The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm

Organizational
Expectation gaps, job satisfaction, commitment of
and organizational commitment fresh graduates
of fresh graduates
515
Roles of graduates, higher learning institutions
and employers Received December 2010
Accepted March 2011
Mazuki Jusoh
Asian Institute of Finance, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Maimun Simun
Faculty of Business and Law, Multimedia University, Melaka, Malaysia, and
Siong Choy Chong
Asian Institute of Finance, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this research is to attempt to reveal the difference between what fresh
graduates expect and their actual experiences pertaining to the working environment.
Design/methodology/approach – Using a set of self-administered questionnaires, data were
collected from 128 graduates. They were asked to indicate their preferences on organizational culture,
leadership, communication, decision making, team working, motivation, and development. Using the
same dimensions, the respondents then reported their actual experiences, thus enabling gaps to be
determined.
Findings – The results from paired-sample t-tests suggest that significant expectation gaps exist in
all the areas surveyed. While communication, decision making and motivation are found to be
significantly related to job satisfaction, none of the seven variables is found to be significantly
correlated to organizational commitment.
Research limitations/implications – The study focuses only on a rather limited sample size of
Malaysian graduates; therefore it cannot ensure generalization of results obtained.
Practical implications – The resulting expectation gaps, and their influence on the graduates’ job
satisfaction and organizational commitment, have implications for the important roles played by
employers, higher learning institutions, and graduate themselves.
Originality/value – This study makes significant contributions in three key areas. First, it is
perhaps one of the earliest studies to comprehensively address the issue of expectation gaps using a
myriad factors. Second, it is also one of the few that examines the influence of the expectation gaps on
job satisfaction and commitment. Third, instead of focusing on employees as a whole, which has been
the practice of prior research, this study concentrates only on fresh graduates who have been in the
workforce for less than two years.
Keywords Fresh graduates, Job satisfaction, Organizational commitment, Expectation gaps,
Higher education, Employers, Malaysia
Paper type Research paper
Education þ Training
Vol. 53 No. 6, 2011
Introduction pp. 515-530
College or university graduates come into the workplace with expectations that they q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0040-0912
will obtain satisfied, secure, and well-paying employment (Shelley, 1994) mainly based DOI 10.1108/00400911111159476
ET on what they have been taught in their formal education. However, employers seem to
53,6 have a different idea where they have been found to have overly high expectations,
including management experience, excellent grades, superior presentation and
communication skills, positive attitude, and even expecting entry-level graduates to
have done charity and volunteer work (Perrone and Vickers, 2003). Given the above,
the graduates may face actual work situations that are totally different from what they
516 had initially expected.
Taken together, the conflict between the graduates’ expectations and actual
experiences may influence their satisfaction as well as their commitment to the
organizations they serve. Facing such a situation, the graduates may try to alleviate
these dissatisfactions by either adapting to the present company environment or seek
alternatives elsewhere (Cotterman, 1991). It is therefore imperative for graduates to
know employers’ expectations in order to increase their marketability in the labor
market. On the other hand, such awareness of graduates’ abilities and preferences is
considered equally critical on the part of the organization in order to craft effective
recruitment strategies and address the employees’ needs. In between the graduates and
employers are the universities and colleges whose primary role is to prepare students
for today’s competitive employment market either as employees or entrepreneurs
(Sewell and Pool, 2010). As such, a good grasp of students’ and employers’ expectations
can inform the higher learning institutions on how the gaps can be effectively bridged.
Although it is evident that variables such as organizational culture, leadership,
communication, decision-making, team working, motivation, and development lead to
job satisfaction and commitment, few research has been done on how these variables
affect fresh graduates’ satisfaction and commitment toward their jobs. Many of the
available studies focused on employees as a whole rather than concentrating solely on
fresh graduates. Furthermore, the relationship between unmet expectations (or
expectation gaps) and job satisfaction and commitment of graduates was insufficiently
addressed.
This research is conducted in Malaysia, a fast developing country in Southeast
Asia. With a total landmass of 329,847 square kilometers, the country is divided into 13
States and three federal territories (FT) in two regions, i.e. 11 States and two FTs on
Peninsular Malaysia, and the other two States and 1 FT in East Malaysia separated by
the South China Sea. The capital, Kuala Lumpur, is one of the FTs on Peninsular
Malaysia. In 2007, Malaysia was ranked the third largest economy in Southeast Asia
and 29th largest economy in the world. In 2009, the nominal gross domestic product
(GDP) was USD383.6 billion with the GDP per capita of USD14,900 (USA International
Business Publications, 2008).
The rapid economic growth has led to development in many other areas, which
included the socio-economic aspect of education. In order to support the multi-sector
economy in which the government is embarking, many institutions of higher learning
were established particularly within the last ten years. As of December 2010, the
Ministry of Higher Education’s web site shows that there are 20 public universities and
48 private universities in Malaysia (www.mohe.gov.my). This is in contrast to the
merely eight public universities, and no private university, prior to 2006.
Complementing these universities are the 34 community colleges, 24 polytechnics,
and more than 400 private colleges which are currently in operation
(www.mohe.gov.my). While the rapid expansion is aimed at producing adequate
knowledge workers to support Malaysia’s economic growth, this has also resulted in Organizational
the opposite. Wong (2010) reported that there are as many as 60,000 graduates who are commitment of
currently still unemployed and that in 2009, there are between 80,000 and 100,000
unemployed fresh graduates. Among the main reasons cited were poor communication fresh graduates
and problem-solving skills, lack of industrial training exposure, bad attitude,
job-hopping, and lack of self-confidence (Graduan2U, 2010). Consequently, these are
among the criteria emphasized by many employers. Although this issue has prompted 517
the government to launch a number of talent development and employability schemes,
supporting such a huge number of unemployed graduates remains a challenge given
the scarce resources. As such, higher learning institutions, employers, and graduate
themselves have more important roles to play to arrest this problem.
It is against these backdrops that the current study attempts to fill these gaps by
revealing the differences between what the fresh graduates expect and their actual
experiences on the job, and the implications the expectation gaps had on the fresh
graduates’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Specifically, this paper
intends to answer the following three main research questions:
RQ1. What are the fresh graduates’ preferences with regard to job and
organizational characteristics?
RQ2. To what extent are the employers satisfying the fresh graduates’
expectations?
RQ3. How do expectation gaps influence job satisfaction and organizational
commitment of fresh graduates?
Given the issues highlighted, our findings will be of remarkable value in terms of
suggesting the roles that can be played by graduates, higher learning institutions, and
employers to reduce the expectation gaps, and the eventual job satisfaction and
commitment of fresh graduates.
The next section reviews the literature on previous research conducted, followed by
the methodology employed. Section 4 presents and discusses the results while section 5
forwards the implications before the paper is concluded in section 6.

