CONTENTS

1. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

3. RATIONAL

4. OBJECTIVE

5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

6. REFRENCES
 Perception of Student towards Job Selection
INTRODUCTION

Perception

“Perception is the process of receiving information about & making sense of the world around
us. It involves deciding which information to notice, how to categories these information and
how to interpret it within the framework of existing knowledge”.

Perception is the process of attaining awareness or understanding of sensory information. The

word "perception" comes from the Latin words perceptio, percipio, and means "receiving,
collecting, and action of taking possession, apprehension with the mind or senses."

Perception is one of the oldest fields in psychology. The oldest quantitative law in psychology is
the Weber-Fechner law, which quantifies the relationship between the intensity of physical
stimuli and their perceptual effects.

Job selection

“Selection is the process of choosing the most suitable candidates from those who apply for the
job. It is a process of offering jobs to desired candidates having requisite qualifications and
qualities to fill jobs in the organization”. When choosing a career, most people want to answer
the question, "what career will make me happy?" Some students are not sure of what kind of job
or career they want? Not sure what to do in their life?

Perception are related to what students think they will get from their job all the students were
thinking of their expectations before applying for the program. Student who holds positive
perceptions about selection are more likely to view the organization favorably and report
stronger intentions to accept job offers. They should pick one or two things they are passionate
about and get involved in those areas then only it will lead to” job satisfaction” - two words
which can mean the difference between loving your job and hating your job. And seeing that
your job could take up half or even more of your waking hours aren’t it rather important to make
sure that you are enjoying your job.

For a student, making a career choice can be a difficult and confusing decision. For students
graduating soon, the current economy can also mean an added emotion: fear and uncertainty.
Students inevitably have heard in the news and in conversation about job woes and
unemployment. How can they relieve the pressure? The key is planning. And a good start is the
resources you'll find in this guide. Educators and experts agree that the state of the economy
coupled with rising education costs put pressure on students to make difficult choices.
Considering the variety of job opportunity available, selecting the right one for your job could be

2
a confusing and difficult decision. In any job selection process, matching the best job to the
student interest can be the difference between profit and loss on a job.

Interest

Typically, the first consideration in seeking a job or career is your area of interest. Many people
have activities or work they enjoy doing. If you are good at something, often that will be an area
of interest for you.

What you like

Suppose you like to deal with people. You might seek a job in sales or a career in management.
On the other hand, if you love the intricacies of computer code, you might seek employment as a
computer programmer. It is good to know what you like to do, so that you can move in that
direction.

Not good enough

But also, there are times when you may select and area in which you are not really good enough.
For example, a person who loves to sing may want to become a popular recording artist. But if
he or she does not have sufficient talent, that career may never work out.

More important than anything

That does not mean it isn't worth giving it a try. If you don't make the "big-time" you can still
perform locally at some level. In other words, although you would like to be a star, make a lot of
money and influence people, you will forgo that for the love of singing.

Have no idea

There are some who don't have a clue about what they like. Often they will take jobs simply for
the money. Unfortunately, these people also don't make very much money and may even hate
their jobs. If your primary motivation in getting a job is to make money, doing what you want
and serving a purpose are secondary.

Money plus area of interest

Some people will seek work in an area that pays well and is in a field of interest. In such a case,
if it is a choice between making good money and doing what you want, the higher wages will
often win out.

Money plus helping others

Getting paid well with the hope to help others is possible in some professions such as medicine.
But typically, pay is not good in jobs such as working for a non-profit organization.

3
Money is important

Making money is important to many people. For those from a family with low economic status,
money can be the driving force in working. Often they will work in jobs other than in their area
of interest or even in a field they hate, simply for the good wages. Certainly, not having an
education, training or skill can affect how much money you make. Education and training are
important if you want to make a decent wage. If you like the work you do and are enthusiastic
about it, your chances of promotion and raises are dramatically increased.

Student also get influence by other like many people want to have their work appreciated and
feel like it is important to their bosses and even the customers. There are also some who want to
make a difference in improving society, protecting the environment or helping other people.
Many who get into charity work, medicine, and education are driven by the desire to help other
people. People that are primarily driven by the desire for money often put helping others at the
bottom of the list or don't even consider it at all. Those who are driven by the need to make a
difference may not care how much they make, as long as they can continue helping. Usually
people have an interest in a certain field or cause. For example, a person may be interested in
biology and then become concerned about environmental issues. Before choosing any job
students should learn about the companies that are located here, what they do, such as what
product they manufacture or what service they provide, what type of careers those companies
have, what education is needed, what skill level is needed, and some of the average salaries for
those kinds of positions," said Robbins.

