Discussion 1: Impact of Unmet Expectations on Employee Attitudes

 

Work expectations are conditions that employees consider likely to happen in their current or future job situation. Most employers communicate certain expectations clearly: pay, personal time off, and core work hours. Other expectations may be less clearly conveyed. For example, people may expect—but do not always find—some degree of structure, a reasonably safe and inviting work environment, or recognition for a job done well. Expectations, whether spoken or unspoken, have a profound impact on employee attitudes. Employees with clearly defined, well-communicated expectations have more job satisfaction and are thus more successful than those whose expectations are unclear or unmet. When expectations are met, employers can find more productivity and decreased attrition can result. 

RJPs provide applicants with a true picture of the characteristics of the job and the organization, both positive and negative. RJPs, if used properly, are a valuable tool to help reduce unrealistic expectations and lessen attrition.

In this Discussion, you will explore how unmet expectations can influence job attitudes and whether RJPs can make a difference.

To prepare for this Discussion:

• Watch the video Antecedents of Job Attitudes. Choose one Walden Sports employee from the group (attached the transcript of video). Take notice if the employee expresses unmet expectations and how this might affect their job attitude. Consider the merits of an RJP for this employee.
• Read the article “A Historical Approach to Realistic Job Previews: An Exploration Into Their Origins, Evolution, and Recommendations for the Future.” Consider the impact of RJPs as an ethical obligation of employers and the effect it could have on job attitudes. Consider if there is a difference in formal and informal RJPs.
• Read the article “Employees’ Expectations and Organizational Silence.” Silence in an organization is when employees deliberately, and individually and collectively, withhold their opinion on work-related improvement or change. Consider this as a potential consequence of employee unmet expectations.

By Day 3

Post a response to the following:  

Provide a description of two unmet expectations experienced by the Walden Sports employee depicted in this week’s media. Then explain how this employee’s unmet expectations might affect his or her job attitudes. Finally, explain how an RJP) might have changed the employee’s experience. 

Onboarding New Employees
Program Transcript

MALE SPEAKER: I want to thank you all for coming in today. As you may or may
not know, I’m conducting an assessment of your company with the goal of being
able to provide your superiors with ideas for making this a better workplace. Now
I’ve already met with some of the employees of the company who’ve been here
for years. But I want to meet with you now, relatively new employees, so that I
can hear about what your experience has been like in these first few months.
Now I know you all know each other already. But if you don’t mind, just saying
your name and what you do here at Walden sports, that would be great.

DIANE: Hello, I’m Diane. And actually, Toby here and I have the same job. We’re
both travel experience managers which means that we help to oversee the travel
agency aspect of the business by ensuring that fellow employees are up selling
to their highest potential when one of our customers books a travel adventure. So
for instance, if someone books a trip to the Grand Canyon, we try to make sure
that they purchase their tent and other camping supplies here instead of from
one of our competitors. It’s a really crucial aspect of the business.

MALE SPEAKER: It’s very interesting. And how long have you been with the
company?

DIANE: Just a little over three months.

MALE SPEAKER: And how about you, Toby? How long have you been with the
company?

TOBY: Well, actually, I’ve been with Walden for a couple of years now. I used to
work in the retail side of the business, but changed positions about two months
ago and became a travel experience manager.

MALE SPEAKER: OK, that’s great. And you are?

CASSANDRA: I’m Cassandra. I’m an assistant manager of our west side retail
location, and it’s very nice to meet you, Mike. Oh, and I will have been on the job
for four months next week.

MALE SPEAKER: All right, sounds great. And it’s really nice to meet all of you as
well. So I’ll start with you Cassandra. What was it that initially attracted you to
working with Walden?

CASSANDRA: Of course. I grew up in a family that was always camping or
fishing or something. So I’m really passionate about the outdoors and have a
pretty fast knowledge of great camping spots, equipment needed, et cetera, et

©2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 1

cetera. But I also really love working with people both customers and employees.
So this felt like a really perfect fit for me.

MALE SPEAKER: That’s great. You know, having a passion for your company’s
line of work is very important to enjoying your job. But let me ask you, though,
more specifically what was it about Walden that interested you as opposed to
maybe going with some other sporting goods company down the road?

CASSANDRA: Oh gosh, there was a lot actually. I remember when I first started
interviewing for the position, one of the things they kept mentioning was how
much working here was like being part of the family and that everyone got along
really well. That really appealed to me.

MALE SPEAKER: And did you find that to the case when you actually started?

CASSANDRA: Honestly? No, not really. The company’s actually really fractured.
They acquired a travel agency not long before I started, and it honestly feels like
a war between the traditional retail employees and the travel experience folk. Our
jobs may seem vastly different, but there’s actually quite a bit of overlap to them
especially on the managerial level which creates a lot of confusion as well as
competition. I know a lot of people, myself included, aren’t sure who to go to
when this overlap causes problems. And frankly, I feel sorry for a lot of
employees who are basically just caught in the crossfire of this overblown turf
war. But, of course, that’s just my perspective.

DIANE: No, I think you’re absolutely right. It’s been extremely hard for people like
Toby and I to work on the travel agency side of the business. The traditional retail
employees really seem to hate us. I’ve heard rumors that they think we’re paid
more and have more relaxed rules. But honestly, I think they’re just nervous that
we’re going to bring in more cash and make them look bad. I mean, we were told
that everyone at Walden had a strong team mentality, but this is the kind of stuff
I’ve been dealing with since day one.

TOBY: I’ve had a slightly different experience because I used to work in the retail
side of the business and know a lot of people over there. But I will say that some
of them have started to treat me differently. It’s like they think of me as a trader
even though we all supposedly work for the same company with the same goals.

MALE SPEAKER: I see. And have you tried talking to your supervisors about
this?

DIANE: Well, I tried once and she pretty much blew me off saying that I need to
learn to give back the same attitude which is not at all how I want to spend my
work life.

MALE SPEAKER: What about you, Toby?

©2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 2

TOBY: Well I’ve had a number of issues with my supervisor already.

MALE SPEAKER: Such as?

TOBY: When I initially interviewed for this new position, I was told that very little
would change in terms of workplace rules and regulations, but it’s like I work at a
totally different company. Like my new supervisors do everything differently than
what I’m used to. And if I ever question these differences, just for clarification,
they start treating me like I don’t know how to do my job. It’s kind of humiliating.

MALE SPEAKER: Noted. Now how about your actual job duties, have they been
as promised as in your interviews and job description?

TOBY: For the most part, I guess. But I was told that I’d get to travel at least once
a month to gain expertise on your vacation sites or to run our booth at
conventions. But there hasn’t been a single mention of any kind of travel yet
which is a huge disappointment for me. That’s part of the reason I made the
switch.

MALE SPEAKER: OK. Well, what about you, Cassandra, are there any job duties
that you were promised that haven’t come to pass yet?

CASSANDRA: I was told by my manager during the interview process that he
valued a lot of input from his assistant managers. So about a month ago, I was
assigned to a small working group with him and got really excited about it. But
when I made a bunch of suggestions at the first meeting, he kind of blew me off.
And he reassigned me to work with a different group the very next day. Nothing I
said was even that dramatic or intense. But he clearly showed he doesn’t want to
hear any real ideas from me other than blind agreement.

MALE SPEAKER: Yes, that’s–

CASSANDRA: Oh, and can I also mention the intense amount of tunnel vision
going on within each department? Almost no one pays attention to what other
departments are doing. No one communicates. Everybody just goes a long to get
along, doing their own thing to get through the work week. This is not a family,
and it’s definitely not the way this organization was presented. If things aren’t
corrected soon, there’s going to be a massive mess on our hands.

DIANE: I completely agree with you. I’ve wanted to step up and say something,
but it’s not even clear who I should go to you. There’s no chain of command.

CASSANDRA: I’ll second that. I have yet to see any sort of discernible
management structure. Even I, as part of this supposed management structure,
have no idea who to go to beyond my own immediate supervisor. I’ve tried asking
HR, but they tell me just to take it back to my immediate supervisor which is kind

©2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 3

of awkward when the issue is about him. I thought HR was here to help us, but it
seems all they care about is protecting the leadership and overall organization.
Or maybe they just don’t care at all, who knows?

MALE SPEAKER: Have you been offered any constructive feedback from any of
your supervisors? I had one experience where I actually got to sit down with
some higher ups to propose an idea. One of our self made camp in a box sets
comes with some tent stakes that are obviously a little sub-par. They don’t go into
the ground very easily, and we get a lot of complaints about them. So I proposed
that we upgrade to a higher quality brand and got shut down immediately saying
that there was not a good enough reason to switch. I mean, the emphasis is all
on making money and not a quality product. And that’s not what I signed up for.

TOBY: I get that feeling. On the retail floor, I didn’t need many office supplies. But
now that I work behind a desk for part of my day, I actually need things and it
takes forever to get them. Even small requests for things like pens and sticky
notes are analyzed and fussed over to the point where I’d rather just go out and
buy it myself so I can do my job properly without the hassle.

CASSANDRA: I don’t think any of our profits have been turned around and
shared with anyone outside of upper management. I have been shot down on
trying to take outside training courses to improve my management skills, even
though I was told there was plenty of money in the budget to support training
ventures. I basically feel lied to about 75% of my time at work.

MALE SPEAKER: Wow, I’m sorry to hear all of that, but I thank you so much for
sharing. I know that you’re all very frustrated. But I can tell you that everything
you’ve just told me is going to be very helpful to making changes down the road.
Now I want to change gears just a little bit and start talking about your benefits.

© 2012 Laureate Education, Inc.

©2012 Laureate Education, Inc. 4

A historical approach to realistic
job previews

An exploration into their origins, evolution,
and recommendations for the future

John E. Baur, M. Ronald Buckley and Zhanna Bagdasarov
University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA, and

Ajantha S. Dharmasiri
Postgraduate Institute of Management, University of Sri Jayewardenepura,

Colombo, Sri Lanka

Abstract

Purpose – The aim of this paper is to provide some historical understanding of a popular recruitment
procedure called a Realistic Job Preview (RJP). As long as individuals have worked for others there has
been a need to exchange information about a focal job. Information can be exchanged through myriad
channels. The aim here is to trace the origins of RJPs and discuss the initial studies that generated
attention and interest in what has become known as “realistic recruitment”.

Design/methodology/approach – Along with a historical account, this paper provides a summary
of the limitations associated with this method, proposed psychological processes mediating
effectiveness of RJPs, and issues with development, mode of presentation, implementation of RJPs, and
an important alternative/accompanying technique (ELP).

Findings – While this technique has been used for many years, it will continue to be a quality
addition to any worker socialization program.

Originality/value – The value of this paper is that it places this technique in an historical context.

Keywords Recruitment, Human resources management, Realistic job previews

Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Throughout the history of organizations there has been a need to exchange information
about the content of the work that needed to be performed. This information has been
essential in helping workers to be able to successfully prepare for both the organization
and the specific duties of the employment position. In order to help ensure a better fit
between the organization and the employees, this exchange of information should be
conducted during the recruitment process and prior to a mutual selection by the
organization and employee into an employment contract.

The study of employee recruitment has been central to the human resource
literature and has markedly increased in recent years (Billsberry, 2007; Breaugh et al.,
2008; Breaugh and Starke, 2000) leading to numerous reviews of the literature
(e.g. Barber, 1998; Breaugh, 1992, 2008; Breaugh and Starke, 2000; Rynes, 1991;
Wanous, 1992). Recruitment has been defined as the practices and tasks by an
organization to identify and attract potential employees (Barber, 1998). However, as
Barber (1998) noted, the recruitment process continues after the mere attraction of job
candidates. Because candidates are able to self-select out of the hiring process when

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1751-1348.htm

JMH
20,2

200

Journal of Management History
Vol. 20 No. 2,

201

4
pp. 200-

223

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1751-1348
DOI 10.1108/JMH-06-2012-0046

they do not perceive a good fit with the organization, unattractive job offerings may
not be accepted (Turban et al., 1993). The majority of the research into recruitment has
focused on what Saks (2005) described as the “3 R’s” – realistic job previews,
recruitment methods, and recruiter behaviors. Although researchers have begun to
look into other areas of the recruitment process (e.g. Boswell et al., 2003; Dineen et al.,
2007), realistic job preview continues to remain a central area of interest.

The purpose of this paper, then, is to examine the evolution of the processes that
organizations use to disseminate information to job candidates and the outcomes
associated with the work socialization process as well as realistic recruitment. In doing
so, we focus this paper on realistic job previews, the area of the recruitment literature
that has received the most interest from organizational scholars (Phillips, 1998). First,
we briefly discuss what realistic job previews are. Next, we review the expansive
literature and organize it in chronological order from its conception as a “realistic job
concept” in the 1950s to the current day. Then we pay special attention to the
psychological processes that underlie the effectiveness of realistic job previews, as well
as the mixed results that have been found, leading some scholars to question the value
of the previews. Finally, we use the synthesized review of the past and present
literature to offer suggestions for several future advances in both the theoretical and
practical use of realistic job previews.

Realistic job previews
Research in realistic job previews has been conducted for over 50 years (Breaugh,
1992). Phillips (1998) noted that realistic job previews have garnered the greatest level
of attention of all recruitment issues. A realistic job preview (RJP) is defined as a
technique that presents job applicants with a “realistic” view of what they should
expect from the organization. To do so, the organization provides job applicants with
“all pertinent information without distortion” (Wanous, 1980, p. 37) which is both
positive and negative (Ganzach et al., 2002; Wanous, 1973, 1977, 1980).

Realistic job previews were created as an alternative to the “seduction” method of
recruiting in which job candidates were only told positive information. This was done
to maximize the attractiveness of the position at the expense of decreased accuracy of
the actual duties and/or work environment. Since many employers attempt to entice
job applicants by portraying a purely positive image (Billsberry, 2007), job candidates
often have unrealistically high expectations which are then subsequently unmet upon
employment (Wanous, 1992). These unrealistically high expectations have been
theorized to lead to employees having a harder time integrating into the organization,
which results in lower job satisfaction and increased intentions to quit (Breaugh and
Starke, 2000). Scholars have frequently found that the integration into the organization
during the initial employment period is critical to the success of the employee in the
organization (Caplow, 1964; Crow, 1967; Feldman, 1976; Porter et al., 1975).

