146
288
TH _

 

 

 

LIBRARY
I Michigan State
9 0 f3 Universnty

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

AN INITIAL EXPLORATION OF THE EFFECTS OF
EXPECTATIONS ABOUT WORK VALUES AND WORK
VALUE ATTAINMENT ON ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION

presented by

AMBER N.W. RAILE

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Master of Arts degree in Communication

 

 

W

Major Professor’s Signature

ngMSM 200:;

Date

 

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

go‘s-.-—-.-n-—.—-.-.—.-.--¢-n-.--u-n-o-n-o-u-l--n—n-n-n-o-.-o-n-.-c-o-s-c-I—-a-a--u----n-a-o-o-n-u--a--p---.

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K IPrq/Achres/CIRC/Dateoue indd

AN INITIAL EXPLORATION OF THE EFFECTS OF EXPECTATIONS ABOUT
WORK VALUES AND WORK VALUE ATTAINMENT ON ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION
By

Amber N.W. Raile

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Communication

2005

ABSTRACT
AN INITIAL EXPLORATION OF THE EFFECTS OF EXPECTATIONS ABOUT
WORK VALUES AND WORK VALUE ATTAINMENT ON ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMUNICATION SATISFACTION
By
Amber N.W. Raile
The goals of the present study were threefold: (1) to determine the impact of
expectations about work values on organizational communication satisfaction, (2) to
apply diverse theoretical thinking to expectations about work values research, and (3) to
address issues with previous research through the use of experimental design. Four
competing hypotheses, based on Interaction Adaptation Theory (Burgoon & White, 1997;
Burgoon, Stern, & Dillman, 1995), Expectancy Violation Theory (Burgoon & Hale,
1988), the met expectations hypothesis (Porter & Steers, 1973) and values research,
predicted how the experience of expectations as either met or unmet and of work values
as fulﬁlled or unﬁlled would affect organizational communication satisfaction. This
experiment (N = 200) varied whether expectations were met or unmet and whether work
values were fulﬁlled or unfulﬁlled through the use of four experimental conditions in
order to compare the predictive power of the competing hypotheses. Though contrasts
testing all four hypotheses resulted in signiﬁcant ﬁndings, the hypothesis based on values
research provided the most accurate prediction of the results. This ﬁnding implies that
organizations should measure work values to maximize satisfaction outcomes and that
job seekers should carefully consider their work values when accepting a position. The

implications of the results for this area of research and the potential for future research on

work values and expectations about work values are discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, the author would like express her gratitude to Dr. Hee Sun Park for
her insight, patience, expertise, and willingness to ﬁgure out how to answer any question
that is presented to her. Her drive and pure love of research are something to behold. The
ﬁnal product would look nothing like it does without her guidance. The author also
thanks Dr. Sandi Smith and Dr. Pamela Whitten for their valuable suggestions and
feedback. The author is grateful to Eric Raile for his support and encouragement, and also
for his help collecting data. Finally, thanks to Hans Kiebler, Estavan Martinez, and

Angela Pacheco, who spent many hours collecting and entering data.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 4
The Met Expectations Hypothesis ........................................................................... 4
Expectations about Work Value Attainment ........................................................... 7
Organizational Communication Satisfaction ......................................................... 14
Hypotheses ............................................................................................................. 1 7
Method ............................................................................................................................... 27
Results ................................................................................................................................ 35
Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 41
Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 59
What to Expect ....................................................................................................... 60
What the Job Is Really Like ................................................................................... 63
Work Values Ranking ............................................................................................ 68
Expectations Manipulation Check ......................................................................... 69
Work Experiences Manipulation Check ................................................................ 71
Organizational Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire .................................. 73
References .......................................................................................................................... 75

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Comparison of Organizational and Role Factors across Authors ........................................ 8
Comparison of Expectation Sets and Work Value Sets ..................................................... 11
Overview of Experimental Conditions .............................................................................. 19
Summary of Competing Hypotheses Organized by Theory .............................................. 26
Expectations about Work Values ....................................................................................... 29
Contrast Coefﬁcients by Condition for One-Way Analyses of Variance .......................... 35
Contrast Tests for Competing Hypotheses and Post Hoc Analysis ................................... 36
Signiﬁcance Tests for Predictive Power of Competing Hypotheses ................................. 39

LIST OF FIGURES

Mean Organizational Communication Satisfaction Score by Experimental Condition ....38

vi

INTRODUCTION

Organizational communication plays a central role in the formation and continued
maintenance of organizations. Organizational communication satisfaction has been
shown to be related to a number of important work relationships, including
supervisor/supervisee relationships (e.g., Mueller & Lee, 2002), and to a number of work
outcomes of interest, including job satisfaction (Clampitt & Girard, 1993; Downs,
Clampitt, & Pfeiffer, 198 8). Given the vital role played by communication in
organizations, further understanding of individual difference factors that may affect
feelings of organizational communication satisfaction is imperative.

Individual difference factors, such as expectations and work values, have been
shown to impact work outcomes, including satisfaction. Previous research establishes that
employees have expectations as they begin a job. Research on the met expectations
hypothesis (Porter & Steers, 1973) has shifted in recent years to focus on person-job ﬁt
and realistic job previews. This shift could be due to problems over differences scores
(e. g., Irving & Meyer, 1994) or the idea that realistic job previews solve the problem
posed by the met expectations hypothesis. However, a recent meta-analysis of realistic
job previews research (Phillips, 1998) found much lower correlations between realistic
job previews and outcomes such as satisfaction than did a meta-analysis of met
expectations research (Wanous, Poland, Premack, & Davis, 1992). These ﬁndings
suggest that there is more to the met expectations hypothesis than is currently addressed
in realistic job previews research.

Problems with previous research on met expectations may have also led to its

recent decrease in research productivity. Research on the met expectations hypothesis

neglects to focus on the content of those expectations, instead focusing simply on
whether expectations are met or unmet. Consideration of expectations about work value
attainment would more accurately test the met expectations hypothesis. Research on both
expectations and values examines the effects of each on similar work outcomes. As
summarized in a meta-analysis of met expectations research (Wanous et al., 1992), met
expectations have been signiﬁcantly related to a number of work outcomes, including job
satisfaction (see also Cherry, Ordonez, & Gilliland, 2003; Buckley, Fedor, Veres, Wiese,
& Carraher, 1998; Horn, Griffeth, Palich, & Bracker, 1998; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, &
Gardner, 1995), commitment, intent to remain, job performance, and job survival. Work
values have been signiﬁcantly related to a number of comparable outcomes, including job
satisfaction (e.g., Erdogan, Kramer, & Liden, 2004), work behaviors (e. g., Shapira &
Grifﬁth, 1990), and motivation (Sagie & Koslowsky, 1998). Due to the demonstrated
relationships of expectations and work values with a multitude of job factors, an
understanding of their association with organizational communication satisfaction is
crucial. The current study explores the relationships among expectations about work
values, value attainment, and organizational communication satisfaction.

The application of two commmtication theories aids in the further reﬁnement of
thinking about these concepts, providing more precise prediction and description of the
relationships among the constructs. Though originally conceived of as interpersonal
nonverbal theories, both Interaction Adaptation Theory (Burgoon & White, 1997;
Burgoon et al., 1995) and Expectancy Violation Theory (Burgoon & Hale, 1988) are

extended here to inform propositions as to how expectations about work values and the

subsequent experience of expectations as either met or unmet and of work values as
ﬁilﬁlled or unﬁlled will affect organizational communication satisfaction.

The present study examines literature from diverse perspectives to develop
propositions about the relationship between expectations about work values and
organizational communication satisfaction. First, the separate literatures on expectations
and work values are reviewed and connected to properly reﬂect the met expectations
hypothesis. Next, relevant research on organizational communication satisfaction is
linked to the literature pertaining to expectations and values, which comes largely from
management and psychology. Finally, Interaction Adaptation Theory (Burgoon & White,
1997; Burgoon et al., 1995) and Expectancy Violation Theory (Burgoon & Hale, 1988),
which both make predictions about expectations, values, and outcomes, are considered.
These communication theories and the separate literatures on expectations and values,
largely developed outside of the communication ﬁeld, guide predictions about the
relationships of interest. The review of literature and theory informs four competing
hypotheses about the effects of expectations about work values on organizational

communication satisfaction.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Met Expectations Hypothesis

The met expectations hypothesis asserts that the congruence between one’s
anticipation of a job and the reality of a job will impact satisfaction and, ultimately,
turnover.

The concept of met expectations may be viewed as the discrepancy between what

a person encounters on his [sic] job in the way of positive and negative

experiences and what he [sic] expected to encounter. Thus, since different

employees can have quite different expectations. . .it would not be anticipated that

a given variable would have a uniform impact...” (Porter & Steers, 1973, p. 152)
Restated, the met expectations hypothesis posits that unmet expectations lead to lower
satisfaction, whereas met expectations will lead to higher satisfaction. “The met
expectations hypothesis. . .proposes that job experiences that conﬁrm expectations tend to
be satisfying, whereas job experiences that deviate from expectations produce
dissatisfaction” (Greenhaus, Seidel, & Marinis, 1983, p. 395). The implications of the
met expectations hypothesis are clear; in order to test the hypothesis, researchers should
measure both an employee’s expectations and whether those expectations are
subsequently met or unmet in the opinion of the employee. Thus, the hypothesis includes
two aspects of concern: expectations and whether they are met or unmet. An expectation
can be deﬁned as an individual’s subjective interpretation of the probability that
something will occur (Ilgen, 1971). “A job expectation usually refers to a person’s belief
that he or she will obtain an outcome (or a speciﬁc level of an outcome) on a particular
job” (Greenhaus et al., 1983, p. 395). Lack of congruence between expectations and

actual job experience has several labels in the literature, including “reality shock”

(Dugoni & Ilgen, 1981) or “surprise” (Locke, 1969). Under any of these labels, unmet

expectations result when what someone expects from a job or for a job differs from his or
her experiences at the job. Determining whether an employee’s expectations are met or
unmet is logically a post-employment factor (Stumpf & Hartman, 1984).

The continued study of the met expectations hypothesis in organizational research
is likely partially attributable to its seeming relevance to organizational life, especially as
new recruits’ expectations are typically inﬂated (Wanous, 1980). A recent study found
that after six months at a job, “all expectations were adjusted downward, apparently
because of actual on-the-job experiences. Further, those who reported higher initial
expectations tended not to remain on the job” (Buckley et al., 1998, p. 456). Research of
the met expectations hypothesis in multiple forms (e.g., realistic job previews,
organizational socialization) generally supports the met expectations hypothesis. In a
meta-analysis of the body of research on met expectations, Wanous et a1. (1992) found
met expectations and a number of outcome variables, most strongly job satisfaction, to be
signiﬁcantly positively related. Speciﬁcally, the meta-analysis found the link between
met expectations and job satisfaction to be strongest and most consistent when compared
with the link between met expectations and other factors (i.e., organizational
commitment, job performance, job survival, and intent to remain), which is to be
expected as the met expectations hypothesis is interpreted as predicting a direct path
between those two factors.

This relationship between expectations and the effects of their being met or unmet
constitutes only half of the hypothesis proposed by Porter and Steers (1973); they
anticipate that satisfaction level will be a function of the relationship between the level of

expectation and level of reward associated with the expectation set. Expectation sets are

unique to each employee, especially in the import that each individual places on different
expectation categories. “Most employees place a fairly high valence on the attainment of
their expectations in certain areas. . .Whatever the composition of the individual’s
expectation set, it is important that those factors be substantially met if the employee is to
feel it is worthwhile to remain with the organization” (Porter & Steers, p. 170-171). For
expectations with a lower valence to the employee, the impact of that expectation being
met versus unmet on the employee’s satisfaction is predicted to decrease (Wanous et al.,
1992). This aspect of the met expectations hypothesis is studied less often than the
met/unmet expectations aspect and appears closely linked to the body of research on
employee work values.

Thus Porter and Steers’ (1973) explanation of the met expectations hypothesis
includes two aspects: an employee’s expectations and whether those expectations are met
by a particular job. Unfortunately, few researchers have speciﬁed the content of
expectation sets in their measures of met expectations. For example, Arnold and F eldman
(1982) measured met expectations with a single-item scored on a 7-point Likert—type
scale: “All in all, have you realized your expectations with regard to the profession?”
Similarly, Saks (1994) used three items to measure this same idea (e.g., “My job pretty
much turned out to be what I expected it would be”). Unclear in such research is the
content of those expectations. Dugoni and Ilgen (1981) measured only expectations
regarding task elements speciﬁc to the job. Additionally, met expectations are typically
measured with items geared only toward half of the met expectations hypothesis (i.e.
whether expectations generically have been met or unmet), rather than measuring the

valence of each factor in the expectation set and whether each factor has been met. Blau

(1988) used an 8-item scale that that asked questions about whether expectations about
certain aspects of an internship program were met. Similarly, Lee and Mowday (1987)
gathered responses as to whether or not expectations were met regarding immediate
supervisor, kind of work, co-workers, physical working conditions, ﬁnancial rewards,
career future, and company identiﬁcation. Reilly, Brown, Blood, and Malatesta (1981)
comparably measured met expectations with 5 items identifying discrepancies between
subjects’ expectations and their actual experiences on the job. In all the studies above, the
researchers failed to measure how closely held those expectations were in terms of
importance, though Lee and Mowday did gather valence ratings of ten organizational
characteristics that were unrelated to those in the expectations questionnaire.
Expectations about Work Value Attainment

Values about work. Each employee enters a job with a particular set of work
values formed by family inﬂuences, previous work experience, and societal norms
(Loughlin & Barling, 2001). Though values may sometimes operate unconsciously,
“values can be brought into awareness through crystallization and prioritization” (Brown,
2002, p. 48). Crystallization is the process of identifying and recognizing the inﬂuence of
one’s values; subsequent prioritization involves the ranking or ordering of values. Work
values, a subset of the larger value set, will be the focus of this paper and are deﬁned as
being “concerned with the goals, or desired outcomes, of working and of expending
effort during the work day” (Sagie & Koslowsky, 1998, p. 158). In other words,
participation in an organization through work is anticipated to lead to the realization of
work values (Brown). Work values can also be understood in the context of person-job

congruence, which considers the match between a particular role and an employee’s

values, interests, and skills (Stumpf & Hartman, 1984; Wanous, 1980). The closer the
match between an employee’s values and his or her experiences on the job, the higher the

level of satisfaction experienced by the employee (Greenhaus et al., 1983).

