Attracting Generation Y Graduates

Career Development International
Attracting Generation Y graduates: Organisational attributes, likelihood to apply and

sex differences
Siri Terjesen, Susan Vinnicombe, Cheryl Freeman,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Siri Terjesen, Susan Vinnicombe, Cheryl Freeman, (2007) "Attracting Generation Y graduates:
Organisational attributes, likelihood to apply and sex differences", Career Development International, Vol.
12 Issue: 6, pp.504-522, https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430710821994
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Universiti Utara Malaysia At 00:59 21 May 2019 (PT)
https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430710821994
Downloaded on: 21 May 2019, At: 00:59 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 69 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 14723 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2013),"Understanding Generation Y and their use of social media: a review and research
agenda", Journal of Service Management, Vol. 24 Iss 3 pp. 245-267 <a href="https://
doi.org/10.1108/09564231311326987">https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231311326987</a>
(2014),"Employer branding: strategy for improving employer attractiveness", International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 22 Iss 1 pp. 48-60 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJOA-09-2011-0513">https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-09-2011-0513</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:394654 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1362-0436.htm
CDI
12,6 Attracting Generation Y graduates
Organisational attributes, likelihood to apply
and sex differences
504 Siri Terjesen
Brisbane Graduate School of Business, Queensland University of Technology,
Received February 2007 Brisbane, Australia, and
Revised May 2007
Accepted May 2007 Susan Vinnicombe and Cheryl Freeman
Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, UK
Abstract
Purpose – Building on person-organisation fit and gender self-schema, this research aims to examine
UK university final year students’ perception of the importance of organisational attributes and their
presence in three major graduate employers. This study also seeks to explore which organisational
attributes attract Generation Y men and women to apply to a management trainee position.
Design/methodology/approach – In phase one, 32 repertory grid interviews identify 84 common
constructs in undergraduates’ organisational choice. A short list of 20 organisational attributes was
carried forward to the phase two survey of 862 undergraduates in their final year at 22 UK
universities. The respondents rate the attributes in terms of importance and then evaluate three
employers in terms of perceived presence of these attributes. The students also provide the likelihood
that they would apply. T-tests, correlation and multiple regression are used to test hypotheses.
Findings – Among university students, the five most important organisational attributes are: “invest
heavily in the training and development of their employees” “care about their employees as
individuals” “clear opportunities for long-term career progression” “variety in daily work” and
“dynamic, forward-looking approach to their business”. Sex differences exist in both the importance of
organisational attributes and the perceived extent of their presence in three organisations. In
describing an ideal employer, women rate eight attributes as more important than do their male
counterparts: “really care about their employees as individuals” “variety in your daily work” “friendly,
informal culture” “employ people with whom you feel you will have things in common” “use your
degree skills” “relatively stress-free working environment” “internationally diverse mix of colleagues”
“require you to work standard working hours only”. Compared to women, men rate just one attribute
as more important: “a very high starting salary”. The perception of presence of these important
attributes is significantly linked to likelihood to apply.
Practical implications – Recruiting firms can better understand how Generation Y men and
women graduates perceive the importance of organisational attributes and their presence in firms.
Originality/value – The paper represents a seminal study relating organisational attributes to likely
applicant behaviour across a large number of UK university undergraduates.
Keywords Graduates, Recruitment, Employment, Gender, Job applications, United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Career Development International Attracting applicants is central to recruiting (Barber, 1998; Rynes, 1991) as firms
Vol. 12 No. 6, 2007
pp. 504-522 establish a pool of applicants who are both attractive to the organisation and attracted
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1362-0436
DOI 10.1108/13620430710821994 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2006 Academy of Management Meeting.
to the organisation (Wanous, 1992). In the graduate recruitment market, firms invest Attracting
large amounts of time and money to attract applications from soon-to-be minted Generation Y
university graduates for management trainee, professional and technical positions
(Breaugh, 1992; Rynes and Boudreau, 1986). As women are the fastest growing section graduates
of the labour force, recruiters are especially interested in attracting female talent.
The graduate recruitment process begins with the organisation communicating values
and image through publicity and advertising. Potential graduate applicants then evaluate 505
their understanding of the organisation and make a decision to apply or not to apply
(Herriot, 1984). As organisations are extremely selective with candidates, they need to
attract a large number of applications at an early stage to ensure a diverse applicant pool.
For example, if there are insufficient applications from women, the make-up of new joiners
to an organisation will inevitably be male-dominated. Significant sex differences in new
graduate applicant attraction outcomes have been noted (Connerley et al., 2003), and
scholars and practitioners have called for further research.

In particular, researchers highlight the need for better understanding of the process and
dynamics of recruitment decision making (Breaugh, 1992; Breaugh and Starke, 2000) and
factors related to applicant attraction (Connerley et al., 2003; Powell and Goulet, 1996;
Rynes, 1991), including analysis by sex (Thomas and Wise, 1999). A growing body of
research explores recruiters’ perceptions of applicants (Varma et al., 2006), however, we
know little about applicant impressions, particularly of different potential employers.
Organisational attributes are a key factor in applicant attraction (Rynes, 1991) and an
applicant’s positive first impression of an organisation increases the likelihood of
post-interview attraction (Turban et al., 1998) and offer acceptance (Powell and Goulet,
1996). Following their meta-analysis of 242 US studies of sex differences and similarities in
job attribute preferences, Konrad et al. (2000) call for research on intrinsic reasons,
internalisation of gender roles and stereotypes and nationally representative samples. The
Konrad et al. (2000) meta-analysis also reveals generational differences in job attribute
preferences by gender and sex, suggesting the need for research on the next generation to
join the labour force and also on extensions to organisation (rather than job) attributes.
Furthermore, graduates’ initial expectations about future employers influence career
expectations (Scholarios et al., 2003) and their socialisation in firms (Garavan and Morley,
1997). As extant research on applicant attraction is criticised for its atheoretical nature, we
answer calls for research at various recruitment stages and the development of new
models (Turban and Dougherty, 1992; Wanous and Colella, 1989) and theory-based
approaches to recruitment (Breaugh and Starke, 2000), sex and gender (Konrad et al.,
2000). We incorporate gender self-schema and person-organisation fit perspectives into an
analysis of organisational attribute preferences.
Our research examines graduate applicants’ preferences at the beginning of the
recruitment process when many make the initial decision to submit an application. We are
interested in which organisational attributes attract Generation Y men and women
graduates to apply for a job and the perceived presence of these attributes in three popular
UK graduate employers: a management consultancy, an investment bank and a media
corporation. Corporate recruiters are keen to attract high numbers of both men and women
applicants (Barber, 1998) and to understand potential applicants’ desired organisational
attributes and their assessment of these attributes in their organisation, and we hope our
research will also be interesting to these stakeholders. To our knowledge, this is the first
study to measure sex differences in desired organisational attributes and their presence in
CDI three organisations and the likelihood to apply. Most extant research explores job, rather
12,6 than organisation, attributes (Konrad et al., 2000). We extend earlier work by using
repertory grid interviews to ask students to identify important organisational attributes.
We then evaluate the importance of these attributes in a study of Generation Y final year
university undergraduate students in the UK.
This paper proceeds as follows. First, we review two complementary theories,
506 gender self-schema and person-organisation fit, and develop hypotheses. Second, the
sample and two phase, qualitative (repertory grid interview) and quantitative (internet
survey) methodology is laid out, followed by an explanation of the variables. Third, we
present our results regarding organisational attributes, perceptions of organisations,
and the relationship to likelihood to apply. We specifically examine these findings in
the context of one employer, a management consultancy. Finally, we discuss our
findings, offering implications for the recruiting practice as well as future research.
Theoretical background
This paper distinguishes between occupational (e.g. job) choice and organisational
choice, focusing on the latter. Two theoretical perspectives are reviewed and extended:
gender self-schema and person-organisation fit. Both theories are concerned with an
individuals’ self-assessment, social categorisation and identification.
Gender self-schema
Self-schema is an individual’s psychological construction of self based on a number of
aspects, most commonly gender. Konrad et al. (2000) and Eddleston et al. (2006) describe
how gender self-schemas are developed from childhood and are defined as “interrelated
networks of mental associations representing information about the sexes that influence
information processing” (Ruble and Martin, 1998, p. 987). There are two classifications of
gender self-schema: male gender self-schema (associated with masculinity and career
roles) and female gender self-schema (associated with femininity and family roles) (Bem,
1981). Generally, male gender self-schema are based on roles, norms, values and beliefs
which are considered appropriate for men. In contrast, female gender self-schema are
largely based on roles, norms, values and beliefs held about women. Individuals usually
seek gender self-schema which reflects their sex (Bem, 1981), although there are individual
differences in the extent of incorporation of gender stereotypes and roles in self-schema.
An important component of self-schema is how individuals see themselves in relationship
to others. Relational theory (Miller, 1976) has been used to describe how women develop a
sense of self and personal worth is shaped by a sense of connection to others. Women
spend a large proportion of their lives to helping others, and develop important skills such
as authenticity, openness, care and compassion. This relational model is in contrast to
mainstream male-dominated models, and may emerge from girls’ relationships with their
mothers, in contrast to boys’ desired autonomy (Chodorow, 1978).
Most research on gender self-schema and work preferences focuses on individuals at
later stages of their careers. We are unaware of previous studies of organisational attributes
at the applicant attraction phase in the UK However, Konrad et al.’s (2000) meta-analysis of
US studies of job attribute preferences report significant sex differences consistent with
gender roles and stereotypes, particularly the gender stereotype that interpersonal
relationships are more important to women. Based on Williams and Best (1990) and Konrad
et al. (2000) summarize the masculine roles (and corresponding job attributes) as follows:
income provider (earnings, benefits, security and openings), dominance (leadership, Attracting
responsibility and power), aggression (power), achievement (opportunities for promotion, Generation Y
challenge, task significance and accomplishment), autonomy (freedom/autonomy),
exhibition (prestige, recognition) and endurance (challenge, not physical work graduates
environment). Feminine roles (and corresponding job attributes) are as follows:
homemaker (good hours, easy commute, location, not opportunities for travel), affiliation
(opportunities to make friends, working with people, not solitude), nurturance 507
(opportunities to help others), succorance (good co-workers, good supervisor), deference
(not leadership) and abasement (not power) (Konrad et al., 2000).
Early research on men and women managers argues that the traditional role for men
is income provision, hence men should be more likely to place a higher importance on
salary (Lacy et al., 1980). Recent research reports that men are more likely to indicate
preferences for attributes which are consistent with male gender self-schema and
masculine stereotypes. Attributes such as pay and status represent objective career
success (Nicholson, 2000). In their careers, women’s satisfaction is linked to the

