Job alternatives and job choice

JOURNAL

OF VOCATIONAL

BEHAVIOR

38,

198-207 (1991)

Job Alternatives and Job Choice WILLI

H. WIESNER

Faculty of Business, McMaster University AND ALAN

M. SAKS

Department of Management, Concordia University AND RUSSEL

J. SUMMERS

Department of Management, Saint Mary’s University Research on realistic job previews (RIPS) has failed to consider applicant job choice in terms of job offers from competing organizations in the external work environment. In the present study subjects were assigned to one of three conditions: a traditional job preview (TJP) vs no job; an RJP vs no job; or a TJP vs an RJP vs no job. As in previous research, no differences in acceptance rates between RJP and TJP jobs were found when the alternative was no job. Subjects who received only the RJP did not differ from those who received the TJP in their perceptions of the job and organization. When given a choice between an RJP and a TJP, however, subjects had a strong preference for the TJP job. The TJP job was rated as more attractive, and the information provided in the RJP was rated as more adequate. Some of the implications for organizations using realistic job previews and areas for future RJP research are discussed. o IWI Academic

Press. Inc.

Although research on realistic job previews (RJPs) has received continued interest among researchers over the past decade, there has been little effort in examining some of the more specific underlying issues of the RJP process. One of the most elusive and under-researched areas in This research was conducted by the authors while at the University of Waterloo. Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. Willi Wiesner, McMaster University, Faculty of Business, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4M4, Canada. 198 0001-8791191$3.00 Copyright 0 1991 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

JOB ALTERNATIVES

AND CHOICE

199

the RJP literature is the effect of realistic job previews on job acceptance decisions. In their meta-analysis of realistic job preview experiments, Premack and Wanous (1985) found some support for the hypothesis that RJPs increase the drop out rate of job candidates. However, only four studies have supported this finding (Fisher, Ilgen, & Hoyer, 1979; Gaugler & Thornton, 1990; Reilly, Tenopyr, & Sperling, 1979; Suszko & Breaugh, 1986). This has led a number of researchers to conclude that self-selection is not likely to function as a mediating process of RJP effects on job survival (Colarelli, 1984; Reilly, Brown, Blood, & Malatesta, 1981). Colarelli (1984) concluded that “one should not expect RJPs to influence self-selection with any regularity” (p. 639). This conclusion, however, may be premature given the inadequate methodology that has been used in most studies of realistic job previews. In the typical research design job applicants in the experimental group receive only one job offer accompanied by an RJP while subjects in the control group receive one job offer accompanied by a traditional job preview (TJP), which usually consists of a positive portrayal of the job. In both conditions, then, subjects actually have very little, if any, real choice. Given these circumstances, it is reasonable to expect that most job candidates would accept almost any job even if it is known to have undesirable qualities because the alternative of unemployment or no job is even more aversive (see Thibaut & Kelly, 1959). It should therefore not be surprising that acceptance rates of realistically described jobs have not differed from acceptance rates of traditionally described jobs in most previous studies. Further, since previous research has failed to measure whether subjects had alternative offers or if they were employed when they received the RJP, we simply do not know if such factors influence the effect of realistic job previews on job acceptance decisions. Suszko and Breaugh (1986), however, asked subjects how easy it would be for them to find another job. Unfortunately, their analyses did not differentiate subjects on the basis of their response to this question, but rather, simply concluded that as a group applicants felt they could find alternative employment. As well, to date only one study has experimentally examined the effect of job alternatives within the context of an RJP, however, subjects still only received one job preview (Miceli, 1985). Thus, no previous research has investigated the effect of RJPs when subjects are exposed to more than one job preview. The purpose of this study was to improve upon the previously used methodology by offering subjects a choice between two jobs as well as replicating the one-job-offer conditions used in previous RJP studies. To achieve this goal we conducted a laboratory study in which subjects were presented with one or two job previews. Although a great deal of

