.J
a;

£3355

,,, .rZ‘~-» ~-
‘xgl "f'ﬁiﬂsi

J

 

Nanak...“

.m a.“

. .mwin

And... .52

$ng

0

3, . a
‘3-5’ I
.cazz...

 

 

 

. w
4. Llama.
.mmékﬁa

a;
anmw. .

mp.mt.m.adm:.'»m4m .
. a?» a, a
.1... 35.

AF»...
.

1..

Law» .
.w u r

V 3 ﬂammaﬂm...’

. Lawmﬁmmﬁ‘

.. WW...

g
£va E3

. a z... :7:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. .KL
:1
. “.2191
in
2H7-
l
I . '59:»; n. ; E. iALLn. . 3!»: ELF»? .Tﬁtwwl‘

 

 

.3
.49

THESIS

arm

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

THREE COMPETING MODELS OF COMMUNICATION
DURING ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION

presented by

Zachary Paul Hart

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. Communication

degree in

 

 

AW WJW

 

Major professor
Date a“? 44‘ 2 ggyﬂp

 

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
UnIvorslty

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

moo mm.“

 

 

THREE COMPETING MODELS OF COMMUNICATION DURING
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION

By

Zachary Paul Hart

A DISSERTATION

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Communication

2000

ABSTRACT

THREE COMPETING MODELS OF COMMUNICATION DURING
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION

By

Zachary Paul Hart

The predominant model in organizational socialization theory and research
centers on the organization‘s use of tactics to structure newcomers‘ experiences. Despite
numerous criticisms and mixed research results. scholars continue to obscure three
fundamental features of organizations’ role-sending efforts during employee entry: (a) the
content of messages accompanying socialization tactics; (b) the inﬂuence ofinformal.
unofﬁcial, and at times unsanctioned tactics; and (c) communicative relationships with
role-set members. This dissertation reviews research on organizational socialization.
identiﬁes communication phenomena associated with formal—and informal socialization
experiences, and proposes three competing models that seek to explain the role of
communication during socialization. The three models were tested through a study of 85
newly hired managers’ socialization experiences at a major hotel corporation. Results of
this study indicate that a modiﬁed mediated model in which socialization experiences
determine message content which then impacts socialization outcomes offers the best
explanation for the role of communication during organizational socialization. The

study, its results. and its implications are also discussed in this dissertation.

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Tracy Hart. and my son, Christopher
Hart, whose support, love, and understanding made it possible for me to successfully

complete my doctorate.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the contributions of the following individuals whose
assistance made completion of this dissertation possible: Dr. Vernon D. Miller, my major
professor; Dr. J. D. Johnson, committee member; Dr. Georgia C hao. committee member;

Dr. Kelly Morrison, committee member; Mr. Steve Bauman: Ms. Kimberly Baker: and

Dr. Alex Susskind.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... vii
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................... 3
Description of Speciﬁc Formal Socialization Experiences ................................. 6
Research on Formal Tactics ................................................................................. 7
Speciﬁc Informal Socialization Experiences ....................................................... 10
Communication Dimensions Associated With Socialization Experiences .......... l4
Outcomes of Organizational Socialization .......................................................... 22
Models of Organizational Socialization and Communication ............................. 25
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 3
Participants ........................................................................................................... 3
Instruments ........................................................................................................... 39
Analysis ................................................................................................................ 44
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS ................................................................................................. 46
Socialization Experiences .................................................................................... 46
Relationship between Formal and Informal Socialization Experiences .............. 46
Information Receiving versus Information Seeking of Socialization Messages. 47
Primary Information Sources ............................................................................... 47
Message Consistency ........................................................................................... 48
Communication Relationships ............................................................................. 49
Direct Predictor Model ........................................................................................ 49
Mediated Model ................................................................................................... 51
Moderated Model ................................................................................................. 53
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION ........................................................................................... 56
Formal and Informal Socialization Experiences .................................................. 56
Communication Factors ....................................................................................... 60
Additional Limitations of the Study .................................................................... 68
Directions for Future Research ............................................................................ 71
ENDNOTES .................................................................................................................... 75
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 76

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: FEATURES OF FORMAL AND INFORMAL SOC IALIZATION
EXPERIENCES ............................................................................................................... 92

TABLE 2: ITEM DESCRIPTIONS, FACTOR LOADINGS. AND RELIABILITIES
OF MULTI-ITEM INSTRUMENTS ............................................................................... 93

TABLE 3: ITEM DESCRIPTIONS FOR INFORMATION SOURCES. SEEKING
AND RECEIVING INSTRUMENTS ............................................................................. 104

TABLE 4: VARIABLE MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS. AND
CORRELATIONS ........................................................................................................... 106

TABLE 5: RESULTS OF PAIRED T-TESTS BETWEEN THE MEANS OF
PASSIVE INFORMATION RECEIVING AND ACTIVE INFORMATION

SEEKING FOR EACH OF THE MESSAGE CONTENT AREAS ............................... 107
TABLE 6: PATH COEFFICIENTS FOR DIRECT PREDICTOR MODEL .................. 108
TABLE 7: STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION RESULTS OF THE DIRECT