 

 

 

Table 1
Comparison of Organizational and Role Factors across Authors
Herzberg et al. (1959) Vroom (1964) Weiss et a1. (1966)
company policy and company policies and
administration practices
technical supervision supervision supervision — technical
Organizational supervision — human
Factors relations
job security security
working conditions working conditions working conditions
interpersonal relationships work amp co-workers
salary wages compensation
achievement achievement
advancement promotional advancement
opportunities
responsibility responsibility
recognition recognition
work itself job content ability utilization
Role Facmrs possibility of growth authority
creativity
status social status
moral values
activity
independence
variety

social service

Though multiple taxonomies are available to classify speciﬁc work values, many
of these identiﬁed work values are identical or similar. For example, Herzberg, Mausner,
and Snyderman (1959) postulated 13 values: company policy and administration,
technical supervision, job security, working conditions, interpersonal relationships,
salary, achievement, advancement, responsibility, recognition, the work itself, possibility
of growth, and status. Vroom (1964) distinguished six values: supervision, working
conditions, work groups, wages, promotional opportunities, and job content. Weiss,

Dawis, Lofquist, and England (1966) differentiated 20 values: ability utilization,

achievement, activity, advancement, authority, company policies and practices,
compensation, co-workers, creativity, independence, moral values, recognition,
responsibility, security, social service, social status, supervision — human relations,
supervision — technical, variety, and working conditions. As demonstrated in Table 1,
these value sets can be displayed in two categories, organizational factors — related to the
context of the work, and role factors — related to the work itself. These new categories,
created by the researcher, capture and synthesize earlier conceptualizations into two
readily identiﬁable, overarching categories for ease of research.

Distinguishing between expectations and work values. With a few exceptions
(e. g., Greenhaus et al., 1983), the bodies of research on expectations and work values do
not overlap, and few deﬁnitions of work values and value-related constructs clearly
distinguish work values from expectations. Locke (1969, 1976) speciﬁes that
expectations are anticipations regarding a future occurrence or state, whereas values are
what a person desires or wants in a job. Using Locke’s distinction, expectations can thus
be differentiated deﬁnitionally from needs or values. Expectations involve what an
individual anticipates s/he will encounter or experience. Conversely, needs are innate
survival necessities; values are learned conscious or unconscious desires that one wants
or seeks to attain (outcomes). Expectations involve an anticipatory mental state; despite
this clear distinction, an employee may have expectations about whether their work
values will be fulﬁlled in a particular job (Locke, 1976). Additionally, the temporal
characteristics of the two factors differ. “Values can be considered as more enduring than
expectations. Similarly, values are relatively constant, while expectations can ﬂuctuate

depending on the situation” (Cherry et al., 2003, p. 379).

Despite this ability to deﬁnitionally differentiate work values from expectations,
the two seem to be closely related. Interestingly, in his description of how surprise will be
evaluated, Locke blurred his own distinction between values and expectations —
suggesting that the two may be used together to evaluate work situations. “If the outcome
is in the direction of what one values (‘better than expected’), it is pleasant surprise. If the
outcome is in the direction of what one disvalues (‘worse than expected’), it is an
unpleasant surprise” (1969, p. 320). Both expectations and work values are purported to
arise from similar sources. Locke (1969) notes that values are not intrinsic, but learned
through experience. Bell, Ryan, and Wiechmann (2004) comparably note that
expectations come from direct experience, indirect inﬂuences, and other beliefs.
Deﬁnitional confusion around terms in the larger body of research may also add to the
measurement woes previously addressed.

The ability to draw process-related conclusions has also been hampered by weak

deﬁnitions of constructs, inconsistent measurement, and confusing terminology.

For example the following constructs have commonly been interchanged in the

literature. . .realistic, reduced, and met expectations; initial expectations and

anticipated satisfaction; early satisfaction and early value attainment. (Rynes,

1990,p.427)

Generally, expectations are conceptualized as beliefs about future outcomes. In the
literature, outcomes are also referred to as values, but values are also discussed as being
the level of import one places on a particular outcome. Perhaps not surprisingly, “most
studies relating expectancies to satisfaction, however, have failed to control adequately

for (or even attempted to measure) the effects of values. . .or to separate them ﬁom

10

expectancy effects “(Locke, 1976, p. 1303). By considering expectations about work
value attainment and the import placed on those values separately, the current study aims
to clearly differentiate these constructs.

Table 2
anparison of Expectation Sets and Work Value Sets

 

 

 

Porter and Steers Herzberg et al. Weiss et al.
(1973) @959) Vroom (1964) (1966)
company policy and company policies
administration and practices
supervisory style technical supervision supervision —
supervision technical
supervision -
Organizational human relations
Factors job security security
working conditions working conditions working conditions
peer group interpersonal work group co-workers
interaction relationships
work unit size
orgyizational size
pay salary wages compensation
achievement achievement
promotion advancement promotional advancement
opportunities
responsibility responsibility responsibility
recognition recognition
overall reaction to work itself job content ability utilization
Role Factors job content authority
role clarity possibility of creativity
growth social status
status moral values
activity
social service
task repetitiveness variety
job autonomy independence

 

The common content of expectation sets and work value sets. Not explicitly
addressed in the literature is how expectation sets might differ from work value sets.
Porter and Steers (1973) propose that expectation sets consist of a variety of factors:
organization-wide factors (pay and promotion, organizational size); immediate work
environment factors (supervisory style, work unit size, peer group interaction); job
content factors (overall reaction to job content, task repetitiveness, job autonomy and

responsibility, role clarity); and personal factors (age, tenure, similarity of job with

11

vocational interest, personality characteristics, family size and responsibilities). As
illustrated in Table 2, the factors posited to comprise expectation sets mirror the factors
proposed to form work value sets. These similarities raise the question of what
expectations would be regarding if they are not pertaining to work value attainment. This
interchangeability of terms coupled with the previously discussed similarities between the
two concepts leads to the assertion put forth here that expectations about work value
attainment most accurately reﬂect the met expectations hypothesis.

Though expectations and work values have sprung from separate literatures, the
combination of both is necessary for the purposes of testing the met expectations
hypothesis. In practice, expectations are frequently tested with dichotomous single-item
measures that fail to capture speciﬁc outcomes, their relative importance to the employee,
or the potential for anything other than a dichotomous met/unmet realization of
anticipated work value attainment. Perhaps the current understanding of the term
“expectations” leads to this form of measurement. As originally conceptualized by Porter
and Steers (1973), an expectation, as an anticipation about an outcome, logically requires
an outcome. Work values are deﬁned in the literature as particular outcomes one might
expect from a particular job. Thus, the two terms are combined to better describe the
concept and to inform measurement efforts by labeling the construct under study as
“expectations about work value attainment.” Expectations about work value attainment
are an employee’s anticipation of either attaining or failing to attain a speciﬁc outcome
(or a particular level of that outcome) as a result of work in a particular job.

The similarity between work value sets and expectation sets has inﬂuenced some

researchers, who nearly tested expectations about work value attainment as deﬁned here.

12

Unfortunately, methodological issues preclude the obtainment of results on the impact
that expectations about work value attainment may have on outcome variables of interest.
For example, Greenhaus et al., (1983) used the same 14 outcomes to measure
expectations, experiences, value attainment, and satisfaction level and found value
attainment to be more predictive of satisfaction than met expectations. However, in their
measurement of work values and expectations, Greenhaus et al. measured only job
expectations in their initial questionnaire. Difference scores were then calculated by
comparing individual responses on that initial questionnaire to individual experiences on
the job, which were indicated in a second questionnaire that was completed three months
later, to determine whether expectations were realistic. Value attainment data was also
collected on that second questionnaire by asking participants to compare their preferred
level of an outcome with their experienced level of an outcome. Satisfaction was also
measured at the second data collection time. Collecting data on both value attainment and
satisfaction relying on the same set of variables measured on the same questionnaire and
then comparing that data to questionnaire data about expectations collected months prior
creates a study design that favors ﬁnding a stronger relationship between work values and
satisfaction (measured at the same time) than between expectations and satisfaction
(measured months apart).

These issues warrant further exploration of the concept of expectations about
work value attainment. The ﬁndings of Stumpf and Hartman (1984) are “consistent with
the ﬁndings of Greenhaus et a1. (1983)” (p. 325). Again, Stumpf and Hartman studied
realistic expectations and anticipated that the relationship between realistic expectations

and satisfaction was mediated by person-job congruence. Thus, a weaker relationship

13

between realistic expectations and satisfaction would be anticipated. Despite limitations
in the research design of these studies, both inch closer to testing expectations as Porter
and Steers (1973) originally suggested, as expectations about what are now commonly
referred to in the literature as values or work values. Meyer, Irving, and Allen (1998)
followed such a model in research of the interaction between person and situation, relying
on values as causal and situational factors as moderators. The present study follows a
similar model by considering expectations about work value attainment but proposes a
new work outcome for study.
Organizational Communication Satisfaction

As discussed previously, both expectations and work values research traditionally
measure job satisfaction as an outcome variable. Organizational communication
satisfaction is introduced here as an important potential outcome inﬂuenced by
expectations about work values. Though communication satisfaction has been found to be
signiﬁcantly related to job satisfaction (e. g., Downs et al., 1988, for summary data;
Pincus, 1986; Muchinsky, 1977), job satisfaction and communication satisfaction have
been demonstrated to be distinct constructs both empirically and in the minds of
employees (Gregson, 1991). Satisfaction constructs are evaluative and perception-based
(Downs et al., 1988; Pincus). Organizational communication satisfaction is deﬁned here
as an individual employee’s overall affective reaction to interaction patterns across
situations and levels within a company. Organizational communication satisfaction has
been posited to consist of eight factors: personal feedback, supervisory communication,

co-worker communication, organization integration, corporate communication,

14

communication climate, media quality, and supervisor communication (Downs & Hazen,
1977)

Because research on the effects of both expectations and work values on
organizational outcomes has largely been conducted in the ﬁelds of organizational
psychology and management, the impacts of both work expectations and work values —
considered separately or in combination — on organizational communication outcomes
have been largely unstudied. As the study of organizational communication ﬁnds its roots
in the area of business communication skills, not emerging as a distinctly labeled
discipline until the late 19605 (Redding, 1985), the current distinctions between the
disciplines serve to hinder the sharing of common concepts and useful theoretical
positions. The consideration of organizational communication satisfaction will beneﬁt all
three areas of study.

Overstating the role of communication within organizations would be difﬁcult.
Communication plays a vital role in organizations as it “can be used to help coordinate
and control the activities of organizational members” (Deetz, 2001, p. 3) and “is the
social glue that ties organizations together” (Blair, Roberts, & McKechnie, 1985, p. 55).
Previous research supports the important role played by communication in the
organizational environment. Communication has been found to be the most powerful
factor measured in relation to overall job satisfaction (V innicombe, 1984) and also to be
related to productivity (see Downs et al., 1988, for summary data). “One of the most
potent forces in the socialization process within an organization is the interactive

dynamics between the individual and his [sic] peers” (Porter & Steers, 1973, p. 159).

15

Blau (1988) noted that one’s communication relationship with a supervisor plays an
important role in an employee’s organizational life.

Organizational communication satisfaction has also been found to be signiﬁcantly
positively related to quality of leader member exchange, or LMX, (Mueller & Lee, 2002)
and to organizational commitment (V arona, 1996). Communication within organizations
can be conceptualized as either behavior that occurs within an organization or behavior
that describes, explains, and structures organizations (Deetz, 2001). Especially when
considered in the latter sense, organizational communication satisfaction plays a
signiﬁcant role in the continued maintenance and creation of the organization. Due to the
centrality of communication to organizational life, consideration of organizational
communication satisfaction obviously has important implications for research done from
an organizational psychology or management perspective.

The use of theories and concepts ﬁ'om the ﬁelds of organizational psychology and
management, such as the met expectations hypothesis, also beneﬁts the study of
organizational communication by expanding the ﬁeld’s understanding of personality
characteristics and organizational factors that may affect how employees communicate
and view communication in organizations. Though communicative behaviors are
observable, attitudes and affective responses that inﬂuence, shape, and react to
communication — such as communication satisfaction — are internal constructs
necessitating self-reporting (Dawis, 1990; Hecht, 1978) and, therefore, are comparable to
many psychological constructs. In addition to further informing scholarship in these
areas, “knowing more about the psychological dynamics of organizational

communication is potentially of signiﬁcant value to organizational participants” (Barry &

16

Crant, 2000, p. 660). The current study aims to determine whether expectations about
work value attainment can inﬂuence judgments of organizational communication
satisfaction and asserts that evaluations of this satisfaction construct impact
organizational life.

Hypotheses

Two communication theories and the previously detailed theoretical thinking
inform four hypotheses regarding the impact of expectations about work values on
organizational communication satisfaction. First, the relevant literature and theoretical
work that drives the hypotheses is reviewed. Then, four competing hypotheses, which
result from the differing predictions of the communication theories and theoretical
thinking of previous researchers, are detailed.

Conceptually, the conclusion that can be drawn based on the evidence presented
is that research should measure expectations about work value attainment to test the met
expectations hypothesis. Locke (1969) notes that “empirically, values and expectations
oﬁen coincide, because most people value only that which they have some reasonable
chance of attaining” (p. 320). Expectation sets, clearly identiﬁed as an important aspect
of the met expectations hypothesis by Porter and Steers (1973), have been characterized
as work value sets in recent research. Semantic differences further muddy the body of
research. Values are what one sees as important or “what a person consciously or
unconsciously desires, wants, or seeks to attain” (Locke, 1976, p. 1304). Work values
may differ in their level of importance, and consideration of the level of import one
places on a work value is vital to understanding the differential impacts of speciﬁc work

values on satisfaction variables. Porter and Steers anticipate satisfaction level to be a

17

function of the multiplicative relationship between the level of expectation and level of
reward.

Each individual is seen as bringing to the employment situation his [sic] own

unique set of expectations for his [sic] job. It is likely, based on the results

presented here, that most employees place a fairly high valence on their
attainment of their expectations in certain areas. . .Whatever the composition of
the individual’s expectation set, it is important that those factors be substantially

met.” (Porter & Steers, p. 170—171)

The impact of expectations about work values on organizational communication
satisfaction is examined here due to the impact satisfaction with communication can have
on an organization. How will expectations about work value attainment inﬂuence
employees’ evaluations of organizational communication satisfaction? The current study
addresses this question.

Expectations about whether a work value will be attained can be set by a company
in a variety of ways (e.g., advertisements, job postings, the recruiting process, realistic
job previews). This study will test expectations about whether or not work values will be
attained in a job. One may expect that a particular work value set will be attained, or one
may expect that a particular work value set will not be attained in a role. These
expectations about work value attainment will subsequently either be met or unmet on the
job. That is, for a person who expects to attain his/her important value, two conditions
(met versus unmet expectation) are possible. When that expectation is met (i.e., one gets
what one expected to get), s/he fulﬁlls that value. On the other hand, when that
expectation is unmet (i.e., one does not get what one expected to get), s/he does not ﬁllﬁll
that value. For a person who expects not to attain his/her important value, two conditions

(met versus unmet expectation) are also possible. When that expectation is met (i.e., one

does not get what one expected not to get), s/he does not fulﬁll that value. On the other

18

hand, when that expectation is not met (i.e., one gets what one expected not to get), s/he
fulﬁlls that value. In short, four conditions are possible. For his or her self-rated
important work value, an employee may expect that particular work value will be attained
and ﬁnd in his or her work experiences that (1) expectation met/value fulﬁlled or (2)
expectation unmet/value unfulﬁlled; or an employee might expect that particular value
will not be attained and ﬁnd in his or her work experiences that (3) expectation met/value
unfulﬁlled or (4) expectation unmet/value fulﬁlled (see Table 3). Condition 4 may be
better thought of as a situation in which an employee’s expectations about work value
attainment are actually overmet or exceeded on the job.