200

WIESNER, SAKS, AND SUMMERS

controversy has surrounded the use of laboratory methodologies which use university students as subjects to study work-related phenomenon, we felt that the goals of the present study could be appropriately addressed using a laboratory methodology. Dobbins, Lane, and Steiner (1988) and Greenberg (1987) have argued that laboratory research can provide valuable insights into psychological processes operating in work settings. In fact, Olian (1986) has argued that studies designed to investigate the underlying processes of RJP effects can be conducted most effectively in the laboratory and should not be judged against an external validity standard. Further, as noted by Saks and Cronshaw (1990), naive interviewees such as university students are precisely the type of individuals who receive RJPs in real life before entering an organization. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that undergraduate students are similar to job applicants (especially recent graduates) in terms of cognitive appraisal and familiarity of preorganizational entry phenomena (Gordon, Slade, & Schmitt, 1986). They are similar to recent graduates involved in the job search process who are faced with choosing a job and an organization from several job offers. It can therefore be argued that the sample in the present study displays demographic representativeness (Berkowitz & Donnerstein, 1982). Study Hypotheses When choosing among several job offers, expectancy theory predicts that individuals’ job choices will be determined by comparing the perceived attractiveness of jobs and organizations. Since realistic job previews communicate negative as well as positive information, whereas TJPs convey mostly positive information, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis I. Subjects receiving a choice of jobs will perceive the TJP job and organization as more attractive than the RJP, and will be more likely to recommend the TJP organization to a friend. They will also perceive the RJP as providing more adequate job information. Subjects receiving only the TJP are not expected to differ on these measures from subjects receiving only the RJP, since in either condition having a job should be seen as more attractive than the alternative of not having a job, (Thibaut and Kelly, 1959). Research on expectany theory predicting how often the most attractive organization is chosen has a hit rate of 55.7% compared to a chance rate of 23.2% (Wanous & Colella, 1989; Wanous, Keon, & Latack, 1983). Thus, if RJPs are perceived as less attractive than TJPs the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 2. When subjects have a choice between a job that is described with a TJP versus a job described with an RJP it is hypothesized that the RJP will result in lower job acceptance rates. However, when

JOB ALTERNATIVES

AND CHOICE

201

presented with only one job offer, job acceptance rates for RJPs will not differ from job acceptance rates of TJPs. Hypothesis 2 is consistent with the finding of the Premack and Wanous (1985) meta-analysis that RJPs increase the drop out rate of job candidates during selection. Hypothesis 1 provides a theoretical rationale for this effect that is consistent with expectancy theories of job choice in which job attractiveness is related to job choice (Lawler, Kuleck, Rhode & Sorensen, 1975; Wanous & Colella, 1989; Wanous et al., 1983). Finally, Janis and Mann (1977) have suggested that bolstering effects will occur before a commitment to the decision is made if the decision maker believes he or she cannot acquire any new information. In these circumstances the decision maker will select the least objectionable alternative and then bolster that alternative (magnify its attractiveness) while diminishing the attractiveness of the more objectionable alternative. In studies of job choice and postdecision dissonance job applicants have been found to rate the attractiveness of chosen jobs much higher, and the attractiveness of rejected jobs lower after a job choice decision has been made (Lawler et al., 1975; Vroom, 1966). Thus the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 3. Subjects who accept a job offer are hypothesized to perceive the description of the chosen job as more adequate, to perceive the chosen job and organization as more attractive, and to be more likely to recommend the organization to a friend in comparison to applicants who do not accept a job offer. METHOD Subjects

Sixty undergraduate seniors enrolled in a third year course in Industrial/Organizational psychology at the University of Waterloo participated as subjects in this study. Most of the subjects (98%) reported having received work experience either through an internship, summer employment, or full-time work. Forty-five percent of the subjects received work experience by virtue of being in a cooperative work program in which they alternate work terms with studies. These subjects also participate in campus recruitment efforts as part of the process of obtaining employment for their work term. This usually involves participating in a number of recruitment interviews, and then making a job choice from the job offers received. Sixty percent of the subjects were female. The average age was 22.3. Procedure

Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three equal groups. Subjects in the first two groups were asked to assume that they had applied for

202

WIESNER, SAKS, AND SUMMERS

and been offered the job of a product specialist in the marketing division of a toy manufacturer. Each subject in group one was given a written, traditional job preview. Subjects in group two received a written realistic job preview. Subjects in group three were asked to assume that they had applied for and been offered two different product specialist jobs, each in the marketing division of a different toy manufacturer. For one of the jobs they received the TJP and for the other the RJP. Half the subjects in group three were given the TJP followed by the RJP, while for the other half the order of presentation was reversed. The results of a Fisher’s exact test for choice of job @ = 1.0) and a one-way MANOVA for the remaining dependent variables revealed no order effects, F(4,35) = .939, p > .45. We were therefore able to conduct subsequent analyses on the combined data of both halves of group three. After subjects had read the preview(s) they were asked to complete the study questionnaire. Job Previews