In addition to the effect of reducing turnover and increasing job attitudes (Reilly
et al., 1981; Wanous, 1977, 1980), scholars have argued that employers also have an
“ethical imperative to provide recruits with realistic job previews” (Buckley et al., 1997,
p. 468). Further, new employees with inflated expectations may feel misled when they
perceive that the organization did not fulfill their expectations, thereby leading to
perceived psychological contract breeches (Rousseau, 1995). Psychological contract
breeches have been defined by Roehling (1997) as the perceived beliefs by an employee

Realistic job
previews

201

of an exchange agreement regarding what he or she is expected to give to the
organization and what the organization is expected to reciprocate in return. Turnley
and Feldman (2000) found that the relationships between psychological contract
breeches and intentions to quit, neglect of in-role duties, as well as organizational
citizenship behaviors are moderated by unmet expectations. Breeches in psychological
contracts can lead to resentment, anger, decreased motivation, reduced job satisfaction
and commitment, and turnover (Cole, 1981; Roehling, 1997; Rousseau, 1989; Schein,
1980; Tornow, 1988).

Therefore, realistic job previews are able to help accomplish two simultaneous
organizational goals (Tate, 1994). First, job candidates are given accurate information
with which they can self-select out of a job offer that is not a good match for them.
Second, organizations will have a more stable and satisfied workforce.

At the core of realistic job previews is the belief that employees deserve to enter
organizations with their eyes wide open, being aware of not only the details of what
their jobs entail (e.g. tasks involved, hours required, and format of compensation), but
also possessing clear and accurate expectations so as to prevent disillusionment
following entry into the organization. These ideas, over the years, have been embraced
by organizational researchers as key tenets of what has become known as “realistic
recruitment” (Wanous, 1980).

Psychological processes underlying RJPs
The question of why RJPs work was first investigated by Wanous (1973). His “met
expectation” hypothesis, also known as the “reality shock” model, states that RJPs
lower the initial job expectations of new employees to a level that is more likely to be
congruent with what is actually encountered on the job (Miceli, 1985; Wanous, 1977). In
doing so, he found support for the claim that individuals whose expectations are met
are more likely to be satisfied with the job, and less likely to leave voluntarily. Zaharia
and Baumeister (1978) interviewed departing employees and found that the
misalignment of initial employee expectations with the actual job situation was a
key source of dissonance.

The second hypothesis claims that RJPs impact job satisfaction and turnover by
improving an employee’s ability to cope with the new job demands (Ilgen and Seely,
1974). This may occur because employees were cautioned about unpredictable events
during the RJP. Also it may be that employees occasionally rehearse methods of
dealing with issues they were warned about, and thus are better equipped when a
similar event occurs (Breaugh, 1983).

The third explanation suggests that RJPs communicate an “air of honesty” to
applicants when the organization is willing to divulge both negative and positive
aspects of the job (Wanous, 1977). Organizations that are perceived as being honest
will be more likely to attract loyal job candidates that will be less likely to voluntarily
quit (Cialdini et al., 2004; Earnest et al., 2011; Schwepker, 1999).

The fourth and final explanation suggests that RJPs lead to self-selection on the part
of job candidates. Simply stated, it is reasoned that job applicants will select
themselves out of the running for a job if it appears that the job is not a good fit for
them (Wanous, 1977, 1980).

In addition to the main four hypotheses that have been suggested above, Greenhaus
et al. (1983) hypothesized another psychological process to explain the success of

JMH
20,2

202

realistic job previews – value attainment. Value attainment is the aligning of personal
job values with job experiences. The authors found support for an increased effect of
value attainment in explaining satisfaction than a similar effect of met expectations on
satisfaction.

Historical evolution of the realistic job preview research
Weitz and Nuckols (1955) provided the first evidence that employees can possess
unrealistic expectations about the nature of work they perform. Although primarily
interested in studying the relationship between employee satisfaction with specific
aspects of their jobs and its impact on performance (operationalized as job survival),
Weitz and Nuckols found an interesting pattern of results. Specifically, the authors
generated a list of 58 satisfaction and 82 dissatisfaction items for inclusion in a
questionnaire and then distributed the instrument to 2,710 insurance agents. A large
percentage of the sample marked two items that were not part of the initial hypotheses.
Agents appeared to be highly dissatisfied when there was a misrepresentation of their
employment contracts or of their job requirements and advancement possibilities
(Weitz and Nuckols, 1955). The employees’ disillusionment with their work, then, may
have resulted from misrepresentation of the job during the recruitment phase. Further,
the authors discovered that those agents who claimed that their managers
misrepresented the job or job possibilities during the interview were more likely to
voluntarily quit than were those who did not agree with these statements. This finding
inspired the authors to speculate about the content of recruitment communications,
most of which are likely positively skewed by the recruiters.

Weitz (1956) conducted a follow-up study to explore these unexpected outcomes by
testing the hypothesis that being given a more accurate job description will lead to a
reduction in employee turnover. This study became the first published example of a
realistic job preview, although called a “realistic job concept” by Weitz. Interested in
the impact of job expectancy on job survival, Weitz tested the usefulness of a booklet
containing “realistic” information about the work of an insurance agent (i.e. sketches of
agents performing various duties with detailed descriptions of each and the expected
hours of work). The study’s sample was derived from the applicants for employment of
an insurance firm with several district offices, half of which were selected for the
experimental group while the other half were placed in the control group. Participants
in the experimental condition were mailed the “realistic” booklet, while those in the
control group were not. The study found that of the 226 applicants in the experimental
group that were hired, 19 percent voluntarily terminated within six months. During the
same timeframe, 27 percent of the 248 applicants hired from the control group
voluntarily quit. With these results, the author concluded that turnover was impacted
by the “realistic job concept.”

Unfortunately, Weitz’s early work did not build the momentum to spark an
immediate surge in research. In the 1960s only two studies were conducted using
Weitz’s “realistic job concept,” neither of which was published (Macedonia, 1969;
Youngberg, 1963).

The 1970s saw a noticeable increase in attention and research in the realm of
realistic recruitment. In 1973, Wanous published the first empirical article since Weitz
(1956), and has been credited with renaming the construct as Realistic Job Preview
(RJP) (Morse and Popovich, 2009). In his first study in the newly renamed construct,

Realistic job
previews

203

Wanous investigated the effects of a realistic job preview versus a traditional preview
(the orientation currently in place in the organization) on job acceptance, attitudes, and
survival while focusing on job expectations. In this field study of newly hired female
telephone operators, participants were randomly selected to watch one of two preview
films about the telephone operator’s job. One of the films was a traditional recruitment
tool used previously by the organization, while the other was an experimental film
developed by the author. The traditional film was mostly positive while the
experimental film contained both positive and negative information about the job.
Wanous posited that the inclusion of negative information would lower employees’
initial job expectations, making them more consistent with the reality of both the actual
job and the organization. Wanous found that those who viewed the “realistic” film had
lower expectations in comparison to the control group. These findings were consistent
with the one published (Weitz, 1956) and two unpublished (Macedonia, 1969;
Youngberg, 1963) prior studies. However, Wanous was unable to find statistically
significant results for job survival between the new employees in the two groups. The
experimental group had a turnover rate of 38 percent after three months, while the
control group’s turnover rate was noticeably higher at 50 percent during the same
period. In addition to these findings, Wanous also discovered that those who viewed
the realistic film had significantly fewer thoughts (based on self-report questions)
about leaving the organization than those who viewed the traditional film, thereby
indicating reduced intentions to quit.

Following this foundational study, the 1970s saw limited but increased research
utilizing RJPs with similar outcomes. Most of the research on realistic recruitment
centered on “realistic expectations,” as suggested by Wanous (1973) (e.g. Farr et al.,
1973; Ilgen and Seely, 1974). Also, realistic expectations were found to mediate the
relationship between RJPs and turnover. These consistent findings in support of the
organizational benefits of RJPs led to a surge of research in the 1980s and 1990s.

So great was the newfound interest in RJPs, that of the 38 studies published between
1956 and 1989, 25 (66 percent) were done in the 1980s (Wanous and Colella, 1989). It
was also during this time that Wanous published his book on organizational entry in
1980 that outlined a model for the realistic recruitment approach and continues to serve
as a seminal work in identifying the need for realistic job previews and the mutual
process of recruitment for both the organization and the employee. In 1984, Colarelli
sought to test the medium that information is delivered by when giving realistic job
previews, by examining bank tellers. In doing so, he created two experiment groups;
the first received an RJP through a brochure and the second through a conversation
with an employee already performing the job. Colarelli’s results indicated that the
face-to-face conversation was more effective than the brochure in reducing turnover,
however, both treatment groups produced similar results regarding job satisfaction
and intentions to quit.

Also during the 1980s, Dean and Wanous (1984) compared RJPs that were specific
to the job versus RJPs that were more general to the organization. The results from
studying 249 bank tellers found no difference in job attitudes or turnover rates,
although there was a temporal effect to the turnover in which those new employees
that were given the specific RJPs were more likely to quit earlier than those given the
general RJPs. As early turnover is cheaper to an organization, these findings are an
important discovery to the practical use of RJPs. Pond and Hay (1989) tested the

JMH
20,2

204

moderating effect of perceived general self-efficacy on the relationship of task preview
and task performance and found support for the moderation in a sample of
undergraduate students. Students high in general self-efficacy had higher task
performance after experiencing a realistic task preview, while those students low in
general self-efficacy had a negative effect on task performance after experiencing a
realistic task preview.

Meglino et al. (1988) also furthered the study of realistic job previews by not only
looking at previews that were created to reduce unrealistically high expectations
(reduction previews), but also previews that were created to raise unrealistically low
expectations (enhancement previews). In a study of 533 US Army recruits, the authors
found that trainees that were exposed to both the reduction and enhancement previews
had the lowest turnover while, surprisingly, the trainees that were only exposed to the
traditional form of RJPs, reduction previews, actually had the highest turnover. As
rationale for these findings, the authors agreed with Meglino and DeNisi (1987) for the
possibility of a threshold effect in which previews that provide too much negative
information will surpass an individual’s threshold, thereby no longer providing a
beneficial preview but rather influencing him or her to self-select out of the hiring
process.

As the 1990s began, there were several interesting questions yet to be answered by
researchers. Pitt and Ramaseshan (1995) explored which factors of a realistic job
preview were important in a study of 130 salespeople. In doing so, they found that
personal relevance, as well as information depth and accuracy, were significant
predictors in whether the salespeople perceived they had previews which realistically
reflected their jobs. Information volume, however, was not found to be significant,
thereby making an argument for the importance of RJP quality over quantity. Bretz
and Judge (1998) used two samples of undergraduate and graduate students to find
support for job candidates becoming less interested in employment positions when
negative information is provided. Additionally, the authors also found that higher
quality candidates have higher opportunity costs due to their increased alternative job
opportunities. As such, they are more likely to self-select out of the hiring process when
negative information is provided. This is likely to have negative implications for the
organization which must then make offers to less qualified employees (Boudreau,
1991). As the 1990s concluded, a new meta-analysis produced surprisingly mediocre
results (Phillips, 1998). Specifically, correlations between RJPs and voluntary turnover
(20.06), job satisfaction (20.01), and a climate of honesty (0.05) produced results with
very small effects. These lower than expected results led some scholars, including
Phillips, to question the value of RJPs in practice and research. Recently, Breaugh
(2008) attributed the decline in research of RJPs in the 2000s to the findings of this
meta-analysis.

On the heels of Phillips’ (1998) meta-analysis, research in the 2000s began with
another meta-analysis (Meglino et al., 2000). Meglino and colleagues found that prior
exposure to the employment position moderated the effect of the RJP in such a way that
the more exposure an employee has to the position, the less effective the RJP will be.
Additionally, the meta-analysis found that newly hired employees who had
experienced realistic job previews remained likely to voluntarily quit shortly after
accepting the position, but were more committed in the long run than employees who
did not experience the previews. Earnest et al. (2011) conducted a meta-analytic path

Realistic job
previews

205

analysis and found similar results as Phillips’ (1998) earlier meta-analysis. Using path
analysis of the four hypotheses proposed as the psychological processes underlying the
functioning of realistic job previews, only the perceptions of honesty in the
organization had a significant effect on voluntary turnover. Further, the results
suggested that realistic job previews are surprisingly more effective when given
post-hire rather than pre-hire.

Mixed results of realistic job previews
Despite the logical relationships between realistic job previews and outcomes such as job
satisfaction and reduced intentions to quit, results have often been mixed, with many
studies finding either weak or no relationships (Breaugh, 2008). For example, two early
meta-analyses (Premack and Wanous, 1985; McEvoy and Cascio, 1985) found differing
results. Premack and Wanous (1985) found that realistic job previews had an average
effect size of 0.06 on job survival which included very little between-studies effect size
variance. McEvoy and Cascio (1985), however, found the average effect size for the same
relationship of realistic job previews and job survival to be 0.09 with significant
between-studies effect size variance. These conflicting results were addressed by
Wanous and colleagues (Wanous et al., 1989) in their important work in outlining the
numerous judgment calls that must be made when conducting a meta-analysis. In doing
so, the authors found that, in addition to only using 11 of the 20 studies from the Premack
and Wanous (1985) meta-analysis, McEvoy and Cascio (1985) also used two additional
studies that were highly significant outliers which greatly impacted their results.
Another study found that realistic job previews negatively impacted the decision by
European graduate students who were being mentored to accept a job offer at their
mentor’s organization (Spitzmuller et al., 2008). Specifically, the study found that realistic
job previews may have a suppressor effect (Conger, 1974) by decreasing the intentions of
the protégé to pursue employment opportunities with the organization.

