cỘng hÒa xÃ hỘi chỦ nghĨa viỆt nam ĐỘ Ậ Ự Ạ ĐƠn xin...

CỘNG HÒA XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM ĐỘC LẬP – TỰ DO – HẠNH PHÚC

----------oOo----------

ĐƠN XIN CẤP KINH PHÍ ĐÀO TẠO Ở NƯỚC NGOÀI BẰNG NGÂN SÁCH NHÀ NƯỚC

Kính gửi: - Bộ Trưởng, Bộ Giáo dục và Đào tạo

- Vụ Hợp tác Quốc tế - Cục Đào tạo với nước ngoài

Tên tôi là Hoàng Gia Thư, cán bộ giảng dạy thuộc biên chế trường Đại học Hà nội,

nguyên Trưởng Khoa, Khoa Quản trị Kinh doanh và Du lịch từ tháng 8/2002 đến tháng 8/2007. Tháng 8/2007, được sự đồng ý của trường Đại học Hà nội, tôi tạm ngừng công tác tại trường để tham gia Chương trình Tiến sĩ Tâm lý Quản lý (Industrial/Organizational Psychology) tại Đại học Portland State, Tiểu bang Oregon, Hoa Kỳ. Kinh phí đạo tạo do Khoa Tâm lý, Đại học Portland State cấp dưới hình thức trợ giảng (Teaching Assistant) và trợ lý nghiên cứu (Research Assistant). Theo hợp đồng với Khoa, tổng thời gian làm việc của tôi cho Khoa là 20 giờ/tuần với mức lương $10290/năm và miễn tiền học phí cho từ 9-12 tín chỉ/kỳ. Ngoài ra, tất cả các chi phí khác (bảo hiểm y tế, các loại phí liên quan) là do cá nhân tự chi trả. Khoa cũng không cấp kinh phí trong thời gian nghỉ hè (03 tháng). Dựa trên chi phí trung bình hàng năm cho một sinh viên tại đại học Portland State (khoảng US$19000, không bao gồm học phí), chi phí do cá nhân tự chi trả sẽ khoảng US$ 9000/năm.

Do tình hình suy giảm kinh tế và ảnh hưởng của cuộc khủng hoảng hệ thống tài chính và tín dụng tại Hoa Kỳ trong năm 2008 và đầu năm 2009, các khoản hỗ trợ từ chính phủ cho Trường Đại học Portland State đã bị cắt giảm rất nhiều, trong đó bao gồm cả các khoản lương cho nghiên cứu sinh từ năm học 2009-2010. Do đó, nhiều khả năng Khoa Tâm lý sẽ cắt tới 50% kinh phí đào tạo đối với tất cả các nghiên cứu sinh từ năm học tới. Sau khi tìm hiểu các quy định liên quan đến việc cấp kinh phí đào tạo ở nước ngoài do Bộ Giáo dục và Đào tạo chủ trì và Cục Đào tạo với nước ngoài quản lý, tôi cũng được biết được rằng mình không đủ điều kiện vì đã đi học trước khi xin cấp kinh phí.

Tuy nhiên, với tình hình cắt giảm kinh phí đào tạo như hiện nay, khả năng tôi phải dừng học do không đủ kinh phí là rất lớn. Do đó, tôi làm đơn này kính đề nghị Bộ Trưởng, Vụ Hợp tác Quốc tế, và Cục Đào tạo với nước ngoài xem xét tạo điều kiện cho tôi có được cơ hội xét tuyển cấp kinh phí đào tạo bằng ngân sách nhà nước năm 2009. Tôi xin cam kết chấp hành các quy định của Bộ Giáo dục và Đào tạo đối với nghiên cứu sinh đào tạo ở nước ngoài bằng ngân sách nhà nước. Tôi xin gửi kèm đơn này các giấy tờ có liên quan để được xem xét. Tôi xin chân thành cảm ơn.

NGƯỜI LÀM ĐƠN

Hoàng Gia Thư

PSU Information System

Display Transcript Thu G. Hoang14-APR-2009 12:01

This transcript reflects college level courses taken at transfer institutions and at PSU. Thesecourses have not been evaluated for applicability towards a PSU degree, university studiesplacement, or total degree hours. Therefore, some credits on this report may not apply tothese things (e.g. duplicate courses).

The Transfer Evaluation Report, received at the time of admission, and/or a Degree AuditReport (DARS) provides a more accurate assessment of credit applicability, university studiesplacement, and degree progress.

If you received an Incomplete grade in an undergraduate course for Fall 2006 or forward youmay be affected by the new “I to F” grading policy. Click here to view the complete policy.

