The Critical Contact: A Study of Recruiter Verbal Behavior During Campus Interviews

Abstract

The verbal behaviors of 25 corporate recruiters were content analyzed and compared to student applicants'postinterview evaluations of them. Qualitative and quantitative analyses identified and counted helper and other responses made by recruiters. Additional analyses indicated significant variability in the quality of interviews, the talkativeness of recruiters, and the relative impact of recruiter verbal behaviors on the applicants' ratings. Recruiters who paraphrased, asked questions, and made influencing statements tended to be rated significantly higher on their expertness, or competence. Recruiters who disclosed sometimes-irrelevant information tended to be rated significantly lower on Responsiveness. These results are discussed within the framework of both critical contacts and social influence theories. Suggestions are made for further research and for what constitutes ''good'' recruiting verbal style. E mployment interviews vary widely in specific form and content but essentially have three purposes: to select potential employees, to solicit potential employees, and to give potential employees information about the organization (Street, 1986). During these interviews, both applicants and employers attempt to make a good impression on one another: applicants hope to elicit job offers; employers hope to attract top-quality employees.One specific type of employment interview is the screening interview, used extensively by mid-sized to large organizations to attract and screen high quality prospective employees from university campuses. Screening interviews often result in follow-up interviews and subsequent employment. In fact, Ralston and Brady (1994) estimate that fifty percent of all managers and professionals with fewer than three years of work experience on entry are selected through a process that begins with a screening interview. These interviews are expensive, however. The average cost to the employing institution of attracting and selecting one of these new employees in the mid-1990s was over $2000 (Ralston & Brady). Screening interviews are frequently the first contact between an employing institution and a prospective employee. Clearly, research that identifies factors contributing to successful screening interviews (i.e., attracting top-quality applicants) would be of practical use to business and industry.

Surviving Grief: An Analysis of the Exchange of Hope in Online Grief Communities

“…The HSVRS has also been used to assess verbal behavior of individuals from diverse occupations, including bartenders, beauticians, dietitians, and social services workers (S. J. Danish, personal communication, 1980), informal helpers (D'Augelli & Vallance, 2006), clinical supervisors (McCarthy, Kulakowski, & Kenfield, 1994), and job recruiters (DeBell, Montgomery, McCarthy, & Lanthier, 1998).…”

Hospitality Career Fairs: Student Perceptions of Value and Usefulness

“…This theory also implies that job candidates are affected by the personalities of organizational representatives (DeBell, Montgomery, McCarthy, & Lanthier, 1998). Initial contact is how job candidates and recruiters institute behaviors that provide the basis for a psychological contract between the two parties (Porter et al, 2004).…”

Genetic counselors' response types to prenatal patient deferring or attributing religious/spiritual statements: An exploratory study of US genetic counselors

“…The HSVRS assesses the types of helping responses (rather than response quality) individuals use in one‐to‐one interactions. The HSVRS has demonstrated reliability and validity in studies of the helping responses of diverse groups, including paraprofessional helpers and untrained individuals (McCarthy et al, 1979 ); crisis interveners, psychotherapists, and nursing students (McCarthy & Knapp, 1984 ; Ryden et al, 1991 ); informal helpers (D'Augelli & Vallance, 2006 ); clinical supervisors (McCarthy et al, 1994 ); job recruiters (DeBell et al, 1998 ); and peers who reply to messages posted on grief websites (Swartwood et al, 2011 ).…”