E-Government Versus E-Business: A Comparison of Online Recruitment in the Public and Private Sectors

Abstract

In this study, the authors assessed the usability of e-recruitment websites in the 50 states and the 50 largest American businesses. It is found that states were much less likely than businesses to accept online job applications. For example, it is impossible to apply online for a state government position in the three largest states. When it was possible to apply online for a state government job, the websites tended to be less user-friendly and informative than their private-sector counterparts. The major exception to this pattern was that the state government websites tended to be less secretive about pay rates. Because of the digital divide, state governments cannot rely exclusively on online applications. However, state governments should be able to offer a more advanced online job application process. The authors conclude by discussing implications for e-democracy, offering suggestions for research and practice, and identifying the two states with the least advanced recruitment practices.In today's digital era, many organizations use some form of Internet recruiting to provide information to potential applicants as well as to acquire a pool of human capital by allowing applicants to apply for positions via the web. According to Lukaszewski, Dickter, Lyons, and Kehoe (2009), online recruitment is superior in many ways to traditional methods of attracting job applicants. It is quicker and more informative, and it offers the sometimes unrealized potential of cost savings. It is also much more efficient from the employer's perspective than the traditional method of applying for jobs by mail. Under the traditional approach, an employee must create an electronic record of each applicant by transferring written information to the computer. With online recruiting, the job applicants directly input that information into the employer's computer.

Facing the human capital crisis: A systematic review and research agenda on recruitment and selection in the public sector

“…Most of the qualitative studies are concerned with e‐recruitment efforts, evaluating the use of websites and social media. For example, Mareschal and Rudin (2011) find that state government recruiting websites are generally less advanced and user‐friendly than in the private sector. With a view to the importance of digitization and research demands (Ployhart, 2006, p. 875), the number of studies is surprising.…”

Reducing online application redundancy: Effects on applicant attrition and quality

“…This research focused on overall applicant attrition (whether an applicant completed the application or not). Future research should also examine specific points in the application process where applicants withdraw from the process (Mareschal & Rudin, ). For example, does applicant attrition follow the pattern of online assessments, where most applicants drop out within an initial time period (Hardy et al, ), or is attrition in the application process more related to specific types of information being requested?…”

“…It is likely that the length of time and level of effort applicants are willing to spend completing an application have also been reduced and some research already suggests that many potential candidates are frustrated by the length of time an online application takes to complete (CareerBuilder, ). In addition, some researchers have recommended that online application characteristics (e.g., accessibility, usability) be examined in relation to applicant attrition (Mareschal & Rudin, ).…”

E-Government Service Adoption Through the Lens of the Knowledge Gap

“…The general tendency is to incorporate different constructions of trust into the explanatory variables in the use of acceptance models. Lean et al 25 tested a model based on the work of Carter and Bélanger 26 and Suh and Han. 27 The study integrates constructs from TAM and DOI which have been moderated by a culture variable (uncertainty avoidance) and a trust model in five dimensions (Figure 3).…”