Institution Credit Transcript Totals Courses in Progress

Portland State UniversityUnofficial Transcript for Thu G. Hoang STUDENT INFORMATION

StudentType:

Grad Doctoral

Curriculum Information

Current Major(s):Major: Sys Sci: Psychology

***Transcript type:Self Service - Web Display is NOT Official *** INSTITUTION CREDIT -Top-

Fall 2007 Quarter

Academic Grad Good Standing

4/14/2009 Academic Transcipt

…pdx.edu/pls/…/bwskotrn.P_ViewTran 1/4

Standing:Subject Course Level Title Grade Credit

HoursQualityPoints

R

IST 609A GR GA PRACTICUM P 2.000 0.00 PSY 510 GR EXPERIMENTAL PSYCH A 5.000 20.00 PSY 610 GR TOP: BROWNBAG SEM P 1.000 0.00 PSY 621 GR UNIVAR QUANT METH B+ 5.000 16.65 Attempt

HoursPassedHours

EarnedHours

GPAHours

QualityPoints

GPA

PSU Current: 13.000 3.000 13.000 10.000 36.65 3.66

PSU Cumulative: 13.000 3.000 13.000 10.000 36.65 3.66

Unofficial Transcript

Winter 2008 Quarter

AcademicStanding:

Grad Good Standing

Subject Course Level Title Grade CreditHours

QualityPoints

R

IST 609A GR GA PRACTICUM P 2.000 0.00 PSY 505 GR R&C: LEADERSHIP & SDT A 4.000 16.00 PSY 610 GR TOP: BROWNBAG SEM P 1.000 0.00 PSY 622 GR MULT REGRESS & UQM B+ 5.000 16.65 Attempt

HoursPassedHours

EarnedHours

GPAHours

QualityPoints

GPA

PSU Current: 12.000 3.000 12.000 9.000 32.65 3.62

PSU Cumulative: 25.000 6.000 25.000 19.000 69.30 3.64


Spring 2008 Quarter

AcademicStanding:

Grad Good Standing


QualityPoints

R

IST 609A GR GA PRACTICUM P 2.000 0.00 PSY 548 GR WORK MOTIVATION A 4.000 16.00 PSY 610 GR TOP: BROWN BAG DEVL SEMINAR P 1.000 0.00 PSY 624 GR RESEARCH DESIGN IN APPL PSYCH A 4.000 16.00 Attempt

HoursPassedHours

EarnedHours

GPAHours

QualityPoints

GPA

PSU Current: 11.000 3.000 11.000 8.000 32.00 4.00



PSU Cumulative: 36.000 9.000 36.000 27.000 101.30 3.75


Fall 2008 Quarter

AcademicStanding:

Grad Good Standing


QualityPoints

R

IST 609A GR GA PRACTICUM P 2.000 0.00 PSY 610 GR CRITERION THEORY A 4.000 16.00 PSY 614 GR ADV APPL SOCIAL PSY A 4.000 16.00 PSY 616 GR ADV INDST/ORG PSY A 4.000 16.00 Attempt

HoursPassedHours

EarnedHours

GPAHours

QualityPoints

GPA

PSU Current: 14.000 2.000 14.000 12.000 48.00 4.00

PSU Cumulative: 50.000 11.000 50.000 39.000 149.30 3.82


Winter 2009 Quarter

AcademicStanding:

Grad Good Standing

Last AcademicStanding:

Grad Good Standing


QualityPoints

R

IST 609A GR GA PRACTICUM P 2.000 0.00 PSY 503 GR THESIS IP 4.000 0.00 PSY 610 GR TOP: INDUSTRL PSYCHOLOGY SEM A 4.000 16.00 PSY 615 GR ADV APP DVLPMNTL PSY A 4.000 16.00 Attempt

HoursPassedHours

EarnedHours

GPAHours

QualityPoints

GPA

PSU Current: 14.000 2.000 10.000 8.000 32.00 4.00

PSU Cumulative: 64.000 13.000 60.000 47.000 181.30 3.85


TRANSCRIPT TOTALS (GRAD/POST-BAC (GR STATUS)) -Top-

AttemptHours

PassedHours

EarnedHours

GPAHours

QualityPoints

GPA

Total Institution: 64.000 13.000 60.000 47.000 181.30 3.85



RELEASE: 7.2

Total Transfer: 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00

Overall: 64.000 13.000 60.000 47.000 181.30 3.85


COURSES IN PROGRESS -Top-

Spring 2009 QuarterSubject Course Level Title Credit HoursPSY 510 GR TOP: WORKPLACE DIVERSITY 4.000PSY 610 GR TOP: BROWN BAG DEVL SEMINAR 1.000PSY 618 GR ETHICS & PROF ISS APP RSRCH/PR 4.000




BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO CỤC ĐÀO TẠO VỚI NƯỚC NGOÀI

----------------------------------

CỘNG HOÀ XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAMĐộc lập - Tự do - Hạnh phúc

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

PHIẾU ĐĂNG KÝ DỰ TUYỂN SAU ĐẠI HỌC NĂM 2009 (ĐÀO TẠO Ở NƯỚC NGOÀI BẰNG NGÂN SÁCH NHÀ NƯỚC)

(Theo Thông báo số 30 /TB-BGDĐT ngày 09 / 01/2009 của Bộ Giáo dục và Đào tạo)

1. Họ và tên: Hoàng Gia Thư ..................... .................. Giới tính: Nam □ Nữ. Dân tộc: Kinh ....... 2. Ngày sinh: 27/03/1977 ............................ ................................... ........................................................... 3. Chức vụ và cơ quan đang công tác: Giảng viên, Khoa Quản trị Kinh doanh và Du lịch ..................

