Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace: Volumes 1-3 (ISPI/Handbook of Improving...

E1C08_1 10/14/2009 203

S SCHAPTER EIGHT

Realistic Job PreviewsJim Breaugh

INTRODUCTION

Research has shown that job applicants frequently lack important information

about positions for which they are applying. It has also been found that

applicants often have inaccurate impressions concerning what these positions

are like. Both of these conditions can result in applicants accepting job offers

from employers for positions that are not a good fit in terms of the individuals’

needs and/or abilities. This lack of fit can result in undesirable outcomes for

both employers (employee turnover) and new employees (job dissatisfaction).

The use of realistic job previews (RJP) has been shown to be an effective

recruitment mechanism for increasing the accuracy of applicants’ job and

organizational expectations. Possessing accurate expectations, in turn, allows

job candidates to make more informed job choice decisions. Discussions in this

chapter include why a realistic job preview has beneficial effects, how to design

an effective RJP, and situations in which an RJP works best.

DESCRIPTION

Unlike traditional recruitment practice, which involves an organization presenting

an overly positive view of what working for it would be like, the use of a realistic

job preview (RJP) involves an employer presenting both favorable and un-

favorable position-related information (information about both the job and the

organization) to job applicants. The relative balance of favorable to unfavorable

information should be determined by the true nature of the position being filled. If

203Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace, Volume TwoEdited by K. H. Silber, W. R. Foshay, R. Watkins, D. Leigh, J. L. Moseley and J. C. DessingerCopyright © 2010 by International Society for Performance Improvement. All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-0-470-52543-2

E1C08_1 10/14/2009 204

designed and administered appropriately, an RJP should result in job candidates

having a more accurate view of what a position entails than if no RJP were used.

In 2008, along with my colleagues Therese H. Macan and Dana M. Grambow, I

noted that RJPs typically have been presented by means of a short booklet or video

that is provided to a job applicant during an organization site visit. However, an

organization can convey realistic information about a position by othermeans such

as a tour of the work site, a work simulation, or a conversation with a prospective

co-worker. Given that tradeoffs exist among the methods of presenting an RJP, a

combination of RJP approaches generally is recommended for an organization that

wants job applicants to truly understand what a job with it would involve. Stated

differently, it is generally better for an employer to think of an RJP as a process of

conveying job-related information rather than as a one-time intervention.

In terms of the likely results of providing recruits with realistic information,

research (such as that reviewed in 2001 by industrial/organizational psychol-

ogy experts Rodger Griffeth & Peter Hom in 2001) has shown RJPs to be

associated with such important variables as new employee retention, perform-

ance and satisfaction. However, as will be discussed later in this chapter, the

relative impact of an RJP on these outcomes is dependent upon a number of

factors, such as when the RJP is received, the nature of the information the RJP

provides, and whether RJP recipients see the information as credible. For

example, with regard to timing, although a number of employers have provided

RJPs late in the recruitment process (after a job offer has been received) or even

after a person has accepted a job offer, RJPs are likely to have maximum effect

when they are provided earlier in the recruitment process.1

In considering the use of an RJP, it is important for an employer to remember

that an RJP is not a panacea; it can only do so much. For example, if a job

opening has several negative attributes (for example, low pay, undesirable work

hours), an RJP should convey such information. However, as management

professors Robert Bretz and Timothy Judge pointed out in a 1998 article, the end

result of doing so may be that a number of individuals will withdraw from job

consideration. Although most experts believe such applicant withdrawal is

preferable to hiring and training individuals who are likely to quit after a short

period of time on the job due to job dissatisfaction, such applicant withdrawal is

still not desirable. Thus, for an employer that intends to use an RJP, considera-

tion should be given to whether undesirable job attributes might be improved

(the job may be enriched or supervisors may receive training to improve their

effectiveness).

WHAT WE KNOW FROM RESEARCH

RJPs have attracted considerable attention both in terms of theoretical devel-

opment and empirical research. Prior to discussing empirical findings, it is

204 HANDBOOK OF IMPROVING PERFORMANCE IN THE WORKPLACE

E1C08_1 10/14/2009 205

useful to examine why RJPs have been hypothesized to influence voluntary

turnover and other important work-related variables.

