Discussion 1: Impact of Unmet Expectations on Employee Attitudes

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, 2014
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 …