Selective Compatibility Signaling in Recruitment: Reducing Applicant Preference Disclosure While Preserving Employment Matching
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.1410.12466Keywords:
recruitment, labor-market matching, information privacy, information, governance, employment decisions, compatibility signaling, data minimization, false rejectionAbstract
Organizations increasingly rely on digital recruitment processes that collect detailed applicant information, including compensation expectations, scheduling constraints, workload preferences, mobility limits, and other sensitive employment-related preferences. Although this information may support hiring decisions, it also requires applicants to disclose private preference structures before either party knows whether a mutually acceptable employment relationship exists. This study proposes Selective Compatibility Signaling (SCS), a recruitment and matching mechanism that evaluates applicant preferences and employer opportunities without requiring direct disclosure of the underlying preference values. Instead, SCS releases a limited outcome indicating whether an applicant and employer have a potentially viable match. The study evaluates SCS through a simulation spanning student employment, travel-intensive home-infusion nursing, faculty hiring, and executive recruitment. Five recruitment approaches are compared using vacancy fill, applicant placement, false rejection of viable matches, direct disclosure, and preference inferability. The full analysis used 40 paired replications and the original study populations. The findings show that the value of compatibility signaling depends on market structure and preference heterogeneity. In student employment, SCS improves fill and placement and reduces false rejection, although it does not reduce threshold inferability. In nursing, matching outcomes remain unchanged while direct preference disclosure falls substantially. Faculty hiring shows improved matching and lower preference inferability, while executive recruitment shows a substantial reduction in preference inferability with largely preserved matching performance. Across the four markets, SCS preserves or improves matching while eliminating exact preference disclosure in the modeled process. The study contributes to recruitment, labor-market matching, and information-governance research by showing that organizations can assess employment compatibility through selective disclosure rather than routine exchange of detailed applicant preferences. It also identifies market complexity, preference heterogeneity, and operational constraints as boundary conditions affecting the value of compatibility-based recruitment.
References
[1]. AACSB International. (2026). 2026 faculty salary report. https://www.aacsb.edu/-/media/publications/data-reports/2026-faculty-salary-report-final.pdf
[2]. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for lemons: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.
[3]. Barber, A. E. (1998). Recruiting employees: Individual and organizational perspectives. Sage.
[4]. Bélanger, F., & Crossler, R. E. (2011). Privacy in the digital age: A review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 1017–1042.
[5]. Breaugh, J. A. (2013). Employee recruitment. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 389–416. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143757
[6]. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294–311.
[7]. Chapman, D. S., Uggerslev, K. L., Carroll, S. A., Piasentin, K. A., & Jones, D. A. (2005). Applicant attraction to organizations and job choice: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 928–944.
[8]. The Conference Board. (2026). CEO pay 2026. https://www.conference-board.org/press/CEO-pay-2026
[9]. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj
[10]. Kavea Compensation Consultants. (n.d.). Navigating CEO compensation increases beyond the market median. Retrieved October 1, 2026, from https://kaveacompensationconsultants.com/navigating-ceo-compensation-increases-beyond-the-market-median/
[11]. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342.
[12]. Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context: Technology, policy, and the integrity of social life. Stanford University Press.
[13]. Solove, D. J. (2006). A taxonomy of privacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 154(3), 477–564.
[14]. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374.
[15]. Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and freedom. Atheneum.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Michael J. Douglas

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.