J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:649–662
DOI 10.1007/s10869-010-9179-0
The Impact of Organizational Culture on Attraction
and Recruitment of Job Applicants
Diane Catanzaro • Heather Moore •
Timothy R. Marshall
Published online: 28 April 2010
 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract
Purpose This research examined how job pursuit and
application decisions of male and female job applicants are
impacted by beliefs about the organization’s culture.
Design/Methodology/Approach Participants responded to
questions regarding job pursuit intentions, organizational
preference, and organizational choice for two hypothetical
organizations, depicted in recruitment brochures as having
either a competitive (‘‘masculine’’) or supportive (‘‘femi-
nine’’) organizational culture in a 2 9 2 repeated measures
design. Choosing the supportive culture required the trade-
off of lower salary.
Findings The results indicate that organizational culture
interacts with gender to influence applicant attraction. Men
were more likely than women to intend to pursue a job with
the competitive organization; however, the majority of
both men and women reported stronger interest in working
for the supportive organization, even though salary would
be lower.
Implications This provides an empirical basis for orga-
nizational decision makers to integrate more supportive
‘‘feminine’’ values into the organizational culture and to
highlight these values in recruitment literature. Perceived
organizational culture plays a significant role in applicant
decision making and both male and female applicants
indicated a willingness to accept a lower salary in return for
a supportive organizational culture. This has significance
for organizations that seek to attract high quality applicants
Received and reviewed by former editor, George Neuman.
D. Catanzaro (&)
H. Moore
T. R. Marshall
Department of Psychology, Christopher Newport University,
Newport News, VA 23606, USA
e-mail: catanzar@cnu.edu
but whose direct compensation is lower than that offered
by competitors.
Originality/Value This is the first study to use an exper-
imental design to manipulate organizational culture and
salary trade-offs depicted in recruitment literature to
examine the impact on applicant attraction.
Keywords Organizational culture
Recruitment

