Research on targeted recruitment has focused on targeting applicants with surface‐level attributes such as underrepresented demographic groups. The present study extends targeted recruitment research by examining how advertising human resource policies might be useful for targeting both surface‐ and deep‐level attributes. Specifically, the current study uses an experimental design to examine the impact of work‐family, diversity, and employee development policies on the job‐pursuit intentions of working adults in the United States. We examined surface‐ (demographic characteristics; e.g., race) and deep‐level differences (attitudes or values; e.g., diversity values) as predictors of whether participants intend to pursue jobs with firms advertising these human resource (HR) policies. Deep‐level differences consistently predicted job‐pursuit intentions for all three HR policies, but only marginal support was obtained for surface‐level variables as predictors. Findings suggest that targeted recruitment based on deep‐level attributes may be more successful than targeted recruitment based on surface‐level factors.

Research has found many positive benefits to person‐organization (PO) fit, for both individuals and the organization. However, PO misfit has received far less attention in the literature. In this article, we look specifically at PO misfit caused by the differing political values and beliefs of the CEO and employee. We argue that CEO activism influences employee perceptions of ideological misfit (IM), whereby differing political beliefs between employees and their activist CEO can impact workplace outcomes. We consider how peer group reactions, ethical climate, external needs fulfillment, and moral identity serve as boundary conditions for perceptions of PO misfit and related organizational outcomes. We also examine antecedents of CEO activism. Drawing on academic literature from both the micro and macro perspectives of management research, we introduce a conceptual model and discuss implications for the firm and its employees.

Using survey data from 227 employees, we draw from shared reality theory to study subordinate perceptions of family‐supportive supervision, its antecedents and outcomes. We focus on similarity in salient subordinate and supervisor family‐related demographics as an antecedent to perceived family‐supportive supervision. As expected, female subordinates perceived more family‐supportive supervision from female supervisors than from male supervisors. Likewise, parent subordinates perceived parent supervisors, compared with nonparent supervisors, to be more family supportive. Subordinate perception of family‐supportive supervision also positively related to affective commitment – mediating the indirect positive relationship between similarity in family‐related demographics and affective commitment.

PurposeAs ethical leadership has advanced as a construct, the degree to which healthy relational systems explain its effect on employee outcomes has been understudied. With this manuscript we conceptualize and test a model based on a Relational Systems approach to ethical leadership and its relationship with conflict and turnover intentions.Design/methodology/approachTwo studies were conducted to test our hypothesized first- and second-stage moderated mediation model. In Study 1, online surveys were completed by 168 working adults across two different time points. Study 2 extended Study 1 by surveying 115 working adults across three time points using the Mechanical Turk platform.FindingsThe indirect relationship between ethical leadership and turnover intentions via relationship conflict was conditional based on follower moral identity. The negative influence of ethical leadership on relationship conflict and, in turn, turnover intentions was stronger for followers who had higher moral identities. In addition, our findings suggest that leader holding behaviors strengthen the negative indirect effects of ethical leadership on turnover intentions.Originality/valueThis paper demonstrates the usefulness of a Relational Systems theoretical approach to understanding ethical leadership. Specifically, ethical leaders, through their desire and ability to help employees feel known and not alone at work, are better able to reduce relationship conflict and, in turn, reduce employees' desire to leave the organization.

Drawing from a social predicament and identity management framework, we argue that procedural unfairness on the part of decision makers places messengers in a dilemma where they attempt to protect their professional image or legitimacy by engaging in refusals (e.g., curbing explanations) and exhibiting distancing behaviors (e.g., minimizing contact with victims) when delivering bad news. Such behaviors however, violate key tenets of fair interpersonal treatment. The results of two experiments supported our hypotheses in samples of experienced managers. Specifically, we found that levels of messengers' distancing and refusals were greater when the procedures used by decision makers were unfair rather than fair. Additionally, messengers' perceptions of a predicament (honesty versus disclosure) mediated these relationships. Implications and future research directions regarding the ethical delivery of bad news in the workplace are discussed.