The lower than expected results have led some scholars to question the value in
studying realistic job previews (e.g. Phillips, 1998). Breaugh (2008) suggested that the
modest effects from Phillips’ (1998) meta-analysis caused a reduction in interest by
researchers, as evidenced by a decline in new studies. Rynes and Cable (2003) as well as
Saks (2005) have also found only modest positive effects of RJPs. Miceli (1985)
conducted a laboratory experiment to specifically test the self-selection rationale for the
effectiveness of RJPs against the reality shock psychological process. The findings
from the study led the author to suggest that applicants that receive unrealistically
positive information, the very reason for the creation of RJPs, actually had higher levels
of satisfaction than did employees receiving realistic previews. Following this work,
Miceli (1985) again found that the more that social cues pre-hire were favorable, the
more that evaluations post-hire would be favorable as well. In doing so, she created an
alternative model, the “fadeout” model which suggests that these social cues from
recruiters will impact the applicant’s perceptions initially in a positive direction, such
that those previews with more balanced or unfavorable information will lead to a
reduction in satisfaction. Further, these effects will fade away over time. As such,
several scholars (e.g. Lewis, 1980; Reilly et al., 1981; Schwab, 1981; Tenopyr and
Oeltjen, 1982) have argued that RJPs serve little benefit to organizations. Zaharia and
Baumeister (1981) tested both written and videotaped RJPs and found no statistically
significant effect of either on turnover above the results of the control groups.

JMH
20,2

206

The modest findings have led researchers to speculate under which situations and
using what mediums realistic job previews are the most effective (Allen et al., 2007).
Breaugh (1983) suggested that the job candidate must have unrealistic expectations
and be able to self-select out of the hiring process in order for realistic job previews to
be effective. Without unrealistically high initial expectations, the RJP will be less
effective, as the purpose of reducing these expectations is unneeded. As such, the
degree to which the focal position can be easily observed, such as bank tellers and
convenience store attendants, may help to diminish high expectations thereby making
them less than ideal to test realistic job previews (Dean and Wanous, 1984). Meglino
et al. (1988) suggested that RJPs are effective only if the information contained within
them can be comprehended and therefore should be more successful for more
intelligent applicants. Breaugh and Billings (1988) proposed that job applicants find
some aspects of the employment position more important than others. The
effectiveness, then, of the RJP should be linked to whether it addresses the
important aspects of the position or not. Breaugh and Billings (1988) agreed that a
successful RJP must contain important information, and information which is already
known is not considered important to learn. Therefore, having past experience with the
position, either through similar work experience (Breaugh, 1992) or internships
(Taylor, 1988) should decrease initial expectations to a more realistic level.

Reilly et al. (1979) suggested that the complexity of the job may moderate the
effectiveness of the realistic job preview. In doing so, the authors noted that the early
studies that found significance were of more complex jobs, such as West Point cadets
and insurance agents (Ilgen and Seely, 1974; Macedonia, 1969; Weitz, 1956; Youngberg,
1963), while the studies that did not find significance were of less complex jobs, such as
sewing machine operators and telephone operators (Farr et al., 1973; Wanous, 1973).
The moderation of work complexity was also suggested by Dean and Wanous (1984).

Informal realistic job previews, such as a casual conversation with a friend already
employed at the organization, have been suggested to be more effective in increasing
both performance and survival rates (Bretz and Judge, 1998; Rynes, 1991; Wanous and
Colella, 1989). Finally, Earnest et al. (2011) found support through their meta-analysis
that RJPs may actually be more effective when they are administered post-hire rather
than pre-hire.

Scholars have also questioned whether providing realistic job previews may
actually harm the organization’s chances of hiring more qualified candidates. Guion
(1991) noted that there are differences in the quality of the job candidates. Subsequent
studies found that more desirable candidates may, due to their alternatives, be less
willing to accept an offer in which any negative situations are discussed (Bretz and
Judge, 1998; Rynes et al., 1991). In many ways, this concept addresses the self-select
hypothesis in that employees are able to use RJPs in order to assess the perceived fit
between their values and needs with those offered by the organization. Other scholars,
such as Reilly et al. (1979) also found support for lower acceptance rates of job offers by
applicants who received realistic job previews. A meta-analysis by Meglino et al. (1997)
found that employees that have prior similar work experience, and therefore realistic
initial expectations, were turned off by the discussion of the negative aspects of the
position.

One concern is that researchers may often incorrectly operationalize RJPs by
studying what Miceli (1983) described as fundamentally different phenomena

Realistic job
previews

207

(Breaugh and Billings, 1988). In many ways, these criticisms are an adaptation of
Wanous’ (1978) claim that researchers have often used RJPs to focus on the
organization’s rather than the employee’s expectations. In order to help provide more
clarity and consistency in the RJP research, Breaugh and Billings (1988) argued that
five key attributes of the information contained in RJPs: accuracy, specificity, breadth,
credibility, and importance, should be the focus of future research. Further, Wanous
(1989) noted that despite the increase in interest by researchers in the examination of
realistic job previews, no guide had been presented on how to conduct RJPs. As such,
he presented ten tough choices that scholars and practitioners alike must consider
when creating a realistic job preview. These ten choices include deciding whether or
not the content will be descriptive or judgmental, extensive or unstructured, and high
or medium negativity. Also decisions must be made as to the medium used to deliver
the RJP and whether to initiate it late or early in the recruitment process. Wanous’
work, in addition to reconfirming some of the suggestions listed in this paper by other
scholars (e.g. what medium to deliver the RJP and the degree of negativity to include
within it) also highlights that there are ten separate decisions or tough choices that
must be made in crafting a realistic job preview. Undoubtedly, these tough choices can
create radically different RJPs which will in turn affect the measurement of their
effectiveness and possibly explain some of the mixed results in the research to date.

Another concern centers on the methodological flaws that have plagued some of the
RJP research. Scholars have debated and tested which of the psychological processes are
central to the success of realistic job previews with mixed results. The met-expectation
hypothesis, originally created by Wanous (1973) and Porter and Steers (1973), has
received much of the attention. A meta-analysis (Wanous et al., 1992) found support for
the hypothesis; however these results were later questioned due to a potential
methodological flaw (Irving and Meyer, 1994, 1995). Specifically, Irving and Meyer
argued and found support for the claim that direct measures of realistic job previews
may be artificially skewed. Direct measures often require employees to compare their
current experiences with their previously held expectations. In doing so, the authors
found that the perceptions the employees had of their pre-employment expectations were
biased due to their recent behaviors and experiences. The work by Irving and Meyer
helped to shed light on the underlying problem of using difference scores.

Subsequently, Hom et al. (1998) attempted to examine the effects of met
expectations, the employee’s ability to cope, and the air of honesty. The study once
again found met expectations to be an important mediator for the success of RJPs.
Nevertheless, Irving and Meyer (1999) also found similar methodological flaws in the
work of Hom et al. (1998) as of that in the prior meta-analysis. In this case, Irving and
Meyer (1999) found a similar methodological weakness in the use of residual difference
scores, as they had prior shown with standard difference scores when relating post-hire
experiences with pre-hire expectations After correcting for these flaws, the authors
reran the data and found that met expectations was no longer the central mediator, but
instead, coping strategies along with perceived employer concern and honesty played a
more critical role (Hom et al. 1999). Likewise, several studies have also disputed the
self-select hypothesis (Colarelli, 1984; Far et al., 1973; Haccoun, 1978; Macedonia, 1969;
Reilly et al., 1981; Wanous, 1973; Zaharia and Baumeister, 1981).

As reflected by the studies above, findings of realistic job previews have frequently
suffered from methodological issues. Breaugh and Starke (2000) suggest there are two

JMH
20,2

208

main areas of concern. First, additional emphasis needs to be placed on the differences
between job applicants in order to determine to whom and in what conditions RJPs are
successful. Second, the way the variables have been measured is a cause for concern.
Specifically, the use of difference scores and residual difference scores have inflated the
results, and in some cases, produced opposing results than when correctly measured
(Hom et al., 1999). It is due to these methodological problems that some scholars have
posited that the benefits of RJPs have been underestimated (Breaugh, 2008).

The future of realistic job previews in research
Realistic job previews (RJPs) have been studied for over half a century (Breaugh, 1992).
With several organizational benefits such as decreased turnover, increased job
satisfaction, and stronger organizational commitment, RJPs offer many advantages to
organizations and warrant its place as a central component in the research of
organizational scholars. To date, scholars have found RJPs to be effective in different
environments, contexts, formats, and organizations. Undoubtedly, RJPs will continue
to be studied and implemented for years to come both in testing the theoretical
conceptualizations posited in prior work and in advancing the empirical studies into
dynamic new areas. Based upon our examination of the historical lineage of the RJP
research presented in this paper, we suggest the following important areas of research
still waiting to be discovered.

Recently, scholars have deconstructed RJPs to create a new realistic recruitment
procedure, expectation lowering procedures (ELPs) (Buckley et al., 1998). Buckley and
colleagues suggested that expectation lowering procedures may be able to serve as a
substitute or complement to RJPs. In doing so, the authors focused on the met
expectation hypothesis and created ELPs as another way in which a closer alignment
between candidate expectations and actual experiences could be fostered. ELP
proponents claim that it addresses some of the weaknesses in RJPs, thereby making it a
more powerful tool to accomplish the same purpose. For example, the content of ELPs
is more general, while RJPs require organization-specific information. ELPs provide
general information that helps applicants to better realize the expectations and
dynamics of working for the organization (Morse and Popovich, 2009). This is
considered an improvement over RJPs because developing RJPs can be a long and
costly procedure (Morse and Popovich, 2009) forcing managers to create separate RJPs
for each employment position within the organization. ELPs, on the other hand,
frequently include a general conversation in which topics discussed include: basic
expectations, occasions in which expectations were not met, and a warning of the
dangers of having unrealistic expectations (Buckley et al., 2002). In this way, not only
can an organization perform identical ELPs for all newly hired employees, but
templates ELPs can also be created for entire industries. In addition to the cost saving
benefits, ELPs also help to address the concern of individual differences within job
candidates. Specifically, different candidates may be interested in different information
or learn through different methods. Breaugh and Billings (1988) raised this concern
when they questioned the ability to create an accurate RJP for all applicants when
individuals have different desires in seeking jobs. ELPs, because of their broad
discussion of general expectations, are able to be adapted and interpreted in different
ways by different job candidates to best meet their individual needs.

Realistic job
previews

209

Buckley et al. (1998) maintain that job applicants exposed to ELPs would be less
likely to generate negative attitudes towards a specific job/organization. It has been
suggested that RJP’s inclusion of negative aspects about the job may deter skilled
applicants from accepting an offer for employment (Bretz and Judge, 1998). ELPs are
not company-specific and thus do not derogate the organization: two studies (Buckley
et al., 1998, 2002) have found support for these claims by showing that ELPs were
successful at lowering employee expectations, reducing turnover, and enhancing job
satisfaction when compared to control groups. Buckley et al. (2002) compared ELPs
and RJPs, with the results demonstrating analogous findings. Thus, it appears that
RJPs and ELPs work in a similar manner, but ELPs might deliver comparable results
faster and cheaper than RJPs. In light of this important advancement, scholars should
reevaluate the espoused benefits of RJPs in order to determine the ideal system in
which to reduce new employee expectations. There are, perhaps, many opportunities
for revolutionizing this procedure that will create new, less expensive socialization
options.

Researchers have posited several reasons why RJPs may not be as successful as
they were hypothesized to be. These reasons include the need for preliminary
unrealistic expectations, the ability to self-select out of the process, prior experience
with the position, and the ease at which the position can be observed (Breaugh, 1983,
1992; Dean and Wanous, 1984). However, researchers are yet to examine the feasibility
and effectiveness of RJPs in rapidly-changing environments such as those in
entrepreneurial new ventures. Ortqvist et al. (2007) studied coping mechanisms of
entrepreneurs and found that those strategies which reduced expectations and/or led to
working harder to meet stakeholder expectations had a positive effect on the new
venture’s performance. Carraher (2011) found that an employee’s satisfaction with his
or her pay significantly predicted turnover, but the same was not true for
entrepreneurs. Also, attitudes towards benefits significantly predicted turnover and
performance for both employees and entrepreneurs (Carraher, 2011; Carraher and
Buckley, 2008). Yet despite this prior work on the expectations of entrepreneurs and
stakeholders, it is still unknown if an entrepreneur can effectively provide a RJP to a
potential employee in a high-velocity industry and rapidly changing organization.
Although Buckley et al. (2002) found that the effects of ELPs and RJPs were almost
identical, in constantly changing environments, like that of a new venture start-up,
ELPs could be found to be much more beneficial.

Also, scholars should seek to determine the approximate percentage of
organizations that implement realistic job previews or other realistic recruitment
procedures such as expectation-lowering procedures. Preliminary results suggest that
less than 20 percent of organizations with high turnover use RJPs despite the research
indicating that RJPs reduce turnover (Bernardin, 2002). In doing so, an interesting
examination could be made into the practical success of such techniques, as well as a
longitudinal examination into their popularity over time. Further, such data could help
to evaluate the overall success of organizations that use these realistic recruitment
methods versus organizations that do not. The recruitment, selection, and training
processes are expensive processes for any organization (Dean and Wanous, 1984) and
therefore it is necessary to determine whether these costs are being correctly
appropriated. When all costs are accounted for, including the separation of the
employee, as well as the recruitment and training of his or her replacement, the cost to

JMH
20,2

210

replace an employee can be 1.5-2.5 times the employee’s salary (Branch, 1998; Cascio,
1999).

Another potential area of research lies in the mediums of presenting RJPs. Over the
years, realistic job previews have taken many forms. Generally they have been
delivered by either a pamphlet or a video (Phillips, 1998;, e.g. Haccoun, 1978; Horner
et al., 1979; Ilgen and Seely, 1974; Macedonia, 1969; Weitz, 1956). Weitz (1956) used a
booklet in his studies while Wanous (1973), in his examination of telephone operators,
provided a video to the experiment group. Other forms of previews consist of an oral
presentation (Popovich and Wanous, 1982) or a telephone conversation (Schneider,
1987). Early findings suggested that the audio-visual video was the most effective form
of RJP, although results were mixed (Popovich and Wanous, 1982) and some
comparisons between brochures and videos provided non-significant results (Haccoun,
1978; Zaharia and Baumeister, 1981).