A realistic and traditional job preview was designed based upon actual campus recruitment materials used by several different organizations. Both previews described a product specialist job in the marketing division of a toy manufacturer. However, the traditional job preview only described the positive features of the job. The realistic job preview also described some negative features of the job that are similar to those that have been included in other RJPs (Dean & Wanous, 1984; Saks & Cronshaw, 1990). For example, the RJP stated that the job can be tough and demanding, weekend and evening work will be required to meet stringent deadlines, and the competition for promotion opportunities is tough. It is important to realize that these job features are realistic in the sense that they are true to many jobs of the kind described in the previews, and are not any more negative than what is usually included in RJPs. In order to ensure that the RJP was more realistic than the TJP we ran a pilot study on 20 subjects who were registered in a fourth year course in human resource management. Half of the subjects received the RJP and the other half received the TJP. After reading one of the job previews subjects responded to a questionnaire which included four items from Gaugler and Thornton (1990), which were designed to measure realism. The results indicated that the experimental manipulation was effective as the RJP was perceived as more realistic (M = 4.10, SD = .316) than the TJP (M = 1.65, SD = 1.24, t(l0) = 6.04, p < .OOl. Instruments Adequacy of job information. The adequacy of the job information provided in the job previews was measured by asking subjects whether enough information was provided in the job description. Subjects re-

JOB ALTERNATIVES

203

AND CHOICE

TABLE 1 Mean and Standard Deviation of Responses to Questionnaire Items

Variable

One job preview

Two job previews

RJP

TJP

RJP

TJP

Adequacy of information

M SD

2.23 0.85

2.55 1.15

3.15” 1.03

2.65 0.83

Job attractiveness

M SD

3.15 1.00

3.35 1.25

2.35’ 1.23

3.836 0.71

Organization attractiveness

M SD

2.93 0.88

3.38 0.78

2.W 0.94

3.73 0.60

Organization recommendation

M SD

2.95 0.84

2.90 0.82

2.93 1.08

3.55 0.84

Note. Higher means indicate a more positive response. Means with the same subscript differ significantly at p < .OS, except for Organization attractiveness where the difference approaches significance at p < ,075. N = 60.

sponded on a 6-point Likert scale with anchors (0) Extremely insufficient to (5) More than enough. Job attractiveness. Attractiveness of the job was measured by asking subjects to rate the desirability of the job on a 6-point Likert scale with anchors (0) Extremely Undesirable to (5) Extremely Desirable. Organization attractiveness. Attractiveness of the organization was measured by asking subjects to rate the favorability of the organization on a 6-point Likert scale with anchors (0) Extremely Unfavorable to (5) Extremely Favorable. Organization recommendation. Subjects rated the extent to which they would recommend the organization to a friend who was looking for a job. They responded to a 6-point Likert scale with anchors (0) Extremely unlikely to (5) Extremely likely. Job choice. Subjects in groups one and two indicated their job choice by responding yes or no to the following question: “Will you accept this job offer?” Subjects in group three were asked to choose between the two job offers or to reject both of them. RESULTS

Table 1 presents the mean ratings and standard deviations for the adequacy of information, job and organization attractiveness, and organization recommendation broken down by the job preview received. In accordance with Hypothesis 1, subjects who received only the RJP did not differ from those who received only the TJP in their ratings of the job they had previewed, F(4,69) = 1.754, p > .15. Subjects who received