Literature review
Graduates’ expectations, satisfaction and commitment
The literature suggests that a number of research works have been carried out on the
working or career experiences of graduates during the immediate years of employment
after graduation (e.g. Keenan and Newton, 1986; Graham and McKenzie, 1995;
Wickramasinghe and Perera, 2010). Many of these studies concluded that graduates’
experiences at work typically do not live up to their expectations (e.g. Keenan and
Newton, 1986; Dean et al., 1988) and that the transitional process and the adjustment to
full-time professional work are often very traumatic, stressful experiences for fresh
graduates which create inefficiencies for the organization (Graham and McKenzie,
1995). Fresh graduates have reported of being underemployed and underutilized, as
well as facing tremendous workloads (Holden and Jameson, 1999).
In relating the shortfall of expectations with job satisfaction, very few studies have
been conducted on the two subjects taken together. It is observed that almost all
research works on the adaptation of graduates in the workplace were done by looking
ET at the transition process of graduates at the workplace (Schein, 1964). In the context of
53,6 organizational commitment, researchers discovered that early experiences in the
organization, including socialization aspects (Ashforth and Saks, 1996) are important
for the establishment of organizational commitment. Similarly, a strong influence of
met expectations on commitment has also been reported by other researchers (Irving
and Meyer, 1994; Wanous et al., 1992).
518
Factors that affect job satisfaction and organizational commitment
Job satisfaction and organizational commitment among employees are among the
areas that have been widely researched. Prior studies attempt to explain how
organizational and job-related factors of organizational culture, leadership,
communication, decision making, team working, and motivation and development
lead to job satisfaction and organizational commitment of employees across different
industries.
For instance, O’Reilly et al. (1991) and Bass (1998) investigated the relationship
between organizational culture and job satisfaction. They found that organizations
with strong cultures tend to express greater organizational commitment and thus
resulting in greater job satisfaction. However, studies examining the influence of
leadership behavior on job satisfaction have arrived at mixed conclusions. While some
studies (e.g. Savery (1994), and Pool (1997)) found that positive leadership behaviors
have positive relationship with job satisfaction, Savery (1991) reported no linkages
between leadership behavior and job satisfaction. In fact, Hunt and Liesbscher (1973)
found a negative association between leadership behavior and job satisfaction.
Research on organizational communication reveals that a positive relationship
exists between organizational communications, and job satisfaction and commitment
(Goris et al., 2000; Rodwell et al., 1998). These studies concluded that formal and
informal organizational communication is important for improving employees’
productivity and performance and thus lead to positive organizational outcomes.
Opportunities to participate in decision-making and its influence on job satisfaction
and commitment have also been substantially researched (Allen and Meyer, 1990;
Cropanzano and Folger, 1996; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990). Generally, the researchers
have found a positive relationship between opportunities to participate in
decision-making and job satisfaction and commitment.
Similarly, motivation and its effect on job satisfaction have been extensively
researched (e.g. Gaertner, 1999; Robie and Ryan, 1998; Sousa-Poza and Sousa-Poza,
2000) with evidence of some significant influences of job motivation on job satisfaction.
Finally, since graduates have been found to traditionally have high expectations of the
training and development that they will receive when they start work (Mabey, 1986;
Keenan and Newton, 1986), this suggests that training and development will have an
impact on graduates’ organizational commitment.
The next section discusses the methodology employed in the current study.