Sex roles
Work-life balance
Organizational attraction

Salary
As the gender composition of the workforce changes there
is a need for research to address the role that organizational
culture plays in the attraction and recruitment process. This
research investigated the impact of perceived organiza-
tional culture on male and female potential applicants’
interest in pursuing and applying for a job. Do potential
applicants’ perceptions of organizational culture cause
them to self-select out of the recruitment and application
process? To what degree does an organization’s culture
attract or repel potential applicants? Will applicants trade
higher salary for greater work-life balance? This research
used an experimental design to assess these questions; the
results have implications for organizational decision mak-
ers trying to attract and retain a diverse and qualified
workforce.
Schein (1985) defined organizational culture as the
beliefs, values, and basic assumptions that are shared by
organizational members. These cultural beliefs are deeply
ingrained and may differ greatly from the ‘‘espoused val-
ues’’ touted by organizational leaders (O’Reilly 1989).
With the continuing demographic shifts in the workforce
and the increasing number of dual-career families, there is
a need for organizations to reevaluate the values and
123
650
practices that define their organizational culture if they are
to succeed in attracting and retaining a talented, diverse
workforce (Thomas and Wise 1999).
National Culture and Organizational Culture
The concept of ‘culture’ exists at various levels, including
national culture and organizational culture. Hofstede (1980,
1998) describes masculine and feminine national cultures as
representing the sex role pattern that is dominant in a given
society, and further suggests the masculinity-femininity
dimension of a nation’s culture is reflected by organizations
within that culture. Masculine cultures, such as Japan and
Italy, emphasize the need for men to be successful bread-
winners or be viewed as failures, and relatively few women
occupy higher-paying executive and top management
positions. In Hofstede’s typology, American culture is
considered moderately high in masculinity.
In feminine cultures, such as Sweden and the Nether-
lands, it is the norm for both men and women to pursue
higher-paying careers, and both males and females receive
cultural support for prioritizing family time over time spent
on the job. The women in higher-level positions in these
cultures are not necessarily expected to be assertive or to
display the qualities and behaviors that are considered
traditionally masculine (Hofstede 1980). Lyness and Kropf
(2005) found that nations characterized as having feminine
cultures tend to have organizational cultures that support
work and family balance.
To reduce the gender connotations implicit in discussion
of masculine and feminine organizational cultures, the term
‘‘competitive’’ culture is used in this article to identify what
some researchers and theorists refer to as ‘‘masculine’’
organizational culture and the term ‘‘supportive’’ (Schein
1985) will refer to ‘‘feminine’’ organizational culture.
When referring to Hofstede’s work on national culture, the
masculine and feminine typologies will be preserved.
American organizations typically are characterized by a
competitive organizational culture, which aligns with our
‘‘masculine’’ national culture. This organizational culture
values respect for authority, competition, individualism,
independence, and task-orientation (Loden 1985; Maier
1999). Authoritarian management practices, respect for
hierarchical structures, and adherence to chain-of-com-
mand are emphasized. Other values associated with a
competitive organizational culture are assertive and
aggressive behavior toward external or internal competitors
and emphasis on individual, extrinsic rewards.
Supportive organizational cultures value and respect
participation, collaboration, egalitarianism, and inter-per-
sonal relationships (Maier 1999). There is less emphasis on
hierarchical control; the supportive organizational culture
123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:649–662
focuses on group rather than individual rewards, and places
less emphasis on extrinsic rewards relative to intrinsic
rewards (Loden 1985). The cultural values associated with
a supportive culture promote a balance of career and family
roles, while competitive organizational cultures value
commitment to the organization and the expectation that an
employee’s career should be given priority over other roles
(Maier 1999).
As large numbers of women began to enter the U.S.
workforce in the late 1970s and 1980s, many women found
themselves at a disadvantage in pursuing higher-level
professional and executive positions because the dominant
culture in corporate America has a competitive ‘‘mascu-
line’’ orientation valuing competition, individualism, and
the prioritization of career over family (Rosener 1995;
Wilson 1998).
Wicks and Bradshaw’s (1999) research demonstrates
how gendered organizational cultures can make organiza-
tional change regarding diversity issues very difficult to
accomplish. They found that women reported that the ideal
organizational culture as one that places significant
emphasis on relationships, friendliness, acceptance, and
less authoritative relationships. They also found that men
and women are rewarded for behaviors that reflect cultural
values stereotypically associated with their sex. For
example, men reported being rewarded for less friendly
behaviors, while women reported being rewarded for being
more friendly and accepting of authority (Wicks and
Bradshaw 1999). These findings indicate that women
would be more likely to obtain rewards in the supportive
organization than in the competitive organization.
Organizational Attractiveness and Recruitment
Organizational attractiveness is an attitude or a general
positive affect that an individual has towards an organization
(Aiman-Smith et al. 2001). Attraction to an organization is a
key process within the attraction-selection-attrition cycle
(Schneider et al. 1995). The attraction process involves a job
seeker’s estimate of how well their personal needs and
values fit the organization’s culture. Gaining an under-
standing of the factors that can impact the attraction phase of
this cycle is critical for organizations who wish to attract the
most qualified applicant pool possible. The best job candi-
dates are those who not only possess the necessary knowl-
edge, skills, and abilities, but whose personal values and
characteristics are compatible with the organizational
culture (McGinty and Reitsch 1992). Organizational culture
plays a key role in increasing the probability that applicants,
particularly female applicants, will accept a job with the
organization and influences how long they will remain with
the organization once hired (Schneider et al. 1995).
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:649–662
The use of recruitment literature, whether through bro-
chures, websites, or other form of advertising, is one way
that organizations attract job seekers (Perkins et al. 2000).
Individuals seeking information about potential employers
develop beliefs about a company’s organizational culture
based on this material (Cable et al. 2000; Braddy et al.
2006). Braddy, Meade, and Kroustalis found that potential
applicants form clear impressions of an organization’s
cultural values including emphasis on rewards, aggres-
siveness (i.e. ‘‘competitive’’ values), diversity, suppor-
tiveness, and team-orientation based on recruitment
literature presented via website (Braddy et al. 2006).
Perceived person-organization fit is important in orga-
nizational recruitment, socialization, and retention (Kristof
1996; O’Reilly et al. 1991) Research has found high levels
of person-organization fit are positively related to norma-
tive organizational commitment and overall job satisfac-
tion, and negatively correlated with an employees’ intent to
leave an organization (O’Reilly et al. 1991).
Judge and Cable (1997) examined the relationship
between organizational culture preferences and individu-
als’ attraction to organizations, perceptions of person-
organization fit, and job choice decisions, and found that
job-seekers are attracted to organizations that they perceive
have cultures that fit their own values, needs, and
preferences.
Organizational Culture Preferences and Gender
Research has examined the types of organizational culture
environment preferred by men and women in managerial
positions. Van Vianen and Fischer (2002) found that
women managers had a weaker preference for competitive
organizational values compared to men, and that these
women had less ambition to pursue higher-level manage-
ment positions. This weaker intent to pursue these positions
was related to perceived work-home conflict. It is also
important to note that despite these gender differences, the
supportive organizational values were rated by both men
and women as being more favorable than the competitive
cultural values (Van Vianen and Fischer 2002).
Sex Roles and Organizational Culture
Gender Schema Theory
Bem’s (1981) gender schema theory refers to the devel-
opment of sex-linked categories for processing informa-
tion. From childhood, we learn what attributes are linked
to which sex and develop gender schemas regarding how
males and females should behave. Bem’s gender schema
651
theory is relevant to the current research because the
gender-schematic information processing of men and
women may lead to differences in the job pursuit inten-
tions and attraction they have towards different organi-
zations based on their cultures. Specifically, men may
view a competitive organizational culture as being con-
sistent with their socialization and values, while women
are likely to view a supportive organizational culture as
more desirable.
Social Role Theory and Sex-Role Socialization
Social role theory (Eagly, 1987, as cited in Carli and Eagly
1999) suggests that men and women adapt their behavior to
the social requirements for successful role performance.
Successful role performance involves acquiring and uti-
lizing skills associated with one’s gender role. The exis-
tence of sex-typical roles includes a division of labor where
men prioritize their occupational role, while women pri-
oritize domestic and family roles (Carli and Eagly 1999;
Jacobs 1999).
These gendered social roles influence occupational
expectations held by males and females. If the perceived
characteristics of an organization’s culture correspond to
an individual’s gender role expectations then he or she is
likely to be more attracted to that organization and perceive
a greater likelihood of person-environment fit.
Ideally, an organization’s culture should reflect values
that will attract a diverse population of qualified job
applicants, because drawing from a larger applicant pool
allows the organization to be more selective in hiring. If
talented women (and men) choose not to apply to work in
an organization because they believe that the organiza-
tional culture is incongruent with their needs and values,
the organization loses the skills and talents that this pop-
ulation could contribute to its workforce.
Gender Differences in Balancing Work and Family
Occupational Expectations
There are many factors that influence men’s and women’s
organizational culture preferences and perceptions of
organizational attractiveness. One factor is differences in
occupational expectations. Looker and Magee (2000)
found that men and women differ with regard to occupa-
tional expectations; women tend to view themselves as
being primarily responsible for child care and running a
household. Organizational decision makers should be
aware that an organizational culture that is conducive to
work-family balance is one that is likely to be attractive to
123
652
qualified women considering applying to a given organi-
zation, and appeals to many men as well.
Men and women differ in terms of expectations
regarding career paths and the importance of organizational
characteristics. Heckert et al. (2002) compared the expec-
tations of male and female college students regarding
future career paths, and found that women rated family
consideration higher than men did when anticipating their
careers. Women expected to leave the work force for a
longer period of time for childrearing than men, and men
expected to work more hours than women throughout their
careers. The family consideration facet included factors
such as the organization’s willingness to accommodate the
needs of parents and the availability of childcare benefits.
Because women expect to leave the workforce for a period
of time to raise children, and because they often prefer to
work in a company that accommodates their role as a
parent, talented women who have choices about where to
work are expected to be more likely to choose organiza-
tions that support the integration of work and family as an
important aspect of organizational culture.
Work-Family Conflict
The traditional competitive organizational culture contin-
ues to characterize most organizations in the United States.
This is not conducive to creating an environment for bal-
ancing work and family roles. Specifically, there is a
gendered assumption that there should be a separation
between work and family. This type of division has
resulted in a greater level of value being placed on male
employees, since men are viewed as having the traditional
‘breadwinner’ status and are seen as less likely to need
accommodations for family or child care responsibilities
(Lewis 2001).
In a controversial article, Felice Schwartz (1989) sug-
gested that women cost more to hire than men because
the attitudes and behaviors of women are counter to the
practices and policies that characterize a traditionally
masculine organizational culture. She suggested that
organizations should not view women as being expensive
to hire, but should try to better understand how to invest in
the talent of those women. Schwartz proposed that orga-
nizations create a more conducive environment for high
performing women to balance career and family, through
flexibility and family supportive practices. Although there
are costs inherent in creating this type of flexibility, Sch-
wartz asserts that the benefits of reduced turnover and
increased productivity could far outweigh the costs, and
that organizations will benefit by retaining talented and
experienced women who will contribute to the profitability
of the organization (Schwartz 1989). While Schwartz’
ideas have merit, there are many forms of inter-role conflict
123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:649–662
that impact both men and women; a balance of career and
family roles is important to both sexes (Burke 2001; Powell
1999), particularly those in dual-career families (Wiley
1992).
Gonyea and Googins (1996) suggest that the work-
family issue is still on the periphery in many organizations.
Work-family programs are viewed as policies that only
apply to women who have children, and many organiza-
tions continue to ignore the fact that work-family issues
apply to any employees who desires a better quality of life
through a work-life balance. Hall (1990, as cited in Gonyea
and Googins 1996) suggests that work-family issues are a
representation of an organization’s corporate values and
argues that if organizations view family issues as a
‘‘parental problem’’ or ‘‘women’s problem’’ rather than a
‘‘corporate problem,’’ then they will, at best, only accom-
plish the appearance of being progressive. When an orga-
nization views work-family balance concerns as a
corporate problem that impacts organizational effective-
ness they are more likely to make organizational and
structural changes to address this issue (Hall, 1990, as cited
in Gonyea and Googins 1996).
Gonyea and Googins (1996) point out several negative
consequences that result from organizations viewing women
as the only beneficiaries of ‘‘family friendly’’ programs. This
view discriminates against women by inhibiting career
advancement and also discriminates against men who fear
being stigmatized if they openly express interest in having
more flexible work hours to spend time with their family or
pursue non-work activities. Both women and men are con-
cerned that they will be viewed as being less committed,
which could negatively impact performance appraisals and
career advancement (Gonyea and Googins 1996).
The culture of an organization can inhibit or support the
development of a family-friendly policies and practices that
reduce work-family conflict (Burke 1997; Friedman 1990).
Burke (2001) found that women who reported working for
an organization that values work/family integration repor-
ted greater job satisfaction, decreased intentions to leave the
organization, increased family satisfaction, and a higher
level of emotional well-being. These results suggest that an
organizational culture that is supportive towards balancing
work and family may positively influence recruitment and
retention of both men and women.
In order for organizations to develop supportive cultural
values that promote a balance between career and personal
life, human resource professionals must convince organi-
zational leaders that this balance is a strategic tool that will
benefit the organization (Gonyea and Googins 1996).
Research indicates that creating a work-family balance for
employees can influence attraction (Rau and Hyland 2002),
turnover (Schwartz 1989), and commitment (Grover and
Crooker 1995).
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:649–662 653

