AD. \ . o ., ‘3... llllllnll"llllllll““ll 9‘3”“ ‘8: 59 :10! {Ml 3 1293 006050 LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF INTERACTION CONTENT AND PROACTION ON ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION OUTCOMES presented by ' Deo‘ra A. Major has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M. A. Psychology degree in MM J Date flaw/(A1020, fiw 7 I 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or baton date duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE _,.. L:l::l MSU Is An Alfinnlflvo Action/Equal Opportunity Inflitutlon I . i‘h ‘.. .V'Q' ' Jr A 4 .5» ; 4 O .‘NI .0 '- . -l ‘ O vk'c‘ _¢va.~ in . 5331:2313“ .. By Debra A. Major A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1990 - ’ , ‘ ,_ . ‘ , _-y-,-.,V.c vL.‘ ‘ «A. ..:\4 -.‘ fl " _. -..'.‘~.“.’*".fi“ln Tr. ' 0 1 .‘ :L DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF INTERACTION CONTENT AND PROACTION ' ‘OJ ON ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION OUTCOMES b054bb3 ABSTRACT DIFFERENTIAL EFFECTS OF INTERACTION CONTENT AND PROACTION ON ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION OUTCOMES By Debra A. Major This study examined effects of interaction content and proaction source on organizational newcomers’ socialization outcomes. Work and social content were proposed to impact only corresponding outcomes. The total amount of interaction newcomers experienced was expected to impact more general outcomes. The pattern of proaction, determined by proaction source and interaction content, was proposed to differentially effect outcomes. Total interaction from insiders was expected to have more influence on general outcomes. To test the hypotheses, 437 students enrolled in an internship program were surveyed. Findings were generally supportive. Social and work related interaction were distinct and significantly related to work and social adjustment, respectively. Total interaction predicted commitment and job satisfaction. As predicted, insider social proaction was more strongly related to social adjustment than newcomer social proaction. Total insider proaction was predictive of job satisfaction, commitment, and tenure intention. Counter to expectations, insider work related proaction significantly predicted work adjustment. To my grandparents, Lewis and Ann Major. Thanks for a lifetime of love and encouragement. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this thesis marks the end of my arduous path toward a master's degree and the beginning of the road toward my Ph. D. which I’m sure will prove itself to be even more difficult. The completion of this undertaking would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of several individuals. I would like to take this opportunity to thank a few of the people who helped me along the way and those whose support I am counting on as I strive toward my ultimate academic goals. I offer my deepest appreciation to my committee chairperson, Steve Kozlowski. His confidence and ready assistance were the driving forces behind the success of this project. How Steve managed to provide the freedom that allowed me to make this thesis my own, counter—balanced by just the right amount of structure to keep me on track, I’m sure is a secret reserved only for experienced and tenured faculty members. Steve — you are my mentor and my friend - thanks for everything! Special thanks also goes to the remainder of my committee, Kevin Ford and Neal Schmitt. Your insight and iv perspective brought new dimensions to this thesis. I greatly appreciate the time you devoted to this project and your commitment to its success. I would also like to thank Chris Honea for the many hours of envelope stuffing and key punching he provided, asking for nothing more than a hug and a kiss in return. Thanks for helping me through the rough spots and setting me straight when an alternative career in the "fast food business" started looking pretty good. All my friends and the graduate students in the program deserve mention for helping me keep my sanity and seeing me through some of the more trying times. I am especially grateful to Lisa, Jeff, and Dawn for putting up with my moodiness and understanding when I neglected them during that "terrible winter term." Thanks also to my long- distanoe friends Pete, Helene, and Randy for empathizing and letting me know that I was not the first person to "suffer" through the rigors of completing a thesis. The confidence and encouragement of my family were especially important throughout this project. Thanks for reminding me that this will all be worth it in the end. Finally, I would like to offer a very special thanks to Ashley, the light of my life. Watching a two year-old triumph over tragedy with such courage gave me perspective on my own "trials and tribulations." TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Definitions and Perspectives . . . . . . . . 1 The Role of Organizational Socialization . . . . . 2 Thesis Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Conceptual development . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Method c . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Models of Organizational Socialization . . . . . . 8 Stage models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Organizational models . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Interactionist models . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Interaction Content and Total Amount of Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Basis of the work and social content distinction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Content specificity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Work related interaction content . . . . . . 28 Social interaction content . . . . . . . . . 30 Total interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Proaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Proaction defined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Organizational insiders . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Organizational newcomers . . . . . . . . . . 38 Effects of proaction . . . . . . . . . 39 Interaction Content and Proaction Source . . . . . 40 Work related proaction . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Social proaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Total proaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Proaction Antecedents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Self-efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Previous work experience . . . . . . . . . . 47 Tolerance of ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Task interdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 METHOD 0 I o o o o o o a a l o l o a o I o I o o o o o 5 2 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Sample Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Proaction . . . . . . . . . . 54 Work and social adjustment . . . . . . 60 Work related stress . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Tenure intention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Job satisfaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Organizational commitment . . . . . . . . . . 64 Self-efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Work experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Tolerance of ambiguity . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Task interdependence . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Proaction Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Analysis overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Tests for Hypothesis 1 . . . . . 70 Tests for Hypothesis 2 . . . . . . . 72 Tests for Hypothesis 3 . . . . 74 Tests for Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Tests for Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Tests for Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . . . 82 Antecedents and Proaction . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Individual difference antecedents . . . . . . 84 Situational antecedents . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Newcomer proaction regression analyses . . . 88 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Implications and Directions for Future Research . 98 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 APPENDIX A: Items for Descriptive Information . . . . 115 APPENDIX B: Newcomer, Supervisor, and Coworker Work and Social Proaction . . . . . . . . 116 APPENDIX C: Social, Work, and Newcomer Contribution Items . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 APPENDIX D: Work Related Stress Items . . . . . . . . 118 APPENDIX E: Tenure Intention Items . . . . . . . . . . 119 APPENDIX F: Job Satisfaction Items . . . . . . . . . . 120 APPENDIX C: Organizational Commitment Items . . . . . 121 APPENDIX H: Self—Efficacy Items . . . . . . . . . . . 122 APPENDIX I: Career Related and General Work Experience Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 APPENDIX J: Tolerance of Ambiguity Items . . . . . . . 124 APPENDIX K Task Interdependence Items . . . . . . . . 125 APPENDIX L: Accessibility Items . . . . . . . . . . . 126 APPENDIX M Table 14 Antecedent, Proaction, and Outcome Scale Intercorrelation Matrix . . 127 viii Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table l—l LIST OF TABLES Page Correlations: Newcomer, Coworker, and Supervisor Work and Social Proaction . . . . 56 Principal Components Factor Analysis for Proaction Sources and Content . . . . . . 58 Principal Components Factor Analysis for Work and Social Adjustment Items . . . . 62 Hypothesis 1: Regression Results . . . . . . 71 Hypothesis 2: Regression Results . . . . . . 73 Hypothesis 3: Regression Results . . . . . . 75 Hypothesis 4: Regression Results . . . . . . 77 Hypothesis 4: Follow-Up Regression Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Hypothesis 5: Regression Results . . . . . . 81 Hypothesis 6: Regression Results . . . . . . 83 Correlations: Newcomer Work and Social Proaction and Individual Difference Proaction Antecedents O O O I O C O O D C I O l O I O i 85 Correlations: Work and Social Proaction and Situational Proaction Antecedents . . . . . . 87 Newcomer Proaction Regression Results . . . . 89 Antecedent, Proaction, and Outcome Scale Intercorrelation Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . 127 ix LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1: Conceptual Heuristic of the Socialization Process . . . . . . . . . . . 23 INTRODUCTION Definitions and Perspectives Organizational socialization has received a considerable amount of theoretical attention, resulting in several perspectives and definitions of the process. Schein (1968) provided an early definition of organizational socialization, referring to it as the process by which newcomers are "broken in" or "learn the ropes" in the work setting. Van Maanen (1975) more formally defined socialization as "the process by which an organizational member learns the required behaviors and supportive attitudes necessary to participate as a member of an organization (p. 207)." Similarly, Feldman (1981) described socialization as "the process by which employees are transformed from organization outsiders to participating and effective members (p. 309)." Recently, views on organizational socialization have taken on an interactionist flavor. Louis (1980) viewed socialization as a process of "surprise and sense making," in which newcomers react to unexpected organizational elements and attempt to assimilate them to facilitate their own adjustment. Jones (1983) conceived of socialization as 2 the outcome of the interaction between newcomer individual difference variables and organizational socialization tactics. Kozlowski and Ostroff (1987) viewed socialization from an elaborated learning perspective, in which newcomers seek out information and knowledgeable agents to enhance the learning process. Finally, Reichers (1987) contended that organizational socialization is a process facilitated by the proactiveness of all agents, including newcomers. The Role of Organizational Socialization The study of organizational socialization can contribute to an under—researched domain of organizational theory. Little is known about the processes by which an individual makes the transition from organizational outsider to insider. The roles of organizational insiders and newcomers in the socialization process require further study and explication. Research exploring the process and content of newcomer learning may be particularly useful in explaining key outcomes such as adjustment, commitment, satisfaction, and turnover. The study of socialization is important to organizations for practical reasons. Organizational members who are well adjusted and committed contribute to organizational survival and success. The study of socialization may enable organizations to provide appropriate socialization experiences for their newcomers, resulting in a more effective and valuable workforce. 3 Individuals entering organizations who aspire to succeed and excel in their jobs may also profit from socialization research. As mentioned above, organizations may be able to provide more positive socialization experiences, but socialization is an interactive process. Newcomers too can learn strategies for becoming better adjusted to the work environment. These strategies may increase personal work satisfaction, in addition to enhancing career success. Thesis Overview This thesis is organized into five major sections: literature review, conceptual development, methodology, discussion, and results. The sections below provide the reader with a brief introduction to the ideas and issues that are elaborated in the body of the thesis. Literature review. In the literature review section, three major classes of socialization models are discussed and critiqued. Stage models portray socialization in terms of a series of discrete steps or stages through which each newcomer must progress. These models fail to recognize individual and organizational variation. That is, all organizations are assumed to provide similar socialization experiences to their newcomers, and all newcomers are believed to proceed through each stage at the same rate with similar reactions. 4 Organizational models of socialization describe the process in terms of the tactics organizations employ to socialize newcomers. Unlike stage models, organizational models recognize variation in socialization practices organizations use. However, individual newcomers are still viewed as uniform and reactive, with little direct control over their own socialization experiences. Interactionist models of organizational socialization overcome the major inadequacies of stage and organizational models. Interactionist views describe both organizational insiders and newcomers as active participants in the socialization process. In addition, interactionist models take preliminary steps toward detailing how and what newcomers learn during the socialization process. Newcomers are believed to learn about a variety of work specific topics through interaction with organizational insiders. Adopting the interactionist perspective, the conceptual development focuses on the elaboration of how and what newcomers learn through the socialization process. Conceptual development. The conceptual development centers around two major constructs derived from the interactionist literature: proaction and interaction content. Proaction, in the socialization framework, is defined as the tendency of organizational members to actively initiate communication with others in the work environment. Newcomers, supervisors, and coworkers all have 5 the potential to proact. The source of proaction (e.g., newcomer or organizational insider) is expected to have a differential impact on socialization outcomes. The extent to which newcomers are proactive with insiders combined with the extent to which insiders are proactive with newcomers results in the total amount of interaction experienced by organizational newcomers. The total amount of interaction experienced is also proposed to affect newcomers’ socialization outcomes. The amount of interaction newcomers experience is important, but the nature or content of the interaction is likely to differentially affect socialization outcomes. Two major types of interaction content are proposed: work related and social. Work related content focuses specifically on aspects of the newcomer’s job. Discussions about job tasks and work procedures are examples of work related interaction content. Social content, which has not been previously explored in the socialization context, is directed at the newcomer as an individual, as opposed to the newcomer as an organizational member. Discussions about family, friends, and hobbies are examples of social interaction content. The type of content newcomers experience, work related and social, is expected to have differential effects on corresponding socialization outcomes. 