Many of us remember that
pile of rejection letters. In my case, I was in graduate school
searching for my first full-time job. The rejections accummulated
as the months passed. And from my perspective, no matter who
the author, they all said the same thing: After telling me that
they did not believe I was consistent with their needs, they
offered me best wishes for a wonderful life. I came to believe
that there was one person out there who wrote rejection letters
for a living, much like the subterranean workforce writing Hallmark
verses.
Gilliland, et. al. discuss three studies
which examine the effect that an explanation of the reason for
the organization's decision in rejection letters may have on
future behavior of job applicants. Will those rejected maintain
an interest in the company or organization, and perhaps reapply
in the future? In essence, the authors were testing the use of
fairness theory versus the "traditional" short rejection
letter, where the applicant is simply informed, that " We
regret to tell you that we are unable to consider your application
at this time. Good luck in the future, etc." (In other words,
all the letters I received more than 30 years ago.!)
Two scenario-based studies and one field
experiment were carried out. To test the Fairness Theory, three
types of explanations in various combinations were used within
different letters of rejection.
- The "Would Reducing" explanations
detailed the various qualifications of the individuals who did
receive the job, so that the person rejected could rationalize,
"If I had qualification X, which I do not have, I Would
have been accepted.
- The "Should Reducing"explanations
discussed limitations of the hiring practice, what should or
should not have occurred.
- The "Could Reducing" explanations
discussed explanations of external conditions that ultimately
led to a hiring freeze, whereby nobody was hired for the advertised
position.
Applicants' perceptions of fairness, recommendation
intentions, and re-application behavior to the same organization
were assessed. Results showed that the Would and Could
Reducing explanations were effective in reducing perceptions
of unfairness and in increasing recommendation intentions. Applicants
who received the Could Reducing explanation were found to be
more than twice as likely to reapply for a future position with
the organization. It was also discovered that the use of two
explanations was most effective. It was found that the Should
Reducing explanation, when used alone, was not effective: it
needed to be accompanied by either a Would or a Could Explanation
in order to positively affect the perception of fairness.
Interestingly, the authors point out that
there might be barriers to the implementation of these explanations
in rejection letters. Some organizations were reluctant to participate
in the studies because of fear of legal problems. There was a
reluctance to provide rejected applicants with additional information
which they could ultimately use to dispute the job decision.
However, the studies provide convincing
evidence that the employer can lessen the psychological blow
of a rejection letter and enhance future attitudes and behavior,
simply by including at least two explantations in the letter.