To attract and retain the most qualified applicants, the women to choose to work in the competitive organizational
organizational culture should support employees’ ability to culture, while women will be significantly more likely than
achieve career success, but also their ability to succeed in men to choose to work in the supportive organizational
their roles as parents and care-givers. As discussed by culture.
Schwartz (1989), the traditional competitive, masculine
culture of organizations in the United States does not
embrace the values necessary to allow for a healthy balance Method
between career and family. A corporate culture that
acknowledges employees’ identification with non-work Participants
roles can reduce role conflict (Ashforth and Mael 1989)
and enhance person-environment fit. Participants were 256 undergraduate students (109 men and
147 women) from a liberal arts university in southeastern
Virginia. Student volunteers were solicited from classes in
the Business school and the departments of Psychology,
Statement of Purpose and Hypotheses
Government, and English. Participants were informed that
they would be entered into a drawing to win $25.00 if they
This study extends previous research on organizational
volunteered to participate, and that their responses would
culture by examining how perceived organizational culture
be anonymous.
impacts the perceptions of organizational attractiveness
A demographic questionnaire indicated that 109 partic-
held by potential applicants. Organizational attractiveness
ipants were men and 147 were women. The sample con-
was measured through a job pursuit intentions measure, an
sisted of 131 seniors, 79 juniors, 39 sophomores, and 7
organizational preference measure, and an organizational
freshmen. The students reported eighteen different majors;
choice measure. In this study, the type of organizational
the most frequent majors were business (31%), political
culture presented in two recruitment brochures was
science (20%), psychology (7%), and government (7%).
manipulated to depict either a competitive, masculine
The average GPA for the sample was 2.98. Twenty par-
organizational culture or a supportive, feminine organiza-
ticipants reported they had at least one child. Students were
tional culture.
told that the research study involved reviewing recruitment
The competitive organizational culture was operation-
brochures for two companies that hired many new college
alized as one that values competition, independence,
graduates.
ambition, high financial rewards, and a belief that one’s
career should be a priority. The supportive organizational
Materials and Measures
culture was operationalized as one that values collaboration,
inclusiveness, fewer financial rewards, greater intrinsic
Materials included an informed consent form, a prize entry
rewards, and an integration of both family and career roles.
form, two organizational recruitment brochures, and three
Hypothesis 1 There will be an interaction between scales used to assess applicant attraction (see Appendix).
organizational culture and participant sex for job pursuit Other materials were a demographic questionnaire and a
intention; men will be significantly more likely than debriefing statement.
women to show stronger intention to pursue a job in the
competitive organizational culture, while women will be Organizational Recruitment Brochures
significantly more likely than men to show greater inten-
tions to pursue a position in the supportive organizational Two recruitment brochures were developed for this study.
culture. One bank’s brochure depicted a high-demand, high-reward
culture through terms and phrases such as ‘‘fast track,’’
Hypothesis 2 There will be an interaction between
‘‘competitive environment,’’ ‘‘work individually and
organizational culture and participant sex for organiza-
aggressively to achieve your career goals,’’ ‘‘allow your
tional preference; men will be significantly more likely
ambition to shine above the rest,’’ and ‘‘work extremely
than women to show preference for the competitive orga-
hard and receive high financial rewards.’’ The other bank’s
nizational culture, while women will be significantly more
brochure described a supportive culture thorough terms and
likely than men to show preference for the supportive
phrases such as ‘‘nurturing environment,’’ ‘‘values the
organizational culture.
collaboration among all employees,’’ ‘‘recognizes there is
Hypothesis 3 There will be an interaction between more to life than just money by providing intrinsic
organizational culture and participant sex for organiza- rewards….like satisfaction with your job,’’ ‘‘it is important
tional choice; men will be significantly more likely than to balance both work and family roles.’’ Other than the