development of interpersonal relationships (Powell and Mainiero, 2003). When
compared with their female counterparts, Eddleston et al. (2006) finds that male
managers are more likely to prefer status-based career satisfiers and less likely to prefer
socio-emotional career satisfiers. Furthermore, self-schema better explain women
managers’ preferences: women managers’ gender self-schema mediate the relationship
between sex and socioemotional career satisfiers, however men managers’ self-schema
do not mediate the relationship to status-based career satisfiers (Eddleston et al., 2006).
Our study differs from this previous work by focusing on organisation, rather than job,
attributes and illuminating sex differences. We suspect that women and men’s
organisational attribute preferences will be strongly linked to gender self-schema. Based
on the above discussion, we expect the following:
H1. Male students will be more likely than female students to indicate a higher
importance for masculine role and stereotype organisation attributes.
H2. Female students will be more likely than male students to indicate a higher
importance for feminine role and stereotype organisation attributes.
As described above, gender self-schema is focused on the individual level. We now
probe more deeply at the link to the organisation, and explore theoretical explanations
based on person-organisation fit.
Person-organisation fit
The application of the person-organisation fit theory to recruitment is derived from the
attraction-selection-attrition model (Schneider, 1987) which describes how individuals
seek organisations which they perceive to have characteristics similar to their own.
These ideas were extended to person-organisation fit theory which describes the extent
of congruence of patterns between individuals’ values and those of an organisation
(Chatman, 1989). The person-organisation fit literature is concerned with how
individuals select organisations to join and generally focuses on the later stages of the
recruitment process. For example, individuals who perceive a closer fit to the
organisation to which they have been recruited are more likely to adjust quickly and feel
most satisfied (Chatman, 1991). Perceived fit is an important early step in the “matching
model” of individuals and organisations in the recruiting process (Wanous, 1992).
CDI An extensive body of person-organisation fit literature explores how individuals are
12,6 attracted to organisations with attributes aligned to their personal characteristics
(Cable and Judge, 1994, 1996; Chatman, 1989, 1991; Tom, 1971). Person-organisation fit
is robust across a range of contexts, including a study of graduate applicants to an
Australian media corporation (Carless, 2005). A recent meta-analysis of 71 studies
reveals that characteristics of organisations predict applicant attraction outcomes
508 (Chapman et al., 2005). Thus, individuals who perceive a strong fit with an organistaion
will be attracted to apply and join that organisation. Coupled with the theory of
reasoned action (Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980), person-organisation fit
suggests that, graduates’ preferences for organisation attributes will influence their
intentions to apply. Following this line of thinking, we propose the following:
H3. There will be a positive relationship between the perceived attractiveness of
the attributes of the organisation and the likelihood to apply.
Finally, we are interested in the salience of these ideas in the context of a specific
employer, a management consultancy.
Data and methodology

Data
The subjects are Generation Y full-time undergraduates at the top 22 UK universities
(identified from the Financial Times 2001 league table of the 100 top UK universities)
who were looking for a job, but not yet in possession of an offer. Subjects are also
disqualified if they reported that they had been in contact with recruiters from one of
the organisations which they were evaluating, as recruiter behaviour can influence
applicants’ perceptions (Turban and Dougherty, 1992; Turban et al., 1998) and
applicants’ ingratiation can also affect outcomes (Varma et al., 2006).
Methodology
This study is based on a two-phase, dual qualitative and quantitative approach.
In phase one, 32 repertory grid interviews identified the attributes that undergraduates
use to differentiate between ten potential employers. In phase two, a short-list of 20
attributes was used in a survey collected from 862 students.
Repertory grid interviews (Phase one)

In phase one, we utilised the repertory grid technique, a rigorous and systematic
cognitive mapping method which helps individuals make sense of their world.
Originally developed for use in psychology by Kelly (1955), repertory grid methodology
has high reliability and has been used to develop many key contributions in
management and strategy (Wright, 2006). The repertory grid interview process elicits
respondents’ perceptions of elements and helps generate conversation and engagement
(CPCS, 1993). See Kelly (1955) and Easterby-Smith (1980) for detailed reviews of the
repertory grid methodology and Wright (2004) for an application.
We conducted repertory grid interviews of approximately 90 minutes each with
32 students. In this study, the elements were nine potential employers and a tenth
“conceptual ideal” employer. The employers were identified from recent studies of the
most popular graduate employers in the UK (Universum, 2004). The names of the ten
employers were written on ten index cards which were laid face down on a table in
front of the student. The student randomly selected three cards and turned these Attracting
face-up in a line, also in view of the researcher. For the purposes of this explanation, let Generation Y
us assume that the student turned over cards with the names of the three most popular
employers in the most recent Times Top 100 Graduate Recruiters study: graduates
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC), Civil Service (UK Government) and Accenture
(Birchall, 2006). The student was then asked to describe how the first two employers,
PWC and the Civil Service, are different from the third, Accenture. To differentiate the 509
organisation, the student described a list of perceived organisational attributes such as
“higher salary” and “more creative work”. These responses are constructs, and the
interviewee was then asked to rate each employer (element) against this attribute
(construct). When the student cannot suggest any more attributes, the researcher asked
the student to offer new organisational attributes by comparing employer one (PWC)
and employer three (Accenture) to employer two (Civil Service), and then employer two
(Civil Service) and employer three (Accenture) to employer one (PWC). Once the
student cannot identify any more organisational attributes, the three cards were turned
face down, reshuffled into the pile, and the student drew another three cards and the
process was repeated. The term “grid” describes the interviewers’ method of recording
the conversation. The students were then asked to rate the importance of the attributes
identified, on a seven-point scale.
Although, an inductive approach to first identify important organisational
attributes related to applicant attraction for the graduating student population has
been used previously (Lievens and Highhouse, 2003), we believe that this study
pioneered the use of repertory grid analysis for early stage recruitment process
research. Furthermore, this multi-university interview and survey method extends
previous data which was gathered from a population of students at just one university.
We piloted both the repertory grid interview and the survey.
Survey (phase two)