PREDICTOR MODEL .................................................................................................... l 10
TABLE 8: PATH COEFFICIENTS FOR MEDIATED MODEL .................................. l 1 1

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: DIRECT PREDICTOR MODEL OF COMMUNICATION DURING
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION ...................................................................... 88

FIGURE 2: MEDIATED MODEL OF COMMUNICATION DURING
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION ...................................................................... 89

FIGURE 3: MODERATED MODEL OF COMMUNICATION DURING
ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION ................................................ ()0

FIGURE 4: REVISED MEDIATED MODEL WITH PATH COEFFICIENTS
INCLUDED ..................................................................................................................... 9]

vii

INTRODUCTION

According to Van Maanen (1978), organizational socialization is “the manner in
which the experiences of people learning the ropes of a new organizational position,
status, or role are structured for them by others within the organization" (p. 19). Through
socialization, employees obtain information about their role responsibilities as well as the
history, politics, language, interpersonal relationships. goals. and values of the
organization (Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994). Socialization m
exempliﬁes organizational role-sending eﬂorts (Katz & Kahn, 1978) where the 1
organization attempts to mold newcomers into acceptable and efﬁcient members (Schein, l
1968). Consequently, socialization is especially important when individuals begin
membership in an organization and acquire a new role (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).
While scholars have long been interested in socialization experiences from childhood
through adulthood (see Brim & Wheeler, 1966), only in the past 15 years have they
begun to examine the impact of socialization tactics and content on new organizational
hires. For example, Jones (1986) and Ashforth and Saks (1996) examine how
institutional or structured socialization experiences impact newcomers’ role orientations.
role ambiguity, and organizational commitment. Chao et al. (1994) investigate the
relationship of socialization experiences emphasizing the relationship of politics, goals
and values, history, performance proﬁciency, and language of the organization with
employee incomes, job satisfaction, career involvement, adaptation, and personal
identity.1
While research on structured socialization experiences and content provides
important insights into newcomers' entry experiences. a number of weaknesses in the
socialization literature exist. First, researchers to date examine socialization tactics and
content separately when they are co-occurring experiences. Second, research almost

exclusively focuses on the impact of hierarchically and strategically orchestrated. formal

tactics (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1990; Baker, 1992; Jones, 1986) while failing to examine
the effects of informal tactics initiated at the unit and individual level of the organization.
As Chao (1997) notes, conceptualizations of informal aspects of socialization lag behind
formal conceptualizations although employees experience formal and informal influence
attempts. Third, few studies directly examine the communication features of newcomers’
socialization experiences despite evidence of its importance (Bullis. 1993: Jablin. 1987;
Stohl, 1986).

The failure to directly investigate communication messages and relationships is
unfortunate because the purpose of socialization is to inform new employees of
organizational and unit procedures, acclimate them to the relationships with supervisors,
coworkers, and others, and inculcate the values of the organization. Thus, a more
comprehensive understanding of organizational role sending efforts will not be possible
until researchers investigate newcomers' formal and informal socialization experiences
and their communicative aspects. This dissertation begins with a review of research on
newcomer organizational socialization, making a distinction between fonnal and informal
socialization experiences. It then identiﬁes communicative dimensions associated with
formal and informal socialization experiences. Next, three competing, communication-
centered models are presented and arguments are made which state how each model
provides a better explanation of the relationship between newcomers’ socialization
experiences and traditional work adjustment outcomes than the standard socialization
tactic model. Finally, the methodology and results of a study of 85 newly hired
managers’ socialization experiences at a major hotel corporation are described and

discussed.

(\3

CHAPTER 1: Literature Review

Organizational socialization research grows from investigations of lifelong
socialization processes beginning with infancy and childhood and continuing through
adulthood (Brim & Wheeler, 1966). The “formal organization” can be viewed as an
agent of adult socialization as most people spend a major portion of their adult lives
working within complex, relatively permanent groups purposely designed to perform
speciﬁc tasks (Goodman, 1985). Formal organizations provide settings in which
individuals learn about the formal requirements of their roles as well as potentially
differing informal norms and role prescriptions (Goodman, 1985). More experienced
members are responsible for educating newcomers about organizational norms and
procedures so that the traditions and structures of the organization survive. As Van

Maanen and Schein (1979) note.
any organizational culture consists broadly of long-standing rules of
thumb. a somewhat special language. an ideology that helps edit a
member’s everyday experience, shared standards of relevance as to the
critical aspects of the work that is being accomplished and a sort of

residual category of some rather plain ‘horse sense’ regarding what is
appropriate and ‘smart’ behavior within the organization and what is not

(p. 210).

Consequently, the ways by which incumbents socialize new hires and what new hires
learn from these efforts are of prime importance to organizations.