The Theoretical Rationale for RJP Effectiveness

To date, four explanations have been offered for RJP effectiveness: self-selection,

met expectations, ability to cope with job demands, and commitment to job choice

due to an employer being honest. The ‘‘self-selection’’ hypothesis is based on the

assumption that RJP recipientswhodo not perceive a job opening as being a goodfit

in terms of their needs and/or abilities are likely to withdraw from job considera-

tion. If the self-selection hypothesis is correct, in comparison to job applicants who

do not receive an RJP, RJP recipients who accept job offers should bemore satisfied

with their new positions which, in turn, should make them less likely to quit.

Furthermore, if RJP recipients have a good sense of their abilities, those who accept

job offers should be better able to perform well in their new jobs than individuals

who did not receive RJP information concerning what abilities a job requires.

A second explanation for why RJPs may improve job satisfaction and reduce

voluntary turnover is the ‘‘met expectations’’ hypothesis. This hypothesis

presumes that receiving an RJP results in recruits lowering their job expect-

ations (research has found job expectations are generally inflated). This low-

ering of job expectations should result in new employees being more satisfied

with their positions and hence less likely to choose to leave them.

The ‘‘ability to cope’’ hypothesis posits that RJPs reduce job dissatisfaction

and turnover by improving a new employee’s ability to cope with job demands

(for example, rude customers). In this regard, research by Bernard L. Dugoni

and Daniel R. Ilgen, who at the time were both with Purdue University, suggests

that being aware of likely problems results in new employees being less

disturbed by them since they are not caught off guard and/or such forewarning

allows new hires to rehearse methods of handling these problems.

The final explanation for the effectiveness of RJPs is the ‘‘air of honesty’’

hypothesis. This hypothesis suggests that, in comparison to job applicants who

did not receive an RJP, RJP recipients (having received candid information

about a position under consideration from an employer) will feel greater

commitment to their job choice decisions. Thus, even RJP recipients who

accept job offers that are not seen as a good fit (a recruit may not have a

more attractive job alternative) are likely to remain in their new jobs for a longer

period of time than non-RJP applicants, given they made informed job choice

decisions. The air of honesty hypothesis is based on the assumption that

applicants who did not receive an RJP may feel misled by an employer if

they are presented with an exaggerated view of what working there entails

(which is frequently the case) and thus feel no hesitancy in quitting.

Figures 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 present a simplifiedmodel of the RJP process.2 Given

the number of variables in this process, it has been broken into three sections to

facilitate presentation of the various components of the model.

REALISTIC JOB PREVIEWS 205

E1C08_1 10/14/2009 206

Beginning at the top of Figure 8.1, one sees that job candidates are likely to

have an initial impression of an organization before deciding to apply there

(box 1). Based upon information a person gathers (box 2) and that supplied by

an organization (box 3), job candidates develop a more complete picture of

what working for that employer is like (box 4). The accuracy of this perception

is a function of the information candidates attained on their own and that was

provided by an organization (for example, was an RJP provided?). Having

developed a pre-hire perception of a position, job candidates can assess how

well their abilities meet the requirements of the job opening (box 5) and how

well their needs will be met by what the position offers (box 6). These two

comparisons result in a pre-hire perception of overall person-job/organizational

fit (box 7). This perception should result in an overall assessment of how

attractive a position with an organization is (box 8).

As portrayed in Figure 8.2, if a position is viewed as insufficiently attractive

(box 8), job candidates (assuming other employment options exist for them)

may remove themselves from job consideration (box 9). Alternatively, if a

Organization ProvidesInformation (e.g., an

RJP) (3)

Job CandidateInformation Gathering

(2)

Candidate’s Pre-Hire Perception ofPosition (4)

Person’s NeedsCompared to Job

Rewards (6)

Person’s AbilityCompared to JobRequirements (5)

Pre-Hire Perception of Person-Job/Organization Fit (7)

Position/OrganizationalAttractiveness (8)

Job Candidate’s Initial Impression ofa Position with an Organization (1)

Figure 8.1 A Simplified Model of the RJP Process (Part 1).


E1C08_1 10/14/2009 207

position is viewed as attractive or a candidate has no other viable alternatives,

he or she will likely apply for the job (box 10) and, if a job offer is forthcoming, it

is likely to be accepted (box 11). Depending upon the accuracy of candidates’

perceptions of a position (box 12), there should be a reasonable fit between their

abilities and the job requirements (box 13).

As conveyed in Figure 8.2, when individuals’ abilities match job require-

ments (box 13), satisfactory job performance should result (box 15). Such

performance should result in job longevity (box 17) since a new employee who

performswell is unlikely to be terminated and is more likely to enjoy the job and

be rewarded for doing it well. Candidates who had an accurate perception of

what a position entails (box 12) should also bemore likely to end up in a job that

fulfills his/her needs (box 14) which should result in job satisfaction (box 16).

