THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION ON EMPLOYEE REFERRAL PROGRAMS A thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University In partial fulfillment of The Requirements for The Degree Master of Science In Psychology: Industrial /Organizational Psychology by Yehudit Berman Harel San Francisco, California December 2015 PSYCH •
55
Embed
THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION …
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND EMPLOYEE MOTIVATIONON EMPLOYEE REFERRAL PROGRAMS
A thesis submitted to the faculty of San Francisco State University
In partial fulfillment of The Requirements for
The Degree
Master of Science In
Psychology: Industrial /Organizational Psychology
by
Yehudit Berman Harel
San Francisco, California
December 2015
PSYCH•
CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL
I certify that I have read by The effect o f social media and employee motivation on
employee referral programs by Yehudit Berman Harel, and that in my opinion this work
meets the criteria for approving a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree:
Master of Science in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at San Francisco State
University.
Chris Wright, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Industrial/Organizational
Psychology
i
Kevin Eschleman, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Industrial/Organizational
Psychology
THE EFFECT OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION
ON EMPLOYEE REFERRAL PROGRAMS
Yehudit Berman Harel San Francisco, California
2015
This paper explores the area of using social media profiles and a reward system to
develop the employee referral process. History of employee referral programs is
presented, including the relatively recent incorporation of Social Media’s effect on the
process. Motivation at work is also discussed, and the relationship between the three
variables is measured using data collected from an employee referral program start-up.
The results of this study indicate that employees were more likely to use social media as a
tool to refer their friends and acquaintances to work for their organization when a
donation incentive was offered.
I certify that the Abstract is a correct representation of the content of this thesis.
Chair, Thesis Committee Date
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research program was designed and conducted by Yehudit Berman-Harel, using data
collected by RolePoint. Analysis was conducted by Yehudit Berman-Harel.
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my loving and supporting husband,
Dror Berman, who believe in me and encouraged me to pursue this degree. And also, to
my dearest babies Liam and Zoe who reminded me what really is important in life. Thank
you for your patience and understanding. I love you!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables........................................... vii
List of Appendices............................................................................................................... viii
In contrast, of the 107 individuals who registered an account with RolePoint, 88
(82.2%) of them logged in to their Linkedln account. Interestingly, this relationship was
not significant, x2 = 1.155,/? = .561. This tells us that although more individuals logged in
to their Linkedln account, it wasn’t statistically likely that they would do so.
Table 4
29
Connected to linkedln group cross tabulationConnected Linkedln Group
Control GI (Donation) I (Monetary)
No 5(18.5%) 9 (22%) 5 (12.8%)
Yes 22 (81.5%) 32 (78%) 34 (87.2%)
Note, x = 1.155, df = 2. Numbers in parentheses indicate column percentages.
Data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to find whether
a significant difference existed among the three groups in terms of how long on average
participant remained logged in to the platform. Overall, the GI (Donation) group spent
the most time logged into their RolePoint account, and there was a statistically significant
difference between the GI group and the other groups (F(2,104) = 10.361,/? = .000).
30
Table 5
Time logged into accountGroup_________Average Time Logged (sec) F (Between Groups)Control n 7 8 1
(94.431)
GI (Donation) 269.37 10.361 ***(143.164)
I (Monetary) 212.95______________(147.494)___________________________________Note. *** = p < .001. Standard deviations appear in parentheses bellow means.
A one-way ANOVA analysis was also used to determine whether a significant
difference exists among the three groups in terms of the average number of ‘suggestions’
that were made by each group. Although the GI group spent the most time in the
RolePoint account and also made the highest number of suggestions, there was not a
statistically significant difference between the groups in this regard (F(2,104) =
1.106, p = .335).
Table 6
Number o f suggestions made_________________________________Group_____ Number of suggestions made F (Between Groups)
Control 13.67
(10.539)
GI (Donation) 18.34 1.106
(14.156)
I (Monetary) 17.33
(13.237)
Note. *p < .05 Standard deviations appear in parentheses bellow means.