In phase two, a ten-minute long, internet-based survey was designed based on a
short-list of organisational attributes, and administered to 2,351 final year
undergraduates, generating 862 replies (37 per cent response rate). The respondents
were 35 per cent female science students, 25 per cent female arts students, 30 per cent
male science students, and 10 per cent male arts students. The non-respondents’
demographics and reasons for not responding were analysed to ensure that there was
no cause for concern about related bias in the sample. The students were asked to
complete the survey about three months before the period in which they would make
selection decisions.
Undergraduates were asked to rate three top UK employers who participate in
university recruiting: a management consultancy, an investment bank and a media
corporation. The three firms are multinationals, each employing over 25,000
worldwide, including at least 2,500 in the UK, and appear on the Universum (2004)
list. The firms’ identities are concealed in this paper due to a research agreement.
In the internet-based survey, respondents rated the attributes according to
personal importance. The students also provided their perceptions of three major
graduate employers against the 20 attributes and the likelihood that they would
apply for a job.
CDI Variables
12,6 Respondents filled in demographic data including sex, university and degree course.
The following were asked with respect to each of the twenty organisational attributes
listed in Table I.
Importance. Imagine that a graduate employer existed that was ideal for you
personally. Please indicate the extent to which you would agree with the following
510 statements: “My ideal employer would” “. . . invest heavily in the training and development
of their employees” from 1 to 7 where 1 ¼ strongly disagree and 7 ¼ strongly agree.
Perception of three organisations. Based on your current perceptions of
(management consultancy, media corporation or investment bank), please tell us to
what extent you agree or disagree with the following: “The (management consultancy,
media corporation or investment bank) offers . . . ” “a very high starting salary” from 1
to 7 where 1 ¼ strongly disagree and 7 ¼ strongly agree.
Likelihood to apply. How likely are you to apply to (management consultancy, media
corporation or investment bank) from 1 to 7 where 1 ¼ very unlikely and 7 ¼ very likely.
Organisational attribute Expected preferencea Mean rating Significance
Invest heavily in the training and Non-gender-typed intrinsic 6.15

development of their employees
Care about their employees as individuals 6.13 a ***
Clear opportunities for long-term career Masculine stereotype 6.11
progression
Variety in daily work Non-gender-typed intrinsic 6.05 a ***
Dynamic, forward-looking approach to
their business 5.83
Friendly, informal culture Feminine stereotype 5.62 a **
Opportunity, in the early years, to move Masculine stereotype 5.57
around the organisation and work in
different areas/role
Freedom to work on your own initiative Non-gender-typed intrinsic 5.43
Scope for creativity in your work Non-gender-typed intrinsic 5.41
Employ people with whom you feel you Feminine stereotype 5.24 a *
will have things in common
A pure meritocracy (rewards and
promotions based on performance) 5.13
Opportunity for international travel 4.98
Use your degree skills Non-gender-typed intrinsic 4.97 a **
Widely regarded as a highly prestigious Masculine stereotype 4.94
employer
Very high starting salary Masculine gender role 4.92 b ***
Relatively stress-free working
environment 4.91 a **
Opportunity to work (and live) abroad 4.70
Internationally diverse mix of colleagues 4.51 a ***
Require you to work standard working Feminine gender role 3.89 a ***
hours only
Table I. A small organization 3.38
Mean ratings of
a
organisational attributes Notes: Konrad et al.’s (2000) sex differences in job attribute preferences; significant differences:
by importance a – women rate higher; b – men rate higher, * p , 0.05; * * p , 0.01; * * * p , 0.001
Analysis Attracting
The goal of phase one was to identify the students’ most common constructs regarding Generation Y
the ten potential employers. The 32 interviews produced 545 constructs. One of the
authors and a second researcher coded all of the constructs, seeking common graduates
meanings. Working separately, the researchers developed a list of 84 common
constructs, with 99 per cent inter-rater reliability. The constructs’ importance was
based on frequency (number of mentions across 32 interviews) and importance 511
indicated. As it was not practical to include all 84 constructs in phase two, a short-list
of 20 constructs, or organisational attributes, was then created using a combination of
those that were ranked highest by the sample overall and separately by men and
women. A provisional analysis was made, based on these data, of the importance of the
attributes to the men and women.
We weighted the data to reflect the UK university population by sex and degree
course. To test our hypotheses, we used SPSS and a two-tailed test at 95 per cent
significance level.
Results
Organisational attributes
We begin with our first set of hypotheses that based on gender self-schema, men and
women students will have different ratings of organisational attributes. We identify
nine significant differences. Men rate only one attribute as significantly higher than
women do in importance: “a very high starting salary”. In contrast, the women indicate
significantly higher preference for eight attributes. These attributes are, in order of
significance: “really care about their employees as individuals” “variety in daily work”
“internationally diverse mix of colleagues” “require standard working hours only”
“friendly, informal culture” “use your degree skills” “relatively stress-free working
environment” and “employ people with whom you feel you will have things in
common”. Taken together, these results confirm H1 and H2. All findings are reported
in Table I.
Perception of three organisations

T-tests reveal differences between the graduate mean ratings of the three organisations
on nearly all of the attributes, significant at p , 0.01 and p , 0.05 levels (Table II).
This confirms that students are able to differentiate between employers, even at this
relatively early stage of the job search process. For example, students perceive the
media corporation to offer more scope for creativity at work (5.44) and a relatively
stress-free working environment (3.74) than the management consultancy (4.56, 3.06)
or the investment bank (3.94, 2.51) (all p , 0.01).
Organisational attractiveness and likelihood to apply

We then test our H3, that there will be a positive relationship between the
attractiveness of organisational attributes and likelihood to apply. Previous studies
identify a positive relationship between organisational attributes and initial attraction
(Turban et al., 1998) and job acceptance (Powell and Goulet, 1996). We extend this work
by examining applicants’ self-reported likelihood to apply using a correlation analysis
due to the scaled nature of the data. Correlation tests for the total attractiveness scores
with likelihood of application for each of the three organisations reveal a positive and
CDI
12,6
512
Table II.
of management
corporation and
Mean ratings and
consultancy, media
investment bank (t-tests)

differences in perceptions
Management Media Investment Management Management Media corporation
consultancy mean corporation bank mean consultancy vs media consultancy vs vs investment
Organisational attribute rating mean rating rating corporation investment bank bank
Invest heavily in the

training and development
of their employees 5.83 4.73 5.46 ** ** **
Care about their
employees as individuals 4.41 4.50 4.08 * ** **
Clear opportunities for
long term career
progression 5.61 4.91 5.48 ** ** **
Variety in daily work 4.91 5.28 4.32 ** ** **
Dynamic,
forward-looking
approach to their
business 5.84 4.73 5.51 ** ** **
Friendly, informal culture 4.20 4.59 3.51 ** ** **
Opportunity, in the early
years, to move around the
organisation and work in
different areas/roles 5.13 4.82 4.79 ** ** –
Freedom to work on your
own initiatives 4.68 4.84 4.30 ** ** **
Scope for creativity in
your work 4.56 5.44 3.94 ** ** **
Employ people with
whom you feel you will
have things in common 4.21 4.68 3.95 ** ** **
A pure meritocracy 5.04 4.11 5.16 ** ** **
Opportunity for
international travel 5.39 5.15 5.44 ** – **
Use your degree skills 4.16 3.95 4.03 ** * –
(continued)
Management Media Investment Management Management Media corporation

consultancy mean corporation bank mean consultancy vs media consultancy vs vs investment
Organisational attribute rating mean rating rating corporation investment bank bank
Widely regarded as a
highly prestigious
employer 6.12 5.69 6.07 ** – **
Very high starting salary 5.78 3.83 5.95 ** ** **
Relatively stress-free
working environment 3.06 3.74 2.51 ** ** **
Opportunity to work (and
live) abroad 5.22 4.90 5.29 ** * **
Provide an internationally
diverse mix of colleagues 5.39 5.32 5.42 – – *
Require you to work
standard working hours
only 2.81 3.14 2.70 ** * **
A small organization 1.80 1.61 1.91 ** ** **
Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01