204

WIESNER,

SAKS, AND

SUMMERS

both job previews, however, thought that the RJP provided them with more adequate job information than the TJP, F(1, 72) = 4.685, p < .05. Nevertheless, they rated the TJP job as significantly more attractive, F(1, 72) = 4.434, p < .05, and viewed the organization giving the TJP as marginally more attractive than the organization giving the RJP, F(1, 72) = 3.281,~ < .075. However, they were not any more likely to recommend the TJP organization to a friend, F(1, 7) = 0.095, p > .750. These results provide partial support for Hypothesis 1. An overall x2 of the proportions of subjects choosing TJP vs RJP jobs in the one job offer vs two job offers conditions was significant, x2 (1, N=60) = 5.12, p < .05. More specifically, the proportion of subjects selecting the TJP job (60%) was not significantly different from the proportion of subjects selecting the RJP job (65%) when only one job offer was made, x2 (1, iV=40) = .04, p > .85. When two job offers were made, a significantly larger proportion of subjects chose the TJP job (85%) than the RJP job (15%), x2 (1, N=20) = 9.8, p < .Ol. These results support Hypothesis 2. Finally, subjects who accepted either job offer were more impressed by the job preview than those rejecting the offer, F(4, 69) = 6.55, p < .OOl. They thought the job information was more adequate, F(1, 72) = 10.860, p < .002, the job more attractive, F(1, 72) = 10.893, p < .002, the organization more attractive, F(1, 72) = 12.856, p < .OOl, and they were more likely to recommend the organization to a friend, F( 1, 72) = 17.426, p < .OOl. These results provide support for Hypothesis 3. DISCUSSION As expected, the proportion of subjects accepting the job offer when presented with an RJP alone did not differ from the proportion accepting the job offer when presented with a TJP alone. These results are consistent with previous research (Breaugh, 1983; Reilly et al., 1981). Under such conditions, the RJP does not lead to differential job acceptance rates. In fact, subjects’ perceptions of job and organization attractiveness and the information value of the job preview were not different under the two conditions. Presumably, any difference in the favorability of information presented in the two job previews has a minimal impact when subjects are presented with the choice of accepting a job and the unpleasant alternative of having no job at all. When subjects were presented with a choice between an RJP and a TJP they overwhelmingly selected the TJP job. This finding is consistent with expectancy theories of job choice and suggeststhat expectancy theory may explain job choice decisions within the context of RJPs. Contrary to most RJP studies but consistent with the findings of Premack and Wanous (1985), these results suggest that RJPs do result in differential job ac-

JOB ALTERNATIVES

AND CHOICE

205

ceptance rates under conditions where the RJP is presumed to have such an effect. In fact, under such conditions, the RJP may work too well. In the present study only three subjects in the two-job-offer condition chose the RJP job. If these results are representative of the RJP’s effectiveness when subjects have job alternatives, employers using the RJP may be turning away a very large number of high quality applicants. Our data do not permit us to analyze the attributes of the subjects who turned down the RJP job in contrast with those who accepted the RJP job. Given the strength of the RJP’s effect on job acceptance, however, this is one of the most vital questions remaining to be addressed in future research. If the best candidates are among those who accepted the TJP job offer then the reduced probability of turnover among those who accept the RJP job offer may not be sufficient compensation. Future research might therefore consider the potential tradeoffs between reducing turnover versus lower job acceptance rates. Subjects who were given a choice of jobs recognized the higher information value of the RJP, indicating that the job preview manipulation was successful, yet they rated the TJP job and organization more favorably. These results suggest that subjects’ decisions in selecting a job may be more affectively than cognitively based. In fact, in subsequent debriefings subjects indicated that the TJP organization “sounded friendlier” and the TJP job “seemed nicer.” As expected, subjects who accepted either the RJP or the TJP viewed the job and organization more positively than those who rejected the job offer. This finding is consistent with research on job choice and postdecision dissonance (Lawler et al., 1975; Vroom, 1966) and provides a partial integration of RJPs with the job choice literature. If the findings of the present study generalize to actual job applicants and can be replicated in the field, it is interesting to speculate on some of the implications of such findings for organizations using RJPs. For example, job applicants whose only job offer is accompanied by an RJP may be unlikely to turn down the offer because of the realistic job information they are given. In such circumstances, unemployed job seekers may accept the job simply to gain employment and may subsequently search for alternate employment opportunities. Further, if an organization using RJPs is competing for job applicants with other employers who are not using RJPs, it is possible that some applicants will turn down the RJP job in favor of an alternative job offer. This may be especially likely where naive first time job seekers are concerned. Thus many bright new graduates and others who have the potential of becoming productive employees may be lost to the competition. In such circumstances it might be prudent for the employer to determine whether the modest decrease in employee turnover attributable to the RJP is worth the possible sacrifice of high performers, even if they do