Methodology
The sample
The sample for this study comprises of fresh graduates in Malaysia who have been
employed for less than two years. The “less than two-year employment” was chosen as
a criterion for the target respondents in order to strike a balance between the
respondents’ ability to recall their preferences as a graduate and their ability to Organizational
meaningfully assess the working environment. The target respondents were identified commitment of
through the assistance from the alumni associations of universities and respective
human resource departments of companies. Initial contacts were made through fresh graduates
telephone calls, e-mails, and personal visits in identifying the target respondents.
Self-administered questionnaires were then sent to those who fulfill the criterion via
hand or e-mails. A time frame of three weeks was given to the respondents to return the 519
completed questionnaires. Out of 200 questionnaires sent out, 128 questionnaires were
returned and useful for analyses, yielding a response rate of 64 percent. The t-test
results indicate that there is no significant difference between responses by hand and
through e-mails.

The instrument
The main instrument used for the study is a questionnaire developed as a result of
extensive review of published literature related to the topic. The initial draft of the
questionnaire accompanied by a synopsis of the research went through a process of
qualitative review by subject-matter experts. After making the necessary
modifications the questionnaire then underwent a pilot testing by 15 respondents
whom were randomly selected from three different companies to check the
appropriateness, readability, and comprehensiveness of the survey instrument in the
Malaysian context. The majority of the pilot respondents reported that the questions
are easily understood and that it requires only ten to 15 minutes to be completed. Only
minor amendments were made on the questionnaire based on the feedback received.
The final version of the questionnaire is divided into four main sections:
(1) organizational and job characteristics;
(2) job satisfaction;
(3) job commitment; and
(4) demographics.

Except for demographics, other sections utilize multiple-item constructs. All items
measuring the constructs of organizational and job characteristics employ a five-point
scale with anchors of 1 and 5 representing “low” and “high”, respectively. Since the aim
of the study is to identify the graduates’ preference as well as their actual experience
with regards to the constructs, each item is formatted to have two rating scales (see
Table I for detailed items for all constructs). As for job satisfaction and job
commitment, each construct is measured by six items (see the Appendix). A five-point
rating scale ðwhere1 ¼ stronglydisagree; 2 ¼ disagree, 3 ¼ neither agree nor disagree,
4 ¼ agree, and 5 ¼ strongly agree) is used for both constructs.

Sample characteristics
The average age of the respondents is 23 years with an average of 12.4 months’
working experience. About 60 percent of the respondents are males and only four
respondents are married. The majority of the respondents (or 59 percent) have bachelor
degrees as their highest education level. The remainder are diploma holders. With
regards to the companies, 83 percent of the respondents work in locally-owned
companies, and 22 percent work in foreign companies.
ET Results and discussion
53,6 The first analysis was to calculate the mean ratings for all items in the constructs
(Table I). Two means were calculated for each item: the preference and the actual
(experience). The preference and actual aggregate means for each variable and their
Cronbach alpha values were also calculated. The aggregate means were derived by
averaging the respective items’ means under each construct. Accordingly, two
520 Cronbach alpha coefficients were calculated for each variable. All of the coefficient
values were greater than 0.80, indicating a reasonably good internal consistency of the
measurement scales (Sekaran and Bougie, 2010). All aggregate means for preference in
Table I are above 4 (except for team working), which reflect a relatively high preference
of graduates on the variables examined. The aggregate means show that development
receives the highest importance. This finding indicates that the graduates place a high
priority to equip and improve themselves through their jobs via training. Job
experience is expected to provide them the necessary knowledge and skills to perform
well as well as to expose them to better career opportunities. Other variables such as
motivation, organizational culture, decision making, leadership, and communication,
which have aggregate means of higher than 4, are also deemed important by the
graduates. On the other hand, team working is the least important in graduates’
expectation. Considering themselves as rookies, inexperienced, they perceive that they
have little to offer to the rest of the team members.
As for actual experience, again development receives the highest mean. The
exposures the graduates received from their new job, such as knowledge on product,
customers and industry make them feel that they have learned significantly on their
jobs. They regard the exposures as opportunities to improve themselves, as well as to
apply their academic skills and knowledge on real business situations. As a result, the
graduates regard themselves as been highly developed. On the other end, leadership is
rated the lowest. Fresh graduates, being relatively inexperienced, are more hopeful that
their supervisors adopt a “telling” approach to leadership as to provide them sufficient
time to learn new things. Supervisors who are expecting that the graduates are
knowledgeable and thus capable to perform their work independently are likely to
adopt a more participative approach to leadership. This disparity in expectation will
make the graduates disappointed with their supervisors’ leadership. Furthermore, the
graduates may be too acclimated to the academic methods of performance feedback
(such as grades and honours) that they are often unprepared for the less structured
workplace feedback (Holton, 1992).
To what extent are the employers satisfying the fresh graduates’ expectations?
Judging by the results from Table I that none of the aggregate means for actual
experience reaches 4 albeit 6 out of 7 aggregate means for preferences are above 4, the
employers are not meeting the graduates’ expectations. In order to confirm this belief,
we perform paired-samples t-tests between the preference and actual experience
ratings (Table II). The mean differences reflect the magnitude of graduates’ expectation
gaps: a higher value means a bigger expectation gap. The biggest expectation gap is in
development and the smallest gap is team working. Interestingly, all of the expectation
gaps are statistically significant, and thus confirm the belief that the employers are not
satisfying the graduates’ expectations.
However, such a mismatch between what the graduates perceive as important and
what they have experienced in the organization is expected. A recent study by
 Organizational
Means
Variables Preference Actual commitment of
Organizational culture (Mean ¼ 4.3021, 3.5807; Cronbach ¼ 0.85, 0.83)
fresh graduates
Work in an organization where employees care for one another 4.3984 3.7187
Work in an organization where the organization listens to customers
and responds quickly to their needs 4.3594 3.6797 521
Work in an organization where employees are always kept informed
of what is happening in the organization 4.3125 3.5313
Work in an organization where employees continually search for
ways to work more efficiently 4.2734 3.5859
Work in an organization where employees work well together in
teams 4.2500 3.5469
Work in an organization where employees receive assistance to
overcome any personal problems 4.2188 3.4219