123
654
manipulation described above, the brochures contained the
same information. Different colors, font, and layouts were
used and the order of some non-essential details were
varied, so the brochures did not appear identical to allow
for the repeated-measures manipulation to not be obvious
to participants. A pilot study conducted with six male and
six female participants used a manipulation check to
determine that the two depictions of the organizational
cultures were clearly distinguishable.
Job Pursuit Intention Scale
The JPI scale was used to measure the job pursuit inten-
tions of the participants regarding the two organizations
depicted in the recruitment literature. The JPI was adapted
from Aiman-Smith, Bauer, and Cable’s measure (2001).
The scale contained six questions with a Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly disagree).
The coefficient alpha for this measure is .91. Scores were
calculated by averaging the ratings for the six items.
Organization Preference Scale
Participant preference for the values that represented a
competitive (‘‘masculine’’) or supportive (‘‘feminine’’)
organizational culture was measured using the Organiza-
tional Preference (OP) scale, which consists of 10 ques-
tions with a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The coefficient alpha for the
competitive subscale was .76. The coefficient alpha for the
supportive subscale was .70.
Organizational Choice Scale
The Organizational Choice scale measured the probability
that a participant would choose to work at one organization
over the other. The measure contained 6 options designed
to allow each participant to indicate their probability of
choosing one organization over the other. The Organiza-
tional Choice scale also included a forced choice question
that asked each participant to choose which organization
they would prefer to work for, and an open-ended follow-
up to indicate why.
Procedure
Participants were told that they would be evaluating
recruitment literature for organizations that frequently
hired new college graduates and that they would be asked
questions about the literature. The participants were given
manila folders that included copies of realistic-looking
recruitment brochures for two banking institutions. The
three scales used to measure the dependent variables and
123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:649–662
the demographic survey were also in the folder. The order
of presentation of the brochures was counterbalanced to
reduce possible order effects. After reading each individual
brochure, each participant immediately completed the Job
Pursuit Intentions scale. After both brochures were read
and the JPI measure was completed for each, the partici-
pants filled out the Organizational Preference scale and the
Organizational Choice scale. The participants then com-
pleted a demographic survey. Finally, each participant
received a debriefing statement.
Experimental Design
A 2 9 2 repeated measures experimental design was used;
one independent variable was the type of organizational
culture presented in the recruitment brochure (competitive-
masculine vs. supportive-feminine) and a second, non-
manipulated variable was participant sex. The dependent
variables were job pursuit intention, organizational pref-
erence, and organizational choice. The data was analyzed
using a repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA).
Results
Descriptive Statistics and Assumptions
Descriptive statistics were run for all dependent variables.
Skewness and kurtosis values for all three dependent
variables were less than 5, indicating that the data was
normally distributed. A non-significant Box’s M Test
indicated that the covariance matrix for the dependent
variable of job pursuit intentions was homogeneous
(*p [ .05). A non-significant Box’s M Test indicated the
covariance matrix for the dependent variable of organiza-
tional preference was homogeneous (*p [ .05).
Hypothesis One
The results partially support Hypothesis 1 which stated
there would be an interaction between organizational cul-
ture and sex on job pursuit intentions, such that men would
be significantly more likely than women to show greater
intentions to pursue a job in the competitive organizational
culture, while women would be significantly more likely
than men to show greater intentions to pursue a position in
the supportive organizational culture.
A repeated measures MANOVA examined this
hypothesis; the independent variables were culture and sex,
and the dependent variable was job pursuit intentions. The
Wilks’ K = .967, F(1, 254) = 8.758, **p \ .01 multivar-
iate test indicated an interaction occurred between
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:649–662 655