Some of the important criteria which influence the students for selecting any job are:-

Source of influence items:

 Family influence or expectations

 The influence of friends and acquaintances
 The influence of TV or radio media
 The influence of print media
 The influence of school teachers or advisors

Personal fit items:

 Job that fit to my interests.

 Jobs that fit my personality
 Job that fit to my values.
 Jobs that fit my thinking style
 Future work satisfaction

4
Extrinsic benefits items

 Attractive future financial compensation

 Potential for future prestige
 Future job security
 Future fringe benefits
 Future promotion potential
 Future supply and demand in the labor market appeared favorable.
 Jobs that will have a very high earning potential

1. Job salary/wages/pay: It sounds obvious - and when many people think of why they
chose a particular job or career, pay will come out as a very important factor. Money
matters and your income will determine your lifestyle. However, if you have a job that
you don't like with any benefits, personal days, flexibility, etc., then what's the point? Not
having benefit can be costly in the long run.
2. Status of your job: The second element of job selection is related to status - how proud
are you of your friends and acquaintances knowing you do a particular job for a particular
company?
3. Daily structure provided by your job: This element of job selection is interesting - in
fact it appears that what many refer to as "the daily grind" is actually one of the key
reasons we choose to work. Of course there is a difference between tedious routine and
simply providing structure. For instance, in my work, I know roughly what I'll be doing
for the next few days, and the overall shape of what I'll be doing for the next year or so
(but with almost no specifics). This is enough structure to allow me to make sure that my
day is productive.
4. Development and achievement: Being productive brings us important element of job
selection. People like to feel that they are going somewhere and getting stuff done.
5. Social interaction: I consider it one of the most important factors. These are the people
that you will be spending most of the time with, more so than your family and friends
(unless you already work with them). These people will run the gamut from being
slackers to hard workers. The slackers will cause the most problems for you if you are a
hard worker. Your boss may depend on you to pick up their slack, especially if it's at a
place where it's difficult to fire employees (such as the government). If possible, try to
find out who you will be working with before you get hired. You may be able to see a
glimpse of their personality and/or their work habits. But understand that if the boss does
not correct their poor work habits, they will continue to slack off. Beware of the negative
co-workers. It is easy for them to drain the workplace with their negative energy.
Working at a job you don't like is never easy and only gets exacerbated when there are
whiners and people in seemingly permanent bad moods. If you are not careful, these

5
 people will annoy you and drive you nuts. Avoid being dragged down to their level.
Beware of what you reveal to them such as complaints about the job or other co-workers
or even the boss. Some of them will use that information and try to backstab you with it
later on.
6. Benefits: How much time will you get off for vacation? Personal days? Is there a subsidy
for public transportation?
7. Location: How far is the commute? Is it in a safe location? Are there restaurants and a
gym nearby? Will you have enough space to work?
8. Hours: Will you be working a standard number of hours? Over-time? If the job requires
you to work over 50 hours a week, make sure you like it as that's where you'll be
spending the majority of your time.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The career choice process and continues to generate substantial research. Of the psychologically-
based theories, Holland's matching theory (1973) has generated the most research (Neiner &
Owens, 1985). It also maintains the greatest following (Hall, 1987). The theory that individuals
choose careers based on their perceptions of the congruence between their personality and
alternative work environments, despite being burdened to some extent with conflicting evidence
(Spokane, 1985), continues to accrue considerable empirical support.

Although person-environment congruence's role in vocational choice is well established, can one
conclude that movement towards such congruence explains most of the initial choice process, or
even the greatest part of it, in relation to other factors thought to play a role? In his discussion of
the problems faced in some of the studies which focused on congruence, Gati, for example,
(1989) suggested that other important variables are being overlooked. Included among these
other variables were occupational values, abilities, and aptitudes.

Labor economists have focused primarily on relative income and future income streams as
determinants of occupational choice outcomes. This perspective assumes that individuals have
unlimited freedom in choosing a career and simply accept positions which offer the best net
advantage, usually in terms of income (Rottenberg, 1956). Further determinants which have been
hypothesized include large aggregate shifts in career "tastes and preferences" (Fiorito, 1982),
which stem from the sociological perspective on vocational choice (Lipset, Bendix, & Malm,
1962).