With regard to completion of RolePoints game, the Goal Internalization group
was much more likely to complete the game than the other groups. This shows that not
only did the goal-internalized group complete the most games (47%), but the
instrumental motivation of a $15 Amazon gift card (10%) had such an negative impact
that the group completed even fewer than the control group who had no incentive (18%).
Table 7
31
Game completionGroup Percentage of Completion
Control 9 of 51 completed the game, (18%)
GI (Donation) 24 of 51 completed the game, (47%)
I (Monetary) 5 of 51 completed the game, (10%)
Discussion
Summary
Employee Referral programs are considered a valuable hiring source not only for
an organization but also for the referred candidate and the employee who makes the
referral. From the organization’s point of view, it is not only cheaper to use the
company’s workforce to find new talent, but it has also been proven to be more effective.
In an employee referral program survey that included 586 HR professionals, almost 70%
said that the programs are more cost-effective than other recruiting practices (Brotherton,
2012).
Moreover, the studies have indicated that employee referral programs increase the
number of interested candidates for each position. By tapping employee’s networks
through their social networks, organizations can reach a large pool of qualified candidates
for talent acquisition. The main argument for these positive aspects of employee referrals
is that individuals referred for positions have a relatively high knowledge of the role for
which they are applying, thanks to their relationship to the referrer. As such, they have
more realistic expectations about the position, resulting in increased job satisfaction and
retention.
From the employee perspective, referring a candidate is similar to recommending
a good restaurant or a new product. Employees are more likely to refer others when they
enjoy their job, colleagues and organizational culture (Latham & Leddy, 1987).
Participating in ERPs increases employees’ job satisfaction, as they feel more involved
and committed to the organization.
Satisfied employees may be intrinsically motivated to make referrals for many
reasons, one of which is self-involvement. This occurs when an employee refers
someone, as they want to relive the delight of joining the organization or to publicly
declare how satisfied they are to work for the company. Self-confirmation is a second
reason in which referring reinforces an employee’s persuasion that they made the right
decision choosing to work for that company (Latham & Leddy, 1987). By reaffirming
their decision, employees are less likely to consider leaving the company, which
contributes to the retention rates.
32
Similar to organizational citizenship behaviors, employee referral programs work
best with employees who are satisfied and engaged in the success of their company. They
place value in helping their network find good jobs and in helping their organization find
good talent, regardless of any reward for themselves. These types of individuals are the
best source of employee referrals, and using a motivation incentive that will appeal to
their values will elicit the best response.
Disadvantages
Despite all the advantages of using employees’ networks for recruiting, there are
still some obstacles to this method. First, an employee’s social network is limited in that
only a small proportion of the network may be suitable for referral. Social networks in
particular may have a wide array of personalities, skills, knowledge and talent unless that
individual only associates with other people from their professional field. Given the
global access people have as well, they may know a perfect candidate for a job who
doesn’t like in the same city, or even country. Adding the complexity of moving
candidates from other places lowers the likelihood of good fit and increases costs to the
organization.
Secondly, recruiting from an employee’s limited social network may compromise
the diversity of the workforce. Especially in a professional environment, individuals tend
to enjoy working with others with a similar work style and knowledge set. Diversity of
thought and style may be lost if ERPs are relied on as a sole method for talent acquisition.
In line with this, is that the best and most relevant candidates may not be acquainted with
current employees. Although organizations reach a large population with this method,
33
they do still miss another large population. An employee referral scheme is only as good
as the volume and quality of candidates applying through the channel.
Finally, ERPs do need to be incentivized, because employees won’t do it on their
own. Only 18% of the individuals in the control group for this study completed the game,
while 47% completed the game when they were incentivized with a Red Cross donation.
Although it may be something that employees should be doing naturally, rarely do they
do it without a little push. The important thing is to choose the correct incentive.
Conclusion
This study adds to the research on employee motivation and employee referral
programs. It confirms the hypothesis that a monetary incentive is not a successful
incentive for behaviors in the workplace that are not associated with formal recognition
or tangible rewards. The results show that fewer people participated when the incentive
was monetary, compared to when the incentive was a donation. This suggests that the
donation incentive was a better motivator of behavior than the monetary. This study also
confirms the hypothesis that an altruistic reward is a successful motivator for behaviors
such as employee referrals, more than doubling what individuals would do without an
incentive.
