How personal values shape job seeker preference: A policy capturing study

Carol L. Hicklenton; Donald W. Hine; Aaron B. Driver; Natasha M. Loi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0254646

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 18, 2021
25 Mar 2021 Decision Letter - Iván Barreda-Tarrazona, Editor PONE-D-21-01887 How personal values shape job seeker preference: A policy capturing study PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Hicklenton, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Based on my own reading of the paper and on very positive feedback from a referee I am happy to invite you to resubmit a revised version of the paper. Please make sure to address all the points raised by the referee and also the following: a) Please better specify the doi for data access. I succeeded using % instead of / but this is no longer working. Data used should be easily reachable. b) I think you should introduce more graphical analysis of all dimensions for both personal types, beyond that already present in Figure S1. For instance I was expecting a figure for Hypothesis 7. And please make sure to use the same scale in the axes for all comparable figures. c) Regarding the data: You should clarify how much did you pay the Qualtrix subject sample participants, specify the dropout rate, and compare your sample to the general Australian population. d) Finally, please acknowledge possible order effects due to presenting the attributes always in the same sequence. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 09 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Iván Barreda-Tarrazona, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. 3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (i) whether consent was informed and (ii) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 4. Please upload a copy of Figure 1, to which you refer in your text on page 16. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text. 5. Please include a copy of Tables 1, 2 and 3 which you refer to in your text on pages 14 and 16. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: I enjoyed reading this paper on PO Fit and Organizational Attractiveness. This is ground that has been well-covered but the authors carefully outline how this paper adds to the literature. First, it does not utilize a student sample, which is an important differentiator. Second, it uses a well regarded instrument to measure individual values that adds credibility and generalizability to the paper. I have a few comments: -this is a very well written paper that clearly explicates the context, the study and the findings. I found it refreshing to read a manuscript that was carefully edited and so clearly written -there are a number of issues that arise in this topic that the authors need to more forthrightly address, at least to quiet the critics. For example, org attractiveness does not necessarily translate to applying for positions at a firm. What do we know about the connection between an espoused policy and likelihood of taking action on it? -please address social desirability bias. How can we understand how the study participants might have adapted their answers to demonstrate that they had sound and socially acceptable values? -I found the language for the "low" condition in the scenarios to be quite negative and off putting. So rather than just saying that these factors are not really present in the company, it seemed that the company didn't care about those factors. It seemed overly negative -can you explain more fully the impact of having only 6 individuals see the same scenario (400/64). Does the large number of scenarios in comparison to the sample size in any way inhibit your inferences? Please address that. -in the practical implication section, you don't specifically address how firms can use the PO fit aspect of org attractiveness to reach out to the best fitting prospective applicants. Can you provide more information about these implications, given that the paper is focused on that issue? You found that certain attributes are simply more attractive, but how can we target the best fitting applicants. I believe that the implications section of the paper needs more work to provide interesting and potentially impactful ideas. Thanks for the opportunity to review your paper. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254646.r001
Revision 1
30 Jun 2021 Author Response Reviewer #1 comments 1. Organization attractiveness does not necessarily translate to applying for positions at a firm. What do we know about the connection between an espoused policy and likelihood of taking action on it? Response: A paragraph discussing this has been added to the discussion section (600/26). 2. Address social desirability bias; How can we understand how the study participants might have adapted their answers to demonstrate that they had sound and socially acceptable values? Response: Given that the survey employed an anonymous response format pressure to provide socially desirable responses should have be relatively low. In addition, to the extent that social desirability was operating, it is worth noting that this likely mimics virtue signalling in people’s real world choices, in which jobs are sometimes chosen to enhance social status and reputation concerns. 3. The reviewer found the language for the "low" condition in the scenarios to be quite negative and off putting. The reviewer suggests than saying these factors are not really present in the company or that the company didn't care about those factors might be overly negative. Response: We have added a sentence to the Limitations and future research section to address the point you raise (588/26). 