Such satisfaction should result in less likelihood of a new employee resigning

(box 17).

Congruence Between Person’sNeeds and What Job Offers (14)

Congruence Between Person’sAbilities and Job Requirements

(13)

Individual Applies for Job (10)

Position/Organizational Attractiveness (8) Candidate PerceivesEmployer as Honest (18)

Candidate FeelsCommitment to Job

Choice Decision (19)

Employee Job Longevity (17)

Job CandidateSelf-Selection (9)

Job Offer Accepted (11)

Accuracy of Candidate’sPosition Perceptions (12)

Satisfactory Job Performance (15) Job Satisfaction (16)



E1C08_1 10/14/2009 208

With regard to the elements remaining within Figure 8.3, when organizations

provide candid job information (box 3), candidates should perceive the

employer as being honest (box 18). Thus, if hired, an individual should feel

greater commitment to their job choice decision (box 19) which should result in

the individual being less likely to resign from a new position (box 17).

Although themodel portrayed in Figures 8.1 through 8.3 presents a simplified

picture of the recruitment process (in our chapter within the 2008 International

Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Macan, Grambow, and I

present amore complete treatment of the recruitment process), the relationships

portrayed are logical and they have been supported by considerable empirical

research. Some of this research will now be discussed.

The Results of a Comprehensive Meta-Analysisof RJP Research by Phillips

In terms of empirical support for the four explanations offered for why RJPs

‘‘work,’’ a meta-analysis by Rutgers University’s Jean M. Phillips’ provides a

good summary of much of the research on RJPs.3 Following a review of her

findings, I will examine in some detail three specific studies in order to provide a

better sense of the type of research on RJPs that has been conducted.

Given that reducing voluntary turnover has been a major objective of many

employers who have used RJPs, it is encouraging that Phillips found that RJPs

reduced such turnover. In order to demonstrate the potential financial impact of

RJP use, she presented an analysis that showed that ‘‘an organization experi-

encing an annual turnover rate of 50 percent using traditional recruitment

methods would be able to make seventeen fewer hires per year per one hundred

retained workers by adopting RJPs’’ (p. 687). Given that the cost of hiring a new

Organization ProvidesInformation (e.g., an RJP) (3)

Candidate PerceivesEmployer as Honest (18)

Candidate Feels Commitmentto Job Choice Decision (19)

Employee Job Longevity (17)



E1C08_1 10/14/2009 209

employee has been estimated to be between one to two times a person’s annual

salary for many jobs (this estimate considers such matters as recruitment,

selection, training, and separation costs), for workers making $30,000 per year,

Phillips’ estimated the savings from hiring seventeen fewer workers could be as

much as $510,000. Readers interested in estimating the cost of turnover for a

given job can find several ‘‘turnover cost calculators’’ on the web.

Although RJPs have frequently been used to reduce voluntary turnover, they

also have been found to have beneficial effects on other important variables. For

example, Phillips found the use of RJPs to be linked to better employee

performance, higher reported job satisfaction, and new employees perceiving

that the organization hiring them was honest with them about what a new job

involved. Although it is difficult to put a dollar value on such variables, clearly,

improving job performance will have monetary value.

In summarizing her results, Phillips concluded that an RJP can have benefi-

cial, but modest, effects on voluntary turnover, employee performance, job

satisfaction, and perceptions of honesty. A limitation of drawing conclusions

from the meta-analysis conducted by Phillips is that a sizable number of the

studies included presented RJPs in circumstances that minimized their impact.

Thus, her meta-analytic results may underestimate the potential value of using

an RJP. In order to make this concern more concrete, consider the fact that in

over one-half of the studies Phillips analyzed the RJP was provided after

individuals had accepted job offers and begun working. Such timing does

not allow candidates to self-select out of consideration for positions that are

not a good fit. When RJP is provided after hiring, recipients also will be less

likely to perceive an organization as being honest with them than if the RJP was

provided early in the recruitment process (before they had turned down other

job offers). In addition, RJP studies often have involved jobs that are quite

visible to the public; thus, applicants are less likely to have unrealistic job

expectations. Given these and other limitations of studies included in Phillips’

meta-analysis, there is value in examining the effects reported in specific RJP

studies more deeply.