Taking both psychological and economic approaches to career choice into account provides an
opportunity to investigate career choice as a function of both person-environment fit and non-fit
related preferences. This exploratory study examined the role of perceptions of personal fit,
which may impel individuals toward eventual person-environment congruence, vis-a-vis other
factors thought to play a role in the career choice process.

6
The current study is based on the view that career choice is the product of an ongoing decisional
process (Mihal, Sorce, & Comte, 1985). From this perspective, individuals consider a variety of
factors, each with different relative salience. Examples of such incremental decisions include
whether or not to pursue higher education, which institution to attend, and which curriculum to
pursue.

Just as career path corrections and redirection may occur after one's first job begins to provide
real-world information about what the job is like, redirection often occurs college training and
education. This is the phase of the vocational choice process during which personal notions,
proclivities and tentative choices are first beginning to be evaluated against experiences. As new
information about oneself and the fit with future career is acquired, some students inevitably
change directions. This may serve to improve eventual fit between personal traits and career.

As mentioned, the pursuit of "fit" between individual and occupation is not universally relied
upon as the sole determinant of occupational choice, and by extension choice of college major.
Analysis of aggregate trends in career choice in other disciplines such as labor economics
(Boskin, 1974, Falaris, 1984, & Freeman, 1981) suggests that both pecuniary (monetary
compensation) and non-pecuniary factors-completely unrelated to person-environment
congruence-are operant. This work provides strong support for the impact of perceived future
extrinsic job aspects, i.e., pay, benefits, favorable job security, on career choice.

Economic theories of vocational choice, while allowing that non-pecuniary factors play a role in
the maximizing of an individual's net advantage, have focused nevertheless on salary and wages
as the primary determinant of vocational choice. For example, Berger (1988) conducted a study
indicating that, holding family backgrounds constant, individuals are more likely to choose
college majors offering greater streams of future earnings rather than, as some have argued,
majors with higher beginning earnings at the time of choice.

Fiorito (1982), in a study attempting to reconcile differences in the two perspectives, found
evidence suggesting that economists should pay greater attention to non-pecuniary variables.
Accordingly, his study examined other career choice variables that stem from the sociological
perspective. He proposed that "student tastes' towards particular occupations might run counter
to labor market factors (e.g., job market, pay levels), consistent with earlier work by Fogel and
Mitchell (1973).

Fiorito's study utilized annual aggregate data on attitudes, values, and intended majors of college
freshmen (Astin, King, & Richardson 1986; Astin et al., 1988). The data seemed to point to the
operation of supra-market factor "taste" trends between the years 1968 and 1978 that were very
pronounced and stable. For example, in what one dean of a large engineering college termed the
"1972 Syndrome", high levels of anti-military/industrial complex feelings were reflected in the
data by a steady decline from the higher Sputnik era levels in the ranking of the item "Make a
theoretical contribution to science." This ranking reached its low point in 1971. Numerous other

7
changes in item rankings by college freshman were consistent with such a sociological shift in
career taste preferences. For example, these data indicate strong increases between 1967 and
1988 in the importance placed on financial gain, prestige, and recognition in relation to other
career objectives by college freshmen (Astin, et al, 1986; Astin, et al, 988). The data also
indicate strong shifts toward business and technical majors, widely held to offer greater job
supply and compensation, and away from English, the fine arts, the humanities, and the social
sciences. This shift has ebbed only slightly since its peak in the mid-1990s.

Thus, there has been a great deal of support for the influence of pecuniary-type extrinsic factors
in career choice. Moreover, the salience of such factors may be increased by shifts in non-
pecuniary influences such as value shifts and career-related taste changes. Clear shifts in career
choice to career areas in a manner consistent with these apparent value and taste shifts lend
support to the notion that vocational choice is influenced by a confluence of disparate decisional
factors, in fact broader than has traditionally been allowed for in psychologically-based
approaches to this area. Moreover, very little work has been done to address the effects of the
interplay of these factors in individual vocational decisions.