Theories of organizational socialization suggest that (a) new experiences are
purposefully structured by the organization and its agents to ensure that new employees
acquire speciﬁc information about the organization (through organizationally approved
sources). but (b) considerable variability exists in organizations' degree of strategizing
and structuring of newcomers' experiences (Brim & Wheeler. 1966; Van Maanen &

Schein, 1979). Further. newcomers' formal socialization experiences differ by their

b)

longevity in the organization or as they move through the various stages of socialization.
For example, during the anticipatory socialization stage newcomers' contact with the
organization prior to organizational entry creates expectations by which newcomers will
evaluate their experiences in the organization (Jablin. 1987). As noted by Feldman
(1976), organizations provide prospective employees with information about particular
job duties, the work group, promotion and transfer opportunities through selection and
placement programs. In the encounter stage, newcomers enter the organization. attempt to
make sense of the new environment, and begin to form an organizational identity and
self-esteem (Hess, 1993). At this point, orientation and training programs as well as
performance evaluation systems become critical to newcomer adaptation and success
(Feldman, 1976). In the metamorphosis stage, newcomers transform from outsiders to
insiders, are believed to engage in role negotiation, and solidify interpersonal and group
memberships (Jablin, 1987).

Organizational socialization efforts primarily focus on transmitting the role
expectations of socialization agents to newcomers (i.e.. role-sending) (Katz & Kahn,
1978). These role expectations are conveyed in both ambient (pervasive, noncontigent)
and discretionary (intentional, selectively transmitted) messages (Jablin, 1987).
According to Katz and Kahn (1978), newcomers who conform their behaviors to role
expectations engage in role-taking. However, newcomers may differ on the functional
value of others’ role expectations and perform their roles in keeping with their own
needs, abilities, and desires (Jablin, 1987). Thus, the enacted role may differ considerably
from the received role (Graen & Scandura, 1987).

The nature of formal and informal role-sending is particularly important in

determining how, what, and when role expectations are sent to newcomers. In this
respect, socialization experiences not only determine how newcomers learn about their
role, but also what information is intentionally presented to new hires (Chao. 1997: Van
Mannen & Schein, 1979).2 As presented in Table 1, new hire socialization experiences
can be divided into formal and informal distinctions. In keeping with Saks and Ashforth
(1997), newcomer formal socialization experiences are characterized by structured and
purposeful events that are centered at the organizational level. In contrast, informal
socialization experiences are marked by unstructured and random events centered at the
work unit level.

The distinction between formal and informal socialization experiences is an
important one to make because much of the literature investigates only the impact of
formal experiences, but neglects the potentially significant impact of informal
experiences. C amevale and Gainer (1989) point out that informal training is the most
popular training method in organizations. Rothwell and Kazanas (1990) estimate that
informal training costs represent between three and six times the amount of what is spent
on formal training although organizations often do not speciﬁcally budget money for
“informal” training. Instead, these costs are accumulated through the everyday expense
of running the organization as incumbents spend time informally socializing newcomers.
In addition, Rothwell and Kazanas (1990) point out that organizations spend billions of
dollars on both formal and informal efforts. Finally. Chao (1997) argues that the
widespread use of informal experiences as a way to socialize newcomers “necessitates
scientiﬁc understanding of it and practical applications to improve its effectiveness”(p.

129).

Description of Speciﬁc Formal Socialization Experiences

Van Maanen and Schein (1979) describe six sets of“formal” or organizationally
orchestrated tactics that socialize new hires toward custodial (acceptance of the role as
presented) or innovative (attempt to alter the role as presented) behavioral responses.
While several scholars criticize Van Maanen and Schein's (1979) tactics (Allen & Meyer,
1990; Jones, 1986; Laker & Steffy, 1995; Orpen. 1995). most would agree that their
typology of tactics centers on the notion that “what people learn about their work roles in
organizations is often the direct result of how they learn it” (Van Maanen and Schein.
1979, p. 209). Due to its ability to describe structured entry experiences. its frequent use
in theory and research publications, and the absence of competing, theoretical models.
Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) tactics constitute the standard model for current
organizational socialization research.

Collective versus individual socialization tactics distinguish entry processes which
put a group of individuals through a common set of experiences from those processes
which provide individuals with a unique set of experiences in isolation from others.
Formal tactics segregate newcomers from incumbents and expose newcomers to
experiences and materials designed speciﬁcally for them. With informal tactics. new
hires are not separated from incumbents and do not receive material prepared speciﬁcally
for them. Sequential versus random tactics differentiate entry experiences with a discrete
and recognizable progression from those where the steps to full membership are
ambiguous or unknown. Fixed socialization indicates a speciﬁc timeframe for completion
of a boundary passage while variable socialization provides no speciﬁc timeframe. In

serial tactics. new hires can consult with individuals who occupy or previously occupied

the role while new hires cannot readily access information from prior role occupants in
disjunctive tactics. Finally, investiture tactics conﬁrm new hires’ personal characteristics
while divestiture tactics attempt to strip away certain personal characteristics. Van
Maanen and Schein (1979) posit that custodial orientations result from an organization’s
use of collective, formal, sequential, variable, serial. and divestiture tactics while
innovation orientations result from the use of individual. informal. random. ﬁxed.

3

disjunctive, and investiture tactics.

Research on Formal Tactics

 

As Orpen (1995) notes, socialization research tends to use Jones’ (1986) survey
instrument by categorizing Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) six tactics into
“institutional” versus “individual” socialization tactics. Institutional socialization
practices are composed of collective, formal, sequential, ﬁxed, serial and divestiture
tactics. Individual socialization practices contain individual, informal. random. variable,
disjunctive and investiture tactics. Predominately consistent with Van Maanen and
Schein (1979), Jones (1986) reports that institutional socialization tactics are more likely
to result in custodial newcomer role orientations while individual socialization tactics are
more likely to result in innovative newcomer role orientations.

Using Jones’ (1986) institutional and individual framework, Allen and Meyer
(1990) report that institutionalized tactics are associated with new hires' custodial role
orientations and individualized tactics are associated with innovative role orientations at
both 6 months and 12 months after employment. They also report that institutionalized
tactics are associated with higher levels of employee organizational commitment at both

the 6 month and 12 month mark. Ashforth and Saks (1996) report that at 4 and 10 months

ofemployment institutionalized tactics are negatively related to attempted and actual role
innovation, role ambiguity, role conﬂict, stress symptoms. and intentions to quit. but are
positively related tojob satisfaction, commitment. and organizatitmal identiﬁcation.
Baker and F eldman (1990) ﬁnd that the “batch” (formal. collective. ﬁxed. sequential.
serial tactics) process tactics tend to be associated with greater trust in peers and
management, higher levels of organizational commitment, job satisfaction. mutual
inﬂuence, internal work motivation, andjob involvement. and lower levels ofjob tension
compared to “unit” (divestiture, disjunctive. non-sequential. variable. individual, and
informal) tactics.

Examining speciﬁc tactics. Black (1992) ﬁnds that collective socialization tactics
are positively related to role innovation while ﬁxed and serial socialization tactics are
negatively related to role innovation, especially among employees with longer tenure at
the time of measurement. Orpen (1995) reports that individualized tactics are positively
related to career satisfaction while institutionalized tactics are negatively related. Laker
and Steffy (1995) ﬁnd that individualized tactics lead to greater self—management. but a
lower level of organizational commitment. In turn, Hart. Miller, and Johnson (1998)
report that formal socialization tactics have a negative relationship with role ambiguity
and role conﬂict at the initial point of a socialization effort and 4 months later.

While the above research suggests fairly consistent relationships between
socialization tactics and a number of outcomes (e.g., commitment. innovative role
orientations), the overall statistical signiﬁcance of this line of research indicates a
conceptual and/or methodological threshold. Speciﬁcally, with the exception of Baker

(1995), both static and lagged analyses in investigations using socialization tactics only

Fm-t

accounts for approximately 25% of the variance in the outcome variables (Allen &
Meyer. 1990; Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Baker & Feldman, 1990: Black. 1992: Hart et al..
1998; Jones, 1986; Laker and Steffy; 1995; Orpen, 1995; Zarhrly & Tosi, 1989). While
this amount of variance accounted for would be pleasing in an exploratory investigation.
the apparent upper limit of 25% of the variance in at least nine published studies indicates
a limitation to the current conceptual approach and the likelihood of additional
socializing inﬂuences as well as other antecedents that have yet to be measured. The
stagnation at moderate statistical relationships may be due to the focus on distal
organizational events (e.g., the ﬁxed nature of progression from outsider to full
membership in the organization and workgroup). In contrast. informal or unsanctioned
socialization tactics and workgroup relationships are less distal. at times may be quite
direct in inﬂuence, and may have greater impact on new hires ( C hao. 1997; Chatman,
1991; Jablin, 1987;_Zurcher, 1983).

In addition, Jones’ (1986) conceptualization of socialization tactics as a continuum,
ranging from institutionalized to individualized tactic, may explain its limitation in
identifying a larger portion of the variance in socialization outcomes. Institutional and
individual socialization tactics are hypothesized and often found to have relationships to
outcome variables (e.g., Jones, 1986; Laker & Steffy, 1995: Orpen, 1995). Yet, other
non-institutional tactics are experienced at the same time as institutional tactics and could
similarly impact socialization outcomes. For example, social activities with coworkers
may increase organizational commitment. An examination ofthese additional. informal
experiences may more fully account for the impact of socialization.

In sum. research to date suggests that organizationally endorsed socialization

experiences have considerable impact on employees shortly after entry. According to
Saks and Ashforth (1997), “most of the effects of socialization processes on newcomers
appear to occur relatively rapidly” (p. 257) such as the reduction of role ambiguity, but
other outcomes may be affected over a longer period of time (e.g., organizational
commitment). These conclusions are consistent with Brett’s (1984) argument that most
role transitions are essentially complete by 6 months after entry. Yet. while research on
formal socialization tactics provides considerable insight into the structure or context of
new hires’ entry experiences, the threshold on the amount of variance accounted for in
most studies suggests that researchers need to consider other entry events closer to new
hires.

Speciﬁc Informal Socialization Experiences

 

Investigations into socialization suggest that new hires encounter at least ﬁve
informal tactics through their interactions with supervisors. coworkers and other role-set
members: stories. informal initiations/rituals. group orientation/norm reinforcement,
social/recreational activities, and trial by ﬁre (see Table I). Brown (1985) suggests that
stories by old-timers in the organization help new members make sense of the
organizational environment. “They serve as a storehouse of organizational information,
supply reasons for organizational events, and promote or suppress motivation in the
workplace” (p. 28). For example, cadaver stories as jokes are commonly used as an
informal tool for the emotional socialization of medical students (Haffcrty. 1988). Just as
socialization to a medical vocation transmits more than technical knowledge and skills.
socialization also involves shaping newcomers’ feelings about their work. Zurcher (1983)

also illustrates the inﬂuence that stories from veteran sailors have on new sailors’

10

 

expectations about the informal workings of their ship. In essence. stories provide
newcomers with information that they are unlikely to obtain through the formal
socialization mechanisms.

Informal initiations and rituals are not ofﬁcially sanctioned by top management.
occur at the work unit level. and usher newcomers’ passage from outsider to insider.
Initiations may include hazing, performing noticeably unpleasant or harsh duties. testing
loyalty and compatibility, socializing, and participating in ceremonies (Moreland &

Levine, 1989: Zurcher. 1983). Other examples are vacationing together. performing

F‘“ a

voluntary activities. participating in physical activities (Moreland & Levine, 1989). and
old-time sailors telling newcomers to buy a halfa dollar’s worth of sea-stamps (which do
not exist) or getting dunked in the sea water (Zurcher. 1983). Informal initiations and
rituals are important to work group members because they maintain the identity of the
group and ensure that newcomers will meet the standards ofthe work unit. (.‘onscquently.
newcomers must pass through initiations or rituals in order to gain acceptance into the
group. In contrast, formal organization-sponsored ceremonies signify the newcomer has
passed from outsider to insider.

Orientations to group norms are likely to begin shortly after assignment to the
workgroup and are a primary means to exert pressure on newcomers (Moreland &
Levine, 1982). Orientations are most effective when the group (a) maximizes newcomer
involvement with group members. (b) minimizes newcomer involvement with outgroup
members, and (c) reinforces group norms. Informal orientations may also be extremely
effective following formal organizational orientation programs. While some orientations

may be conducted by the workgroup supervisor and “required” of all newcomers. other

11

orientations occur one-on-one and are delayed until a newcomer has earned the
coworkers’ conﬁdence. According to Feldman (1976), newcomers who’ve earned their
coworkers’ trust are likely “to receive evaluative and informal information that will help
him both in doing his job and in interacting with other organization members” (p. 67).

Social/recreational activities range from socializing at a bar with incumbents after
work to participating in a company softball team (Bullis & Bach. 1989). In essence.
social /recreational activities facilitate informal communication and relational
development between newcomers and incumbents (Bullis & Bach. 1989) and are
available to most workers (Louis et al., 1983). While these activities do not contribute to
the development of productive employees, they contribute signiﬁcantly to newcomer job
satisfaction (Louis et al., 1983).

Finally, trial-by-ﬁre experiences can be described as early. challenging work
experiences which allow newcomers to learn how the organization really functions and
their job by doing it (McCall, Lombardo, & Morrison. 1988). Trial-by-ﬁre includes early
unpleasant supervisory encounters, project and task force assignments. starting a project
from scratch. ﬁx-it/tum-it-around jobs (including crisis situations). and a leap in scope of
assignments (beyond newcomers’ training and experience) (McCall et al., 1988). As
unplanned and unstructured events, trial-by—ﬁre experiences may signal the neglect of
structuring formal socialization experiences or a sink-or-swim philosophy toward new
hires. Nonetheless, these experiences seem to be particularly important in the
socialization of managers. “Those who recounted them seemed to have gotten from them
a head start in the basics - lessons in how things work in an organization as opposed to

what they learned in the classroom, and lessons in dealing with people” (McCall et al.,

12

 

1988,p.20)

In sum, informal tactics provide considerable information to newcomers about how
things really operate in the organization, send explicit messages regarding the norms of
the work unit. and indicate incumbents’ acceptance of newcomers into the work unit.
Perhaps, just as importantly they emotionally socialize the newcomer to the organization
in a way that formal socialization tactics cannot by creating a sense of belonging for
newcomers to a workgroup and by “customizing” to some degree newcomers trial period

in accordance to the workgroup’s assessment of what is required for newcomers to gain

F““LI

acceptance. Together. stories, informal initiations/rituals. group orientation/norm
reinforcement. social/recreational activities. and trial-by-lire provide information that
supports. contradicts. or ﬁlls in the gaps in knowledge obtained through formal
socialization. In this way. informal tactics may have a greater inﬂuence in shaping
newcomers’ role orientations toward accepting or rejecting organizational and/or work
unit norms than any formal socialization effort (Van Maanen. 1975).

While a greater part of the preceding materials concern the effects of formal
socialization experiences. it is apparent that informal socialization experiences also
impact newcomers’ adjustment to the organization and their role success. The lack of
research exploring the relationship between formal and informal entry experiences is
unfortunate as formal and informal socialization efforts appear to be concurrent and
concomitant inﬂuences (.Iablin. 1987; Scott. Comian. & Cheney. 1998). Thus. it is
important for scholars to investigate the nature and relationship of formal and informal
socialization experiences. Consequently, this dissertation asks the following research

questions:

‘
DJ

Research Question I .' To what extent do formal and informal socialization tactics
characterize the entry experiences ol'new employees?

Research Question 2: What is the relationship bt’lll’t’c’tt formal and informal socialization
experiences?

Communication Dimensions Associated With Socialization Experiences

Scholars should be aware that expanding only the contexts in which new hires

receive instruction and/or are subject to role pressures may continue the neglect of the

content of socialization unless they make efforts to assess communication during

socialization. The explicit examination of communication messages. the sources ofthose

messages, and the nature of communicative relationships with role set members is

essential if researchers are to assess the effectiveness of speciﬁc organizational

socialization efforts and move beyond current statistical thresholds. While many

messages from management during entry may primarily inform employees ofcustomary

and desirable norms and behaviors, numerous message efforts are directed at employee

adjustment and changes in attitudes and behaviors (Jablin. 1987: Zurcher. 1983).

Calls for investigations of communication during socialization are numerous. For
instance, Jablin (1987) identiﬁes the pervasive nature of communication throughout the
entire socialization process from anticipatory socialization through organizational exit.
He suggests that most interactions between newcomers and their supervisors. coworkers.
and other organizational members occur in the form ofcommunication. Stohl (1986)
points out that “memorable” messages are one of the most important processes through
which individuals “learn requisite organizational orientations” (p. 231). Bullis (1993)

calls for corporate discourse and feminism investigations ofcommunication during

14

socialization. Central to these calls for research is the belief that researchers will better
understand what employees learn during entry as well as how they learn it by
investigating the communication features of organizational role-sending efforts.
Jablin’s (1987) review of the role of communication during socialization and the
works of others (Bullis, 1993; Chao et al., 1994; McQuail. 1987; Staton-Spicer &
Darling, 1986) suggest at least three key dimensions ofcommunication to be
investigated: message content, message sources. and communication relationships.

Message Content. While instructions, explanations, and lessons are crucial to

 

FT“ 3

employee indoctrination and adjustment (Jablin, 1987; Saks & Ashforth, 1997), what new
employees learn from socialization efforts is commonly overlooked in research. Chao et
al. (1994), Ostroff and Kozlowski (1992), Stohl (1986). and Stanton-Spicer & Darling
(1986) offer notable exceptions to this practice. Chao et al. (1994) categorizes
socialization messages into six content areas. According to C hao et al. (1994).
performance proﬁciency refers to messages about how to perform the tasks necessary to
do the job. “People” refers to messages indicating that the employee has gained
acceptance into the work unit (akin to investiture socialization tactics). Political messages
provide information about formal and informal work relationships as well as power
structures within the organization. Language refers to messages conveying the
profession’s technical language as well as jargon that is unique to the organization.
Messages focusing on organizational goals and values provide “an understanding of the
rules or principles that maintain the integrity of the organization” (p. 732). The ﬁnal
content area, history, describes the organization’s and work unit’s history through

messages about the organization’s rituals and myths. C hao et al. ("1994) ﬁnd that new

15

employees who are knowledgeable in the six content areas (presumably because they
have been well-socialized) have quicker career advancement than less knowledgeable
newcomers.

Other research investigations support Chao et al.’s (1994') classilication. In an
analysis of memorable messages during organizational socialization. Stohl (1986) finds
that the content of messages falls into one oftwo general categories; role related, which
describes the behaviors necessary to do a new job (similar to performance proﬁciency).
or culture-related, which describes the meaning of organizational behavior and values
(similar to organizational goals and values. politics. and history). In addition. Ostroff and
Kozlowski (1992) describe four content areas - job-related tasks. work roles. group
processes. and organizational attributes - which largely overlap with C hao et al.’s (1994)
performance proﬁciency, history, language, and political content areas.

Finally, research of newcomers’ entry experiences reveals that they both receive
(.Iablin, 1984) and seek out (Miller, 1996; Morrison, 1993; Ostroff & Kozlowski. 1992)
job-related information. While Chao et al. (1994) measure the level of knowledge
employees possess about each content area. it is unclear if these knowledge levels result
from passive information receiving, proactive information seeking. or both. It is
important to determine if newcomers possess knowledge about the content area as a
result of socialization messages stemming from role-sending efforts or as a result of their
proactive information seeking efforts in order to (a) conﬁrm role-taking theories of
socialization (Katz & Kahn, 1978) as primarily information receiving versus an
information seeking experience and (b) discover if conversations about certain topics

such as politics or people are more likely to be initiated by others or sought out.