Table 3
Overview of Experimental Conditions

Expectation Met Expectation Unmet

 

 

Prior to employment, expect 1 2
work value to be attained (Work value fulﬁlled) (Work value unfulﬁlled)
Prior to employment, expect 3 4

work value not to be attained (Work value unﬁrlﬁlled) (Work value fulﬁlled)

To clarify, imagine an employee who believes that having a supportive supervisor
is important in a job. This employee in condition 1 would place import on having a
supportive supervisor, expect to attain that work value, and ﬁnd on that job that s/he does,
indeed, have a supportive supervisor. This employee in condition 2 would place import
on having a supportive supervisor, expect to attain that work value, and ﬁnd on that job
that s/he does not have a supportive supervisor. This employee in condition 3 would
place import on having a supportive supervisor, but expect not to attain that work value
(based on a realistic job preview or other knowledge of the job), and ﬁnd on that job that
s/he does not have a supportive supervisor. This employee in condition 4 would place

import on having a supportive supervisor, but expect not to attain that work value, and

19

ﬁnd on that job that s/he does, indeed, have a supportive supervisor. The question posed
here is how falling into one of these categories will affect subsequent ratings of
organizational communication satisfaction.

Competing hypotheses. Though all four theoretical perspectives presented here
seem to agree that a person in condition 2 would be least satisﬁed, they differ as to other
predictions. Four competing hypotheses are thus proposed below. Speciﬁcally, the effects
when an expectation that a work value will be unattained is met (and a work value
unﬁrlﬁlled) or when an expectation that a work value will be unattained is unmet (and a
work value fulﬁlled) are largely untested, though several areas of research can inform a
prediction. Therefore, competing hypotheses will be tested, based on four different
theoretical approaches and previous research. Interaction Adaptation Theory predicts that
those whose expectations are met will be more satisﬁed than individuals whose values
are fulﬁlled (Burgoon & White, 1997; Burgoon et al., 1995). Expectancy Violation
Theory (Burgoon & Hale, 1988) predicts — similar to Locke’s notion of surprise —- that
expectancy violations will result in more careﬁrl consideration of the situation. The met
expectations hypothesis (Porter & Steers, 1973) predicts that an individual whose
expectations are met will be more satisﬁed than one whose expectations are unmet.
However, when one’s expectations are unmet, the met expectations hypothesis predicts
that the work value to which the expectation pertains will determine satisfaction level.
Contrary to those theories, researchers considering the impact of values on satisfaction
assert that individuals will be most satisﬁed when their values are fulﬁlled, regardless of

whether their expectations are met. After further detailing the rationale behind each of

20

these predictions individually, a summary that reiterates the differences and similarities
among the four proposed relationships is provided.

Several theories and studies point to expectations as the primary determinant of
outcomes. Interaction Adaptation Theory (IAT), a theory originally constructed for the
study of nonverbal communication in interpersonal conversations, examines cognitive
frameworks within a communicative behavior context (Burgoon & White, 1997; Burgoon
et al., 1995). Application to organizational contexts stretches this theory beyond
interpersonal interactions and necessitates some expansion of concepts, which will be
done in the following summary of the theory. Central to IAT are ﬁve concepts —
requirements, expectations, desires, interaction position, and partner’s actual behavior
(here the actual work conditions). Requirements are comparable to needs as deﬁned in
this paper - physiological or psychological necessities for survival. Related more
speciﬁcally to the study at hand, expectations in IAT are comparable to expectations as
discussed here, and desires in IAT are comparable to values as discussed here. According
to the tenets of IAT, requirements, expectations, and desires interact to form an
interaction position. Interaction position can be thought of as the employee’s expectations
about work value attainment when entering the job. If all three aspects of the interaction
position are congruent, distinctions among the three become unimportant. In this
experiment, such a congruent state would occur in condition 1, where expectations are
met and work values are fulﬁlled. If requirements, expectations, and desires are
incongruent, Burgoon and White propose that the three components are hierarchical.
“Requirements. . .are assumed to predominate until satisﬁed. When basic needs are met,

expectancies and desires respectively are thought to become ascendant, with expectancies

21

most likely to predominate” (Burgoon & White, p. 292). The original statement of IAT
speciﬁes that expectations “may carry the most weight when situations are strongly
inﬂuenced by social norms and role relationships” (Burgoon et al.). Work situations
should fall into this category. Thus, if expectations exert a greater inﬂuence:

Hypothesis 1: For participant-rated important work values, individuals who

expect to attain a particular work value and have that expectation met on the job

(condition 1) will report the highest levels of organizational communication

satisfaction; individuals who expect not to attain a particular work value and have

that expectation met on the job (condition 3) will report higher levels of

organizational communication satisfaction than those who expect not to attain a

particular work value and have that expectation unmet (condition 4); individuals

who expect to attain a particular work value and have that expectation unmet on
the job (condition 2) will report the lowest levels of organizational
communication satisfaction.

However, IAT also predicts that the respective valences of the interaction position
and the partner’s actual behavior (or work conditions) will affect outcomes. Here, IAT
echoes Locke’s (1969) notion of “pleasant surprise” versus “unpleasant surprise.” A
positive violation of expectations results when the actual behavior is more positively
valenced than interaction position, resulting in convergence toward the actual behavior. A
negative violation of expectations results when the actual behavior is more negatively
valenced than interaction position, resulting in maintenance of the interaction position
(and the expectations). Despite the consideration of additional factors, IAT’s roots in

Expectancy Violation Theory (Burgoon & Hale, 1988) are obvious in the frequent focus

22

on expectations rather than interaction position in the discussions and tests of the theory
(e.g., Le Poire & Yoshimura, 1999; Burgoon & White, 1997 ; Burgoon et al., 1995). Also
originally presented as a nonverbal theory, Expectancy Violation Theory (EVT) has been
tested in several areas of communication research. In an interview published by Miller
(2002), Burgoon advocates application of EVT in additional areas. The theory also posits
that individuals have expectations formed through social norms and personal experiences.
As with Locke (1969, 1976), the theory posits that individuals are typically unaware of
their expectancies until a violation occurs. If an expectation is violated, one experiences a
state of arousal — similar to the concept of surprise advanced by Locke. The expectancy
violation would then be evaluated based on relevant valences (Burgoon & Hale).
Applying the tenets of EVT, if expectations are met and the work value is unattained, one
would not experience surprise, and thus no evaluation based on the value would occur.
However, if one’s expectations are unmet, the individual will consider whether or not
their work values have been fulﬁlled and be more satisﬁed when they are fulﬁlled than
when they are unﬁlled. If the predictions of EVT hold true:
Hypothesis 2: For participant-rated important work values, individuals who
expect not to attain a particular work value and have that expectation unmet
(condition 4) will report higher levels of organizational communication
satisfaction than those whose expectations are met (conditions 1, 3); individuals
who expect to attain a particular work value and have that expectation unmet on
the job (condition 2) will report the lowest levels of organizational

communication satisfaction.

23

If the predictions of the met expectations hypothesis hold true, a slightly different
pattern of results should be seen. The met expectations hypothesis predicts that,
regardless of value fulﬁllment, an individual whose expectations are met on the job will
be satisﬁed; therefore those in conditions 1 and 3 will be equally satisﬁed. However, if
one’s expectations are unmet, the individual will consider whether or not their work
values have been fulﬁlled and be more satisﬁed when they are fulﬁlled than when they
are unﬁlled. If the predictions of the met expectations hypothesis hold true:

Hypothesis 3: For participant-rated important work values, individuals whose

expectations are met (conditions 1, 3) will report higher levels of organizational

communication satisfaction than those who expect not to attain a particular work
value and have that expectation unmet (condition 4); individuals who expect to
attain a particular work value and have that expectation unmet on the job

(condition 2) will report the lowest levels of organizational communication

satisfaction.

Despite some similarities, Locke’s (1969, 1976) predictions differ somewhat ﬁ'om
the predictions of EVT. Locke sees values as primary and expectations as inﬂuential only
if violated. Though Locke does not clearly discuss the relationship between expectations
and satisfaction outcomes, the implications of Locke’s discussion lead to a fourth
hypothesis. Locke’s (1969, 1976) central prediction is that values take precedence over
expectations; even if the expectation that a work value will not be attained is met, the
individual will be dissatisﬁed. Other research ﬁndings support Locke’s assertion. Though
the prepotency of expectations is stated in Burgoon and White (1997), Floyd and

Burgoon (1999) examine “how expectations and desires combine to form the (interaction

24

position) when they are incongruent” (p. 222). Their results found values to be a more
important determinant of outcomes than expectations. Other ﬁndings support the primary
importance of value fulﬁllment over met expectations. Cherry et al. (2003) note that
outcomes will be “determined through a value-matching proposition whereby if outcomes
match what you value (not what you expected), you will be satisﬁed” (p. 379).
“Employees whose values are subsequently attained on a job should be relatively
satisﬁed with the job regardless of whether they had accurately expected that their values
would be attained” (Greenhaus et al., 1983, p. 396). Thus, if work values exert a greater
inﬂuence: V
Hypothesis 4: For participant-rated important work values, individuals who
expect to attain a particular work value and have that expectation met on the job
(condition 1) will report the highest levels of organizational communication
satisfaction; individuals who expect not to attain a particular work value and have
that expectation unmet on the job (condition 4) will report higher levels of
organizational communication satisfaction than those who expect not to attain a
particular work value and have that expectation met (condition 3); individuals
who expect to attain a particular work value and have that expectation unmet on
the job (condition 2) will report the lowest levels of organizational
communication satisfaction.
To summarize, these competing hypotheses can be viewed in relation to one
another (see Table 4). According to IAT, expectations will play a role in determining
satisfaction (Hypothesis 1). Therefore, when incongruence exists (as in conditions 3 and

4), individuals whose expectations are met will be happier than individuals whose work

25

values are fulﬁlled, as expectations will be prepotent in a work situation. Comparable to
IAT (Hypothesis 1), the met expectations hypothesis (Hypothesis 3) predicts that
participants whose expectations are met will be more satisﬁed than those whose
expectations are unmet. IAT differs from EVT and the met expectations hypothesis in
that IAT proposes that a state of congruence (like that experienced in condition 1) will be
more satisfying than a state of incongruence (as would exist in conditions 3 and 4). The
met expectations hypothesis predicts that an individual whose expectations are met
(conditions 1, 3) will always be more satisﬁed than one whose expectations are unmet
(conditions 2, 4). However, when one’s expectations are unmet, the met expectations
hypothesis predicts that the importance of the work value to which the expectation
pertains will determine one’s satisfaction level. EVT (Hypothesis 2) also predicts that
those whose expectations are met will be equally satisﬁed. However, if expectations are
violated, EVT predicts that those negative or positive surprises will be felt more strongly
than the status quo of met expectations. Thus, those whose expectations are positively
violated (or exceeded) will be most satisﬁed. Contrary to IAT, EVT, and the met
expectations hypothesis, researchers considering the impact of work values on
satisfaction assert that work values will play the primary role (Hypothesis 4). Therefore,

when an individual’s work values are attained, one will be most satisﬁed.

 

 

 

Table 4
Summary of Competing Hypotheses Organized by Theon
IAT EVT ME Values
Hypothesis Research
Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 2 Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 4
Levels of
Organizational
Communication 1>3>4>2 4>1=3>2 l=3>4>2 1>4>3>2
Satisfaction by
Condition

 

26

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 200 undergraduate students enrolled at a large Midwestern
university who received class credit for their participation. Fifty participants were
randomly assigned to each of the four experimental conditions. Participants included 58
males (29%) and 142 females (71%). The average age of the participants was 21.50 with
SD = 2.45, ranging from 17 to 43. The majority of participants were Caucasian (81.5%).
Participants were predominantly seniors (59.5%) or juniors (38.5%); no ﬁrst-year
students were included in the sample.

All of the participants reported having previous work experience. The average
total work experience reported for participants was 63.58 months with SD = 36.95,
ranging from 2 to 360 months. Participants reported work experience in a variety of
ﬁelds, though the majority of participant experience was in food service/restaurant
(26.5%), professional or ofﬁce work environments (19%), or retail/sales (18%).
Additional participants reported the majority of their experience came from
administrative support positions (7%), factory or assembly line work (1 %), ﬁnance
(0.5%), healthcare (1.5%), management (4.5%), physical labor (4.5%), public service
(7.5%), technology (2%), or other ﬁelds (8%). Most participants reported that the bulk of
their work experience was in entry-level positions (68.8%).

The majority of participants (61.5%) were currently employed and reported
working in their current workplace for an average of 22.13 months with SD = 22.20,
ranging from 1 to 120 months. In their current jobs, participants reported working an

average of 17.89 hours per week with SD = 7.37, ranging from 4 to 40 hours per week.

27

The majority reported current employment in food service/restaurant positions (25.6%),
professional or ofﬁce work (17.8%), retail/sales (12.4%), other (11.6%), or public service
(10.1%). Additional participants reported their current work was in administrative
support positions (7.8%), ﬁnance (.8%), healthcare (3.1%), management (3.1%), physical
labor (5.4%), or technology (1.6%).
Procedure

Participants signed up to attend scheduled laboratory sessions. The experimenters
greeted participants as they arrived at the laboratory and distributed informed consent
forms. The informed consent forms explained to participants that the purpose of the study
was to understand how they would react to particular aspects of jobs they might accept
after earning their degrees. Participants were given ample time to read and ask questions
about the nature of the study before signing and returning the forms to the experimenters.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions: (1)
expectation met/important value fulﬁlled; (2) expectation unmet/important value
unfulﬁlled; (3) expectation met/important value unfulﬁlled; (4) expectation unmet/
important value fulﬁlled. As the ﬁrst step in the experiment, participants completed a
work values ranking. The same 12 categories were used across all materials to measure
expectations about work value attainment (see Table 5). According to the met
expectations hypothesis (Porter & Steers, 1973) and to Locke (1976), the higher the
valence placed on a particular expectation or work value set, the greater the effect of that
work value’s attainment on outcome variables. Thus, the experimental materials received

by participants focused on each participant’s self-indicated most important work value.

28

Table 5

Expectations about Work Values

company policies and practices
working conditions

supportive supervisor
coworkers

job security

Organizational
Factors

 

opportunity for advancement
job content
responsibility

Role Factors independence
fair pay / compensation
recognition
accomplishment

Participants’ expectations were then set through written materials (see Appendix
A) designed to set the expectation that their most important work value would be attained
(conditions 1 and 2) or unattained (conditions 3 and 4). A manipulation check was then
conducted to determine participants’ expectations about attaining their work values in the
hypothetical job. Based on their condition, participants then received a description (see
Appendix B) of their impressions of the job after an amount of tenure. A second
manipulation check was then conducted to determine whether participants found their
expectations about fulﬁlling their work value of focus to be met or unmet in their
hypothetical job. The Minnesota Importance Questionnaire, or MIQ, (Weiss et al., 1966)
provided the basis for both sets of manipulation materials and for both manipulation
checks. As a ﬁnal step, participants completed a measure of anticipated organizational
communication satisfaction using an abbreviated version of the Communication
Satisfaction Questionnaire, or CSQ (Downs & Hazen, 1977). After completing the

experimental procedures, participants were debriefed.