Expanding Your Options

Regular one-on-ones—regularly scheduled meetings between amanager and an employee. These meetings do not need to have anagenda and are meant to be rapport-building meetings that allowthe team member to discuss whatever issues they may wish to.


E1C08_1 10/14/2009 210

An RJP Study by Suszko and Breaugh

A study I conducted with Mary Suszko provides a good example of the use of an

RJP and the resulting benefits. This study was conducted at a firm that

contracted with stores to take inventory. The firm was concerned about the

high level of voluntary turnover it was experiencing for the inventory takers it

hired. Such turnover was particularly costly given that the inventory taker

position required considerable post-hire training. After familiarizing ourselves

with the position and the type of people hired, Mary Suszko and I concluded that

most job applicants would not have a good understanding of what the job of

inventory taker involved. For example, in exit interviews departing inventory

takers noted that as applicants they were unaware of such things as the amount

of travel involved, the irregular work hours, and the dirty working conditions.

Based upon what we knew of the inventory taker position, we thought it was an

ideal situation for the introduction of an RJP.

In order to develop an effective RJP, we first conducted individual interviews

with five current inventory takers. During these interviews, we investigated

what the job of inventory taker involved and we probed what initial expect-

ations they had of the job were inaccurate. Based upon the results of these

interviews, we compiled a list of positive and negative job attributes. This list

was examined by five additional inventory takers whowere asked to edit the list

(add new information if needed). Following this second step, we asked two

managers to organize the information into what they saw as logical categories.

Five categories resulted: (1) hours of work, (2) physical work environment, (3)

duties and policies, (4) career opportunities, and (5) social relations with super-

visors, co-workers, and clients.

To examine the benefits of providing the inventory taker RJP, we randomly

assigned new job applicants to two groups. One group went through the

traditional recruitment process and one group received a written RJP prior to

the final selection interview (before receiving a job offer). Those in the RJP

group also received an oral RJP as part of the training program they went

through once hired (this oral RJP reiterated the information provided in the

written RJP). The effects of the RJP were as hypothesized. In terms of with-

drawal from job consideration, four of the fifteen individuals (27 percent) in the

RJP condition rejected a job offer. In contrast, none of the thirteen individuals in

the control group refused a job offer. In terms of the RJP effect on voluntary

turnover, we found a strong effect. At the end of three months, of the eleven RJP

recipients who accepted job offers, four inventory takers (36 percent) had quit.

In contrast, eleven of the thirteen individuals (85 percent) in the control group

who started work had resigned.

To better understand why the RJP had been effective in reducing turnover,

we examined job satisfaction, ability to cope with job demands, and perceptions


E1C08_1 10/14/2009 211

of organizational honesty after inventory takers had been on the job for six

weeks. In comparison to those who did not receive the RJP, RJP recipients

reported they were more satisfied, better able to cope with job demands, and

they felt the inventory firm was more open and honest with them.

An RJP study by Griffeth and Hom

The study described above demonstrated the value of an RJP that was tied to a

given job (inventory taker) in a given organization. However, RJPs can have

value even when more generic in nature (not tied to a given position in a given

firm). A 2001 study reported by Rodger Griffeth and Peter Hom serves as a useful

example of such an approach. These researchers developed a ‘‘generic RJP

brochure’’ for the job of auditor in public accounting firms (twenty-seven

Arizona firms were involved in RJP development). In order to develop the

content for their RJP, these authors went through a multi-step process that

involved interviewing auditors, compiling a list of statements describing the job,

having the statements rated for accuracy by another set of auditors, and selecting

those statements that most experts agreed were descriptive of the job of auditor.

Griffeth and Hom compared the one-year turnover rate and the rate of

resigning of newly hired auditors who had or had not received the RJP brochure.

The one-year turnover rate for those receiving an RJP was 5 percent. This

compares quite favorably to the rate of 17 percent for those in the control

condition. With regard to resignation rate, Griffeth and Hom reported that RJP

recipients resignedat a rate ‘‘that is 58percent of that of the control group’’ (p. 53).

A Study by Buckley, Fedor, Veres, Wiese, and Carraher

As noted by person–organization fit researcher Jon Billsberry, one of the reasons

that RJPs are thought to reduce voluntary turnover is because they lower the job

expectations of recruits, which typically are inflated. Although most experts

believe the best way to increase the accuracy of job expectations is by providing

applicants with realistic information during the recruitment process, M. Ronald

Buckley and colleagues noted that in some situations an organization may be

unwilling or unable to provide an RJP (for example, an employer filling several

different jobs may not have the resources to develop several different RJPs).