However, despite these traditional forms of realistic job previews, researchers have
questioned whether such one-way communication is truly the most effective way to
deliver the preview. Miceli (1983) suggested that one-way communications will be less
effective, as they will be more likely to be ignored and two studies (Downs et al., 1978;
Schmitt et al., 1986) found support for the use of work simulations, as has been
advocated for by Iles and Robertson (1989). Also, Colarelli (1984) theorized that a
face-to-face conversation with a current employee would be more beneficial than the
traditional brochure. In doing so, he suggested that a current employee would not only
be more knowledgeable about the job, but also be perceived by the job candidate to be
more trustworthy than an organization-created pamphlet. As the research into realistic
job previews has continued to advance, scholars have noted the possibility of even
richer forms of previews. Wanous (1992) suggested that researchers should examine
other forms of realistic job previews, such as visits to work sites and allowing
applicants to perform a sample of the work they will be expected to complete in the
employment role. Reilly et al. (1981) presented two types of previews, an audio-visual
film and a job visit. Though the authors did not hypothesize about the superiority of
one method over the other, results indicated that the job visit was slightly more
effective (although not statistically significantly so). More research is clearly needed to
uncover the most effective way to present RJPs to potential employees. There are,
perhaps, cognitive explanations for the possible superiority of the audio-visual method,
although this is yet to be discovered. Additionally, as people are naturally positioned to
learn in different ways, it may be necessary to either craft individual RJPs to specific
individuals or to combine various RJP methods in order to effectively benefit the most
candidates. In this way, then, perhaps a contingency approach to realistic job previews
is most appropriate.

Not only should researchers reconsider how RJPs have been studied to date, but also
how they may be used in the future. Entwistle et al. (1987) created a computer
simulated adventure game to provide a realistic job preview to students who were
considering whether or not to advance to higher education. It is very likely that similar
RJPs may be created and distributed to millions of users through social media sites and
other technological resources. Perhaps a paradigm shift in the way RJPs are currently
investigated is necessary to accomplish this goal.

There are several additional opportunities to study realistic job previews in the
changing workplace, including the use of RJPs in internal recruitment, during

Realistic job
previews

211

organizational downsizing, in the increased globalization for expatriates, and with
high-ranking employees. The traditional research of RJPs has focused on lower-level
positions which were filled by job candidates from outside of the organization
(Breaugh, 1983; Breaugh and Billings, 1988). As employees continue to change jobs
(both within their organizations and to new organizations) at a much quicker rate, the
RJP research must adapt to the new work environment. Researchers should examine
how internal RJPs are conducted and whether the employee’s prior knowledge of the
organization compromises the effectiveness of the RJP (Breaugh, 2008).

Also, while realistic job previews are traditionally used during the recruitment
process to expand the human capital within an organization, scholars have begun to
address the need for realistic previews when organizations are downsizing as well
(e.g. Appelbaum and Donia, 2000, 2001a, b, c). Rather than the exception, downsizing
has become the norm and standard procedure by organizations to improve efficiency
(Cameron and Smart, 1998; Morris et al., 1999). Between 1979 and 1996, 43 million US
employees lost their jobs and in the five-year span from 1987 to 1991, 85 percent of the
Fortune 1000 underwent major downsizing efforts which affected more than five
million jobs (Anfuso, 1996; Appelbaum et al., 2003; Hitt et al., 1994). Regardless of
whether downsizing takes place due to a poor economic situation or solely as a means
of increasing efficiency, one potential negative outcome is the survivor syndrome.
Survivor syndrome can lead to increased workloads and subsequent stress, job
insecurity, reduced organizational commitment, and a lack of trust (Appelbaum and
Labib, 1993; Brockner et al., 1992, 1995; Kets de Vries and Balazs, 1997; Mishra and
Spreitzer, 1998). As such, Mathys and Burack (1993) noted that the psychological
contract between the employee and employer is altered during downsizing and
frequently leads to a perceived breach of the contract. Appelbaum and Donia (2000,
2001a) created a model of realistic downsizing previews in order to address this need to
reduce the survivor syndrome. Downsizing has been found as an effective means of
increasing efficieny in organizations despite the economic conditions and therefore is
expected to continue to increase, especially considering the recent increase in mergers
and acquisitions (Appelbaum et al., 2003). More research is needed into the use of
realistic downsizing previews as a means of reducing the survivor syndrome and to
determine the variables that may moderate this relationship.

The increasing globalization also requires scholars to examine how employees
preview the cultural changes in overseas positions. Several scholars (e.g. Caligiuri and
Phillips, 2003; Richardson et al., 2007; Templer et al., 2006) have begun to examine such
cultural RJPs that will undoubtedly remain central to the expansion of the industrial
world and the emerging markets. Employees who accept global positions and perform
poorly incur costs to both themselves (e.g. reduced self-esteem, strained relationships,
and interrupted careers) as well as their organizations (e.g. damaged corporate image
and reputation) (Black et al., 1992; Copeland and Griggs, 1985; Mendenhall and Oddou,
1985; Templer et al., 2006). In order to better understand the necessary adjustments in
culturally different settings, Black et al. (1992) posited that the adjustment literature
from domestic settings should be adapted to cross-cultural adjustment.

Cross-cultural adjustment is an employee’s psychological comfort and familiarity
with a new environment (Black, 1990) and is comprised of general adjustment,
interaction adjustment, and work adjustment (Black and Stephens, 1989; Gregersen
and Black, 1990). Caligiuiri and Phillips (2003) used an experimental study in a field

JMH
20,2

212

setting to examine the impact of self-assessment realistic job previews for expatriates.
The results found that those participants that received a RJP had increased
self-efficacy toward the success of completing the new global assignment, as well as
increased perceived ability to correctly decide whether or not to accept the new
position. The employee’s interest in future international assignments was not affected.
Carraher et al. (2008) examined the impact of host- and home-country mentors for
expatriates who accepted new positions in different cultures. Their work supports that
of Mezia and Scandura (2005) who suggested that the use of such mentors can help
reduce unrealistically high expectations by the employees.

In addition to realistic job previews, Templer et al. (2006) created the concept of
realistic living conditions previews (RLCPs) to address the need to provide accurate
information regarding the general living environment in the new location, which helps
the employee to adapt to the day-to-day routines of the new assignment. The authors
then used RLCPs in part of their study which found that RJPs are positively related to
work adjustment while RLCPs are positively related to general adjustment. Additionally,
the study found that cultural intelligence (CQ), a motivational factor that includes an
employee’s interest and drive to adapt to new cultural settings (Ang et al., 2007) had a
significant impact on general adjustment, even after RJPs and RLCPs were controlled.
Using a qualitative study of faculty from Canadian universities, Richardson et al. (2007)
found support for the use of RLCPs in addition to RJPs and proffered that realistic
recruitment should include information for both the responsibilities and specifications of
the new position (RJP), as well as non-organizational information for the employee and
family, such as spousal employment (RLCP).

There are several areas of research pertaining to realistic previews in expatriate
assignments yet to be discovered. First, further research needs to be conducted in order
to identify the most appropriate information to include in realistic previews in new
cultures. RJPs, as well as RLCPs, must be conducted in order to include accurate and
beneficial information to the employee. However, the issue of determining what
information is important is increased when the employee will be living in a new
country with a new culture of people speaking a different language. Also, consideration
should be made as to the benefits of using realistic previews at the end of expatriate
assignments as well. When employees return home, the economic environment and
local culture they remember may have changed. Much like the previews offered prior to
the global assignment, a realistic preview may have a benefit at the end of the
international workload as well. In this way, realistic return previews may serve as an
ideal way to help debrief and readjust expatriates back into their native environments.

Last, more research is needed into the effectiveness of realistic job previews for
higher-level and executive positions in the organization (Breaugh, 2008). Realistic job
previews for upper-management and c-suite applicants will need to be vastly different
than those for entry-level applicants, such that the focus on job tasks and workplace
environment may very well need to be revised to focus instead on leadership styles as
well as inner- and inter-organizational relationships. Also, whether the candidates are
internally promoted or recruited from outside of the organization, they are likely to
have more familiarity with the position and the industry, if not organization-specific
knowledge as well. This will reduce the effectiveness of a traditional realistic job
preview and therefore different types of information that are unique and not previously
known by the candidates will need to be conveyed.

Realistic job
previews

213

The future of realistic job previews in practice
There are numerous ways in which the impacts of realistic job previews are yet to be
explored that may serve as direct benefits to organizations. Internships are one such
possibility for reconceptualizing the traditional RJP. Internships provide students with
work experience that is both structured and career relevant (Taylor, 1988). Due to the
interns’ education and organization-specific knowledge, they are ideal job candidates
(Zhao and Liden, 2011). Additionally internships, like temporary workers or the use of
probationary hire periods, allow for observation and assessment of the performance an
individual can actually do, not just what they say they can do in an interview (Klehe
and Anderson, 2007). The use of internships and similar forms of pre-hire assessments
offer two main benefits. First, the organization is able to better assess the individual’s
actual performance with employees interacting with and evaluating the individual.
Second, the individual is better able to determine his or her fit and ability to accomplish
the required tasks. As such, unrealistic expectations will be reduced and the intern will
be in a better place to assess fit within the A-S-A framework (Schneider, 1987) and
self-select out if appropriate. By utilizing multiple interns, the organization can
implement a real-options approach (McGrath, 1997, 1999) by reducing the costs of
recruiting, selecting, and training an unqualified new employee. In doing so, the
organization is able to hedge against the downside risk while maintaining the upside of
increased performance. Should the organizational leaders decide to offer employment
to a fraction of the interns, they will be able to make a more informed selection decision
by comparing the interns’ performance and eliminating the underperformers.

In order to meet the demands of ever-changing technology and increased
globalization, organizational structures are adapting and changing the dynamics of the
employee-employer relationship (Rosenthal, 1995; Sullivan, 1999). Multi-level
organizations are becoming flatter (Miles and Snow, 1996) and the traditional linear
model of careers is not applicable any more (Sullivan, 1999; Sullivan et al., 1998).
Employees no longer anticipate remaining with one organization throughout the
duration of their careers and this has changed the expectations they have from their
employers (Sullivan and Baruch, 2009). Sullivan (1999, p. 458) posited that, “Under the
old contract, workers exchanged loyalty for job security. Under the new contract,
workers exchange performance for continuous learning and marketability”. Indeed, it
is through this desire for continuous learning that employees are able to become
proficient in the use of new technologies and remain marketable despite global
competition. Further, inherent in the new contract in which employees desire learning
and marketability is the increased need for realistic job previews. The higher turnover
from employees changing jobs and careers equates to a greater importance of
organizational recruitment, to both replace those employees who have left, as well as to
provide a more accurate selection process in order to hire new applicants that are more
likely to remain with the organization. Therefore, realistic job previews are likely to
become an even more central component of the recruitment and selection process for
both the increased quantity needed as well as the increased value placed on employee
retention.

Technological advancements in recruitment processes are inevitable. Thus, an
important area yet unexplored is the impact of technology on vocational training,
employee socialization, and recruitment practices. RJPs, as they are discussed in
contemporary research, have not accounted for the impact of technology to allow for

JMH
20,2

214

distance work that no longer requires physical attendance by the employee. Distance
work is becoming more and more common; and as such, recruitment practices must
adapt to the new, virtual workplace. In 2010, over 10 percent of employees in the USA
work from home at least one day per week (US Census Bureau, 2010). Further, the
percent of the workforce that primarily work from home has increased in the last 30
years from 2.3 percent in 1980 to almost double that at 4.3 percent in 2010 (Bloom et al.,
2012). Further, Bloom et al. (2009) found that 30 percent of US manufacturing firms allow
at least some of their managers to work at home as well. New RJPs should be created to
make job candidates aware of the unique nature of distance work, such as a possible
feeling of isolation and reduced interactions with coworkers. This way, the candidates
can make an informed decision whether to remain interested in the employment position
or whether to self-select out, in order to search for a more traditional position.

The ever-increasing automation of many industries and the reduction of
brick-and-mortar stores are two additional ways in which technology is changing
organizational structure and should thus be considered when helping job candidates
become acclimated to the organizational and job-specific demands. The increased
useage of automation and robotics that are commonly utilized in many industries,
including the automotive industry, have drastically changed the workplace
environment. Not only has the automation led to a downsizing of the workforce, but
the remaining employees now have a greater sense of isolation and a reduction of
personal interaction. Also, the boom in internet sales has created a decreased need for
brick-and-mortar stores. As organizations are able to market their goods and services
to larger, international markets on the internet, many have decided to either reduce or
entirely eliminate their store fronts. Kent and Brown (2006) found that this was a
successful strategy for purveyors of personal items which consumers may be
embarrassed to shop for in person.

Another technological advance we may see in the near future is the development of
a website that allows potential applicants to view RJPs for numerous jobs prior to
actually applying for the jobs. Potential applicants would be able to view a preview for
any job within his or her profession and decide, based on the preview, whether he or
she is a good fit for each job. Such a collection of RJPs would allow a job candidate to
compare and contrast several RJPs, thereby making a more informed decision.
Additionally, the organizations participating would be able to be more forthcoming
about any negatives associated with the position because of the assumption that all
other participating organizations would be doing the same. In doing so, the
organizations may be able to gain from the upside of having an “air of honesty” while
minimizing the downside risk of having qualified candidates become uninterested due
to the preview of negatives aspects.