6 Proaction and interaction content are expected to relate to specific socialization outcomes, such as work and social adjustment, stress reduction, satisfaction, commitment, and tenure intention. These relationships constitute the major hypotheses of this paper. In addition, antecedent variables proposed to elicit proaction are explored. Method. The method section describes the study’s participants and sampling procedures. The construct measures are also described. The number of items, response formats, and internal consistency reliability estimates are provided for each scale. Results. The results section describes the hierarchical regression analyses used in testing the hypotheses and interpretations for varying degrees of hypothesis support. The results of each hypothesis test are discussed in turn. Overall, work and social content and proaction sources were distinct. Work related interaction was more important in the prediction of work adjustment and social interaction was more important in the prediction of social adjustment. The total amount of interaction predicted newcomer job satisfaction, commitment, and tenure intention. When proaction patterns were examined, supervisor and coworker work and social proaction were more predictive of work and social adjustment respectively, than newcomer proaction. The work adjustment finding was counter 7 to the hypothesized relationship. In addition, newcomer proaction acted as a moderator in the analysis. Insider proaction was also more predictive of job satisfaction, commitment, and tenure intention than newcomer proaction. Task interdependence and some individual difference variables had significant relationships with newcomer proaction. Discussion. The discussion focuses on interpreting the results and considering the implications for the proposed perspective. The proposed conceptual framework was basically supported, although results show that more emphasis should be placed on insider proaction. Additional factors that may affect proaction processes are discussed. The limitations of the present research and methodological improvements for future research are also established. Theoretical avenues for extending the present research are considered. LITERATURE REVIEW The perspectives on organizational socialization developed in the literature to date may be classified into three major types of models: stage, organizational, and interactionist. In the sections that follow each model is described and critiqued, providing the basis for the conceptual development of the present research. Models of Organizational Socialization Stage models. Stage models attempt to describe socialization in terms of a series of sequential steps required to transform a newcomer into a full organizational member. Although several different stage models have been proposed (Alpert, Atkins, & Ziller, 1979; Bourne, 1967; Buchanan, 1974; Cogswell, 1968; Feldman, 1981; Graen, 1976; Simpson, 1967), each includes the same basic transitions. According to Fisher’s (1986) review, three stages, anticipatory socialization, encounter, and adaptation, form the basis of most models. Stage one, anticipatory socialization, occurs prior to organizational entry and is concerned with the degree to which newcomers are prepared to assume their organizational roles. During this stage, newcomers form expectations about 9 what the organization will be like. Newcomers may base their anticipations on several sources of information, such as their experience with the organization during recruitment (Wanous, 1980), the reactions of friends and family toward the organization (Van Maanen, 1976), and the reputation of the organization in the business community and society in general. For example, if an organization is generally regarded as "a great place to work," newcomers are likely to develop positive expectations about the company. Stage two can be the most turbulent as it encompasses the newcomer’s initial encounter or confrontation with the organization. To the extent that newcomers’ expectations are realistic and accurate, the transition in this phase is expected to be smooth. Some organizations seek to ensure a successful transition by providing newcomers with realistic job previews in the first stage (Wanous, 1980). However, many newcomers are not prepared for their entry into the organization. To the extent that their anticipations were inaccurate and unrealistic, these newcomers suffer from "reality shock." Stage three encompasses the consequences of stage two. In this stage, newcomers experiencing reality shock in stage two are likely to exhibit low job satisfaction and performance. To the extent that newcomers learn to cope and adjust, stage three is described as role management, change and acquisition, mutual acceptance or adaptation. By the A 10 time this stage is reached, newcomers have learned what is expected of them in their new organizational roles and are encouraged to behave accordingly. If newcomers are able to adapt, this stage results in the newcomer becoming a fully accepted member. Newcomers who are unable or unwilling to adapt are not accepted in stage three. Organizations may try to "break down" these newcomers in an attempt to elicit desired behaviors. Newcomers who continue to resist adjustment are likely to be dismissed from the organization or become isolated and ostracized within the organization. Stage models have several shortcomings. The sharp demarcations suggested by stages seems artificial. Organizational socialization is a more continuous process. The proposed stage models appear rigid and deterministic in their assumptions that there is no significant organizational or individual variation in the socialization process. These models presume that all organizations engage in the same socialization practices. These models also contend that all newcomers proceed through the stages at the same rate with essentially the same experiences. This perspective implies that socialization is something that is "done" to newcomers. Individuals are viewed as reactive, with little power over the process. Finally, stage models are more descriptive than explanatory. They focus on the socialization outcomes that result at each stage without delving into the specific processes by which they occur. A 11 Although several researchers have attempted to test stage models (Feldman, 1976; Graen, Orris, & Johnson, 1973; Toffler, 1981; Van Maanen, 1975), the empirical evidence supporting them is weak. There is no evidence that socialization occurs in the discrete steps proposed by stage models. Moreover, some studies suggest that the socialization is much more transactional with newcomers and insiders exerting mutual influence on the process (Jones, 1983; Kozlowski & Ostroff, 1987; Van Maanen, 1975). Organizational models. Organizational models represent the second major class of socialization theories. These models attempt to distinguish the methods or tactics that organizations employ to socialize newcomers. A newcomer’s socialization outcomes are thought to be the direct result of the type of socialization tactics organizations utilize. Wanous (1980) discussed the formal and informal tactics organizations use to socialize newcomers. Training, education, and apprenticeship are examples of formal methods of socialization, while debasement experiences, and seduction represent the informal tactics. Schein (1964) described a typical debasement practice as an "upending experience" which drastically alters the newcomer’s self- image. The military routinely puts new recruits through a series of debasement experiences designed to strip away their individual identities and build a stronger association A 12 with the armed forces. Seduction is accomplished by providing the newcomer with the illusion of many tempting choices when one is actually more attractive. The organizational reward structure is designed such that the newcomer is subtly pushed to select and rationalize organizationally favorable choices (Festinger, 1954). Wanous’ basic premise was that individuals should be matched with organizations through the processes of recruitment, selection, and socialization. Socialization was viewed as the process by which organizations change newcomers to achieve a match, or proper fit between individuals and the organization. However, Wanous also contended that a good "match" is not uniformly desirable. He recognized that overly matched individuals may serve only to perpetuate the status quo and create more conformity than is organizationally functional. The "people processing" approach (Van Maanen, 1978; Van Maanen and Schein, 1979) also focused on the effects that various organizational socialization tactics have on newcomers. Van Maanen and Schein developed a taxonomy consisting of six major tactical dimensions: (1) collective vs. individual--referring to whether newcomers are socialized as a group or singly in isolation from one another; (2) formal vs. informal-—indicating whether newcomers have structured socialization experiences or trial and error type experiences; (3) sequential vs. random-- A 13 referring to whether the "socialization steps" a newcomer goes through are clearly identifiable and ordered or more ambiguous and open to change; (4) fixed vs. variable-— identifying whether the socialization timetable is specified or unspecified; (5) serial vs. disjunctive--addressing whether newcomers are groomed according to a role model or no role model is available; and (6) investiture vs. divestiture—~referring to whether the individual characteristics newcomers bring to an organization are affirmed and favored or stripped and discouraged. Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) perspective minimized the role of individual variation. How the newcomer responds in the organizational setting is contingent upon the particular combination of socialization tactics employed by the organization, rather than any newcomer individual differences. When socialization is sequential, variable, serial, and involves divestiture tactics, newcomers are expected to adopt a "custodial role response." That is, newcomers will tend to approach the organization in the same way that present members do. This is similar to Wanous’ (1980) notion of how overly matched newcomers perpetuate the status quo. Socialization tactics that are collective, formal, random, fixed, and disjunctive are proposed to result in content innovation. This means that through their socialization experiences, newcomers are encouraged to express and implement new ways of doing their jobs. Content 14 innovation can be contrasted with role innovation, which results when socialization tactics are individual, informal, random, disjunctive, and involve investiture processes. Role innovation means that newcomers do not merely alter the content of their jobs, they redefine the job. Organizational models, such as the one advocated by Van Maanen and Schein (1979), overcome some of the shortcomings of stage models. Organizational models recognize that newcomers may be socialized according to different tactics or practices that vary across organizations. Jones (1986) provided empirical support for the basic propositions that certain socialization tactics result in custodial role orientations, while others are more likely to lead to more innovative role orientations. Organizational models are also an improvement Over stage models in that they allow for variability in the socialization process, which leads to outcome variation among individuals. These models of socialization, however, have their own unique set of problems. Although individual newcomers are believed to have differential responses to socialization, those responses are viewed as totally dependent upon the tactics employed by the organization. The people processing perspective also holds that the degree to which an individual becomes adequately socialized depends primarily upon the organizational tactics employed. The emphasis is not placed on the personal attributes and actions of the A 15 newcomers themselves. Wanous (1980) recognized the capacity of individuals to influence the organization through a process termed personalization, however, socialization was viewed as the more powerful process. The notion of tactics implies that organizations socialize newcomers according to a predetermined design or plan. In actuality, most socialization is probably more informal or "accidental." From a more realistic view, socialization is a reciprocal, transactional process between newcomers and organizational insiders, typically occurring without great orchestration from either. Interactionist models. Interactionist models of organizational socialization incorporate the components of interactional psychology. Terborg (1981) offered the following definition: Interactional psychology is an approach to the study and explanation of behavior that emphasizes a continuous and multidirectional interaction between person characteristics and situation characteristics. It draws attention to the complex transaction whereby individuals select, interpret, and change situations. (p. 569) Endler and Magnusson (1976) detailed the role of causation in interactional psychology, asserting that different degrees of support for reciprocal causation can be derived from the presence of joint main effects, A 16 interactions, and moderator effects. The basic theme of the interactionist view is that "people and human settings are inseparable; people are the setting because it is they who make the setting (Schneider, 1987, p. 440)." In other words, people and settings mutually influence one another. Individual differences and situational specificities both affect individual outcomes. Recent models of organizational socialization reflect the interactionist perspective. According to Fisher (1986), the interactionist view of organizational socialization recognizes the newcomer as an active problem solver, seeking out people and learning settings judged to be valuable in facilitating adjustment. Interactionist models represent an improvement over stage and organizational models, contending that socialization experiences and outcomes are the result of the reciprocal effects of organizational efforts and newcomer initiative. Four interactionist models, proposed by Louis (1980), Jones (1983), Kozlowski and Ostroff (1987), and Reichers (1987), are discussed below. Focusing on the cognitive aspects, Louis (1980) conceived of socialization as a "sense making" process. She contended that newcomers consciously cope with three key features of the new organizational environment: change, contrast, and surprise. Change is defined as objective differences between the newcomer’s new and old settings. Contrast describes the emergence of focal aspects of the new A 17 environment that have particular salience for the newcomer. Surprise is the difference between the newcomer’s anticipated beliefs about the organization and what is actually experienced. Socialization is successful to the extent that newcomers are able to effectively cope with each of these features. According to Louis (1980), newcomer coping is a conscious cognitive process triggered by surprise in the new organizational environment. Coping is effective to the extent that newcomers assign the correct meanings to unanticipated organizational events. Louis contended that organizational insiders are vital in leading newcomers to the appropriate conclusions. As she stated: It seems particularly important for newcomers to have insiders who might serve as sounding boards and guide them to important background information for assigning meaning to events and surprises. Insiders are seen as a potentially rich source of assistance to newcomers in diagnosing and interpreting the myriad surprises that may arise during their transitions into new settings. Insiders are already "on board"; presumably, they are equipped with richer historical and current interpretive perspectives than the newcomer alone possesses. Information may also come through 18 insider-newcomer relationships, averting and/or precipitating surprises. (p. 243) Jones (1983) emphasized the role of the newcomer in his model of organizational socialization by describing the impact of individual difference variables on the socialization process. Specifically, self-efficacy and growth need strength were expected to affect newcomers’ initial psychological orientations toward organizations, their attributional processes, and their ability to make sense of the new settings. In addition, Jones (1983) proposed that the way individuals have dealt with new situations in the past will be a major determinant of success in coping with the new organizational setting. Kozlowski and Ostroff (1987) focused on informational sources and the processes by which newcomers learn about key content domains in the organizational setting. They conceptualized newcomers as active information seekers, soliciting information about role, task, group, and organizational domains from a variety of sources, such as coworkers, supervisors, and mentors. They proposed that newcomer socialization outcomes, including knowledge, adjustment, and performance would be affected by the amount of information gathered and the sources utilized. The model proposed by Reichers (1987) focused on the role of newcomer/insider interaction in determining the rate of socialization. The basic hypothesis was that the amount A 19 of interaction newcomers experience has a direct impact on the rate at which they are socialized. According to her model, the amount of interaction is determined by the proactiveness of agents in the organizational setting, including the newcomer. In other words, the amount of interaction a newcomer experiences is contingent upon the initiative taken by both the newcomer and organizational insiders. Although the empirical testing of interactionist models of organizational socialization has been limited, the evidence that exists is supportive. For example, Jones (1986) supplied evidence for the moderating effect of newcomer self-efficacy on socialization processes. Kozlowski and Ostroff (1987) found that previous work experience affects the extent to which newcomers seek information from coworkers, supervisors, and mentors. In addition, they substantiated that prior experience and amount of information gathered, subsequently affect newcomer knowledge, adjustment, and performance. The general acknowledgement of socialization as a transactional process, mutually affected by organizational newcomers and insiders, represents a substantial improvement over previous theories of socialization. The recognition of newcomers as active agents is an especially meaningful step in understanding the socialization process. The greatest value of interactionist A 20 models lies in their attempts to specify what and how newcomers learn in the organizational environment. CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT The theory of organizational socialization proposed here incorporates the elements of interactionist models and attempts to fill some important gaps left by those models. Previous theories have established four key propositions that constitute the basis of the present View: (a) Organizational socialization is a reciprocal transactional process between newcomers and organizational insiders (Jones, 1983; Kozlowski & Ostroff, 1987; Louis, 1980; Reichers, 1987); (b) The socialization process is affected by newcomers themselves, through the impact of their individual differences and the ways in which they cope with the new setting (Jones, 1983; Kozlowski & Ostroff, 1987; Louis, 1980; Reichers, 1987); (c) Newcomers learn about and adjust to their new environments by interacting with key insiders, such as supervisors and coworkers (Kozlowski & Ostroff, 1987; Louis, 1980; Reichers, 1987); (d) The amount of interaction newcomers experience is determined by the amount of proaction exhibited by all agents (Reichers, 1987). 21 22 The tenets enumerated above all address the process of organizational socialization. They describe how newcomers learn by interacting with organizational insiders. Interactionist models also delineate what newcomers must learn during the socialization process to become adjusted organizational members. For example, Kozlowski and Ostroff (1987) suggested that newcomers learn about four key content domains: task, group, role, and organization. These four areas are representative of formal, work related matters a newcomer must master. However, complete newcomer adjustment also depends upon fitting into the organization’s social structure. The career (Super, 1957) and leadership (Fleishman, Harris, & Burtt, 1955) literatures have long recognized the important role of social relationships in individual and organizational effectiveness. The importance of social adjustment has been neglected in the organizational socialization literature to date. The proposed view incorporates social adjustment as a key socialization outcome and contends that social adjustment is achieved through a process of social interaction, in the same way that work adjustment is accomplished through work related interaction. The conceptual heuristic (Figure 1) distinguishes social interaction from work related interaction. Each type of interaction is expected to affect corresponding A 23 5:26! :2.- 325-23 .20: ooze—oz: no- Eon—:55“. 32:3... 23:8 2.252.?- for .mmmoowm coaumNHHMHoom onu wo ofiumfiuoom Hoouaoosoo "H ousmam AAA c2338.: icon 322: thou «Cl cOZOIOhn. 5:33:00. oo:ooeo¢ou.3e_ so: “220-“. .Eozoazm 02.0....an for. 3.3 6850...... 3:53.:- 3 02.223 3.20am 3:322: bOEOOIOZ 5:028... 