Met expectations: The effects of expected and delivered inducements on employee satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interpretation of existing theory and research on met expectations is problematic due to ambiguous conceptualization of the met expectations hypothesis and limitations imposed by the measurement strategies typically employed in this domain (i.e. difference scores and direct retrospective measures). In this longitudinal study, we sought to overcome these problems by using an alternative methodology to conduct a more comprehensive test of the met expectations hypothesis based on Warr's (1987) Vitamin Model and on research in related fields (e.g. person–environment fit). Polynomial regression and response surface analyses were used to examine how employee satisfaction is related to unmet, met, and exceeded expectations concerning two distinct types of inducements analogous to vitamins A (skill development opportunities) and E (support, compensation). Respondents included 342 limited term employees. Consistent with previous research, our results indicated that unmet expectations of any sort were associated with decreased satisfaction. However, contrary to common interpretations of the extant literature, our results also indicated that met expectations were not always associated with high levels of satisfaction and that exceeded expectations were, in the case of skill development, negatively associated with satisfaction. These findings suggest a need to broaden existing met expectations theory and to refine common organizational practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".