IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/indrel/qt89r4h7d9.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Failed Searches: How the choice set of job applicants affects an employer’s likelihood of making an offer

Author

Listed:
  • Leung, Ming D.

Abstract

Most accounts of hiring focus on understanding why a particular job candidate was chosen and do not examine hiring as an outcome for the employer. I suggest that a focus on developing a better understanding of failed searches, job openings which end unfilled, is a valuable, yet understudied, piece of the hiring puzzle. I do so here by highlighting the effect of an employer’s choice set on whether a job offer is extended to any candidate. In particular, I hypothesize that the categorical overlaps among the candidates who apply affect s the likelihood of an offer being extended. Because a hiring decision is one an employer seeks to maximize, comparisons are effortful. The less overlap in the background of job candidate s’, the more difficult it is to compare them, the less likely any decision will be made. To support my contention that this is driven by cognitive effort, I further predict that choice set commensurability issues are less salient for jobs which are more urgent; suggesting variation in satisficing and maximizing motivations. Finally, commensurability is more challenging for employers with greater categorical fluency because differences among candidates are further exacerbated by the employer’s more nuanced expectations. I demonstrate support for my contentions with data from Elance, an online market for freelancing services.

Suggested Citation

  • Leung, Ming D., 2015. "Failed Searches: How the choice set of job applicants affects an employer’s likelihood of making an offer," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt89r4h7d9, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:indrel:qt89r4h7d9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/89r4h7d9.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Christopher A. Pissarides & Barbara Petrongolo, 2001. "Looking into the Black Box: A Survey of the Matching Function," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 39(2), pages 390-431, June.
    3. John T. Gourville & Dilip Soman, 2005. "Overchoice and Assortment Type: When and Why Variety Backfires," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 382-395, July.
    4. Hayagreeva Rao & Philippe Monin & Rodolphe Durand, 2005. "Border crossing : Bricolage and the Erosion of Categorical Boundaries in French Gastronomy," Post-Print hal-02311675, HAL.
    5. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    6. Rodolphe Durand & Hayagreeva Rao & Philippe Monin, 2005. "Border Crossing: Bricolage and the Erosion of Categorical Boundaries in French Gastronomy," Post-Print hal-00457938, HAL.
    7. Giacomo Negro & Michael T. Hannan & Hayagreeva Rao, 2011. "Category Reinterpretation and Defection: Modernism and Tradition in Italian Winemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1449-1463, December.
    8. Zuckerman, Ezra W. & Kim, Tai-Young & Ukanwa, Kalinda & James, von Rittmann, 2003. "Robust Identities or Non-Entities? Typecasting in the Feature Film Labor Market," Working papers 4291-02, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    9. Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, October.
    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. Justin Frake, 2017. "Selling Out: The Inauthenticity Discount in the Craft Beer Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3930-3943, November.
    2. Candace Jones & Massimo Maoret & Felipe G. Massa & Silviya Svejenova, 2012. "Rebels with a Cause: Formation, Contestation, and Expansion of the De Novo Category “Modern Architecture,” 1870–1975," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(6), pages 1523-1545, December.
    3. Giacomo Negro & Ming D. Leung, 2013. "“Actual” and Perceptual Effects of Category Spanning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 684-696, June.
    4. Dror Etzion, 2014. "Diffusion as Classification," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 420-437, April.
    5. Goldenstein, Jan & Hunoldt, Michael & Oertel, Simon, 2019. "How optimal distinctiveness affects new ventures' failure risk: A contingency perspective," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 477-495.
    6. Jacobs Martin, 2016. "Accounting for Changing Tastes: Approaches to Explaining Unstable Individual Preferences," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 67(2), pages 121-183, August.
    7. Elizabeth George Pontikes, 2022. "Category innovation in the software industry: 1990–2002," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(9), pages 1697-1727, September.
    8. Violina Rindova & Elena Dalpiaz & Davide Ravasi, 2011. "A Cultural Quest: A Study of Organizational Use of New Cultural Resources in Strategy Formation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 413-431, April.
    9. Buhr, Helena & Funk, Russell J. & Owen-Smith, Jason, 2021. "The authenticity premium: Balancing conformity and innovation in high technology industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    10. Li, Xu, 2024. "When firms may benefit from sticking with an old technology," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120131, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Greta Hsu & Özgecan Koçak & Balázs Kovács, 2018. "Co-Opt or Coexist? A Study of Medical Cannabis Dispensaries’ Identity-Based Responses to Recreational-Use Legalization in Colorado and Washington," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(1), pages 172-190, February.
    12. Rodolphe Durand & Robert M. Grant & Tammy L. Madsen & Gino Cattani & Joseph F. Porac & Howard Thomas, 2017. "Categories and competition," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 64-92, January.
    13. Ming D. Leung & Amanda J. Sharkey, 2014. "Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Evidence of Perceptual Factors in the Multiple-Category Discount," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 171-184, February.
    14. Trapido, Denis, 2015. "How novelty in knowledge earns recognition: The role of consistent identities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1488-1500.
    15. Chen, Xiaomei & Wu, Xiaojie & Wang, Xiuqiong, 2025. "Looking into the past and forward: Antecedents, processes, and consequences of organizational category formation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    16. Newark, Daniel A., 2014. "Indecision and the construction of self," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 162-174.
    17. J.-P. Vergne & Tyler Wry, 2014. "Categorizing Categorization Research: Review, Integration, and Future Directions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 56-94, January.
    18. Eric Yanfei Zhao & P. Devereaux Jennings & Masakazu Ishihara & Michael Lounsbury, 2018. "Optimal Distinctiveness in the Console Video Game Industry: An Exemplar-Based Model of Proto-Category Evolution," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 588-611, August.
    19. Timothy J. Gilbride & Greg M. Allenby, 2006. "Estimating Heterogeneous EBA and Economic Screening Rule Choice Models," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 494-509, September.
    20. Eva A. P. Kooijman & Nikolaus Beck, 2021. "Identity Reinforcement or Risky Organizational Change? Category Spanning in Humanitarian Projects," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cdl:indrel:qt89r4h7d9. 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/irucbus.html .

    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.