Buckley and his team wondered whether in such a circumstance there may be

value in trying to lower job expectations by instructing job candidates that they

were likely to have exaggerated job expectations.

To test their idea, applicants were randomly assigned for manufacturing jobs

to one of four groups. The first group received an RJP booklet. The second group

attended an expectation-lowering procedure (ELP) workshop that emphasized

the importance of having realistic job expectations, stressed the likelihood of

applicants having unrealistic expectations, and discussed job dissatisfaction and


E1C08_1 10/14/2009 212

turnover as likely outcomes of having unrealistic expectations. The third group

received traditional recruitment information. The fourth group served as a

control group and received no information.

Buckley and his colleagues found that those in the RJP group and those in the

ELP group had much lower turnover than those in the other two groups. More

specifically, the six-month turnover rates for the four groups were: RJP (6

percent), ELP (3 percent), traditional group (20 percent), and control group (22

percent). The value of offering an RJP or an ELP also held for job expectations

being met (measured during the orientation period) and job satisfaction (meas-

ured at six months).

WHEN TO APPLY

The simple answer to this question is ‘‘always.’’ Or to rephrase the question:

‘‘Why wouldn’t an employer want to facilitate recruits having accurate job

expectations?’’ Although I have never heard an organizational representative

admit it, one can imagine that some employers intentionally mislead job

applicants about the nature of a position so that they will accept job offers. I

believe such a recruitment philosophy to be unethical.4 Furthermore, given the

likely benefits of providing an RJP, it is hard to make a persuasive case against

offering an RJP.

Instead of addressing the question of ‘‘When to apply RJP?’’ it may be more

instructive to address the question of ‘‘When is it best to apply an RJP?’’ From

our review of the theory underlying the use of RJPs, three factors should

immediately come to mind. First, RJPs are likely to be most beneficial for

positions with which job applicants lack familiarity. Second, RJPs are likely to


Performance improvement plans—a formal plan set in place toenable an employee to succeed. It involves setting goals for theemployee, establishing measures, and reviewing and charting theemployee’s progress.

Based on humanresources.about.com/b/2004/05/24/performance-improvement-plan.htm definition (January 2009)


E1C08_1 10/14/2009 213

be most useful for positions with high turnover rates for new employees. Third,

RJPs are likely to have the most impact when job applicants have other job

options, such as when they can self-select out of job consideration if the position

does not appear to be a good fit in terms of their needs or abilities. A final

consideration is not driven by the theory underlying RJP effectiveness, but

rather by political considerations. An RJP will be most effective when those in

charge are committed to being open and honest during the recruitment process.

Conversely, if decisions-makers will not allow certain types of factual but

negative information to be presented in the RJP, it will be less effective.

STRENGTHS AND CRITICISMS

The use of a realistic job preview is a simple procedure to explain to managers,

job incumbents, and recruits. Compared to many turnover-focused interven-

tions (e.g., job enrichment, raising salaries), an RJP is inexpensive. An RJP can

be developed and implemented quickly, and the practice has a demonstrated

record of effectiveness.

At the same time, an RJP requires an employer to publicize negative aspects

of a position. Some organizations will be unwilling to do this. In addition, the

use of an RJP may result in desirable recruits dropping out as job candidates.

RECOMMENDED DESIGN, DEVELOPMENT, ANDIMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

Here’s how to undertake the RJP process.

1. Introduce the concept of an RJP to key decision-makers and people

responsible for RJP implementation. Cite data on the turnover rate for

new hires for the job for which the RJP is to be used. Cite examples of

RJPs being used successfully to reduce such turnover. Note other benefits

of using an RJP. Make sure that key individuals are aware that the use of

an RJP may result in some job candidates withdrawing from the selection

process. If available from exit interviews, cite examples of departing

employees who had expressed unrealistic job expectations.

2. Emphasize the value of improving undesirable job attributes (when pos-

sible) prior to implementing an RJP.

3. Provide information on the dollar cost and other consequences of a new

employee quitting after having completed the selection process, been

trained, established relationships with customers, and so on.


E1C08_1 10/14/2009 214

4. Provide estimates of the dollar cost of developing the RJP, the number of

hours needed to develop the RJP, and the dollar and labor costs of admin-

istering the RJP.

5. Generate commitment to the RJP process by having key individuals in-

volved in RJP development.