................................................................. Đại học Hà nội .......... ........................................................... Thuộc Bộ, Ngành, Tỉnh: .......................... Bộ Giáo dục và Đào tạo .......................................................

4. Hiện nay là cán bộ: Biên chế □ Hợp đồng Từ ngày/tháng/năm:15/08/2002 ............. 5. Địa chỉ gửi thư: 116 Đường Ngọc Lâm, Quận Long Biên, Hà nội ..................................................... ................................................................. ................................... ........................................................... Điện thoại: Cơ quan 3854 4338 ............... Nhà riêng 3827 3122 ............. DĐ .................... 0912206133 Fax: 3854 4550 ........................................ E-mail: [email protected] ................................................ 6. Trình độ học vấn: 6.1. Đại học: Hệ đào tạo Chính quy.................... Thời gian đào tạo: 4.5 năm. Từ 1994 đến 1999 ......

Ngành: Kinh tế........................................................................... . Loại tốt nghiệp Khá............................ Trường: Đại học Ngoại Thương ......................................... .................................................................

Nước: Việt Nam ...................................... ................................... ........................................................... 6.2. Thạc sĩ: Thời gian đào tạo:2 .................. năm. Từ 2000 ......................... đến 2001 .......................... Chuyên ngành: Quản trị Kinh doanh ..... ................................... ........................................................... Cơ sở đào tạo: Đại học Central Queensland ...................................... .................................................. Nước: Australia ....................................... ................................... ...........................................................

7. Nguyện vọng đăng ký dự tuyển:

7.1. Trình độ đào tạo: □ Thạc sĩ Tiến sĩ □ Thực tập sinh 7.2. Ngành/chuyên ngành đào tạo: Tâm lý học Quản lý (Industrial/Organizational Psychology) .... 7.3. Nước đăng ký đến học (chỉ đăng ký 1 nước): Hoa Kỳ ........ ........................................................... 7.4. Trình độ ngoại ngữ: Có chứng chỉ □ Chưa có chứng chỉ

Tiếng Anh: ….7.0….. IELTS ……….. TOEFL. Ngày cấp: 20/07/2007 Nơi cấp: IDP Việt nam Tiếng ………: ………… ……. Ngày cấp: ……….. Nơi cấp: ………………

7.5. Nơi đăng ký học ngoại ngữ (nếu trúng tuyển):

□ Trường Đại học Hà Nội □ Đại học Đà Nẵng □ Trung tâm SEAMEO RETRAC (TP HCM)

XÁC NHẬN CỦA CƠ QUAN CỬ ĐI HỌC Ngày / /2009

(Thủ trưởng đơn vị ký tên, đóng dấu)

Portland, ngày 08 / 04 /2009

Ứng viên ký, ghi rõ họ tên

Hoàng Gia Thư

CỘNG HOÀ XÃ HỘI CHỦ NGHĨA VIỆT NAM Độc lập – Tự do – Hạnh phúc

BẢN CAM KẾT THỰC HIỆN NGHĨA VỤ CỦA LƯU HỌC SINH

Kính gửi: Bộ Giáo dục và Đào tạo Tên tôi là: Hoàng Gia Thư ................................................... Sinh ngày: 27/03/1977 ................................... CMND số: 011813933 .......................... Ngày cấp: 03/08/2005 ............... Nơi cấp: Công An Hà nội ......... Hộ chiếu số: B1385817 ........................ Ngày cấp: 01/08/2007 ............... Nơi cấp: Cục Quản lý XNC ...... Hiện nay là: Giảng viên, biên chế thuộc Đại học Hà nội, Km 9 Nguyễn Trãi, Thanh Xuân, Hà nội .... ............................................................................................... ....................................................................... Khi được Nhà nước cử đi học tại nước ngoài, tôi tự nguyện cam kết thực hiện các nghĩa vụ sau: 1. Chấp hành nghiêm túc Quy chế quản lý lưu học sinh ở nước ngoài, quyết định cử đi học của Bộ

Giáo dục và Đào tạo và chấp nhận các quy định hiện hành của Nhà nước về tài chính. 2. Không xin chuyển trường, chuyển nước hoặc thay đổi khoá học, chương trình học. Cam kết tích cực

học tập, nghiên cứu để hoàn thành tốt chương trình đào tạo đúng thời hạn được phép. 3. Nếu bị buộc thôi học sẽ bồi hoàn kinh phí theo qui định của Nhà nước. Nếu phải gia hạn thời gian

học tập sẽ tự túc kinh phí trong thời gian gia hạn. 4. Sau khi kết thúc khoá học về nước ngay và thực hiện thủ tục báo cáo tốt nghiệp cho Bộ Giáo dục và

Đào tạo. 5. Cam kết làm giảng viên lâu dài (6 năm đối với người tốt nghiệp thạc sĩ và 12 năm đối với người tốt

nghiệp tiến sĩ) cho trường đại học, cao đẳng đã cử tôi đi học hoặc theo sự điều động của Nhà nước (Bộ Giáo dục và Đào tạo).