Attracting
graduates
Generation Y
513
Table II.
CDI significant relationship (all p , 0.001). The correlations for the management
12,6 consultancy, media corporation and the investment bank are 0.440, 0.332 and 0.436,
respectively. These findings confirm H3.
Regression: likelihood to apply

514 We use multiple regression to examine the relationship between likelihood to submit
an application to the management consultancy (dependent variable) and perceptions of
organisational attractiveness (independent variables). The analysis is conducted for
both the total sample and the men and women respondents separately.
Table III reports those attributes that are significant in predicting likelihood to
apply to the management consultancy, together with associated betas indicating the
size and direction of effect. All of the organisational attributes reported are statistically
significant ( p , 0.001), however the R 2 is low. This may be due to the reduction of the
84 common constructs identified in phase one to a short-list of 20 for the phase two
survey. It is interesting that the attributes explain more of the “likelihood to apply” for
men students (R 2 ¼ 0.333) than for women students (R 2 ¼ 0.240).
Table III also reveals that the most important predictor of likelihood to apply to the
management consultancy, for the sample as a whole, is “employs people with whom
you feel you will have things in common”. In descending order of importance, the other
key attributes for the population of men and women students are “offer the opportunity
for international travel” “really care about their employees as people” “friendly,
informal culture” “a very high starting salary” “use your degree skills” “scope for
creativity in your work” and “a dynamic, forward-looking approach to their business”.
Two attributes are negatively related to applicants’ preference: “an internationally
diverse mix of colleagues” and “require you to work standard working hours only”.
Interestingly, in the case of the former, students indicate a preference for employers
that will provide them with the “opportunity for international travel” (0.127), e.g. to go
Total Women Men

Organisational attribute stand. coeff. stand. coeff. stand. coeff.
Employ people with whom you feel you will have things in
common 0.199 0.173 0.178
Friendly, informal culture 0.110 0.136 0.261
Offer the opportunity for international travel 0.127
Internationally diverse mix of colleagues 2 0.104 0.128
Use your degree skills 0.096 0.130
Really care about their employees as individuals 0.112 0.108 0.148
Offer a very high starting salary 0.098
Dynamic, forward-looking approach to their business 0.073 0.108
Table III. Require you to work standard working hours only 2 0.079
Relationship between Scope for creativity in your work 0.088
attractiveness and Widely regarded as a highly prestigious employer 0.089
likelihood to apply to Opportunity, in the early years, to move around the
management organisation and work in different areas/roles 20.123
consultancy: summary of R2 0.274 0.240 0.333
multiple regression
results Note: All attributes reported are statistically significant at p , 0.001
out and see the world, but not to an “internationally diverse mix of colleagues”, Attracting
e.g. being surrounded by foreigners (2 0.104). Generation Y
The results provide further evidence of differences between men and women
respondents in relation to their assessments of the attractiveness and likelihood to apply graduates
to the management consultancy. Secondly, the results suggest that women who rate the
management consultancy highly on the following attributes, in descending order of
importance, are most likely to apply: “employ people with whom you feel you will have 515
things in common” “friendly, informal culture” “really care about their employees as
individuals” and “dynamic, forward-looking approach to their business”. Seven
attributes are significant for the men, providing further evidence of differences between
the sexes in their assessments of the management consulting firm’s attractiveness and of
the effect of graduates’ assessments on their likelihood to apply. For men, the positive
attributes, in descending order of importance, are “opportunity for international travel”
“employ people with whom you feel you will have things in common” “very high starting
salary” “really care about their employees as individuals” “use your degree skills” and
“widely regarded as a prestigious employer”. Interestingly, for men, the “opportunity, in
the early years, to move around the organisation and work in different areas/roles” is
negatively related to organisational attractiveness.
Discussion
We begin by reflecting on the 20 most sought organisation attributes (Table I). Konrad
et al.’s (2000) meta-analysis identified 39 commonly-identified job attributes from 242
previous studies. While many attributes are also identified in our sample, we note the
absence of students’ mention of benefits (e.g. medical, life insurance), job security,
physical work environment, solitude, easy commute, geographical location and
feedback. This provides some at least anecdotal evidence that, compared with previous
generations, Generation Y are looking for slightly different qualities in their employers.
We extend earlier research by analysing likelihood to apply to three organisations
by women and men undergraduates, and explore the relationship to organisational
attractiveness. Our findings corroborate the importance of certain organisational
attributes for applicant attraction (Rynes, 1991; Wanous, 1992) and with regard to
sex and gender. Organisational attractiveness is operationalised as the product of the
importance of organisational attributes and the perceived extent of their presence in a
particular organisation. Differences in likelihood to apply to an organisation may be
due to sex differences in either of those components. This study finds sex differences
exist in both the importance of organisational attributes and the perceived extent of
their presence in three organisations that recruit heavily from the graduate market.
In line with earlier work on gender self-schema, our results suggest that men place
greater importance on a high starting salary. We had expected the male students to
identify with this masculine gender role. However, we had also expected men students
to identify more with the masculine stereotype for the following three attributes: “clear
opportunities for long-term career progression” “opportunity, in the early years, to
move around the organisation and work in different roles” and “widely regarded as a
prestigious employer”. In fact, none of these attributes revealed differences that were
significantly more significant for men. This suggests that Generation Y men and
women are more similar than different with regards to these traditionally masculine
stereotypes.
CDI We found that women indicate a greater preference for “feminine” organisational
12,6 attributes. Based on the Konrad et al. (2000) meta-analysis, we suspected women students
to more strongly identify with the feminine stereotypes of “friendly, informal culture” and
“employ people with whom you feel you will have things in common” and the feminine
gender role “require you to work standard hours only”. Indeed, all were true and
significant. Interestingly, the non-gender typed intrinsic attributes “variety in your daily
516 work” and “use your degree skills” were also more true and significant for the women in
our sample. We did not have any expectations about three other attributes: “care about
their employees as individuals” “relatively stress-free working environment” and
“internationally diverse mix of colleagues” however all were found to be significantly
more important for women. Taken together, our findings suggest organisational
attributes explain more of Generation Y women’s preferences than those of their male
counterparts. It may be that women, even at the career entry stage, adapt behaviours
which are more associated with traditionally masculine gender roles and stereotypes.
Limitations
We recognise several limitations in our study. The sample is non-random and many
surveys are incomplete, however the non-respondents’ demographics and reasons for
not responding were analysed to ensure that there was no cause for concern about
related bias in the sample. The initial list of 84 constructs was culled to 20, which may
have limited the impact of organisational attributes on likelihood to apply. Although
recent studies highlight the need for applicant quality (GPA in Connerley et al., 2003),
we do not measure quality as we made two assumptions:
(1) as the three firms regularly recruit from the top 22 universities, there was a
good base of quality applicants among those sampled; and
(2) a firm which attracts a large number of applications can then select the most
qualified applicants.
Although we control for labour market differences by gathering survey data during a
two-month period, there may be other factors, apart from organisational attractiveness,
that influence initial job application behaviour such as the level of difficulty, effort or
specific timing of a particular organisation’s application processes. We acknowledge
the concern that perceptions are not an appropriate proxy for actual applicants’
preferences (Ryan and Ployhart, 2000), however our student sample are future
applicants and our study is scoped to focus on those at the applicant attraction stage.
Although our study focuses on applicants’ intention to apply, our results might be
extended to suggest actual behaviour. Ajzen’s (1991) theory of reasoned action
suggests a strong relationship between intention and later actions, although this
weakens over time (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980). Given the time frame of our study and
the recruiting market, these students are reporting intentions within approximately
three months of their real-decision timeline.
Conclusions and implications