Leadership (Mean ¼ 4.1523, 3.4635; Cronbach ¼ 0.84, 0.87)

My supervisor serves as a role model for me 4.3047 3.6250
My supervisor points out what I will receive if I do what is required 4.1719 3.2969
My supervisor articulates a vision of future opportunities 4.1562 3.5391
My supervisor monitors performance for errors needing correction 4.1406 3.5469
My supervisor tells me what to do to be rewarded for my efforts 4.1328 3.3125
My supervisor is alert to failure to meet standards 4.0078 3.4609

Communication (Mean ¼ 4.1042, 3.6875; Cronbach ¼ 0.82, 0.84)

I freely share my opinions with others 4.3594 3.8047
I am polite and supportive when I talk to people 4.2891 3.8984
I very much enjoy chatting with other people 4.2031 3.8047
I usually say the first thing that comes to mind 4.0781 3.6953
I listen to my colleagues’ problems 3.9375 3.5703
I give very long, exact directions to others 3.7578 3.3516

Decision making (Mean ¼ 4.2005, 3.6471; Cronbach ¼ 0.87, 0.88)

I trust my inner feelings and reactions when making decisions 4.2656 3.6563
I feel more comfortable making decisions in a logical and systematic
way 4.2500 3.6094
I make decisions more on facts than my gut instincts 4.2188 3.6250
When making a decision I prefer to feel the decision is right than to
have a rational reason for it 4.1641 3.5781
I won’t make a choice that does not feel right even when the facts
indicate it is the right choice 4.1563 3.6797
I make decisions based on detailed analysis of factual information 4.1484 3.7344

Team working (Mean ¼ 3.7578, 3.5065; Cronbach ¼ 0.86, 0.88)

I take responsibility for getting the team to agree on what the
meeting should accomplish 3.8828 3.4687
I am usually the person who helps other team members overcome
their disagreements 3.8750 3.4141
I ensure that everyone gets heard on issues 3.8281 3.4844
I am usually the person who helps the team determine how to Table I.
organise the discussion 3.7109 3.5703 Mean scores and
I actively help team-mates to resolve their differences in meetings 3.6797 3.5625 Cronbach’s alpha for
I like to be the person who takes notes or minutes of the meeting 3.5703 3.5391 preference and actual
(continued) experience
ET Means
53,6 Variables Preference Actual

Motivation (Mean ¼ 4.3346, 3.6901; Cronbach ¼ 0.86, 0.80)

The attraction of the friendliness of the people I work with 4.4219 3.9375
The attraction of the opportunity to develop my skills and abilities 4.3984 3.7734
522 The attraction of the amount of freedom I have on my job 4.3594 3.7031
The attraction of the chances I have to accomplish something
worthwhile 4.3359 3.8125
The attraction of my chances for getting a promotion or getting a
better job 4.2969 3.5391
The attraction of the praise I get from my supervisor 4.1953 3.3750
Development (Mean ¼ 4.4336, 3.6940; Cronbach ¼ 0.87, 0.81)
A company provides me with opportunities to develop new skills 4.6563 3.9531
A company provides me with opportunities to improve chances for
promotion 4.4766 3.5938
A company provides me with opportunities to know more about
technical information 4.4141 3.8594
A company provides me with opportunities to learn more about the
products and services 4.4062 3.8203
A company provides me with opportunities to improve language
skills 4.3984 3.6250
A company provides me with facilities that enable me to continue my
education 4.2500 3.3125
Table I. Note: Scale : 1 ¼ low; 5 ¼ high

Mean differences
Variables (Preference – actual) T Significance

Organizational culture 0.7214 8.607 0.000

Leadership 0.6888 8.199 0.000
Communication 0.4167 6.570 0.000
Decision making 0.5534 7.369 0.000
Team working 0.2513 3.278 0.001
Table II. Motivation 0.6445 8.396 0.000
Paired-samples t-test Development 0.7396 9.515 0.000