It is also plausible that RJPs may become a permanent part of various vocational
aptitude tests. In this scenario, individuals would be able to take an aptitude test, the
results of which would be used to recommend compatible vocations or specific
occupations. Realistic previews could then be created for these vocations. For example,
machinists may be exposed to loud noises and potential safety issues around the
machinery; customer service representatives may be expected to frequently
communicate with upset or hostile customers; and attorneys may need to work long
hours and tolerate high levels of stress. Such a scenario would expand the realistic job
preview to a realistic vocation preview. Further, it would allow the test takers to gauge

Realistic job
previews

215

whether the recommended vocations are in alignment with their desires and values
from employment. Such tools, although not organization-specific, may be able to align
individuals with vocations in industries that would better match their values. This
alignment, while it may not prevent turnover to other career paths within the same
vocation, should at least help to reduce the need to switch to entirely new professions.

Concluding thoughts
While the refinement of realistic job previews has evolved a long way, there is still a
need to provide a socialization experience to workers that adequately prepares them for
what they might experience on the job. History has shown that providing newcomers
with realistic information can have numerous beneficial effects for an organization in
terms of performance, turnover, job satisfaction and a number of other important
organizational outcomes. As such, organizations should actively promote the use of
both RJPs and ELPs within the hiring and orientation processes for new employees.
Further, it is our hope that recruitment researchers will benefit from our review of the
extensive realistic job preview literature, the discussion of the psychological processes
underlying RJPs and the mixed results, as well as our recommendations for future
research.

References

Allen, D.G., Mahto, R. and Otondo, R.F. (2007), “Web-based recruitment: effects of information,
organizational brand, and attitudes toward a web site applicant attraction”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 92, pp. 1696-1708.

Anfuso, D. (1996), “Strategies to stop the layoffs – save jobs”, Personnel Journal, June.

Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C. and Hg, K.Y. (2007), “Cultural intelligence: its measurement and
effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task
performance”, Management and Organization Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 335-371.

Appelbaum, S.H. and Donia, M. (2000), “The realistic downsizing preview: a management
intervention in the prevention of survivor syndrome (part I)”, Career Development
International, Vol. 5 No. 7, pp. 333-350.

Appelbaum, S.H. and Donia, M. (2001a), “The realistic downsizing preview: a management
intervention in the prevention of survivor syndrome (part II)”, Career Development
International, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 5-19.

Appelbaum, S.H. and Donia, M. (2001b), “The realistic downsizing preview: a multiple case
study, part I: the methodology and results of data collection”, Career Development
International, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 128-150.

Appelbaum, S.H. and Donia, M. (2001c), “The realistic downsizing preview: a multiple case
study, part II: analysis of RDP model: results of data collected and proposed new model”,
Career Development International, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 193-211.

Appelbaum, S.H. and Labib, N. (1993), “Strategic downsizing: a human resources perspective”,
Human Resource Planning, Vol. 16 No. 4.

Appelbaum, S.H., Patton, E. and Shapiro, B. (2003), “The early retirement incentive program:
a downsizing strategy”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 22-35.

Barber, A.E. (1998), Recruiting Employees, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Bernardin, H.J. (2002), “A survey of human resource practices”, paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Academy of Management. Denver, CO.

JMH
20,2

216

Billsberry, J. (2007), Experiencing Recruitment and Selection, Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

Black, J.S. (1990), “The relationship of personal characteristics with the adjustment of Japanese
expatriate managers”, Managerial International Review, Vol. 30, pp. 119-134.

Black, J.S. and Stephens, K.G. (1989), “The influence of the spouse on American expatriate
adjustment and intent to stay in Pacific Rim overseas assignments”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 15, pp. 529-544.

Black, J.S., Gregersen, H.B. and Mendenhall, M.E. (1992), Global Assignments: Successfully
Expatriating and Repatriating International Managers, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Bloom, N., Kretschmer, T. and Van Reenen, J. (2009), “Work-life balance, management practices
and productivity”, in Freeman, R. and Shaw, K. (Eds), International Differences in the
Business Practice and Productivity of Firms, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J. and Ying, Z.J. (2012), “Does working from home work? Evidence
from a Chinese experiment”, NBER Working Paper No. 18871, available at:
www.nber.org/papers/w18871

Boswell, W.R., Roehling, M.V., LePine, M.A. and Moynihan, L.M. (2003), “Individual job-choice
decisions and the impact of job attributes and recruitment practices: a longitudinal field
study”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 42, pp. 23-37.

Boudreau, J.W. (1991), “Utility analysis for decisions in human resource management”, in
Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 621-745.

Branch, S. (1998), “You hired ’em But can you keep ’em?”, Fortune, 9 November, pp. 247-250.

Breaugh, J.A. (1983), “Realistic job previews: a critical appraisal and future research directions”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 612-619.

Breaugh, J.A. (1992), Recruitment: Science and Practice, PWS-Kent, Boston, MA.

Breaugh, J.A. (2008), “Employee recruitment: current knowledge and important areas for future
research”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 18, pp. 103-118.

Breaugh, J.A. and Billings, R.S. (1988), “The realistic job preview: five key elements and their
importance for research and practice”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 2,
pp. 291-305.

Breaugh, J.A. and Starke, M. (2000), “Research on employee recruitment: so many studies, so
many remaining questions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26, pp. 405-434.

Breaugh, J.A., Macan, T.H. and Grambow, D.M. (2008), “Employee recruitment: current
knowledge and directions for future reseach”, in Hodgkinson, G.P. and Ford, J.K. (Eds),
International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 23, John Wiley
& Sons, New York, NY, pp. 45-82.

Bretz, R.D. and Judge, T.A. (1998), “Realistic job previews: a test of the adverse self-selection
hypothesis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83, pp. 330-337.

Brockner, J., Grover, S., Reed, T. and DeWitt, R.L. (1992), “Layoffs, job security, and survivors’
work effort: evidence of an inverted-U relationship”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 35, pp. 413-425.

Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B. and Martin, C.L. (1995), “Decision frame, procedural justice and
survivors’ reactions to job layoffs”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 63, pp. 59-68.

Buckley, M.R., Fedor, D.B., Carraher, S.M., Frink, D.D. and Marvin, D. (1997), “The ethical
imperative to provide recruits realistic job previews”, Journal of Management Issues, Vol. 9
No. 4, pp. 468-484.

Realistic job
previews

217

Buckley, M.R., Fedor, D.B., Veres, J.G., Wiese, D.S. and Carraher, S.M. (1998), “Investigating
newcomer expectations and job-related outcomes”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 83
No. 3, pp. 452-461.

Buckley, M.R., Mobbs, T.A., Mendoza, J.L., Novicevic, M.M., Carraher, S.M. and Beu, D.S. (2002),
“Implementing realistic job previews and expectation-lowering procedures: a field
experiment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 263-278.

Caligiuri, P.M. and Phillips, J.M. (2003), “An application of self-assessment realistic job previews
to expatriate assignments”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 14, pp. 1102-1116.

Cameron, K. and Smart, J. (1998), “Maintaining effectiveness amid downsizing and decline in
institutions of higher education”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 65-86.

Caplow, T. (1964), Principles of Organizations, Harcourt, Brace, & World, Atlanta, GA.

Carraher, S.M. (2011), “Turnover predicton using attitudes towards benefits, pay, and pay
satisfaction among employees and entrepreneurs in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania”, Baltic
Journal of Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 25-52.

Carraher, S.M. and Buckley, M.R. (2008), “Attitudes towards benefits and behavioral intentions
and their relationship to absenteeism, performance, and turnover among nurses”,
Academy of Health Care Journal, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 89-109.

Carraher, S.M., Sullivan, S.E. and Crocitto, M.M. (2008), “Mentoring across global boundaries: an
empirical examination of home-and host-country mentors on expatriate career outcomes”,
Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 39, pp. 1310-1326.

Cascio, W.F. (1999), Costing Human Resources: The Financial Impact of Behavior in
Organizations, 4th ed., South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.

Cialdini, R.B., Petrova, P.K. and Goldstein, N. (2004), “The hidden costs of organizational
dishonesty”, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 45, pp. 67-73.

Colarelli, S.M. (1984), “Methods of communication and mediating processes in realistic job
previews”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69, pp. 633-642.

Cole, D.W. (1981), Professional Suicide: A Survival Kit for You and Your Job, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.

Conger, A.J. (1974), “A revised definition for suppressor variables: a guide to their identification
and interpretation”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 34, pp. 35-46.

Copeland, L. and Griggs, L. (1985), Going International, Random House, New York, NY.

Crow, L.D. (1967), Psychology of Human Adjustment, Knopf, New York, NY.

Dean, R.A. and Wanous, J.P. (1984), “Effects of realistic job previews on hiring bank tellers”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 61-68.

Dineen, B.R., Ling, J., Ash, S.R. and DelVecchio, D. (2007), “Aesthetic properties and message
customization: navigating the dark side of web recruitment”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 92, pp. 356-372.

Downs, S., Farr, R.M. and Colbeck, L. (1978), “Self-appraisal: a convergence of selection and
guidance”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 271-278.

Earnest, D.R., Allen, D.G. and Landis, R.S. (2011), “Mechanisms linking realistic job previews
with turnover: a meta-analytic path analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64, pp. 865-897.

Entwistle, N., Odor, P. and Anderson, C. (1987), “Anticipating the experience of higher education
through computer simulation”, Higher Education, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 337-355.

Farr, J.L., O’Leary, B.S. and Bartlett, C.J. (1973), “Effect of work sample test upon self-selection
and turnover of job applicants”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 283-285.

JMH
20,2

218

Feldman, D.C. (1976), “A practical program for employee socialization”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 5, pp. 64-80.

Ganzach, Y., Pazy, A., Ohayun, Y. and Brainin, E. (2002), “Social exchange and organizational
commitment: decision-making training for the job choice as an alternative to the realistic
job preview”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 55, pp. 613-637.

Greenhaus, J.H., Seidel, C. and Marinis, M. (1983), “The impact of expectations and values on job
attitudes”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 31, pp. 394-417.

Gregersen, H.B. and Black, J.S. (1990), “A multifaceted approach to expatriate retention in
international assignments”, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 15, pp. 461-485.

Guion, R.M. (1991), “Personnel assessment, selection, and placement”, in Dunnette, M.D. and
Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Consulting
Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 327-397.

Haccoun, R.R. (1978), “The effects of realistic job previews and their position within the selection
sequence on telephone operator behavior and attitudes”, unpublished manuscript,
University of Montreal.

Hitt, M.A., Keats, B.W., Harback, H.F. and Nixon, R.D. (1994), “Rightsizing: building and
maintaining strategic leadership and long-term competitiveness”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 18-32.

Hom, P.W., Griffeth, R.W., Palich, L.E. and Bracker, J.S. (1998), “An exploratory investigation
into theoretical mechanisms underlying realistic job previews”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 51, pp. 421-451.

Hom, P.W., Griffeth, R.W., Palich, L.E. and Bracker, J.S. (1999), “Revisiting met expectations as a
reason why realistic job previews work”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 97-112.

Horner, S.O., Mobley, W.H. and Meglino, B.M. (1979), “An experimental evaluation of the effects
of realistic job preview on Marine recruit affect, intentions and behavior” (Center for
Management and Organizational Research Tech Rep 9) College of Business
Administration, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC.

Iles, P.A. and Robertson, I.T. (1989), “The impact of personnel selection procedures on
candidates”, in Herriot, P. (Ed.), Assessment and Selection in Organizations, John Wiley
& Sons, Chichester, pp. 257-271.

Ilgen, D.R. and Seely, W. (1974), “Realistic expectations as an aid in reducing voluntary
resignations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 452-455.

Irving, P.G. and Meyer, J.P. (1994), “Re-examination of the met-expectations hypothesis: a
longitudinal analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79, pp. 937-949.

Irving, P.G. and Meyer, J.P. (1995), “On using direct measures of met expectations: a
methodological note”, Journal of Management, Vol. 21, pp. 1159-1175.

Irving, P.G. and Meyer, J.P. (1999), “On using residual difference scores in the measurement of
congruence: the case of met expectations research”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 85-95.

Kent, T. and Brown, R.B. (2006), “Erotic retailing in the UK (1963-2003): the view from the
marketing mix”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 199-211.

Kets de Vries, M. and Balazs, K. (1997), “The downside of downsizing”, Human Relations, Vol. 50
No. 1, pp. 11-50.

Klehe, U.C. and Anderson, N. (2007), “Working hard and working smart: motivation and ability
during typical and maximum performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92,
pp. 978-992.

Lewis, M.L. (1980), “Surprise and sense making: what newcomers experience in entering
unfamiliar organizational settings”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25, pp. 226-251.

Realistic job
previews

219

McEvoy, G.M. and Cascio, W.F. (1985), “Strategies for reducing employee turnover: a
meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 2, pp. 342-353.

McGrath, R.G. (1997), “A real options logic for initiating technology positioning investments”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 974-996.

McGrath, R.G. (1999), “Falling forward: real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 13-30.

Macedonia, R.M. (1969), “Expectations, press, and survival”, unpublished doctoral dissertation,
New York University.

Mathys, N. and Burack, E. (1993), “Strategic downsizing: human resource planning approaches”,
Human Resource Planning, Vol. 16 No. 4.

Meglino, B.M. and DeNisi, A.S. (1987), “Realistic job previews: some thoughts on their more
effective use in managing the flow of human resources”, Human Resource Planning,
Vol. 10, pp. 157-167.

Meglino, B.M., Ravlin, E.C. and DeNisi, A.S. (1997), “When does it hurt to tell the truth? The effect
of realistic job previews on employee recruiting”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 26,
pp. 414-421.

Meglino, B.M., Ravlin, E.C. and DeNisi, A.S. (2000), “A meta-analytic examination of realistic job
preview effectiveness: a test of three counterintuitive propositions”, Human Resource
Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 407-434.

Meglino, B.M., DeNisi, A.S., Youngblood, S.A. and Williams, K.J. (1988), “Effects of realistic job
previews: a comparison using an enhancement and a reduction preview”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 259-266.

Mendenhall, M. and Oddou, G. (1985), “The dimensions of expatriate acculturation: a review”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10, pp. 39-47.

Mezia, J.M. and Scandura, T.A. (2005), “A needs-driven approach to expatriate adjustment and
career development: a multiple mentoring perspective”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 519-538.

Miceli, M.P. (1983), “Why realistic job previews cannot meet our unrealistic high expectations”,
Academy of Management Proceedings, pp. 282-286.

