CHILE: MIRANDO HACIA EL FUTURO

The recruitment job is not over when it is decided who will be offered a job. The next step is being sure that the applicants that an organization wishes to hire are interested in accepting the job offer. Installing the most accurate selection system possible is of little value if the applicants who are identified as potentially good employees will not take the job that is offered. Of equal importance is ensuring that individuals who take a job do not quit in a short period of time because they find that they do not like the job.

Convincing an applicant to accept a job involves several strategies. First, it is impor- tant for the recruitment process to be a positive one and for the prospective employee to feel he or she has been treated fairly (Hausknecht, Day, & Thomas, 2004). Second, salary and compensation offers should be comparable to those of other organizations for similar jobs in the same area (Chapman, Uggerslev, Carroll, Piasentin, & Jones, 2005). One way to make sure that offers are competitive is to conduct a salary survey to find out what other organizations are paying. This is done by contacting organizations and asking them what they pay for particular positions. Another way to handle compensation is to negotiate salary and other rewards with the potential employee. Many organizations are flexible in their benefits and salaries and may be able to tailor them to the demands of applicants. One such approach is the cafeteria benefits program, in which employees are allowed to choose their benefits from a long list of possibilities, such as different types of insurance policies. Organizations can also offer flexibility in the content of jobs so that a potential employee can modify the job to his or her liking.

Third, the behavior of recruiters is an important influence on applicants accepting job offers. Chapman et al. (2005) showed that it is important for recruiters to be personable and provide honest information about the job. Providing a falsely positive view of an organization can result in high turnover as new employees find that conditions are not as favorable as they were presented to be. A person may find that the job is intolerable because of some situation that he or she did not know about at the time the job was accepted. For example, a person may not have been told that the job involved extensive travel during the summer. A person who finds that job conditions are unacceptable will be likely to quit. Recruitment will have to begin again to find a replacement.

The realistic job preview (RJP) is used to give job applicants accurate information about the job and the organization. It is most typically accomplished with a brochure or videotaped presentation (Wanous, 1989). A good RJP provides an accurate view of both the favorable and the unfavorable aspects of a job so that a person who accepts a job will do so with accurate and realistic expectations. A person who knows what he or she is going to encounter will be more likely to remain on a job if unfavorable, but anticipated, conditions arise. If conditions exist that a person cannot tolerate, he or she will refuse the job offer. Another person who is willing to accept the situation will be hired and will be more likely to stay on the job.

Research with the RJP has shown benefits but surprisingly not for turnover. Premack and Wanous (1985) conducted a meta-analysis of 21 RJP experiments conducted in organizations. This analysis of the results of these studies indicated that RJPs reduce initial expectations about the job and organization. They also reduce the number of employees who accept job offers by the organization. In addition, RJPs increase job

Getting Applicants to Accept and Keep Jobs Offered " 153

performance and job satisfaction, probably because people who would have been unhappy on a job are screened out before they accept the job. Those who accept the job are likely to have less favorable, but probably more realistic, perceptions of the organization because of the RJP. However, other research has shown that RJPs have little effect on turnover (Meglino, Ravlin, & DeNisi, 2000), suggesting that this might not be the best way to reduce turnover itself, despite other positive results.

The surprising lack of effects of an RJP on turnover might be explained by the complicating effect of job experience. Meglino, DeNisi, and Ravlin (1993) conducted a field experiment in which applicants for a correctional officer position were assigned to either an RJP or a control condition without an RJP. Applicants in each group were classified according to prior experience as a correctional officer. The results showed that the impact of the RJP on turnover was different for the experienced and inexperienced applicant groups (see the Research in Detail box). These results show that the effects of the RJP might not be the same on everyone, although in general RJPs have been shown to have positive effects.

RESEARCH IN DETAIL

Field experiments are difficult to conduct in organiza- tional settings. This study by Meglino, DeNisi, and Ravlin (1993) is an example of a field experiment that was conducted over a relatively long period of time. Its purpose was to investigate the effects of a realistic job preview (RJP) on the turnover of employ- ees who varied in experience on the job in question. Although many studies have shown the effects of RJPs on turnover, these researchers thought that the effects would differ between experienced and inexperienced employees.

Subjects were applicants for the job of correc- tional officer who were randomly assigned either to receive or not to receive the RJP. The subjects were further divided into two groups depending on their prior experience in a similar job. Data were collected concerning whether or not each applicant took the job and how long each applicant stayed on the job. Thus, there were two dependent variables—job acceptance and job survival.

The results showed that the impact of the RJP was different for the experienced and inexperienced applicant groups. The experienced applicants were less likely to take the job if they were exposed to the RJP. They were more likely to quit the job during a 3- to 9-

month probationary period, and they were less likely to quit after the probationary period if they were given the RJP. The inexperienced applicants were more likely to accept the job after seeing the RJP. The RJP had no significant effect on their turnover rate. These results show that the effects of the RJP might not be the same on everyone. Perhaps the RJP was more meaningful to experienced applicants who had a context in which to interpret the information. They knew that a particular feature of the job would be unpleasant, even though it might not initially seem to be so. Results also show that the effects can differ over time. Positive effects on turnover might not occur immediately.

Overall, it has been found that RJPs can be an effective and relatively inexpensive way of decreas- ing unwanted employee turnover. This study shows that organizations should consider carefully the char- acteristics of applicants when deciding to implement a preview because they might not reduce turnover for experienced employees.

Source: From “Effects of Previous Job Exposure and Subsequent Job Status on the Functioning of a Realistic Job Preview,” by B. M. Meglino, A. S. DeNisi, and E. C. Ravlin, 1993, Personnel Psychology, 46, 803–822.