This study of graduating university students’ perceptions of organisational attributes
and reported likelihood of application offers several key contributions for academics
and practitioners. First, we add to the emerging body of early applicant impressions of
organisations (Cable and Graham, 2000; Gatewood et al., 1993; Highhouse et al., 1999)
by identifying the organisational attributes used by UK undergraduates to Attracting
differentiate among potential employers at the job application stage. Building on Generation Y
gender self-schema, we distinguish sex differences with regard to attributes on two
levels: importance of ascribed benefits and the attributes favoured more highly by graduates
women can be related to female gender self-schema’s emphasis on relationship-based
organisational characteristics and career satisfiers. The study finds that men and
women respondents held different perceptions of three potential employers. Finally, as 517
expected by person-organisation fit theory, desirability of perceived organisational
attributes is linked to likelihood to apply.
Taken together, our repertory grid interviews with Generation Y students produce a
list of desired organisational attributes which vary from earlier work in the field
(Posner, 1981). These findings are not surprising given that most Generation Y
students (born 1977-1994) were not even born when Posner’s (1981) and other studies of
labour force perceptions were published. Our sample’s five most preferred attributes
are “invest heavily in the training and development of their employees” “care about
their employees as individuals” “clear opportunities for long-term career progression”
“variety in daily work” and “dynamic, forward-looking approach to their business”.
These findings answer Konrad et al. (2000) and others’ calls for a focus on intrinsic
reasons and extend work by Heslin (2005) who identified the importance of both
intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Prior studies indicate that Generation Y workers, when
compared to their generation X and Baby Boomer counterparts, are more adaptable,
confident, able to multi-task and technologically savvy (NAS Recruitment, 2006).
Generation Y employees plan to move around and want to work faster and harder than
their colleagues and want to be “climbing the corporate ladder by their sixth month on
the job” (NAS Recruitment, 2006, p. 6). The implications of the importance of this
generation’s preference for organisational attributes cannot be understated as, in the
not too distant future, Generation Y will replace retiring Baby Boomers.
Implications for recruiting professionals include the need to become familiar with
the organisational attributes desired by Generation Y graduates. Following scholarly
work on the importance of realistic job presentation (Wanous, 1992; Wanous and
Colella, 1989), it is important that recruiters should only advertise those attributes
which are true for the organisation. Firms that emphasise unrealistic attributes will
quickly be found out by the new graduate recruits who depart for other organisations
which they perceive to have these attributes. New recruits who do not sense a strong fit
with the organisation are more likely to leave (Chatman, 1991) and the churning of
graduate employees constitutes a great cost to the firm in terms of lost time, morale
and possibly customer trust and goodwill. Furthermore, it takes time for new
employees to become productive, impacting firm performance (Watson Wyatt, 2006).
Private UK employers seek applicants from the over 125,000 degree graduates each
year. One of the main implications of the study to practice is that a segmented
approach is needed if the male and female Generation Y undergraduate population are
to be assessed effectively. There is little evidence of sex segmentation activity in the
existing recruitment marketplace. Regardless of the popular view that the values of
young men and women are increasingly converging and possibly contrary to the
professed view of young women themselves, women undergraduates’ value, to a
greater extent than men, organisational characteristics that reflect gender
self-schemas. This presents both a considerable challenge and a great opportunity
CDI to organisations wishing to increase their representation of women. Employers may
12,6 wish to consider gender roles and stereotyping and sex in a broader sense.
Our study suggests a number of future research directions. First, while it is critical
to study the earliest phases of the graduate recruitment process, our work could be
extended to later career stages to examine men and women’s perceptions of desirable
organisational attributes. Further studies could explore men’s and women’s changing
518 perceptions of the attributes of their employer and how this influences their likelihood
of seeking alternate employment. For example, are women more attached
to organisations with their preferred attributes and are men more likely to join
another organisation that offers a higher starting salary? Further research of a
longitudinal nature could examine how Generation Y graduates’ organisational
attribute preferences change over time, for example given additional work experience
and family responsibilities (Corrigall and Konrad, 2006).
Finally, this study focuses on graduates’ perceptions of large multinational

employers. As an increasing number of Generation Y university students are enrolling
in entrepreneurship classes (Katz, 2003), and considering entrepreneurial careers
(Mainiero et al., 2007), future research might explore students’ perceptions of these
possibilities.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50, pp. 179-211.
Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Barber, A.E. (1998), Recruiting Employees: Individual and Organizational Perspectives, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bem, S.L. (1981), “Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sextyping”, Psychological Review,
Vol. 4, pp. 354-64.
Birchall, M. (2006), “The times top 100 graduate recruiters 2005/6”, Times, September 14,
available at: www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,8171-2354899.html
Breaugh, J.A. (1992), Recruitment: Science and Practice, PWS-Kent, Boston, MA.
Breaugh, J.A. and Starke, M. (2000), “Research on employee recruitment: so many studies, so
many remaining questions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 405-34.
CPCS (1993), RepGrid 2 Manual, University of Calgary: Centre for Person Computer Studies,
Calgary.
Cable, D.M. and Graham, M.E. (2000), “The determinants of job seekers’ reputation perceptions”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 929-47.
Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1994), “Pay preferences and job search decision:
a person-organization fit perspective”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 47, pp. 317-48.
Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1996), “Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and
organizational entry”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67
No. 3, pp. 394-411.
Carless, S.A. (2005), “Person-job fit versus person-organization fit as predictors of organizational
attraction and job acceptance intentions: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 411-29.
Chapman, D.S., Uggerslev, K.L., Carroll, S.A., Piasentin, K.A. and Jones, D.A. (2005), “Applicant Attracting
attraction to organizations and job choice: a meta-analytic review of the correlates of
recruiting outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 928-44. Generation Y
Chatman, J.A. (1989), “Improving interactional organizational research: a model of graduates
person-organization fit”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 333-49.
Chatman, J.A. (1991), “Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization in
accounting firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36, pp. 459-84. 519
Chodorow, N. (1978), The Reproduction of Mothering, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Connerley, M.L., Carlson, K.D. and Mecham, R.L. III (2003), “Evidence of differences in applicant
pool quality”, Personnel Review, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 22-39.
Corrigall, E.A. and Konrad, A.M. (2006), “The relationship of job attribute preferences to
employment, hours of paid work, and family responsibilities: an analysis comparing
women and men”, Sex Roles, Vol. 54 Nos 1/2, pp. 95-111.
Easterby-Smith, M. (1980), “The design, analysis and interpretation of repertory grids”,