Miceli, M.P. (1985), “The effects of realistic job previews on newcomer behavior: a laboratory
study”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 26, pp. 277-289.

Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1996), “Twenty-first century careers”, in Arthur, M.B. and
Rousseau, D.M. (Eds), The Boundaryless Career, Oxford University Press, New York, NY,
pp. 97-115.

Mishra, A.K. and Spreitzer, G.M. (1998), “Explaining how survivors respond to downsizing: the
roles of trust, empowerment, justice, and work design”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 567-588.

Morris, J.R., Cascio, W.F. and Young, C.E. (1999), “Downsizing after all these years: questions and
answers about who did it how many did it, and who benefited from it”, Organizational
Dynamics, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 78-87.

Morse, B.J. and Popovich, P.M. (2009), “Realistic recruitment practices in organizations: the
potential benefits of generalized expectancy calibration”, Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 19, pp. 1-8.

Ortqvist, D., Drnovsek, M. and Wincent, J. (2007), “Entrepreneurs’ coping with challenging role
expectations”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 288-304.

Phillips, J.M. (1998), “Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational outcomes: a
meta-analysis”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 41, pp. 673-690.

JMH
20,2

220

Pitt, L.F. and Ramaseshan, B. (1995), “Realistic job information and salesforce turnover: an
investigative study”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 29-36.

Pond, S.B. III and Hay, M.S. (1989), “The impact of task preview information as a function of
recipient self-efficacy”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 35, pp. 17-29.

Popovich, P. and Wanous, J.P. (1982), “The realistic job preview as a persuasive communication”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 570-578.

Porter, L.W., Lawler, E.E. and Hackman, J.R. (1975), Behavior in Organization, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.

Porter, L.W. and Steers, R.M. (1973), “Organizational, work, and personal factors in employee
turnover and absenteeism”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 92, pp. 726-748.

Premack, S.L. and Wanous, J.P. (1985), “A meta-analysis of realistic job preview experiments”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 706-719.

Reilly, R.R., Tenopyr, M.L. and Sperling, S.M. (1979), “Effects of job previews on job acceptance
and survival of telephone operator candidates”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 64
No. 2, pp. 218-220.

Reilly, R.R., Brown, B., Blood, M.R. and Malatesta, C.Z. (1981), “The effects of realistic previews:
a study and discussion of the literature”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 823-834.

Richardson, J., McBey, K. and McKenna, S. (2007), “Integrating realistic job previews and
realistic living conditions previews: realistic recruitment for internationally mobile
knowledge workers”, Personnel Review, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 490-508.

Roehling, M.V. (1997), “The origins and early development of the psychological contract
construct”, Journal of Management History, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 204-217.

Rosenthal, N.H. (1995), “The nature of occupational employment growth: 1983-1993”, Monthly
Labor Review, Vol. 118, pp. 45-54.

Rousseau, D. (1989), “Psychological and implied contracts in organizations”, Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 121-139.

Rousseau, D. (1995), Psychological Contracts in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand
Oaks, CA.

Rynes, S.L. (1991), “Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2nd ed., Consulting Psychologists
Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 399-444.

Rynes, S.L., Bretz, R.D. and Gerhart, B. (1991), “The importance of recruitment in job choice:
a different way of looking”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44, pp. 487-521.

Rynes, S.L. and Cable, D.M. (2003), “Recruitment research in the twenty-first century”, in
Borman, W.C., Ilgen, D.R. and Klimoski, R.J. (Eds), Handbook of Psychology: Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 12, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, pp. 55-76.

Saks, A.M. (2005), “The impracticality of recruitment research”, in Evans, A., Anderson, N. and
Voskuijl, O. (Eds), Handbook of Personnel Selection, Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp. 47-72.

Schein, E.H. (1980), Organizational Psychology, Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, NJ..

Schmitt, N., Ford, J.K. and Stults, D.M. (1986), “Changes in self-perceived ability as a function of
performance in an assessment center”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 59,
pp. 327-335.

Schneider, B. (1987), “The people make the place”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 437-454.

Schwab, D.P. (1981), “Review of organizational entry: recruitment, selection, and socialization of
newcomers by John P. Wanous”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 167-170.

Realistic job
previews

221

Schwepker, C.H. (1999), “An exploratory investigation of the relationship between ethical
cconflict and salesperson performance”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing,
Vol. 18, pp. 435-446.

Spitzmuller, C., Neumann, E., Spitzmuller, M., Rubino, C., Keeton, K.E., Sutton, M.T. and Manzey, D.
(2008), “Assessing the influence of psychological and career mentoring on organizational
attractiveness”, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 403-415.

Sullivan, S.E. (1999), “The changing nature of careers: a review and research agenda”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 457-484.

Sullivan, S.E. and Baruch, Y. (2009), “Advances in career theory and research: a critical review
and agenda for future exploration”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 1542-1571.

Sullivan, S.E., Carden, W.A. and Martin, D.F. (1998), “Careers in the next millennium: directions
for future research”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 165-185.

Tate, D.S. (1994), “Restructuring agency job descriptions using realistic job previews”,
Administration and Policy in Mental Health, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 169-173.

Taylor, S.M. (1988), “Effects of college internships on individual participants”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 73, pp. 393-401.

Templer, K.J., Tay, C. and Chandrasekar, N.A. (2006), “Motivational cultural intelligence, realistic
job preview, realistic living condition preview, and cross-cultural adjustment”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 31, pp. 154-173.

Tenopyr, M.L. and Oeltjen, P.D. (1982), “Personnel selection and classification”, in Rosenzweig,
M.R. and Porter, L.W. (Eds), Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 33, Annual Reviews, Palo
Alto, CA, pp. 581-618.

Tornow, W.W. (1988), “Contract redesign”, Personnel Administrator, Vol. 33 No. 10, pp. 97-101.

Turban, D.B., Eyring, A.R. and Campion, J.E. (1993), “Job attributes: preferences compared with
reasons given for accepting and rejecting job offers”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 66, pp. 71-81.

Turnley, W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2000), “Re-examining the effects of psychological contract
violations: unmet expectations and job dissatisfaction as mediators”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21, pp. 25-42.

US Census Bureau (2010), Census 2010, US Census Bureau, Washington, DC.

Wanous, J.P. (1973), “Effects of a realistic job preview on job acceptance, job attitudes, and job
survival”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 327-332.

Wanous, J.P. (1977), “Organizational entry: newcomers moving from outside to inside”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 84 No. 4, p. 1977.

Wanous, J.P. (1978), “Realistic job previews: can a procedure to reduce turnover also influence the
relationship between abilities and performance”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 31, pp. 249-258.

Wanous, J.P. (1980), Organizational Entry: Recruitment, Selection, and Socialization of
Newcomers, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Wanous, J.P. (1989), “Installing a realistic job preview: ten tough choices”, Personnel Psychology,
Vol. 42, pp. 117-134.

Wanous, J.P. (1992), Organizational Entry, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Wanous, J.P. and Colella, A. (1989), “Future directions in organizational entry research”, in
Rowland, K. and Ferris, G. (Eds), Research in Personnel Human Resource Management,
Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

JMH
20,2

222

Wanous, J.P., Sullivan, S.E. and Malinak, J. (1989), “The role of judgment calls in meta-analysis”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 259-296.

Wanous, J.P., Poland, T.D., Premack, S.L. and Davis, K.S. (1992), “The effects of met expectations
on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: a review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 288-297.

Weitz, J. (1956), “Job expectancy and survival”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 4,
pp. 245-247.

Weitz, J. and Nuckols, R.C. (1955), “Job satisfaction and job survival”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 294-300.

Youngberg, C.F. (1963), “An experimental study of job satisfaction and turnover in relation to job
expectations and self-expectations”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York
University, New York.

Zaharia, E.S. and Baumeister, A.A. (1978), “Technician turnover and absenteeism in public
residential facilities”, American Journal of Mental Deficiency, Vol. 82 No. 6, pp. 580-593.

Zaharia, E.S. and Baumeister, A.A. (1981), “Job preview effects during the critical initial
employment period”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 19-22.

Zhao, H. and Liden, R. (2011), “Internship: a recruitment and selection perspective”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 1, pp. 221-229.

Further reading

Gomersall, E.R. and Myers, M.S. (1966), “Breakthrough in on-the-job training”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 62-72.

Corresponding author
M. Ronald Buckley can be contacted at: Mbuckley@ou.edu

Realistic job
previews
223

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Annals of “Dunarea de Jos” University of Galati
Fascicle I. Economics and Applied Informatics

Years XXV – no1/2019
ISSN-L 1584-0409 ISSN-Online 2344-441X

www.eia.feaa.ugal.ro

DOI https://doi.org/10.35219/eai1584040911

Employees’ Expectation and Organizational Silence

Oluwatoyin Frederick IDOWU

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Accepted March 2019
Available online April 2019

Aim: The study investigated the relationship between employees’ expectation (EE) and
organizational silence (OS).
Design/Methodology: A survey of one hundred and eight (108) working class Professional
Master Students was carried out eliciting responses through a self- constructed instrument
that has Cronbach alpha of 0.864 and 0.825 reliability values for employees’ expectation
and organizational silence respectively. Both Pearson product moment correlation and
multiple regressions statistics were used to test the stated research hypotheses.
Findings: It was found that employees’ expectations have a strong positive and statistically
significant relationship with organization silence. The indices of employee expectations:
employee control (EC), employee ownership (EO) and employee appreciation (EA)
separately correlate positively and significantly with organization silence. The study also
showed that they are strong predictors of organizational silence except employee control
that is somewhat a weak predictor. In combination however, employee expectation is a
strong, positive and significant predictor of organizational silence. The influence of
employees’ expectations of control, appreciation and ownership explained 30.5% of
organization silence.
Conclusion/recommendation: The study established that the types of organization silence
are not limited to the three existing one of quiescent, acquiescent and pro-social but also
include accrual benefits. Also, the motives for organization silence of resignation, fear and
other-oriented, were extended to include self-oriented benefits.
Research implications: Organization scholars, business owners and researchers should seek
for the expectations of the employees as they contribute to change and work related
improvement in the quest to stem the tide of silence behaviour climate in business
organization.

© 2019 EAI. All rights reserved.

JEL Classification
M11, G12

Keywords:
Employees’ expectation,
Organization silence, Employee
control, Employee ownership,
Employee appreciation

1. Introduction

People as the most precious asset of an organization become so if they bring their creativity,
knowledge, innovation and ideas to bear on the organizations’ work related improvement. Employees’
expression and demonstration of these values bring about rapid and positive changes that suggest success
and survival. Organization success and survival require that workers respond to environmental challenges
committedly (Entezari, 2014), positively and expressively. However workers can remain with an organization
for a considerable long period, carry out their obligations without necessarily carrying the burdens of the
organization. The demand of the ever changing world of work, and its attendant hyper-competition require
that organization keeps in its stable employees that would be responsive to the challenges of the environment
through the expression of their opinions, ideas, and knowledge sharing. (Nikmaram, Yamchi, Shojaii,
Zahrani& Alvani, 2012; Seyyed & Arezoo, 2014; Entezari, 2014).

In spite of the importance of employees as the platform of change and their significance to the
success and survival of the organization, they may individually and collectively deliberately withhold their
opinion on work related improvement or change. This is employees silence (ES). When the silence climate
pervades the whole organization it becomes organizational silence (OS). However, the two are used
interchangeably and in most cases referred to as organizational silence .Organization silence is the motivation
or the powerful forces that engender withholding of information, ideas, or not expressing opinions on
potential work related improvement or change (Van Dyne, Ang & Botero, 2003)

Employees, individually and collectively are in possession of institutional knowledge. They are to
bring this to bear on the work related improvement for organization competiveness growth and survival.
Experientially, employees are continually motivated to withhold their opinions, ideas or information that can
bring about changes that lead to work related improvement. This is as a result of disengaged behaviour, fear
of reprisal and protecting others mistakes including the mistakes of the organization. Such situations suggest

Lagos State University, Ojo, Lagos. E-mail address: idowoluwatoyin@gmail.com

http://www.eia.feaa.ugal.ro/

https://doi.org/10.35219/eai1584040911

mailto:idowoluwatoyin@gmail.com

94

that employees do not bring their professional and institutional expertise and knowledge to bear on change
and developmental issues of the organisation. The motivation to do so has been attributed to three factors:
(1). resignation /passive silence (2) defensive/acquiescent silence and (3) other-oriented/pro-social silence.
More and more organizations management are aware of the devastating effects of climate of silence in their
organisations. Mechanisms for breaking it, like suggestion box, participative management practice,
employees’ involvement, open communication and democratization strategies, are put in place (Karaca,
2013)), yet the climate of silence continually pervades organisation: suggesting that the motive of silence
required reviewing and extension. The role of employees’ expectation arising from psychological contract
comes to play. Employment relationship relates to mutual expectation and obligations that are unwritten and
lie outside the normal contract (HR Zone, 2008). The relational psychological contract is social in nature and
not economic. Employees value being valued and appreciated rather than impersonal reward. Non
satisfaction of relational psychological contract leads to breakdown in employee involvement, commitment,
satisfaction and withdrawal from participating in change and work related issues (organization silence) (HR
Zone, 2008). Frustration of employees’ expectations on accruable benefits such as control, appreciation and
ownership may lead to negative consequences. Such consequences include not getting involved in new
projects; breakdown of trust between employees and management; less of employees’ commitment,
satisfaction and; high turnover intention (HR Zone, 2008; Blickle & Witzki, 2006).

1.1 Statement of the Problem

The awareness of the climate of silence by organisation management and the mechanisms set up to
attenuate it have not brought about required and desirable results (Brinsfield, 2009). Modern management
approaches which embrace information flow and communication through meetings, suggestion and
complaint schemes, face to face meetings and open door policies have not brought about desired amount of
voice. That is, employees are not getting involved and are not showing concerns for work related change and
improvement. Employees: either individually or in groups (department, unit or section) continues to
voluntarily or involuntarily withhold and are reluctant to share information, volunteer ideas and opinions
that can bring about work related improvement and change. Employees are not giving information on new
projects and schemes, are not showing concern on the work improvement issues (Brinsfield, 2009) or do so
haphazardly.

