In this chapter, variables for the research framework are reviewed from several literatures.
First, realistic job preview, which is the major issue of the research, is introduced as well as traditional job preview. Secondly, unmet expectation is discussed, followed by role clarity and the hypotheses are addressed in the end of the chapter.
Job Preview
The first phase of organizational entry starts from individuals’ initial contact with the organization to the offer of a position (Steers, 1981; Wanous, 1980), and previous researcher had proposed that realism of job preview information during this period is an important factor affecting a job applicant’s attraction toward an organization as it functions as an inoculation (Gaugler & Thornton III, 1990); moreover, a job preview is suggested to address job applicants’
most highly valued work needs in the organization (Gaugler & Thornton III, 1990). Job preview is usually categorized into two different types: realistic job preview (RJP) and traditional job preview (TJP), which will be introduced in the following section.
Realistic Job Preview
The first study related to realistic job preview (RJP) was reported by Weitz in 1956 as realistic information provided for applicants of life insurance agents. In 1973, Wanous coined the term realistic job preview in order to apply this technique, and after this term was introduced, many researchers also started to investigate studies on this field.
RJP is defined as a technique for recruiters to provide job applicants with an accurate image of the certain position which could allow applicants to make decision whether they do
9
want to accept the position depending on the job information they receive (Larson & Hewitt, 2005). An RJP includes both positive and negative information of a job and because of this kind of characteristic, an RJP lead those job applicants to self-select into or out of the organization.
To implement RJPs, job applicants are given a “vaccination” by recruiters through verbal explanation, written information, or videotaped job previews to see the actual job contents of the position (Heneman III, Judge, & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2015). Larson and Hewitt (2005) concluded several ways of presenting RJPs to job applicants, including meetings with current workers, pre-application screening, videotapes, booklets or brochures, web-based multimedia, group RJP, and internships or volunteer programs. All of the method of RJPs are currently conducted by recruiters in organizations in recruiting processes.
Characteristics of realistic job preview.
Heneman III et al. (2015) suggested that research conducting the effectiveness of RJP had proved that it somewhat increased job satisfaction and lowered turnover owing to the fact that job applicants provided with realistic expectations about future job characteristics tended to deal with certain jobs better after they were hired. On top of that, Heneman III et al. (2015) also provided the following conclusions according to a review of 40 studies on the effectiveness of RJPs:
RJPs presented very early in the recruitment process are less effective in reducing post-hire turnover than those presented just before or just after hiring.
Post-hire RJPs lead to higher levels of job performance than do RJPs presented before hiring.
Verbal RJPs tend to reduce turnover more than written or videotaped RJPs.
RJPs are less likely to lead to turnover when the organization “restricts” turnover for
10
a period of time after the RJPs (with contracts, above-market salaries etc.). (p. 224) From the suggestions of the previous studies, it is obvious that the function of RJPs are mainly focusing on reducing applicants’ turnover as well as increasing their job satisfaction.
Realistic job preview and job satisfaction.
There have been a lot of studies digging into the research of RJP and explored the relation between RJPs and job satisfaction. Some of the previous reviews suggested that RJPs could slightly increase employees’ job satisfaction and performance as well (Premack & Wanous, 1985; Heneman III et al., 2015), but some instead didn’t support this conclusion (Dugoni &
Ilgen, 1981). According to a field experiment conducted by Suszko and Breaugh (1986), two groups of subjects had different responses to the satisfaction of their job, and subjects receiving RJPs had higher job satisfaction than those who didn’t receive RJPs. From these reviews above, it is believed that RJPs in some cases could lead employees to be more satisfied with their jobs as it lowers initial expectations which subsequently affect their job performance as well as job satisfaction.
Realistic job preview and turnover.
In addition to job satisfaction, turnover is also one important factor affected by RJPs. As mentioned above, the first study related to RJP was conducted by Weitz in 1956 with conclusion that realistic concept of a job given to prospective employees could reduce their termination rate. Many of the following studies aimed at investigating the function of RJPs on subjects’
turnover rate and suggested that effective RJPs could improve employees’ turnover rate and increase job survival rate (Wanous, 1973; Premack & Wanous, 1985; Meglino, DeNisi, Youngblood, & Williams, 1988; Meglino et al., 2001). In the literature of meta-analyses, Meglino et al. (2001) concluded the mechanisms of RJPs which affected turnover as following:
11
self-selection, freedom of choice, expectations, work of worry, trust and honesty, and ambiguity.