3320: 2.0; 24 socialization outcomes. The total amount of interaction newcomers experience is proposed to lead to more global outcomes. The proaction pattern, as determined by the initiator of the interaction and interaction content, is the focus of the heuristic model. The proaction pattern is expected to have a differential impact on the corresponding outcomes. Specifically, work related interactions initiated by newcomers are proposed to have the greatest impact on work related outcomes and social interactions initiated by organizational insiders are expected to have the greatest impact on social outcomes. Global outcomes are contended to be most affected by the total amount of interaction initiated by organizational insiders. In the sections that follow, the model components and their corresponding hypotheses are more fully explicated. Interaction Content and Total Amount of Interaction In the following subsections, three classes of interaction and their corresponding socialization outcomes are discussed. Work related, social, and the total amount of interaction are proposed to affect work related, social, and global outcomes respectively. The hypothesized relationships between interaction content and socialization outcomes are presented in terms of content specificity notions elaborated below. First, however, the justification for the distinction between work and social content is discussed. 25 Basis of the work and social content distinction. The literature to date has tended to focus on the work related aspects of the socialization process, neglecting the social processes that may also be important in helping the newcomer become integrated into the organization. The significance of social mechanisms to organizational behavior has been widely discussed in other contexts, especially in the leadership literature. Several leadership theories have distinguished and elaborated upon work and social related processes. Fleishman et al. (1955) identified two leadership styles, initiating structure and consideration, which differ on the extent to which task or social concerns are emphasized. The initiating structure leadership style is dominated by work related interaction content focused on task completion and imposing organization on work. Leaders who are more considerate focus on building trust and friendly relations. Consideration is not described as the opposite end of the continuum for initiating structure. Rather, leaders may be high or low on both styles and each has important subordinate outcomes associated with it. Similarly, Blake and Mouton (1964) characterize managerial styles using a grid approach with two dimensions that distinguish concern for people and concern for production. The manner in which these two concerns are linked is proposed to define how a manager uses the organizational 26 hierarchy to get work done. The most positive outcomes for the organization and its members are consistently associated with the use of a managerial style characterized by high concern for production and people. The perspective developed here is consistent with the ideas of Fleishman et al. and Blake and Mouton. Newcomers may experience and/or initiate high or low amounts of both work and social interaction. Furthermore, work and social related interactions are associated with different socialization outcomes sets that are both essential to successful socialization. Fiedler’s (1971, 1972) contingency theory of leadership also distinguishes social and work related content. The two leader personality styles identified by Fiedler’s least preferred coworker scale identify the extent to which leaders focus on interpersonal relations or the task. According to the theory, each focus can be successful depending upon certain subordinate and situational characteristics. In contrast to the theories discussed above, Fiedler’s contingency approach contends that leaders exhibit only one style, and because it is a personality characteristic this style cannot be changed. Finally, the vertical dyad linkage theory of leadership (Graen & Cashman, 1975) contends that supervisors do not interact with all subordinates in the same manner. Rather, supervisors establish and maintain different relationships A 27 with individual subordinates, such that an in-group and an out-group are developed. Those in the out—group experience narrow task supervision, while members of the in—group receive more personal attention and social support from the supervisor and are more organizationally successful as a result. This phenomenon demonstrates the significant impact social interaction may have on individuals within the organization. Organizational newcomers who do not experience the social interaction components that accompany socialization into the in-group are likely never to become fully functional organizational members. Content specificity. In the psychological literature, it is generally understood that in order to find expected relationships between independent and dependent variables, the content specificity of the independent variable must be appropriate for the outcome variable. That is, the content and level of specificity in the independent variable must be relevant to the content and specificity in the dependent variable. In climate research for example, Schneider (1981) found that the components of climate must be measured specifically to find expected outcome effects. The notion of content specificity is also evident in Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1977) research on attitudes and behaviors and Epstein’s (1979) personality research. The level of specificity in independent and dependent variables is maintained in the hypotheses developed in the 28 following subsections. The interaction content newcomers experience in the organizational setting is expected to affect relevant socialization outcomes. For example, work related interaction is expected to affect work related outcomes, more than social and global outcomes. Social interaction will exert the most influence on social outcomes, as compared to work related and global outcomes. And finally, total interaction will affect chiefly global outcomes, rather than specific social and work related outcomes. Work related interaction content. In identifying what organizational newcomers must learn, the focus in the socialization literature has been primarily work related. For instance, Fisher (1986) identified four major categories of content that newcomers should master through the process of socialization: (a) organizational values, goals and culture, (b) work group norms and values, (0) skills and knowledge necessary for job performance, and (d) personal change factors relating to identity, self-image, and motive structure. Kozlowski and Ostroff (1987, 1988) found that newcomers used a variety of sources to learn about task, role, group, and organizational content domains during socialization. Kirmeyer and Lin (1987) defined work related interaction content as references to past, present, and future work responsibilities, as well as the broader organizational context and professional goals. The results 29 of their study revealed that 79 percent of interactions in the organizational setting were work related. Work related interaction content is defined narrowly for present purposes as those topics directly related to job performance, such as skills, knowledge, job tasks, procedures, and work priorities. A more inclusive definition, encompassing organizational and work group topics, was avoided to make a clear distinction between work and social interaction. In addition, work related interaction as defined in this job specific manner is expected to have the greatest impact on an important socialization outcome variable, work adjustment. According to Fisher (1982) work adjustment is reflected in effective work relationships, skill proficiency, independence in action, and the development of a personal work system. Through work related interactions with organizational insiders, newcomers learn their jobs and acquire the information necessary to become functional organizational members. In other words, they become adjusted. Completing one’s tasks and fulfilling one’s role requirements is clearly a desirable outcome of socialization from both the newcomer and organizational perspectives. Hypothesis 1: (a) Newcomers experiencing more work related interaction will exhibit greater work adjustment. (b) Compared to work related 30 interaction, social interaction will have minimal effects on work adjustment. Social interaction content. At an intuitive level, it is obvious that not all interactions occurring in the organizational context are work related. Work also produces opportunities for social activity. The significant social aspects of organizational socialization have been neglected, even in interactionist models of the process. Individuals comprise organizations and if newcomers are to fit into and feel comfortable in an organization’s social structure, they must interact on a social level. Rafaeli and Sutton (1989) recognized the significant impact of reciprocal emotional influence on individuals in work settings. They demonstrated that emotional or social expression has profound effects on individual behavior in the organizational environment. Dean and Brass (1985) found that greater social interaction among coworkers leads to more realistic perceptions of the work in an organization. In the climate literature, Van Maanen and Kunda (1989) contended that organizational cultures can be classified as more or less emotionally sustaining and exacting on their members. Newcomers must learn to cope and adjust to the social side of their organizations, just as they must learn how to perform job functions. Social interaction facilitates this process. The outcomes resulting from 31 social interaction are different, but equally important as those outcomes stemming from work related interactions. Social interaction content is closely linked to the concept of social support in the current literature. According to House (1981), emotional support, which involves empathy, trust, love, and caring, is the most important form of social support. Feldman and Brett (1983) found empirical evidence that newcomers seek social support in addition to task information. Finder and Schroeder (1987) found that social support from supervisors and coworkers helped reduce the time required for new transfers to feel proficient at their jobs. Social support can only be provided to newcomers through social interaction. Social interaction content is best characterized as supportive, cordial, and directed at an individual’s personal, rather than organizational identity. Borrowing from Cohen and Wills’s (1985) definition of non-work focused content, social interaction content includes topics relating to leisure activities, politics, personal problems, and relations with friends and family. These authors speculated that social visiting and talking about nontask-related concerns on the job may enhance the perceived supportiveness of interpersonal relations. Similarly, Kirmeyer and Lin (1987) found that the more nonwork interactions individuals experienced on the job, the more supported they felt. 32 Support is one facet of a broader outcome category linked to the social interactions that occur during the socialization process. This category, labelled social adjustment, includes factors such as the number of coworker friends a newcomer has, the quality of interpersonal relationships with coworkers, and the newcomer’s feelings of belonging (Fisher, 1982). The significance of social adjustment and its impact on a newcomer’s overall organizational adaptation has been largely ignored in the socialization literature. Clearly, learning to do one’s job well is important, but a newcomer cannot become a fully functional member of an organization without also experiencing the feeling of belonging that results from social interaction with organizational insiders. Social interaction is also related to another important socialization outcome, the reduction of stress. Newcomers are motivated to alleviate the stress and anxiety associated with organizational entry (Berlew & Hall, 1966; Schein, 1968; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Furthermore, research findings consistently demonstrate that social support from supervisors and coworkers diminishes the stress individuals experience (Blau, 1981; Fusilier, Ganster, & Mayes, 1987; Ganster, Fusilier, & Mayes, 1986; Kirmeyer & Lin, 1987; Seers, McGee, Serey, & Graen, 1983). Although no study has examined the reduction of stress for newcomers in particular, it is not unreasonable to expect that 33 supervisors and peers would have an equal impact on eradicating stress experienced by this group. Hypothesis 2: (a) Newcomers experiencing more social interaction will exhibit greater social adjustment and less stress. (b) Compared to social interaction, work related interaction will have minimal effects on social adjustment and stress reduction. Total interaction. Total amount of interaction is defined as the sum of work related and social interactions the newcomer experiences in the organizational environment. The socialization outcomes associated with total interaction are global. That is, there is no basis to distinguish them as uniquely social or work related. These outcomes including tenure intention, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment are more general than work and social adjustment. Therefore it is logical that they would be related to general or total interaction, rather than social or work related interaction specifically. Tenure intention is a global socialization outcome widely studied in the literature to date. Tenure intention is defined as a newcomer’s plan or desire to remain employed with the organization. A number of studies have found relationships between the amount of interaction newcomers experience and intention to stay. For example, Louis, Posner, and Powell (1983) found that interaction with peers 34 and supervisors was significantly related to newcomer tenure intention. Kozlowski and Ostroff (1987) found that learning from supervisors and coworkers was negatively related to newcomer intention to quit. In a longitudinal study of newcomer adjustment, Fisher (1985) found that social support, from supervisors and coworkers was negatively related to intention to quit. Job satisfaction is another global outcome that has received considerable research attention in the socialization context. "Job satisfaction may be defined as a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences (Locke, 1976, p. 1300)." Louis et al. (1983) found that interaction with peers and supervisors was positively related to newcomer satisfaction. Kozlowski and Ostroff (1987) found that learning from a supervisor was positively related to satisfaction on the job. Two studies (Fisher, 1985; Seers et al., 1983) also demonstrated a relationship between social support and satisfaction. Organizational commitment is generally regarded as a key outcome of effective socialization. The construct is defined as "a partisan, affective attachment to the goals and values of an organization, to one’s role in relation to goals and values, and to the organization for its own sake, apart from its purely instrumental worth (Buchanan, 1974, p. 533)." Louis et al. (1983) found that interactions with 35 peers and supervisors were positively related to newcomer commitment. Kozlowski and Ostroff (1987) found that learning from a supervisor was positively related to company commitment. Fisher (1985) found that social support from supervisors and coworkers was positively related to commitment. Hypothesis 3: Newcomers experiencing a greater amount of total interaction will be more likely to intend to remain employed with the organization, be satisfied with their jobs, and feel committed to the organization. Prggction Having established the interaction content/outcome relationships shown in Figure 1, the more complex proaction, interaction, and outcome relations can now be addressed. The focus is on the pattern of proaction. Socialization outcomes are examined as related to interaction content and the proactive source or initiator of the interaction. Socialization outcomes are expected to differ depending on which specific agents (e.g. newcomers or organizational insiders) are proactive. Proaction defined. Although it was only recently introduced to the socialization literature, the concept of proaction has been previously considered elsewhere in the organizational literature. At the organizational level, proactive and reactive environmental scanning strategies 36 have been contrasted (Fahey & King, 1977; Jain, 1984; Thomas, 1980). Fahey and King (1977) contended that most organizations adopt reactive approaches to environmental scanning. That is, the environment is only studied in response to a crisis or some unanticipated event that creates a need for additional information. Proactive scanning was proposed as the more effective and least often used planning strategy. Under this approach, organizations engage in continuous environmental scanning to anticipate change and its resulting impact. Thomas (1980) made the same distinction between proactive and reactive environmental scanning, but contended that most organizations engaged in some form of continuous proactive scanning and as a result were more effective. Managers, their strategies and agendas, have also been characterized by the extent to which they are proactive or reactive (Aguilar, 1967; Larson, Bussom, Vicars, & Jauch, 1986; Stewart, 1979). Stewart (1979) described a proactive manager as one with an explicit agenda regarding objectives, that also had a sense of the strategies and tactics to use in achieving the objectives. In contrast, reactive managers adopted short-term strategies that involved dealing with various issues as they arose. Stewart contended that factors including the demands of the job or the organizational setting, the manager’s personality, and the manager’s job experiences were all potential determinants of 37 whether or not proactive strategies were likely to be employed. Stewart also proposed that more proactive managers were also more effective. Larson et al. (1986) made the following distinction, ". . . a proactive manager can be described as one who actively initiates action and seeks out others to accomplish her/his agenda. A reactive manager, on the other hand is one who responds to initiations and requests from others (p. 390)." These authors rejected the notion of global proactivity in favor of examining with whom managers were proactive and what they were proactive about. Variance was found across contacts and content domains. Two key factors have been present in each treatment of proaction to date. First, each conception of proaction contained the elements of self-initiation and active search. Second, proaction was associated with greater effectiveness and success. These two ideas are consistent with proaction as it is conceptualized for present research purposes. In general terms, proaction is a process of interaction initiation resulting in successful newcomer socialization. Proaction is specifically defined in this study as an individual’s tendency to actively seek and initiate interactions with other organizational members. Highly proactive individuals actively pursue communication opportunities and begin conversations with others. Those who are less proactive are not as likely to seek out 38 communication opportunities and initiate interactions. Two categories of potential proactors can be distinguished in the organizational setting, newcomers and organizational insiders. Organizational insiderg. Nearly all models of socialization have included organizational insiders as key agents (Kozlowski & Ostroff, 1987; Louis, 1980; Reichers, 1987). Supervisors and coworkers in newcomers’ immediate work groups represent the insiders likely to have the greatest impact on socialization processes, due to the greater opportunity for interaction with these individuals. In a study of socialization practices, Louis et al. (1983) found that newcomers felt interactions with coworkers and supervisors were the most helpful socialization aids. Newcomers again cited coworkers and supervisors among the most helpful sources of information in a study by Kozlowski and Ostroff (1987). Newcomers reported that interaction with organizational insiders provided more information than other practices, such as training manuals and trial and error tactics. nganigationgl newcopgpg. Taking the interactionist perspective, newcomers themselves are the other major class of potential proactors in the organizational setting. Cogswell (1968) commented on the freedom newcomers have in selecting their own agents. Van Maanen (1978) also acknowledged that newcomers may select their own 39 socialization agents. Although individual differences were given only secondary importance in his model, he did suggest that newcomers who push the hardest by demanding more time and asking more questions learn the most. Reichers’s (1987) stance was that by being proactive the newcomer, in effect, becomes his or her own socialization agent. Feldman and Brett (1983) provided empirical evidence that newcomers behave proactively by: (a) getting others to provide task help, (b) seeking out information, and (c) seeking out social support. Kozlowski and Ostroff (1988) found that newcomers reported initiating more interactions with coworkers than coworkers initiate with them, suggesting that newcomers actually solicit information. Effegpg of progction. The total amount of proaction from all agents is important in that it directly affects the amount of interaction experienced by newcomers (Reichers, 1987). As a result, more opportunities for learning are created. However, the source of proaction, that is whether interactions are initiated by coworkers, supervisors, or the newcomers themselves, may be equally important in terms of how the interaction is perceived and what is gained. Kirmeyer and Lin (1987) suggested that being the initiator of an interaction enhances personal control and promotes positive feelings about the interaction. Lawler, Porter, and Tennenbaum (1968) found that managers evaluated self-initiated interactions more favorably than other 40 initiated interactions. They contended that individuals have more control over self-initiated interactions and that these interactions are perceived as more worthwhile. Intergction Contentppnd Propgtion Source Two relationships between interaction content and socialization outcomes have been proposed: (a) Work related interaction will lead to work adjustment, and (b) Social interaction will enhance social outcomes, such as social adjustment and stress reduction. Potential sources of proaction and the effects of proaction on the perception of interactions have also been discussed. In the sections that follow, the concepts of interaction content and source of proaction will be combined to propose that socialization outcomes depend not only on the type of interaction content a newcomer experiences, but also on the source of proaction. The combination of these concepts is labelled "proaction pattern" in Figure 1. Work relgted proaction. As noted previously, newcomers who push the hardest, demand more time of organizational insiders, and ask more questions, will learn the most (Van Maanen, 1978). It is legitimate to say that positive work related socialization outcomes depend primarily upon the ability of the newcomer to exhibit this type of behavior. Recall the components of work adjustment: skill proficiency, independence in action, a personal work system, and effective work relationships (Fisher, 1982). The 41 attainment of each of these components requires a certain self-awareness and self-sufficiency on the part of the newcomer. Newcomers themselves should know better than anyone, including organizational insiders, what knowledge and skills they lack. Although supervisors and coworkers can bring initiates up to a level of adequacy by telling them what to do, newcomers are obligated to fill in the gaps that will lead them to become fully functional members. Newcomers can most effectively accomplish this by initiating work related interactions with others in the work setting. Hypothesis 4: (a) Newcomers initiating greater amounts of work related interaction will exhibit greater work adjustment. (b) Compared to work related interactions initiated by newcomers, interactions initiated by organizational insiders will have minimal effects on work adjustment. Social proaction. Recall that a newcomer’s social adjustment is reflected in the number of coworker friends a newcomer has, the quality of interpersonal relationships with coworkers, and the newcomer’s feelings of belonging (Fisher, 1982). Although Feldman and Brett (1983) provided empirical evidence that newcomers desire the supportive interactions associated with these social adjustment outcomes, the key issue is whether or not organizational insiders provide the required type of interaction. In the previous section, the newcomer’s work related proaction was 42 hypothesized to have the greatest impact on work adjustment and performance. Here, the social proaction of organizational insiders is proposed to have the greatest effect on social adjustment and reduced stress. To be classified as such, social interaction must be friendly, supportive, and aimed at the target’s personal identity. Newcomers may certainly initiate these types of interactions with their supervisors and coworkers, but they are likely to affect the newcomer’s social adjustment and stress reduction only to the extent that they encourage a similar type of proaction from organizational insiders. A newcomer must feel that relevant others in the work setting have interest in him or her as a person, an interest that extends beyond the newcomer’s organizational function. Social proaction from organizational insiders is required to integrate newcomers into the organization’s social network and enhance their feelings of belonging. The social support and stress literatures provide some empirical evidence for these arguments. For example, Ford (1985) found that social support was strongly related to satisfaction with peers and supervisors. The findings of several researchers have demonstrated that social support from supervisors and coworkers, helps reduce stress (Blau, 1981; Fusilier et al., 1987; Ganster et al., 1986; Kirmeyer & Lin, 1987; Seers et al. 1983). 43 Hypothesis 5: (a) Newcomers experiencing greater amounts of social interaction initiated by organizational insiders will exhibit greater social adjustment and less stress. (b) Compared to social interactions initiated by organizational insiders, newcomer initiated social interactions will have minimal effects on social adjustment and stress. Totgl progction. Using arguments based on content specificity, total amount of interaction was proposed to influence global outcomes such as tenure intention, commitment, and job satisfaction. Reviewing the definitions of these outcomes reveals an underlying similarity among them. Each global outcome variable seems to be an indicator of newcomer affinity for the organization. Consider the definition of commitment, specifically the portion which states, "affective attachment. . .to the organization for its own sake, apart from its purely instrumental worth (Buchanan, 1974, p. 533)." This definition can be interpreted as an emotional fondness for the organization. Similarly, tenure intention is defined as a desire to stay with the organization and job satisfaction as a positive affective response to work, both reflecting positive emotion directed toward the organization. Logically, a newcomer must "like" the organization to respond in the affectively positive ways described above. 44 However, an organization is not an actual independent entity. Organizations do not exist apart from the people who comprise them. Therefore, given that newcomers experiencing global socialization outcomes like the organization, one can say more specifically that they like the insiders, the organization’s most immediate representatives. This is important because newcomers are probably more apt to like organizational insiders when insiders express interest in them. As described in the previous subsection, organizational insiders express interest in newcomers by initiating interactions with them. To summarize the argument, newcomers express liking for the organization through the global socialization outcomes, commitment, job satisfaction, and tenure intention. Newcomers like the organization or the organizational insiders, when these insiders have expressed interest in them by initiating interactions. Therefore, newcomers will be more likely to exhibit global socialization outcomes when organizational insiders are more proactive. Hypothesis 6: (a) Newcomers experiencing greater total amounts of interaction initiated by supervisors and coworkers will exhibit greater job satisfaction, commitment, and intention to stay. (b) Compared to the total amount of interaction initiated by supervisors and coworkers, newcomer initiated interactions will have minimal effects 45 on job satisfaction, commitment, and intention to stay. Progction Antecedentg Considering the significant implications proaction has for newcomers’ socialization outcomes, it is important to consider factors that may encourage proaction. Two types of antecedents are considered, individual variables--including self-efficacy, previous work experience, and tolerance of ambiguity, and situational variables--including task interdependence and accessibility.1 These variables are expected to relate to proaction, as illustrated in Figure 1. Due to the lack of research regarding these proaction antecedents, each variable will be discussed, but no formal hypotheses will be developed. Self-efficggz. Bandura (1977) defined self-efficacy as the expectation that behaviors required to produce outcomes can be successfully executed. Bandura also stated that "expectations of personal efficacy determine whether coping behavior will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and aversive experience (p. 191)." In his conceptualization of self-efficacy, Bandura contended that efficacy develops through a process of experienced success. 1Because data will be obtained via newcomer self- reports, the effects of individual variables on insider proaction will not be examined. The effects of situational variables on both insider and newcomer proaction will be studied. 46 That is, as individuals succeed, they acquire confidence about their ability to perform successfully in the future. This important aspect of self-efficacy is not reflected in existing measures of the construct (e.g., Jones, 1986). Highly self-efficacious newcomers by definition, have learned how to perform successfully through past experience. If past success was achieved through interacting with organizational insiders and eliciting important information related to effective functioning, these newcomers are likely to be more proactive in the new organizational setting. Newcomers low on self—efficacy, unaware of the value of proacting and interacting with organizational insiders, may be less likely to exhibit proaction. Conversely, highly self-efficacious individuals who are confident of their abilities, may feel able to rely upon themselves in a new organizational environment. Having coped successfully with new environments in the past, self— efficacious newcomers are likely to feel they can manage a new organizational setting with little assistance. As a result newcomers high on self-efficacy may be less likely to be proactive than those low on self-efficacy. Jones (1986) provided some empirical support for this contention in that highly self-efficacious newcomers assumed more innovative role orientations, while newcomers low on self—efficacy adopted custodial role orientations. 47 Previous work experience. Jones (1983) proposed that newcomers’ adaptive strategies in new organizational settings, which may include degree of proactiveness, will depend on how they have previously dealt with new situations. The contention here is similar to the self- efficacy argument. Basically, prior experience in similar situations is proposed to affect behavior in the current situation. Kozlowski and Ostroff (1987) used this notion to explain the relationship between previous work experience and newcomer learning strategy. In their study, newcomers with high amounts of prior work experience used more independent learning strategies, such as watching others and trial and error. Stated another way, they were not proactive with interpersonal sources. Those with moderate and low amounts of experience were more proactive with organizational insiders, seeking out supervisors and coworkers for information. However, recall that prior experience is expected to affect future behavior. This notion suggests the counter argument that more experienced newcomers who proacted in past situations may be more likely to proact in new organizational environments. Inexperienced newcomers, on the other hand, are likely to have less information regarding useful and appropriate behaviors in new organizational settings. With no past experience to provide 48 a basis for action, these newcomers may be less likely to proact than their more experienced counterparts. Tolergnce of ambiguity. Budner (1962) defined intolerance of ambiguity as "the tendency to perceive (i.e. interpret) ambiguous situations as sources of threat (p. 29)." Adorno, Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) regarded intolerance of ambiguity as one component of the authoritarian personality. Individuals considered high on authoritarianism view their surroundings in a very dichotomous, or "black and white" manner. Reichers (1987) posited that individuals who are intolerant of ambiguity will be less proactive, relying on less information before they reach closure. This contention is consistent with the components of the authoritarian personality. Authoritarian individuals are aversive to ambiguity, purposefully avoiding and rejecting any information not consistent with their existing beliefs. In a new organizational environment, these individuals may be likely to make quick decisions about "the way things are," and thus, may be unlikely to proactively seek out information that could counter their beliefs. On the other hand, newcomers with low tolerance of ambiguity may feel a greater need to make sense of the new organizational setting. This may prompt them to proact, seeking information to better understand their own experiences in the new environment. Those with high 49 tolerance of ambiguity may take a less urgent approach to understanding the new organizational environment. These newcomers may be less likely to seek out others to clarify their organizational experiences, electing to accumulate organizational knowledge more gradually. Task interdependence. Reichers (1987) suggested that highly interdependent forms of task technology may force interactions between newcomers and organizational insiders, even in the absence of strong individual tendencies to proact. If newcomers and organizational insiders are dependent on each other for task accomplishment, work related proaction becomes a necessity and social proaction may be encouraged. Thompson’s (1967) taxonomy of task interdependence suggests a similar conclusion. Reciprocal interdependence, as defined by Thompson, requires coordination by mutual adjustment which necessitates the greatest amount of communication and mutual decision making. Therefore, highly interdependent tasks may, in a sense, "force" newcomers and organizational insiders to proact. Acceggibility. Accessibility is defined here as the degree to which structural factors enhance the physical availability of organizational insiders to newcomers in the work setting. The physical work environment may serve to inhibit or promote interaction among newcomers and insiders. Summarizing the effects of physical design on interaction, Knapp (1978) stated that "the more inaccessible setting 50 decreased interaction frequency and increased task-oriented messages; the more accessible setting increased interaction frequency and increased the amount of ’small talk’ (p. 104)." In a study of research and development organizations, Allen (1977) found that physical separation of individuals decreased communication. He further reported that, "The amount of difficulty, by way of corners to be turned, indirect paths to be followed, and other obstacles encountered in traversing a path intensifies the effect of separation on communication probability (p. 266)." Clearly when physical barriers are minimal and organizational insiders and newcomers are more immediately available to each other, there will be greater opportunities for proaction. However, at least one study suggested that physical obstacles in the work environment may actually enhance the amount of interaction that takes place. Hatch (1987) found that greater physical barriers in the office were associated with more interaction among coworkers. Hatch cautioned that the generalizability of this finding could be limited since the study’s participants were professional research personnel. She did propose, however, that enclosed spaces may encourage a sense of group cohesiveness and provide a greater sense of privacy that enhances interaction. 