6. Tiếp tục đóng bảo hiểm xã hội trong thời gian đi học ở nước ngoài

Tôi xin cam kết thực hiện đầy đủ những điều nêu trên và các quy định hiện hành khác có liên quan. Nếu không thực hiện đúng bản cam kết này, tôi xin bồi hoàn toàn bộ chi phí đào tạo và hoàn toàn chịu trách nhiệm về việc xử lý kỷ luật theo các quy định hiện hành của Nhà nước.

Hà nội, ngày 08 tháng 04 năm 2009 Người cam kết ký và ghi rõ họ tên

Hoàng Gia Thư

Xác nhận bảo lãnh của cơ quan tuyển chọn và giới thiệu người dự tuyển: ………………………………... xác nhận bảo lãnh ông/bà .................................................................. , hiện đang là (biên chế/hợp đồng)............................................. của ..…………………………………… …………………….... Chúng tôi cam kết thực hiện trách nhiệm: 1. Tiếp nhận lại và bố trí công tác phù hợp với chuyên môn và trình độ đào tạo sau khi tốt nghiệp ở

nước ngoài về. 2. Giúp đỡ, tạo điều kiện để ông/bà có tên trên được tiếp tục đóng bảo hiểm xã hội trong thời gian đi

đào tạo ở nước ngoài. 3. Phối hợp với các cơ quan liên quan trong việc yêu cầu ông/bà có tên trên thực hiện đúng những cam

kết nêu trên. ........................, ngày .......... tháng ......... năm .............

Thủ trưởng /Giám đốc/Hiệu trưởng Ký ghi rõ họ tên, đóng dấu

Fairness Reactions 1

Running head: FAIRNESS REACTIONS TO PERSONNEL SELECTION TECHNIQUES

Fairness Reactions to Personnel Selection Techniques in Thailand and the United States

Thu Hoang

Portland State University

RESEARCH PROPOSAL


Abstract

Using Hofstede’s (1984) cultural framework and the methodology developed by Steiner and

Gilliland (1996), the proposed study will investigate and compare the influences of cultures on

applicant reactions to various selection techniques in Thailand and the U.S. It is hypothesized

that job relatedness, opportunity to perform, interpersonal warmth, propriety of questions, and

invasion of privacy are given greater weight by Americans than Thais in determining selection

method favorability. Americans are also hypothesized to perceive structured interview, work

sample test, and written ability test as having greater favorability than Thais do, where as Thais

are hypothesized to perceive unstructured interview, personality test, personal contact and

graphology as having greater favorability than Americans do. Theoretical and practical

implications, limitation of the study, and venues for future research will be discussed.


Fairness Reaction to Personnel Selection Techniques in Thailand and the United States

With an increasing interest in applicant perspective in the selection process, applicant

reactions have attracted a large body of research over the last 15 years (Hausknecht, Day, &

Thomas, 2004). A better understanding of applicant reactions has practical implications for

organizations because when applicants/employees perceive the techniques and procedures used

by the organization for selection/promotion as fair and valid, they are more likely to experience

satisfaction with the selection process which result in better organizational attractiveness, higher

job acceptance and recommendation intentions, and most importantly, less likelihood to take

legal action against the organization (Bauer, Truxillo, Sanchez, Craig, Ferrara, & Campion,

2001; Hausknecht et al., 2004; Truxillo & Bauer, forthcoming).

Recognizing the importance of cultural diversity, legal and socioeconomic differences,

variation in selection method practices (Moscoso & Salgado, 2004), and an increasing number of

U.S. organizations that operate in foreign countries (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2007, as

cited in Aeppel 2007), research has recently started to investigate how applicants in different

countries perceive and react to various selection techniques (e.g., Steiner & Gilliland, 1996).

Steiner and Gilliland (1996) pioneered this line of research by comparing French and U.S.

favorability and fairness reactions to several selection techniques and developed a methodology

that has been replicated in various countries around the world (e.g., Anderson & Witvliet, 2008;

Bertolino & Steiner, 2007; Moscoso & Salgado, 2004; Nikolaou & Judge, 2007; Phillips &

Gully, 2002). The findings from these studies were remarkably similar: Interviews and work

samples were perceived most positively, followed by biodata, personality tests, and cognitive

ability tests, which were perceived more favorably than honesty tests and graphology (Anderson

& Witvliet, 2008; Truxillo & Bauer, forthcoming). Also, face validity and opportunity to


perform were found to be major determinants of fairness reactions (e.g., Bertolino & Steiner,

2007; Phillips & Gully, 2002; Steiner & Gilliland, 1996; Truxillo & Bauer, forthcoming)

Further examination of these studies, however, suggests several issues which are

qualified for further investigation of cultural impact on applicant reactions. First of all, most of

the published studies in this area have been conducted in western and/or developed countries

(Steiner & Gilliland, 2001) where the socioeconomic conditions, legal environments and human

resource (HR) practices may differ dramatically compared with developing countries. Second,

because none of these studies directly measured the cultural values (e.g., individualism and

power distance) of their samples, the similarities in favorability perceptions between countries

found in recent studies may just reflect the idiosyncratic characteristics of these samples.