For the mechanism of self-selection, as RJPs provide a more accurate picture of a certain position, they tend to reduce employees’ turnover by providing a better match for an individual and the job (Wanous, 1980, 1992). In addition, Wanous (1980, 1992) implied that new recruits tend to have inflated expectations about a new job in some aspects. As a result, once they encounter the unpleasant job, they will have a higher tendency to leave (Meflino, 1979). On the contrary, if job applicants are given more realistic information about the job beforehand, they will have less inflated expectation on positive aspects which may not occur while ideas about the negative aspects will have already been in their mind (Locke, 1976); consequently, job applicants will have lower turnover intention after entering the organization. These mechanisms represent the function of RJPs which lead to the reduction of turnover rate.
Traditional Job Preview
As described above, several studies examined the effect of RJPs by comparing them with traditional job previews (TJPs). Traditional job previews were defined as unrealistic job previews by Wanous (1973) since they mainly presented positive aspects of a job. Besides, TJPs were also defined as “favorable job preview (Reilly et al., 1979),” or “enhancement job preview” which was designed to dispel applicants’ negative impressions of the job (Meglino et al., 1988). In recent years, some researchers categorized TJPs as “positive recruitment message”
because they overly emphasized positive features of the job (Thorsteinson, Palmer, Wulff, &
Anderson, 2004). In addition, Heneman III et al. (2015) used the term “employment brand message” to represent the characteristics of TJPs, as the information conveyed in a TJP is as following: “An appealing description is developed based on marketing principles, emphasizing unique features of the organization (Heneman III et al., 2015, p.227).”
12
Comparing Realistic and Traditional Job Previews
Previous studies differentiated TJPs from RJPs as TJPs present more information about the relatedness need of job applicants while RJPs focus more on the growth need. Another major difference is that TJPs only describe the positive features of a certain job; on the contrary, RJPs are designed to present both positive and negative aspects of a job (Saks, Wiesner, &
Summers, 1994; Saks & Summers, 1996).
In early research, researchers used a field experiment in order to examine differences between RJPs and TJPs. In 1973, Wanous tested the effect differences between RJPs and TJPs on newly hired female telephone operators and the results indicated that RJPs lowered new hires’ job expectations, as well as their turnover intention rate; however, as for those new hires, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the research on the result of job acceptance (Wanous, 1973). Another research conducted by Reilly, Tenopyr, and Sperling in 1979 also aimed to compare the differences of effects among RJPs, favorable job previews, and no job previews on subjects’ job acceptance and job survival in the position as telephone operators. Different from the study of Wanous (1973), the job acceptance rates of applicants receiving RJPs were lower than the other two groups in this study; as for the job survival rates, there were no significant differences among the three groups (Reilly, Tenopyr, & Sperling, 1979).
In late 80s and early 90s, two more studies about RJPs and TJPs were done by researchers.
One of the two used a longitudinal experiment to examine two different RJPs, which were enhancement job preview and reduction job preview in U.S. army (Williams, 1988). In the study, the enhancement job preview referred to overly optimistic preview of the job content, while the reduction job preview was designed to mainly present problems and difficulties in the position. The result of the study indicated that those subjects receiving both enhancement and reduction previews had the lowest turnover, while those who only received reduction
13
preview had significantly higher turnover. The study concluded that providing both positive and negative aspects of the job is needed (Williams, 1988).