6. Make a final decision concerning how to generate RJP content, such as

through interviews with new employees and their supervisors, exit inter-

views with departing employees, surveys of former employees, or obser-

vations of new employees working. In determining how to gather

information, heavy emphasis should be placed on the ultimate goal of

providing information that job candidates see as (a) important or of per-

sonal relevance to them), (b) specific (tied to a given work group versus

referring to work groups in general), and (c) broad in scope (the RJP not

only focuses on job duties but also addresses such things as a specific

supervisor’s style, co-worker relations, work group politics, organiza-

tional values, how salary increases are determined, job security, and

career development).

7. Gather information on job content using the means described in Step 6.

Generally, the information-gathering step of RJP development will in-

volve an iterative process in which initial content is developed, then

edited by job experts. Following this, additional content that is seen as

missing is added and the verbiage of the content is polished such that the

language level is appropriate (for example, eliminating jargon that a re-

cruit is not expected to know).

8. Finalize what information to convey in the RJP.

9. Decide how (website, booklet sent to applicants, tour of worksite,

interview with recently hired employee) and when to provide RJP

information. Generally, the use of a combination of RJP methods is

most effective. For example, providing basic information (such as

work hours, compensation level, and amount of travel) on a website or

in a job description posted in the human resource department may be

an initial RJP step. Following this, RJP information could be provided

during a telephone interview. For job candidates who make it to the

organizational site visit stage of the selection process, RJP information

could be provided by means of a tour of the work site, an interview

with one’s prospective supervisor, and with one or more potential co-

workers. Such interviews are particularly valuable because they allow

applicants to ask questions about topics that are important to them but

have not yet been addressed during the recruitment process. Further-

more, interactions with co-workers are valuable because recruits see

co-workers as being a highly credible source of information in


E1C08_1 10/14/2009 215

comparison to corporate recruiters. Using such a multi-phase RJP pro-

cess should reduce hiring costs such as travel and testing, since an

employer should be able to eliminate some individuals from job con-

sideration via applicant self-selection early in the recruitment process

who otherwise might have progressed further into the selection

process.

10. Pilot-test the RJP and evaluate its effectiveness. Although an RJP can be

pilot-tested in various ways, I recommend having a panel of experts con-

sisting of relatively newly hired employees and their supervisors go

through the RJP process and comment on its effectiveness in conveying

accurate information. An organization might also consider trying out a

newly developed RJP with a small group of applicants and then inter-

viewing them to discern whether they now have an accurate understand-

ing of the position.

11. Implement the RJP as part of the recruitment process. In order to increase

the likelihood that the RJP is implemented and continues to be used as

intended, it is important to develop up-front commitment to its use by

those charged with administering the RJP. Such commitment can be

gained by involving these individuals in the RJP development process,

such as in determining the content provided and the process used for

conveying the information.

12. Once in use, evaluate the RJP periodically to investigate whether new

employees believe they received realistic information concerning what a

position with the organization involved. Where appropriate (such as due

to changes in the job position), make modifications to the RJP.

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS

From the contents of this chapter, it should be apparent that both theory and

empirical results suggest RJPs should be widely used. However, there are some

critical success factors that should be noted.

1. In order to develop an effective RJP, an employer must be committed to

being honest with job candidates. That such commitment is critical

should be obvious given that the idea of an RJP is based on the assump-

tion that an employer wants recruits to have realistic job expectations.

However, even a quick scan of corporate websites makes clear that

many organizations present a very flattering view of what working there

would be like. More surprisingly, I have seen examples of RJPs that

failed to address important aspects of a position (such as the supervisor,

the pay, and how decisions are made) about which job candidates are


E1C08_1 10/14/2009 216

likely to either lack information or have unrealistically positive

expectations.

2. For an RJP to be effective, the RJP information must be seen as credible.

In this regard, job applicants are more likely to believe the information

presented if the source of the information is perceived as expert and

trustworthy. Newly hired employees are viewed as a particularly credi-

ble source. Seeing things first-hand also enhances RJP credibility. For

example, consider the case of an employer that is truly committed to

having a diverse workforce and has made great strides in this area.

Conceivably, the employer could convey its commitment by citing the

diversity of its workforce in an RJP booklet. However, consider the

difference in information credibility if a job candidate toured the work

site and saw the diversity of the workforce.

