IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v11y2023i3p728-d1053579.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Criteria Weights in Hiring Decisions—A Conjoint Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Monica Mihaela Maer Matei

    (Department of Education, Training and Labour Market, National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection, 010643 Bucharest, Romania
    Department of Economic Informatics and Cybernetics, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, 010552 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Ana-Maria Zamfir

    (Department of Education, Training and Labour Market, National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection, 010643 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Cristina Mocanu

    (Department of Education, Training and Labour Market, National Scientific Research Institute for Labour and Social Protection, 010643 Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

Understanding human behavior in the decision-making process represents a challenge for researchers in the socio-economic field. The complexity comes from multiple criteria acting simultaneously. Hiring decisions are made on a set of criteria representing the attributes of the applicants. This study’s main objective is to investigate Romanian employers’ behavior when recruiting for jobs targeting graduates from economic studies. The method used to identify the weights employers assign to different skills was based on an experimental technique-choice based conjoint. A survey experiment was conducted to produce causal conclusions about the recruiting process. The estimation was performed with a methodology based on machine learning, which allows to investigate interactions between subjects’ characteristics and conjoint criteria. The findings of our experiment align with other studies pointing to the increased relevance of non-cognitive skills for employability. Additionally, our results show that criteria weights in hiring decisions depend on company size, ownership, activity sector or personal characteristics of the recruiter. Our research provides a mechanism for understanding employers’ perspectives. This is valuable for informing job seekers to adjust their job search strategies and to invest in the skills offering hiring opportunities. Moreover, universities can use the results to adapt their educational programs to labor market needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Monica Mihaela Maer Matei & Ana-Maria Zamfir & Cristina Mocanu, 2023. "Criteria Weights in Hiring Decisions—A Conjoint Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:3:p:728-:d:1053579
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/3/728/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/3/728/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aizaki, Hideo, 2012. "Basic Functions for Supporting an Implementation of Choice Experiments in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 50(c02).
    2. Humburg, Martin & van der Velden, Rolf, 2015. "Skills and the graduate recruitment process: Evidence from two discrete choice experiments," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 24-41.
    3. Di Gregorio, Angelo & Maggioni, Isabella & Mauri, Chiara & Mazzucchelli, Alice, 2019. "Employability skills for future marketing professionals," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 251-258.
    4. David Reibstein & John E. G. Bateson & William Boulding, 1988. "Conjoint Analysis Reliability: Empirical Findings," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 271-286.
    5. Biesma, R.G. & Pavlova, M. & van Merode, G.G. & Groot, W., 2007. "Using conjoint analysis to estimate employers preferences for key competencies of master level Dutch graduates entering the public health field," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 375-386, June.
    6. Wittink, Dick R & Krishnamurthi, Lakshman & Nutter, Julia B, 1982. "Comparing Derived Importance Weights Across Attributes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 8(4), pages 471-474, March.
    7. Wong, Jason Chun Yu & Blankenship, Brian & Urpelainen, Johannes & Balani, Kanika & Ganesan, Karthik & Bharadwaj, Kapardhi, 2022. "Understanding electricity billing preferences in rural and urban India: Evidence from a conjoint experiment," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    8. Arkes, Jeremy, 1999. "What Do Educational Credentials Signal and Why Do Employers Value Credentials?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 133-141, February.
    9. Hainmueller, Jens & Hopkins, Daniel J. & Yamamoto, Teppei, 2014. "Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-30, January.
    10. Hein, Maren & Goeken, Nils & Kurz, Peter & Steiner, Winfried J., 2022. "Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 630-651.