51 Therefore, it is difficult to predict how accessibility may affect proaction in the current study. METHOD Participants This study required a sample with special characteristics. To capture authentic socialization processes, participants had to hold relevant career-oriented positions. Since the most formative socialization processes apparently occur quickly, usually within the first few weeks of employment (Major, McKellin, & Kozlowski, 1988), measures had to be taken early in the organizational entry process. In addition, variation on newcomer prior experience was required to examine its potential influence on proaction. Although it was difficult to identify a sample with these characteristics, a cooperative program at a midwestern college provided a sample that satisfied the requirements. As part of their curriculum, students at this cooperative college take career-related internships on a rotating basis every 12 weeks. Each student’s sponsor ’ organization provides a total of 10 internship episodes over five years. Although the internship experiences are all in the same organization, interns are assigned to different positions for each internship experience. Thus, these 52 53 interns become newcomers every 12 weeks, encountering new supervisors, coworkers, and job duties. Given the 12 week rotation between classes and internships, it was possible to take measurements within the first few weeks of an internship episode. Variation on career relevant experience was obtained by taking a cross- sectional sample of students according to level in the cooperative program. Students at different levels in the program had varying numbers of internships. Procedure) Approximately 1500 students, who were either currently on or about to begin internships, were mailed a pre-survey solicitation, which included a letter of introduction and a return postcard. The letter briefly described the study and requested participation, instructing interested students to return the postcard. Surveys were then sent to the 548 students who returned postcards. Three weeks following the survey mailing, reminder postcards were dispatched to all those who were sent, but did not return surveys. Additional surveys were sent upon request. As an incentive to complete and return surveys, all participants were entered into a random drawing for $100. In total, 437 surveys were completed and returned. Sample Characterigpicg Descriptive biographical data were obtained for the study’s 437 participants. Appendix A contains the specific 54 items. The sample consisted of 307 males and 130 females. The average age of participants was 21. Most were engineering majors (N=379), a few majored in management or marketing (N=30), and the rest belonged to various other majors (N=28). Students at the senior level comprised 55 percent of the sample, 12 percent were juniors, 15 percent were sophomores, freshman made up less than 1 percent, and 18 percent were recent graduates. This breakdown adequately represented the population percentages of 48 percent seniors, 19 percent juniors, 11 percent sophomores, 2 percent freshman, and 20 percent recent graduates. On the average, participants reported having been on the job for 4.5 weeks and working in groups comprised of 10 people. Measures Prior to the survey mailing, newly developed measures were pretested on a sample of 79 working undergraduates enrolled in an organizational psychology course to establish reliability estimates. Scales were then modified where appropriate. Biographical measures and those for which reliability estimates were available in the literature were not pretested. Proagtion. Proaction, the focus of this study, is defined as the tendency to seek and initiate communication interactions with other organizational members. Six proaction measures were developed for the present study: newcomer work proaction, newcomer social proaction, 55 supervisor work proaction, supervisor social proaction, coworker work proaction, and coworker social proaction. The social proaction scales were comprised of seven items, which tapped how often conversations about topics such as personal relationships, sports, and hobbies were initiated by each source. The work proaction scales consisted of eight items, directed at how often each source initiated conversations about topics such as work procedures, quantity and quality of work, and equipment use. All items were answered using a five point rating scale ranging from (1) = "very infrequently" to (5) = "very frequently." The basic proaction scale is provided in Appendix B. The proaction scale intercorrelations are provided in Table 1. Except for the correlation between newcomer social proaction and supervisor work proaction, all the correlations among the proaction variables were significant. Correlations among work proaction variables were noticeably high, as were the correlations among social proaction variables. The correlation between supervisor work and social proaction was also high. Given the reciprocal nature of interaction, these scales were expected to be correlated to some extent. However, the magnitude of the correlations raised some concern. Since the correlations were particularly high within content domains (work and social), the possibility that newcomers could not distinguish among initiators was raised. Method variance was also a concern, 56 Table 1 Correlations: Newcomer, Coworker, and Supervisor Work and Social Proaction Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 1. Nwrk 3.28 .70 .83 2. Nsoc 2.49 .82 .18** .88 (434) 3. Swrk 2.68 .84 .48** .01 .90 (434) (433) 4. Ssoc 1.72 .74 .13* .38xx .423: .90 (434) (433) (434) 5. erk 2.95 .71 .51** .15! .43** .14* .82 (431) (430) (431) (431) 6. Csoc 2.72 .80 .13** .70** .09* .38** .23** .86 (431) (430) (431) (431) (431) Note. Nwrk = Newcomer work proaction; Nsoc = Newcomer social proaction; Swrk = Supervisor work proaction; Ssoc = Supervisor social proaction; erk = Coworker work proaction; Csoc = Coworker social proaction. Coefficient alpha reliability estimates appear on the diagonal. The number of cases for each correlation appears in parentheses. .001. X : p. < .05; *3 : p. < 57 since all proaction scales were completed by the newcomer and presented in exactly the same format, with the stem changing from one initiator to another (newcomer, supervisor, and coworker). Conceptually, the six types of proaction were distinct. To further ascertain their empirical independence, all sets of proaction items were subjected to a principal components factor analysis. The components factor model was selected instead of the common factor model because the goal of the factor analysis was to explain the variance in the manifest or observed scale, rather than relationships among latent variables (Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986). Using a Kaiser criterion, the factor analysis yielded a ten—factor solution. Since the Kaiser criterion is known to over- factor, Cattell’s scree test (1966) was applied. This criterion yielded a six factor solution, shown in Table 2. The predicted factor structure was basically maintained, with each factor accounting for at least three percent of the variance. Factors 1, 2, and 3 were each complete scales. Factor 1 corresponded to supervisor social proaction, Factor 2 contained all supervisor work proaction items, and Factor 3 included all newcomer social proaction items. All newcomer work proaction items loaded on Factor 4, with one omission. All coworker work proaction items loaded on Factor 5, with one omission. Factor 6 was composed of four of the seven coworker social proaction 58 Table 2 Principal Components Factor Analysis for Proaction Sources and Content Ssoc12 Ssoc15 SsocZ Ssocl3 Ssoc6 SsocQ Ssoc5 Swrk7 Swrk8 Swrk14 Swrk3 Swrkl Swrk4 Swrkll SwrklO Nsoch NsocZ Nsoc15 N3005 N3006 N3009 Nsoc13 Nwrk3 Nwrk14 Nwrk7 Nwrk4 NwrklO Nwrkl Nwrk8 Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 .81 .15 .18 -.06 .02 .18 .79 .23 .15 .02 .05 .04 _18 .18 .16 .02 .00 .01 L18 .09 .08 -.03 .01 .11 ;1_ .14 .13 .04 .03 .05 L11 .23 08 -.03 .06 .25 p10 .10 .13 .07 .02 -.10 .12 L80 -.11 .10 .15 .02 .10 L89 .05 O8 .02 .01 .18 L11_ -.10 18 .09 -.02 .07 L16 .00 .19 .17 .10 .30 L12 -.05 .08 .14 -.07 .22 L65 .03 .23 .09 .00 .15 L60 .03 .13 .07 -.08 .36 ;4_ —.05 18 .04 -.02 .15 -.06 L§Q_ .01 .01 .27 .08 .07 ;1_ .03 .06 .14 .21 -.03 L12 .11 .05 .18 .21 -.08 L65 .10 .05 .06 .16 -.06 Lg; .02 .03 .07 .14 -.03 L63 .10 .06 .53 .24 -.12 L55 .17 .00 .31 —.07 .21 .08 L14 .16 .06 .03 .12 -.07 414 .17 .00 -.05 .18 .08 #10 .18 -.03 .00 .20 .10 464 .05 .12 .04 .01 .07 ;§§_ .06 .05 .06 .24 .14 L51 .24 -.14 .08 .30 .09 .51 .13 .03 59 Table 2 (cont’d.) ngtor l 2 3 4 5 6 erk3 .02 .13 .06 .25 .74 .01 erk7 .03 .10 .03 .17 .74 .03 erk1 .04 .16 .12 -.01 .71 -.12 erk4 .03 .17 .10 .18 .55 .18 erkl4 007 011 -017 023 053 016 erk8 .00 .22 .00 .11 .51 .05 erklO .09 .02 -.02 .22 .47 .20 CSOCQ all -001 028 004 008 079 C80013 016 -001 023 007 ‘003 068 C30012 .12 -003 032 -002 003 065 030015 .14 .13 .34 .03 .09 .48 EIGEN VALUES! 10.15 6.18 3.89 1.93 1.74 1.62 *Eigen values for factors 7 through 10 were 1.35, 1.22, and 1.03 respectively. Note. Ssoc = Supervisor social proaction; Swrk = Supervisor work proaction; Nsoc = Newcomer social proaction; Nwrk = Newcomer work proaction; Csoc = Coworker social proaction; erk = Coworker work proaction. Loadings representing predicted factor structure are underlined. 60 items. These results demonstrated that even though the proaction scales were correlated, they were still empirically independent constructs. Newcomers were in fact able to differentiate among proaction sources and content. Because the variations from the predicted factor structure ‘ were considered trivial and all item content was considered meaningful, the six scales were kept intact for remaining study analyses. Internal consistency reliability estimates for newcomer, supervisor, and coworker social proaction were .88, .90, and .86 respectively. For newcomer, supervisor, and coworker work proaction reliability estimates were .83, .90, and .82 respectively. Work_gpd socigl adjusppent. Work adjustment is the extent to which newcomers demonstrate skill proficiency, independence in action, a personal work system, and effective work relationships (Fisher, 1982). This study employed an eight—item work adjustment scale adapted from Kozlowski and Ostroff (1988). The following is a sample item from this measure: I feel like I have a good system for doing my job. Social adjustment defines newcomers’ feelings of belonging and the quality of their interpersonal relationships (Fisher, 1982). A nine-item social adjustment measure was developed specifically for the proposed study. The following is representative of items in this measure: My coworkers and supervisor make me feel like I belong. A seven point rating scale ranging from (1) : "strongly 61 disagree" to (7) = "strongly agree" was used for both adjustment measures. Work and social adjustment were considered conceptually distinct socialization outcomes. To test the empirical independence of these constructs, both sets of adjustment items were subjected to a principal components factor analysis. The solution yielded three factors, shown in Table 3. Factor 1 contained all nine items from the social adjustment scale. Five items from the work adjustment scale loaded on Factor 2, with the remaining three work adjustment items loading on Factor 3. An examination of item content revealed that the three-item factor consisted of items related to newcomers making a contribution at work. Because of the similarity in content, these three items were treated as a separate adjustment scale, labelled contribution, in the remaining study analyses. Overall, the factor analysis results showed that work and social adjustment were statistically independent constructs. Work adjustment was further refined, revealing the general and contribution components. The internal consistency reliability estimate for the final five-item work adjustment scale was .80. The survey alpha for social adjustment was .90. The three-item contribution scale had an internal consistency reliability estimate of .69. The following is one item from this 62 Table 3 Principal Components Factor Analysis for Work and Social Adjustment Items Factor 1 2 3 Social Adjustment3 .80 .11 .10 Social Adjustmentl7 .77 .10 .19 Social Adjustmenth .77 .17 .09 Social Adjustmentll .7 .19 .01 Social Adjustmentl4 .71 .05 .18 Social Adjustmentl .69 .04 .15 Social Adjustment7 .6 -.05 .24 Social Adjustment5 .67 .34 .08 Social Adjustment9 .67 .34 -.14 Work AdjustmentZ -.01 .76 .18 Work Adjustment8 .21 .7 .18 Work AdjustmentlZ .12 .72 .04 Work Adjustment13 .07 .69 .16 Work Adjustment16 .29 . 3 .19 Contribution6 .06 .13 . 4 Contribution15 .32 .26 .69 Contribution4 .14 .28 .6 EIGEN VALUES 6.34 2.31 1.26 Note. Items labelled Contribution were originally part of the Work Adjustment scale. Loadings above .60 are underlined for each factor. 63 measure: I often make helpful suggestions to my coworkers and supervisor. All three scales are presented in Appendix C. Work relgped stregg. Work related stress, physical and psychological discomfort created by the work environment, was measured using a seven-item scale taken directly from House and Rizzo (1972). I work under a great deal of tension, is a sample item from this measure. All items were answered using a true/false format. With the deletion of one item, the scale’s internal consistency reliability estimate was .70. The scale is shown in Appendix D. Tenure intention. For purposes of this study, tenure intention was defined as participants’ plans to remain with their internship organization after graduation. A five—item measure directed at the cooperative student sample was developed especially for this study. The scale appears in Appendix E. The following is representative of the items comprising this measure: I would be interested in working for this company after graduation. The measure’s five point response scale ranged from (1) = "strongly agree" to (5) = "strongly disagree." The internal consistency reliability estimate was .88. Job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is the positive affect experienced as the result of work. The five-item measure used in this study was taken directly from Kozlowski and Ostroff (1988) and is provided in Appendix F. The 64 following is a sample item from the job satisfaction measure: Overall, I am quite happy with this job. Items were rated on a five point scale ranging from (1) = "strongly agree" to (5) = "strongly disagree." This scale’s internal consistency reliability estimate was .91. ngpnizational commitment. Organizational commitment is defined as affective attachment or loyalty to an organization for its own sake. An eight-item scale adapted from Mowday, Steers, and Porter (1979) was used to measure this construct. Kozlowski and Ostroff (1988) employed a similar adaptation of this measure. The following is a representative item: I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. All commitment items appear in Appendix 0. Items were rated on a seven point scale ranging from (1) = "strongly disagree" to (7) = "strongly agree." The coefficient alpha for this scale was .87. Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the expectation that behaviors required to produce outcomes can be successfully executed (Bandura, 1977). Efficacy is proposed to develop through experienced event-specific success. That is, as people succeed in certain situations, they develop a sense of efficacy regarding their own behavior in similar situations or events. Care was taken in this study to develop items around the concepts of previous success and job specificity. The resulting self-efficacy measure included six original items and two items adapted from Jones 65 (1986). The following is a sample item from the self- efficacy scale: I am prepared to function effectively on this job because of my past experience. All items were rated on a seven point scale ranging from (1) = "strongly agree" to (7) = "strongly disagree." The scale appears in Appendix H. To ascertain its dimensionality, the self-efficacy scale was subjected to a principal components factor analysis, which yielded one five-item factor and a second three-item factor. With the exception of one item, all the items loading on Factor 1 reflected the important self- efficacy components of past experience and work specificity. The content of the other item was more general than the others, addressing the extent to which college prepared newcomers for jobs related to their majors. This item was dropped for conceptual consistency. The internal consistency reliability of the four remaining self-efficacy items was .80. The items loading on Factor 2, two of which were adapted from Jones (1986), appeared similar to one another in content, focusing on confidence in one’s ability to excel (e.g., handle a more challenging job). These three items had a marginal internal consistency reliability of .63. In addition, they were not as clearly conceptually defined as the items loading on Factor 1. Thus, they were dropped from further consideration for this research. 66 Work experience. Two measures of previous work experience were included in the survey: career-specific and general job experience. Career-relevant experience was measured by the number of internships completed by the participant. General work experience was measured by the total number of summer, full-time, and part—time jobs previously held. The response format for both measures required participants to record the appropriate number in the corresponding blank. All work experience items are presented in Appendix I. Since each scale consisted of a single item, it was not possible to estimate reliability. Tolepgpge of ambiguity. Tolerance of ambiguity is a tendency to interpret ambiguous situations as threatening. Budner (1962) and Rydell and Rosen (1966) served as guides in developing the nine-item measure of tolerance of ambiguity employed in this study. Each item was rated on a seven point scale, ranging from (1) = "strongly disagree" to (7) = "strongly agree." The following is a sample item from the tolerance of ambiguity scale: I think it’s important to know exactly what my work assignments are and when they are due (reflected). All items appear in Appendix J. A principal components factor analysis of this scale yielded one seven-item factor and another two-item factor. Since the reliability estimate of the seven items loading on the first factor was comparable to the estimate for all nine 67 items (.77), the two items loading on the second factor were dropped from the scale. Task interdependence. Task interdependence defines the degree to which task completion requires mutual coordination from work group members. The measure used in this study included three-items adapted from Kozlowski and Ostroff (1988) and two original items. The measure is provided in Appendix K. The following is one item from this measure: To what extent must your job activities be coordinated with those of your work group? The five point rating scale for all items ranged from (1) = "very little extent" to (5) = "very great extent." This scale had an internal consistency reliability estimate of .80. Accessibility. Accessibility, the degree to which structural factors enhance the physical availability of organizational insiders to newcomers, was measured by an original four-item scale shown in Appendix L. The following is a sample item: To what extent does the physical layout of your office make communication with your work group difficult? Each item was rated on a five point scale, ranging from (1) = "very little extent" to (5) = "very great extent." The internal consistency reliability estimate was .74. An examination of the frequency for this scale revealed a ceiling effect, with most participants reporting high accessibility. RESULTS Because hypotheses required multiple tests of the relations between proaction and outcome variables, Type I error was likely to be inflated beyond the specified levels. To control for experiment-wise Type I error, a canonical analysis was conducted. All basic predictors (newcomer work proaction, newcomer social proaction, supervisor work proaction, supervisor social proaction, coworker work proaction, and coworker social proaction) were entered as independent variables in a canonical analysis. All relevant socialization outcomes (work and social adjustment, stress, tenure intention, job satisfaction, and commitment) were included as dependent variables. The analysis was significant, with a Wilks Lambda of .61 (approximate F (42, 1875) = 4.93, p < .001). Prggction Hypotheggg Analysis overview. The six core hypotheses in this study were relational in nature. Each predicted that one type of proaction would have a greater impact on certain dependent variables than another type of proaction. There were no direct statistical tests for these relationships. Instead, hierarchical regression analyses were used to test 68 69 the proaction hypotheses. With the exception of Hypothesis 3, each hypothesis required two separate regression equations. In the first, the predictor or predictor blocks proposed to have the strongest effect on the dependent variable were entered into the regression equation first, followed by the predictors proposed to have a weak or nonexistent effect on the dependent variable. In the second equation, the predictors were entered in reverse order. By reversing the order of predictor entry, the total R2 and unique R2 for each predictor were determined. The unique R2 is the proportion of variance in the dependent variable accounted for by one predictor that is not shared with the other predictor. Clear support for a hypothesis was obtained when the total R2 and the unique R2 for the hypothesized predictor were significant and the unique R2 for the other predictor was not. (The significance of the other predictor’s total R3 was irrelevant in these tests.) A hypothesis could also be supported if the total R2 and the unique R3 for both predictors were significant, provided that the unique R2 for the hypothesized predictor was greater than the unique R2 for the other predictor. This form of support for a hypothesis is more ambiguous because there is no statistical test to determine if the hypothesized predictor’s unique R2 is significantly greater than the other predictor’s unique R3. 70 Testg for Hypothegis 1. A distinction was made between work and social interaction, such that each was proposed to positively relate to corresponding socialization outcomes. That is, work related interaction was predicted to affect work related outcomes and social interaction was predicted to affect social outcomes. In particular, Hypothesis 1 (a and b) predicted that work related interaction would be more strongly related to newcomer work adjustment than social interaction. In the regression analyses for this hypothesis, newcomer, supervisor, and coworker work proaction constituted one predictor block and the other contained newcomer, supervisor, and coworker social proaction. Newcomer work adjustment was the dependent variable. These results are presented in Table 4. As predicted, the total R2 and the unique R2 were significant for work proaction, but not for social proaction. Therefore, the more work related discussions experienced by the newcomer, the greater the newcomer’s work adjustment. Interaction experienced by the newcomer regarding social topics, however, did not significantly affect the newcomer’s work adjustment. The notion that interaction only impacts those outcomes that correspond to interaction content was confirmed in this case. Although hypotheses related to newcomer contribution, the three-item variable derived from the work adjustment factor analysis, were not formally proposed, it was expected 71 Table 4 Hypothesis 1: Regression Results Dependent Variable Predictors Beta Total R2 Unique R2 Newcomer Work Newcomer -.22 Adjustment Coworker & .18 Supervisor .14 Work Proaction .039*¥ .045** Newcomer .18 Coworker & -.15 Supervisor .01 Social Proaction .011 .016 Contribution Newcomer -.10 Coworker & .14 Supervisor .12 Work Proaction .036** .026* Newcomer .04 Coworker & .09 Supervisor -.02 Social Proaction .021! .012 * = p. < .05; 3* = p. < .001. 72 to exhibit the same relationships as work adjustment. With contribution as the dependent variable, a predictor block containing newcomer, supervisor, and coworker work proaction, and another containing newcomer, supervisor, and coworker social proaction were entered into the regression equations. These results are also presented in Table 4. As expected, the total R2 and the unique R2 for the work interaction block were significant. The prediction was supported since only the total R2 (not the unique R3) for the social proaction block was significant. Thus, newcomers who experienced more work related interaction, were more likely to contribute (e. g. make suggestions regarding work). Experienced social interaction was not significantly related to newcomer contribution. Iggts for Hypothesispg. Hypothesis 2 (a and b) focused on social interaction and social outcomes, predicting that social interaction would be more strongly related to newcomer social adjustment and stress reduction than work related interaction. These social outcomes were considered as equally important as work related socialization outcomes. Newcomer, supervisor, and coworker social proaction formed one predictor block in the regression analyses for these hypotheses. The other was composed of newcomer, supervisor, and coworker work proaction. These results are presented in Table 5. With newcomer social adjustment as the dependent variable, the total R2 and the unique R2 were significant Hypothesis 2: 73 Table 5 Regression Results Dependent Variable Predictors Beta R2 Change R2 Newcomer Social Newcomer .23 Adjustment Coworker & .11 Supervisor .16 Social Proaction .202** .159** Newcomer —.12 Coworker & .15 Supervisor .13 Work Proaction .075** .032** Newcomer Stress Newcomer -.08 Reduction Coworker & .05 Supervisor .05 Social Proaction .003 .003 Newcomer .10 Coworker & -.05 Supervisor .00 Work Proaction .007 .007 N’ H "U A .05; xx = p. < .001. 74 for both the social and work proaction sets of predictors. However, the unique R2 for the social interaction block was five times as large as the unique R2 for the work interaction set, offering strong support for the hypothesized relationship. This finding showed that newcomers who experience greater social interaction demonstrated greater social adjustment in the work place. When newcomer stress reduction was the dependent variable, none of the predictors were significant. Therefore, this hypothesis was not supported. This implied that neither work or social interaction had a strong relationship to the degree of job related stress newcomers experienced. Tests for Hypothesis 3. Not all socialization outcomes were proposed to be specifically related to either work or social interaction. Hypothesis 3 predicted that satisfaction, intent to remain with the organization, and commitment were positively linked to the total amount of interaction experienced by the newcomer, regardless of whether the content was social or work related. (The tests for these hypotheses were simpler, requiring only one regression equation for each dependent variable. In each equation, all proaction variables (newcomer, supervisor, and coworker work and social proaction) were entered in a single block. These results are shown in Table 6. The total R2 was significant when job satisfaction tenure intention, and Hypothesis 3: 75 Table 6 Regression Results Dependent Variable Predictors Beta R2 Newcomer Job Newcomer -.08 Satisfaction Coworker & .17 Supervisor .08 Work Proaction Newcomer -.04 Coworker & -.05 Supervisor .04 Social Proaction .034* Intent to Remain Newcomer -.08 with Organization Coworker & .16 Supervisor .06 Work Proaction Newcomer -.02 Coworker & -.12 Supervisor .04 Social Proaction ' .034* Newcomer Newcomer -.05 Commitment Coworker & .19 Supervisor .11 Work Proaction Newcomer -.03 Coworker & —.15 Supervisor .10 Social Proaction .078** p. < .001. 76 commitment were the dependent variables, supporting all three predictions. The total amount of interaction experienced by newcomers, therefore, played a role in the extent to which they were satisfied with their jobs, felt committed to the organization, and intended to stay with the organization. Tests for Hypothesis 4. The perspective developed here not only recognized the importance of interaction content in the process of socialization, but also the source or initiator of interaction. The pattern of proaction, as determined by content and proactor, was proposed to differentially effect socialization outcomes. Because more self-initiated and self-directed learning strategies were expected to lead to greater newcomer adjustment, Hypothesis 4 (a and b) predicted that newcomer work proaction would be more strongly related to newcomer work adjustment than supervisor and coworker work proaction. To test this hypothesis, newcomer work proaction was entered as one predictor in the regression equations and supervisor and coworker work proaction were entered as the other predictor set. The results are provided in Table 7. Only the unique R2 for newcomer work proaction was significant. However, both the total R2 and the unique R2 were significant for supervisor and coworker work proaction. Contrary to the predicted result, the unique R2 for the coworker and supervisor work proaction predictor set was larger than the 77 Table 7 Hypothesis 4: Regression Results Dependent Variable Predictors Beta R2 Change}?2 Newcomer Work Newcomer -.19 Adjustment Work Proaction .002 .023** Coworker 16 Supervisor .12 Work Proaction .017* .037** Newcomer Newcomer —.09 Contribution Work Proaction .001 .006 Coworker .16 Supervisor .10 . Work Proaction .029* .033** * :p. < .05; 1* .001. H 'U A 78 unique R2 for newcomer work proaction. Thus, results were opposite to what was predicted and this hypothesis was not supported. Additional analyses related to this hypothesis will be discussed later. A similar prediction was tested with newcomer contribution as the dependent variable. Again, newcomer work proaction was entered as one predictor, and supervisor and coworker work proaction were entered as a second block. The results also appear in Table 7. Neither the total R2 nor the unique R2 for newcomer work proaction were significant. However, the total R2 and unique R3 were both significant for the coworker and supervisor work proaction block. Since newcomer contribution was expected to relate to the independent variables in the manner hypothesized for newcomer work adjustment, these results were the opposite of what was anticipated. Given the pattern of results, the support for this reverse finding was quite strong, suggesting that when newcomers experienced a greater amount of work related interaction initiated by their coworkers and supervisors, newcomers were more likely to contribute. Follow-up regression analyses were conducted with newcomer work adjustment as the dependent variable because newcomer work proaction appeared to be acting as a suppressor. As mentioned above, the total R2 for newcomer work proaction was not significant, but the unique R2 for 79 this predictor was. In addition, newcomer work proaction had a negative beta weight (-.19) in the regression equation. To further discern the nature of the suppressor effect, coworker and supervisor work proaction were entered as single independent variables with newcomer work proaction in additional regression tests. As shown in Table 8, the total R2 for newcomer work proaction was never significant, but the unique R2 was consistently significant. Thus, newcomer work proaction always appeared as a suppressor. Neither supervisor nor coworker work proaction ever acted as a suppressor. More will be said about these findings in the discussion section. Tests for Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 5 (a and b) examined the impact of patterns of social proaction on corresponding social outcomes. In this case, it was considered important for organizational insiders to make newcomers feel a sense of belonging by showing a personal interest in them. Specifically, the hypothésis predicted that coworker and supervisor social proaction would be more strongly related to newcomer social adjustment and stress reduction than newcomer social proaction. Supervisor and coworker social proaction were entered as one block in the regression equations and newcomer social proaction was entered as the other. These results are provided in Table 9. The total R3 and unique R2 were significant for both sets of predictors. However, the unique R3 for the 80 Table 8 Hypothesis 4: Follow—Up Regression Results Dependent Variables Predictors Beta R2 Change R2 Newcomer Work Newcomer -.12 Adjustment Work Proaction .002 .0121 Supervisor .16 Work Proaction .010* .019* Newcomer Work Newcomer -.15 Adjustment Work Proaction .002 .0161 Coworker .19 Work Proaction .013* .026** Newcomer Work Supervisor .06 Adjustment Work Proaction .010* .003 Coworker .09 Work Proaction - .013* .006 * = p. < .05; it : p. < .001. 81 Table 9 Hypothesis 5: Regression Results Dependent Variables Predictors Beta Rz Change R2 Newcomer Social Coworker .16 Adjustment Supervisor .22 Social Proaction .187*t .065** Newcomer .17 Social Proaction .138** .015* Newcomer Stress Coworker .04 Reduction Supervisor .05 Social Proaction .002 .003 Newcomer -.06 Social Proaction .000 .002 x = p. < .05; 1* = p. < .001. 82 supervisor and coworker social proaction block was larger than that of the newcomer social proaction predictor. Thus, the hypothesis was supported, such that coworker and supervisor social proaction appeared to be more important to newcomer social adjustment than newcomer social proaction. When newcomer stress reduction was the dependent variable, the total R2 and the unique R2 for both sets of predictors were not significant. Therefore, this prediction was not supported, suggesting that social proaction from any source is not important to newcomer stress reduction. Tests for Hypothesis 6. The final hypothesis was concerned more with the sources of proaction than with the content. General socialization outcomes were proposed to be related to both social and work related interaction, provided that it was initiated by organizational insiders. General socialization outcomes were expected to be contingent upon organizational insiders providing appropriate socialization interactions for newcomers. Hypothesis 6 predicted that coworker and supervisor work and social proaction would have a greater effect on newcomer job satisfaction, intention to remain with the organization, and commitment than newcomer work and social proaction. In the test of this hypothesis, coworker and supervisor work and social proaction were entered in the regression equation as one block, and newcomer work and social proaction were entered as the other. These results are presented in Table Hypothesis 6: 83 Table 10 Regression Results Dependent Variables Predictorg Beta R2 Change R2 Newcomer Job Coworker .13 Satisfaction Supervisor .06 Work Proaction Coworker -.08 Supervisor .04 Social Proaction .029* .031* Newcomer .05 Work Proaction Newcomer -.05 Social Proaction .004 .005 Intent to Remain Coworker .13 with Organization Supervisor .04 Work Proaction Coworker -.14 Supervisor .04 Social Proaction .030* .027* Newcomer .03 Work Proaction Newcomer -.08 Social Proaction .007 .005 Newcomer Coworker .19 Commitment Supervisor .11 Work Proaction Coworker -.15 Supervisor .10 Social Proaction .076** .061** Newcomer -.05 Work Proaction Newcomer -.03 Social Proaction .017* .002 .05; H .001. 84 10. Hypotheses for each dependent variable were supported. In each equation, the unique R2 for insider social proaction was significant and the unique R2 for newcomer social proaction was not. Therefore, insider initiated interactions were more important to general socialization outcomes than newcomer initiated interactions. Antecedents and Proaction Individual difference antecedents. Three individual difference variables were explored as possible antecedents of newcomer work and social proaction. Correlational analyses were used to examine the potential relationships between individual difference antecedent variables and proaction. Self-efficacy, prior work experience, and tolerance of ambiguity, were correlated with newcomer work and social proaction. These results are shown in Table 11. Significant correlations between newcomer work proaction and tolerance of ambiguity, job experience, and internship experience were found. It should be noted that the amount of variance explained by all correlations was modest. Tolerance of ambiguity was negatively related to newcomer work proaction, indicating that newcomers low on tolerance of ambiguity reported initiating more work related interactions. The correlation between newcomer work proaction and job experience was positive, such that those who had more job experience were more proactive. Internship experience and newcomer work proaction were negatively 85 Table 11 Correlations: Newcomer Work and Social Proaction and Individual Difference Proaction Antecedents variable Mean 1. Newcomer WOrk Proaction 3.28 2. Newcomer Social Proaction 2.49 3. Self—Efficacy 5.96 4. Tolerance of Ambiguity 3.65 5. Job Experience 2.49 6. Internship Experience 6.73 Note. diagonal. .70 .82 .90 .02 .16 ,10 1 .83 .18** (436) -.07 (437) -oll* (437) 015** (437) -.20** (437) .88 .06 .80 (436) .02 .19** .77 (436) (437) .07 -.06 .04 -- (436) (437) (437) .06 .2331 .05 -.21** (436) (437) (437) (437) Coefficient alpha reliability estimates appear on the The nunber of cases for each correlation appears in parentheses . t = p. < .05; ** = p. .001. 86 related, indicating that those with less experience were more proactive. Newcomer social proaction was not significantly related to any of the individual difference antecedents. Three correlations among antecedents were significant. Tolerance of ambiguity and self-efficacy were positively related, indicating that individuals who have a high tolerance of ambiguity were also likely to be highly self— efficacious. Internship experience was positively related to self-efficacy and negatively related to job experience. Situational antecedents. Situational variables were explored as antecedents for newcomer, coworker, and supervisor proaction. ‘To examine potential antecedents, task interdependence and accessibility were correlated with work and social proaction from newcomers, supervisors, and coworkers. These correlations are displayed in Table 12. None of the proaction variables were significantly related to accessibility, although the nonsignificant correlations may have been due to range restriction in the accessibility variable. An examination of the accessibility frequency revealed that 80 percent of the respondents reported that coworkers and supervisors were highly accessible. Significant positive relationships were found between task interdependence and all the proaction variables. Correlations between task interdependence and newcomer, supervisor, and coworker work proaction explained meaningful Correlations: 87 Table 12 WOrk and Social Proaction and Situational Proaction Antecedents Mean SD Alpha Task Interdependence Accessibility 1. Nwrk 3.28 .70 .83 .38xx .05 (430) (431) 2. Nsoc 2.49 .82 .88 .11* .06 (429) (430) 3. Swrk 2.68 .84 .90 .33** -.04 (430) (431) 4. Ssoc 1.72 .74 .90 .181! .02 (430) (431) 5. erk 2.95 .71 .82 .3633 .07 (427) (430) 6. Csoc 2.72 .80 .86 .123 .06 (427) (430) 7. Task Int 3.19 .88 .80 .10* (427) 8. Acces 4.03 .85 .74 Note. Nwrk = Newcomer work proaction; Nsoc = Newcomer social proaction; Swrk = Supervisor work proaction; Ssoc = Supervisor social proaction; erk = Coworker work proaction; Csoc = Coworker social proaction; Task Int = Task interdependence; Acces 2 Accessibility. The number of cases for each correlation appears in parentheses. x : p. < .05; ** = p. < .001. 