3. In terms of allowing a job candidate to make an informed job choice

decision, it is critical that an RJP provide information that is of personal

relevance to the individual. Although certain job attributes such as

starting salary and typical job duties are important to most applicants,

some applicants have unique information needs. For example, a single

father may be interested in whether a position allows for a flexible work

schedule. Similarly, an unmarried job applicant who is considering

whether to accept a job offer that requires moving to a new city may be

interested in whether co-workers socialize after work. With traditional

RJP approaches (booklets and videos), it is difficult for an organization

to address a wide range of position attributes without the RJP

overwhelming a recruit with information. The best way to address the

unique information needs of a job applicant is to provide for one or

more conversations with prospective co-workers. Such two-way

interchanges allow a recruit to ask questions about job attributes that

would be unlikely to be covered in an RJP booklet, video, or structured

tour of a work site.5

4. In order to allow for job applicant self-selection, it is important that an

RJP be provided prior to job offer acceptance. Ideally, some RJP infor-

mation should be provided very early during the recruitment process.

For example, if an employer’s website states that a position will require

considerable overtime and an irregular work schedule, some individuals

may not even apply for a position, thus potentially saving an employer

time and money.

5. An RJP has maximum impact when RJP recipients have insight with

regard to their own abilities and needs. Without such insight, applicants

may overestimate their ability to meet job requirements, and thus poor

person-job fit may result. As an example, consider a case cited by Meryl


E1C08_1 10/14/2009 217

Louis in her article ‘‘Surprise and Sense Making: What Newcomers

Experience in Entering Unfamiliar Organizational Settings.’’ She de-

scribed a newly hired individual who was told during the recruitment

process that a job required considerable overtime. The individual be-

lieved that he would have no trouble handling the long work hours.

However, after having worked long weeks for several months, fatigue

and dissatisfaction with his job had set in. Similarly, several examples of

individuals who lacked insight with regard to their needs are also dis-

cussed in Louis’ article. For example, she discussed a job candidate who

thought he wanted considerable job autonomy only to discover upon

having such autonomy in a new job that it did not suit him. My chapter

with Macan and Grambow discusses how, by targeting for recruitment

individuals who have worked in similar jobs, an organization may be

able to attract applicants with greater self-insight concerning their abili-

ties and needs. A potentially useful way to help recruits assess whether

they possess the ability needed to do a job is by having the individual

participate in a work simulation. For example, in their 1978 article for

the Journal of Occupational Psychology, Downs, Farr, and Colbeck pro-

vide an excellent example of how taking part in a sewing simulation

resulted in less-skilled applicants withdrawing as job candidates.

SUMMARYIn this chapter, a strong case has been made for the use of realistic job previews.

Both theory and empirical results were reviewed that suggest RJPs have value

for reducing voluntary turnover and increasing new employee performance and

job satisfaction. The benefit of providing an RJP in terms of individuals viewing

an organization as being honest also was documented. In order to optimize RJP

effects, specific guidance was provided on how to develop and implement an

RJP. It was emphasized that an RJP should not be viewed as a one-time

intervention, but rather as a process by which different RJP methods (a website,

tour of the work site, an interview) have a cumulative effect on the accuracy of a

recruit’s job expectations. Although an RJP should not be viewed as a substitute

for improving job attributes, since an RJP is inexpensive to develop and

implement, its use should be of considerable benefit to most organizations.

Notes

1. Breaugh, Macan, and Grambow (2) have provided a detailed treatment of the im-

portance of RJP timing.

2. The model in Figures 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 only shows the RJP information as being

presented at a single point in time when it may be provided in multiple places

during the recruitment process.


E1C08_1 10/14/2009 218

3. In the ten years since Phillips’ (1998) paper was published, research on RJPs has

diminished.

4. Buckley, Fedor, Carraher, Frink, and Marvin (4) have discussed in detail why it is

unethical to misrepresent what a job involves to job applicants.

5. Colarelli (6) has provided an excellent discussion of the value of two-way conversa-

tions for providing RJPs.

References

Billsberry, J. (2007). Experiencing recruitment and selection. London: John Wiley &

Sons.

Breaugh, J. A., Macan, T. H., & Grambow, D. M. (2008). Employee recruitment: Current

knowledge and directions for research. In G. P. Hodgkinson and J. K. Ford (Eds.),

International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 45–82).

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Bretz, R. D., & Judge, T. A. (1998). Realistic job previews: A test of the adverse selection

self-selection hypothesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2), 330–337.

Buckley, M. R., Fedor, D. B., Carraher, S. M., Frink, D. D., & Marvin, D. (1997). The

ethical imperative to provide recruits realistic job previews. Journal of Managerial

Issues, 9, 468–484.