Bhanugopan and Fish (2009) lent support to the findings where significant differences
exist between students and employers in their perceptions of employability. This is not
difficult to understand as graduates often feel a lack of control over their work where
they see the perceived job situation as often very different from the realities (Van
Maanen and Schein, 1979). Schein (1964) describes new graduates as seen by managers
as overambitious and unrealistic in their expectations about advancement possibilities
and gaining new responsibility. He states that the fresh graduates are also seen as too
theoretical, naı̈ve and idealistic as well as immature and inexperienced. This also
corroborates Holton’s (1992) findings where he describes the graduates’ first year on
the job as horribly disappointing, stressful and disenchanting time. He goes on to
explain that most managers feel the new graduates are ill prepared to deal with the Organizational
realities of the professional life. commitment of
Our final analysis is to identify the relationships between the expectations gaps and
job satisfaction and organizational commitment of graduates. It is logical for us to fresh graduates
expect a negative relationship between the expectation gaps and job satisfaction and
organizational commitment. Table III presents the correlation tests of these variables.
The results indicate that significant negative correlations exist between job 523
satisfaction and expectation gap variables of communication, decision-making, and
motivation. The overall expectation gap is also negatively correlated with job
satisfaction. These findings indicate that fulfilling graduates’ expectation is important
to their job satisfaction. The results imply that meeting graduates’ expectations with
regard to communication, decision making and motivation are perhaps areas that
organizations should focus on and that inability of organizations in addressing these
aspects may have immediate impact on graduates’ job satisfaction.
Even though previous researchers found significant relationships between
organizational culture, leadership, communication, decision-making, team working,
motivation, and development with job satisfaction and organizational commitment,
our findings indicate no significant relationship exists between expectation gap and
organizational commitment. Even though job satisfaction and organizational
commitment are both organizational-context attitudes, organizational commitment is
wider in scope and a longer-term variable compared to job satisfaction. A graduate
employee may be dissatisfied with his or her particular job and consider it a temporary
condition, yet not be dissatisfied with the organization as a whole. Therefore, the brief
employment term of graduates and their newly-found expectation gap may have
impacted their job satisfaction but not to the extent of influencing their decision as
whether to maintain membership in the organization.

Implications for graduates, higher learning institutions and employers

The findings of this study have far reaching implications for the graduates, higher
learning institutions, and employers of business organizations. In order to reduce the
expectation gaps, we propose several actions (see Table IV) to be undertaken by
graduates, higher learning institutions, and employers during two time periods: study
and working. The study period refers to the time when the students begin to decide the
academic programs that they want to enroll in colleges and universities until the time

Expectation gap variables Job satisfaction Organizational commitment

Organizational culture 2 0.091 0.070

Leadership 2 0.147 2 0.053
Communication 2 0.221 * 0.111
Decision making 2 0.187 * 2 0.124
Team working 2 0.035 0.012
Motivation 2 0.419 * * 0.011 Table III.
Development 2 0.062 0.036 Correlation between
Overall 2 0.306 * * 0.013 expectation gaps and job
satisfaction and
Note: *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level; * *Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level commitment
ET
Study period Working period
53,6
Graduates Choose the right program/career Utilize orientation program to reduce
Get more information about the job reality shocks
and industry Intensify socialization
Concentrate on long-term development Expand learning opportunities
524 efforts Participate in alumni association
Conduct effective job search
Higher learning Provide assistance to students to Monitor and assist graduates’ job
institutions choose the right major of studies search
Invite practitioners as guest speakers Maintain good contact with graduates
Invite practitioners to provide inputs Invite successful graduates to give
to program design career and motivation seminars
Conduct graduate orientation program
Establish job placement assistance
unit
Establish alumni association
Employer Conduct seminars to students Conduct effective orientation
Take students for industrial programs
Table IV. attachment Consider redesigning jobs
Roles for graduates, Communicate inputs for program Build good manager-employee
higher learning design relationship
institutions, and Use campus recruiting Conduct climate survey
employers in reducing Provide realistic job preview
expectation gaps Hire management trainees

they graduate. On the other hand, the working period incorporate the times when the
students have completed their studies at colleges and thus become graduates, job
search, and start working.