88 proportions of variance, 14, 11, and 13 percent respectively. Task interdependence and accessibility were significantly related. Newcomer proggtion regresgion analyses. Since certain individual difference and situational antecedents were both significantly related to newcomer proaction, regression analyses were conducted to examine the relative effects of each set of antecedents on work and social newcomer proaction. The situational predictor block contained task interdependence and accessibility. Self-efficacy, tolerance of ambiguity, job experience, and internship experience comprised the individual difference predictor block. Results are shown in Table 13. When newcomer work proaction was the dependent variable, the total R2 and unique R2 for both situational and individual differences antecedents were significant. The unique R2 for situational antecedents was twice as large as the unique R2 for the individual difference antecedents, indicating that both types of variables helped predict newcomer work proaction, but the situational variables measured were more important. When newcomer social proaction was the dependent variable, the total R2 and the unique R2 for the situational predictor block was significant. Neither R2 was significant for the individual difference predictor block. Therefore, situational factors were predictive of newcomer social proaction, but individual difference variables were not. (A 89 Table 13 Newcomer Proaction Regression Results Dependent Variable Predictorg Totgl R2 Unique R2 Newcomer Work Situational Proaction Factors .145** .124** Individual Differences .073** .051** Newcomer Social Situational Proaction Factors .015* .015* Individual Differences .012 .012 x = p. < .05, xx = p. < .001. 90 complete intercorrelation matrix including all antecedent, proaction, and outcome scales is provided in Table 14 located in Appendix M.) DISCUSSION The perspective developed in this paper focused on two major constructs derived from the interactionist literature: proaction and interaction content. The concept of proaction was elaborated as the tendency of organizational members to actively initiate communication with others in the work environment. Work related and social were the two major types of interaction content proposed. Work related content, a concept similar to initiating structure in the leadership literature, focuses specifically on aspects of the newcomer’s job. Social content, which resembles consideration in the leadership literature, is directed at the newcomer as an individual, rather than the newcomer as an organizational member. Social interaction content represents a new concept in the domain of organizational socialization. The type of interaction content newcomers experience in combination with the source of proaction (e.g., newcomer, supervisor, or coworker) creates a proaction pattern. Distinct proaction patterns were proposed to have differential impacts on socialization 91 92 outcomes. The total amount of interaction experienced by newcomers was also proposed to affect socialization outcomes. At the general level, factor analyses showed that work and social interaction content and proaction sources were distinct. In addition, proaction processes were significantly related to newcomer organizational socialization outcomes, demonstrating the importance of proaction as one component of the socialization process. The majority of the specific proaction pattern predictions were also supported. Work related and social interaction content were proposed to have the greatest impact on newcomer work and social adjustment respectively. These relations were supported in the results. Interactions regarding topics such as work procedures, skills, and job tasks were more strongly related to newcomer work adjustment than social interactions. The same type of relationship was found for newcomer contribution, the socialization outcome variable derived from a second factor in the work adjustment scale. Social interactions which focused on family, friends, and personal problems had a greater impact on newcomer social adjustment than work related interactions. These findings demonstrated that the distinct work and social interaction content types were important to successful newcomer 93 Socialization, but each type of interaction was related to unique outcomes. Some socialization outcomes (e.g., satisfaction and commitment) were described as more global in nature. As such they were expected to be predicted by the total amount of interaction encountered by newcomers, regardless of content type. Results showed that newcomers experiencing more interaction overall exhibited greater job satisfaction, intended to remain with the organization, and felt greater organizational commitment, demonstrating that not all socialization outcomes were content contingent. More global outcomes were best predicted by the basic process of interaction. Predictions based on patterns of proaction added an additional level of specificity to the hypotheses discussed above. When proaction pattern was considered, socialization outcomes were not only determined by interaction content, but also by the source of proaction. Support for the proaction pattern relationships was more variable. Newcomer work proaction was expected to be a better predictor of work adjustment and contribution than coworker and supervisor work proaction. The argument stated that newcomers would be best able to identify their own deficiencies and could best eliminate them by proacting with insiders, resulting in greater work adjustment. Similarly, more proactive newcomers were expected to make greater 94 suggestions and contributions regarding work. Contrary to expectations, insider work related proaction was the better predictor of both socialization outcomes. Perhaps because coworkers and supervisors possessed greater job knowledge and understanding, they were better able to communicate key factors about the job to newcomers, thereby enhancing work adjustment. It is also possible that newcomers only felt comfortable enough to contribute if newcomers and coworkers interacted with them a great deal. In addition, because of work related proaction from insiders, newcomers were likely to have a wider knowledge base from which to make suggestions. Insider proaction proved to be important to newcomers’ social adjustment as well. As predicted, social interaction initiated by supervisors and coworkers was a better predictor of newcomer social adjustment than newcomer initiated social interactions. This finding makes sense considering social adjustment is dependent upon the newcomer feeling a sense of belonging that is most likely to be fostered by social communication from supervisors and coworkers. Even a newcomer who was socially proactive would not be likely to feel the requisite belonging unless organizational insiders also proacted socially. Findings regarding proaction patterns suggested that the perspective developed here needs some revision. Although newcomer work proaction was expected to be more 95 important for newcomer work adjustment and contribution than insider work proaction, results revealed the opposite. Coupled with the significant relationship between insider social proaction and social adjustment, the results suggested that interactions initiated by coworkers and supervisors may be a stronger force in newcomer socialization than newcomer initiated interactions. Interaction content was distinct, but within each content domain it was important for insiders to be proactive with newcomers to augment successful socialization. The findings regarding general socialization outcomes were consistent with this notion. Results showed that when supervisors and coworkers initiated more interaction, regardless of content, newcomers were more likely to be satisfied with their jobs, be committed to the organization, and want to remain with the company. The amount of newcomer proaction was not predictive of these global outcomes. Once again, proaction from organizational insiders was shown to enhance newcomer socialization. Hypotheses included some socialization outcome variables that were not successfully predicted. The reduction of newcomer work related stress, for example, was expected to be predicted by social interaction, especially social interaction initiated by coworkers and supervisors. Results showed that neither work nor social interaction content predicted stress reduction, regardless of the 96 proactor. One explanation for this result may be that new jobs are likely to be stressful regardless of socialization processes, simply because of the unfamiliarity. Furthermore, many jobs may just be innately stressful. In this study, the lack of significant findings may have been due to the restricted range of stress reported by newcomers. Most participants reported being relatively stress-free. Perhaps participants felt less stress because internships were viewed as more of a learning experience than a typical new job. Under these circumstances, perhaps mistakes were expected and more easily tolerated, resulting in a less stressful working environment. The general socialization outcome, intention to remain with the organization, was expected to be related to the total amount of interaction experienced by a newcomer. The regression result was not significant when all six proaction predictors were entered together. However, when newcomer initiated interactions and insider initiated interactions were separated into predictor blocks, insider proaction did predict tenure intention. These results can be explained by the different degrees of freedom associated with each regression analysis. The amount of variance explained by the six predictors remained constant. However, when predictors were entered in blocks, fewer degrees of freedom were used such that statistical significance was achieved. 97 The study had some success in identifying antecedents of newcomer proaction. Task interdependence was strongly related to both social and work related proaction from newcomers. This suggests that the nature of the tasks being performed can constrain or enhance the amount of proaction likely to occur. That is, low task interdependence may discourage or eliminate proaction, while high task interdependence may enhance or necessitate proaction. Individual difference variables, such as self-efficacy, tolerance of ambiguity, job experience, and internship experience contributed to the prediction of work related proaction, but not social proaction. Self-efficacy and tolerance of ambiguity were negatively related to newcomer work proaction. This suggests that individuals are most likely to proact when they feel little efficacy regarding their new work situation and are unable to manage the degree of ambiguity associated with organizational entry. This seems to imply that newcomers proact out of necessity. Highly self-efficacious newcomers, confident of their abilities and able to cope with ambiguity may be less likely to proact. Perhaps moderator relationships exist among proaction antecedents. Self-efficacy, for example, has moderated other socialization processes (Jones, 1986). Additional research is needed to further examine proaction catalysts and the potential relationships among them. Special attention should be directed at identifying sources 98 of social proaction, since task interdependence was its only predictor in this study. Implications and Directions for Future Research The results obtained in this study should be considered preliminary. The goal of this research was to identify and capture one aspect of the organizational socialization process and results seem to indicate that this was accomplished. Results generally revealed the relational patterns expected, however, the proportions of variance accounted for were small. This is not surprising given that socialization outcomes are multiply determined (Fisher, 1986) and only some of the potential influences were investigated here. Accounting for more variance necessitates including additional factors that may be related to proaction patterns and their corresponding effects. Task and work group variables seem to be especially promising. Task interdependence was shown to be a significant predictor of proaction. Other task factors such as centrality or meaningfulness may also be related to proaction. If newcomers are engaged in tasks deemed important by the work group, perhaps more proaction is likely to occur. Since the participants in this study were interns rather than actual organizational newcomers, it is likely that their tasks were less important. In addition, interns that come to an organization for the expressed purpose of "learning the ropes,’ may experience and exhibit 99 different interaction patterns than the typical newcomer. Proaction from and toward these newcomers may be greater since they are supposed to be learning as much about their jobs and the organization as possible. Conversely, these newcomers may experience less interaction simply because they are not permanent organizational members and insiders are not interested in investing much time in them. Future research, which takes task issues into account and utilizes actual organizational newcomers, would address these concerns and expand the generalizability of the results. Group and organizational factors such as climate and leadership may also be important to this line of research. Some work group and organizational climates may be more likely to foster proaction than others. For example, the emotionally sustaining climates identified by Van Maanen and Kunda (1989) may be more likely to encourage proaction among members. Similarly, work group and organizational leadership may also differ in the extent to which they encourage proaction. The leadership styles of consideration and initiating structure may be relevant here in terms of the type and amount of interaction sanctioned. Considerate leaders, for example, may encourage social interaction, whereas work related interaction may be reinforced when initiating structure is the dominant style. The structural forces affecting insider proaction are particularly important since individual difference variables and newcomer 100 proaction did not show strong relationships in the present study. Different methods of measuring proaction may also prove fruitful. Newcomer work proaction acted as a suppressor in the relationship between insider work proaction and work adjustment. This suggests that it may have been difficult for newcomers to distinguish their own proaction from that of insiders. Webber (1970) encountered a similar problem when examining proaction patterns between supervisors and subordinates. In Webber’s study, the tendency was for individuals to exaggerate the amount of proaction from themselves and underestimate the amount of proaction from others in the work setting. One way to address this issue would involve obtaining proaction ratings from all sources. If each source rated the amount of proaction from all sources it would be possible to obtain an average estimate of proaction for each source. Biases from one source could potentially be counter balanced by the other sources. Given this framework, sources could also keep diaries of proaction from each source and fill them out on a continuous basis, rather than in a single shot. The use of observers could also potentially increase the accuracy of proaction ratings. The observers could function as a reliability check on the ratings obtained from insider and newcomer sources. Even as a sole method of measuring proaction nonparticipant and participant 101 observational methods may be particularly promising. Nonparticipant observational methods, such as those outlined by Komaki, Heinzmann, and Lawson (1980), involve the use Of raters who are not organizational members and who do not engage in regular organizational activities. Applied to the measurement of proaction, such raters would be assigned to observe individual newcomers recording the initiator and content of all of the newcomer’s interactions within a given time period. Participant observational methods employ raters who are either organizational members or individuals who participate in organizational activities for a time. This method was utilized in Van Maanen’s (1975) study of police socialization. Using this type of a strategy to measure proaction would require a researcher or team of researchers to become actual organizational newcomers. During their time as organizational newcomers, the researchers would be responsible for recording the patterns of proaction they experience. In addition, longitudinal research would be preferable to the single measurement method of this study. Perhaps greater understanding of how interaction processes affect socialization could be gained by monitoring the same newcomers throughout the entire process. This study captured a single period in the process, newcomer socialization at three to five weeks on the job. It would 102 be interesting to examine differences and changes in interaction patterns before and after this period. Perceptions of proaction constitute a final area for additional research. How proactive newcomers are perceived may be an important issue. For instance, in some cases highly proactive newcomers may be viewed as "go-getters" who are interested in learning about their jobs and the organization. In contrast, the same level of newcomer proaction could be considered an indication that the newcomer is overly dependent, unable to make decisions alone, and requires too much assistance. The negative relationships self-efficacy and tolerance of ambiguity had with work related proaction in this study may be more indicative of the latter interpretation. The proaction of coworkers and supervisors may also be subject to various interpretations. Some newcomers may feel that insider proaction is an indication of interest and support, while others may perceive it as a patronizing gesture and a lack of confidence in newcomers’ abilities. The positive relationships between insider proaction and newcomer socialization outcomes obtained in this study seem more supportive of the first interpretation. Research related to the study of organizational citizenship behaviors also suggests that attention to newcomers is interpreted in a positive light (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Future research that further defines the individual and situational 103 contexts in which proaction patterns are embedded will help address these issues. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Adorno, T. W., Brunswik, E. R., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personalipy. New York: Harper & Brothers. Aguilar, F. J. (1967). Scanning the business environment. New York: MacMillan Company. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888- 918. Allen, T. J. (1977). Managing the flow of technology. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Alpert, L., Atkins, B. M., & Ziller, R. C. (1979). Becoming a judge: The transition from advocate to arbiter. Judicature, 2, 325-335. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 81, 191-215. Berlew, D. E., & Hall, D. T. (1966). The socialization of managers: Effects of expectations on performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 207-223. 104 105 Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf. Blau, G. (1981). An empirical investigation of job stress, social support, service length, and job strain. Organizationgl Behavior and Human Performance, 21, 279— 302. Bourne, P. G. (1967). Some observations on the psychosocial phenomena seen in basic training. Psychiatry, 39, 187—196. Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations. Agpinistrative Science ngrterly, 19, 533-546. Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 29— 50. Cattell, R. B.’ (1966). The scree test for the number of -factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245- 276. Cogswell, B. E. (1968). Some structural properties influencing socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 13, 11-26. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, gg, 310-357. 