29

Materials ‘

Work values. Based on the work values and expectation sets discussed in the
literature (see Table 2), a common list of 12 work values was distilled (see Table 5). The
measure consisted of a forced ranking of these work values (see Appendix C). The
experimental materials received by participants throughout the experiment matched the
work value ranked as most important on this questionnaire by each participant. Each of
the twelve work values was ranked as most important by at least one participant. Many
participants selected job content as most important (36%), while others selected fair
pay/compensation (16%), job security (12%), opportunity for advancement (10%), good
working conditions (6%), accomplishment (5.5%), friendly coworkers (4.5%), company
policies and practices (2.5%), independence (2.5%), supportive supervisor (2%),
recognition (1.5%), and responsibility (1.5%).1

Manipulation checks. In order to measure the effectiveness of the experimental
inductions, experimental manipulations were measured using items created by the
researcher. To create these items, the researcher used the MIQ (Weiss et al., 1966) to
identify phrases that reﬂected the content of the twelve work values. The MIQ was
selected due to the comprehensive list of work values, which facilitated ﬁnding items that
matched the intended work values. Manipulation checks were conducted twice; the ﬁrst
check occurred after participants received information about what to expect. The ﬁrst

check determined whether participants expected that their work value of focus would be

attained or unattained. Four items comprised the ﬁrst manipulation check scale (see

 

‘ To test the possibility that participants’ responses to the four experimental conditions varied with value
type, the means of manipulation check items and organizational communication satisfaction for the four
conditions were examined for each value. Overall, there were no noticeably different patterns across
different value types. Thus, all data were analyzed together.

30

Appendix D). For example, the manipulation check for the work value of company
policies and procedures included the items: “I anticipate that the company will administer
its policies fairly;” “I expect that the company will administer its policies fairly;” “I think
it is likely that the company will administer its policies fairly;” and “I assume that the
company will administer its policies fairly.” The scale reliability of the manipulation
check was .99. Conﬁrmatory factor analysis (CFA) conducted using Hunter and
Hamilton’s (1987) PACKAGE, Version 2.0, which calculates factor loadings based on a
centroid solution, showed an acceptable ﬁt for a unidimensional solution for the scale.
The mean response in the expect to attain condition (M = 6.44, SD = 0.84) was
signiﬁcantly higher than the mean response in the expect not to attain condition (M =
1.96, so = 1.26), t(196) = 29.33, p < .001, 112 =81. This independent samples t-test
supports that the ﬁrst manipulation was successful.

The second manipulation check occurred after participants received information
about their job experiences after some tenure. The second check determined whether
participants found their expectations met or unmet and, thus, their work value of focus
fulﬁlled or unfulﬁlled. Four items comprised the manipulation check scale (see Appendix
E). For example, the manipulation check for the work value of company policies and
procedures included the items: “I think that the company’s policies are fairly
administered;” “While working at the job, I have found that the company administered its
policies fairly;” “The company administers its policies fairly;” and “I feel that the
company’s policies are fairly administered.” The scale reliability of the manipulation
check was .995. CF A showed an acceptable ﬁt for a unidimensional solution for the

scale. If the manipulation were successful, the mean responses of those in conditions 1

31

and 2, those in conditions 3 and 4, those in conditions 1 and 3, and those in conditions 2
and 4 should all signiﬁcantly differ from each other. Additionally, if the manipulation
were successful, the mean responses of those in conditions 2 and 3 should not
signiﬁcantly differ, nor should mean response of those in conditions 1 and 4. Post-hoe
comparisons using Scheffé’s procedure (p < .05) indicted that the mean responses for
those in conditions 2 (M = 1.75, SD = 0.98) and 3 (M = 1.56, SD = 0.96) did not
signiﬁcantly differ from each other. Mean responses in conditions 2 and 3 were
signiﬁcantly lower than those in conditions 1 (M = 6.53, SD = 0.94) and 4 (M = 6.35, SD
= 0.89), and mean responses in conditions 1 and 4 did not signiﬁcantly differ from each
other. TheSe comparisons support that the second manipulation was also successful.

By examining participants’ perceptions of whether the work value of interest was
fulﬁlled or unfulﬁlled, the second manipulation check determined whether participants
found their expectations about work value attainment to be met or unmet. That is, based
on the ﬁrst manipulation, participants developed expectations that they would either
attain or not attain a particular work value. In the second manipulation, participants
learned whether the work value of interest was fulﬁlled or unfulﬁlled. For participants
who expected to attain a work value, the work value could be fulﬁlled, thus resulting in
met expectations for work value attainment (condition 1); or the work value could be
unfulﬁlled, thus resulting in unmet expectations for work value attainment (condition 2).
For participants who expected not to attain a work value, the work value could be
unfulﬁlled, thus resulting in met expectations for non-attainment of that work value
(condition 3); or the work value could be fulﬁlled, thus resulting in unmet expectations

for non-attainment of that work value (condition 4).

32

Organizational communication satisfaction. Organizational communication

. satisfaction was measured based on an abbreviated version of the Communication
Satisfaction Questionnaire, or CSQ, (Downs & Hazen, 1977). Due to the nature of the
experiment, items from the “Supervisor Communication” portion of the scale were not
included. The CSQ was chosen because the scale uniquely offers a general organizational
perspective on communication (Greenbaum, Clampitt, & Willhnganz, 1988). Though a
multifactor solution has been indicated in previously conducted principal components
analyses (e.g., Clampitt & Downs, 1993; Crino & White, 1981; Downs & Hazen), factor
analysis is a more appropriate way to reveal latent constructs (Park, Dailey, & Lemus,
2002). Dirnensionality has not been tested using CF A. High internal consistency for items
both within factors and between factors (Crino & White), as well as concurrent validity
when compared to separate constructs (Downs, 1994), such as job satisfaction (Pincus,
1986) and productivity (Clampitt & Downs), suggested that testing for unidimensionality
was warranted.

Preliminary data collected from 539 undergraduate students at a large Midwestern
university showed support for a unidimensional factor structure. For 25 items of CSQ
(see Appendix F), CFA showed a good ﬁt for unidimensionality (NF I [Normed Fit Index]
= .91, CFI [Comparative Fit Index] = .93, GFI [Goodness of Fit Index] = .88, AGFI
[Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index] = .86). Factor structure was tested a second time with
the data gathered in this experiment. Again, CFA results supported a unidimensional
factor structure for the 25 item version of the CSQ. A principal axis factor analysis with
no rotation showed that 67.82% of the variance was explained by a one-factor solution.

An additional CFA conducted using Hunter and Hamilton’s (1987) PACKAGE, Version

33

2.0 showed an acceptable ﬁt for a unidimensional solution for the scale with only one
residual falling outside of the 95% conﬁdence interval. Thus, data were analyzed treating

CSQ as a single factor. The scale reliability was .98.

34

RESULTS

Hypothesis Testing

Overview. Four competing hypotheses were advanced concerning the impact of
expectations about work values on organizational communication satisfaction. Before
each hypothesis was speciﬁcally examined, a one-way analysis of variance (an omnibus
ANOVA) testing the differences across experimental conditions was conducted.2 The
result showed a signiﬁcant main effect for experimental condition, F (3, 196) = 39.56, p <
.001 , (02 = .37, indicating that the experimental conditions affected organizational
communication satisfaction ratings differently. Each of the four hypotheses can be
expressed with speciﬁc planned comparisons among the experimental conditions. A
contrast analysis, with a set of coefﬁcients reﬂecting the hypothesized differences among
the four conditions, was therefore conducted for each hypothesis (see Table 6). Effect
sizes for the contrasts were calculated following Keppel and Wickens (2004) formula for
the estimation of population effect size, 002. The results for each contrast are shown in
Table 7.

Table 6
Contrast Coeﬂicients by Condition for One-Wﬁz Analyses of Variance

 

Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3 Condition 4

 

 

 

 

 

Hypothesis 1 2 -2 1 -1
Hypothesis 2 1 -4 1 2
Hypothesis 3 2 -5 2 1
Hypothesis 4 2 -2 —1 1
Post Hoc Contrast 1 -1 -1 1

 

Hypothesis 1. Based on IAT, it was predicted that individuals who expected to

attain a particular work value and had that expectation met on the job (condition 1) would

 

2 When demographic variables such as sex, age, education level, and work experience were included in the
analysis, none of them had signiﬁcant main or interaction effects. Thus, these variables are not discussed.

35

report the highest levels of organizational communication satisfaction, followed by
individuals who expected not to attain a particular work value and had that expectation
met on the job (condition 3), those who expected not to attain a particular work value and
had that expectation unmet (condition 4), and individuals who expected to attain a
particular work value and had that expectation unmet on the job (condition 2). A contrast
was performed to test Hypothesis 1 using contrast coefﬁcients (see Table 6). The result
showed a signiﬁcant effect for this comparison, F(1, 196) = 7.58, p < .01, (1)2 = .02.
Hypothesis 2. Based on EVT, it was predicted that individuals who expected not
to attain a particular work value and had that expectation rmmet (condition 4) would
report highest levels of organizational communication satisfaction, followed by those
whose expectations were met (conditions 1, 3), and by individuals who expected to attain
a particular work value and had that expectation unmet on the job (condition 2). A
contrast was performed to test Hypothesis 2 using contrast coefﬁcients (see Table 6). The

result showed a signiﬁcant effect for this comparison, F (1, 196) = 41.95, p < .001, (1)2 =

 

 

 

 

 

 

.13.

Table 7

Contrast Tests for Competing Hypotheses and Post Hoc Analysis

F (02 df Sig.
Hypothesis 1 7.58 .02 1, 196 p < .01
Hypothesis 2 41.95 .13 1, 196 p < .001
Hypothesis 3 24.63 .07 1, 196 p < .001
Hypothesis 4 101.63 .32 l, 196 p < .001
Post Hoc Analysis 118.07 .37 l, 196 p < .001

 

Hypothesis 3. Based on the met expectations hypothesis, it was predicted that
individuals whose expectations were met (conditions 1, 3) would report the highest levels
of organizational communication satisfaction, followed by those who expected not to

attain a particular work value and had that expectation unmet (condition 4), and by

36

individuals who expected to attain a particular work value and had that expectation unmet
on the job (condition 2). A contrast was performed to test Hypothesis 3 using contrast
coefﬁcients (see Table 6). The result showed a signiﬁcant effect for this comparison, F (1,
196) = 24.63, p < .001, 002 = .07.

Hypothesis 4. Finally, based on values research, it was predicted that individuals
who expected to attain a particular work value and had that expectation met on the job
(condition I) would report the highest levels of organizational communication
satisfaction, followed by individuals who expected not to attain a particular work value
and had that expectation unmet on the job (condition 4), those who expected not to attain
a particular work value and had that expectation met (condition 3), and by individuals
who expected to attain a particular work value and had that expectation unmet on the job
(condition 2). A contrast was performed to test Hypothesis 4 using contrast coefﬁcients
(see Table 6). The result showed a signiﬁcant effect for this comparison, F (l, 196) =
101.63, p < .001, m2 = .32.

Additional Analysis

Based on the pattern of results shown in a means plot of the four experimental
conditions (see Figure 1), an additional set of contrast coefﬁcients (see Table 6) was
designed to test whether simply fulﬁlling a work value, regardless of expectation, would
result in higher levels of organizational communication satisfaction than not fulﬁlling a
work value. This contrast provided a more general test of hypothesis 4. The result of the

contrast showed a signiﬁcant effect, F(1, 196) = 118.07, p < .001, 002 = .37.

37

Figure I.
Mean Organizational Communication Satisfaction Score by Experimental Condition

74
6-1
5-1
2“
8"
2.1
l-
0-

can

 

 

Condtlon

Condition 1 (M = 5.04 3, SD = 1.00)
Condition 2 (M = 3.54 1,, SD = 0.93)
Condition 3 (M = 3.40 1,, SD = 1.29)
Condition 4 (M = 5.11 ,, SD = 0.92)
The means with different subscripts differ signiﬁcantly at p < .05, according to post hoc
comparisons using Scheffé’s procedure.
Comparisons of Competing Hypotheses

Though each contrast revealed seemingly different explained variance in
organizational communication satisfaction (ranging from .02 to .37), whether the certain
sets of contrast coefﬁcients explained signiﬁcantly more variance than others was
undetermined. Rosenthal, Rosnow, and Rubin’s (2000) procedure for examining the
difference between contrasts was employed. An overview of the results can be seen in
Table 8. Comparisons were made in which the set of contrasts coefﬁcients for each
hypothesis was compared with the set of contrast coefﬁcients for each competing
hypothesis. The ﬁrst step in this process is to divide each contrast by the standard
deviation of its weight, which prevents the differing variances of the weights from

affecting the results. The next step is to subtract one set of standardized coefﬁcients from

the standardized set to which it is being compared. A new set of contrast coefﬁcients is

38

thus obtained that can be used to test the difference between the two contrasts. These

comparisons of contrasts were analyzed for statically signiﬁcant difference. To protect

against Type I error due to the number of tests performed, Bonferroni procedure was

used; therefore, a was set at .005.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 8
Significance Tests for Predictive Power of Competing Hypotheses
Contrast Coefﬁcients
1 2 3 4 F Sig.

H1 vs. H2 0.84 0.43 0.21 -1.48 17.43 p < .001
H1 vs. H3 0.58 0.44 -0.06 -O.96 12.35 p = .001
H1 vs. H4 0 0 1.26 -1.26 67.13 p < .001
H2 vs. H3 -0.26 0.01 -0.26 0.51 23.16 p < .001
H2 vs. H4 -0.84 -O.43 1.06 0.21 26.13 p < .001
H3 vs. H4 -0.58 -0.44 1.32 -0.30 45.44 p < .001
H1 vs. H5 0.27 -0.27 1.63 -1.63 47.75 p < .001
H2 vs. H5 ~0.57 -0.70 1.43 -0.16 27.34 p < .001
H3 vs. H5 -O.31 -0.71 1.69 -0.67 36.31 p < .001
H4 vs. H5 0.27 -0.27 0.37 -0.37 5.71 p = .018*

 

* To protect against Type I error due to the number of tests performed, Bonferroni
procedure was used, or = .005.

As the results shown in Table 8 indicate, each hypothesis offered statistically

signiﬁcant difference in predictive power. In other words, Hypothesis 4 provided a
signiﬁcantly more accurate prediction of the results than did the other three hypotheses.
That is, though the other three hypotheses were statistically signiﬁcant, the (.02 = .32
found using the contrasts implied by Hypothesis 4 matched the pattern of data
signiﬁcantly better than the other contrasts. The additional comparison performed to
alternately test the predictions of values research, which resulted in (1)2 = .3 7, did not
signiﬁcantly differ from Hypothesis 4. This ﬁnding further supports that the ﬁrlﬁllment
of work values, in either variation of analysis, provided the best predictor of the results.

Additionally, Hypothesis 2 was a signiﬁcantly better predictor than Hypothesis 1.