In addition, this study found that those individuals who were offered an altruistic
reward spent a significantly longer time in the RolePoint referral system, but did not
make a significantly higher number of referral suggestions. Although this finding could
benefit from further study, it could mean that those who were completing the game in
order to give a charitable donation took the exercise more seriously and spent more time
considering the actual fit of the individuals they were recommending. The control and
34
monetary group members who completed the game took significantly less time to do it,
inferring that they were not considering the match as closely.
82.2% of the participants who registered for a RolePoint account signed into their
Linkedln account, as opposed to the 59.8% who signed in to their Facebook account,
suggesting that they were more likely to turn to their professional networks in order to
refer individuals for a professional position. In contrast, the data showed that it was
significantly likely for participants to sign in to their Facebook account. More exploration
into the data is required in order to understand this fully.
Strengths
By using data that was already being collected by RolePoint, the study’s non-
experimental setting is a real life example. This makes it generalizable for other areas and
studies. The data collection also did no harm to the participants and required no ethics
committee review, so it could be easily repeated.
Limitations
The tool used for this study is only a game, and therefore may not necessarily
reflect the actual referral behavior. In addition, participants didn’t have access to the full
job descriptions for the jobs they were referring their contacts to, which may have limited
their ability to make a fully informed decision. This may impact their motivation to
participate in the platform in way that is not clear. Finally, the data used in this study
were collected for a different purpose. It was originally meant as a metric for RolePoint,
35
not specifically for this study. Therefore, the study was limited by the data and analyses
that were available.
Future Research
There are some areas that were not explicitly covered in this study. For instance,
the methods for employee appreciation vary and change over time. In the past, bonuses
were merely money (and often a relatively small amount). Today businesses are getting
more creative with their bonus structure. They are offering more money, exotic
vacations, group lunches, electronic items, dinner with the CEO and more. Perhaps a
large enough tangible reward would entice those with instrumental motivation.
There are forms of incentives that were not covered in this study and could be
addressed more fully in future research. Perhaps a competitive element could be added,
or adding employee referrals as a transparent company value for those who have self-
concept motivations, either internal or external. There are many opportunities to delve
into these areas.
There is also the question of whether the candidate knowing the incentive to make
the referral may have an impact on their satisfaction. Is there a difference between feeling
like a friend referred you to a position because they really think you are a good fit, or
because they wanted a reward? This should be explored.
In line with the reward, it has been common to withhold referral bonuses for a
probationary period while the new employee gets settled in. Does that make a difference
in satisfaction as well? It sends the message that HR doesn’t trust the referring employee,
so does it impact either the referred employee or the referrer?
36
In conclusion, these research issues will help to expand our understanding of the
recruitment process and help in providing a fuller description of the recruitment process.
It will also help to fill out the inconclusive research regarding employee motivation. This
research note suggests that future empirical studies are warranted.
37
References
Arnold, J. (2006). Employee referrals at a keystroke. HR Magazine, 57(10).
Barbuto, J., & Story, J. (2011). Work motivation and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Journal o f Leadership Studies, 5(1).
Bloemer, J. (2010). The psychological antecedents of employee referrals. The
International Journal o f Human Resource Management, 27(10), 1769-1791.
Bohnert, D., & Ross, W. (2010). The influence of social networking web sites on the
evaluation of job candidates. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 75(3), 341-347.
Boushey, H., & Glynn, S. (2012). There are significant business costs to replacing
employees. Center for American Progress.
Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.
Journal o f Computer-Mediated Communication, 75(1), 16-31.
Brandenburg, C. (2008). The newest way to screen job applicants: A social networker's
nightmare. Federal Communications Law Journal, 60(3), 598-626.
Breaugh, J., & Starke, M. (2000). Research on employee recruitment: So many studies,
so many remaining questions. Journal o f Management, 26(3), 405-434.
Breaugh, J. (2009). Recruiting and attracting talent: A guide to understanding and
managing the recruitment process. SHRM Foundation’s Effective Practice
Guidelines Series.