Work that examines choice of college major at the individual level of analysis should include the
influence of perceived future extrinsic career outcomes as a likely significant factor in this
process. This factor may indeed be much stronger today than it was in the early 1970s, due to
value shifts evident in the college freshman data. Accordingly, the current study incorporated
this variable along with other variables, including personal fit, as predictors of satisfaction with
one's college major. The next question is whether students choosing majors based on personal fit
or extrinsic benefits increases or decreases satisfaction with one's major. There is no apparent
rationale for expecting choice of major based on future extrinsic benefits to result in greater
satisfaction with the major. Rather, future extrinsic benefits, because of their ability to override
personal fit considerations, might be expected to decrease major satisfaction, as the course of
study progresses and information about what the career entails becomes more available.

On the other hand, one would expect perceptions of personal fit with the major and career to
increase major satisfaction, i.e., be positively related. This is because previous work, mentioned
above, suggests that such perceptions are the means by which individuals move toward eventual
congruence with the work environment. As a student's course of study unfolds, understanding of
what the career will involve reinforces the correctness of his or her choice.

There is some anecdotal evidence that individuals focus not only on long term strategic
considerations in selecting a major such as personal fit and extrinsic job aspects, but may in fact
be influenced by short term tactical considerations as well. For example, students involved in
demanding coursework such as engineering or pre-medicine may be forced into executing "plan
B" because of unacceptable performance. Or individuals may avoid majors thought to involve
difficult coursework altogether, foregoing in the process what would have been their first choice
based on perceptions of fit and future extrinsic factors. Thus, any examination of the more

8
strategic elements of choice should allow for the salience of short term considerations, such as
coursework difficulty.

Of secondary interest in the study involved potential relationships between sources of outside
influence on the major choice and the tendency to rely on either fit perceptions or future extrinsic
benefits in making a choice. For example, parental influence may favor more pragmatism and
emphasis on extrinsic job aspects, such as pay and job security, than on personal fit with intrinsic
aspects of the major and job. In fact, this is suggested by the previously mentioned database for
national freshmen norms (Astin, et al, 1988), which demonstrates a marked increase in the role
of family influence on career and major choice, concurrent with the assignment of greater
priority to extrinsic benefits.

According to Vrooms Expectancy theory, “The Expectancy Theory holds that people are
motivated to behave in ways that produce desired combinations of expected outcomes. Critical to
the magnitude of motivation is the concept of instrumentality. Instrumentality represents a
person's belief that a particular outcome is contingent on accomplishing a specific level of
performance or expectation. As such, it is essential that the employee understands the
supervisor's expectations and that employee believes that his or her goals can be achieved by
meeting or exceeding the supervisor's expectations. So according to this theory expectation of
student will affect their preference towards job”

According to Rynes in 1993, “Researchers have also developed an interest in examining

selection from the student's perspective, recognizing that not only do companies select
employees, but students also select the organizations to which they will apply and where they are
willing to work. Thus, as research continues with the goal of better estimating the predictive
value of selection devices, a related concern is in understanding how students perceive and react
to the job selection process”

Studying student reactions is important for at least five reasons:

1. First, students who find particular aspects of the selection system invasive may view the
company as a less attractive option in the job search process. Maintaining a positive
company image during the selection process is of significant importance as there are
costs associated with losing top candidates (Murphy, 1986).
2. Second, candidates with negative reactions to a selection experience might dissuade other
potential students from seeking employment with the organization (Smither, Reilly,
Millsap, Pearlman, & Stoffey, 1993).
3. Third, candidates may be less likely to accept an offer from a company with selection
practices that are perceived unfavorably (Macan, Avedon, Paese, & Smith, 1994).
4. Fourth, student reactions may be related to the filing of legal complaints and court
challenges. Students who perceive a particular selection technique as invasive or

9
 inappropriate may be more likely to bring suit than students who perceive the process as
fair and face valid (Smither et al., 1993).
5. Finally, although there is little empirical data on these issues, it is also possible that
students may be less likely to reapply with an organization or buy the company's products
if they feel mistreated during the selection process

According to Gilliland in 1993, “One of the first theoretical models of student reactions was an
effort to tie existing research to organizational justice theory in order to explain how students'
justice perceptions develop and subsequently affect various outcomes in selection settings”

 Organizational justice generally involves the perceived fairness of:

 Outcome allocations (distributive justice),
 Rules and procedures used to make those decisions (procedural justice),
 Sensitivity and respect shown to individuals (interpersonal justice), and
 Explanations and accounts given to individuals (informational justice). The basic premise
of organizational justice theory in selection contexts is that students view selection
procedures in terms these four facets of justice, and these perceptions influence future
attitudes, intentions, self-perceptions, and behaviors.