Existing motives for silence (quiescent, acquiescent and pro-social) are extraneous and other-
oriented. Organization members can refrain from suggestion that leads to organization improvement as a
result of the negative and un-gratifying experience from management as a result of volunteering such
information in the past. Thus, employees remain passive as a result of bosses’ reprisal, and the drive to
protect the self, the group and others including the organization in situation of whistle blowing (Morrison &
Milliken, 2001, Van Dyne Ang & Botero, 2002). The motives do not consider accruals to individual, and the
groups (unit/departments) in terms of benefits from their contribution to organizational change, as a motive
for employees’ silence. That is, not mutually benefiting as expected from the past contribution may stifle
future contributions by the employees. The psychological contract (employees’ expectation on their
contributions to organization improvement) is critical to silence behaviour.

Lack of consideration of employees’ expectation may account for the prevalence of silence among
employees in spite of established mechanisms by organization management to encourage their contribution
towards work related improvement .People who can contribute to change and development are not doing so
(Seyyed & Arezoo, 2014) or have a low response to critical issue that the organisation is facing, or do not
show concern when in position to (Brinsfield, 2009). This is in spite of encouragement proffered to
organisation members through information mechanisms to contribute to organisation issues bothering on
improvement. This could be attributed to previous outcome of contributing to change that are not mutually
beneficial to the management, the unit and the individual. Lack of mutual benefit from contributions towards
organisational improvement may stifle suggestion of ideas information and opinions and lead to lack of show
of concern by the employee, organisation’s unit and departmental members. Naturally, employees have their
expectations from their contributions towards work improvement, beyond their work schedule that is
ordinarily rewarded. Employees’ expectations such as control of outcomes of contributions; appreciation for
contribution; ownership of and reward for contributing to work related improvement beyond normal work
schedules.

The mutual benefit perspective has not been explored as a motive or powerful force in engendering
employee and organisational silence. Extant works on silence have been other oriented (the establishment
and colleagues) not considering individual employee’s benefits that can lead to collective sense making (CSM)
and bonding and their resolve not to participate, volunteer information, ideas, suggestion or show concern in
work related change and organisational improvement. The refusal to participate could be as a result of lack of
mutual benefits arising from the past employees’ induced change and development. The impact of this has not
been researched. This can be attributed to the fact that knowledge in the area of organizational/employee
silence in terms of its conceptualization, multidimensionality and underlying motives is still cumulating

95

(Brinsfield, 2009). Therefore, this study attempts to investigate the influence of employees’ expectations
among working postgraduate students of Lagos State University Nigeria.
1.2. Objectives of the Study

The study aims at examining the influence of employees’ expectation of accruing benefits from their
contribution to work related change and improvement on organizational silence

1. To examine if there is any significant relationship between employees’ expectations from their

contribution to work improvement and organisational silence?

2. To investigate if any significant relationship exists between employees’ control, ownership,
appreciation and organisational silence?

3. To find out if there is significant influence of employees’ control, ownership and appreciation on
organisational silence?

1.3. Research Question

1. Is there any significant relationship between employees’ expectations and

organisational silence?

2. Does any significant relationship exist between employees’ control, ownership appreciation and

organisational silence?

3. To what extent do employees’ control, ownership and appreciation influence organisational silence?

1.4. Research Hypotheses
H1 There is no significant relationship between employees’ expectation and organisational silence.
H2 There is no significant relationship between employees’ control, ownership and appreciation on
organisational silence.
H3 There is no significant influence of employees’ control, ownership and appreciation on organizational
silence.

2. Literature review

Employees’ expectations arise from their psychological contract which is a set of unwritten
expectations that exist between individual employees and their employers, (Armstrong, 2009; Wikipedia,
2008; Blickle & Witzki, 2006). It has been reported that employee expectation correlates with, high
involvement climate, learning and development, turnover intention and commitment. Lack of fairness, equity
and consistency in the treatment of employees’ expectation may result in silence behaviour .Trust, turnover,
inability to demonstrate employee competence are other negative consequences of not meeting employees
expectation (Armstrong, 2009; Wikepedia, 2008; HR Zone, 2008). The expectations influence what each party
will do or not do and how it will be done .

Employees often negotiate the contract, and a breach is responded to negatively by reduced loyalty,
commitment and organization citizenships behaviour that may diminish organization success. Organization
silence is not mentioned from the literature as being a consequence of employees’ expectation. However,
loyalty is a characteristic of organization citizenship. Not being loyal to the cause of the organization
(organization silence) is a behaviour arising from frustration of previous expectations from employees’
contributions to work related issue. Hence employee expectation as an unwritten contract between the
management and employees would impact organizational silence. Relational expectations are numerous.,
Therefore management must explore what these unwritten expectations are.

Organization silence has been variously conceived (Brinsfield, 2009). The centrality of all the
definitions is that: silence behaviour has a motive or many motives oriented towards specific purpose; it is
deliberate; it is conscious and dynamic (Brinsfield, 2009; Yildiz, 2013; Megenci, 2015; Dasci & Cemaloglu,
2016; Van Dyne, et al, 2003; Vakola & Bouradas, 2005). Tangirala and Ramanujan (2008) definition according
to Brinsfield, (2009) meet all these criteria. They defined organizational silence as intentional withholding of
concerns, information or opinions by employees concerning important situations, issues or events relating to
their job or organization.

Three motives were identified with three types of silence for organization silence:
disengaged/passivity, defensive or fear of reprisal and other-oriented. Brinsfield, (2009) argued that motives
for silence behaviour among employees give meaning to and differentiate various dimensions of employee
silence. She also found that the existing motives and organization silence types are not exhaustive as silence
has its target and specific motives.

Silence behaviour has been correlated organizational outcomes of commitment (Deniz, Noyan &
Ertozan, 2013), satisfaction and turnover intention (Nikmaram et al 2012).

2.2 Empirical Review

Deniz, et al (2013) found that organisation silence remain even when management proudly speak of
empowerment and development of more open lines of communication. Employees keep their thoughts to
themselves and refrain from writing; are present at work, yet their minds are elsewhere (a phenomenon of

96

presenteesm); demonstrate negative attitudes and ignore contributing to project that bring about
organisation success. This was corroborated by Karaca (2013) findings that modern management embraces
open communication yet, silence climate still prevails in organisations. Lack of trust and fear of being labelled
continue to constrain the flow of information. The two studies did not provide solution to or find out why the
openness and democratization in voice as well as information flow still produce the climate of silence in
organisations. This is suggesting that the established motivation for silence and the behaviours emanating
therefrom have not been fully exhausted.

Deniz et al (2013) noted Brinsfeild (2009) as saying that assessment tools used to empirically
investigate silence has not addressed current concept of employees’ silence. Disengaged behaviour is still
prevalence among employees (Deniz et al, 2013). They found a correlation between organisation silence and
employee commitment which also vary between groups within an organisation. Also found was a negative
relationship between defensive silence and affective commitment. Relationship between commitment and
other type of silence was not found. This suggests that the situation of employees’ group can account for the
nature of their sile nce. Disregardful behaviour leading to employee exits from the organization was found by
Nikmaram et al (2012) as another reason for silence. Management attitudes and behaviours through
institutional arrangement can entrench a moment of silence and lack of employee participation in
organisational efforts thereby, creating barriers for performance, effectiveness and commitment.

Nikmaram et.al (2012) found variation in reaction of the level/status of officer in broadness of
silence and climate of silence including silence behaviour. This suggests that silence depends on the status of
the employee and perhaps less among those who do not expect much rewards/ sanctions from internal
superior.

Power distance index was found by Umar and Hassan (2013) to be related to employee silence in
Nigeria. Talking to a superior above the immediate boss is perceived by Nigerian employee as evil and
immoral and may likely cause hatred, enmity and suspicion. Their finding does not consider the quest for
assertiveness inherent in different individuals or the differential generational expectations to make impact on
the organizational decisions and efforts. Karaca (2013) study of command community reinforces the power
distance dimension of silence. In a study of police in Turkish hierarchical organisation, he found
administrative and organizational factors to be potent reasons for employee silence. Gazmeh, Farmani and
Sedaghat (2014) study relate silence to administrators not paying attention to employees who are
consistently itching to propose and making suggestions that can solve organisational issues. Good
communication opportunities would not evoke voice in such situation

Brinsfield (2009) in her seminal work pointed out that the extant motives for silence: quiescent
(disengaged behaviour), acquiescent (self-protection) and pro-social (other oriented), are not exhaustive. The
validity of the instruments used by the original authors is also questionable as they were left for third party to
validate in the latters’ use of the instruments in their studies. However, researchers (Deniz, et, al, 2013;
Bagheri, et al 2012;, Gazmeh, et. al,2014; Umar& Hassan, 2013; Karaca, 2013 ) extensively relied on these
initial instruments developed initially by Milliken & Morrison (2000; 2003), Pinders & Harlos (20 01), and
extended by Van Dyne, et al, (2003) without searching for other motives of silence in organization. Other
researchers’ works have been on the normative assumptions that silence is part of organization climate and
they therefore prescribed solutions without necessarily and systematically seeking for the motives of
employees’ silence so as to make the suggested solutions effective in attenuating the climate of silence in
organization (Yildiz, 2013;, Akbarian, Ansari, Sharem & Keshtiaray, 2013).

2.3. Theoretical Framework

Control theory as developed by Carver and Scheier (1982) provided the orientation for the study.
The theory follows the general cybernetics framework of motivated human behaviour (Brainsfield, 2008) It
posits that discrepancy reduction feedback log is important in the building block of human action. Six
elements form the loop (1) input functions, (2) reference value (3) comparator, (4) output function, (5)
impact on environment and disturbance (Carver & Scheier, 1982).

According to the theory action is stimulated by a stimulus input factor, a perception that prompt a
comparison of the current state of affairs with the desired state using a process of comparator. If the
perceived situation between what is and what ought to be vary from the preferred reference value, a
discrepant is produced. The actor will make some efforts to reduce the discrepancy in some forms of
behavioural process. The environment is impacted upon in the process of reducing the discrepancy. The
consequent impact on the environment coupled with forces external to the system (disturbances) serve as a
feedback input to another iteration of this process (Carver & Scheier, 1982).

Providing orientation for this study, employee can withhold ideas information and opinions that can
bring about change and improvement in their organization if accruing benefits will not be valued. A
discrepancy between the preferred reference value and what accrued in similar situation in the past will
result in disengaged behaviour to reduce the discrepancies as the framework below expatiate.

97

2.4. Conceptual Framework

Figure 1: Employees Expectations and Organisational Silence

Source: Author, 2018

The framework suggests the motives for organization silence which are employees’ expectations.
Employees either individually or in groups have some expectations (control, ownership and appreciation)
from the outcomes of their contributions, participations, suggestions, concerns and volunteering ideas,
besides their regular work schedule, to work related change and improvement. The control could be in terms
of running the project to which they have suggested or created. Ownership refers to attributing the change to
the contributors. Appreciation could be tangible or intangible like reward and compensation, commendation
or show of gratitude by the management to the employees, departments/units that brought about such work
related change or improvement. The expectations can be in isolation and in many cases, integrated
These employees’ expectations are subjected to evaluation. The situation is weighed in comparison to what
obtains in other climes or reference organizations or department. A judgement is made of whether the
treatment of their (employees’) expectation is preferred or not in comparison with what obtain with
reference other. If valued treatment is preferred the employees continue to make their organizational
knowledge to bear on organization improvement. If on the other hand the treatment is considered to have
non-preferred value, the employees deliberately withdraw from participating, suggesting ideas, opinions or
show concerns on work related improvement.

3. Research Methods

Survey research design was used in the study. This was executed using incidental sampling approach
among one hundred and eight (108) students undergoing Professional Masters Postgraduate studies in
Human Resource Management and Industrial Relations atLagos State University, Ojo campus, 2016/2017
session. The approach is justified by the fact that the population is active consists of working class groups,
cutting across organizational types, different working status, easily accessible and more importantly, they can
easily understand the issue under investigation and proffer honest response. It is also in line with the
seminal study of Brinsfield (2009).

The data collection instrument was self-constructed measuring employees’ expectation using the
dimensions of control, ownership and appreciation on their previous contributions (suggestion, concerns
volunteering ideas, opinions and information) to work related improvement beyond regular work schedule.
The instrument is in a 5 Likert-scale consisting of 12 items: Six (6) items each were used for independent
variables and dependent variables respectively.

The instrument was given to management experts in the field for its face and content validity. It was
also subjected to pilot study of 20 respondents. Cronbach alpha for the instrument shows 0.864 reliability
value for employees’ expectation and 0.825 for organization silence. These show a strong reliability ratio to
measure employees’ expectation and organization silence.

Questionnaire was distributed to the total one hundred and eight (108) students. All of them were
returned. Nineteen (19) respondents were found not to be in paid formal employment. Seven (7)
questionnaires were not properly filled and were discarded. Eighty-two (82) of them working in paid
employment were found to be useful. These formed the basis of the analysis.

The collected data were analysed descriptively and inferentially. Descriptive statistic was used to
analyse the respondents’ .bio data. Pearson product moment correlation statistics was used in testing
hypotheses 1 and 2 to examine the relationships between the employees’ expectation dimensions of control,
appreciation and ownership and organization silence. To further test for the influence of each of the
employees’ expectation factors’ contribution to organization silence, multiple regression analysis was
undertaken for hypothesis 3.