106 Dean, J. W., & Brass, D. J. (1985). Social interaction and the perception of job characteristics in an organization. flpman Relations, 38, 571—582. Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Interactional psychology and personality. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere. Epstein, S. (1979). The stability of behavior: I. On predicting most of the people much of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1097-1126. Fahey, L., & King, W. R. (1977). Environmental scanning for corporate planning. Business Horizons, 20, 61-71. Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1, 433-452. Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organizational members. Academy of Management Review, 6, 309-318. Feldman, D. C., & Brett, J. M. (1983). Coping with new jobs: A comparative study of new hires and job changers. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 258-272. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. pran Relations, 1, 117—140. Fiedler, F. E. (1971). Validation and extension of the contingency model of leadership effectiveness: A review of empirical findings. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 12-148. 107 Fiedler, F. E. (1972). Personality, motivational systems, and behavior of high and low LPC persons. flppgp Relgtions, 22, 391-412. Fisher, C. D. (1982). Identifying the outcomes of socialiggtion: Two gppdieg. (Tech. Rep. No. ONR-8) College Station, TX: Texas A & M University, College of Business Administration. Fisher, C. D. (1985). Social support and adjustment to work: A longitudinal study. Journal of Management, ll, 39-530 Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. Research in Personnel pnd Human Resources Management, 4, 101-145. Fleishman, E. A., Harris, E. R., & Burtt, H. E. (1955). Leadership and supervision in indugtry. (Bureau of Educational Research Monograph No. 33). Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, Bureau of Educational Research. Ford, D. L. (1985). Facets of work support and employee work outcomes: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Management, 2;, 5-20. Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 22, 291-314. 108 Fusilier, M. R., Ganster, D. C., & Mayes, B. T. (1987). Effects of social support, role stress, and locus of control on health. Journal of Management, 12, 517-528. Ganster, D. C., Fusilier, M. R., & Mayes, B. T. (1986). Role of social support in the experience of stress at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 12, 102-110. Graen, G. (1976). Role making processes within complex organizations. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), The handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally. Graen, G., & Cashman, J. F. (1975). A role making model of leadership in formal organizations: A developmental approach. In J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership frontiers. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press. Graen, G., Orris, J. B., & Johnson, T. (1973). Role assimilation process in a complex organization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2, 395-420. Hatch, M. J. (1987). Physical barriers, task characteristics, and interaction activity in research and development firms. Agpinistrative Science Quarterly, 22, 387-399. House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 109 House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Role conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behavior. nganization 1 Behavior and flpppn Perforpgnce, 1, 467-505. Jain, S. C. (1984). Environmental scanning in U. S. corporations. Long Range Planning, 11, 117-128. Jones, G. R. (1983). Psychological orientation and the process of organizational socialization: An interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 2, 464-474. Jones, C. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self- efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Acadgpy of Management Journg1, 22, 262-279. Kirmeyer, S. L., & Lin, T. R. (1987). Social support: Its relationship to observed communication with peers and superiors. Academy of Management Joprnal, 22, 138- 151. Knapp, M. L. (1978). Nonverbal compunication in hupgn interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Komaki, J., Heinzmann, A. T., & Lawson, L. (1980). Effect of training and feedback: Component analysis of a behavioral safety program. Journgl of Applied Psychology, 22, 261-270. 110 Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ostroff, C. L. (1987). The socialization and assimilgtion of college graduates: How new hires legrn the ropeg, 1. East Lansing: Michigan State University, The Collegiate Employment Research Institute. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ostroff, C. L. (1988). The role of mentoring in the early organizational socialization of newcomers. Manuscript submitted for publication, Michigan State University, Department of Psychology, East Lansing, MI. Larson, L. L., Bussom, R. S., Vicars, W., & Jauch, L. Proactive versus reactive manager: Is the Journal of Management Studies, (1986). dichotomy realistic? 3, 385-4000 Lawler, E. E., Porter, attitudes toward interaction episodes. g2, 432-439. L. W., & Tennenbaum, A. (1968). Managers’ Journal of Applied Psychology, (1976). The nature and causes of job Locke, E. Handbook of satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), industrial and organization§1 psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally. Surprise and sense making: What Louis, M. R. (1980). newcomers experience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Qparterly, 22, 226-251. 111 Louis, M. R., Posner, B. Z., & Powell, G. N. (1983). The availability and helpfulness of socialization practices. Personnel Psycho1ggy, 22, 857-866. Major, D.A., McKellin, D.B., & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1988). The socialization and assimilation of collegg gradugtes: How new hires learn the ropes, 11. East Lansing: Michigan State University, The Collegiate Employment Research Institute. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 11, 224-247. Pinder, C. C., & Schroeder, K. G. (1987). Time to ’ proficiency following job transfers. Academy of Management Jourpg1, 22, 336-353. Rafaeli, A.{ & Sutton, R. I. (1989). The expression of emotion in organizational life. Research in nganizational Bepgvior, 11, 1-42. Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. Academy of Management Review, 12, 278-287. Rydell, S. T., & Rosen, E. (1966). Measurement and some correlates of need-cognition. Psychological Reports, 12J 139-165. Schein, E. H. (1964). How to break in the college graduate. Harvard Business Review, 42, 68-76. 112 Schein, E. H. (1968). Organizational socialization. Industrial Mgppgement Review, 2, 37-45. Schneider, B. (1981). Work climates: An interactionist perspective. In N. W. Feimer & E. S. Geller (Eds.), Environmental psychology: Directions andyperspectives. New York: Praeger. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 12, 437-453. Seers, A., Mc Gee, G. W., Serey, T. T., & Graen, G. B. (1983). The interaction of job stress and social support: A strong inference investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 273-284. Simpson, J. H. (1967). Patterns of socialization into professions: The case of student nurses. Sociological Inguiry, 21, 46-54. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 22, 653- 663. Stewart, R. (1979). Managerial agendas--Reactive or proactive? Organizational Dynapics, 2, 34-37. Super, D. E. (1957). The psychology of careers. New York: Harper & Row. Terborg, J. R. (1981). Interactional psychology and research on human behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 2, 569-576. 113 Thomas, P. S. (1980). Environmental scanning--The state of the art. Long Rangnglanning, 12, 20-28. Thompson, J. D. (1967). nganigations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill. Toffler, B. L. (1981). Occupational role development: The changing determinants of outcomes for the individual. Administrative Science Quarter1y, 22, 396-417. Van Maanen, J. (1975). Police socialization: A longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban police department. Agpinistrative Science Quarterly, 22, 207-228. Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.), flgpdbook of work, organization, and sociepy. Chicago: Rand McNally. Van Maanen, J. (1978). People processing: Strategies of organizational socialization. nganizational Dynamics, 1, 19-36. Van Maanen, J., & Kunda, G. (1989). "Real feelings": Emotional expression and organizational culture. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 43-103. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in nganizgtional Behavior, 1, 209-264. Wanous, J. P. (1980). nggnigational entry. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 114 Webber, R. A. (1970). Perceptions of interactions between 3, 235- superiors and subordinates. Human Relations, 248. APPENDICES 115 APPENDIX A Items for Descriptive Information How many people are in your immediate work group? (Remember, your work group is your supervisor and your coworkers who are under the same supervisor.) Please provide the following information: AGE: MAJOR: SEX: male or female (circle one) Are you currently on an internship? yes no (circle one) How many weeks have you been on your current internship? (circle one number) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 116 APPENDIX B Newcomer, Supervisor, and Coworker Work and Social Proaction Newcomer Proaction Stem: In a typical week, how frequently do YOU initiate convepgptiong with your coworkers gnd supervisor about the following topics: Supervisor Proaction Stem: In a typical week, how frequently does your SUPERVISOR initiate conversgpions with you about the following topics: Coworker Proaction Stem: In a typical week, how frequently do your COWORKERS initiate conversationg with you about the following topics: Work and Social Proaction Items: job related topics in general* personal plans for after work activities procedures for the completion of work‘ how to handle problems on the job* family matters/personal relationships sports, politics, & other news-type topics specific job tasks* work priorities* general joking and fooling around how to use equipment and materials* 11. quantity and quality of work* (OCDQOSUIJE-ODNH H O 12. social or non-work type topics 13. gossip; news about friends and acquaintances 14. job duties and procedures* 15. hobbies and interests outside of work Note. 3 = work related proaction items. The rating scale ranged from (1) = "very infrequently" to (5) = "very frequently." 117 APPENDIX C Social, Work, and Newcomer Contribution Items The people I work with take a personal interest in me. I feel confident about by ability to perform my job.1 I consider my supervisor and many of my coworkers personal friends. I like to try new and better ways to get my job done.2 My coworkers and supervisor make me feel like I belong. I have lots of good ideas about how things could be done better in my group.2 My coworkers and supervisor are willing to listen to my personal problems. I feel sure of myself in my job position.l My coworkers and supervisor are always there when I need them. I can confide in my supervisor and coworkers. I look forward to coming to work because of my coworkers. I feel like I have a good system for doing my job.1 I am able to make decisions necessary to do my job.1 I think my supervisor and coworkers are concerned about me as a person. I often make helpful suggestions to my coworkers and supervisor.2 I feel like I’ve pretty much adjusted to my new job.1 I have close personal relationships with my supervisor and many of my coworkers. 1work adjustment items. 3newcomer contribution items. The rating scale ranged from (1) = "strongly agree" to (7) = strongly disagree." Note. 118 APPENDIX D Work Related Stress Items My job tends to directly affect my health. I work under a great deal of tension. I have felt fidgety or nervous as a result of my job. If I had a different job my health would probably improve. Problems associated with my job have kept me awake at night. I have felt nervous before attending meetings in the company. I often "take my job home with me" in the sense that I think about it when doing other things. Items were rated using a true/false format. 119 APPENDIX E Tenure Intention Items 1. If I could, I would rather do my internships with another company. (R) 2. If I could start over again, I would still do my internships with this company. 3. I would be interested in working for this company after graduation. 4. After graduation, I will definitely look for a job with a different company. (R) 5. I am already planning to work for a different company after graduation. (R) Note. (R) = reflected items. The rating scale ranged from (1) = "strongly agree" to (5) = "strongly disagree." 120 APPENDIX F Job Satisfaction Items 1. My job meets my image of an ideal job. (R) 2. I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do. (R) 3. I like this job very much. 4. I am very dissatisfied with this job. (R) 5. Overall, I am quite happy with this job. (R) Note. (R) = reflected items. 3 The rating scale ranged from (1) = "strongly agree" to (5) = "strongly disagree." 121 APPENDIX G Organizational Commitment Items 1. I talk up this organization to my friends as a great company to work for. 2. I feel very little loyalty to this organization. (R) 3. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. 4. It would take very little change in my present circumstances to cause me to leave this organization. (R) 5. I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for, over others I was considering at the time I joined. 6. There’s not too much to be gained by sticking with this organization indefinitely. (R) 7. For me, this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work. 8. Deciding to work for this organization was a definite mistake on my part. (R) Note. (R) = reflected items. The rating scale ranged from (1) = "strongly disagree" to (7) = "strongly agree." 122 APPENDIX H Self-Efficacy Items 1. I am prepared to function effectively on this job because of my past experience. 2. My college training has given me the skills I need to succeed at jobs related to the major I am studying.* 3. Previous experience has taught me that I can meet my current work responsibilities. 4. I feel confident that my skills and abilities equal or exceed those of my coworkers.* 5. My past experiences and accomplishments increase my confidence that I can perform successfully in this organization. 6. I could handle a more challenging job than the one I am doing.* 7. Prior training and experience gives me assurance that I can accomplish my work goals. 8. Based on my past performance, I feel I can handle any work assignment I’m given on this job.* Note. * : items deleted from the final self-efficacy scale. The rating scale ranged from (1) = "strongly agree" to (7) = "strongly disagree." 123 APPENDIX I Career Related and General Work Experience Items 1. Students have internships or co-op work experiences in their major field. thus far? How many internships have you had number of internships (If you haven’t had one yet, put down zero. internship, 2. In addition to thus far? internships, If you are currently on an include it in the number you report.) how many jobs have you had number of full-time jobs (not including summer) number of full-time summer jobs number of part-time jobs Note. 1 = career related work experience. 2 = general work experience. Note. final scale. The rating scale ranged from (1) (7) 124 APPENDIX J Tolerance of Ambiguity Items I prefer work assignments with specific directions to those with vague directions that require my own interpretation. (R) There is usually one best way to handle most job tasks. (R)* I dislike supervisors who expect me to figure out my work assignments on my own. (R) A good job is one where what is to be done and how it is to be done are always clear. (R) Once you find a procedure that works you shouldn’t try to change it. (R)* I think it’s important to know exactly what my work assignments are and when they are due. (R) Jobs that have a lot of change and uncertainty are more desirable than jobs with little change and uncertainty. I am uncomfortable when I’m not sure what is expected of me. (R) It is impossible to do a good job when the requirements keep changing. (R) items deleted from the (R) = reflected items. * "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Note. 125 APPENDIX K Task Interdependence Items To what extent must your job activities be coordinated with those of your work group? To what extent do you have to work with your work group to get your job done? To what extent do the tasks you perform require you to check with or collaborate with others in your work group? To what extent do other work group members depend on your work in order to be able complete their own tasks? To what extent is the work you do a result of the combined efforts of several individuals? The rating scale ranged from (1) = "very little extent" to (5) = "very great extent." 126 APPENDIX L Accessibility Items 1. To what extent do you work in close physical proximity to your work group? 2. To what extent is your physical location in the organization isolated from your work group? (R) 3. To what extent does the physical layout of your office make communication with your work group difficult? (R) 4. To what extent is your physical location in the organization easily accessible to your work group? Note. (R) = reflected items. The rating scale ranged from (1) = "very little extent" to (5) = "very great extent." 127 APPENDIX M: Table 14 Antecedent, Proaction, and Outcome Scale Intercorrelation Matrix 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1. Swrk -- 2. Ssoc 41 3. erk 41 14 4. Csoc 13 39 29 5. Nwrk 47 12 53 16 6. Nsoc 02 39 19 70 20 7. Taskint 33 17 36 11 38 11 8. Selfeff 06 07 06 01 -07 04 08 9. Tolambig 03 10 04 02 -14 -01 01 20 10. Jobtot 11 14 08 04 16 08 10 -05 06 11. Internwks -14 -12 -11 02 -22 03 -16 23 04 04 12. Access -02 04 08 O6 06 07 10 13 01 -11 04 13. Workadj 11 08 11 01 -05 06 09 61 27 -03 11 14. Contribute 13 09 16 13 02 08 14 32 20 02 11 15. Socialadj 21 36 23 37 09 38 18 36 16 -02 08 16. Stressred 05 03 02 04 07 00 04 -12 01 01 08 17. Commitment 21 10 20 -07 10 -07 15 29 14 01 -O3 18. Jobsat 12 06 14 -01 03 -03 14 23 09 -09 -06 19. Intstay 09 03 11 -07 01 -07 10 28 20 -08 13 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12. Access -- 13. Workadj 13 14. Contribute 02 46 15. Socialadj 13 41 40 16. Stressred -10 -12 08 -08 17. Commitment 03 28 11 36 -04 18. Jobsat 01 30 10 40 -01 57 19. Intstay 00 26 10 30 -06 68 59 Note. Swrk = Supervisor work proaction; Ssoc = Supervisor social proaction; erk = Coworker work proaction; C300 2 Coworker social proaction; Nwrk = Newcomer work proaction; Nsoc = Newcomer social proaction; Taskint = Task interdependence; Selfeff = Self-efficacy; Tolambig = Tolerance of ambiguity; Jobtot = Total number of jobs held; Internwks = Number of weeks on present internship; Access = Accessibility; Workadj = Work adjustment; Contribute = Contribution; Socialadj = Social adjustment; Stressred = Stress reduction; Commitment = Organizational commitment; Jobsat = JOb satisfaction; Intstay = Intention to stay with the organization. Decimal points have been omitted in the body of the table. r > .10, p. < .05; r > .16, p. < .001; n = 408. "Ilillljllllfliflfllllr