Study period
It is imperative that selecting an academic program or career must be made on the
basis of the students’ strengths and interests. To make the right selection, the students
need to get accurate information about the program requirements and the prospective
jobs awaiting them upon graduation. This is where the higher learning institutions can
provide assistance to students to choose the right area of studies. Career counseling as
well as job interest assessment are value-added services that can enhance the students’
decision-making process.
Students should continuously seek for more information about their future jobs or
industries by reading relevant career and business publications and web sites. The
learning institutions can assist by inviting guest speakers from the industries to
provide a realistic preview of their future jobs. This additional career information can
further reinforce the students’ decision of pursuing the right academic program to
achieve their career objectives.
Exposures to non-academic activities like sporting, clubs or association activities
are necessary for long-term self-development of students. Involvement in such
activities will gradually develop valuable human skills such as leadership,
communication, and decision-making. They should also grab whatever opportunities
available for them to acquire valuable competencies such as learning new computer
software or programming. In addition, the students should consider working part-time Organizational
while attending college. Heitkemper (1998) in her study found that graduates with commitment of
employment experience while in school are more prepared for their work after
graduating, and hence, more satisfied with their jobs, especially when they received the fresh graduates
jobs they wanted. In encouraging part-time employment among the students, colleges
and universities must begin to consider adapting their current curriculum to
accommodate these students so as to mitigate the negative effects of students missing 525
classes, doing less reading, and experiencing higher levels of stress (Holmes, 2008;
Robotham, 2009).
Universities are under more pressure today – by parents, students and community
at large – than ever before to prepare graduates to become productive employees, good
citizens and dedicated professionals (Heitkemper, 1998). Although universities have
done quite well in developing certain skills like information technology among
graduates ( Jusoh et al., 2007), Holton (1992), after interviewing hundreds of new
employees, managers and executives about the transition from university to work,
recognized that far too little attention is being given to teaching graduates how to go to
work. In such a case, the learning institutions should continuously revise and develop
academic programs that will better prepare students for the jobs of tomorrow, easing
their transition into the working world and increasing their satisfaction with jobs
obtained after graduation (Heitkemper, 1998). A think tank that invites prominent
practitioners to provide inputs to the program design may bridge the gap between the
academic world and the industry. As some researchers rightfully opined (Ehiyazaryan
and Barraclough, 2009; Pepper and McGrath, 2010), inputs in the form of action
learning, introduction of new courses, and collaborated programs with the industry
will better prepare the graduates to the working world.
The employers can also contribute by offering places for students to do their
internships. The industrial attachment, albeit for a brief period, provides practical
experience to students, which enhances their employment marketability. At the same
time the employers can get a real preview on the quality of the students who may turn
out to be their future job candidates. This method of selecting employees may be more
valid than the conventional job interview. More importantly, high intern performance
will result in enhanced employer-perceived value of the internship program (Gault et al.,
2010), which guarantees ongoing support rendered by employers to the internship
program.
When the students are graduating or in their final semesters, job search need to be
planned and initiated early. They need to be informed of the importance to study the
background of the companies and the organizational culture by talking to employees,
friends or people who know about the companies. Job interviews may be used to learn
about the companies and their expectations. The higher learning institutions can assist
by creating job placement assistance unit which serves as a “market” place for
employers and students to exchange information to cater their search activities.
Alumni associations may be established which could publish job opportunities
through their newsletter or web sites, provide a network among alumni, and hold
career-related seminars. The employers may also collaborate with higher learning
institutions to conduct what we coin as a graduate orientation program. The main
objective of this orientation program is to provide the latest industry information to the
graduates so that they know the employers’ expectations on them. This program may
ET include talks given by labor market experts from employers, economist, and
53,6 governmental bodies. We believe such a program will become an important avenue for
students to obtain critical information so as to craft effective job search strategy.
In recruiting graduates, the employers should provide a realistic job preview and
should not exaggerate the positive features of a given job or downplay the negative
features. Giving true information regarding duties and responsibilities, promotion, or
526 organizational culture will enable graduates to formulate realistic expectations toward
job and organization.
Even though employers can appoint graduates to fill up a specific job vacancy, it is
advisable for them to take these graduates as management trainees especially when
there are multiple vacancies for graduates. Taking them as management trainees
provide job placement flexibilities and better person-job and person-organization
matches. A study by Chatman (1991) on 171 entry-level auditors working in eight US
public accounting firms concluded that recruits whose values upon entry match those
of a firm adjust to the organizational culture more quickly, and recruits whose values
most closely match the firms feel most satisfied and remain longer with the firm.

Working period
Fresh graduates who have difficulties in their job search will welcome any assistance
extended to them especially from their previous learning institutions. Therefore, the
higher learning institutions should monitor and assist their graduates whenever
possible and keeping good contact with them. From time-to-time, employed graduates
can be invited back to give career and motivation talks to students of higher learning
institutions.
When graduates are hired, employers should conduct a proper orientation program
to provide the graduates with a broad understanding of the history of the organization,
the organization’s goals, interpersonal relationships, and performance requirements.
To be effective, the program must solicit active involvement of the newly hired
graduates. New hires need social networks that supply information as well as the
feeling that they are an important part of the organization. Major et al. (1995) find that
better prepared newcomers who adopt more successful information gathering
techniques experienced greater adjustment to their jobs. As a result, the graduates can
fully utilize the orientation program to reduce the impact of reality shocks or surprises
and thus expedite the necessary learning to quickly contribute to the organization.
On the part of the graduates, they must further intensify their socialization by
observing and interacting with peers and managers. The managers may also want to
consider job redesign if it can provides positive outcomes (such as intrinsic
satisfaction) or enhance the graduates’ learning a new job. Managers must build a good
relationship with their new graduate employees. Research evidence suggests that the
nature and quality of new employees’ relationship with their managers has a
significant impact on socialization (Major et al., 1995). In fact, the negative effects of
unmet expectations such as job dissatisfaction and turnover can be minimized if the
graduates have a high-quality relationship with their managers. To monitor and obtain
feedback on how well the graduates are settling in their jobs, a quick survey or
interview by the managers with the graduates may suggest further improvements to
assist the graduates in their jobs. This is because employees who experience successful
socialization are more motivated, more committed to the organization, and more
satisfied with jobs (Feldman, 1988). When their current jobs start to become stagnant, Organizational
graduates should seek new challenges and grab new opportunities to work in different commitment of
tasks and assignments. They may also enhance their knowledge by attending formal
training and development programs. In this respect, it is imperative for the employers fresh graduates
to evaluate the effectiveness of their in-house programs as well as programs offered by
external training providers. It is important for the employers to acknowledge that the
learning styles and expectations of Generation Y are very different from earlier 527
generations (Shaw and Fairhurst, 2008), which can leave significant impact on the job
expectations and satisfaction of the graduates.
The experiences of these graduates in the early stages of their career, in as much as
their initial shock and their awareness of the necessity to adapt quickly to the working
environment, re valuable information to the number of students finishing college and
who are eager to embark into the working environment. It is necessary then for this
information to be disseminated to these potential new entrants in order for them to
understand and be prepared and to have a realistic expectation of what lies ahead. The
dissemination process can be efficiently done through active participation of graduates
in their alumni associations. These first-hand experiences may provide tremendous
help to students in preparing themselves mentally towards a smoother transition into
the working environment. As for the graduates, these activities can also be used to
break the monotony of their working life.