International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 13, pp. 3-24.
Eddleston, K.A., Veiga, J.F. and Powell, G.N. (2006), “Explaining sex differences in managerial
career satisfier preferences: the role of gender self-schema”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 91 No. 2, pp. 437-45.
Garavan, T.N. and Morley, M. (1997), “The socialization of high-potential graduates into the
organization: initial expectations, experiences and outcomes”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 118-37.
Gatewood, R.D., Gowan, M.A. and Lautenschlager, G.J. (1993), “Corporate image, recruitment
image and initial job choice”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 414-27.
Herriot, P. (1984), Down from the Ivory Tower: Graduates and Their Jobs, Wiley, Chichester.
Heslin, P.A. (2005), “Conceptualizing and evaluating careeer success”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 113-36.
Highhouse, S., Stierwalt, S.L., Bachiochi, P., Elder, A.E. and Fisher, G. (1999), “Effects of
advertised human resource management practices on attraction of African-American
applicants”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 425-42.
Katz, J.A. (2003), “The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship
education”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 18, pp. 283-300.
Kelly, G.A. (1955), The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Norton, New York, NY.
Konrad, A.M., Ritchie, J.E. Jr, Lieb, P. and Corrigall, E. (2000), “Sex differences and similarities in
job attribute preferences: a meta-analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, pp. 593-641.
Lacy, W.G., Bokemeier, J. and Shepard, J.M. (1980), “Job attribute preferences and work
commitment of men and women in the United States”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 36,
pp. 315-29.
Lievens, F. and Highhouse, S. (2003), “The relation of instrumental and symbolic attributes to a
company’s attractiveness as an employer”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56, pp. 75-102.
Mainiero, L., Sullivan, S. and Terjesen, S. (2007), “The kaleidoscope career model”, Encyclopedia
of HRIS: Challenges in e-HRM, Idea, Toronto.
Miller, J.B. (1976), Toward a New Psychology of Women, Beacon Press, Boston, MA.
NAS Recruitment (2006), “Generation Y: the millenials: ready or not, here they come”, White
paper, available at: www.nasrecruitment.com/TalentTips/NASinsights/GenerationY.pdf
CDI Nicholson, N. (2000), “Motivation-selection-connection: an evolutionary model of career
development”, in Peiperl, M., Arthur, M., Goffee, R. and Morris, T. (Eds), Career
12,6 Frontiers: New Concepts of Working Life, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 54-75.
Posner, B.Z. (1981), “Comparing recruiter, student, and faculty perceptions of applicant and job
characteristics”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 329-39.
Powell, G.N. and Goulet, L.R. (1996), “Recruiters’ and applicants’ reactions to campus interviews
520 and employment decisions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 1619-40.
Powell, G.N. and Mainiero, L.M. (2003), “Cross-currents in the river of time: conceptualizing the
complexities of women’s careers”, Journal of Management, Vol. 18, pp. 215-37.
Ruble, D.N. and Martin, C.L. (1998), “Gender development”, in Eisenberg, N. (Ed.), Handbook of
Child Psychology,Vol. 3, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 993-1016.
Ryan, A.M. and Ployhart, R.E. (2000), “Applicants’ perceptions of selection procedures and
decisions: a critical review and agenda for the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26,
pp. 565-606.
Rynes, S.L. (1991), “Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: a call for new research
directions”, in Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed.,Vol. 2, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alta, CA,
pp. 399-444.
Rynes, S.L. and Boudreau, J.W. (1986), “College recruiting in large organizations: practice,
evaluation, and research implications”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39, pp. 729-57.
Schneider, B. (1987), “The people make the place”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 437-53.
Scholarios, D., Lockyer, C. and Johnson, H. (2003), “Anticipatory socialisation: the effect of
recruitment and selection experiences on career expectations”, Career Development
International, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 182-97.
Thomas, K.M. and Wise, P.G. (1999), “Organizational attractiveness and individual differences:
are diverse applicants attracted by different factors?”, Journal of Business and Psychology,
Vol. 13, pp. 375-90.
Tom, V. (1971), “The role of personality and organizational images in the recruiting process”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 6, pp. 573-92.
Turban, D.B. and Dougherty, T.E. (1992), “Influences of campus recruiting on applicant
attraction to firms”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 739-65.
Turban, D.B., Forret, M.L. and Hendrickson, C.L. (1998), “Applicant attraction to firms:
influences of organizational reputation, job and organizational attributes, and recruiter
behaviors”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 24-44.
Universum (2004) Universum graduate study: 2004, Universum, London, UK Edition.
Varma, A., Toh, S.M. and Pichler, S. (2006), “Ingratiation in job applications: impact on selection
decisions”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 200-11.
Wanous, J.P. (1992), Organizational Entry: Recruitment, Selection and Socialization of
Newcomers, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Wanous, J.P. and Colella, A. (1989), “Organizational entry research: current status and future
directions”, in Ferris, G.R. and Rowland, K.M. (Eds), Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management,Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 59-120.
Watson Wyatt (2006), “Maximizing the returns on investments in human capital: lessons from
seven years of global studies”, available at: www.watsonwyatt.com/us/pubs/insider/
showarticle.asp?ArticleID ¼ 15205
Williams, J.E. and Best, D.L. (1990), Sex and Psyche: Gender and Self Viewed Cross-Culturally, Attracting
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Wright, R.P. (2004), “Mapping cognitions to better understand attitudinal and behavioral
Generation Y
responses in appraisal research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 339-74. graduates
Wright, R.P. (2006), “Rigor and relevance using repertory grid technique in strategy research”, in
Ketchen, D.J. and Bergh, D.D. (Eds), Research Methodology in Strategy and
Management,Vol. 3, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 295-348. 521
Further reading
Bem, S.L. (1974), “The measurement of psychological androgyny”, Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 155-62.
Hall, D.T. and Moss, J.E. (1998), “The new protean career contract: helping organizations and
employees adapt”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 22-38.
Her Majesty’s (HM) Treasury (2001), Productivity in the UK: Progress Towards a Productive
Economy, The Stationery Office, London.
Jackson, L.A. (2006), “It’s cheaper to keep ‘em”, Black Enterprise, Vol. 36 No. 7, p. 72.
Kepner-Tregoe (1999), “Avoiding the brain drain: what companies are doing to lock in their
talent”, White paper, available at: www.kepner-tregoe.com/PDFs/Avoiding_Brain_
exec_KL457a.pdf
Lauver, K.J. and Kristof-Brown, A.L. (2001), “Distinguishing between employees’ perceptions of
person-job and person-organization fit”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 59, pp. 454-70.
Liden, R.C. and Parsons, C.K. (1986), “A field study of job applicant interview perceptions,
alternative opportunities, and demographic characteristics”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 109-22.
Lievens, F., van Dam, K. and Anderson, N. (2002), “Recent trends and challenges in personnel
selection”, Personnel Review, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 580-601.
Moncrief, W.C., Babakus, E., Cravens, D.W. and Johnston, M.W. (2000), “Examining gender
differences in field sales organizations”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 49 No. 3,
pp. 245-57.
PersonnelZone (2006), “Direct archive”, PersonnelZone, May.
Rynes, S.L. and Lawler, J. (1983), “A policy-capturing investigation of the role of expectancies in
decisions to pursue job alternatives”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 4,
pp. 620-31.
Rynes, S.L., Bretz, R.D. Jr and Gerhard, B. (1991), “The importance of recruitment in job choice:
a different way of looking”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 487-521.
Sturges, J. (1999), “What it means to succeed: personal conceptions of career success held by male
and female managers at different ages”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 10, pp. 239-52.
Wanous, J.P., Stumpf, S.A. and Bedrosian, H. (1979), “Job survival of new employees”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 651-62.
About the authors

Siri Terjesen is a Senior Lecturer at the Brisbane Graduate School of Business at Queensland
University of Technology. Concurrently, she is a Visiting Research Fellow at the Max Planck
Institute of Economics in Jena, Germany. She has published in journals including Strategic
Management Journal, Small Business Economics, Journal of Business Ethics, Entrepreneurship
Theory & Practice and Venture Capital and is co-author (with Anne Huff, Steve Floyd and
CDI Hugh Sherman) of Strategic Management (Wiley, 2008). She is on the boards of Corporate
Research Board, NPRC and Silicon Capital. Siri Terjesen is the corresponding author and can be
12,6 contacted at: siriterjesen@yahoo.com
Susan Vinnicombe’s particular research interests are women’s leadership styles, the issues
involved in women developing their managerial careers and gender diversity on corporate
boards. Her research centre is unique in the UK with its focus on women leaders and the annual
Female FTSE 100 Index is regarded as the UK’s premier research resource on women directors.
522 She publishes in a range of journals including International Human Resource Management
Journal, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Women in Management Review and
British Journal of Management and is on the editorial board of four management journals.
She has written eight books and is currently working on The Global Challenge of Diversity
(with J. Bank) and International Women on Boards (with D. Bilimoria, R. Burke, M. Husen and
V. Singh). Susan was awarded an OBE for her Services to Diversity in the Queen’s New Year’s
Honour List in 2005. E-mail: s.m.vinnicombe@cranfield.ac.uk
Cheryl Freeman was formerly a DBA student at Cranfield School of Management.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Renata F. Bernardes, Renata F. Guzzo, Juan M. Madera. 2019. Millennial Attitudes Toward Online
and Traditional Training Methods: The Role of Training Utility and Satisfaction. Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly 81, 193896551984348. [Crossref]
2. W.M. Sischo, D.A. Moore, R. Pereira, L. Warnick, D.L. Moore, J. Vanegas, S. Kurtz, K. Heaton, D.
Kinder, J. Siler, M.A. Davis. 2019. Calf care personnel on dairy farms and their educational opportunities.
Journal of Dairy Science 102:4, 3501-3511. [Crossref]
3. MadanAnishya Obhrai, Anishya Obhrai Madan, MadanSrishti, Srishti Madan. 2019. Attracting
millennial talent: a signal theory perspective. Evidence-based HRM: a Global Forum for Empirical
Scholarship 7:1, 8-23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. AroraNidhi, Nidhi Arora, DholeVijay, Vijay Dhole. Generation Y. Benchmarking: An International Journal,
ahead of print. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Miriam Steckl, Ulla Simshäuser, Marlen Niederberger. 2019. Arbeitgeberattraktivität aus Sicht der
Generation Z. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung 64. . [Crossref]