4. You asked for a fuller explanation of the impact of having only 6 individuals see the same scenario (400/64). Does the large number of scenarios in comparison to the sample size in any way inhibit your inferences? Response; Although it is correct that only 6 participants would have seen exactly the same full scenario, 400 participants would have viewed each level (low vs high) of all of our organization attribute variables. Given that we were not investigating all possible interactions between all of the organisation attributes, the statistical power was high for all main effects and the limited number of cross-level interactions conducted. In terms of the potential for biased estimates MLM, Maas and Jox (2005) note that in MLM the major contributor to bias/inaccuracy is the higher level sample size – in the case of our study Level 2. In their paper, they ran a series of simulations in which they varied Level 1 sample size, Level 2 sample size, and magnitude of intraclass correlations. They found that only simulations with small Level 2 samples (consisting of 50 or fewer cases) produced biased Level 2 standard errors. All other simulations, including those with Level 1 sample sizes as small as 5, produced accurate and unbiased regression coefficients, variance components and standard errors at Level 1 and Level 2. We cite this paper and describe its findings on p. 16 of the revised manuscript. Maas, C. J. M., & Hox, J. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1(3), 86-92. doi: 10.1027/1614-1881.1.3.86 5. Include in the practical implication section, specifically how firms can use the PO fit aspect of org attractiveness to reach out to the best fitting prospective applicants. Provide more information about these implications, given the paper is focused on that issue. You found that certain attributes are simply more attractive, but how can we target the best fitting applicants. I believe that the implications section of the paper needs more work to provide interesting and potentially impactful ideas. Response; The practical implications section has been expanded with ideas on how to target the best fitting applicants and why this is important. Additional requirements 1. Ensure the manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. Response; We’ve checked our submission meets PLOS ONE’s style and file naming requirements. 2. Review the reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. Response; We’ve checked to ensure the reference list is complete and correct. 3. Provide additional details regarding participant consent - was consent informed, were any participants minors, type of consent obtained. Response; Additional details about consent have been added to the Procedure section (243/11. 4. Upload a copy of Figure 1 referred to on page 16 of the original submission. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission, please remove all reference to it within the text. Response; S1 Figure showing significant interactions has been updated. A second figure (S2 Figure) for non-significant interactions has also been added. If possible, we would prefer to include S2 Figure as supplementary material with a note in the article that refers to the second figure. 5. Include a copy of Tables 1, 2 and 3 referred to in on pages 14 and 16 of the original submission. Response; These tables are included in the resubmission 6. Consider introducing more graphical analysis of all dimensions for both personal types, beyond that already present in Figure S1. The editor expected to see a figure for Hypothesis 7. Response; A second figure for non-significant interactions has been added to the submission as supplementary material with a note in the article that refers to the second figure. 7. Consider using the same scale in the axes for all comparable figures. Response; We have changed the figures so all axes use the same scale. 8. Specify how much we paid the Qualtrics subject sample participants and the dropout rate. Response; This information has been added to the Procedure section (245/11). 9. Compare our sample to the general Australian population Response; In the Participants section, we now compare our sample to the general Australian population (228/11). 10. Acknowledge possible order effects due to presenting the attributes always in the same sequence. Response; The risk of order effects has been included in a paragraph in the Discussion section (582/25). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254646.r002
1 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Iván Barreda-Tarrazona, Editor How personal values shape job seeker preference: A policy capturing study PONE-D-21-01887R1 Dear Dr. Hicklenton, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Iván Barreda-Tarrazona, PhD Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): You have successfully addressed all the concerns raised in the revision process. Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254646.r003
Formally Accepted
21 Jul 2021 Acceptance Letter - Iván Barreda-Tarrazona, Editor PONE-D-21-01887R1 How personal values shape job seeker preference: A policy capturing study Dear Dr. Hicklenton: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Iván Barreda-Tarrazona Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254646.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .