134
891

 

THS

THESIS
l
200\

Date

 

LIBRARY

Michigan state
Untvorsltv

W‘—

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACHES TO SOCIALIZING
NEWCOMERS AND NEW EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT

presented by

Stacie Anne Beery

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

m “A... .__.__ degree in immunization

(/W Max

Major professor

/L«/</-Do

 

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 before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

| DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

ca 32023

 

r AUGTE‘luflmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11100 chlRCIDateDcnpS5—p.“

ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACHES TO SOCIALIZING NEWCOMERS AND NEW
EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT

By

Stacie Anne Beery

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

2000

ABSTRACT

ORGANIZATIONAL APPROACHES TO SOCIALIZING NEWCOMERS AND NEW
EMPLOYEE COMMITMENT

By

Stacie Anne Beery

Organizational socialization is the process by which newcomers learn their roles
and adapt to new organizations. While few scholars would dispute the importance of
socialization, there is debate over the most effective way to socialize newcomers. Four
approaches to socializing newcomers (socialization context, message content,
socialization agent supportiyeness, and organizational effort) currently dominate the
research literature, with each providing alternative explanations for achieving similar
outcomes. Applying the Yale model of persuasion to current socialization research
provided a framework for organizing the approaches and their relationship to
organizational commitment. The study sought to determine which of the four
approaches, or which approaches when combined, have the most influence on
organizational commitment. Correlation analyses were performed and each approach had
a significant relationship to organizational commitment. Further analysis determined
source support and organizational effort at recruitment as the strongest predictors of new

hire organizational commitment.

COPYright by
STACIE ANNE BEERY
2000

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LISTOF TABLES.......... ..
LIST OF FIGURES...
INTRODUCTION... ..

CHAPTER I

SOCIALIZATION AS A PERSUASIVE EVENT... ..

Source factors. . . ..
Supervisors and coworkers

Socialization effort............

Message factors... ..
Socialization content.
Socialization context... .. .... .... ....

OrganizationalCommitment..... .

CHAPTER 2

Participants.......... ..

SurveyMeasures.................. ..
...20

......20
.....25
......25

....25

Source factors...
Source support

Organizational recruitment effort . ..

Message factors... .. ..
Socialization content.

Socializationcontext........
Organizationalcomm1tment

CHAPTER3
RESULTS... ..

CHAPTER 4

Limitations............. .......3
FutureResearch

REFERENCES............ .. ..........

..iv

.....19
...19
20

26

.27

LIST OF TABLES

Primary Item Factor Loadings and Tests ofInternal Consistency... ..

Variable Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Matrix...

LIST OF FIGURES

Path Model of Socialization Antecedents to Organizational Commitment...

vi

9)

b)

INTRODUCTION

The process by which new hires acquire the social knowledge and skills to
assume roles and “learn the ropes” of an organization is critical to organizational success
and individual adaptation (Brim, 1966; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Scholars often
link socialization experiences to newcomers’ propensity for turnover (e.g., Jones, 1986;
Louis, Posner & Powell, 1983), organizational commitment (e. g, Allen & Meyer, 1990b;
Laker & Steffy, 1995; Louis et al., 1983), and role innovation (Jones, 1986; Van Maanen
& Schein, 1979). However, organizational socialization efforts at times are ineffective
(Brim, 1966; Zurcher, 1983) or, worse, may in fact accentuate uncertainty (Louis, 1980)
and the perceived lack of fit to thejob and organization (Kristoff, 1996). While few
scholars would dispute the potential value of organizations socializing newcomers,
questions remain regarding what makes socialization effective.

Presently, four approaches characterize the measurement of new hires’

socialization (Miller, Harden-Fritz, & Hart, 1999‘). The predominant approach posits that

 

the organizational context shapes newcomers’ orientation to their role. A combination of
socialization tactics and experiences leads new hires to custodial or innovative role
orientations, thereby sustaining or creating new approaches to the role (Jones, 1986; Van
Maanen & Schein, 1979). A second approach, based on Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf,
Klein, and Gardner’s (1994) research on newcomer knowledge, focuses on the content or
information received by newcomers during the organizational entry process. A third
approach focuses on the sources, or who provides information and support critical to new

hires’ socialization experiences. Newcomers report that supervisors and coworkers are

considerably more helpful than formal onsite orientation sessions in “learning the ropes”
(Louis et al., 1983). A fourth approach contends that the degree of organizational @fflfl
at socializing employees (through interviewing, training, role modeling and such) creates
a culture of involved employees (Caldwell, Chatman, & O’Reilly, 1990; Chatman, 1991;
Pascale, 1985). These approaches do not discount gains from individual information
seeking behaviors (Ashford, 1986; Miller & Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1993), but rather
depict the information environment in which newcomers learn and adapt to
organizational values and norms.

Ultimately, these approaches share a common, persuasive goal - to influence new
employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Brim, 1966). In some cases, organizations’
persuasive goals are ambitious and involve the inculcation of new knowledge, skills, and
values (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). In other cases, new employees largely fit the
organization’s desired attitudinal and behavioral profile (Kristoff, 1996) and socialization
goals are minimal. At present, scholars are largely unable to conclude which of the
various approaches to socialization, when viewed comparatively, have the greatest impact
on employees. This lack of knowledge is due, in part, to the absence of studies
comparing the relationship of socialization context to organizational effort or even the
influential nature of incumbents (Miller et al., 1999). Nonetheless, socialization is
deemed to be a critical element in establishing new hire expectations for their roles, tasks,
and citizenship (Katz, 1980). Employees who quickly adapt to organizational
expectations minimize personal and organizational frustration from poor performance
and low levels of organizational knowledge and values. In short, socialization holds the

long-term promise of saving time and energy and minimizing negative outcomes.

I‘J

The lack of understanding of the comparative influence of socialization
approaches on new hire attitudes is also due, in part, to the failure to measure
socialization from a persuasive model. One such model, the Yale Model of Persuasion
(Hovland, Janis. & Kelly, 1953), offers a helpful exemplar in understanding the
contribution of each socialization approach to employee commitment. In fact, source,
content, context, and effort approaches on employee attitudes roughly parallel the classic
source and message analyses of “__W_h_o_ said _W_llat to _W_hg_rr_1 with what @391” (H'ovland et
al, 1953, p. 12). As such, Hovland et al.’s (1953,) model provides a framework to assess
the comparative influence of socialization approaches on new employees as well as the
relationship among the approaches. Such knowledge may, in turn, provide valuable
guidance to socialization agents responsible for newcomer integration.

Accordingly, this investigation examines the interplay of four approaches to
organizational socialization and their impact on new hires. The first section of this
manuscript discusses socialization as a persuasive process framed by the Yale model
(Hovland et al., 1953) and incorporates the four approaches into the model. A
methodology to test hypothesized relationships is then presented, followed by a report of
the study’s results. The concluding section discusses these findings and directions for

future research.

b)

Chapter 1

SOCIALIZATION AS A PERSUASIVE EVENT

As noted by Hovland et al. (1953) and others (e. g. Fotheringham, 1966; Gordon,
1955; Reardon, 1981), executives often use persuasion to increase widespread acceptance
of organizational goals. Many organizations go to great lengths to shape new employee
attitudes and behaviors. Brim (1966) suggests that “role acquisition is probably the most
important aspect of adult socialization” (p. 5) since this process turns “human raw
material” (p. 5) into “good working members” (p. 5). Van Maanen and Schein (1979)
also note that by teaching newcomers how to enact their new roles, organizations increase
their stability and productivity. In effect, “the various socialization processes carried out
within an organization represent the glue which holds together the various interlocking
parts of an ongoing social concern” (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 215).

Although Hovland et al. (1953) refer to persuasion broadly, the passage below
illustrates how classic persuasion research applies to socialization:

We assume that opinions, like other habits, will tend to persist unless the

individual undergoes some new learning experiences. Exposure to a persuasive

communication which successfully induces the individual to accept a new opinion

constitutes a learning experience in which a new verbal habit is acquired. This is

to say, when presented with a given question, the individual now thinks of and

prefers the new answer suggested by the communication to the old one held prior

to exposure to the communication. (p. 10)

Accepting a new opinion as a result of persuasive communication is at the heart of
intended socialization messages and experiences. Louis (1980) posits that socialization
messages provide scripts to guide newcomers’ behaviors and frameworks for solving
problems. Salancik and Pfeffer (1978) note that messages from top management can
reframe experiences, highlighting organizational values and shaping attitudes.

The Yale model posits that the key elements of the persuasion process are
encompassed by, “_V\_fh_q said What to Whom with what E_f_fegt” (Hovland et al., 1953, p.
12). The Who refers to the source of the message; the What pertains to the message
content; the Whom refers to the receiver; and the Effect is the resulting attitude, opinion,
and/or behavior change. Each component of this model has a unique influence on the
Effect, and classical operationalizations of the Yale model explore each component
independent of the others. Stiff ( 1 994) notes that research the Who of persuasive
messages typically tests the implications of various source characteristics such as
credibility and physical features such as race, sex and attractiveness. The characteristics
of the Who in this model are generally referred to as source factors. The order of
arguments and types of appeals used in persuasive messages illustrate the What studies
and are typified as message factors. Research investigating to Whom the persuasive
message is sent, also referred to as receiver factors, address the individual characteristics
such as intelligence, self-esteem and initial position of the receiver. Finally, the Effect is
characterized by the type of change, be it a change in opinion, perception, affect, or
action.

This investigation applies three of the four components of the Yale model to

organizational socialization. Specifically, this study considers socialization agents (Who)

at law firms and messages factors (What) as influencing recent law school graduates’
organizational commitment (Effect).
Source Factors

In applying the Yale model to organizational socialization, the Who are primarily
the incumbent socialization agents, specifically supervisors, and coworkers. Source
factors also include the organization’s overall socialization efforts, including the time and
energy given by organizational members in selecting job prospects.

Supervisors and coworkers. In organizations, “others teach us the behavioral
expectations they consider appropriate for the statuses we occupy or will occupy”
(Zurcher, 1983, p. 12). They convey information essential to task mastery and making
sense of unit and organizational environments (Brim, 1966; Van Maanen & Schein,
1979). While persuasion research typically considers the credibility of information
sources (e.g., Hovland et al., 1953), socialization research instead examines the
availability and supportiveness of agents (Louis et al., 1983).

Among all incumbents, most critical to the socialization of newcomers are
interactions with supervisors and coworkers. According to Katz (1980), these social
relationships “are particularly important in shaping one’s interpretive scheme of reality
and in formulating a perspective about what is expected and accepted in a given role” (p.
95). Supervisors and coworkers are proximal influences who provide normative
information daily while organization-level influences are more distal and occasional
following a flurry of messages at organizational entry (J ablin & Krone, 1987).
Consequently, it is of little surprise that newcomers report their interactions with peers,

senior coworkers, and supervisors as most helpful during socialization compared to

formal onsite orientation, ofl’site training, other new recruits, mentors, support staff,
social activities, and business trips (Louis et al., 1983).

Research indicates that supervisors’ and coworkers’ question—answering and
encouragement reduces newcomers’ role difficulties. For instance, the helpfulness of
peers, senior coworkers, and supervisors is significantly correlated with newcomer job
satisfaction and commitment (Louis et al., 1983). Major et al. (1995) find that leader-
member exchange and team-member exchange relationships moderate the negative
effects of unmet expectations and suggest that the nature of the supervisory and coworker
relationships can ameliorate role conflicts associated with organizational entry.
Managers’ clarifying the nature of assigned tasks contributes to newcomer role clarity
and performance efficacy while managerial sharing of social information contributes to
newcomers’ feelings of acceptance (Bauer & Green, 1998). While incumbents can
positively influence newcomers’ entry experiences, without clarification and support
newcomers are left to sink or swim alone (Katz, 1980; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).

In short, organizations with unwelcoming coworkers and unsupportive superiors
hinder newcomer adjustment, and organizational resources (in terms of money and effort)
allocated for the ultimate goal of creating “effective” employees are likely to be ill spent.
At the same time, overall organizational efforts toward selecting and socializing new
hires in many ways set the parameters for the extent to which new hires can be
influenced.

Socialization effort. In applying source characteristics of the Yale model to

 

socialization, it is important to consider organizations’ overall effort to socialize

newcomers to their norms and values. Intensive socialization efforts may signify

recruits’ importance to organizational success, the importance ofindoctrination to desired
outcomes, and expected effort by new hires to be reciprocated to the organization.
Specific activities that may shape newcomers" perceptions of organizational effort
include putting more effort into selecting and recruiting employees, along with messages
that emphasize the type of person who would fit into the organization’s culture (Pascale,
1985).

Pascale (1985) presents a prescriptive, seven-step socialization process that begins
with organizational recruitment efforts at selecting candidates with salient traits. The
second step advocates humility-inducing experiences to force newcomers to question
their values and behaviors, thereby becoming more open to organizational values and
norms. As a third step, employees receive “in-the-trenches” (p. 30) training in order to
master core disciplines and improve their potential for success. Next, Pascale (1985)
advocates creating reward and control systems that reward or sanction newcomers
depending upon adherence to organizational values and rules. Fifth, the connection with
and strict adherence to organizational transcendent values is critical to employees’
personal adjustments. The sixth step emphasizes reinforcing folklore in an effort to
validate the organization’s culture and goals. A final step points to the value of
consistent role models to demonstrate the benefits of conforming to organizational
values. The incorporation of the seven-step model is likely “to establish a base of
attitudes, habits, and values that foster cooperation, integrity, and communication”
(Pascale, 1985, p. 37).

To date, two studies investigate Pascale’s (1985) model. Chatman (1991) reports

person-organization fit, or the congruency of personal and organizational values is

positively related to newcomer attendance at social activities, time with a mentor and the
positive perceptions of recruitment. Caldwell et al. (1990) find that, when controlling for
tenure and firm size, organizational emphases on recruitment, training, and clear value
systems positively impact employee normative commitment (i.e., commitment based on
shared values) while an emphasis on rewards is negatively related to normative but
positively related to instrumental commitment (i.e., involvement in exchange for
rewards).

In sum, only partial support for Pascale’s (1985) model exists, suggesting that
effort given to identifying and training newcomers facilitates employee adjustment and
involvement. While organizational socialization effort has received the least attention
among the four measurement approaches, its measurement is appealing because
perceived effort in selecting and socializing employees may result in greater receptivity
to messages regarding organizational values and preferred behaviors. Moreover, the
careful selection of job candidates who fit in with existing organizational norms and
values is in itself a form of socialization (Jablin, 1987; Kristof, 1996; Schneider, 1987). ‘
In addition to considering how information sources and organization effort constrain or
facilitate new hires’ adjustment, extant socialization research also considers the impact of
what is said to newcomers.

Message Factors

The What of the Yale model as applied to organizational socialization pertains to
information necessary for enacting a new role and for successfully integrating into the
organization’s culture. In addition, the manner or context in which the information is

received is a critical aspect of message receiving. As noted earlier, classic persuasion

research typically focuses on message attributes, such as one- or two-sided messages
(e.g., Hovland, Lumsdaine, & Sheffield, 1949), fear appeals, (e. g, Janis & Feshback,
1953) and order of presentation (e. g. Hovland & Mandell, 1957). Socialization research
examines the messages newcomers receive regarding appropriate role behaviors,
organizational norms, and career advice which are both memorable and appreciated
(Stohl, 1986; Zurcher, 1983). In turn, the majority of recent research considers the
context in which the organization imparts knowledge and shapes new employees’
experiences. The type of information and the context of its delivery provide the basis for
socialization messages in the Yale model.

Socialization content. As opposed to the first application of socialization
approaches to the Yale model considers supervisor clarifying behavior and supervisory
and coworker support as source factors, the content approach focuses on information, or
What is conveyed to newcomers. In one of the few studies investigating knowledge
received during socialization, Chao et al. (1994) measure newcomers’ knowledge in six
domains. Performance proficiency messages assist the learning of the knowledge, skills
and abilities associated with new tasks or roles while messages about people orient
newcomers toward helpful work relationships. Messages regarding polities shed light on
formal and informal relationships and power structures that may assist advancement.
Language messages relay the technical jargon associated with the new role, and
organizational goals and values messages link written or tacit organizational norms to
the individual. Finally, history messages, or information on organizational traditions,
customs, myths, rituals, and stories, demonstrate behaviors that are apprOpriate or

inappropriate.

10

Results of Chao et al.’s (1994) multi-year sample indicate that knowledge of
performance proficiency, history, and language positively impact the resolution of
newcomers’ identity and that knowledge of the organization’s history, along with
organizational goals and values is positively related to newcomer job satisfaction. They
also report that knowledge of organizational goals and values is associated with new hire
career involvement and adaptability, while knowledge of organizational politics is also
positively related to personal income.

Investigations of socialization content may provide insight into varying emphases
on “what is important” or differences in the dissemination of information to newcomers
across organizations. Even within one industry, organizations are likely to differ in
information conveyed to newcomers due to their beliefs, resources, experiences, and type
of new hire. The importance of providing adequate and appropriate information to
newcomers is demonstrated in new hires’ reports of seeking information on assigned
tasks, the nature of their roles, work group norms, organizational culture, personal
evaluation, and non-task behaviors (Anakwe & Greenhaus, 1999; Miller, 1996; Morrison,
1993; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Additional research is necessary to discern the
relationship between the perceived helpfulness of message sources (i.e.,Who) and the
content messages (i.e., What) during organizational entry (Miller et al., 1999).

Socialization context. A considerable amount of socialization research examines

 

the context in which the organization imparts knowledge and helps employees chart their
way through the organization’s labyrinth. Van Maanen and Schein (1979) identify six
tactical dimensions of socialization that, when taken together, influence employee role

orientation. Collective versus individual tactics describe the gathering of newcomers

ll

undergoing common learning experiences. Newcomers experiencing collective tactics
may train, eat, and socialize together while those having individualistic tactics have
unique and individualized learning. Informal tactics, newcomers are segregated from
incumbents and undergo experiences specifically designed for them. Typically, in formal
tactics newcomers are “trainees” and must go through set events indoctrinating them to
the organization. When experiencing informal tactics, newcomers learn through trial and
error and are not differentiated from incumbents.

Sequential versus random tactics refer to newcomers’ knowledge of the sequence
leading to role competence, with random representing an unknown or continually
changing sequence to role competence. Fixed versus variable tactics refer to known
timetables bracketing the length of the entry process, where the timeframe is either clear
and pre-set (fixed) or ambiguous (variable). Serial versus disjunctive tactics signify the
availability of experienced members as potential providers of role and organizational
information. Serial tactics indicate the availability of current or previous role occupants
to serve as models or to provide information, whereas in disjunctive tactics newcomers
are left without such referents. Investiture versus divestiture tactics indicate the extent to
which new hires are valued for their skills and abilities (investiture) or the extent to
which the newcomers’ identities are to be stripped away and replaced by the
organization’s identity (divestiture).

Jones (1986) suggests that underlying Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) tactics
are two types of socialization experiences, divided according to institutionalized or
individualized socialization tactics. Institutionalized socialization tactics include

collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial and investiture experiences and create

custodial role orientations where newcomers accept the given role with minimal
alterations. Individualized socialization tactics encompasses individual, informal,
random, variable, disjunctive, and divestiture tactics and lead to innovative role
orientation where new hires bring new approaches to the role and challenge the status
quo. Jones’ (1986) findings indicate that institutionalized socialization tactics are
negatively related to role innovation and individualized socialization tactics are positively
associated with role conflict and ambiguity.

Research using Jones’ (1986) scale explores a number of outcomes related to
socialization contexts. Laker and Steffy (1995) report that individualized socialization
tactics are negatively related to organizational commitment. Ashforth & Saks’ (1996)
longitudinal investigation indicates that institutionalized tactics are positively related to
employee commitment and satisfaction. As such, newcomers who undergo structured
socialization experiences are more likely to have greater commitment to their
organizations than those who are left on their own to learn aspects of their new roles.

In addition, Allen and Meyer (1990b) find institutionalized socialization practices
are predictive of custodial role orientations. Ashforth & Saks (1996) report that
institutionalized tactics are negatively related to role innovation. Black (1992) reports
that collective socialization is associated with role innovation among expatriate managers
with longer tenures while serial socialization decreases role innovation among those with
shorter tenures.

In sum, these studies indicate that institutional tactics lead to higher levels of
employee commitment, job satisfaction, and custodial orientation and provide a

framework for understanding how certain contexts impact new employees. However,

13

this approach only provides less than adequate insight into socialization processes in
organizations because it does not encompass what messages may be sent and from whom
they are sent during this critical process.
Organizational Commitment

The Effect component of the Yale model refers to the desired change in the
receiver as a result of source, message, and receiver characteristics. In socialization
research, indicators of effectiveness are conceptualized in a variety of ways. For
instance, indicators of socialization effectiveness include commitment to the organization
(e. g., Bauer & Green, 1994; Laker & Steffy, 1995 ), job satisfaction (e. g., Bauer & Green,
1998; Major et al., 1995), the lack of stress (e. g., Anakwe & Greenhaus, 1999), the
absence of the intention to turnover (e. g., Louis et al., 1983; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992),
role conflict and ambiguity (e.g., Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Jones, 1986), performance
(e. g., Chao et al., 1994; Morrison, 1993), and custodial or innovative role orientation
(e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1990b; Jones, 1986). This array of effectiveness indicators may
reflect variability in researchers’ estimation of organizational needs (e. g., create a skilled
workforce; reduce voluntary turnover; inculcate values; enhance creativity) and employee
readiness (e. g., “fit” to the job; work motivation). However, across multiple
organizational contexts, organizational commitment provides a base threshold indicator
of employee acclimation and allegiance to the organization, as well as a measure of
employee investment in the organization’s values and personnel. The following section
considers the relationships of the four socialization approaches to organizational
commitment.

In general, organizational commitment represents an affective, psychological

l4

bond between employees and their organizations (Cohen, 1999). Organizations seek to
instill commitment in new hires in the belief that this attachment will manifest itself in
overt, positive behaviors (Brim, 1966), such as in levels of job performance and assisting
others. At a minimum, commitment to the organization signifies that new hires are
receptive to their future with the organization and are willing to exert their best effort
toward fulfilling their role and the organization’s mission.

Newcomers experiencing helpful and supportive supervisors and coworkers often
form bonds and reciprocal feelings of attachment. The development of attraction to
incumbents may be particularly strong in professions marked by competition and
abandonment to sink or swim upon organizational entry. Across a variety of
organizational settings, supervisor and coworker supportiveness is consistently positively
related to organizational commitment (Bauer & Green, 1994; Bauer &. Green, 1998;
Louis et al., 1983; Major et al., 1995; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Furthermore,
supervisory clarifying behavior is considered to be a key type of supportive behavior
(Bauer & Green, 1998). In addition, organizations that emphasize their recruitment and
training efforts are likely to better select and then equip newcomers to perform their jobs
(Caldwell et al., 1990). As a consequence, carefully selected employees are likely to
enter with positive attitudes toward the organization and have such attitudes reinforced
through enhanced career experiences (Caldwell et al., 1990). Thus, this study
hypothesizes:

H1: Supervisory support, clarifying behaviors, and coworker support as well as
overall organizational recruitment efforts will be positively related to

newcomer organizational commitment.

15

It is also easy to understand why organizations strive to build commitment among
new hires by creating experiences that build linkages to organizational norms, values,
goals, and colleagues (Brim, 1966). For professionals (such as lawyers and information
technology specialists) who receive generous compensation and prestige based on unique
skill sets and who have many employment options, organizations must find unique ways
to retain their services. For example, employees with unique knowledge of internal
systems will be better equipped to succeed within the organization and develop stronger
bonds with the organization. In fact, Chao et al. (1994) report that newcomer knowledge
of organizational goals and values and organizational history (from the six measures of
socialization content) are significantly related to job satisfaction three years following
entry. Given the positive relationship between measures of new hires’ job satisfaction
and commitment (Adkins, 1995), newcomers receiving messages about firm goals/values
and history are likely to report higher levels of organizational commitment than those not
receiving such messages.

Research exploring socialization context approaches generally finds institutional
tactics to be positively related to organizational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990b;
Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Ashforth, Saks, & Lee, 1998; Jones, 1986; Laker & Steffy,
1995). In particular, collective and formal tactics - which are key components of
institutionalized tactics - create a context where messages are mostly like to produce
uniform acceptance of organizational definitions and responsibilities (Jones, 1986; Van
Maanen & Schein, 1979). In addition, investiture tactics lead to a socially supportive
setting where newcomers may be more receptive to an organizational indoctrination,

resulting in greater commitment to the firm. Thus, this study hypothesizes:

l6

H2: Organizational goals and value messages and organizational history
messages along with collective, formal, and investiture socialization contexts
will be positively related to newcomer commitment.

An additional goal of this study is to identify which of these factors, when viewed
comparatively, has the strongest relationship to organizational commitment. While
source and message factors are hypothesized to lead to organization commitment, their
relative contribution in the overall socialization process is unknown (Miller et al., 1999).
The lack of comparative information on each approach’s contribution to new hire
socialization is surprising since socialization is widely acknowledged to be a multi-
faceted process with multiple influence agents (Bauer et al., 1998; Jablin & Krone, 1987;
Saks & Ashforth, 1997; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Zurcher, 1983). Without
minimizing any one approach’s contribution to organizational socialization, and
consequently to organizational commitment, this study seeks to recognize the most
influential socialization approach so that organizations may tailor new hire entry
experiences accordingly. Given the reality of limited budgets, time frames, and
personnel, it is likely that organizations desire to prioritize their socialization efforts in
order to maximize the use of their resources. Consequently, this study asks,

RQl: Which socialization factor (source or message) will be the strongest
predictor of organizational commitment?

In addition to identifying the strongest predictors of organizational commitment,
assessing the relationships between the source and message factors could further explain
the nature of this complex process. Identifying possible links between these socialization

approaches may enable organizations to build on their existing programs to enhance

l7

organizational commitment. In addition to enabling scholars and practitioners to
understand background relationships, an exploration of these relationships may shed light
on approaches that are vital to the socialization process, but only indirectly contribute to
organizational commitment. Therefore, this study asks,

RQZ: What are the relationships between the socialization factors as they lead to

organizational commitment?

l8

Chapter 2

METHODS
Particignts

Participants in this investigation were new lawyers who were admitted to the State
Bar of Michigan in either November, 1999, or May, 2000. In cooperation with the State
Bar of Michigan, data were collected through mailed surveys. A letter from the State Bar
of Michigan identified the research purpose of this study. A total of 724 surveys were
mailed, with 39 returned unopened for incorrect addresses. One hundred and forty-one
completed surveys were returned, for a response rate of 20 percent. An inspection of the
surveys revealed that 23 surveys needed to be discarded because participants were either
solo practitioners, had been with the organization before becoming licensed for over 28
months, or they provided insufficient information, thus resulting in 118 useable surveys.
Participation in the study was voluntary, and participants’ responses are treated as
confidential.

Participants were 53% males and 47% females in their late twenties (M = 29.88,
sd = 5.01, median = 28.00). At the time of completing the survey, participants on
average had been in the organization on average four months before receiving their bar
license (M = 3.94, sd = 5.55, median = 2.0) and had been working as a licensed attorney
in the organization for approximately 7 months (M = 6.72, sd = 3.2, median = 8.00).
Participants were asked to reflect back upon their experiences during their recruitment
and entrance into their current place of employment. In addition, participants also

responded to questions regarding socialization practices of the State Bar of Michigan.

19

The questions specific to the State Bar of Michigan were related to customer service and
were placed at the end of the survey. Responses to the State Bar questions were not
included in any analysis for this study.
Survey Measures

This study used eight established scales to assess new hire source supportiveness,
organizational recruitment effort, socialization content, socialization context, and
organizational commitment. Responses to these Likert-type scales were arrayed from “to
a very little extent” = l to “to a very great extent” = 5. The dimensionality of the scales
was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis tests of internal and external
consistency (Hunter, 1980; Hunter & Gerbing, 1982), with the test of external
consistency showing appropriate levels of parallelism (sum of squared errors = 3.033; X2
(502) = 276.03, p< .05). Factor loadings and tests of scale dimensionality are reported in
Table 1.

Source factors. In applying the Yale model to socialization approaches, source

 

factors included source support measures and a measure of overall organizational
recruitment effort.

Source support. Supervisor and coworker relationships were assessed using three
sub-scales of the Managerial Practices Survey (Yukl, 1990). The five-item supervisor
support scale assessed the degree to which participants felt their immediate supervisor
“backed them up” and offered encouragement and support. A confirmatory factor
analysis indicated the scale to be unidimensional and to have reliability of or = .94. The
six-item smlervisor clarifying behavior scale assessed the degree to which supervisors

explained responsibilities and tasks. Results of confirmatory factor analysis indicated the

Table 1

Primary Item Factor Loadings and Tests of Internal Consistency

 

Item Factor Loading

 

Supervisor Support

Your immediate supervisor is sympathetic and supportive when

you are worried or upset about something. .86
Your immediate supervisor backs you up and supports you in a

difficult situation. .84
Your immediate supervisor gives you encouragement and support

when you have a difficult and stressful task or responsibility. .86
Your immediate supervisor offers to provide advice or assistance

when you need help with a difficult task or problem. .90
Your immediate supervisor is patient and helpful when giving

complicated explanations or instructions. .90

12 (10): 1.21, p> .05

Sumrvisor Clarifying Behavior

Your immediate supervisor clearly explains my responsibilities with

regard to a task or project that you are doing for him/her. .79
Your immediate supervisor clearly explains what results are expected

for a task or project. .86
Your immediate supervisor clearly specifies a date or time when a task

I am doing for him or her is needed. .91
Your immediate supervisor meets with me to set specific goals for a

task or project that I doing with him or her. .75

Your immediate supervisor sets task goals that are clear and specific
(e.g., quantitative targets to be attained in the next quarter or year;

activities to be completed by a given date). .84
Your immediate supervisor explains what objectives or aspects of the
work have the highest priority for him or her. .83

x2 (15) = 3.73, p> .05

 

Coworkrer Support

Your coworkers are sympathetic and supportive when you are worried

or upset about something. .79
Your coworkers back you up and support you in a difficult situation. .86

21

Table l (con’t).
Support continued

Your coworkers give you encouragement and support when you have
a difficult and stressful task or responsibility.‘

Your coworkers offer to provide advice or assistance when you need
help with a difficult task or problem.

Your coworkers are patient and helpful when giving complicated
explanations or instructions.

x’ (10) = 2.89, p> .05

Organizationlal Goal Content

(Perceptions of receiving messages pertaining to )

The goals of your organization.

The values set by my organization.

What a good representative of your organization would be like.
The ideology of your organization.

Your organization’s mission.

98(6) = .39, p> .05

Histogy

(Perceptions of receiving messages pertaining to... )
The history behind your work unit.

The organization’s customs, rituals.

The organization’s long-held traditions.

The background of your work group/department.
The history of your organization.

x2 (3) = 0.0, p> .05

Collage/Formal Context

In the last six months, I have been extensively trained in common,

job related activities.

Other newcomers have been instrumental in helping me to understand
job requirements.

This organization puts all newcomers through the same set of learning
experiences.

Most of the training has been carried out apart from other newcomers.
There is a sense of “being in the same boat” amongst newcomers in this
organization.

22

.91

.75

.83

.81
.90
.88
.93

.87

.87
.90

.76

.55

Table 1 (con’t).
Collective/Fofirrpal Context continued

I have been through a set of training experiences which are specifically

designed to give newcomers a thorough knowledge of job-related skills.

During training for this job, I was normally physically apart from
regular organizational members.

I did not perform any of his or her normal job responsibilities until he
or she is thoroughly familiar with departmental procedures and work
methods.

Much of my job knowledge is acquired informally on a trial and error
basis. (R)

I am very aware that I am seen as “learning the ropes” in this
organization.

x2 (6) = 2.20, p> .05

lpvestiture Context

I have been made to feel that my skills and abilities are very important
in this organization.

Almost all of my colleagues support me personally.

I have had to change my attitudes and values to be accepted in

this organization. (R)

Colleagues go out of their way to help me adjust to this organization.

I feel that experienced organizational members have held me at a
distance until I conform to their expectations. (R)

x’ (6) = 3.38, p> .05

Ogganizational Effort

Recruiters receive at least one week of intensive training.

Recruitment forms identify several key traits deemed crucial to the
firm’s success, traits are defined in concrete terms and interviewer
records specific evidence of each trait.

Recruits are subjected to at least four in-depth interviews.

Company actively facilitates de-selection during the recruiting process
by revealing minuses as well as plusses.

x2 (3) = .05, p> .05

23

.81

.82

.65
.73

.69

.79
.65

.57

Table 1 (con’t).
Affective Commitment

I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this
organization.

I enjoy discussing my organization with people outside it.

I really feel as if this organization’s problems are my own.

I think that I could easily become as attached to another organization
as I am to this one.

I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization. (R)

I do not feel “emotionally attached” to this organization. (R)
This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.

I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my organization. (R)
x2 (20) = 90, p> .05

24

.76
.75
.54

.77
.83
.68
.78

scale to be unidimensional and to have reliability of or = .93. The five-item coworker

support scale assessed the degree to which participants perceived that their coworkers

 

“backed them up” and offered encouragement and support. Results of confirmatory
factor analysis indicated the scales to be unidimensional with a reliability of or = .91.

Organizational recruitment effort. The four-item “recruiting practices” sub-scale
of Pascale’s (1985) socialization instrument was used to assess the effort organizations
placed on selecting qualified newcomers. The recruiting practices sub—scale was selected
in particular because it refers to the effort organizations place on the choosing
newcomers, or “receivers” of socialization experiences. Participants were asked to report
the degree to which they perceived that their organization carefully recruited and selected
new members. Results from confirmatory factor analysis directed the removal of one
item. The remaining three items were found to be unidimensional and to have a
reliability of or = .71.

Message factors. Message factors were measured using indicators of socialization

 

content messages received and the socialization context.

Socialization content. As noted earlier, of the six dimensions of socialization
content, only organizational goals/values and organizational history were significantly
related to job satisfaction (Chao et al., 1994). Given theoretical and empirical links
between job satisfaction and commitment and given the necessity of brevity in the
survey, slightly modified organizational goals/values and history sub-scales from Chao et
al. ’5 (1994) Socialization Content instrument were used to assess the extent to which
employees report receiving messages about organizational goals and organizational

history during entry. Following Hart (1999), the wording of the original scale was

25

modified to reflect newcomers’ perceptions of receiving such messages upon entry into
the organization.

The five-item gganizational goals/values scale measured the extent to which
participants reported receiving messages about group, department, and organizational
goals, values and ideology. After the removal of one item as indicated by the
confirmatory factor analysis, the four remaining items in the scale were determined to be
unidimensional and to have a reliability of or = .93. The h§t_o_ry_scale assessed the extent
to which participants reported receiving messages about work group and organizational
history. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that two of the original five items be
removed. The three remaining items were determined to be unidimensional and have a
reliability of or = .91.

Socialization context. Socialization context was measured using three five-item
scales within Jones’ (1986) socialization tactics instrument: collective, formal, and
investiture tactics. As noted earlier, collective, formal, and investiture tactics have been
shown to be strongly related to organizational commitment (Jones, 1986). Given the
need for brevity in the survey instrument presented to research participants, only these
three of six possible socialization tactic sub-scales were included in the survey.

Confirmatory factor analyses indicated that collective and formal tactics shared a
common dimensionality. These scales were combined into one collective/fonngl scale.
Analyses pointed to the removal of two items from the collective scale and four items
from the formal scale, resulting in a combined four-item measure subsequently named the
collective/formal scale. This newly formed scale was unidimensional and had a

reliability of or = .75. The dropped items did not form a unique scale and were not

26

included in subsequent analyses. Confirmatory factor analysis of the investiture tactics

scale indicated the to be unidimensional alter the removal of one item. Cronbach’s alpha

for this scale was or = .81.

Organizational commitment. The participants’ level of organizational
commitment was measured using Allen and Meyer’s (1990a) eight-item affective
commitment scale. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that one item needed to be

removed. The remaining seven items were found to be unidimensional and have a

reliability of or = .87.

In light of the theoretical model and conceptual relationships among the
socialization measures, a second order factor analysis was conducted (Hunter, 1980). In
keeping with an application of the Yale model to socialization approaches, a source
second order factor was hypothesized to be composed of supervisor support, supervisory
clarifying behavior, and coworker support. A message second order factor was
hypothesized to include goals and value messages, history messages, formal-collective
tactics and investiture tactics. While theorized to be a source factor, an organization’s
recruitment effort was considered to be distinct from supportive and clarifying behaviors
and was not included in the hypothesized second order factor. By definition, recruitment
effort and commitment scales remained first order factors and were not hypothesized to
contain second order dimensionality.

Results indicated partial support for a second order factor structure. Supervisor
support, supervisor clarifying behavior, and coworker support scales had factor loadings
of .75, .82, and .92, respectively, and formed a higher order factor, subsequently named

source support (X2 (3) = .05, p> .05). This variable had a coefficient alpha of .87. In

 

27

addition, organizational goals and history scales had factor loadings of .79 and .79,
respectively, and formed a second order factor, subsequently named message content (X2
(1) = .00, p> .05), with a reliability of or = .77. However, the collective/formal scale and
investiture scale were determined to be independent factors. Organizational recruitment
effort and organizational commitment were also determined to be independent factors. A
test of the revised second order factor structure indicated a good fit of the model to the
data (X2 (6) = 5.36, p> .05). Thus, the final factors to be tested in the hypotheses and
research questions were source support, message content, collective/formal tactics,

investiture tactics, recruitment effort, and organizational commitment.

28

Chapter 3

RESULTS

Variable means, standard deviations, and correlations are reported in Table 2.
The first hypothesis, that source factors (supervisory clarifying behavior, supervisory
support, coworker support, and organizational recruitment efforts) would be positively
related to commitment, was supported. Source support was significantly and positively
related to organizational commitment (r = .63, p< .01 ). Recruitment effort was also
significantly and positively related to organizational commitment (r = .48, p< .01).

The second hypothesis predicted that message factors (organizational
goals/values, organizational history, collective/formal tactics, investiture tactics) would
be positively related to commitment. This hypothesis was also supported. Message
content (organizational goals/values and organizational history) was significantly and
positively related to organizational commitment (r = .51, p< .01). Collective/formal
tactics were significantly, positively related to organizational commitment (r = .53, p<
.05). In addition, investiture tactics were significantly, positively related to
organizational commitment (r = .21 , p< .05).

The first research question inquired as to which socialization factors had the
strongest relationship with organizational commitment. Results of stepwise multiple
regression revealed that socialization source support ([3 =52) and recruitment effort (B =
.22) were significantly predictive of organizational commitment (F (2, 102) = 38.82, p<

.0001, R2 = .43). Other socialization factors did not enter into the equation at p< .05.

29

Table 2

Variable Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Matrixa

 

 

Variable M sd 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Source Support 3.36 .98 -- .79 .64 .26 .64 .72
2. Message Content 3.13 1.06 .65 -- .64 .30 .79 .62
3. Collective/Formal 2.64 1.04 .64 .49 -- .33 .79 .66
4. Investiture Tactic 2.72 .51 .22 .24 .26 -- .26 .25
5. Recruitment Effort 2.64 1.04 .50 .50 .60 .22 -- .72
6. Commitment 3.26 1.08 .63 .51 .53 .21 .48 --

 

aCorrelations above the diagonal are corrected for attenuation.

r3.2215p<.05

r2.24isp<.01

30

The second research question explored the relationships among socialization
factors as they pertained to newcomer organizational commitment. Given findings from
the first research question that indicated that source support and recruitment effort were
significant antecedents to organizational commitment, the researcher used Hunter’s
(1980; Hunter & Gerbing, 1982) path analytic technique to determine the relationship of
content messages, collective/formal tactics, and investiture tactics to source support and
effort. Exploratory modeling was guided by J ablin and Krone’s (1987) notion that
organizational messages (such as goals/values, and history) and socialization contexts
(e. g., collective/formal and investiture tactics) impact newcomers in a distal manner.
Newcomers pay more attention to proximal factors such as their relationships to their
supervisors, and since messages and context contribute to perceptions of supervisory
support, a model was created whereby content messages and socialization contexts
predicated source support. In addition, the model included recruitment effort as
predicting organizational commitment in keeping with the stepwise regression results.

An initial test of the model described above indicated that collective/formal
tactics and content messages (composed of organizational goal/values and history)
predicted source support which, in turn, was predictive of organizational commitment.
Organizational recruitment effort continued to predict organizational commitment. While
this model produced an acceptable fit to the data (sum of squared errors = .011 1; x2 (4) =
..55, p> .05), results revealed two unaccounted for significant links. Namely, path
analyses indicated that links from content messages and collective/formal tactics to
recruitment effort were missing. In addition, analyses indicated that investiture was not

significantly predictive of source support. Thus, investiture tactics were dropped from the

31

analyses.

A revised model was constructed that incorporated the above linkages. As
indicated in Figure 1, results indicated significant paths from collective/formal tactics to
source support and recruitment effort. Content messages were also significantly
predictive of source support and recruitment effort. As before, paths between social
support and recruitment effort to commitment were significant. The model was judged to

have a good fit to the data (sum of squared errors = .0089; x2 (3) = .43, p> .05).

La.)
IQ

Figure 1

Path Model of Socialization Antecedents to Organizational Commitmenta

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.42 SorroeSupport .52
(.073) Q.
.44
(.072) murmur:
Colledivo’Fomnl Comm Nhssages 2
.27 '
(.083) (.096)
.47 .

 

 

 

aAll path coefficients were significant at p< .05. Standard errors are reported in

parentheses.

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION

While not all organizational socialization processes are effective or even
functional (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979), the general goal of socialization is to develop
members who are committed to the organization and fulfill roles advancing the
organization’s mission. This study considers the current, popular approaches to
socialization as framed by the Yale model in an effort to identify each approach’s
contributions to organizational commitment. Stiff (1994) states that, as participants in
social systems, individuals are often in the process of “shaping, maintaining, and
changing the thoughts and behaviors of those around us” (p. 24). Organizational
socialization is then one way organizations may shape, maintain, and in some
circumstances, change newcomers in an effort to meet organizational goals.

The findings of this study indicate that each approach outlined in our study was
positively related to organizational commitment. In sum, supportive socialization agents,
organizational efforts aimed at recruiting new employees, messages related to
organizational goals and history, and collective/formal as well as investiture socialization
contexts were positively related to new employee commitment. Findings also indicate
that supportive supervisors and coworkers as socialization sources and recruitment effort
are the best predictors of new employee commitment. Further, results suggest that
structuring collective/formal socialization experiences and messages regarding
organizational values/goals and history are vital elements in new hires’ perceptions of the

supportiveness of socialization agents and the organization’s effort at recruitment.

34

The results of this study make three important contributions to our understanding
of organizational socialization. First, this study offers one of the few comparisons of
socialization approaches as they impact newcomers. As such, these results provide
guidelines to those responsible for newcomers’ entry experiences. Specifically, for the
legal community, this study should shed light on how firms can retain sought-after
professionals, thereby maximizing expensive recruitment and lengthy indoctrination
periods.

How should executives allocate their resources in socializing new hires?
Analyses suggest that organizations interested in developing organizational commitment
should emphasize both the development of supportive source behaviors and careful
selection of new members. With regard to the source supportiveness, the strongest
predictor of organizational commitment, social relationships are critical in perception
formation of new roles (Katz, 1980) and the influence of collective attitudes on
individuals should not be overlooked (Stiff, 1994). Additionally, coworkers and
supervisors often provide helpful messages during organizational entry (J ablin & Krone,
1987; Louis et al., 1983). Therefore, the relationship found between source
supportiveness and commitment reaffirms the importance of organizations developing the
interpersonal skills of their managers and subordinates.

It may be difficult, however, to simply create supportive managers and coworkers.
Herein is the second contribution of this study-insight into the relationship among
socialization approaches. If an organization wants to foster supportive relationships
between socialization sources and newcomers, results suggest that both collective/formal

socialization tactics and content messages about organizational goals/values and history

35

are significant predictors of source supportiveness. In short, structured socialization
environments in which newcomers are collectively trained on specific tasks with
prepared materials (Van Maanen &Schein, 1979) and receive messages about
organizational goals/values and history (Chao et al., 1994) contribute to newcomers’
perceptions that socialization agents are helpful and supportive. Newcomer observations
of (and possible involvement in) formal/collective socialization settings, along with the
expenditure of time and money on conveying messages about the organization, at the
very least signal the importance of newcomer acclimation.

Finally, the organizational effort at recruitment also contributes to new hires’
organizational commitment. Recruitment activities convey that the newcomer is highly
sought after (i.e. prized) and thoroughly investigated. In turn, newcomers’ commitment
may be in reciprocation to such attention. In addition, carefully recruited newcomers are
indeed a better fit to the organization than those who are not carefully screened and/or
who are not exposed to realistic job previews. Chatman (1990) suggests that a rigorous
selection process increases the likelihood of enlisting employees who share
organizational values, which in turn enhances person-organizational fit.

For organizations that would like to enhance the perceptions of socialization
effort at recruitment, the findings of this study also present a dilemma. Specifically, path
analytic results indicated that collective/formal socialization settings along with
organizational messages about goals and history lead to increased perceptions of
organizational effort at recruitment. On one hand, it is possible that new hires perceive
socialization message factors such as collective/formal tactics and organizational

goal/values and history messages as the impetus for strenuous recruiting efforts toward

36

themselves and others. As such, socialization message factors and recruiting efforts
reflect the organization’s values and assimilation philosophy. On the other hand, the
temporal displacement where recruiting efforts precede socialization contexts and
messages in reality, but not in the path model, points to anomalous covariations. In the
latter case, linkages between organizational goals/values and history and
collective/formal tactics to recruiting efforts should be considered tenuous.

In general, results of this study suggest that resources be spent on creating
structured entry experiences for new hires, during which organizational goals/values and
historical information about the organization and workgroup can be conveyed to new
members. Both of these activities should promote perceptions of source support that, in
turn, directly lead to enhanced organizational commitment.

Limitations

One motivation for organizations to perfect their socialization practices is the
desire to enhance the general “effectiveness” of new employees. However, due in part to
the complexity of entry experiences, organizational priorities, and program evaluation,
for some time in the future “the actual effect of programs on recruits will remain
unknown, and there will be no clearly established linkage between programs and
outcomes” (Laker & Steffy, 1995, p. 105). Therefore, while organizational commitment
reflects an affective bond with an organization and is undoubtedly desirable to
organizations, it only begins to encompass possible parameters of performance
effectiveness.

A second limitation of this study is the use of single-source, retrospective data.

Although the method of data collection provided information on a variety of legal

organizations, this method relies entirely on participants’ recollection of events. It would
be helpful, for example, to obtain organizational reports of recruitment practices or
collective/formal entry experiences. Such data would avoid the limitations of
retrospective, subjective data.

Another limitation resides in the use of stepwise regression to investigate the first
research question. In stepwise regression the first variable entering the equation, source
support in this sample, is determined by the strongest bivariate correlation with the
dependent variable. The next variable to enter the regression is determined by the
correlations between the other independent variables and the dependent variable,
partialling out the effects from the first independent variable entered into the equation
(Agresti & Finlay, 1997). Given the modest sample in this study and that four of five
independent variables are moderately correlated with organizational commitment, it is
possible that the stepwise regression capitalizes on chance covariations in this particular
sample. Consequently, it is important that results suggesting that socialization context
and messages are antecedents of recruitment effort be viewed with extreme caution. It is
also important for future research to explore the interplay of the various socialization
approaches with additional samples in order to investigate further the unique results of
this study.

As previously noted, the interpretation of the results of this study is also limited
by the lack of a temporal component in data collection. Future investigations should
attempt to assess new employee perceptions of recruitment immediately following entry
into the firm or gather such data from managers who may be in a better position to judge

organizational recruitment efforts. Researchers should also consider staggering the

measurement of socialization context and messages apart from the assessment of
socialization outcomes. By measuring context and messages shortly following entry and
outcomes such as organizational commitment some months later (e. g., Allen & Meyer,
1990b), researchers may be able to overcome logical and empirical criticisms of
concurrent survey measures.
Future Research

In general, socialization research has done little to explore the communicative
nature of socialization. Despite the obvious notion that newcomers rely upon formal and
informal communication to make sense of new roles (J ablin, 1987), much development in
this area is needed. As mentioned earlier, some research has investigated information-
seeking tactics by newcomers (Ashford, 1986; Ashford & Cummings, 1985; Miller &
Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1993; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), but not information-giving by
organizations. J ablin (1987) notes that “. . . while there is a considerable amount of
theoretical speculation as to the purposes of the (unsolicited) messages that newcomers
receive from their supervisors during the encounter [breaking-in] period, almost no
empirical research has directly explored the issue” (p. 700). Consequently, future
research should expand investigations into messages sent to and/or received by
newcomers. Chao et al.’s (1994) identification of socialization content areas appears to
be a fruitful place to begin.

Future research should also consider applying additional aspects of the Yale
model to socialization research. For instance, this investigation did not consider receiver
factors. To Whom, the third component of the Yale model, typically depicts the

individual characteristics of receivers, and classic investigations examine how individual

39

differences such as personality characteristics and individual motives influence the
acceptance of persuasive messages (Hovland & Janis, 1959). For example, newcomer
self-efficacy (Jones, 1996) or diversity (Jackson, Stone, & Alvarez, 1992) could be
considered influential receiver characteristics and may provide insight into how receptive
certain newcomers are to programs aimed at building commitment. Future research
should also consider shifting from cross-sectional survey samples to more quasi-
experimental explorations of the influence of socialization approaches on individual
adjustment outcomes. One of the enduring legacies of Hovland’s research has been the
effort at controlling for extraneous variables through experimental designs. Researchers
investigating the effectiveness of socialization approaches should consider evaluating
explicit messages under controlled conditions, similar to the experimental designs
utilized in persuasion research (Fotheringham, 1966). Further refinement in source and
message conditions may enable researchers to consider the credibility of certain sources
conveying specific types of messages to new hires, which has been at times questioned in
discussions of organizational socialization (Zurcher, 1983).