The other study conducted by Saks et al. (1994) examined the effects of different job previews on self-selection and job choice. In the study, Saks et al. conducted a simulation research by providing subjects either a one-job preview condition (an RJP or a TJP), or a two-job preview (an RJP and a TJP) to see their attitudes toward the two-job offers they received. The result revealed that the two-job preview condition showed a significant differences of job acceptance rate; that is, in this group, subjects accepted the job offer of the position presented in TJP condition much better than the one presented in RJP condition. As for one-job preview condition, the group receiving either an RJP or a TJP didn’t show significant differences of job acceptance rate when the job was offered. Two years later, Saks, Wiesner, and Summers (1996) examined the differences between RJPs and TJPs with four-condition-matrix, which combined the two job previews with high and average compensation. The four groups of the study subjects included (1) subjects receiving RJP with high compensation, and TJP with average compensation; (2) subjects receiving RJP with average compensation, and TJP with high compensation; (3) subjects receiving TJP with average compensation, and RJP with average compensation as well, and (4) subjects receiving TJP and RJP both with high compensation.
From the four-condition matrix comparison, the results suggested that job applicants perceived job presented with TJPs as more attractive and RJPs as less attractive, and they had higher intention to accept the job presented with TJP except for the only condition when TJP was presented with average compensation while RJP was with high compensation (Saks et al., 1996).
In recent years, Thorsteinson, Palmer, Wulff, and Anderson (2004) compared the differences between realistic recruitment messages and positive recruitment messages to examine their effects on organizational attractiveness and the results indicated that the realistic
14
recruitment messages had better effects on job applicants’ attraction to the organization than positive only messages with the mediated effect of subjects’ perceptions of challenge in the job between the two variables. In sum, from the previous studies provided above, it could be observed that subjects receiving RJPs tended to have lower job acceptance rate compared to those who were given TJPs, which meant that reality shown in the job preview does make job applicants to consider their fit with the job and may retreat from further pursuing the position as some literature had mentioned (Heneman III et al., 2015).
Unmet Expectations
According to the previous research conducted, the term, “unmet expectation,” refers to the differences between initial expectations and actual experiences on the job (Ross and Zander, 1957; Katzell, 1968; Dunnette, Arvey, & Banas, 1973). In a study conducted in 1973, it was hypothesized that when an individual’s expectations were not substantially met, his or her propensity to withdraw would increase (Porter & Steers, 1973). Porter and Steers (1973) also suggested that the failure to meet individuals’ expectations on their job would increase their tendencies to both terminate and be absent. Louis (1980) stated that unmet expectations referred to under-met conscious job expectations as several forms of newcomers’ surprise about the job experiences. Another characteristic of unmet expectation was illustrated to lead to dissatisfaction, which resulted in quitting an organization (Wanous, Poland, Premack, & Davis, 1992).
Many of previous studies related to unmet expectation investigated the relation between it and job survival (Porter & Steers, 1973; Wanous et al., 1992; Saks, 1994; Robinson, 1996;
Turnley & Feldman, 2000). As mentioned above, individuals tended to withdraw or be absent from the job because of disparity between expectations and reality (Porter & Steers, 1973);
15
another conclusion by Wanous et al. (1992) suggested that RJPs increase job survival because met expectations are the result of RJPs; that is to say, RJPs in a way enable individuals to be exposed to unmet expectation. Saks (1994) suggested that relationship between realism in recruitment source which is also interpreted as information accuracy and job survival is mediated by met expectation. In that study, it was concluded that newcomers receiving matched information of the organization are more likely to have their expectations met (Saks, 1994).
Another study found the mediating effect of unmet expectation between psychological contract violations and employees’ intentions to quit which meant unmet expectations after being hired would increase the possibility of turnover (Turnley & Feldman, 2000).
In addition to job survival, relation between unmet expectation and job satisfaction was studied by several researchers as well (Wanous et al., 1992; Moser, 2005; Irving & Montes, 2009; Wang, Sang, Li, & Zhao, 2015). Wanous et al. (1992) suggested whether an individual has met expectations in their job are strongly related to job satisfaction and those who have met expectations tend to be more satisfied with their job. Another study supported the evidence that less unmet expectations lead to higher job satisfaction as unmet expectations mediate internal recruitment sources and job satisfaction (Moser, 2005). Recent studies also aimed to investigate the relation between unmet expectations and job satisfaction and two studies indicated that the less unmet expectations employees perceive, the better they are satisfied with the job (Irving
& Montes, 2009; Wang et al., 2015).