Conclusion and possible avenues for future research

This paper contributes to the existing body of knowledge in terms of narrowing the
research gap by examining the expectation gaps of fresh graduates in Malaysia. The
novelty of this study is that it provides a holistic perspective of the list of expectation
gaps and their effects on job satisfaction and commitment from the perspective of fresh
graduates. The expectation gaps exist and therefore it is of paramount importance for
the gaps to be efficiently and effectively addressed by the higher learning institutions,
employers, and the graduates themselves rather than merely depending on
government intervention. In this context, various measures suggested in this study
can be taken as guidance to reduce the expectation gaps. Failure to do so will have
severe effect on the graduates’ job satisfaction, commitment, and more importantly,
their performance.
Due to the limitations of this study, the findings ought to be interpreted with care.
First, the study was conducted on a relatively small sample in Malaysia and thus,
limits the generalizability of the findings. A larger sample size on cross-cultural basis
may yield different yet interesting results. Second, only seven variables that influence
job satisfaction and commitment were included in this study. Job satisfaction has been
operationalized as satisfaction with various facets of the job, but the number of facets
can ranged from 5 (Hackman and Oldham, 1975) to 13 (McFarlin and Rice, 1991). As
such, it is recommended that more job satisfaction-related factors are included in future
studies. Third, this study was conducted on the fresh graduates regardless of the types
of industry and company that they are working for. It is interesting to also match and
compare the graduates’ academic qualifications and the type of company or industry
that they are working for so that we can better understand their job satisfaction and
commitment.
ET References
53,6 Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology,
Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Ashforth, B.E. and Saks, A.M. (1996), “Socialization tactics: longitudinal effects on newcomer
adjustment”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 149-78.
528 Bass, B.M. (1998), Transformational Leadership: Industry, Military and Educational Impact,
Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Bhanugopan, R. and Fish, A. (2009), “Achieving graduate employability through consensus in
the South Pacific island nation”, Education þ Training, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 108-23.
Chatman, J.A. (1991), “Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization in public
accounting firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 459-85.
Cotterman, R.L. (1991), “How recent graduates view their jobs”, Research Technology
Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 35-9.
Cropanzano, R. and Folger, R. (1996), “Procedural justice and worker motivation”, in Steers, R.M.,
Porter, L.W. and Bigley, G.A. (Eds), Motivation and Leadership at Work, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY, pp. 72-83.
Dean, R.A., Ferris, K.R. and Konstans, C. (1988), “Occupational reality shock and organizational
commitment: evidence from accounting profession”, Accounting, Organizations and
Society, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 235-50.
Ehiyazaryan, E. and Barraclough, N. (2009), “Enhancing employability: integrating real world
experience in the curriculum”, Education þ Training, Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 292-308.
Feldman, D.C. (1988), Managing Careers in Organizations, Scott-Foresman, Glenview, IL.
Gaertner, S. (1999), “Structural determinants of job satisfaction and organizational commitment
in turnover models”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 479-93.
Gault, J., Leach, E. and Duey, M. (2010), “Effects of business internships on job marketability:
the employers’ perspective”, Education þ Training, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 76-88.
Goris, J., Vaught, B. and Pettit, J. (2000), “Effects of communication direction on job performance
and satisfaction: a moderated regression analysis”, The Journal of Business
Communication, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 348-68.
Graduan2U (2010), “Five reasons why graduates are unemployed”, available at: www.
graduan2u.com/2010/02/28/five-reasons-why-graduates-are-unemployed/ (accessed
December 29, 2010).
Graham, C. and McKenzie, A. (1995), “Delivering the promise: developing new graduates”,
Education þ Training, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 4-11.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), “Development of the job diagnostic survey”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 159-70.
Heitkemper, M.R. (1998), “Work-study experience of college graduates as it relates to the
transition to work and job satisfaction”, unpublished academic dissertation, Gonzaga
University, Spokane, WA.
Holden, R.J. and Jameson, S.M. (1999), “A preliminary investigation into the transition and
utilization of hospitality graduates in SMEs”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 1
No. 3, pp. 231-42.
Holmes, V. (2008), “Working to live: why university students balance full-time study and
employment”, Education þ Training, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 305-14.
Holton, E. (1992), “Teaching going-to-work skills – a missing link in career development”,
Journal of Career Planning & Employment, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 46-51.
Hunt, J.G. and Liesbscher, V.K.C. (1973), “Leadership preference, leadership behavior and Organizational
employee satisfaction”, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 59-77. commitment of
Irving, G. and Meyer, J. (1994), “Re-examination of the met expectations hypothesis: fresh graduates
a longitudinal analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 6, pp. 937-49.
Jusoh, M., Abdul Razak, M.R. and Chong, S.C. (2007), “Employers’ preference and assessment of
the qualities of fresh business graduates: empirical evidence from Malaysia”, International 529
Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 316-36.
Keenan, A. and Newton, T. (1986), “Work aspirations and experiences of young graduate
engineers”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 224-37.
Mabey, C. (1986), Graduates into Industry, Gower, Aldershot.
McFarlin, D.B. and Rice, R.W. (1991), “Determinants of satisfaction with specific job facets: a test
of Locke’s model”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 25-37.
Major, D., Kozlowski, S., Chao, G. and Gardner, P. (1995), “A longitudinal investigation of
newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes and the moderating effects of role
development factors”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 418-31.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2,
pp. 171-94.
O’Reilly, C.A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D.F. (1991), “People and organizational culture: a profile
comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 487-516.
Pepper, I.K. and McGrath, R. (2010), “Pre-employment course: a partnership for success?”,
Education þ Training, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 245-54.
Perrone, L. and Vickers, M.H. (2003), “Life after graduation as a very uncomfortable world:
an Australian case study”, Education þ Training, Vol. 45 Nos 2/3, pp. 69-78.
Pool, S.W. (1997), “The relationship of job satisfaction with substitutes of leadership, leadership
behavior, and work motivation”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 131 No. 3, pp. 271-83.
Robie, C. and Ryan, A.M. (1998), “The relation between job level and job satisfaction”, Group and
Organization Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 470-96.
Robotham, D. (2009), “Combining study and employment: a step too far?”, Education þ Training,
Vol. 51 No. 4, pp. 322-32.
Rodwell, J.J., Kienzle, R. and Shadur, M.A. (1998), “The relationships among work-related
perceptions, employee attitudes, and employee performance: the integral role of
communication”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 Nos 3-4, pp. 277-93.
Savery, L.K. (1991), “Perceived and preferred styles of leadership influences on employee job
satisfaction”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 28-32.
Savery, L.K. (1994), “Attitudes to work: influence of perceived styles of leadership on a group of
workers”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 12-18.
Schein, E.H. (1964), “How to break in the college graduate”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 42,
pp. 68-76.
Sekaran, U. and Bougie, R. (2010), Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Sewell, P. and Pool, L.D. (2010), “Moving from conceptual ambiguity to operational clarity:
employability, enterprise and entrepreneurship in higher education”, Education þ
Training, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 89-94.
Shaw, S. and Fairhurst, D. (2008), “Engaging a new generation of graduates”, Education þ
Training, Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 366-78.
ET Shelley, K. (1994), “More job openings – even more entrants: the outlook for college graduates,
1992-2005”, eOccupational Outlook Quarterly, Summer, pp. 4-9.
53,6 Sousa-Poza, A. and Sousa-Poza, A.A. (2000), “Well-being at work: a cross-national analysis of the
levels and determinants of job satisfaction”, The Journal of Socio-Economics, Vol. 29 No. 6,
pp. 517-38.
USA International Business Publications (2008), Malaysia Country Study Guide, USA
International Business Publications, Washington, DC, p. 12.
530
Van Maanen, J. and Schein, E. (1979), “Toward a theory of organizational socialization”,
in Staw, B.M. (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT,
pp. 209-64.
Wanous, J.P., Poland, T., Premack, S.L. and Davis, K.S. (1992), “The effects of met expectations
on newcomer attitudes and behaviors: a review and meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 77, pp. 288-97.
Wickramasinghe, V. and Perera, L. (2010), “Graduates’, university lecturers’ and employers’
perceptions towards employability skills”, Education þ Training, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 226-44.
Wong, P. (2010), “Unemployed. . . or unemployable?”, available at: www.malaysiantoday.com.
my/node/1726 (accessed December 29, 2010).

Appendix
Items under job satisfaction construct
Satisfaction towards . . .
(1) Having enough information to do my job well.
(2) Able to operate in a cost-efficient way in my work group.
(3) Able to understand the day-to-day goals of my work group.
(4) My work group’s climate in which diverse perspectives are valued.
(5) The physical working conditions (e.g. Space, cleanliness).
(6) Individual differences (e.g. Gender, race, educational background).

Items under job commitment construct

Commitment on . . .
(1) Working hard for company.
(2) Proud of company.
(3) Spending time with work on business related with the work outside the company.
(4) Enjoying working with the colleagues.
(5) Doing the best for the difficult work tasks.
(6) Accomplishing the job with enthusiasm.

Corresponding author
Mazuki Jusoh can be contacted at: mazuki@aif.org.my

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.