39

Hypothesis 3 explained signiﬁcantly more variance than did Hypothesis 1, but
signiﬁcantly less than Hypothesis 2. All differences in accuracy of predictive power for
the hypotheses were signiﬁcant; there was no statistically signiﬁcant difference between

Hypothesis 4 and the additional analysis performed.

40

DISCUSSION

Overview

To summarize, the data were consistent with all four hypotheses, but the relative
strength of each prediction differed signiﬁcantly. First, the implications of the ﬁndings
for each hypothesis and the related theory and research will be explored. Second, the
implications of these results for the met expectations hypothesis, for organizational
communication satisfaction research, and for organizations are addressed. Third, the
limitations of this study are addressed. Finally, suggestions for future research are
discussed.
Summary of Findings

The results of this study show that whether an individual’s expectations were met
or unmet did not affect subsequent levels of organizational communication satisfaction;
what was important to participants was whether their work values were fulﬁlled and that
they ultimately attained what was important to them. Work value fulﬁllment provided
signiﬁcant predictive power for organizational communication satisfaction ratings. These
ﬁndings suggest that whether work values are fulﬁlled in a job can inﬂuence perceptions
of organizational communication satisfaction. In additional to actual communication
within an organization, individual preferences unique to an employee seemingly
unrelated to the organization’s communication may also inﬂuence evaluations of
satisfaction with organizational communication. The implication of this ﬁnding is that in
order to maximize organizational communication satisfaction employers need to be
concerned with factors in addition to the communication systems, patterns, and

procedures present in the organization. These ﬁndings suggest that individual difference

41

factors may also affect the ways that individuals interpret and react to communication
within an organization.
Similarities among Competing Hypotheses

Though Hypothesis 4 provided signiﬁcantly more accuracy in prediction than the
other three hypotheses, the results of contrasts testing all four hypotheses were
statistically signiﬁcant. This ﬁnding suggests that, though the predictions of values
research better explained the variance in this data, all four hypotheses provided some
predictive utility. All four hypotheses do have a commonality. The signiﬁcant ﬁndings
could be attributable to the fact that all four predict that those in condition 4 will be more
satisﬁed with organizational communication than those in condition 2. This prediction
clearly matches the pattern of results shown in Figure 1, results that may be powerful
enough to drive a signiﬁcant result to all four sets of contrasts. Although this explanation
is speculative, it intuitively makes sense and matches the pattern of predictions made in
all four hypotheses as well as the pattern seen in the results. This similarity may explain
the signiﬁcance of all four hypotheses and has implications for the future of this area of
research that will be discussed later in this paper.

Though the results of contrasts testing all four hypotheses were signiﬁcant,
Hypotheses 1 (IAT), 2 (EVT), and 3 (met expectations hypothesis) had signiﬁcantly
lower predictive power than Hypothesis 4 (values). Additionally, the pattern of results
shown in Figure 1 suggests that Hypothesis 4 best predicted the results of this study. The
central prediction of IAT, EVT, and the met expectations hypothesis, that those in
conditions 1 and 3 would report similar (Hypothesis 1) or equal (Hypotheses 2 and 3)

levels of organizational communication satisfaction, does not match the overall pattern of

42

results displayed in Figure 1. Post hoc comparisons showed that the mean level of
organizational communication satisfaction reported by participants in condition 1 was
signiﬁcantly higher than the mean level of organizational communication satisfaction
reported by participants in condition 3. The predictions of Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are
contrary to the central ﬁnding of this experiment - that whether a work value is fulﬁlled
affects perceptions of organizational communication satisfaction.
Consideration of Each Competing Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1 . Hypothesis 1, or the IAT hypothesis, predicted that those who
experienced the congruency of having their expectations met and work values fulﬁlled
would be most satisﬁed with organizational communication, followed by those whose
expectations were met, yet their work values unfulﬁlled; those whose expectations were
unmet, but their work values fulﬁlled; and those whose expectations were unmet and
their work values unfulﬁlled. This prediction did not entirely match the pattern of results
found in this study. Of course, IAT was not originally intended to predict affective
responses to work situations. The original speciﬁcations of the theory limit it to
nonverbal cues in interpersonal communication. IAT predicts that congruent states (i.e.,
situations in which requirement, expectations, and desires match) will be more satisfying
than incongruent states, in general. If congruency is not achieved, the three will act
hierarchically, with the need to meet one’s expectations prepontent to the need to fulﬁll
one’s desires (or work values). Due to its consideration of relevant constructs (e.g.,
expectations and desires) and the lack of a strong theoretical grounding in met
expectations research, IAT’s boundary conditions were expanded to apply it to work

situations.

43

Despite its promise to add to this area of research, the theory did not provide the
strongest prediction of participant reactions in work-related scenarios. This result is not
problematic for the theory; more likely it indicates that the theory’s boundary conditions
might not extend to predict reactions to work experiences. Though the formal statement
of IAT led to this prediction, more recent research (Floyd & Burgoon, 1999) found that
what are here referred to as work values exerted more inﬂuence than did expectations.
That ﬁnding seems similar to the ﬁndings of the present study. Floyd and Burgoon
suggest that IAT allows for such a prediction, and perhaps future iterations of the theory
will provide better predictive power for this area of research. This possibility presents an
exciting opportunity for communication theory to inform research in other disciplines and
will be discussed later in this paper. The theory seems to be evolving in a direction that
suggests it should not be discounted in future expectations about work values research.

Hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2, or the EVT hypothesis, predicted that those whose
expectations were exceeded would be most satisﬁed with organizational communication,
followed by those whose expectations were met, with those whose expectations were
undennet reporting the lowest levels of organizational communication satisfaction. The
experiment results matched the pattern predicted by EVT but not the spirit of its
predictions. As with IAT and the met expectations hypothesis, EVT predicts that those
whose expectations are met will report similar levels of organizational communication
satisfaction - a prediction that clearly does not match the pattern of results found here.
Unlike IAT and the met expectations hypothesis, EVT predicts that those whose
expectations are violated will experience arousal. This arousal results in the consideration

of whether expectations are positively or negatively violated. Compared to those who are

44

not aroused (conditions 1 and 3), those whose expectations are exceeded (condition 4)
should experience higher levels of organizational communication satisfaction, whereas
those whose expectations are underrnet (condition 2) should experience lower levels of
organizational communication satisfaction. However, those in conditions 1 and 3 did not
experience similar levels of organizational communication satisfaction.

As with IAT, EVT was developed to predict reactions to nonverbal cues in
interpersonal conversation, not with the intention of predicting affective responses to
work situations. The theory was adopted in this research to provide theoretical grounding
for expectations research. The lack of support for the predictions made by EVT here does
not suggest a failing of the theory; it merely indicates that EVT in its current form
perhaps cannot be extended to predict organizational communication satisfaction. Thus,
EVT may need to be modiﬁed before it can be applied to organizational communication
research.

Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 3, or the met expectations hypothesis, was similar to the
predictions made by IAT. However, the assertions of the met expectations hypothesis
were less nuanced, predicting that those whose expectations were met would be most
satisﬁed, regardless of whether their work values were fulﬁlled. The results of the present
study seem to contradict the predictions of the met expectations hypothesis. Though
research directly testing the met expectations hypothesis has dropped off in recent years,
this drop in research is likely due more to methodological issues regarding the use of
difference scores than to issues with the predictions of the hypothesis itself. As noted
previously, the met expectations hypothesis has intuitive appeal, is generally accepted,

and may have led, at least in part, to current research on realistic job previews (Wanous et

45

al., 1992). Indeed, the results of the present study seem to contradict a meta-analysis
showing overall support for the met expectations hypothesis (Wanous et al.). There may
be several reasons for these disparate ﬁndings.

Perhaps these different results are attributable to the different methodology
employed in this study. Typically, research on the met expectations hypothesis ﬁrst
measures job candidate expectations prior to starting a job (which may or may not be
adjusted through the use of realistic job previews) and then measures their experiences
after some tenure on the job. This design results in two issues. First, the prototypical
methodology of met expectations research risks confounding expectations and work
values. Most previous met expectations research does not clearly distinguish between
expectations and work values. Expectations are often referenced generally and
confounded with work values, as previously discussed. Many studies have tested
expectations without regard to what work values those expectations may pertain or with
single-item measures. This issue is related to the second issue, as isolating work values
and expectations is difﬁcult in ﬁeld research.

The second issue may be of greater relevance to the results of this study. The
results of at least one study (Meglino, Denisi, & Ravlin, 1993) suggest that job candidates
who learn that they can expect not to attain particular work values may decide not to
accept a particular position. This practice may cause a restriction in range that ultimately
supports the met expectations hypothesis because people who expect to have their work
values fulﬁlled are more likely to accept those jobs, and, upon ﬁnding those expectations
met and their work values ﬁrlﬁlled, they are more likely to respond positively to

measures of a number of outcome variables. In the terms used in this experiment, typical

46

met expectations research includes only those in conditions 1 and 2. Indeed, the results of
this study did show that those in condition 1 were signiﬁcantly more satisﬁed with
organizational communication than those in condition 2. In this way, the met expectations
hypothesis held true. The results found in conditions 1 and 2 were consistent with the met
expectations hypothesis and with previous research supporting it.

In contrast to previous research, this study employed a 2 x 2 experimental design
that allowed for the isolation of the effects of met and unmet expectations and ﬁrlﬁlled or
unfulﬁlled work values. In other words, this design allowed for the testing of two
additional conditions — 3 and 4. Since all participants “accepted” the job regardless of
whether they expected to attain their work values, there was no restriction in range. In
other words, this study was able to examine not only the effects on those in conditions 1
and 2, as previous research had done, but also the effects on those in conditions 3 and 4,
which were largely untested. The experimental method increased control and allowed the
testing of four competing predictions. Such a manipulation is difﬁcult to achieve in ﬁeld
research; thus, related to the ﬁrst issue discussed regarding previous research, these two
constructed have often not been isolated so that their effects can be tested separately.
With these controls in place, the results showed a lack of support for the met expectations
hypothesis. Of course, the use of a controlled laboratory-based experimental method has
certain disadvantages that will be addressed later. Overall, however, the use of a
controlled experiment in this case addressed confounds that plagued previous research.

Aside from these methodological differences, these ﬁndings that do not seem to
ﬁrlly support the met expectations hypothesis may be due to the use of organizational

communication satisfaction as an outcome variable, rather than the outcome variables

47

previously studied in met expectations research (e.g., job satisfaction). This explanation
seems unlikely as previous research (e.g., Downs et al., 1988) has shown job satisfaction
and organizational communication satisfaction to be signiﬁcantly related, but perhaps
something about expectations and work values attenuates this relationship, explaining
these results that are not fully supportive of the met expectations hypothesis. Though
these explanations seem unlikely, other factors may have also contributed to the results
found here. Ultimately, the overall ﬁndings of this study do not support the predictions
made by the met expectations hypothesis, though its predictions hold true for conditions 1
and 2.

Hypothesis 4. Finally, Hypothesis 4, driven by values research, most closely
matched the ﬁndings of this study. Based on values research, it was predicted that those
who expected to attain what they valued and fulﬁlled their work values would report the
highest levels of organizational communication satisfaction, followed by those who did
not expect to attain what they valued but did, those who did not expect to attain what they
valued and had that expectation met, and those who expected to attain what they valued
and did not. Not only did this hypothesis account for a signiﬁcant portion of the variance,
but the sentiment behind it also best reﬂected the pattern of results shown in Figure 1.
Given that most research on work values does not directly address expectations in any
theoretical way, hypothesis 4 took the notions of pleasant and unpleasant surprise into
account and attempted to reﬂect the inﬂuence of both in its prediction. However, because
not all values research addresses the possible role of expectations, a second analysis was
also conducted. This research could be reﬂected in a slight variation on hypothesis 4,

namely that those who attained what they valued would report higher levels of

48

organizational communication satisfaction than those who did not. To test this
perspective, an additional set of contrast coefﬁcients was employed to test that more
general prediction. Again, the results showed strong support for this prediction. The
results of these two sets of comparisons did not differ signiﬁcantly; both ﬁndings had
signiﬁcant and sizable predictive power. Though the post hoc comparison is more
parsimonious, Hypothesis 4 is discussed here as the post hoc comparison may be sample
driven. Future research should compare Hypothesis 4 and the post hoc comparison to
determine whether one better describes the relationship between work values and
organizational communication satisfaction.

The central ﬁnding of this study was that participants who fulﬁlled their work
values in their experiences at work expressed greater satisfaction with organizational
communication than those who did not. This ﬁnding held regardless of whether an
employee had previous expectations of attaining what was valued or not. This result
corresponds with the ﬁndings of previous research on the ﬁrlﬁlhnent of work values (e.g.,
Erdogan et al., 2004; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1998; Irving & Meyer, 1994; Shapira &
Grifﬁth, 1990; Greenhaus et al., 1983). Though not all of these studies empirically
distinguish between expectations and work values, a confound noted previously, several
do. For example, Irving and Meyer compared met expectations and work experiences,
which are comparable to attained work values, in a longitudinal analysis with four
questionnaires completed across the ﬁrst year of employment. Their results showed
actual job experiences to be more strongly related to satisfaction outcomes than met
expectations. Greenhaus et al. found that value attainment accounted for considerably

more of the variance in satisfaction than did realistic expectations. Those ﬁndings are

49

comparable to the present ﬁndings, though the methodology employed in previous
research was not laboratory based. Thus, the present study provides evidence in support
of those previous results using a different methodology.

To summarize, the hypothesis that those who fulﬁlled their work values would
experience the highest levels of organizational communication satisfaction received
statistical support and matched the pattern of results shown in Figure 1. Through use of a
controlled laboratory experiment, the goal of this study was to distinguish between
expectations and work value attainment and determine whether either could inﬂuence
organizational communication satisfaction. Some of the deﬁnitional confusion noted by
Rynes (1990) may be at the root of the issues with values and met expectations research.
As Locke (1969) notes, “most people value only that which they have some reasonable
chance of attaining” (p. 320). The met expectations hypothesis has intuitive appeal
because it addresses the importance of what individuals expect at work. Perhaps “what
people expect from work” colloquially matches more closely with values research,
whereas “expectations” is limited to what is distinct and more malleable. Porter and
Steers (1973) may have intended their hypothesis to address the more colloquial sense, or
what is currently labeled as values research, in their formulation of the met expectations
hypothesis. However, most research on the met expectations hypothesis has focused on
“expectations” as something that can be changed. Unless otherwise manipulated by an
organization through realistic job previews or comparable methods, employees will likely
expect to attain their work values when starting a position. Ifwhat they experience on the
job matches their expectations and their work values are fulﬁlled, outcome variables of

interest will likely be inﬂuenced. Though, as Meyer et al. (1998) note, work values and

50

work experiences are distinct variables, the results of Meyer et al. and the current study
support that the experience of fulﬁlling a work value is more important than the meeting
of an expectation.