Consequently. this dissertation asks:

Research Question 3: Which socialization message content is communicated to
newcomers primarily as a result of their active information seeking
efforts and which socialization message content is communicated
to newcomers primarily as a result of passive information
receiving/"mm others?

Message Sources. Major sources of information during organizational

 

socialization include the organization (i.e., top management’s ambient messages and
detailed written materials), supervisors. coworkers. and subordinates (.Iablin, 1987).
While message sources provide new hires with a range of information. each source is
likely to emphasize certain content given their areas of responsibility and expertise. For
instance, organizational sources tend to send written. mass media messages during
socialization to formally orient the newcomer to the organization and for legal
compliance. “For example, recruits may be exposed to an orientation by members ofthe
organization’s personnel department in which they receive a wide variety of written
publications and an oral brieﬁng on a variety of topics including work rules. insurance.
employee service. and the like” (Jablin, 1987. p. 696). Consequently. the impetus for
most messages from the organization may be legal rather than persuasive. although some
executives use orientations to expound on the organization’s vision and values (Fairhurst.
in press).

Over half of the messages received by newcomers from supervisors involve job
instructions while about a fourth involve job-related information (Katz. 1980).

Supervisors are the primary sources of newcomers’ task-related information which is in

17

keeping with supervisors’ responsibility for the performance oftheir work units,
motivation to maximize newcomer performance. their role as the primary evaluators of
newcomer performance, and their position as role expert (Jablin. I987: Katz & Kahn,
I978; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Throughout entry. newcomers typically receive
messages “directed at setting work-related goals and expectations” .Iablin (1987. p. 700)
and are fairly positive about these interactions (Jablin. 1984). Newcomers are also likely
to identify supervisors as the chief source for determining job requirements and consider
them more reliable than coworkers as an information source (Hanser & Muchinsky.
I978).

Coworkers have substantial interests in socializing newcomers and often quickly
incorporate them into the workgroup (Moreland & Levine. 1989; Zurcher. 1983). Further,
newcomers and coworkers evidence equal patterns of information asking and sharing
shortly following newcomers’ entry into the organization (.Iablin. I984). Jablin (1987)
argues that these interactions between newcomers and their coworkers are likely to serve
three functions: (a) ajob performance function as newcomers receive information from
coworkers about how to do their job and attempt to model the work behaviors and
methods ofcoworkers; (b) an affective-psychological function as cmvorkers provide
messages ofemotional support during socialization and indicate the extent to which
newcomers are accepted into the work unit; and (c) an informative function as coworkers
help newcomers make sense of the work environment and explain the informal networks
which exist in the organization (.Iablin, 1987).

In short. the organization, supervisors. coworkers and subordinates are likely to be

key sources ofinformation for newcomers during organizational socialization. Each

18

source is likely to provide information in keeping with their areas ofresponsibility and

expertise. Since it is not entirely clear how those areas of expertise may relate to the

message content areas, research needs to identify the primary sources of information for
each of the message content areas. Thus, this dissertation asks:

Research Question 4: Who (the organization. supervisors. ctm'orkers. or sulmrdinates)
are the primary sources ofinformationfor each ofthe socialization
message content areas?

While research explores the direction and frequency of newcomer communication
with supervisors. coworkers. the organization. and outside sources (see .lablin. 1987’). it
remains unclear the extent to which that information is presented consistently from the
sources and which sources are most important to newcomers in obtaining information
during socialization. For instance, it is known that newcomers receive inconsistent
information during socialization. Role expectations delivered in informal socialization at
times differ from those delivered during the formal training of newcomers (Chao. 1997;
Zurcher, 1983), but “are always more extensive” (Zurcher. 1983. p. 50). Ondrack (1975)
ﬁnds that newcomers are more likely to receive consistent cues from old-timers when
old-timers are more homogeneous in terms of job-related attitudes and values and that
inconsistent information can make socialization difﬁcult as newcomers become more
confused. Contradictory role messages are likely to increase newcomers’ role ambiguity
and make the performance of job tasks more difﬁcult as they are unsure about the “right”
way to do theirjob. The longer newcomers” operate in an uncertain environment. the
more likely it is that they will experience dissatisfaction with theirjob and eventually

leave the organization (Ilgen & Hollenbeck. 1991). Thus. this dissertation asks the

19

following research question:

Research Question 5 .' To what extent do newcomers receive ctmsistent infarmtttion. from
the organization, supervisors, cmvorlrers, and subordinates during
organizational socialization?

Communication Relationships. From the very ﬁrst moments ofentry. supervisors

 

and coworkers have a notable impact on newcomers (Chao, 1997; Feldman, 1989; Jablin.
1987). Regardless of organizational and unit socialization efforts. the relational closeness
of newcomers to their supervisors and/or coworkers can have a disproportionate
inﬂuence on the impact of socialization experiences and messages on the outcomes of
socialization. Two key indicators of these relationships are leader-member exchange
(LMX) and coworker supportiveness.