Buckley, M. R., Fedor, D. B., Veres, J. G., Wiese, D. S., & Carraher.S. M. (1998).

Investigating newcomer expectations and job-related outcomes. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 83, 452–461.

Colarelli, S. M. (1984). Methods of communication and mediating processes in realistic

job previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 633–642.

Downs, S., Farr, R. M., & Colbeck, L. (1978). Self-appraisal: A convergence of selection

and guidance. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 51, 271–278.

Dugoni, B. L., & Ilgen, D. R. (1981). Realistic job previews and the adjustment of new

employees. The Academy of Management Journal, 24, 579–591.

Griffeth, R. W., & Hom, P. W. (2001). Retaining valued employees. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering

unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 226–251.

Phillips, J. M. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational

outcomes: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 673–690.

Suszko, M. K., & Breaugh, J. A. (1986). The effects of realistic job previews on applicant

self-selection and employee turnover, satisfaction, and coping ability. Journal of

Management, 12, 513–523.

Recommended Readings

Barber, A. E. (1998). Recruiting employees. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Breaugh, J. A., & Starke,M. (2000). Research on employee recruitment: Somany studies,

so many remaining questions. Journal of Management, 26, 405–434.


E1C08_1 10/14/2009 219

Phillips, J. M. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational

outcomes: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 673–690.

Rynes, S. L., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Recruitment research in the twenty-first century. In

W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12,

pp. 55–76). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

S EDITORIAL CONNECTIONS SGrounded in research, realistic job previews offer value by setting appropriate

and applicable expectations before a recruit formally joins your organization.

By establishing performance expectations at this very early point, you can

better ensure that an appropriate match is made during the hiring process for

improving performance and accomplishing results. The introduction of realis-

tic job previews as a performance intervention in most organizations will

be closely tied to the role of the human resources (HR) department. Conse-

quently, youwill want to coordinate the design, development, and introduction

of job previews with these partners within your organization. The success of

the intervention is, after all, closely tied to the other hiring and performance

improvement activities—such as recruitment plans, succession planning (see

Chapter Twenty-Nine), andmentoring (see Chapter Twenty-Six)—that already

may be undertaken by the HR unit.

While realistic job previews give candidates an opportunity to examine the

performance expectations that would come with a position, it is equally

important that when the appropriate candidate becomes a valued employee

there is a supporting system of assessment and feedback. Feedback on per-

formance is the second critical component of the expectations and feedback loop

of the Performance Pyramid; while expectations establish clear objectives for

what must be achieved, feedback on performance allows individuals and teams

to systematically improve their processes in order to accomplish significant

results.


On-boarding—encompasses efforts to acquire, accommodate,assimilate and accelerate new team members, whether they comefrom outside or inside the organization.

Based on wikipedia.org definition (January 2009)


E1C08_1 10/14/2009 220

From advice and pointers to corrective criticism, performance feedback

should focus on the performance (results) rather than the performer. Therefore,

assessing the interim achievements is an important element of performance

improvement. When interim achievements are measured against desired accom-

plishments, only then can improvements to the processes, policies, tools,

motivation, incentives, knowledge, skills, and other components of the perform-

ance system be made to support the accomplishment of desired results.

WHAT’S COMING UP

Systematic assessment and feedback programs are necessary to further clarify

performance expectations, assess current performance, and ensure that people

know how to improve results (as described in Chapter Nine, 360-Degree

Feedback). However, candid assessment and feedback on performance is

hard to come by in most organizations. Managers often fear conversations

regarding employee performance, leading many to delay those conversations

until an annual review period, and then they frequently struggle to differentiate

performance levels across employees. Because organizations invest significant

resources into employees performance—from recruitment and orientation to

professional development and resource allocations—measuring and providing

timely feedback on performance is an important duty of managers and a

necessary step toward improving performance. Assessment and feedback

systems must, then, be considered as an essential ingredient to success.

Orientation programs—encompass an introductory phase in newemployee assimilation into an organization. They aim to achieveemployee commitment, reduce anxiety, convey organizational andjob-specific expectations, and train for job-related functions.

Based on businessdictionary.org/definition (January 2009).


Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace: Volumes 1-3 (ISPI/Handbook of Improving...

Documents

Transcript of Handbook of Improving Performance in the Workplace: Volumes 1-3 (ISPI/Handbook of Improving...