Table 1 Mean results for job pursuit intentionsa Table 2 Mean results for organizational preferencea
Culture Men Women F value p Value Culture Men Women F value p Value
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Competitive 4.60 .143 4.53 .123 .158 *p [ .05 Competitive 4.25 .110 3.83 .095 8.19 *p \ .05
Supportive 5.02 .126 5.56 .109 10.723 ***p = .001 Supportive 5.14 .086 5.47 .074 8.77 *p \ .05
a a
The maximum mean is 7.00 The maximum mean is 7.00

organizational culture and sex on job pursuit intentions.
With regard to the significant interaction, the observed
power of the test indicated that 84% of the variance was
captured and unlikely to be due to chance.
The post-hoc analyses indicated that the interaction
between organizational culture and sex on job pursuit
intentions was due to significant differences between the
job pursuit intentions of men (M = 5.02, SD = .126) and
women (M = 5.56, SD = .109) for the supportive orga-
nizational culture F(1, 254) = 10.723, ***p = .001. Spe-
cifically, women were significantly more likely than men to
report higher job pursuit intentions toward the organization
with the supportive culture. A significant difference was
not found between men (M = 4.60, SD = .143) and
women (M = 4.53, SD = .123) for the competitive orga-
nizational culture F(1, 254) = .158, *p [ .05. For a sum-
mary of these results, see Table 1.
The Wilks’ K = .841, F(1, 254) = 47.88, ***p \ .001
multivariate test indicated a main effect for type of orga-
nizational culture. Post hoc analyses indicate that both
male and female participants reported greater intentions to
pursue a job in the supportive organizational culture
(M = 5.29, SD = .083) compared to the competitive
organizational culture (M = 4.56, SD = .095). Post hoc
analyses found no main effect for sex independent of
organizational culture. In other words, men (M = 4.81,
SD = .109) and women (M = 5.05, SD = .094) were not
significantly different in terms of their overall job pursuit
intention scores F(1, 254) = 2.66, *p [ .05.
Hypothesis Two
These results fully support Hypothesis 2, which stated
there would be an interaction between organizational
culture and gender on organizational preference, such that
men would be significantly more likely than women to
prefer the competitive culture, while women would be
significantly more likely than men to prefer the supportive
culture.
A repeated measures MANOVA, with the independent
variables of culture and sex, and the dependent variable of
organizational preference, found Wilks’ K = .956, F(1,
254) = 11.78, ***p = .001. The observed power of the
test indicates that 92% of the variance was captured and
unlikely to be due to chance.
Post-hoc analyses indicated that the significant interac-
tion between organizational culture and sex on organization
preference was due to significant differences between the
organizational preferences held by men (M = 4.25,
SD = .110) and women (M = 3.83, SD = .095) for the
competitive organizational culture F(1, 254) = 8.19,
*p \ .05, as well as significant differences between men
(M = 5.14, SD = .086) and women (M = 5.47, SD =
.074) for the supportive organizational culture F(1, 254) =
8.77, *p \ .05. For a summary of these results, see Table 2.
The Wilks’ K = .655, F(1, 254) = 133.65, ***p \ .001
multivariate test indicated there was a significant main
effect for organizational culture on organizational prefer-
ence. Post-hoc analyses indicated that participants of both
sexes were significantly more likely to prefer the supportive
organizational culture (M = 5.31, SD = .057) over than
the competitive organizational culture (M = 4.04, SD =
.073). Post-hoc analyses found no main effect for sex
independent of organizational culture; F(1, 254) = .304,
*p [ .05. This meant that the men (M = 4.69, SD = .054)
and women (M = 4.65, SD = .046) were not significantly
different in terms of their overall organizational preference
scores.
Hypothesis Three
The third hypothesis was that there would be an interaction
between organizational culture and sex for organizational
choice, such that men would be significantly more likely
than women to choose to work in the competitive organi-
zational culture, while women would be significantly more
Table 3 Mean results for organizational choicea
Sex Mean SD t value p Value
Men 3.78 1.14 -3.59 ***p = .001
Women 4.29 1.24
a
A mean between 1.00 and 3.99 represent a preference for the
competitive organizational culture, while a mean between 4.00 and
6.00 represent a preference for the supportive organizational culture

