Implementing Realistic Job Previews and Expectation-Lowering Procedures: A Field Experiment

A field experiment was conducted to assess the effects of preemployment interventions on newly hired telemarketers. The procedures used were a realistic job preview (RJP), an expectation-lowering procedure (ELP), a combination (RJP & ELP), and the control condition (minimal socialization). While we know these procedures enhance the integration of newcomers to an organization, we do not know the optimal combination of RJP and ELP in the employee socialization process. The three procedures yielded relatively lower expectations than did the control group. Participants in the experimental conditions (ELP, RJP, and ELP & RJP) reported significantly lower expectations than did the control group. The lowered expectations, however, did not result in higher retention rates in all of the conditions. The RJP & ELP combination resulted in the largest number of days worked, the major criterion of interest in this study. There was no significant difference in number of days worked between the control group and the RJP group. The current study indicates that a non-job-specific ELP in combination with an RJP may exceed the benefits of an RJP or an ELP used alone. Furthermore, organizational implications regarding the different procedures are discussed.     

Aligning Expatriate Managers’ Expectations with Complex Global Assignments

The purpose of this paper is to develop a theoretical, yet practical framework for managing unrealistic expectations of expatriate marketing managers relative to their role in complex global marketing assignments. The formation of these unrealistic expatriate marketing managers’ expectations is examined using relational contracting theory. We explore alternative HRM evaluation/support designs that can suppress the development of expatriate marketing managers’ entitlement process and thus enhance the reality of expatriate marketing managers’ expectations relative to the role in a subsidiary of the multinational enterprise.     

Self-Evaluation Bias of Social Comparisons in Ethical Decision Making: The Impact of Accountability

The purpose of this paper is to examine how accountability and judgment biases that occur in social comparisons may be related to ethical decision making. Using Jones' (1991 ) model as the theoretical framework to investigate this phenomenon, we found that self-enhancing individuals (i.e., those who thought they were more ethical in comparison to their peers) demonstrated higher responsiveness to increases in accountability than did self-effacing individuals (i.e., those who thought they were less ethical in comparison to their peers). We discuss these findings and outline the implications for future ethics research. Further, we provide practical guidance to those who administer ethics compliance programs on effective ways of facilitating ethical behavior in organizations.     

Overclaiming as a measure of faking

Researchers have recently asserted that popular measures of response distortion (i.e., socially desirable responding scales) lack construct validity (i.e., measure traits rather than test faking) and that applicant faking on personality tests remains a serious concern ( [Griffith and Peterson, 2008] and [Holden, 2008]). Thus, although researchers and human resource (HR) selection specialists have been attempting to find measures which readily capture individual differences in faking that increase personality test validity, to date such attempts have rarely, if ever succeeded. The current study, however, finds that the overclaiming technique captures individual differences in faking and subsequently increases personality test score validity via suppressing unwanted error variance in personality test scores. Implications of this research on the overclaiming technique for improving HR selection decisions are illustrated and discussed.