Brotherton, P. (2012). Social media and referrals are best sources for talent: A new
survey shows that companies are investing more and more of their recruitment
resources in social media networks and seeing it pay off. Retrieved August 9,
38
39
2014.
Brown, V., & Vaughn, E. (2011). The writing on the (Facebook) wall: The use of social
networking sites in hiring decisions. Journal o f Business and Psychology, 26(2),
219-225.
Budden, C., & Budden, M. (2009). The social network generation and implications for
human resource managers. Journal o f Business & Economics Research,
7(1), 9-12.
Cheddie, M. (2001). Employee Referral Programs. Society for Human Resources
Management Research Survey Report.
DeVaro, J. (2005). Employer recruitment strategies and the labor market outcomes of
new hires. Economic Inquiry, 43(2), 263-282.
Epstein, J. (2006). Who's reading your Facebook?: Website reveals students' personal
lives to recruiters, police. The Daily Princtonian.
Fernandez, R., Castilla, E., & Moore, P. (2000). Social capital at work: Networks and
employment at a phone center. American Journal o f Sociology, 105(5), 1288-
1356.
Gieskes, H. (2010, July 14). Referral Recruiting: Duh! Retrieved July 10, 2014.
Gusdorf, M. (2008). Recruitment and selection: Hiring the right person. Society For
Human Resource Management Survey Report.
Gomez-Minambres, J. (2012). Motivation through goal setting. Journal o f Economic
Psychology, 33, 1223-1239.
40
Herzberg, F., Mausnek, B., and Snyderman, B. (1959). The Motivation to Work (Second
Edition). New York: John Wiley and Sons
Hsieh, A., & Chen, Y. (2011). The influence of employee referrals on P-0 fit. Public
Personnel Management, 40(4), 327-339.
Kiman, J., Farley, J., & Geisinger, K. (1989). The relationship between recruiting source,
applicant quality, and hire performance: An analysis by sex, ethnicity, and age.
Personnel Psychology, 42(2), 293-308.
Latham, M., & Leddy, P. (1987). Source of recruitment and employee attitudes: An
analysis of job involvement, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction.
Journal o f Business and Psychology, 1(3), 230-235.
Leonard, N. (1999). Work motivation: The incorporation of self-concept-based processes.
Human Relations, 52(8), 969-998.
Locke, E. (2009). Handbook ofprinciples o f organizational behavior: Indispensable
knowledge for evidence-based management (2nd ed.). Chichester, West Sussex:
John Wiley & Sons.
Notz, W. (1975). Work motivation and the negative effects of extrinsic rewards: A
review with implications for theory and practice. American Psychologist, 30(9),
884-891.
Richardson, M. (2014). Recruitment strategies: Managing/effecting the recruitment
process. Recruitment and Selection Revised Edition, 51-71.
Ryan, J. (2010). An examination of the factor structure and scale reliability of the work
motivation scale, the Motivation Sources Inventory. Journal o f Applied Social
41
Psychology, 40(6), 1566-1577.
Shinnar, R., Young, C., & Meana, M. (2004). The motivations for and outcomes of
employee referrals. Journal o f Business and Psychology, 19(2), 271-283.
Steers, R., Mowday, R., & Shapiro, D. (2004). Introduction to special topic forum: The
future of work motivation theory. The Academy o f Management Review, 29(3),
379-387.
Sullivan, J., & Burnett, M. (2006). Employee Referral Program Design Guidebook.
White River Junction, Vermont: AIRS.
Valdes, M., & McFarland, S. (2012). Job seekers getting asked for Facebook passwords.
Yahoo Finance. Retrieved September 2, 2014 from http://finance.yah
Vazire, S., & Gosling, S. (2004). E-Perceptions: Personality Impressions Based on
Personal Websites. Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, #7(1), 123-
132.
Wanous, J., Poland, T., Premack, S., & Davis, K. (1992). The effects of met expectations
on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis. Journal o f
Applied Psychology, 77(3), 288-297.
Williams, C., Labig, C., & Stone, T. (1993). Recruitment sources and posthire outcomes
for job applicants and new hires: A test of two hypotheses. Journal o f Applied