Thirdly, these studies did not control for differences in situational factors such as occupations or

industries. In these studies, participants were either allowed to choose different jobs depending

on their interests or recruited from various occupations. It has been shown that situational factors

(e.g., occupations or industry practices) can significantly moderate nature of baseline cultural

tendencies (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007; Hofstede, 2001). In conclusion, it is unclear whether

the current findings in favorability perceptions can be generalizable internationally to developing

countries and reflect the true differences/similarities in reactions between examined cultures.

The purpose of this study is to examine the fairness reactions to various selection

techniques from the perspective of working adults in Thailand and the U.S. and to provide

comparisons between them. Based on Steiner and Gilliland’s (2001) theoretical framework for

assessing cultural influences on organizational justice, I use several cultural dimensions under

Hofstede’s (1984) framework (i.e., individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, power

distance, masculinity/femininity) to generate hypotheses. To the best of my knowledge, this is


the first study that extends Steiner and Gilliland (1996) to a developing country in Asia where

the cultures, legal and socioeconomics conditions are much different from western and

developed countries (Gelfand, Erez, & Aycan, 2007). This proposed study follows Steiner and

Gilliland’s (1996) approach in investigating favorability and fairness perceptions of a set of

selection techniques as well as the relevance of job relatedness (conceptualized from both face

and predictive validity perspectives), opportunity to perform, interpersonal warmth, propriety of

questions, invasion of privacy and widespread use to applicant perceptions of the fairness of

selection procedures. There are 11 selection techniques in this proposed study, as opposed to 10

in Steiner and Gilliland (1996), with structured and unstructured interview considered separately

since they differ markedly from each other in term of their validity coefficients (Casio &

Aguinis, 2005). General descriptions of the selection techniques are depicted in Table 1.

Applicant Reactions Models

Research in this area is primarily guided by the Gilliland’s (1993) justice-based model of

applicant reactions to the selection system. The model posits various procedural justice rules

that were hypothesized to influence applicant’s overall fairness perception of the selection

process (Gilliland, 1993). According to the model, the degree to which these procedural justice

rules are satisfied or violated will have direct impact on applicants’ overall perception of the

selection system and lead to various outcomes such as applicants’ performance on the test, self-

perception (self-efficacy and self-esteem), job acceptance and litigation intention/behaviors, and

subsequent work attitudes and behaviors (Bauer et al., 2001; Hausknecht et al., 2004)

Steiner and Gilliland (1996) developed a framework using some of these procedural

justice rules (i.e., job relatedness, opportunity to perform, interpersonal treatment, and propriety

of questions) in comparing applicant reactions to various personnel selection techniques across


cultures. First of all, job relatedness refers to “the extent to which a test either appears to measure

content relevant to the job situation or appears to be valid” (Gilliland, 1993, p. 703). Research

(e.g., Smither, Reilly, Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey, 1993) has distinguished two aspects of job

relatedness: Face validity and perceived validity, and found both of them are of equally

important in predicting fairness reactions with regard to selection techniques (Hausknecht et al.,

2004). Secondly, opportunity to perform taps into the concept of voice in organizational justice

theory (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). It suggests that selection procedures “are perceived to be more

fair if recipients of the decision outcome have the opportunity to express themselves prior to the

decision” (Gilliland, 1993, p. 704). In other words, applicants would prefer procedures that allow

them to have voice or give input to the selection decisions (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Thirdly,

interpersonal treatment is also found to have influences on applicant reactions because it reflects

the degree to which applicants are treated with warmth and respect (Bies & Moag, 1986;

Gilliland, 1994). Finally, propriety of questions has been found to influence applicants’

perception of fairness (Bies & Moag, 1986). Inappropriate and illegal questioning has been

shown not only lead to the perception of unfairness but may cost organizations dearly in term of

litigation (Bauer et al., 2001). In addition to these procedural rules, Steiner and Gilliland (1996)

also used other factors such as invasion of privacy (Gilliland, 1993) and method popularity (i.e.,

the procedure may be viewed as more acceptable when it is widely used) as additional predictor

of fairness reaction.

Cross-cultural Perspective

Based on both organizational justice theory and cultural influences literature, Steiner and

Gilliland (2001) proposed a theoretical framework for consideration of the cross-cultural

influences on favorability and fairness reaction to selection techniques. In this framework, four


of Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions (i.e., individualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance,

power distance, and masculinity/femininity) are hypothesized to influence all aspects of

distributive and procedural justice rules in personnel selection. In the work context,

individualism/collectivism refers to individuals’ focus on their self- interest, choice, and

achievement versus on the benefits of the groups to which they belong. Uncertainty avoidance

reflects the tolerance for ambiguity, change, uncertainty or chaos. The lower on uncertainty

avoidance the less predictability, clarity or structure are needed. Power distance refers to how

individual handle inequalities in the societies and is reflected by the perceived amount of power

a superior has over a subordinate. Masculinity/femininity is reflected through the emphasis on

ego, power, competition and success versus on relationship and quality of life. Table 2 shows

these cultural values for the U.S., Thailand, Singapore and France (Hofstede, 2001). The higher

score indicates higher values in these dimensions. Because these dimensions are widely used in

organizational research (e.g., James, 1993; Miles & Greenberg, 1993) and there is a great deal of

conceptual overlaps between them and other cultural dimensions (Steiner & Gilliland, 2001), this

proposed study investigates the importance of procedural justice rule and favorability perception

as a function of these cultural dimensions.