Implications

The results of this experiment suggest some rather straightforward applications.
Many of the theoretical applications were addressed previously. To reiterate, IAT and
EVT appear to have limited application to the ﬁeld of expectations about work values
research in their current forms. Neither hypothesis based on those nonverbal theories best
predicted the pattern of results shown here. The met expectations hypothesis, at least in
the form in which it has typically been studied, also was not the best predictor of the
pattern of results found here. Though a meta-analysis (Wanous et al., 1992) supported the
premises of the met expectations hypothesis, Irving and Meyer (1999, 1995, 1994) have
called the methodology of met expectations research into question. The premise of this
study was that work values and expectations are often confounded in research due to a
failure to explicate the two constructs as distinct. The results of this study provide
additional support to the body of research questioning the ﬁndings of met expectations
research.

Though IAT, EVT, or the met expectations hypothesis did not best explain the
variance in the data, certain components of all three may be combined with values
research to forge a new model of how expectations about work values may affect
organizational outcomes. As noted previously, research on work values is largely
atheoretical. Though IAT, EVT, or the met expectations hypothesis did not best predict

the results of this study, each was able to predict the pattern of results somewhat. All

51

three predicted that someone in condition 4 would be more satisﬁed than someone in
condition 2. Condition 4, where someone’s expectations are overmet, has not often been
tested in past research. However, being able to predict how someone in condition 4 may
react is important as it certainly seems plausible that one’s expectations may be overrnet
in some way when starting a job. This idea, labeled by Locke (1969) as “pleasant
surprise,” is an important notion and all three hypotheses were able to predict how
participant responses in that condition would compare to participant responses in
condition 2, or those experiencing “unpleasant surprise” (Locke). Though the original
statement of LAT proposed the prepotency of expectations, more recent research by Floyd
and Burgoon (1999) suggests that that prediction may be subject to some adjustment.
Additionally, the met expectations hypothesis did accurately predict the organizational
communication satisfaction of participants in conditions 1 and 2. Given these signiﬁcant
results, the possibility that these theories may be able to provide some grounding to
values research cannot be dismissed, despite their lower predictive power here. The
development of a new formal model that would take these theories and values research
into account should be considered. These ﬁndings pose an exciting opportunity for
communication theory to inform work often conducted in other disciplines.

Additionally, this study has implications for research involving the nature of
organizational communication satisfaction. Perhaps the conceptualization of
organizational communication satisfaction as an internal, affective state in reaction to the
organizational situation explains why work value attainment may affect ratings of it. If
the attainment of work values, in addition to patterns of communication within an

organization, can inﬂuence affective interpretations of organizational communication,

52

perhaps other individual difference factors may also inﬂuence organizational
communication satisfaction ratings. This ﬁnding opens new avenues of research on
organizational communication satisfaction.

Finally, there are some practical implications that arise based on the results of this
study and those with similar ﬁndings. The most important takeaways may be for
organizational hiring practices and for job seekers. If whether expectations are met or not
truly has less inﬂuence on work outcomes of interest, perhaps the focus of the
recruitment period should not be on appropriately setting expectations. Perhaps the focus
should be on using realistic job previews and other aspects of the hiring process to outline
the tasks and realities of particular positions in terms of relevant work values. That is,
organizations may be hiring for several positions that could differently meet the
important work values of each employee. Such differences in position could be
uncovered through thorough job analysis. For example, some positions may offer higher
pay, while others may offer a greater feeling of independence. Candidates should receive
assistance in exploring their work values, and then be given enough information to self-
select based on what the jobs for which they are qualiﬁed have to offer. That is, rather
than using elements of the recruitment process to appropriately lower expectations,
perhaps the process should include a screening of candidates based on their work values.
After successﬁrl recruitment, the focus should be on improving actual work experience,
as suggested by Meyer et al. (1998). By appropriately channeling qualiﬁed candidates
toward jobs that best match their work values of interest, organizations may improve their
retention levels. Conversely, these ﬁndings also suggest that job seekers should actively

explore their own work values to maximize satisfaction outcomes. As they search for

53

jobs, they should focus on uncovering whether their work values would be fulﬁlled
appropriately by a particular position. Of course, extended unemployment, high
unemployment rates, and other practical concerns would inﬂuence the extent to which
job seekers would focus on such characteristics, but the ﬁndings of this study suggest that
the potential effects of work value fulﬁllment warrant consideration by job seekers.
Limitations of Study

A more thorough consideration of some limitations in this study’s design is
warranted. The study’s methodology and sample are the most likely targets for criticism.
First, the use of an experimental design does not match previous research done in the
area. The use of hypothetical situations in a laboratory setting is admittedly not highly
realistic. Given the limited information they received, participants did not have the
opportunity to weigh other factors relevant to their hypothetical positions before rating
their level of anticipated organizational communication satisfaction. In these ways, the
artiﬁcial environment may have affected participant responses. Although such criticisms
are certainly valid, this design was intentionally employed to overcome some of the
limitations of previous research. Namely, creating four experimental conditions allowed
for the disentangling of the expectations and work values constructs. Often, the two were
confounded in previous research on the met expectations hypothesis. Here, information
was provided only to participants on what was most important to them because,
theoretically, this is the true domain of the met expectations hypothesis, a point noted by
Wanous et al. (1992). This design also eliminated other job factors as potential
confounds, allowing further isolation of the effects of expectations and work values on

organizational communication satisfaction. Finally, as methodology primarily of one type

54

had been employed across previous met expectations research, this design provided
method variance when considered in the larger research context. Because the results here
support work done previously with adults in work settings, at least some weight should
be given to this study as a replication despite this weakness.

The second weakness is the use of a college student sample. The results of this
study may differ from previous ﬁndings that supported the met expectations hypothesis
because of the different situations of the samples. Participants were not responding based
on their real, ﬁrll-time jobs, but instead read scenarios and completed questionnaires for
course credit. In addition, their previous work experience most likely comes ﬁom part-
time employment that differs both in substance and in importance from the careers they
will begin upon graduation. The use of a student sample was necessitated by the design
employed and, admittedly, these participants may differ from previous working adult
samples in important ways. However, every effort was made to limit the effect of this
weakness on the results. First, the majority of the students recruited were seniors. These
students were targeted with the hope that they were thinking more seriously about their
careers and how they would react to certain aspects of a job they might accept following
graduation, which loomed in two short months when the data were collected. As many of
them were likely searching for jobs, their work values may have been especially salient at
the time of data collection. Second, all participants had previous work experience and
over half were currently employed. Although part-time college employment is admittedly
different in several ways, participants had at least some exposure to the realities of work.
Again, the results of this experiment replicate those found in several previous studies.

Though there are weaknesses in this study, previous research suffered from different

55

weaknesses. The goal here was to attempt to balance out those weaknesses and test
different theoretical predictions to determine which ﬁndings could be replicated in a more
controlled environment.

Future Research

The ﬁndings of this study suggest several avenues for ﬁrrther research. First, a
new ﬁnding of this study is that individual difference factors, unrelated to organizational
practices, can inﬂuence affective judgments of organizational communication. Attempts
to replicate and extend these results should be undertaken. Such research should not only
explore the impact of individual work values and expectations, but also the role of other
individual differences such as personality traits and communication styles.

Second, several of the weaknesses in previous research that this study attempted
to overcome through use of experimental design could be resolved in ﬁeld research.
Namely, questionnaires could be designed more carefully. The measures used here were
highly reliable, reducing the potential for error. Additionally, the measures used here
were higher in content validity in that they differentiated between work values and
expectations. Questionnaires used in ﬁeld research could easily make these
improvements. Several concerns regarding measures addressed previously in this paper
could be easily remedied in ﬁeld research. For example, previous research often fails to
specify the content of expectations through use of general items such as, “All in all, have
you realized your expectations with regard to the profession?” (Arnold & F eldman,
1982). This problem is easily remedied through the use of more explicit and detailed
items. Such an expansion would also resolve another issue that has plagued met

expectations research — the use of single—item measures. Use of single-item measures

56

makes estimation of reliability and consideration of validity impossible. Measurement of
the importance of certain expectations of work values is also important, as most theories
specify that only what is most important to an employee will affect work outcomes of
interest.

Third, attempts to expand on the current study may be made. In the experimental
design used here, manipulation checks simply determined whether job scenarios had the
desired effects on participants in each condition. In future research, the discrepancy
between what was expected and what is valued would likely vary in magnitude. In other
words, an employee’s expectations or work values may be slightly or substantially
violated in actual work conditions. The magnitude of this discrepancy may inﬂuence
outcome variables of interest differently. In addition, this experiment focused on only one
work value of interest. In an actual work situation, multiple work values that might all
inﬂuence organizational communication satisfaction would be salient to an employee. An
employee’s proﬁle of work values could be measured and then tested for its effects on
organizational communication satisfaction looking at expectations about and fulﬁllment
of those work values. Or, rather than focusing solely on a most important work value or
all potential work values, future research could consider whether organizational
communication satisfaction and other outcomes of interest are affected differently by
work values of moderate or low importance to an employee.

Finally, if the met expectations hypothesis is, indeed, untenable, there is the need
to explain previous associations between expectations and outcome variables of interest
similar to organizational communication satisfaction. Though the issue of confounds has

been brought up several times in this paper, there are other potential explanations that

57

could be empirically considered. Perhaps people’s expectations shift as they begin work
and ﬁnd that their expectations do not match reality. Cognitive dissonance theory could
provide theoretical grounding to explore this possibility. That is, do employees
experience cognitive dissonance if their expectations are unmet? If so, do they actively
attempt to reduce that dissonance by reforming their expectations, allowing them to be
met? Using cognitive dissonance to inform predictions, this question could be resolved
by testing expectations before organizational entry, two weeks after entry, and again after
some tenure to determine whether expectations shift to resolve any feelings of cognitive
dissonance. Based on the conceptualization of expectations as more subject to change
than values, such a shift would be conceptually feasible. A second possibility is that an
association may exist that is not causal between expectations and outcome variables of
interest. The current study examined work values as the source of such a confound. Other
variables related to individuals or to the organization might offer better explanation.
Conclusion

In closing, the results of this experiment suggest that work value fulﬁllment
inﬂuences organizational communication satisfaction ratings. There are promising
implications for future research in this area, as all four hypotheses were supported by
signiﬁcance testing. The opportunity to integrate theory and research from
communication, psychology, and management offers promise for ﬁrture research on

expectations about work values.

58

APPENDICES

59

APPENDIX A
What to Expect

Note: Each version followed the same template, with the portion in quotations replaced to
manipulate a different value. One complete scenario is provided below, followed by the
value-speciﬁc content used for the other 23 scenarios.

Company Policies and Practices
(Conditions 1 and 2) You are about to start your new job as an Associate at WR, Inc. One
night, you meet Pat, who currently works as an Associate at WR, Inc. You ask Pat what
you can expect your job to be like. Pat replies:

“As far as what you can expect, you should expect to be treated fairly by the company.
The company has deﬁnite policies, but it administers them fairly and keeps employees
informed about its policies and practices. That’s pretty much what you can expect from
the job.”

Pat’s comments match what you already expect the job to be like based on the interview
process and your written job description.

(Conditions 3 and 4) “As far as what you can expect, you should not expect to be treated
fairly by the company. The company’s policies are unclear, and it does not administer
them fairly or keep employees informed about its policies and practices. That’s pretty
much what you can expect from the job.”

Supportive Supervisor

(Conditions 1 and 2) “As far as what you can expect, you should expect to have a
supportive supervisor. Most bosses are understanding and have good relationships with
their employees. Most managers will back you up and are really open to feedback. That’s
pretty much what you can expect from the job.”

(Conditions 3 and 4) “As far as what you can expect, you should not expect to have a
supportive supervisor. Most bosses are not very understanding and do not have good
relationships with their employees. Most managers will not back you up and are not open
to feedback. That’s pretty much what you can expect from the j ob.”

Job Security

(Conditions 1 and 2) “As far as what you can expect, you should expect to have steady
employment. Your job and your future will be really secure. The company has never had
any layoffs or transfers and probably never will. That’s pretty much what you can expect
from the job.”

(Conditions 3 and 4) “As far as what you can expect, you should not expect to have
steady employment. Neither your job nor your future will be really secure. The company
will be doing layoffs or transfers to another location soon. That’s pretty much what you
can expect from the jo .”

60

Good Working Conditions

(Conditions 1 and 2) “As far as what you can expect, you should expect to have good
working conditions. The physical conditions are safe and the work space is very pleasant
and nice. That’s pretty much what you can expect from the job.”

(Conditions 3 and 4) “As far as what you can expect, you should not expect to have good
working conditions. The physical conditions are very unsafe and the work space is
unpleasant and not nice at all. That’s pretty much what you can expect from the job.”

Friendly Coworkers

(Conditions 1 and 2) “As far as what you can expect, you should expect to have ﬁiendly
co-workers. There’s a real spirit of cooperation and everyone gets along. It’s easy to
develop close ﬁiendships. That’s pretty much what you can expect from the job.”
(Conditions 3 and 4) “As far as what you can expect, you should not expect to have
ﬁiendly co-workers. There’s no spirit of cooperation and nobody gets along. It’s not easy
to develop close friendships. That’s pretty much what you can expect from the job.”

Fair Pay/Compensation

(Conditions 1 and 2) “As far as what you can expect, you should expect to earn a salary
that matches the work you do. You will make just as much as you would in a similar job
at another company and you’ll make the same amount your ﬁiends make. That’s pretty
much what you can expect from the job.”

(Conditions 3 and 4) “As far as what you can expect, you should not expect to earn a
salary that matches the work you do. You won’t make as much as you would in a similar
job at another company and you won’t make the same amount your ﬁiends make. That’s
pretty much what you can expect from the job.”

Opportunity for Advancement

(Conditions 1 and 2) “As far as what you can expect, you should expect to have any
opportunities for advancement. There really are lots of chances to get ahead, so you often
hear about people being promoted out of the Associate position. That’s pretty much what
you can expect ﬁ'om the job.”

(Conditions 3 and 4) “As far as what you can expect, you should not expect to have any
opportunities for advancement. There really aren’t many chances to get ahead, so you
don’t really hear about people being promoted out of the Associate position. That’s pretty
much what you can expect from the job.”

Responsibility

(Conditions 1 and 2) “As far as what you can expect, you should expect to have a lot of
responsibility. You’ll be able to make decisions on your own and plan your own work.
You’ll be ﬂee to use your own judgment to make decisions. That’s pretty much what you
can expect from the job.”

(Conditions 3 and 4) “As far as what you can expect, you should not expect to have a lot
of responsibility. You won’t be able to make decisions on your own or plan your own
work. You won’t be free to use your own judgment to make decisions. That’s pretty
much what you can expect ﬁom the job.”

61

Recognition

(Conditions 1 and 2) “As far as what you can expect, you should expect to get
recognition for the work you do. People really notice when you do a good job and praise
you for it. You get full credit for your work. That’s pretty much what you can expect
from the job.”

(Conditions 3 and 4) “As far as what you can expect, you should not expect to get
recognition for the work you do. People never notice when you do a good job or praise
you for it. You never get credit for your work. That’s pretty much what you can expect
from the job.”

Job Content

(Conditions 1 and 2) “As far as what you can expect, you should expect to enjoy what
you do. You’ll really like performing the required tasks of your job. That’s pretty much
what you can expect from the job.”