Role Clarity
There are objective and subjective role clarity definitions. For objective role clarity, it refers to the presence of adequate role-relevant information due to variations of the quality of
16
the information. On the other hand, subjective role clarity refers to an individual’s feeling of having much role-relevant information as the person would like to have (Lyons, 1971).
Previous research about role clarity mainly investigated its relationship with individuals’
job performance, job tension, or furthermore, turnover behavior. For instance, Ivancevich and Donnelly (1974) found out greater role clarity leads to less job tension and more esteem satisfaction. Besides, the study conducted by Miles and Petty also supported the finding that role clarity is related to job satisfaction and is negatively related to job-related tension (Miles
& Petty, 1975). A person’s job performance is also another concern that is usually related to role clarity in a position. It was stated that role clarity positively influences work performance as long as individuals acquire enough information about the job (Brown, Ganesan, &
Challagalla, 2001) In addition, strong role clarity was found to increase individuals’ self-rated task performance as it mediates the relationship between organizational socialization tactics and task performance (Lapointe, Vandenberghe, & Boudrias, 2014). With the effect of role clarity, another research found that greater role clarity increases work satisfaction and also decreases turnover rates by analyzing 1,699 employees in a state government agency (Hassan, 2013).
As for the antecedents of role clarity, previous studies found several factors influencing individuals’ score of role clarity. In Teas, Wacker, and Hughes’ research on salespersons’
perception of performance feedback, participation, role clarity, and job satisfaction, they found that individuals’ feedback from well performance and their involvement in decision making have positive effects on their perception of role clarity in a job (Teas, Wacker, & Hughes, 1979).
Another research conducted in 1999 also indicated that an employee’s supervisor’s leadership style plays an important role for increasing each person’s role clarity (Shoemaker, 1999); for example, if a supervisor enables others to act, which meant encouraging employee’s participation, the better chance an individual will have a greater perception of role clarity. As
17
for the effect of job preview on role clarity, it was stated that effective realistic job preview (RJP) can lead to a higher perception of role clarity and reduce individuals’ intention to drop from the job and also increase their job satisfaction (Saks & Cronshaw, 1990; Khattak, Rehman,
& Reman, 2014).
As the characteristics of unmet expectations and role clarity are illustrated above, it can be seen that RJPs enable employees to experience reality shock earlier and thus have fair expectations after they are hired (Saks, 1994); it is then hypothesized that job applicants receiving RJPs during recruiting process will develop higher unmet expectations than those who are exposed to TJPs because RJPs provide more realistic information about the job and trigger a reality shock. In other words, RJPs lead individuals to have higher unmet expectations;
on the contrary, TJPs bring less effect on individuals’ role clarity and unmet expectations than RJPs do. Thus, the first three hypotheses are proposed as the following.
Hypothesis 1a: RJPs have a stronger effect on increasing individuals’ perception of unmet expectation than TJPs do during pre-hire phase.
Hypothesis 1b: RJPs have a stronger effect on increasing individuals’ perception of role clarity than TJPs do during pre-hire phase.
Hypothesis 2: Job preview has a positive effect on unmet expectations during pre-hire phase.
Hypothesis 3: Job preview has a positive effect on role clarity during pre-hire phase.
For role clarity and unmet expectation, previous studies stated that role clarity decreases turnover rate while greater unmet expectation increases turnover rate (Hassan, 2013; Wanous et al., 1992). Job preview helps individuals increase their perception of role clarity in pre-hired phase as job applicants receive more information on the job, and role clarity subsequently decreases job applicants’ perception of unmet expectation (Saks, 1994) since the “reality shock”
has been reduced by the job preview. From the conclusion of former research, it could be hypothesized that higher role clarity may decrease individual’s unmet expectation which later
18
on increases turnover rate. As a result, the fourth and fifth hypotheses are proposed as follows.
Hypothesis 4: Role clarity has a negative effect on unmet expectation during pre-hire phase.
Hypothesis 5: Role clarity mediates the relationship between job preview and unmet expectation.
19