6. Anthony Lewis. Human Capital Development 151-172. [Crossref]
7. Cristian Marinaș, Simona Goia (Agoston), Ramona Igreț, Laura Marinaș. 2018. Predictors of Quality
Internship Programs—The Case of Romanian Business and Administration University Education.
Sustainability 10:12, 4741. [Crossref]
8. Mark S. Hiatt, James Anthony Swaim, Michael J. Maloni. 2018. Choosing an undergraduate major in
business administration: Student evaluative criteria, behavioral influences, and instructional modalities.
The International Journal of Management Education 16:3, 524-540. [Crossref]
9. KumariShweta, Shweta Kumari, SainiGordhan K., Gordhan K. Saini. 2018. Do instrumental and symbolic
factors interact in influencing employer attractiveness and job pursuit intention?. Career Development
International 23:4, 444-462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Yufang Huang, Di Fan, Yiyi Su, Fei Wu. 2018. High-performance work systems, dual stressors and ‘new
generation’ employee in China. Asia Pacific Business Review 24:4, 490-509. [Crossref]
11. Dominika Wach, Ute Stephan, Marjan, J. Gorgievski, Jürgen Wegge. 2018. Entrepreneurs’ achieved
success: developing a multi-faceted measure. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 0. .
[Crossref]
12. Samantha Adams, Gina Görgens-Ekermans, François De Kock. 2018. Graduate Applicant Intentions and
Behavioral Beliefs. Journal of Personnel Psychology 17:3, 131-142. [Crossref]
13. Mohammad F Naim, Usha Lenka. 2018. Organizational learning and Gen Y employees’ affective
commitment: The mediating role of competency development and moderating role of strategic leadership.
Journal of Management & Organization 12, 1-17. [Crossref]
14. Rosalind Searle, Ann-Marie Nienaber, Deborah Price, Maximilian Holtgrave. 2018. Lone star or team
player? The interrelationship of different identification foci and the role of self-presentation concerns.
Human Resource Management 57:2, 529-547. [Crossref]
15. NaimMohammad Faraz, Mohammad Faraz Naim, LenkaUsha, Usha Lenka. 2018. Development and
retention of Generation Y employees: a conceptual framework. Employee Relations 40:2, 433-455.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
16. Mohammad Faraz Naim. Tap the Experienced to Care for the Inexperienced: Millennial Employees’
Retention Challenge? Mentoring is the Solution 379-393. [Crossref]
17. G. A. Maxwell, A. M. Broadbridge. 2017. Generation Ys’ employment expectations: UK undergraduates’
opinions on enjoyment, opportunity and progression. Studies in Higher Education 42:12, 2267-2283.
[Crossref]
18. James Weber, Michael J. Urick. 2017. Examining the Millennials' Ethical Profile: Assessing Demographic
Variations in Their Personal Value Orientations. Business and Society Review 122:4, 469-506. [Crossref]
19. ReisGermano Glufke, Germano Glufke Reis, BragaBeatriz Maria, Beatriz Maria Braga, TrullenJordi, Jordi
Trullen. 2017. Workplace authenticity as an attribute of employer attractiveness. Personnel Review 46:8,
1962-1976. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Sigalit Warshawski, Sivia Barnoy, Ilya Kagan. 2017. Professional, generational, and gender differences in
perception of organisational values among Israeli physicians and nurses: Implications for retention. Journal
of Interprofessional Care 31:6, 696-704. [Crossref]
21. Mélia Djabi, Sakura Shimada. Generational Diversity in Organisation: A Meta-Analysis 151-181.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
22. NaimMohammad Faraz, Mohammad Faraz Naim, LenkaUsha, Usha Lenka. 2017. Linking knowledge
sharing, competency development, and affective commitment: evidence from Indian Gen Y employees.
Journal of Knowledge Management 21:4, 885-906. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Mohammad Faraz Naim, Usha Lenka. 2017. How does mentoring contribute to Gen Y employees’
intention to stay? An Indian perspective. Europe’s Journal of Psychology 13:2, 314-335. [Crossref]
24. CesárioFrancisco, Francisco Cesário, ChambelMaria José, Maria José Chambel. 2017. A previous trainee
experience: does it matter for retention of young graduates?. International Journal of Organizational Analysis
25:2, 270-281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Thomas W.H. Ng. 2017. Can idiosyncratic deals promote perceptions of competitive climate, felt
ostracism, and turnover?. Journal of Vocational Behavior 99, 118-131. [Crossref]
26. Başak Çiftçioğlu, Sebla Gül. 2017. EMPLOYER BRANDING DESCRIPTIONS OF UNIVERSITY
STUDENTS: A BUSINESS TO BUSINESS FIRM EXAMPLE. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları
Dergisi 150-150. [Crossref]
27. Zeger van der Wal. Managing the New Work(force) 135-165. [Crossref]
28. Tabitha K. L. Coates. 2017. Hearing the voices of Generation Y employees: a hermeneutic
phenomenological study. Human Resource Development International 20:1, 37-67. [Crossref]
29. Pasi Pyöriä, Satu Ojala, Tiina Saari, Katri-Maria Järvinen. 2017. The Millennial Generation. SAGE Open
7:1, 215824401769715. [Crossref]
30. Martin McCracken, Denise Currie, Jeanette Harrison. 2016. Understanding graduate recruitment,
development and retention for the enhancement of talent management: sharpening ‘the edge’ of graduate
talent. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 27:22, 2727-2752. [Crossref]
31. RaniNitya, Nitya Rani, SamuelAnand, Anand Samuel. 2016. A study on generational differences in
work values and person-organization fit and its effect on turnover intention of Generation Y in India.
Management Research Review 39:12, 1695-1719. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
32. Oksana Koval, Stephen Nabareseh, Petr Klimek, Felicita Chromjakova. 2016. Demographic preferences
towards careers in shared service centers: A factor analysis. Journal of Business Research 69:11, 4798-4803.
[Crossref]
33. RenaudStéphane, Stéphane Renaud, MorinLucie, Lucie Morin, FrayAnne Marie, Anne Marie Fray. 2016.
What most attracts potential candidates? Innovative perks, training, or ethics?. Career Development
34. Richard P. Winter, Brent A. Jackson. 2016. Work values preferences of Generation Y: performance
relationship insights in the Australian Public Service. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management 27:17, 1997-2015. [Crossref]
35. Mohammad Faraz Naim, Usha Lenkla. 2016. Knowledge sharing as an intervention for Gen Y employees’
intention to stay. Industrial and Commercial Training 48:3, 142-148. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. Min Zhang, Biying Jin, G. Alan Wang, Thong Ngee Goh, Zhen He. 2016. A Study of Key Success Factors
of Service Enterprises in China. Journal of Business Ethics 134:1, 1-14. [Crossref]
37. Raymond H.M. Fok, Ruth M. W. Yeung. 2016. Work attitudes of Generation Y in Macau’s hotel industry:
management’s perspective. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 8:1, 83-96. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
38. Kristina Nyström, Gulzat Zhetibaeva Elvung. 2015. New Firms as Employers: The Wage Penalty for
Voluntary and Involuntary Job Switchers. LABOUR 29:4, 348-366. [Crossref]
39. Marilyn Clarke. 2015. Dual careers: the new norm for Gen Y professionals?. Career Development
40. Mohamed Branine, Alex Avramenko. 2015. A Comparative Analysis of Graduate Employment Prospects
in European Labour Markets: A Study of Graduate Recruitment in Four Countries. Higher Education
Quarterly 69:4, 342-365. [Crossref]
41. Lisa K. J. Kuron, Sean T. Lyons, Linda Schweitzer, Eddy S.W. Ng. 2015. Millennials’ work values:
differences across the school to work transition. Personnel Review 44:6, 991-1009. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
42. Amanda Warmerdam, Ioni Lewis, Tamara Banks. 2015. Gen Y recruitment. Education + Training 57:5,
43. Neetu Jain, Prachi Bhatt. 2015. Employment preferences of job applicants: unfolding employer branding
determinants. Journal of Management Development 34:6, 634-652. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
44. Stéphane Renaud, Lucie Morin, Jean-Yves Saulquin, Jocelyne Abraham. 2015. What are the best HRM
practices for retaining experts? A longitudinal study in the Canadian information technology sector.
International Journal of Manpower 36:3, 416-432. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
45. Giovanna Boccuzzo, Martina Gianecchini. 2015. Measuring Young Graduates’ Job Quality Through a
Composite Indicator. Social Indicators Research 122:2, 453-478. [Crossref]
46. Claire M Gardiner. 2015. From certificate chasing to genuine engagement: The contribution of curriculum
design to students’ career intent in a subfield. Australian Journal of Career Development 24:1, 53-63.
[Crossref]
47. Marion Festing, Angela Kornau, Lynn Schäfer. 2015. Think talent – think male? A comparative case
