Realistic job preview vs job simulation: what each is for
A realistic job preview gives applicants an accurate picture of the job, including its unattractive parts, before they accept it. A job simulation asks applicants to do a piece of the work so the employer can see what they do. The first is mainly about the applicant’s decision; the second is mainly about the employer’s evidence.
What is a realistic job preview?
A realistic job preview shows an applicant what the job is really like, including the parts that are less attractive, before they accept an offer. It can be a video, a written description, a conversation with current staff or a short exercise. The aim is that applicants who would not want the job can opt out, and those who accept know what to expect.
What is a job simulation?
A job simulation puts an applicant in a realistic situation from the job and records how they respond. See what is a job simulation for the formats. The purpose is to give the employer evidence of what the applicant does.
How do they differ?
| Realistic job preview | Job simulation | |
|---|---|---|
| Main purpose | Help the applicant decide whether to take the job | Help the employer see what the applicant does |
| Who it is mainly for | The applicant | The employer |
| What the applicant does | Often watches or reads, sometimes tries a task | Works through a situation |
| What the employer reads | Usually nothing about the individual | The responses, output or a record of actions |
| Typical evidence of effect | Studies of turnover and applicant perceptions | Studies of validity, applicant reactions and group differences |
What does the research say about realistic job previews?
Earnest, Allen and Landis (2011) ran a meta-analytic path analysis of 52 studies and about 17,000 participants. They found that enhanced perceptions of organisational honesty were the primary mechanism by which realistic job previews influenced voluntary turnover, and they concluded that the most effective design may be an oral or written preview delivered after hiring and designed to signal organisational honesty. Phillips (1998) meta-analysed 40 earlier studies, and its abstract could not be accessed for our evidence review, so we report no finding from it. The evidence base concerns previews of jobs. It does not evaluate assessments used as previews.
Can one exercise do both?
A good simulation lets an applicant see what the work involves, so it can act as a preview. That is a side effect, not evidence that it works as one. If reducing early turnover is the goal, the research above is about honest information about the job, not about assessment scores. Decide which purpose you are serving before you choose a format.
What does this mean for Calavion?
Calavion’s exercises are meant to give the employer a record of the applicant’s work. They may also give applicants a feel for the work, but Calavion has not studied whether that reduces turnover. Calavion does not currently produce automatic scores, applicant rankings or hiring decisions. Employers inspect the work and make the decision.
Sources
- Earnest, D. R., Allen, D. G., & Landis, R. S. (2011). Mechanisms linking realistic job previews with turnover: A meta-analytic path analysis. Personnel Psychology, 64(4), 865–897. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01230.x
- Lievens, F., & Patterson, F. (2011). The validity and incremental validity of knowledge tests, low-fidelity simulations, and high-fidelity simulations for predicting job performance in advanced-level high-stakes selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(5), 927–940. doi:10.1037/a0023496