98

4. Results and Discussion of Findings

This section presents statistical results of the tested hypotheses and the discussion of results

Table 1: Descriptive analysis of Bio data (N=82)

Variables

frequency
Percentage

%
Mean

Standard
deviation

SEX:
Male
Female

53
29

64.6
35.4

1.35 0.481

ORGANISATIONAL TYPE:
Food and beverages
Education
Banking and finance
Other

8
41
4
29

9.8
50.0
4.9
35.4

2.66 1.068

DESIGNATION:
Top management
Middle level
Low level cadre

22
42
18

26.8
57.2
22.0

1.95 0.701

LENGTH OF SERVICE:
1year -4years
5years -8years
9years -12years
13 years and above

7
21
21
33

8.5
25.6
25.6
40.2

2.98 1.006

Source: field survey, 2018

HYPOTHESIS ONE: There is no significant relationship between Employees’ expectation and Organisational
Silence.

Table 1: Results of bi-variate correlation between Individual Employees Expectation and
Organisational Silence with descriptive analysis

Variables N Means Std. Deviation R p

Individual Employees Expectations 82 2.65 .62

Organisational Silence 82 2.49 .67 .55* .00

*p is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Results in table 1 above show a relationship between individual employee’s expectation and

organisational silence among the selected respondents. The result found that the relationship was strong,
positive and statistically significant (r=.55, p=.00). The null hypothesis which states that, there is no
significant relationship between employee expectations and organisational silence was rejected while the
alternate was accepted. This is because the p value of .00 is less than significance value of .05.

HYPOTHESIS TWO: There is no significant relationship between Employees’ Control, Ownership and
Appreciation and organisational silence.

H2 (a) : There is no significant relationship between Employees’ control and Organisational Silence.
Table 2: Results of bi-variate correlation between Individual Employees Control and Organisational
Silence with descriptive analysis

Variables N Means Std. Deviation r p

Individual Employees Control 82 2.81 .74

Organisational Silence 82 2.49 .67 .26* .02

*p is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Results in table 2 above show a relationship between individual employee’s control and
organisational silence among the selected respondents. The result found that the relationship was positive
and statistically significant (r=.26, p=.02). The null hypothesis which states that, there is no significant
relationship between employee control and organisational silence was rejected while the alternate was
accepted. This is because the p value of .00 is less than significance value of .05.

99

H 2 b: There is no significant relationship between Employees’ Appreciation and Organisational
Silence.

Table 3: Results of bi-variate correlation between Individual Employees Appreciation and
Organisational Silence with descriptive analysis

Variables N Means Std. Deviation r p

Individual Employees Appreciation 82 2.40 .74

Organisational Silence 82 2.49 .67 .51* .00

*p is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Results in table 3 above show a relationship between individual employee’s appreciation and organisationa l
silence among the selected respondents. The result found that the relationship was strong, positive and
statistically significant (r=.51, p=.00). The null hypothesis which states that, there is no significant
relationship between employee control and organisational silence was rejected while the alternate was
accepted. This is because the p value of .00 is less than significance value of .05.

H 2 c: There is no significant relationship between Employees’ Ownership and Organisational Silence.

Table 4: Results of bi-variate correlation between Individual Employees Ownership and
Organisational Silence with descriptive analysis

Variables N Means Std. Deviation r p

Individual Employees Ownership 82 2.81 .70

Organisational Silence 82 2.49 .67 .39* .00

*p is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Results in table 4 above show a relationship between individual employee’s ownership and organisational
silence among the selected respondents. The result found that the relationship was strong, positive and
statistically significant (r=.39, p=.00). The null hypothesis which states that, there is no significant
relationship between employee ownership and organisational silence was rejected while the alternate was
accepted. This is because the p value of .00 is less than significance value of .05.

HYPOYTHESIS THREE: There is no significant influence of Employees Control, Appreciation and
Ownership on Organisational Silence.

Tables 5, 6 & 7: Results of multiple regression analyses on the influence of employee’s expectations
(control, appreciation and ownership) on organisational silence.

Table 5: Model Summary

Model Summary of regression analysis

Model R R

Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

1 .552a .305 .278 .565

a. Predictors: (Constant), OWN (ownership), CNT (control), APP

(appreciation).

Table 6: ANOVA of regression analysis

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 10.923 3 3.641 11.403 .000b

Residual 24.905 78 .319

Total 35.828 81

a. Dependent Variable: OS (Organisational silence)

b. Predictors: (Constant), OWN (ownership), CNT (control), APP (appreciation)

100

Table 7: Coefficients of regression analysis

Coefficientsa

Model

Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig. B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) .971 .308 3.153 .002

CNT .011 .095 .012 .114 .909

APP .394 .105 .417 3.761 .000

OWN .194 .091 .223 2.136 .036

a. Dependent Variable: Organisational Silence

Table 5, 6 and 7 above presents the result of the multiple regression that were calculated to predict
the influence of employees expectation dimensions namely control, appreciation and ownership on
organizational silence. A significant regression coefficient was found (F (3, 78) = 11.40, p = .00), with R2 of .30.
This presupposes that 30.5% of organisational silence was explained by employees’ expectations (ownership,
control and appreciation). This implies that 69.5% of the variance was explained by other variables outside
the employees’ expectation indices. The rest of the variance (69.5%) may be accounted for by earlier
hypothesized variables like resignation/quiescent silence, defensive/acquiescent silence and other –
oriented/pro-social silence and others not yet mentioned in the literature. Similarly, of the three major
indices of employees expectations to explain organisational silence, appreciation (β = .417, p value < .05, t = 3.761) is the most predictor of organisational silence in the study. This was followed by employees ownership (β = .224, p value < .05, t = 2.136), however, employees control (β = .012, p value > .05, t = .114) does not
predict organisational silence in the study. This is because p value is greater than .05 which is an indication of

insignificance level while the β (.012) show a weak relationship to organisational silence.

4.1. Discussion of Findings

The study found that significant relationship exists between employees’ expectations and
organizational silence. The three indices of employees’ expectation correlate with organization silence
positively and significantly. The result found that the relationship was strong, positive and statistically
significant (r=.55, p=.00). The influence of employees’ expectations of control, appreciation and ownership
explained 30.5% of organization silence. This corroborate the finding of Brinsfield (2009) that there are
many motives of silence behaviour, orientation as there are many types of organizational silence than the
quiescent, acquiescent and pro-social types; passive and proactive orientation; and resignation, self-
protection and other-oriented motives. All of which are purposive to check mostly reprisal. The findings
revealed that employees’ expectations explain partly and strongly organization silence and a new type of
organization silence can emerge therefrom.

Employees’ expectation of some level of control over the outcomes of their contribution to work
related change and improvement was found to be a predictor of organizational silence. The result showed
that the relationship was positive and statistically significant (r=.26, p=.02); the p value of .00 is less than
significance value of .05. However, the contribution of control when regressed on organization silence
indicated a weak predictor and contributor to organizational silence. Employee’s control (β = .012, p value >
.05, t = .114) does not predict organisational silence in the study. This is because p value is greater than .05
which is an indication of insignificance level while the β (.012) show a weak relationship to organisational
silence. This can be explained by the fact that the motive for silence behaviour of employees is situational,
specific and could change as situations change as found by Brinsfield (2009). The motive could be weak at a
time and be strong at another. Nonetheless employees control has some degree of relationship with
organization silence

Expectation of being appreciated by management for their contribution to work related
improvement was found to be a predictor of organization silence. The result showed that the relationship was
strong, positive and statistically significant (r=.51, p=.00); the p value of .00 is less than significance value of
.05. Employees’ expectation of appreciation for their contribution to organization improvement is a strong
predictor of organization silence. At (β = .417, p value < .05, t = 3.761), it is the strongest predictor of organisational silence in the study. This can be explained by motivational theory of individual needs; like need for belongingness, organization citizenship and more importantly, the control theory (Carver & Scheier, 1982) that stipulate input factor for behaviour. Appreciation is a preferred value (Carver& Scheier, 1982). When it is lacking, silence behaviour is strongly likely to follow. It is generally believed that individual

101

strongly desires appreciation of their efforts as employees’ psychological contract dictates (Armstrong, 2009;
HR Zone, 2008). Appreciation engenders a sense of organization citizenship behaviour.

Employees’ ownership of the outcomes of their contribution to work related improvement has
strong, positive and statistically significant relationship with organization silence at (r=.39, p=.00). This is
because the p value of .00 is less than significance value of .05. It also has a strong predictor of organization
silence (β = .224, p value < .05, t = 2.136), Humans wants to be part of what they created. When this is lacking it becomes an un-preferred value (Carver & Scheier, 1982). When the situation is compared with reference other, employees deliberately withdraws from participating in projects or will not show concerns on issues that do not border on regular work schedule. 5. Conclusions

In contributing to work related change and improvements employees expect certain benefits to
accrue in terms of control, appreciation and ownership of the outcomes of the contributions. The study found
that when these accrual benefits (AC) are not satisfied by the management of the organization, a non-
preferred value of the situation becomes widespread among the employees. More importantly when the
treatment is compared with what obtains in other climes referred to as reference others within or outside the
industry. A climate of silence follows the frustration of accrual benefits. Employees are likely to deliberately
and purposively withdraw from making suggestions, volunteering opinions, information and ideas, or not
show concerns for and committedly participate in new projects that can transform the organization when it is
not part of their regular work schedule.

5.1. Recommendation, contribution to knowledge and suggestions for future studies

In finding solutions to the climate of organization silence, organization management in both the
public and private sectors should systematically identify the reasons for organization silence among their
employees. Identify the expectations of the employees from their contributions and concerns for change and
organization improvement, to motivate them to continually bring their organizational knowledge, skills and
ability to bear on organizational change and improvement .Organization management, business owners and
consultants should note that organization silence is beyond resignation to inability to influence anything by
the employees (passivity/apathy) fear of reprisal (defensive), the need to protect others’ wrong doing or that
of the organization (other oriented, whistle blowing) and the issue of power distance culture as demonstrated
more in Africa and Asian countries (the boss know best and should take all decisions (Umar & Hassan, 2013).
Attention should be paid to employees’ expectations (self-oriented) as potent factor in motivating
organization silence.

The study contributed to knowledge as it serves as new perspective to the studying of organization
silence. The study is one of the first, if not the first to look at employees’ expectations as predictors of
organizational silence. A new motive of organizational silence: self-oriented motive has been added to the
existing motives. Also, accrual benefits type of silence has been established with the corresponding scales for
measuring employees’ expectations and the accrual benefit type of organizational silence.

It is suggested that researchers should explore other motives for silence behaviour in organization. It
is also suggested that researchers should seek how employees’ expectations relate with various organization
outcomes like satisfaction, turnover intention, performance and commitment.

References
1. Akbarian, A., Ansari, M.E., Sharem, A & Keshtiaray (2013). Effect of silence on employee performance. Management

Research Report, 3(3), 301-304.
2. Armstrong, M. (2009). Armsrong’s handbook of human resources. London: Kogan Page
3. Bagheri, G., Zarei, R., & Nik Aeen, M. (2012). Organizational silence. Ideal Type of Management, 1(1), 47-58.
4. Beheshtifar, M.,.Borhani, H. & Moghadam M.N. (2012). Destructive role of employee’s silence in organizational success.

International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(11), 275-282.
5. Blickle, G. & Witziki, A.(2006). New psychological contracts in the world of work: Economic citizens or victims of the

market; the situation in Germany. Society and Business Review, 3(2), 149-161.
6. Brinsfield, C.T. (2009). Employee silence: Investigation of dimensionality, measures and examination of related matters;

A Doctor of Philosophy degree dissertation: Ohio University.
7. Carver, C.S., & Scheier, M.F. (2008). Control theory: a useful conceptual framework for personality- social, clinical, and

health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111-135.
8. Dacsi, E. & Cemaloglu, (2016). The development of organizational silence scale: validity- reliability study. International

Journal of Human Science, 13(1), 33-44.
9. Deniz, N., Noyan, A., & Ertozun, O.G, (2013). The relationship between employee silence and organizational

commitment in a private health care company. Procedia- Social and Behaviour Science, 99, 691-700.
10. Entezari, A. (2014). Explain destructive role of organization silence and ways out of this matter. AENSI Journal of

Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences, 8(7), 857-862.
11. Garzmeh, M., Farmani, H.& Sedaghat, H, (2014). The relationship between organizational silence with silence

behaviour of employees. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 4(S4), 4079-4084.
12. HR Zone (2008). Managing the ‘psychological contract’ Retrieved 25/08/2008.

102

13. Karaca, H. (2013). An exploratory study on the impact of organization silence in hierarchical organizations: Turkish
national police case. European Scientific Journal, 9(23), 38-50.

14. Mengenci, C. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of organization fear and silence behaviour in Criena service sector
from Turkey. International Business Research, 8(5), 223-230.

15. Morrison, W.E .& Millikens, E.J. (2000). Organization Silence: a barrier to change and development in a pluralistic world.
Academy of Management Review, 5(1) 706-725.

16. Morrison, W.E. & Millikens, E.J (2003).Speak up remain silent: The dynamics of voice and silence in organization. Journal
of Management Studies 40 (6) 1353-1358

17. Nikmaram, S., Yamchi, H.G,.Shojaii, S., Zahrani, M.A., Alvani, .M. (2012). Study on relationship between organization
silence and commitment in Iran. World Applied Sciences Journal, 17(10), 1271-1277.

18. Pinder, C.C. &Harlos, K.P.(2001). Employee silence: Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to perceived injustice.
Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 30, 331- 369.

19. Seyyed, M.M. & Arezoo, M. (2014). The effect of perceived justice and organizational silence on organizational
commitment. International Review of Management and Business Research, 3(1), 1773- 1780.

20. Tangirala, S. & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Employee silence on critical work issue. The cross level effects of procedural
justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 37-68

21. Umar, M. & Hassan, Z.(2013). Antecedents and outcomes of voice and silence behaviours of employees of tertiary
institutions in Nigeria. Procedia-Social and behavioural sciences, 97, 183-193.

22. Vakola M., & Bouradas, D. (2005).Antecedents and consequences of organization silence: An empirical investigation.
Emerald Employees’ Relations, 27(5), 441-458).

23. Van Dyne, L., Ang, S. & Botero, I. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multi dimensional
construct. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1-34.

24. Yildiz, E. (2013). Enigma of silence in organization: what happens to whom and why. Beykert University Journal of Social
Sciences, 6(2), 30-44.