(Conditions 3 and 4) “As far as what you can expect, you should not expect to enjoy what
you do. You won’t really like performing the required tasks of your job. That’s pretty
much what you can expect from the job.”

Independence

(Conditions 1 and 2) “As far as what you can expect, you should expect to work alone.
You work independently and you’re on your own most of the time. That’s pretty much
what you can expect from the job.”

(Conditions 3 and 4) “As far as what you can expect, you should not expect to work
alone. You won’t work independently and you won’t ever really be on your own. That’s
pretty much what you can expect from the job.”

Accomplishment

(Conditions 1 and 2) “As far as what you can expect, you should expect to have a feeling
of accomplishment. You’ll really be doing something worthwhile and you can see results.
You’ll really take pride in your work. That’s pretty much what you can expect from the
job.”

(Conditions 3 and 4) “As far as what you can expect, you should not expect to have a
feeling of accomplishment. You won’t be doing anything worthwhile and you can’t see
any results. You can’t really take pride in your work. That’s pretty much what you can
expect ﬁ'om the job.”

62

APPENDIX B
What the Job Is Really Like

Note: Each version followed the same template, with the portion in quotations replaced to
manipulate a different value. One complete scenario is provided below, followed by the
value-speciﬁc content used for the other 47 scenarios. There were four scenarios used for
each value — one to match each experimental condition.

Company Policies and Practices

(Condition 1) You’ve been in your job as an Associate at WR, Inc. for awhile now — long
enough to understand what the job is really like. You’re home for the holidays, and a
relative asks if the job is what you expected.

“It’s pretty much what I expected. I thought that I’d be treated fairly by the company, and
I really have been. The company has deﬁnite policies, but it administers them fairly and
keeps employees informed about its policies and practices.”

(Condition 2) “It’s different ﬁ'om what I expected. I thought that I’d be treated fairly by
the company, but I really haven’t been. The company’s policies are unclear, and it does
not administer them fairly or keep employees informed about its policies and practices.”
(Condition 3) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d be treated fairly by
the company, and I really haven’t been. The company’s policies are unclear, and it does
not administer them fairly or keep employees informed about its policies and practices.”
(Condition 4) “It’s different from what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d be treated fairly
by the company, but I really have been. The company has deﬁnite policies, but it
administers them fairly and keeps employees informed about its policies and practices.”

Supportive Supervisor

(Condition 1) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I thought that I’d have a supportive
supervisor, and my boss and I have a good relationship. My manager backs me up and is
very understanding and open to feedback.”

(Condition 2) “It’s different from what I expected. I thought that I’d have a supportive
supervisor, but my boss and I don’t have a good relationship. My manager never backs
me up and isn’t very understanding or open to feedback.”

(Condition 3) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d have a supportive
supervisor, and my boss and I don’t have a good relationship. My manager never backs
me up and isn’t very understanding or open to feedback.”

(Condition 4) “It’s different from what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d have a
supportive supervisor, but my boss and I have a good relationship. My manager backs me
up and is very understanding and open to feedback.”

63

 

Job Security

(Condition 1) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I thought that I’d have steady
employment, and my job and my future are really secure. The company has never had .
any layoffs or transfers and probably never will.”

(Condition 2) “It’s different from what I expected. I thought that I’d have steady
employment, but neither my job nor my future is really secure. The company will be
doing layoffs or transfers to another location soon.”

(Condition 3) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d have steady
employment, and neither my job nor my future is really secure. The company will be
doing layoffs or transfers to another location soon.”

(Condition 4) “It’s different from what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d have steady
employment, but my job and my future are really secure. The company has never had any
layoffs or transfers and probably never will.”

Good Working Conditions

(Condition 1) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I thought that I’d have good working
conditions, and I really do. The physical conditions are safe and the work space is very
pleasant and nice.”

(Condition 2) “It’s different from what I expected. I thought that I’d have good working
conditions, but I really don’t. The physical conditions are very unsafe and the work space
is unpleasant and not nice at all.”

(Condition 3) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d have good working
conditions, and I really don’t. The physical conditions are very unsafe and the work space
is unpleasant and not nice at all.”

(Condition 4) “It’s different from what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d have good
working conditions, but I really do. The physical conditions are safe and the work space
is very pleasant and nice.”

Friendly Coworkers

(Condition 1) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I thought that I’d have friendly co-
workers, and I really do. There’s a real spirit of cooperation and everyone gets along. I’m
developing some close ﬁiendships with them.”

(Condition 2) “It’s different from what I expected. I thought that I’d have friendly co-
workers, but I really don’t. There’s no spirit of cooperation and nobody gets along. I
don’t see myself becoming close ﬁiends with any of them.”

(Condition 3) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d have friendly co-
workers, and I really don’t. There’s no spirit of cooperation and nobody gets along. I
don’t see myself becoming close ﬁiends with any of them.”

(Condition 4) “It’s different from what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d have ﬁiendly co-
workers, but I really do. There’s a real spirit of cooperation and everyone gets along. I’m
developing some close friendships with them.”

64

 

Fair Pay/Compensation

(Condition 1) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I thought that I’d earn a salary that
matches the work I do, and I make just as much as I would in a similar job at another
company. My pay matches what my ﬁiends make.”

(Condition 2) “It’s different ﬁom what I expected. I thought that I’d earn a salary that
matches the work I do, but I don’t make as much as I would in a similar job at another
company. My pay does not match what my friends make.”

(Condition 3) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d earn a salary that
matches the work I do, and I don’t make as much as I would in a similar job at another
company. My pay does not match what my ﬁiends make.”

(Condition 4) “It’s different from what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d earn a salary that
matches the work I do, but I make just as much as I would in a similar job at another
company. My pay matches what my friends make.”

Opportunity for Advancement

(Condition 1) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I thought that there’d be opportunities
for advancement, and I really have lots of chances to get ahead. I hear that I’ll be up for a
promotion soon.”

(Condition 2) “It’s different from what I expected. I thought that there’d be opportunities
for advancement, but I really haven’t had lots of chances to get ahead. I won’t be up for a
promotion anytime soon.”

(Condition 3) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I didn’t think that there’d be many
opportunities for advancement, and I really haven’t had lots of chances to get ahead. I
won’t be up for a promotion anytime soon.”

(Condition 4) “It’s different from what I expected. I didn’t think that there’d be many
opportunities for advancement, but I really have lots of chances to get ahead. I hear that
I’ll be up for a promotion soon.”

Responsibility

(Condition 1) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I thought that I’d have a lot of
responsibility, and I really do. I’m able to make decisions on my own and plan my own
work. I’m free to use my judgment to make decisions.”

(Condition 2) “It’s different from what I expected. I thought that I’d have a lot of
responsibility, but I really don’t. I’m never able to make decisions on my own or plan my
own work. I’m not free to use my judgment to make decisions.”

(Condition 3) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d have a lot of
responsibility, and I really don’t. I’m never able to make decisions on my own or plan my
own work. I’m not free to use my judgment to make decisions.”

(Condition 4) “It’s different from what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d have a lot of
responsibility, but I really do. I’m able to make decisions on my own and plan my own
work. I’m free to use my judgment to make decisions.”

65

Recognition

(Condition 1) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I thought that I’d get recognition for the
work I do, and I really do. People really notice when I do a good job and praise me for it.
I get full credit for my wor .”

(Condition 2) “It’s different from what I expected. I thought that I’d get recognition for
the work I do, but I really don’t. People never notice when I do a good job or praise me
for my work. I never get credit for what I do.”

(Condition 3) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d get recognition for
the work I do, and I really don’t. People never notice when I do a good job or praise me
for my work. I never get credit for what I do.”

(Condition 4) “It’s different from what I expected. I didn’t think that that I’d get
recognition for the work I do, but I really do. People really notice when I do a good job
and praise me for it. I get full credit for my wor .”

Job Content

(Condition 1) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I thought that I’d enjoy what I do, and I
really do. I really like performing the required tasks of my job.”

(Condition 2) “It’s different from what I expected. I thought that I’d enjoy what I do, but
I really don’t. I don’t really like performing the required tasks of my job.”

(Condition 3) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d enjoy what I do,
and I really don’t. I don’t really like performing the required tasks of my job.”
(Condition 4) “It’s different ﬁ'om what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d enjoy what I do,
but I really do. I really like performing the required tasks of my job.”

Independence

(Condition 1) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I thought that I’d work alone, and I
really do. I work independently and I’m on my own most of the time.”

(Condition 2) “It’s different ﬁ'om what I expected. I thought that I thought that I’d work
alone, but I really don’t. I don’t work independently and I’m never really on my own.”
(Condition 3) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d work alone, and I
really don’t. I don’t work independently and I’m never really on my own.”

(Condition 4) “It’s different from what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d work alone, but I
really do. I work independently and I’m on my own most of the time.”

66

Accomplishment

(Condition 1) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I thought that I’d have a feeling of
accomplishment, and I really do. I’m really doing something worthwhile and I can see
results. I really take pride in my work.”

(Condition 2) “It’s different from what I expected. I thought that I’d have a feeling of
accomplishment, but I really don’t. I’m not doing anything worthwhile and I can’t see
any results. I really don’t take pride in my work.”

(Condition 3) “It’s pretty much what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d have a feeling of
accomplishment, and I really don’t. I’m not doing anything worthwhile and I can’t see
any results. I really don’t take pride in my wor .”

(Condition 4) “It’s different from what I expected. I didn’t think that I’d have a feeling of
accomplishment, but I really do. I’m really doing something worthwhile and I can see
results. I really take pride in my wor .”

67

APPENDIX C
Work Values Ranking

Think about the job you would most like to have after you’ve ﬁnished college. With that
job in mind, please rank the following job characteristics from the most important or the
ﬁrst thing you’ll look for (mark with “1”) to the least important or the last thing you’ll
look for (mark with “12”). Please use all numbers from 1 to 12; do not rank items as
equally important.

_(a)

____(b)

_(C)
____(d)

___(e)

_(0

(g)

 

Company policies and practices
Company has fair, clearly stated policies that are administered equally.

Supportive supervisor
Supervisor supports efforts of employees and demonstrates sound
management skills.

Job security
Company and job are stable; your employment is steady.

Good working conditions
Company provides a safe, pleasant physical working environment.

Friendly co-workers
Your co-workers are cooperative and easy to get along with.

Fair pay / compensation
Your wages match the work required of you are equal to what others in
similar jobs earn.

Opportunity for advancement
Your job offers chances to get ahead and earn promotions.

(h) Responsibility

Your job offers the ability to make decisions about your work.

(i) Recognition
Your work efforts and successes are noticed and rewarded.
(i) Job content
You enjoy performing the required tasks of your job.
(k) Independence
You have the ability to work on your own.
(1) Accomplishment
You see results from your work and feel good about what you do.
1 = MOST IMPORTANT 12 = LEAST IMPORTANT

68

APPENDIX D
Expectations Manipulation Check

The purpose of this questionnaire is to learn about your expectations regarding the job
described in the information you just read (i.e. “What to Expect”). When responding to
these questions, please consider what you expect the described job to be like. Keep
the described job in mind as you answer all the following questions.

Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement. Work as rapidly as you
can. Mark your response on your scantron sheet by ﬁlling in the circle matching your
choice beside the appropriate item number. Be sure to mark your ratings on your
scantron sheet and NOT on this questionnaire.

There are 48 questions in this section. When you have answered these questions, please
sit quietly and wait for the experimenter. If you have any questions about what to do,
please ask the experimenter.

Use the following scale when responding to the questions in this section:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disagree Disagree Disagree Indifferent Agree Agree Agree
strongly somewhat somewhat strongly

When responding to these questions, consider the job described in the information you
read. Keep that same job in mind as you answer all the following questions.

I anticipate that the company will administer its policies fairly.

I expect that the company will administer its policies fairly.

I think it is likely that the company will administer its policies fairly.
I assume that the company will administer its policies fairly.

I anticipate that my boss will support me.

I expect that my boss will support me.

I think it is likely that my boss will support me.

I assume that my boss will support me.

I anticipate that the job will provide for steady employment.

10. I expect that the job will provide for steady employment.

11. I think it is likely that the job will provide for steady employment.
12. I assume that the job will provide for steady employment.

13. I anticipate that the job will have good working conditions.

14. I expect that the job will have good working conditions.

15. I think it is likely that the job will have good working conditions.
16. I assume that the job will have good working conditions.

17. I anticipate that I will be ﬁiends with my coworkers.

18. I expect that I will be friends with my coworkers.

19. I think it is likely that I will be friends with my coworkers.

20. I assume that I will be friends with my coworkers.

21. I anticipate that my pay will compare well with that of other workers.
22. I expect that my pay will compare well with that of other workers.

wwﬂewewwr

69

23

24.

25
26

27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.

I think it is likely that my pay will compare well with that of other workers.
I assume that my pay will compare well with that of other workers.

I anticipate that the job will provide opportunity for advancement.

I expect that the job will provide opportunity for advancement.

I think it is likely that the job will provide opportunity for advancement.

I assume that the job will provide opportunity for advancement.

I anticipate that I will be able to make decisions on my own at work.

I expect that I will be able to make decisions on my own at work.

I think it is likely that I will be able to make decisions on my own at work.
I assume that I will be able to make decisions on my own at work.

I anticipate that I will get recognition for the work I do.

I expect that I will get recognition for the work I do.

I think it is likely that I will get recognition for the work I do.

I assume that I will get recognition for the work I do.

I anticipate that I will enjoy performing the essential functions of my job.

I expect that I will enjoy performing the essential functions of my job.

I think it is likely that I will enjoy performing the essential functions of my job.
I assume that I will enjoy performing the essential functions of my job.
I anticipate that I will work alone.

I expect that I will work alone.

I think it is likely that I will work alone.

I assume that I will work alone.

I anticipate that the job will give me a feeling of accomplishment.

I expect that the job will give me a feeling of accomplishment.

I think it is likely that the job will give me a feeling of accomplishment.
I assume that the job will give me a feeling of accomplishment.

70

APPENDIX E
Work Experiences Manipulation Check

The purpose of this questionnaire is to learn what you think this job would actually be
like based on the information you just read. When responding to these questions,
please consider only the job as described on the sheet titled “What the Job Is Really
Like.” Keep the described job in mind as you answer all the following questions.
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each statement. Work as rapidly as you
can. Mark your response on your scantron sheet by ﬁlling in the circle matching your
choice beside the appropriate item number. Be sure to mark your ratings on your
scantron sheet and NOT on this questionnaire.

There are 48 questions in this section. When you have answered these questions, please
sit quietly and wait for the experimenter. If you have any questions about what to do,
please ask the experimenter.

Use the following scale when responding to the questions in this section:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disagree Disagree Disagree Indifferent Agree Agree Agree
strongly somewhat somewhat strongly

When responding to these questions, consider the job described in the information you
read. Keep that same job in mind as you answer all the following questions.