123
656
likely than men to choose to work in the supportive orga-
nizational culture.
An independent samples t-test found a significant dif-
ference between the organizational choice of men (M =
3.78, SD = 1.14) and women (M = 4.29, SD = 1.24);
men were significantly more likely than women to choose
the competitive culture, while the women were signifi-
cantly more likely than men to choose the supportive cul-
ture t(254) = -3.59, ***p = .001. For a summary of these
results, see Table 3.
Qualitative Findings
Which organization would you choose to work for? The
open-ended question asked participants, based on their
review of the two recruitment brochures, which organiza-
tion they would prefer to work for and why.
Of the 256 participants, 175 chose the supportive
organization and 81 chose the competitive organization.
There were 109 men in the sample; 66 (60.5%) chose the
supportive organization and 43 (39.4%) chose the com-
petitive organization. There were 147 women in the sam-
ple; 109 (74.1%) chose the supportive organization and 38
(25.8%) chose the competitive organization. A chi-squared
analysis indicated a significant difference in the between
men and women in the number who chose the supportive
organization over the competitive one v2(1, N = 256) =
5.35, *p \ .05.
Why would you prefer to work for this organization? In
the overall sample of participants, 205 of the 256 partici-
pants explained why they chose the organization they did.
Regardless of sex, the reasons stated most frequently for
why the supportive organization was chosen were the fol-
lowing: ‘‘it allowed for a family and work balance’’
(n = 68); ‘‘it does not require sacrificing my personal life’’
(n = 43), ‘‘I like collaboration and teamwork’’ (n = 39);
and ‘‘this company seems more supportive and friendly
towards employees’’ (n = 29). In the overall sample,
regardless of sex, the reasons stated most frequently for why
the competitive organization were chosen was the follow-
ing: ‘‘I like the money factor’’ (n = 21), ‘‘the opportunity
for advancement’’ (n = 13); ‘‘family is not an issue for me
right now’’ (n = 10); ‘‘the focus on hard-work and success’’
(n = 10); and ‘‘I like the competition’’ (n = 9).
In this sample of 205 who responded to this question,
120 were women and 85 were men.
The reasons given most frequently by women who chose
the supportive organization were as follows: ‘‘it allowed
for a family and work balance’’ (n = 46); ‘‘it does not
require sacrificing my personal life’’ (n = 23); ‘‘this
company seems more supportive and friendly towards
employees’’ (n = 21); and ‘‘I like collaboration and
teamwork’’ (n = 21).
123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:649–662
The reasons given most frequently by the women who
chose the competitive organization were as follows: ‘‘I like
the money factor’’ (n = 8); ‘‘the opportunity for advance-
ment’’ (n = 7); ‘‘family is not an issue for me right now’’
(n = 5); and ‘‘I like the competition’’ (n = 5).
The reasons given most frequently by the men who
chose the supportive organization were as follows: ‘‘it
allowed for a family and work balance’’ (n = 21); ‘‘it does
not require sacrificing my personal life’’ (n = 20); and ‘‘I
like collaboration and teamwork’’ (n = 16); ‘‘money is not
everything’’ (n = 8); and ‘‘this company seems more
supportive and friendly towards employees’’ (n = 8).
The reasons given most frequently by the men who chose
the competitive organization were as follows: ‘‘I like the
money factor’’ (n = 13); ‘‘the focus on hard work and suc-
cess’’ (n = 7); ‘‘the opportunity for advancement’’ (n = 6);
and ‘‘family is not an issue for me right now’’ (n = 5).
Discussion
The current study examined the effects of perceived
organizational culture on the organizational attractiveness
perceptions held by male and female college students. It
was proposed that for all three measures of organizational
attractiveness (job pursuit intentions, organizational pref-
erence, and organizational choice) there would be a sig-
nificant interaction between organizational culture and sex,
and that men would be more likely than women to pursue,
prefer, and choose the competitive organizational culture,
while women would be more likely than men to pursue,
prefer, and choose the supportive organizational culture.
Partial support was found for the first hypothesis; men
were expected to be more likely than women to show
greater job pursuit intentions towards the competitive
organizational culture, while women were expected to be
more likely than men to show greater intentions to pursue
the supportive organizational culture.
This hypothesis was only partially supported because
the interaction only occurred for the supportive organiza-
tional culture. Women reported stronger intention to pursue
the supportive organizational culture than did men, how-
ever the men did not show greater intentions to pursue the
competitive organizational culture than women. It is
interesting that both male and female participants reported
stronger intention to pursue the job in the supportive
organization. These results are consistent with previous
research that found that both male and female managers
preferred supportive, feminine organizational values over
competitive, masculine values (Van Vianen and Fischer
2002).
In the current study, men were found to be more likely
than women to show greater organizational preference for
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:649–662
the competitive organizational culture, while women were
found to be more likely than men to have greater prefer-
ence for the supportive organizational culture. This sup-
ports the second hypothesis. However, the overall sample,
regardless of sex, had stronger organizational preferences
for the supportive organizational culture. These results are
similar to those found by Van Vianen and Fischer (2002),
who found that women had a weaker preference for mas-
culine organizational values than did men, related to per-
ceived work-family conflict.
Having a preference for the competitive organizational
culture meant preferring the opportunity for high salary and
career advancement even though that meant sacrificing
one’s personal life, desire to be a ‘‘winner’’ and outperform
peers, competing for rewards, and working independently.
Having a preference for the supportive organizational
culture meant preferring a balance between work and
family life, the desire to have a life outside of one’s career,
being supportive to colleagues, working together for
rewards, and collaborating with other employees, with the
trade-off of a lower salary. The preference measure was
developed so that participants would have to weigh their
preference for one value over another. For example, to
show preference for one organizational culture over the
other the participant was asked to indicate their agreement
with the following statement: ‘‘I would prefer to work in an
organization that would allow me to balance my work and
family life, even it meant earning a lower salary.’’ The
results indicate that men are more likely than women to
prefer the competitive organization, but that overall the
men also preferred the supportive culture over the com-
petitive one.
Because men and women are socialized to internalize
sex-linked values and preferences, gender schema theory
(Bem 1981) provides a basis for understanding why men
and women often have different organizational preferences.
Specifically, many men view a competitive organizational
culture as being consistent with the male ‘‘breadwinner’’
sex role, while many women view a supportive organiza-
tional culture as more likely to allow them to fulfill aspects
of the female ‘‘caretaker’’ sex role.
The results also indicate that men and women differ
with regard to the choice of which organization they would
prefer to work for, consistent with the third hypothesis.
Men were more likely than women to choose the com-
petitive organizational culture, while women were more
likely than men to choose the supportive organizational
culture. These results correspond with the findings for the
organizational preference outcomes; men and women tend
to choose the organization that is characterized by the
values that are most important to them.
Understanding of these results is enhanced through
examining the forced choice and qualitative responses
657
given by the participants. Most participants chose the
supportive organization, which is consistent with the job
pursuit intentions and organizational preference results.
These results did, however, differ from findings on the
Organizational Choice measure, which found that men had
a greater probability of choosing the competitive organi-
zational culture, while women had a greater probability of
choosing the supportive organizational culture.
These differences may have occurred because the
organizational choice measure asked each participant to
indicate their probability of choosing one organization over
the other, which allowed participants to indicate the
strength of their choice, while the forced-choice question
required each participant to make a forced-choice of one
organization over the other. It may be that within the
sample of men, there are men that could work in an
organization characterized by competitive or supportive
values, but there is also a subset of men who would pursue
and prefer to work in a supportive organization compared
to a competitive one. These results are helpful in explain-
ing the overall job pursuit intentions and preference found
for the supportive organization, regardless of sex.
For the men and women who chose the supportive
organization, the most frequently stated reason was that the
supportive organizational culture would allow for a balance
between work and family and did not require a sacrifice to
one’s personal life, and the perception that this company
was more friendly and supportive of its employees. For the
men and women who chose the competitive organization,
the most frequently stated reasons were the ability to make
money and the opportunity for advancement. These results
suggest that the benefit of being able to balance one’s
family with a career and maintain a personal life are
important influences on the application decisions made by
many men and women.
Future Implications
These results can be applied to improve the recruitment of
new employees into the organization. For organizations
hoping to attract a larger pool of qualified applicants, the
results suggest that it is advantageous to highlight sup-
portive organizational cultural values; however, those
values should only be advertised if they are actually
representative of the values that truly exist within the
organization. Organizations should examine their organi-
zational cultures to determine if the culture is limiting the
attractiveness of their organization to talented men and
women who seek a balance of work and non-work.
Both men and women reported stronger job pursuit
intentions and preferences towards the supportive organi-
zational culture, even thought the salary would be lower.
This suggests that many organizations could benefit by
123
658 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:649–662

