Perceptions of OP Source Differentiation 101

Hypothesis three suggests that perceptions of OP scores will differ depending on which (if any) recruitment material participants were exposed to (i.e. Website condition, Facebook condition, No Exposure condition). A repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance (R-MANOVA) was conducted to determine the effect of three types of recruitment methods on perceptions of organizational personality across five dimensions (Boy Scout, Innovation, Dominance, Thrift, and Style). Due to the smaller sample size in the No Exposure group, the sample size for this analysis was n = 50 companies.

Significant differences were found on the dependent measures, Wilks’s Λ = .37, F (10, 40) = 6.85, p < .001. The multivariate η2 based on Wilks’s Λ was strong, .63. Table 8 contains the means and the standard deviations of the organizational personality dimensions for the three recruitment methods.

Table 8. Means and Standard Deviations of OP dimensions across the Three Recruitment Methods (N = 50)

Website Facebook No Exposure

OP Dimension M SD M SD M SD Boy Scout 3.93b 0.26 3.93b 0.29 3.68a 0.28 Innovation 3.54b 0.38 3.68b 0.36 3.37a 0.41 Dominance 3.82 0.31 3.82 0.28 3.80 0.28 Thrift 2.19b _{0.35 2.17}b _{0.35 2.40}a _0.44 Style 3.15a _{0.55 3.39}b _{0.63 3.09}a _0.63

Note. Values with different superscript letters denote significant differences using Bonferroni procedure, p<.05.

Given the significant results of the MANOVA, repeated-measures univariate analyses of variances (ANOVA) on each OP dimension were conducted as follow-up. Additionally, for significant ANOVAs, Bonferroni’s pairwise comparison of means determine which recruitment methods differed. Accordingly, each pairwise comparison was tested at p < .017.

The ANOVA on perceptions of Boy Scout indicated a significant recruitment method effect, Wilks’s Λ = .61, F (2, 48) = 15.29, p < .001, multivariate η2 = .39.

Pairwise comparisons suggest that perceptions of Boy Scout were significantly lower for companies rated in the No Exposure condition (M = 3.68) than in the Website (M = 3.93) and Facebook conditions (M = 3.93). Results provide partial support for H3 specific to the Boy Scout OP dimension.

The ANOVA on perceptions of Innovation indicated a significant recruitment method effect, Wilks’s Λ = .65, F (2, 48) = 13.07, p < .001, multivariate η2 = .35.

Pairwise comparisons suggest that perceptions of Innovation were significantly lower for companies rated in the No Exposure condition (M = 3.37) compared to those rated in the

Website (M = 3.54) and Facebook conditions (M = 3.68). Consequently, results provide partial support for H3 specific to the Innovation OP dimension.

The ANOVA on perceptions of Dominance indicated no significant recruitment method effect, Wilks’s Λ = .99, F (2, 48) = .16, p = .85, multivariate η2 = .01. Therefore, results do not provide support for H3 specific to the Dominance OP dimension.

The ANOVA on perceptions of Thrift indicated a significant recruitment method effect, Wilks’s Λ = .73, F (2, 48) = 8.77, p < .01, multivariate η2 = .27. Pairwise

comparisons suggest that perceptions of Thrift were significantly higher for companies rated in the No Exposure condition (M = 2.40) than the Website (M = 2.19) and Facebook conditions (M = 2.17). Results provide partial support for H3 specific to the Thrift OP dimension.

Lastly, the ANOVA on perceptions of Style indicated a significant recruitment method effect, Wilks’s Λ = .79, F (2, 48) = 6.35, p < .01, multivariate η2 = .21. Pairwise comparisons suggest that perceptions of Style were significantly higher for companies rated in the Facebook condition (M = 3.39) than the Website (M = 3.15) and No Exposure conditions (M = 3.09). Results provide support for H3 specific to the Style OP

dimension.

See Table 8 for a summary of the findings.

Supplementary Analyses for Hypotheses 3

Since the R-MANOVA to determine the effect of three types of recruitment methods (Website, Facebook, and No Exposure) on perceptions of OP could only be

condition, additional analyses were performed to explore differences using the full set of companies (N = 102). The No Exposure condition was omitted to allow for analysis in the full set of organizations. Specifically, a repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance (R-MANOVA) was performed to determine the effect of two recruitment methods (Website and Facebook) on perceptions of OP for the larger sample of companies (N = 102). Results were consistent with the previous analyses. Significant differences were found on the dependent measures, Wilks’s Λ = .83, F (5, 97) = 4.03, p < .01. The multivariate η2 based on Wilks’s Λ was small, .17. Table 9 contains the means and the standard deviations of the organizational personality dimensions for the two recruitment methods.

Table 9. Means and Standard Deviations of OP dimensions across the Two Recruitment Methods (N = 102) Website Facebook OP Dimension M SD M SD Boy Scout 3.80 .29 3.90 .32 Innovation 3.44a .38 3.57b .39 Dominance 3.65 .34 3.67 .37 Thrift 2.24 .33 2.25 .35 Style 2.94a .51 3.13b .58

Note. Values with different superscript letters denote significant differences, p< .05.

Given the significant results, univariate tests on each OP dimension were conducted as follow-up. As with the smaller subset of companies, perceptions of Style were significantly lower for companies rated in the Website condition (M = 2.94, SD = .51) compared to those rated in the Facebook condition (M = 3.13). Additionally, perceptions of Innovation were significantly lower for companies rated in the Website

condition (M = 3.44) compared to those rated in the Facebook condition (M = 3.57). Given the similarities in the mean differences in the two analyses, it is possible that a lack of statistical power in the smaller sample contributed to the non-significant findings for the Innovation dimension between Website and Facebook. Consistent with previous analyses, there were no significant differences in perceptions of Boy Scout, Dominance, or Thrift for the two recruitment sources. Despite not being able to assess differences with the No Exposure group, results suggest that the analyses from the smaller sample are consistent with findings from the full set of companies, except for the Innovation

dimension.