study analysis of gender inclusion in talent management practices in the German media industry. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management 26:6, 707-732. [Crossref]
48. Samantha Adams, François De Kock. 2015. The role of salient beliefs in graduates’ intention to apply.
SA Journal of Industrial Psychology 41:1. . [Crossref]
49. Xiang Yi, Barbara Ribbens, Linna Fu, Weibo Cheng. 2015. Variation in career and workplace attitudes by
generation, gender, and culture differences in career perceptions in the United States and China. Employee
Relations 37:1, 66-82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
50. G.A. Maxwell, A. Broadbridge. 2014. Generation Y graduates and career transition: Perspectives by
gender. European Management Journal 32:4, 547-553. [Crossref]
51. Shawn M. Carraher, Madeline M. Crocitto, Sherry Sullivan. 2014. A kaleidoscope career perspective on
faculty sabbaticals. Career Development International 19:3, 295-313. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
52. Chloé Guillot-Soulez, Sébastien Soulez. 2014. On the heterogeneity of Generation Y job preferences.
Employee Relations 36:4, 319-332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. Neeti Leekha Chhabra, Sanjeev Sharma. 2014. Employer branding: strategy for improving employer
attractiveness. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 22:1, 48-60. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Sean Lyons, Lisa Kuron. 2014. Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and
directions for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior 35:S1, S139-S157. [Crossref]
55. Elisabeth K. Kelan. 2014. Organising Generations - What Can Sociology Offer to the Understanding of
Generations at Work?. Sociology Compass 8:1, 20-30. [Crossref]
56. Joyce K.H. Nga, Soo Wai Mun (Nadiah Soo). 2013. The perception of undergraduate students towards
accountants and the role of accountants in driving organizational change. Education + Training 55:6,
57. Caroline Hills, Susan Ryan, Helen Warren-Forward, Derek R. Smith. 2013. Managing ‘Generation
Y’ occupational therapists: Optimising their potential. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal 60:4,
267-275. [Crossref]
58. Stacy A. Mastrolia, Stephen D. Willits. Millennials: What Do We Really Know About Them? 45-72.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
59. Jenna Luscombe, Ioni Lewis, Herbert C. Biggs. 2013. Essential elements for recruitment and retention:
Generation Y. Education + Training 55:3, 272-290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
60. Belgin Okay-Somerville, Dora Scholarios. 2013. Shades of grey: Understanding job quality in emerging
graduate occupations. Human Relations 66:4, 555-585. [Crossref]
61. Karen Holcombe Ehrhart, David M. Mayer, Jonathan C. Ziegert. 2012. Web-based recruitment in
the Millennial generation: Work–life balance, website usability, and organizational attraction. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 21:6, 850-874. [Crossref]
62. Pierre Benckendorff, Gianna Moscardo, Laurie Murphy. 2012. Environmental Attitudes of Generation Y
Students: Foundations for Sustainability Education in Tourism. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism
12:1, 44-69. [Crossref]
63. Chieh-Peng Lin, Yuan-Hui Tsai, Sheng-Wuu Joe, Chou-Kang Chiu. 2012. Modeling the Relationship
Among Perceived Corporate Citizenship, Firms’ Attractiveness, and Career Success Expectation. Journal
of Business Ethics 105:1, 83-93. [Crossref]
64. Siri Terjesen, Sherry E. Sullivan. 2011. The role of developmental relationships in the transition to
entrepreneurship. Career Development International 16:5, 482-506. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
65. David Croasdell, Alexander McLeod, Mark G. Simkin. 2011. Why don't more women major in
information systems?. Information Technology & People 24:2, 158-183. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
66. Emma Parry, Peter Urwin. 2011. Generational Differences in Work Values: A Review of Theory and
Evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews 13:1, 79-96. [Crossref]
67. Xander D. Lub, Rob J. Blomme, P. Matthijs Bal. Psychological Contract and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior: A New Deal for New Generations? 109-130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
68. Terrell G. Manyak, Isaac Wasswa Katono. 2010. Conflict management style in Uganda: a gender
perspective. Gender in Management: An International Journal 25:6, 509-521. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
69. Gerry Treuren, Kathryn Anderson. 2010. The Employment Expectations of Different Age Cohorts: Is
Generation Y Really that Different?. Australian Journal of Career Development 19:2, 49-61. [Crossref]
70. Eddy S. W. Ng, Linda Schweitzer, Sean T. Lyons. 2010. New Generation, Great Expectations: A Field
Study of the Millennial Generation. Journal of Business and Psychology 25:2, 281-292. [Crossref]
71. Ibraiz Tarique, Randall S. Schuler. 2010. Global talent management: Literature review, integrative
framework, and suggestions for further research. Journal of World Business 45:2, 122-133. [Crossref]
72. Victoria Bellou. 2010. Organizational culture as a predictor of job satisfaction: the role of gender and age.
Career Development International 15:1, 4-19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. Qinxuan Gu, Lihong Wang, Judy Y. Sun, Yanni Xu. 2010. Understanding China's Post‐80 employees'
work attitudes: an explorative study. Journal of Chinese Human Resources Management 1:2, 74-94.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
74. Gillian A. Maxwell, Susan M. Ogden, Adelina Broadbridge. 2010. Generation Y's Career Expectations
and Aspirations: Engagement in the Hospitality Industry. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management
17:1, 53-61. [Crossref]
75. Maliha Zaman. Doctoral Programs in the Age of Research 2.0 233-246. [Crossref]
76. Sherry E. Sullivan, Monica L. Forret, Shawn M. Carraher, Lisa A. Mainiero. 2009. Using the kaleidoscope
career model to examine generational differences in work attitudes. Career Development International 14:3,
77. Narelle Hess, Denise M. Jepsen. 2009. Career stage and generational differences in psychological contracts.
Career Development International 14:3, 261-283. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
78. Siri Terjesen, Ruth Sealy, Val Singh. 2009. Women Directors on Corporate Boards: A Review and
Research Agenda. Corporate Governance: An International Review 17:3, 320-337. [Crossref]
79. Sherry E. Sullivan, Lisa A. Mainiero, Siri Terjesen. Kaleidoscope Careers and Evolving HRM Issues
584-591. [Crossref]
80. David Solnet, Anna Hood. 2008. Generation Y as Hospitality Employees: Framing a Research Agenda.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 15:01, 59-68. [Crossref]
81. Sue Shaw, David Fairhurst. 2008. Engaging a new generation of graduates. Education + Training 50:5,
82. David Solnet, Anna Hood. 2008. Generation Y as Hospitality Employees: Framing a Research Agenda.
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 15:1, 59-68. [Crossref]
83. Shan Anjana Jayasinghe, Galagedarage Dinesh Samarasinghe, Theekshana Suraweea. Thought Process
of a New Graduate Which Leads to Behavioral Intention to Apply for a Job Vacancy 247-273. [Crossref]

Attracting Generation Y Graduates

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Attracting Generation Y Graduates

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Career Development International

Attracting Generation Y graduates: Organisational attributes, likelihood to apply and

scholars and practitioners have called for further research.

success (Nicholson, 2000). In their careers, women’s satisfaction is linked to the

Data and methodology

Repertory grid interviews (Phase one)

Survey (phase two)

Organisational attribute Expected preferencea Mean rating Significance

Invest heavily in the training and Non-gender-typed intrinsic 6.15

Perception of three organisations

Organisational attractiveness and likelihood to apply

investment bank (t-tests)

Invest heavily in the

Management Media Investment Management Management Media corporation

Notes: *p , 0.05; * *p , 0.01

Regression: likelihood to apply

Total Women Men

Conclusions and implications

Finally, this study focuses on graduates’ perceptions of large multinational

Easterby-Smith, M. (1980), “The design, analysis and interpretation of repertory grids”,

About the authors

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Generation Z. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung 64. . [Crossref]

S-ar putea să vă placă și

Notes: p , 0.05; *p , 0.01