Examination of realistic job previews by personnel decision-makers and job incumbents.

Abstract

Realistic Job Previews (RJPs) are used to present information to those in the applicant pool about specific characteristics of a job. Premack and Wanous (1985) suggests RJPs reduce employee turnover and increase employee satisfaction. However, research is scares on the potential difference between decision-makers' and job incumbents' preferences of RJPs. This two part field study examines differences between decision-makers and incumbents on terms of preference for RJPs. Participants in the first study were 28 incumbents of a wholesale distribution company. Seventy percent of the incumbents were asked to rate job characteristics in terms of: (a) the realism of the job characteristics, (b) the degree of importance for an applicant to know, and (c) if these characteristics were positive or negative issues an applicant should have knowledge of when making an informed employment decision. Of these 20 statements, 10 were considered to be Descriptive-Qrganizational (DO) items and 10 were considered to be Prescriptive-Judgmental (PJ) items. Fifteen percent of the incumbents were asked to provide positive and negative examples of the DO items and 15% of the incumbents were asked to provide positive and I negative examples of the PJ items. Based on these ratings and examples, four RJPs were created. Two RJPs contained Descriptive-Qrganizational information, one positive and one negative, DO-P and DO-N, respectively. The other two RJPs contained Prescriptive-Judgmental information, one positive and one negative, PJ-p and PJ-N, respectively. Manipulation checks were conducted to be sure the previews actually contained either positive or negative information, as well as, descriptive-organizational or prescriptive-judgmental information. The second part of this study asked both decision-makers and job incumbents to rate these four previews when considering which preview was: (a) most optimal for the organization, (b) most optimal for the applicant with prior work experience, (c) most realistic, (d) likely to reduce unrealistic expectations about the job and (e) likely to reduce unrealistic expectations about the organization. Five one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted on each dependent variable. Although no significant results were found between these two group's ratings of RJPs, specific within group trends emerged. The cell means indicated decision-makers perceive the positive judgmental preview (PJ-P) as most optimal for the organization's use, the applicant with prior work experience, and the most realistic. Incumbents' cell means indicated the positive and negative descriptive-organizational previews (DO-P and DO-N) were most optimal across all five dependent variables. Decision-makers and incumbents indicated agreement on descriptive-organizational previews when considering which is most likely to reduce unrealistic expectation about the job and organization. Both groups rated the prescriptive-judgmental negative preview lowest across all five measures. These within group trends suggest future research should continue to explore various preferences among populations affected by RJPs such as decision-makers, incumbents, and those in the applicant pool.