    11. Paul E. Green & Abba M. Krieger & Yoram Wind, 2001. "Thirty Years of Conjoint Analysis: Reflections and Prospects," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 31(3_supplem), pages 56-73, June.
    12. Naven, Matthew & Whalen, Daniel, 2022. "The signaling value of university rankings: Evidence from top 14 law schools," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    13. van Beek, Krijn W. H. & Koopmans, Carl C. & van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1997. "Shopping at the labour market: A real tale of fiction," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 295-317, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tamara Gutfleisch & Robin Samuel & Stefan Sacchi, 2021. "The application of factorial surveys to study recruiters’ hiring intentions: comparing designs based on hypothetical and real vacancies," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(3), pages 775-804, June.
    2. Böhm, Robert & Letmathe, Peter & Schinner, Matthias, 2023. "The monetary value of competencies: A novel method and case study in smart manufacturing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    3. Heap, Shaun P. Hargreaves & Koop, Christel & Matakos, Konstantinos & Unan, Asli & Weber, Nina Sophie, 2021. "We Cannot Disagree Forever! Reality Polarization and Citizens’ Post-Pandemic Fiscal Adjustment Preferences," SocArXiv 69tup, Center for Open Science.
    4. Wehner, Caroline & de Grip, Andries & Pfeifer, Harald, 2022. "Do recruiters select workers with different personality traits for different tasks? A discrete choice experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    5. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    6. Humburg, M. & van der Velden, R.K.W., 2014. "Skills and the graduate recruitment process: Evidence from two discrete choice experiments," ROA Research Memorandum 002, Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).
    7. Michael Rochlitz & Evgeniya Mitrokhina & Irina Nizovkina, 2020. "Bureaucratic Discrimination in Electoral Authoritarian Regimes: Experimental Evidence from Russia," Bremen Papers on Economics & Innovation 2010, University of Bremen, Faculty of Business Studies and Economics.
    8. Peter Hoeschler & Uschi Backes-Gellner, 2017. "The Relative Importance of Personal Characteristics for the Hiring of Young Workers," Economics of Education Working Paper Series 0142, University of Zurich, Department of Business Administration (IBW), revised Jan 2018.
    9. Humburg, Martin & van der Velden, Rolf, 2015. "Skills and the graduate recruitment process: Evidence from two discrete choice experiments," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 24-41.
    10. Konstantinos Pouliakas & Ioannis Theodossiou, 2010. "Measuring the Utility Cost of Temporary Employment Contracts Before Adaptation: A Conjoint Analysis Approach," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(308), pages 688-709, October.
    11. Arjan Heyma & Siemen Werff & Aukje Nauta & Guurtje Sloten, 2014. "What Makes Older Job-Seekers Attractive to Employers?," De Economist, Springer, vol. 162(4), pages 397-414, December.
    12. Aarts, Bas & Künn, Annemarie, 2019. "Employability: the employers’ perspective," ROA Report 006, Maastricht University, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA).
    13. Verhaest, Dieter & Bogaert, Elene & Dereymaeker, Jeroen & Mestdagh, Laura & Baert, Stijn, 2016. "Crowding Out in the Labour Market: Do Employers Lend a Hand?," IZA Discussion Papers 9654, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Barceló, Joan & Sheen, Greg Chih-Hsin & Tung, Hans H. & Wu, Wen-Chin, 2022. "Vaccine nationalism among the public: A cross-country experimental evidence of own-country bias towards COVID-19 vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    15. Tsusaka, T. & Orr, A. & Msere, H. & Harris, D. & Rao, N. Vpr Ganga, 2018. "Fuelwood or Grain? A Conjoint Analysis of Trait Preferences for Pigeonpea among Smallholders in Southern Malawi," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277435, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    16. Warnick, Benjamin J. & Murnieks, Charles Y. & McMullen, Jeffery S. & Brooks, Wade T., 2018. "Passion for entrepreneurship or passion for the product? A conjoint analysis of angel and VC decision-making," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 315-332.
    17. Yoshiaki Kubo & Isamu Okada, 2022. "COVID-19 health certification reduces outgroup bias: evidence from a conjoint experiment in Japan," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    18. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    19. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    20. Marianne Bertrand & Dean S. Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Working Papers 918, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:3:p:728-:d:1053579. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.