206

WIESNER, SAKS, AND SUMMERS

remain for only 1 or 2 years. Further research is required to determine the nature of those applicants who are lost as well as those who accept when RJPs compete with traditional job previews in the external environment . Clearly, the dilemma’of using RJPs to reduce turnover versus withholding them to increase job acceptance rates has both practical as well as ethical considerations. However, if RJPs do turn away job applicants who have a choice of jobs, it might be preferable to provide RJPs during orientation and socialization after job acceptance decisions have been made. In fact, the percentage of RJP studies that have presented the RJP after job offer acceptance is greater than those that presented the RJP before job offer acceptance (Wanous & Colella, 1989). And with the exception of job acceptance decisions, most of the other variables affected by RJPs, including turnover, are still operative when the RJP is presented after job offer acceptance. As well, postjob offer acceptance RJPs would not leave employers as vulnerable to the loss of bright new graduates to competing organizations as prejob offer acceptance RJPs appear to do. Finally, since the experimental manipulations used in this study are very difficult (or unethical) to implement using actual job applicants, the results of this study provide the only available data to date. Thus while a note of caution concerning the interpretation and generalizability of the results is necessary, we would suggest that the results do provide an interesting glimpse into an area that has for the most part been ignored in field studies. It is also encouraging to note that based on a comprehensive examination of laboratory and field research, Locke (1986) concluded that the same results have been obtained in the field as in the laboratory in many research areas in organizational behavior and human resource management . In sum, the results of this study suggest that RJPs may be more effective when recruits have a traditional job preview for comparison. Without a comparison the informational value of the RJP may not be recognized and the relatively negative affective reaction to the RJP is less severe. Moreover, the effect sizes obtained in RJP studies utilizing the basic onejob-offer/no-comparison paradigm may have been severely reduced by the restraints imposed by the methodology. While we must be cautious in generalizing the findings of the present study, they do suggest that future research on realistic job previews should consider measuring subjects job alternatives and the type of job information subjects have received from other organizations. These factors may influence the extent to which realistic job previews affect job acceptance rates and other important job outcomes. REFERENCES Berkowitz, L., & Donnerstein, E. (1982). External validity is more than skin deep: Some answers to criticisms of laboratory experiments. American Psychologist, 37, 245-257.

JOB ALTERNATIVES

AND CHOICE

207

Breaugh, J. A. (1983). Realistic job previews: A critical appraisal and future research directions. Academy of Manugement Review, 8, 612-619. Colarelli, S. M. (1984). Methods of communication and mediating processes in realistic job previews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 633-642. Dean, R. A., & Wanous, J. P. (1984). Effects of realistic job previews on hiring bank tellers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 61-68. Dobbins, G. H., Lane, I. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1988). A note on the role of laboratory methodologies in applied behavioral research: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9, 281-286. Fisher, C. D., Ilgen, D. R., & Hoyer, W. D. (1979). Source credibility, information favorability, and job acceptance. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 94-103. Gaugler, B. B., & Thornton, G. C., III (1990). Matching job previews to individual applicants’ needs. Psychological Reports, 66, 643-652. Gordon, M. E., Slade, L. A., & Schmitt, N. (1986). The “science of the sophomore” revisited: From conjecture to empiricism. Academy of Management Review, 11, 157159. Greenberg, J. (1987). The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting the record straight. Academy of Management Review, 12, 157-159. Janis, I. L., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysts of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: The Free Press. Lawler, E. R., Kuleck, W. J., Rhode, J. G., & Sorensen, J. E. (1975). Job choice and post decision dissonance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13, 133145. Locke, E. A. (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field: Ecological validity or abstraction of essential elements. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings, (pp. 3-9). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Mice& M. P. (1985). The effects of realistic job previews on newcomer behavior: A laboratory study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 26, 277-289. Olian, J. D. (1986). Staffing. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to held settings, (pp. 3-9). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Premack, S. L., & Wanous, J. P. (1985). A meta-analysis of realistic job preview experiments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 706-719. Reilly, R. R., Brown, B., Blood, M. R., & Malatesta, C. Z. (1981). The effects of realistic previews: A study and discussion of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 34, 823-834. Reilly, R. R., Tenopyr, M. L., & Sperling, S. M. (1979). Effects of job previews on job acceptance and survival of telephone operator candidates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 218-220. Saks, A. M., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1990). A process investigation of realistic job previews: Mediating variables and channels of communication. Journal of Orgunizational Behavior, 11, 221-236.

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, U, 513-523.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelly, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Vroom, V. H. (1966). Organizational Choice: A study of pre- and post-decision processes. Organizational

Behavior

and Human Performance,

1, 212-225.

Wanous, J. P., & Colella, A. (1989). Organizational entry research: Current status and future directions. In K. Rowland and G. Ferris (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, (pp. 59-120). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wanous, J. P., Keon, T. L., & Latack, J. C. (1983). Expectancy theory and occupational/organizational choices: A review and test. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,

32, 66-86.

Received: June 22, 1990.