49. I think that the company’s policies are fairly administered.

50. While working at the job, I have found that the company administered its policies
fairly.

51. The company administers its policies fairly.

52. I feel that the company’s policies are fairly administered.

53. I think that my boss supports me.

54. While working at the job, I have found that my boss supports me.

55. My boss supports me.

56. I feel that my boss supports me.

57. I think that the job provides for steady employment.

58. While working at the job, I have found that the job provides for steady employment.

59. The job provides for steady employment.

60. I feel that the job provides for steady employment.

61. I think that the job has good working conditions.

62. While working at the job, I have found that the job has good working conditions.

63. The job has good working conditions.

64. I feel that the job has good working conditions.

65. I think that I am ﬁiends with my coworkers.

66. While working at the job, I have found that I am friends with my coworkers.

67. I am ﬁiends with my coworkers.

68. I feel that I am friends with my coworkers.

69. I think that my pay compares well with that of other workers.

71

70.

71.
72.
73.
74.

75.
76.
77.
78.

79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.

87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.

95.
96.

While working at the job, I have found that my pay compares well with that of other
workers.

My pay compares well with that of other workers.

I feel that my pay compares well with that of other workers.

1 think that the job provides opportunity for advancement.

While working at the job, I have found that the job provides opportunity for
advancement.

The job provides opportunity for advancement.

I feel that the job provides opportunity for advancement.

I think that I am able to make decisions on my own at work.

While working at the job, I have found that I am able to make decisions on my own at
work.

I am able to make decisions on my own at work.

I feel that I am able to make decisions on my own at work.

I think that I get recognition for the work I do.

While working at the job, I have found that I get recognition for the work I do.
I get recognition for the work I do.

I feel that I get recognition for the work I do.

I think that I enjoy performing the essential ﬁmctions of my job.

While working at the job, I have found that I enjoy performing the essential functions
of my job.

I enjoy performing the essential functions of my job.

I feel that I enjoy performing the essential functions of my job.

I think that I work alone.

While working at the job, I have found that I can work alone.

I am able to work alone.

I feel that I am able to work alone.

I think that the job gives me a feeling of accomplishment.

While working at the job, I have found that the job gives me a feeling of
accomplishment.

The job gives me a feeling of accomplishment.

I feel that the job gives me a feeling of accomplishment.

72

APPENDIX F
Organizational Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire

The purpose of this questionnaire is to ﬁnd out how satisfactory organizational
communication practices would be in the described job. When responding to these
questions, please consider both “What to Expect” and “What the Job Is Really
Like.” Keep all aspects, including any differences between the two descriptions of
the job, in mind as you answer all the following questions.

Please answer the following questions by choosing the rating that best represents your
opinion. Mark your response on your scantron sheet by ﬁlling in the circle matching your
choice beside the appropriate item number. Be sure to mark your ratings on your
scantron sheet and NOT on this questionnaire.

There are 35 questions in this section. When you have answered these questions, please
sit quietly and wait for the experimenter. If you have any questions about what to do,
please ask the experimenter.

Listed below are several kinds of information often associated with a person ’s job. Please
use the scale below to mark the appropriate response on your scantron sheet.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very Dissatisﬁed Somewhat Indifferent Somewhat Satisﬁed Very
dissatisﬁed dissatisﬁed satisﬁed satisﬁed

When responding to these questions, please consider both “What to Expect” and “What
the Job Is Really Like.” Keep all aspects, including any differences between the two
descriptions of the job, in mind as you answer all the following questions.

97. How satisﬁed will I be with the amount and/or quality of information I will receive
about my progress in my job?*

98. How satisﬁed will I be with the amount and/or quality of personal news I will
receive?“

99. How satisﬁed will I be with the amount and/or quality of information I will receive
about organizational policies and goals?*

100. How satisﬁed will I be with the amount and/or quality of information I will receive
about how my job compares with others?

101. How satisﬁed will I be with the amount and/or quality of information I will receive
about how I am being judged?

102. How satisﬁed will I be with the amount and/or quality of recognition of my efforts
that I will receive?

103. How satisﬁed will I be with the amount and/or quality of information I receive about
departmental policies and goals?“

104. How satisﬁed will I be with the amount and/or quality of information I will receive
about the requirements of my job?*

105. How satisﬁed will I be with the amount and/or quality of information I will receive
about government action affecting my organization?"I

73

106. How satisﬁed will I be with the amount and/or quality of information I will receive
about changes in our organization?“

107. How satisﬁed will I be with the amount and/or quality of information I will receive
about how problems in my job are being handled?

108. How satisﬁed will I be with the amount and/or quality of information I will receive
about beneﬁts and pay?“

109. How satisﬁed will I be with the amount and/or quality of information I will receive
about our organization ’sfinancial standing?“

110. How satisﬁed will I be with the amount and/or quality of information I will receive
about accomplishments and/or failures of the organization?“

Ask yourself: “In the job I read about, how satisﬁed would I be with... ”

111.The extent to which my superiors know and understand the problems faced by
subordinates

112. The extent to which the organization’s communication motivates and stimulates an
enthusiasm for meeting its goals

113. The extent to which my supervisor listens and pays attention to me

114. The extent to which the people in my organization have great ability as
communicators

115. The extent to which any supervisor offers guidance for solving job-related problems

116. The extent to which the organization’s communication makes me identify with it or
feel a vital part of it

117. The extent to which the organization’s communications are interesting and helpful

118. The extent to which my supervisor trusts me

119. The extent to which I receive in time the information needed to do my job

120. The extent to which conﬂicts are handled appropriately through proper
communication channels

121.The extent to which the grapevine is active in our organization

122. The extent to which my supervisor is open to ideas

123. The extent to which horizontal communication with other organizational members is
accurate and free ﬂowing

124. The extent to which communication practices are adaptable to emergencies

125. The extent to which my work group is compatible

126. The extent to which our meetings are well organized

127. Extent to which the amount of supervision given me is about right

128. The extent to which written directives and reports are clear and concise

129. The extent to which the attitudes toward communication in the organization are
basically healthy

130. The extent to which informal communication is active and accurate

131. The extent to which the amount of communication in the organization is about right

’“ Items were removed ﬁ'om ﬁnal 25-item version used in analysis.

74

REFERENCES

Arnold, H.J., & Feldman, DC. (1982). A multivariate analysis of the determinants of job
turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 350-360.

Barry, B.J., & Crant, J.M. (2000). Dyadic communication relationships in organizations:
An attribution/expectancy approach. Organization Science, 11, 648-664.

Bell, B.S., Ryan, A.M., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). Justice expectations and applicant
perceptions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 24-38.

Blair, R., Roberts, K.H., & McKechnie, P. (1985). Vertical and network commrmication
in organizations: The present and the future. In R.D. McPhee & P.K. Tompkins
(Eds), Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions

(pp. 55-77). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Blau, G. (1988). An investigation of the apprenticeship organizational socialization
strategy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 176-195.

Brown, D. (2002). The role of work and cultural values in occupational choice,
satisfaction, and success: A theoretical statement. Journal of Counseling and
Development, 80, 48-56.

Buckley, M. R., Fedor, D.B., Veres, J.G., Wiese, D.S., & Carraher, SM. (1998).
Investigating newcomer expectations and job-related outcomes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83, 452-461.

Burgoon, J.K., & Hale, J.L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration
and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55, 58-79.

Burgoon, J .K., Stern, L.A., & Dilhnan, L. (1995). Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic
interaction patterns. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Burgoon, J.K., & White, CH, (1997). Researching nonverbal message production: A
view from interaction adaptation theory. In 1.0. Greene (Ed.), Message
production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 279-312). Mahwah, NJ :
Erlbaum.

Cherry, B., Ordonez, L.D., & Gilliland, SW. (2003). Grade expectations: The effects of
expectations on fairness and satisfaction perceptions. Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making, 16, 375-395.

Clampitt, P. G., & Downs, CW. (1993). Employee perceptions of the relationship
between communication and productivity: A ﬁeld study. Journal of Business
Communication,30, 5-28.

75

Clampitt, P.G., & Girard, D. (1993). Communication satisfaction: A useful construct?
New Jersey Journal of Communication, 1, 84-102.

Crino, M.D., & White, MC. (1981). Satisfaction in communication: An examination of
the Downs-Hazen measure. Psychological Reports, 49, 831-838.

Dawis, R.V. (1990). Vocational interests, values, and preferences. In M.D. Dunnette &
L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol.
2 (pp. 833-871). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In F.M. Jablin & L.L. Putnam (Eds.) The new
handbook of organizational communication (pp. 3-46). London: Sage.

Downs, CW. (1994). Communication satisfaction questionnaire. In R.B. Rubin, P.
Palmgreen, & H.E. Sypher (Eds.) Communication research measures: A
sourcebook (pp. 114-119). New York: Guilford.

Downs, C.W., Clampitt, P.G., & Pfeiffer, AL. (1988). Communication and
organizational outcomes. In G.M. Goldhaber & G.A. Barnett (Eds.) Handbook of
organizational communication (pp. 171-211). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Downs, C.W., & Hazen, MD. (1977). A factor analytic study of communication
satisfaction. Journal of Business Communication, 14, 63-73.

Dugoni, B.L., & Ilgen, DR. (1981). Realistic job previews and the adjustment of new
employees. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 579-591 .

Erdogan, B., Kramer, M.L., & Liden, RC. (2004). Work value congruence and intrinsic
career success: The compensatory roles of leader-member exchange and
perceived organizational support. Personnel Psychology, 5 7, 305-332.

Floyd, K., & Burgoon, J.K. (1999). Reacting to nonverbal expressions of liking: A test of
interaction adaptation theory. Communication Monographs, 66, 219-229.

Greenbaum, H.H., Clampitt, P., & Willhnganz, S. (1988). Organizational
communication: An examination of four instruments. Management
Communication Quarterly, 2, 245-282.

Greenhaus, J .H., Seidel, C., & Marinis, M. (1983). The impact of expectations and values
on job attitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 31, 394-417.

Gregson, T. (1991). The separate constructs of communication satisfaction and job
satisfaction. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 39-48.

Hecht, ML. (1978). Measures of communication satisfaction. Human Communication
Research, 4, 350-368.

76

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, BB. (1959). The motivation to work. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.

Horn, P.W., Griffeth, R.W., Palich, L.E., & Bracker, IS. (1998). An exploratory
investigation into theoretical mechanisms underlying realistic job previews.
Personnel Psychology, 51, 421-451.

11 gen, DR. (1971). Satisfaction with performance as a function of the initial level of
expected performance and the deviation from expectations. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 6, 345-361.

Irving, P.G., & Meyer, J .P. (1994). Reexamination of the met expectations hypothesis: A
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 937-949.

Irving, P.G., & Meyer, J .P. (1995). On using direct measures of met expectations: A
methodological note. Journal of Management, 21, 1159-1 175

Irving, P.G., & Meyer, JP. (1999). On using residual difference scores in the
measurement of congruence: The case of met expectations research. Personnel
Psychology, 52, 85-95.

Keppel, G., & Wickens, TD. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher ’s handbook.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Lee, T.W., & Mowday, RT (1987). Voluntarily leaving an organization: An empirical
investigation of Steers and Mowday’s model of turnover. Academy of
Management Journal, 30, 721-743.

Le Poire, B.A., & Yoshimura, SM. (1999). The effects of expectancies and actual
communication on nonverbal adaptation and communication outcomes: A test of
interaction adaptation theory. Communication Monographs, 66, 1-30.

Locke, EA. (1969). What is job satisfaction? Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 4, 309-336.

Locke, EA. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.)
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychologz (pp. 1297-1349). Chicago:
Rand McNally.

Loughlin, C., & Barling, J. (2001). Young workers’ work values, attitudes, and

behaviours. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 543-
558.

77

Major, D.A., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Chao, G.T., & Gardner, PD. (1995). A longitudinal
investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the

moderating effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology,
80, 418-43 1 .

Meglino, B.M., Denisi, A.S., & Ravlin, EC. (1993). Effects of previous job exposure and
subsequent job status on the function of a realistic job preview. Personnel
Psychology, 46, 803-822.

Meyer, J .P., Irving, P.G., & Allen, NJ. (1998). Exarrrination of the combined effects of
work values and early work experiences on organizational commitment. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 19, 29-52.

Miller, K. (2002). Theories of discourse and interaction. In Communication theories:
Perspectives, processes, and contexts (pp. 146-150). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Muchinsky, RM. (1977). Organizational communication: Relationships to organizational
climate and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 592-607.

Mueller, B.H., & Lee, J. (2002). Leader-member exchange and organizational
communication satisfaction in multiple contexts. Journal of Business
Communication, 39, 220-244.

Park, H.S., Dailey, R., & Lemus, D. (2002). The use of exploratory factor analysis and
principal components analysis in communication research. Human
Communication Research, 28, 562-577.

Phillips, J .M. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple organizational
outcomes: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 673-690.

Pincus, J .D. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job performance.
Human Communication Research, 12, 395-419.

Porter, L.W., & Steers, RM. (1973). Organizational, work, and personal factors in
employee turnover and absenteeism. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 151-176.

Redding, WC. (1985). Stumbling toward identify: The emergence of organizational

communication as a ﬁeld of study. In R.D. McPhee & P.K. Tompkins (Eds.),
Organizational communication: Traditional themes and new directions (pp. 15-
54). Beverly Hills: Sage.

Reilly, R.R., Brown, B., Blood, M.R., & Malatesta, C2. (1981). The effects of realistic

previews: A study and discussion of the literature. Personnel Psychology, 34,
823-834.

78

Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R.L., & Rubin, DB. (2000). Contrasts and eﬂect sizes in
behavioral research: A correlational approach. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

Rynes, S.L. (1990). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A call for new
research directions. In M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
industrial and organizationalpsychology: Vol. 2 (pp. 833-871). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.

Sagie, A., & Koslowsky, M. (1998). Extra- and infra-organizational work values and
behavior: A multiple-level model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 5, 155-
174.

Saks, AM. (1994). A psychological process investigation for the effects of recruitment
source and organization information on job survival. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 15, 225-244.

Shapira, Z., & Grifﬁth, TL. (1990). Comparing the work values of engineers with
managers, production, and clerical workers: A multivariate analysis. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 11, 281-292.

Stumpf, S.A., & Harman, K. (1984). Individual exploration to organizational
commitment or withdrawal. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 308-329.

Varona, F. (1996). Relationship between communication satisfaction and organizational
commitment in three Guatemalan organizations. Journal of Business
Communication, 33, Ill-141.

Vinnicombe, S. (1984). Communications and job satisfaction — A case study of an
airline’s cabin crew members. Leadership Organization Development Journal, 5,
2-8.

Vroom, VB. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Wanous, J. P. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection and socialization of
newcomers. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley.

Wanous, J .P., Poland, T.D., Premack, S.L., & Davis, KS. (1992). The effects of met
expectations on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: A review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 299-297.

Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V., Lofquist, L.H., & England, G.W. (1966). Minnesota studies in
vocational rehabilitation, Vol. 21: Instrumentation for the theory of work
adjustment. Minneapolis, MN: Industrial Relations Center, University of
Minnesota.

79

Tl

T 1".1

All 1 ill II

All ll‘l '

I‘ll‘lll.
ll

 

"1111111111111111111) 11111“