Greenberg in 1993

A more recent general model of student reactions has emerged that builds upon this initial
theoretical framework to include additional antecedent and moderator variables. In addition to
justice considerations, the model includes perceptions of one's affective and cognitive states
during the process and general perceptions about testing and selection as possible determinants
of various personal and organizational outcomes.

Ryan & Ployhart in 2000

The main premise of the model outlined is that important outcomes can be best predicted by
student perceptions of the selection process. These outcomes include performance on selection
procedures, self-perceptions, and a variety of attitudes and behaviors. Student perceptions take
into account student views concerning the various dimensions of organizational justice, thoughts
and feelings about testing, and broader attitudes about tests and selection in general. The model
also specifies four broad classes of antecedent variables that are proposed as determinants of
student perceptions and proposes several moderators of these relationships. Each component of
the model is reviewed below along with a brief discussion of studies that have tested portions of
the model empirically. Because of their central importance to the model, student perceptions are
reviewed first, followed by outcomes and antecedents, respectively.

10
According to Gilliland in 1993 proposed that applicants' perceptions of fairness directly
influence subsequent attitudes and behaviors both during and after hiring. For example, the
model predicts that applicants who feel that they were treated unfairly during an interview would
be less likely to accept a job offer or recommend the employer to others.

Perceived procedure characteristics include many of the justice rules identified by Gilliland
(1993) such as job relatedness, opportunity to perform, reconsideration opportunity, two-way
communication, and propriety of questions. In particular, job relatedness has been studied
extensively in previous research based on the premise that applicants will perceive selection
more favorably to the extent that techniques are perceived as face valid and predictive of job
performance. Thus, job relatedness is often conceptualized as a two-factor construct comprised
of face validity and perceived predictive validity.

According to Smither in 1993, “Face validity has been defined as "the extent to which
applicants perceive the content of the selection procedure to be related to the content of the job”
Perceived predictive validity has been defined as perceptions about "how well the procedure
predicts future job performance, regardless of how it looks" (Smither et al., 1993, p. 54). These
assessments are also made from the perspective of the test taker and involve beliefs about
whether people who score better on the test also perform better on the job”

In particular, a better understanding is needed of how applicant perceptions develop and change
over time with respect to various stages of the selection process. Most research has explored
outcome favorability as the critical lever in shaping reactions, but relations might vary for other
reasons. Perhaps the salience of selection experiences decays over time as applicants "move on"
or as justice-related perceptions in other domains take hold. Another reasonable possibility is that
applicant mood might account for stronger relationships between variables when they are
measured simultaneously. Fairness heuristic theory suggests a mechanism by which to account
for the dynamic nature of justice perceptions over time and should be considered in future
research (Lind, 2001).

RATIONALE

The rationale of the study is as follows:

 To explore the mind set of students towards jobs.

 To explore the factors which affects the jobs selection?
 To know the job awareness among students.

11
 OBJECTIVE

 To explore the perception of students towards job selection.

 To explore whether students match their skill, aspiration with the job requirements.
 To find out preference of student towards Intrinsic expectations (non materialistic
expectations involving job satisfaction and personal achievement) & extrinsic
expectations (materialistic expectations involving monetary compensation, status, and
prestige)

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

1. Study: To explore the perception of students towards job selection.

2. Sample Size: 100 respondents
3. Sampling Technique: Random Sampling Technique
4. Tools for Data Collection: Self prepared Questionnaire
5. Data Type: Primary Data
6. Area: Indore.
7. Tools for Data Analysis: Most appropriate statistical tool for analysis.

REFERENCE

1. Robert E Ployhart (2004), ORGANIZATIONAL STAFFING: A MULTILEVEL

REVIEW, SYNTHESIS, AND MODEL, in (ed.) (Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, Volume 23), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.121-176.

2. Hayne, S., Pendergast, M., and Greenberg, S. (1993). Gesturing through cursors:
Implementing multiple pointers in group supports systems.

3. S. W. Gilliland, The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice

perspective. Academy of Management Review 18 (1993), pp. 694–734.

12