For opportunity to perform, McFarlin and Sweeney (2001) suggested that voice may be

more important and salient in low power distance and individualistic cultures. In addition,

opportunity to perform may also be more important in high masculinity and achievement-

oriented cultures where merit is more emphasized (Steiner & Gilliland, 2001). For job

relatedness, recent studies argued that individuals higher in individualism and masculinity may

rate the selection techniques that employ clear, appropriate, and more scientific performance

criteria more fair and favorable (McFarlin & Sweeney 2001; Steiner & Gilliland, 2001).


Uncertainty avoidance is also hypothesized to influence opportunity to perform and job

relatedness; however, it is more of a concern for organizations rather than applicants (Steiner &

Gilliland, 2001). Ryan, McFarland, Baron, and Page, (1999) found that organizations in high

uncertainty avoidance cultures tend to use a large number of selection procedures to ensure

applicants can have the ability to perform. Because, on average, Americans is higher in

individualism and masculinity and lower in power distance as compared with Thais, it is

hypothesized that face validity, predictive validity and opportunity to perform are given greater

weight by Americans than Thais in determining selection method favorability. Americans are

also hypothesized to perceive structured interview, work sample test, and written ability test as

having greater favorability than Thais do, whereas Thais are hypothesized to perceive the

unstructured interview, personality test, personal contact and graphology as having greater

favorability than Americans do.

For interpersonal warmth, invasion of privacy, and propriety of questions, Steiner and

Gilliland (2001) suggested that these dimensions could be influenced by power distance and

masculinity. Individuals in low power distance cultures may be less tolerable to improper

questionings and prejudicial statements and more sensitive to whether their potential employer as

the right to obtain certain information during the selection process (Phillips & Gully, 2002;

Steiner & Gilliland, 2001). They may also expect more interpersonal warmth from their potential

future employers. In contrast, individuals in high masculinity cultures are more likely to weigh

less on interpersonal warmth, invasion of privacy and employer’s right to obtain information for

decision making (Hofstede, 2001). Because the U.S. is higher in masculinity but lower in power

distance in comparison with Thailand, these two dimensions may have differential influences on

applicant perceptions both in terms of magnitude and direction. Therefore, it is unclear how they


will together determine the applicants’ favorability perception. Recent findings suggest that

French and Singaporeans give lower weight to interpersonal warmth, invasion of privacy, and

employer right to obtain information in comparison with Americans (Phillips & Gully, 2002;

Steiner & Gilliland, 1996). Since Thailand is relatively similar to France and Singapore in

comparison to the U.S. in term of masculinity and power distance (i.e., higher in power distance

and lower in masculinity as compared with the U.S.), it is hypothesized that interpersonal

warmth, invasion of privacy and employer right to obtain information are given lower weight by

Thais than Americans in determining selection method favorability.

Method

Participants

Two-hundred participants for this proposed study will be recruited from a multinational

corporation that has physical operations in both the U.S. and Thailand. Attempts will be made to

maximize the similarities between two samples except for cultural values such as same industry,

similar functional area, similar hierarchical level, and similar job description. By controlling

these variables, I expect to see greater relationship between cross-cultural dimensions and

applicants’ fairness and favorability reactions.

Procedure and measures

The questionnaire developed by Steiner and Gilliland (1996) will be translated into Thai

by a bilingual native Thai speaker, which then will be back translated into English by a bilingual

native English speaker. They will then work together to clarify any problematic phrases and

make necessary changes on both Thai and English versions until they both agree. The only

difference between Steiner and Gilliland’s (1996) and this proposed study’s questionnaire is the

separation between structured and unstructured interviews. I will adapt the questions designed by


Steiner and Gilliland (1996) to assess the process favorability for each technique followed by the

description. The first question is “How would you rate the effectiveness of this method for

indentifying qualified people for your current job?” The second question is “If you did not get

the job based on this selection method, what would you think of the fairness of this procedure?”

