferences were derived. Three weeks later, the participants made choices among hypothetical job offers. As predicted, PC weights outperformed DE weights when a noncompensatory strategy was assumed, and DE weights outperformed PC weights when a compensatory strategy was assumed. Implications for researchers' choice of methodology when studying attribute preferences are discussed.

Job preferences as revealed by employee-initiated job changes

“…Rynes et al (1983) as well as Osborn (1990) report support for the relevance of noncompensatory decision strategies in job choice. Slaughter et al (2006) find evidence that it depends on the certain kind of empirical procedure to examine job preferences, which framework has the most explanatory power.…”

Defining a Process for Segmenting the General Practitioner Market for Rural Practice Recruitment

“…To empirically determine cohorts of GPs for segmented marketing communication we recommend adopting two data collection approaches to examine GP practice choices including a traditional approach evaluating the attractiveness of a new practice position offering consistency with prior research (e.g. Manhardt 1972;O'Reilly & Caldwell 1980;Slaughter et al 2006) and a newer approach, recommended by Flynn, Louviere, Peters and Coast (2007), offering a trade-off analysis for small sets of attributes such as those incorporated in our Job, Practice and Family sets. Researchers should now investigate how the final 16 attributes can be used to improve recruitment outcomes by determining the value of these attributes in GPs' decisions to join rural practice and explore how these attributes can be bundled for leveraging in the GP market across cohorts differentiated by their attribute preferences.…”

“…Industry publications report attributes of importance in GP practice choice decisions to be community support, spousal work opportunities and career progression or development (AMWAC 2005), without showing how and whether these are traded off to arrive at a decision. In HRM literature, Slaughter, Richard and Martin (2006) describe Konrad et al's (2000) work as the most comprehensive; they added only interesting work and dress code to Konrad et al's (2000) attribute list of income, challenging work, opportunity for leadership, work hours, power and authority, easy commute, opportunities for promotion, geographic location, freedom and autonomy, coworkers, prestige and recognition, and supervisor. For rural GPs a large array of attributes emerge from academic works such as Cova (1997), Gabhainn et al (2001), MacIsaac et al( 2000) and Wainer (2004).…”

“…Classifying items into manageable clusters, as a logical and necessary step towards scale development (Rossiter 2002), offers pedagogical and applied opportunities to organise information for problem analysis (Humphreys and Rolley 1998) into a taxonomy (Slaughter et al 2006). One early attempt to develop a framework for rural GP recruitment by Humphreys and Rolley (1998) highlights the importance of matching GP wants with experiences regarding numbers of GPs, locum relief, support for spouse and family, recognition of practice skills, job satisfaction and unimpeded career path.…”

“…This approach allows researchers to identify the factors that will have the most leverage; those factors that a practice would want to emphasize for recruiting advantages. Measures of importance are common in HRM literature such as importance of a factor in a decision to accept a particular job (O'Reilly and Caldwell 1980); in choosing among competing job offers (Slaughter et al 2006); of having a job with specific attributes (Manhardt 1972); and in job pursuit intentions (Aiman-Smith, Bauer and Cable 2001). Such measures are used to build scales, reflecting scale development literature that insists on correct identification of attributes prior to scale development or implementation (Rossiter 2002).…”