In addition, the majority of socialization research has assumed that all members
have equal access to all formal and informal networks, thereby implying that all
newcomers are socialized unifome (Allen, 2000). The assumption that all employees
can communicate or are communicated with equally implies that no discrimination or
biases ever exist in an organization. Following Allen (2000), future research should
explore the impact of race, gender, and ethnicity on the availability of socialization
sources for new hires. Research might also consider the forms by which support is

conveyed to different sets of employees within an organization as support efforts may be

40

construed differently from group to group. Furthermore, to maximize organizational
socialization efforts, no set of newcomers should be systematically excluded from the

activities that are pivotal to learning and adjusting to new roles.

41

REFERENCES

42

 

REFERENCES

Adkins, C. L. (1995). Previous work experience and organizational socialization:
A longitudinal examination. Academy of Management JoumaL3 8, 839-862.

Agresti, A. & Finlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences (3rd).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Allen, B. (2000). “Learning the ropes”: A black feminist critique. In PM.
Buzzanell (Ed), Rethinking organizational and managerial communication from feminist
perspectives (pp. 177-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P. (1990a). The measurement and antecedents of
affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of
Occupapional Pwholog, 6; 1—18.

Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P. (1990b). Organizational socialization tactics: A
longitudinal analysis of links to newcomers’ commitment and role orientation. Academy
of Management Journal, 33, 847-85 8.

Anakwe, U. P., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1999). Effective socialization of employees:
Socialization content perspective. Journal of Managerial Issues,11, 315-329.

Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource
perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 465—487.

Ashford, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects
on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149—178.

Ashforth, B. E., Saks, A. M., & Lee, R. T. (1998). Socialization and newcomer
adjustment: the role of organizational context. Human Relations, 51, 897-927.

Bauer, T. N. & Green, S. G. (1994). The effect of newcomer involvement in
work-related activities: A longitudinal study of socialization. Journal of Applied
Psvchology. 79, 211-223.

Bauer, T. N. & Green, S. G. (1998). Testing the combined effects of newcomer
information seeking and manager behavior of socialization. Journal of Applied
Psychol_ogy, 83, 72-83.

Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational
socialization: A review and directions for future research. Research in Personnel an_d
Human Resources Management, 16, 149-214.

43

Black, J. S. (1992). Socializing American expatriate managers overseas: Tactics,
tenure, and role innovation. Group and Organization Managemeng 17, 171-192.

Brim, O. 0., Jr. (1966). Socialization through the life cycle. In 0. G. Brim, Jr, &
S. Wheeler, (Eds), Socialization after childhood: Two essays (pp. 1-49). New York:
Wiley.

Caldwell, D. F., Chatman, J. A., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1990). Building
organizational commitment: A multifirm study. Journal of Occppational Psychology, 63,
245-261.

Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J ., & Gardner, P. D.
(1994). Organizational socialization: its content and consequences. Jourpal of Applied
ESXChologv, 79, 730—743.

Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and
socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science @arterlv. 3p. 459-484.

Cohen, A. (1999). Relationships among five forms of commitment: An empirical
assessment. Joumal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 285-308.

Fotheringham, W .C. (1966). Perspectives on persrgrsion. Boston: Allyn and
Bacon.

Gordon, T. (1955). Grogp centered leadership. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hart, Z. (1999). Communication during organizational socialization. Unpublished
dissertation proposal, Michigan State University, May, 1999.

Hart, 2., & Miller, V. D. (1999). Three competipg models of communication
during organizational socialization. Paper presented at the 85th annual meeting of the
National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L. (Eds). (1959). Personalityand persuasibilitv. New
Haven: Yale University Press.

Hovland, C. 1., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communfition app
pprsuasion. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Experiments on
mass communication. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Hovland, C. I. & Mandell, W. (1957). Is there a “Law of Primacy in Persuasion”?
In C]. Hovland (Ed) The order of presenpation in persnasion (pp. 13—22). New Haven:
Yale University Press.

44

Hunter, J. E. (1980). Factor analysis. In P. M. Monge & J. N. Cappella (Eds),
Multivariate techniques in human communication research (pp. 229-258). New York:

Academic Press.

Hunter, J. E., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second
order factor analysis, and causal models. Research in Organizational Behavioufi, 267-

320.
Jablin, F. M. (1987). Organizational entry, assimilation, and exit. In F. M. Jablin,

L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. W. Porter (Eds), Handbook of organizational
communication. (pp. 679-740). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jablin, F. M., & Krone, K. J. (1987). Organizational assimilation. In C. R. Berger
& S. H. Chaffee (Eds), Hapdbook of communication science (pp. 137-163). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Jackson, S. E., Stone, V. K., & Alvarez, E. B. (1992). Socialization amidst
diversity: The impact of demographics on work team oldtimers and newcomers.
OrganizationafiBemJaviorgl 5, 45- 1 O9.

Janis, 1., & Feshback, S. (1953). Effects of fear-arousing communications. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology,48, 78—92.

Jones, G. R. ( 1986). Socialization tactics. Self-efficacy, and newcomers’
adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management J ourpal,29, 262—279.

Katz, R. (1980). Time and work: Toward an integrative perspective. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 2, 81-127.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its
conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psycholpgy. 49, 1-49.

Laker, D. R., & Steffy, B. D. (1995). The impact of alternative socialization
tactics of self-managing behavior and organizational commitment. Journal of Social
Behavior and PersonafityLIO, 645—660.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: what newcomers experience in
entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Adminisnative Science Quarterly, 25, 226—
251.

Louis, M. R., Posner, B. Z., Powell, G. N. (1983). The availability and
helpfulness of socialization practices. Personnel ngchology, 36, 857-866.

Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J ., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A
longitudinal investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and
the moderating effects of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80,
418-431.

45

Miller, V. D. (1996). An experimental study of newcomers’ information sending
behaviors during organizational entry. Communication Studies, 47, 1-24.

Miller, V. D., Harden Fritz, J ., & Hart, Z. (1999). Introducipgflmmunication
assessments into organizational socialization survey-based investigations. Paper
presented at the 85’H annual meeting of the National Communication Association,
Chicago, IL.

Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational
entry: influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review,
1p, 92—120.

Morrison, E. W. (1993). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking
on newcomer socialization. Journal of Amplied Psychology, 78, 173—183.

Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J ., (1992). Organizational socialization as a
learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849—
874.

Pascale, R. (1985). The paradox of corporate culture: Reconciling ourselves to
socialization. California Management Review, 27, 26-40.

Reardon, K. K. (1981). Persuagion: Theory and context. Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: making sense
of the past of present as a prologue for the future. Journal of VocJationiBehavior, 51,
234—279.

Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to
job attitudes and task design. Administrafive Science Quarterly. 23, 224—253.

Schein, E. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession management.
Industrial Management Review, 9, 1—16.

Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psycholggy, 40, 437-
453.

Stiff, J. B. (1994). Persuasive communication. New York: Guilford Press.

Stohl, C. (1986). The role of memorable messages in the process of organizational
socialization. Communication Qpartedy, 34, 231-249.

Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational
socialization. Research in Ogranizational Behavior, 1, 209—264.

46

Yukl, G. P. (1990). Managerial Practices Surve 1. New York: Author and Manus
Associates.

 

Zurcher, L. A. (1983). Social roles: Conformity, conflict and creativity. Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications.

47

 

ll1|111111lllllllllllllllllll11111111111111
3 1293 02092 8788