Participants will respond to these questions using 7-point Likert-type scale with 1 indicated least

favorable or fairness and 7 indicated most favorable or fairness. Coefficient alpha for the two-

item process favorability measure in Steiner and Gilliland (1996) was .73. After answering these

two questions regarding process favorability, participants will respond to seven questions

assessing possible procedural justice dimensions of the method using a 7-point scale ranging

from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). These items deal with perceptions that (a) the

method is based on solid scientific research, (b) the approach is a logical one for identifying

qualified candidates for the job in question (face valid), (c) the method will detect the

individuals' important qualities differentiating them from others (opportunity to perform), (d) the

selection instrument is impersonal and cold, (e) employers have the right to obtain information

from applicants by using the method, (f) the method invades personal privacy, and (g) the

method is appropriate because it is widely used. Participants will also indicate if they have been

assessed using each of the selection techniques. Next, because sample’s idiosyncratic cultural

values may differ significantly from the national cultures, participants will complete a 16 item

questionnaire measuring the four cultural values on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly

disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) and the four cultural composites are averages of their respective

items. These items (see Appendix) were adapted from Hofstede (1991) by Furrer, Liu, and

Sudharshan (2000). After answering all the questions, participants will complete a demographic


information section. All questionnaires will be administered online in which selection techniques

are randomly assigned to each time participants to minimize any order and fatigue effect.

Results

I will follow exactly Steiner and Gilliland (1996) procedures in analyzing the data for this

proposed study. Data on cultural values will be used for interpretation of findings in all analysis.

More specifically, I will use a 2 (Thailand vs. the U.S.) x 11 (selection technique) to examine the

process favorability and Tukey’s post hoc test to identify the ranking of favorability among

selection techniques in each country. Experience with the selection technique will be used as a

control variable in all analyses. To determine which procedural dimensions are most predictive

of process favorability, the correlations between the procedural dimensions and process

favorability across 11 selection techniques will be calculated for each individual. Rather than

using regression analyses, I will use zero-order correlation to obtain an independent assessment

of each variable’s relation with process favorability. The items for impersonal and cold and

invasion of privacy were reverse scored to correspond to the more positive meanings of the

remaining items. Using individual’s correlation as dependent variables in a 2 (Thailand vs. the

U.S.) and 7 (procedural dimension) to assess the main effect for country, procedural dimension

as well as the interaction between country and procedural dimension. Finally, to further explore

the similarities/differences between the two countries, I will examine ratings on the seven

process dimensions for the different selection methods.

Discussion

This proposed study is expected to contribute significantly to the current literature by

specifically testing several aspects of the framework proposed by Steiner and Gilliland (2001)

regarding the applicant reactions in selection across cultures. From the practitioner’s perspective,


this proposed study may also help organizations understand better of how various selection

techniques are perceived in a developing country in Asia like Thailand, especially when

considering the magnitude of the investment from U.S. in Asia. The current conclusion that

cultural differences play only a minimal role in applicant reactions to selection procedures (e.g.,

Anderson & Witvliet, 2008) might not be generalizable to countries like China, India, Thailand,

or Vietnam where the culture values, socioeconomic conditions, legal environment and HR

practices may different significantly from the U.S and other western countries.

Limitations and Future Research

I recognized the generalizability of this proposed study might be limited due to the

greater control over the occupation and industry and also the fact that Thailand can be very

different from other developing countries in these cultural values (Hofstede, 2001). It is highly

recommended that future research should utilize the rich theoretical framework developed by

Steiner and Gilliland (2001) to investigate the impact of cultures on applicant reactions. Future

studies should be conducted in different occupations and industries (e.g., skilled and unskilled

workers, sales representatives, or customer services) and for jobs at different hierarchical levels

in the organization. In addition, it is also important to quantify the degree of moderation caused

by differences in cultures and other factors such as socioeconomic conditions, legal

environments, and HR practices (Anderson & Witvliet, 2008). Future research should examine

applicant reactions to methods that were not included in the original Steiner and Gilliland’s

(1996) list such as realistic job previews, computer- and internet based recruitment websites and

testing procedures. Finally, as recommended by Hausknecht et al. (2004), we should investigate

employees’ reaction in the context of internal promotion. This type of study may yield different

findings due to the preexisting relationship between applicants and the organization.


Reference

Aeppel, T. (2007, August 9). Overseas Profits Provide Shelter For U.S. Firms. Wall Street

Journal (Eastern Edition) , p. A.1.

Anderson, N., & Witvliet, C. (2008). Fairness reactions to personnel selection methods: An

international comparison between the Netherlands, the United States, France, Spain,

Portugal, and Singapore. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 16(1), 1-13.

Bauer, T. N., Truxillo, D. M., Sanchez, R. J., Craig, J. M., Ferrara, P., & Campion, M. A. (2001).

Applicant reactions to selection: Development o the selection procedural justice scale

(SPJS). Personnel Psychology, 54, 387-419.

Bertolino, M., & Steiner, D. D. (2007). Fairness reactions to selection methods: An Italian study.

International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 15, 197-205.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R.

J. Lewichi, B. H. Sheppard, & M. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on Negotiation in

Organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Applied psychology in human resource management.

Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice-Hall.

Furrer, O., Liu, B., & Sudharshan , D. (2000). The relationships between culture and service

quality perceptions: Basis for cross-cultural market segmentation and resource allocation.

Journal of Service Research, 2, 355-371.

Gelfand, M. J., Erez, M., & Aycan, Z. (2007). Cross-cultural organizational behavior, 58, 479-

514.

Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18, 694-734.


Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection

system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691-701.