integrating more supportive values into their culture. This
benefit would come through enhanced ability to attract top
talent during recruitment, and increased retention of
employees who need or desire to maintain a work-life
balance. These results suggest that despite the fact that
many organizations require employees to sacrifice family
and quality of life to attain high rewards, many individuals
would sacrifice some level of reward to work in a more
supportive and flexible environment.
Although this research did not study retention, these
supportive vs. competitive values would be expected to
influence post-hire outcomes such as retention, organiza-
tional commitment, and job satisfaction. If new employees
have a preference for supportive organizational values, but
the organizational culture is competitive, high turnover and
low job satisfaction are expected to result from this lack of
person-environment fit.
The qualitative data suggests that organizations should
be aware that organizational culture facilitates or impedes
work-family balance for both men and women, and that
being able to balance family, career, and personal life are
issues that are very relevant to both the men and women
who participated in this study.
Overall, the results of this study provide an empirical and
rational basis for why organizational decision makers should
recognize the importance of integrating more supportive
‘‘feminine’’ values into their organizational culture. If
organizations hope to compete for human resources, they
must understand how the cultural values of the organization
impact recruitment. By attracting more applicants during the
recruitment process the organization can be more selective,
thus improving the quality of those hired. By implementing
the values that allow for a more supportive organizational
culture, organizations will be better able to attract applicants
of both sexes. By allowing employees to maintain a balance
between career and family needs, organizations may find
that many women who would have chosen to drop out of the
workforce or leave their careers due to family responsibili-
ties may remain with the organization, allowing the orga-
nization to keep the experienced talent in which they have
invested. The results also demonstrate that many men would
prefer to be employed in an organization that is character-
ized by a supportive organizational culture, and would be
willing to trade off some degree of pay and advancement in
return for the benefits provided by work-life balance.
Overall, by creating an organizational culture that focuses
on collaboration, teamwork, and balancing one’s career and
family, organizations can maintain a competitive edge in
recruiting, attracting, and retaining a diverse sample of
highly-qualified job candidates.

Appendix

Job Pursuit Intentions Scale (Adapted from Aiman-Smith et al. 2001)

Directions: Based on the company brochure you just read, please respond to these following statements. Please indicate
your agreement with each item by circling one answer for each question.
1. I would accept a job offer from this company after graduating.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

2. I would request more information about this company after graduating.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

3. If this company visited campus I would want to speak with a representative.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:649–662 659

4. I would attempt to gain an interview with this company after graduating.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

5. I would actively pursue obtaining a position with this company after graduating.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

6. If this company was at a job fair I would seek out their booth.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

Organizational Preference Measure

Directions: Please read each of the following statements. Think about the preferences you have towards the values in an
organization. Please indicate your agreement with each item by circling one answer for each statement.
1. I would prefer to work in an organization that values collaboration with other employees in my department.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

2. I would prefer to work in an organization that would allow me to balance my work and family life, even if it meant
earning a lower salary.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

3. I would prefer to work in an organization that values my working independently from other employees.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

4. I would prefer to work in an organization that values my being supportive and helpful to others in my department.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

123
660 J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:649–662

5. I would prefer to work in an organization that provides me the opportunity to have high salary earnings, even if it
meant sacrifices regarding my personal and family life.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

6. I would prefer to work in an organization that allows me to be competitive with my colleagues for rewards.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

7. I would prefer to work in an organization that views high salary and career advancement as the main focus of my life,
even if the job was very demanding and required 60 h work weeks.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

8. I would prefer to work in an organization where rewards are distributed equally in my workgroup.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

9. I would prefer to work in an organization that values being a winner and outperforming my peers.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

10. I would prefer to work in an organization that realizes I have a life outside of my career, even if the salary is less than
I could earn in a more demanding job.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly agree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

Organizational Choice Measure

Directions: Based on the two company brochures you just read, please respond to the following questions.
1. What is the probability that you would choose to work at one organization over the other? (Please indicate your
response by placing a check by one of the probability statement options).
Example: If you would strongly prefer to work at Hampton Roads Bank & Trust over Tidewater Savings & Loan,
you could choose option (f) below: 100% HRB&T and 0% TS&L

123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:649–662 661

Example: If you would strongly prefer to work at Tidewater Savings & Loan, you could choose option (a) below:
0% HRB&T and 100% TS&L.