Hausknecht, J. P., Day, D. V., & Thomas, S. C. (2004). Applicant reactions to selection

procedures: An updated model and meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 57, 639-683.

Hofstede, G. H. (1984). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related

values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. H. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and

organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Pub.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values.

Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

James, K. (1993). The social context of organizational justice: Cultural, intergroup, and

structural effects on justice behaviors and perceptions. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in

the workplace (pp. 21-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Critical issues in

social justice. New York: Plenum Press.

McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (2001). Cross-cultural applications of organizational justice.

In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp.

67-95). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Miles, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Ferris, G. R. (133). Cross-national differences in preferences for

distributive justice norms: the challenge of establishing fair resource allocations in the

European community. In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management.

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.


Moscoso, S., & Salgado, J. F. (2004). Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in

Spain and Portugal. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 12, 187-196.

Nikolaou, I., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in

Greece: The role of core self-evaluations. International Journal of Selection &

Assessment, 15, 206-219.

Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (2002). Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in

Singapore and the United States. International Journal of Human Resource Management,

13, 1186-1205.

Ryan, A. M., McFarland, L., Baron, H., & Page, R. (1999). An international look at selection

practices: Nation and culture as explanations for variability in practice. Personnel

Psychology, 52, 359-391.

Smither, J. W., Reilly, R. R., Millsap, R. E., Pearlman, K., & Stoffey, R. W. (1993). Applicant

reactions to selection procedures. Personnel Psychology, 46(1), 49-76.

Steiner, D. D., & Gilliland, S. W. (1996). Fairness reactions to personnel selection techniques in

France and the United States. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 134-141.

Steiner, D. D., & Gilliland, S. W. (2001). Procedural justice in personnel selection: International

and cross-cultural perspectives. International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 9, 124.

Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice : A psychological analysis. Hillsdale,

N.J.; New York: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Truxillo, D. M., & Bauer, T. N. (forthcoming). Applicant reactions to selection procedures. In S.

Zedeck (Ed.), Handbook of I/O Psychology (Vol. 2: Selecting Members)/American

Psychological Association.


Table 1

Selection Methods and Descriptions as Presented in the Questionnaire

Selection method Description

Structured interviews Face-to-face interactions in which employers ask you and every

other applicant about background and qualifications using a same

set of highly specific questions in the same order and using a

standardized evaluation techniques.

Unstructured interviews Face-to-face interactions in which employers ask you and every

other applicant about background and qualifications using general

questions that are tailored to each candidate and using global

impression of candidates’ attractiveness in making selection

decision.

Résumé A written description of information on all of your professional

experiences, your education, etc.

Work-sample tests Tests in which you actually perform a part of the job so that your

success in doing that part of the job can be determined.

Biographical information

blank

Forms requesting very specific information about your work

experience, education, and skills. They often include questions

about your hobbies, interests, and past accomplishments. The

questions are frequently in multiple-choice format where you check

the appropriate answer.

Written ability tests Paper-and-pencil tests that evaluate your intelligence on your

reasoning, verbal, or mathematical skill.


Personal references In this method, you must request letters of reference or provide the

names of your prior employers so that the employer can obtain

information about your suitability for the job.

Personality tests Paper-and-pencil tests that ask you questions about your opinions

and past experiences to assess your personality traits.

Honesty tests Tests that ask you about your thoughts on theft and experiences

related to your personal honesty.

Personal contacts Knowing someone influential in the company whose connections

can help you get the job.

Graphology The analysis of aspects of your handwriting, including style and

form, to determine personal characteristics.

Source: Adapted from Steiner and Gilliland (1996)


Table 2

Cultural Value Indexes for the U.S., France and Thailand

Dimensions United States Thailand Singapore France

Individualism 91 20 20 71

Uncertainty avoidance 46 64 8 86

Power distance 40 64 74 68

Masculinity 62 34 48 43

Source: Hofstede (2001)


Appendix

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

Power distance

1. Inequalities among people are both expected and desired.

2. Less powerful people should be dependent on the more powerful.

3. Inequalities among people should be minimized.(R)

4. There should be, and there are to some extent, interdependencies between less and more

powerful people.(R)

Individualism

5. Everyone grows up to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only.

6. People are identified independently of the groups they belong to.

7. Other members in exchange for loyalty should protect an extended family member. (R)

8. People are identified by their position in the social networks to which they belong.(R)

Masculinity

9. Money and material things are important.

10. Men are supposed to be assertive, ambitious, and tough.

11. The dominant values in society are caring for others and preservation.(R)

12. Both men and women are allowed to be tender and to be concerned with relationships.(R)

Uncertainty avoidance

13. High stress and subjective feeling of anxiety are frequent among people.

14. Fear of ambiguous situations and of unfamiliar risks is normal.

15. Uncertainty is a normal feature of life, and each day is accepted as it comes.(R)

16. Emotions should not be shown.(R)


Note: (R) denotes items that were reverse coded.

cỘng hÒa xÃ hỘi chỦ nghĨa viỆt nam ĐỘ Ậ Ự Ạ ĐƠn xin...

Documents