Hampton Roads Bank & Trust (HRB&T) Tidewater Savings & Loan (TS&L)

_____ a. 0% HRB&T 100% TS&L

_____ b. 20% HRB&T 80% TS&L
_____ c. 40% HRB&T 60% TS&L
_____ d. 60% HRB&T 40% TS&L
_____ e. 80% HRB&T 20% TS&L
_____ f. 100% HRB&T 0% TS&L

2. Based on the two brochures you have read, which organization would you prefer to work?

a. ____ Hampton Roads Bank & Trust b._____ Tidewater Savings & Loan
Please explain your choice:
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________

References Grover, S. L., & Crooker, K. J. (1995). Who appreciates family-

Aiman-Smith, L., Bauer, T. N., & Cable, D. M. (2001). Are you
attracted? Do you intend to pursue? A recruiting policy-capturing
study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 219–237.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the
organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex
typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.
Braddy, P. W., Meade, A. W., & Kroustalis, C. M. (2006).
Organizational recruitment website effects on viewers’ percep-
tions of organizational culture. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 20, 525–543.
Burke, R. J. (1997). Culture’s consequences: Organizational values,
family-friendliness and a level playing field. Women in Man-
agement Review, 12, 222–227.
Burke, R. J. (2001). Organizational values, work experiences and
satisfactions among managerial and professional women. The
Journal of Management Development, 20, 346–353.
Cable, D. M., Aiman-Smith, L., & Edwards, J. (2000). The sources
and accuracy of job applicants’ beliefs about organizational
culture. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1076–1085.
Carli, L. L., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender effects on social influence
and emergent leadership. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of
gender & work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Friedman, D. E. (1990). Work and family: The new strategic plan.
Human Resource Planning, 13, 79–90.
Gonyea, J. G., & Googins, B. (1996). A new challenge for American
corporations. In S. Lewis & J. Lewis (Eds.), The work-family
challenge. London: Sage Publications.
responsive human resource policies: The impact of family-
friendly policies on the organizational attachment of the
organizational attachment of parents and non-parents. Personnel
Psychology, 48, 271–288.
Heckert, T. M., Droste, H. E., Adams, P. J., Griffin, C. M., Roberts, L.
L., Muellere, M. A., et al. (2002). Gender differences in
anticipated salary: Role of salary estimates for others, job
characteristics, career paths, and job inputs. Sex Roles, 47, 139–
151.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differ-
ences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1998). Attitudes, values and organizational culture:
Disentangling the concepts. Organization Studies, 19, 477–493.
Jacobs, J. A. (1999). The sex segregation of occupations: Prospects
for the 21st century. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender
& work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality,
organizational culture, and organization attraction. Personnel
Psychology, 50, 359–394.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review
of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Per-
sonnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.
Lewis, S. (2001). Restructuring workplace cultures: The ultimate work-
family challenge? Women in Management Review, 16, 21–29.
Loden, M. (1985). Feminine leadership on how to succeed in business
without being one of the boys. New York: Times Books.
Looker, E. D., & Magee, P. A. (2000). Gender and work: The
occupational expectations of young women and men in the
1990s. Gender Issues, 18, 74–88.

123
662
Lyness, K. S., & Kropf, M. B. (2005). The relationships of national
gender equality and organizational support with work-family
balance: A study of European managers. Human Relations, 58,
33–60.
Maier, M. (1999). On the gendered substructure of organization:
Dimensions and dilemmas of corporate masculinity. In G. N.
Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
McGinty, R., & Reitsch, A. (1992). Using student perceptions and job
characteristics to recruit recent graduates. Review of Business,
14, 38–42.
O’Reilly, C. (1989). Corporations, culture, and commitment: Moti-
vation and social control in organizations. California Manage-
ment Review, 31, 9–25.
O’Reilly, C. A., III, Chatman, J. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1991). People
and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to
assessing person-organization fit. Academy of Management
Journal, 34, 487–515.
Perkins, L. A., Thomas, K. M., & Taylor, G. A. (2000). Advertising
and recruitment: Marketing to minorities. Psychology & Mar-
keting, 17, 235–245.
Powell, G. N. (1999). The sex difference in employee inclinations
regarding work-family programs: Why does it exist, should we
care, and what should we do about it (if anything)? In S.
Parasuraman & J. H. Greenhaus (Eds.), Integrating work and
family: Challenges and choices for a changing world. Connect-
icut: Westport.
123
J Bus Psychol (2010) 25:649–662
Rau, B. L., & Hyland, M. M. (2002). Role conflict and flexible work
arrangements: The effects of applicant attraction. Personnel
Psychology, 55, 111–136.
Rosener, J. B. (1995). America’s competitive secret: Utilizing women
as a management strategy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San
Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. (1995). The ASA
framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48, 747–773.
Schwartz, F. N. (1989). Management women and the new facts of life.
Harvard Business Review, 67, 65–76.
Thomas, K. M., & Wise, P. G. (1999). Organizational attractiveness
and individual differences: Are diverse applicants attracted by
different factors? Journal of Business and Psychology, 13, 375–
390.
Van Vianen, A. E. M., & Fischer, A. (2002). Illuminating the glass
ceiling: The role of organizational culture preferences. Journal
of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 315–337.
Wicks, D., & Bradshaw, P. (1999). Gendered organizational cultures
in Canadian work organizations: Implications for creating an
equitable workforce. Management Decision, 37, 372–383.
Wiley, C. (1992). Recruiting strategies for changing times. Interna-
tional Journal of Manpower, 13, 13–22.
Wilson, E. M. (1998). Gendered career paths. Personnel Review, 27,
396–403.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.