C learly. the most important relationship for newcomers is with the supervisor. As
.Iablin (1987) notes. supervisors have the power to reward or sanction. define job
parameters, provide instructions and feedback, and are the preferred target of newcomers'
interactions. Given the vital place of the supervisor for newcomers. the supervisor's
exchange of personal and positional resources for a subordinate’s performance can
impact newcomers' access to and interpretation of information (as well as job
assignments). Leader-member exchanges (LMX) afford the leader interpersonal
inﬂuence beyond that which accompanies his or her formal position (Graen & Scandura,
1987). LMX theory proposes that supervisor-subordinate relationships can be classiﬁed
as high LMX, characterized by high levels of mutual trust and inﬂuence, and low LMX,
characterized by authoritative relationships where the supervisor only exerts formal

power. The sharing of helpful information. coaching. or mentoring may indicate the

Fu‘f‘wil

beginnings ofa high LMX relationship and result in the newcomer’s increased access to
information.

Interactions with coworkers may serve “an affective-psychological function by
providing emotional support against the stresses of the organization’s socialization
initiatives and uncertainties of the new work setting” (.Iablin. 1987. p. 702). The
proximity of coworkers and shared experiences enable them to provide emotional support
to newcomers during organizational entry (Sias & Jablin. 1995). C oworker

supportiveness refers to the friendliness of and the extent to which coworkers pay

Ff— 4*:ﬂ

attention to employee comments and concerns (Bowers & Seashore, 1966: Taylor &
Bowers, I972). Newcomers are likely to ﬁnd supportive coworkers to be particularly
helpful in learning to discern between messages that are ambient versus messages
speciﬁcally directed towards them and in knowing what role expectations are pivotal or
relevant as opposed to peripheral (Schein, 1968).5 Thus. this dissertation asks the
following research question:
Research Question 6: What is the quality ofnewcomers ' relatitmships with coworkers
and supervisors?

In sum. the content of socialization messages, their sources. and the nature ofthe
communicative relationship greatly impacts newcomers’ adjustment to the organization
and workgroup and learning of their job tasks. As newcomers chieﬂy interact with their
supervisors and coworkers once initial orientation and training sessions are completed.
members of their role set may have far greater inﬂuence on new hires than formal
socialization tactics. At this point and in the absence of research comparing their

individual inﬂuence, it may be best to conclude temporarily that formal and informal

21

socialization experiences, socialization message content. and communication
relationships are all signiﬁcant socialization inﬂuences. However. the interplay of these
inﬂuences, and especially the role of communication. merits examination if we hope to
gain a better understanding of socialization.

Outcomes of Organizational Socialization

 

While numerous outcomes can be linked to socialization experiences and entry-
related messages. many studies focus on indicators of role and organizational adjustment

(Ashforth & Saks, 1996: Baker, 1992; Baker & Feldman. 1990: .Iones. 1986; Lake &

19:13:: ref":

Steffy, 1995). Speciﬁcally. role ambiguity. role innovation. and organizational .
commitment are believed to be inﬂuenced by organizational socialization experiences
and messages (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Baker, 1992:. Orpen. 1995; Saks and Ashforth.
1997). As socialization efforts are designed to teach newcomers about their role through
the transmission of role related information which will facilitate their adjustment into the
organization (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979), measures of role and organizational
adjustment indicate the success of socialization and role sending efforts from both the
organization’s and newcomer’s perspective.

Role Ambiguity. Role ambiguity refers to “the level of uncertainty surrounding

 

expectations about a single role” (Ilgen & Hollenbeck. 1991, p. 191). Newcomers with a
high level of role ambiguity do not understand how to perform their role. suggesting a
failure in learning from socialization experiences. Role ambiguity contributes to
individuals’ stress as they begin a new role (Nelson, 1987) and makes their role
adjustment more difﬁcult. Role ambiguity also indicates a failure in role-sending efforts

as newcomers indicate a lack of understanding about the role expectations that have been

[‘0
l\)

transmitted to them (Katz & Kahn, 1978).
Prior research indicates that formal socialization experiences are generally linked to
decreases in role ambiguity (e.g., Ashforth & Saks. 1996; .Iones. I986; Zarly & Tosi.
1986). The impact of informal socialization experiences is uncertain as this has not been
a focus of study. While research on tactics assumes that certain information has been
conveyed, these studies fail to consider explicitly the content of messages received during
socialization. It is important to examine the impact of messages since role-related 1"“
information is likely to have a greater impact on role ambiguity than socialization I
contexts (e.g. collective tactics) generated by the organization or work unit (Saks &
Ashforth, 1997). In addition, the relationships in which messages are communicated are

likely to impact the effectiveness of those messages and thus warrant examination.

Role Innovation. Role innovation refers to employee efforts to “redeﬁne the

 

entire role by attacking and attempting to change the mission traditionally associated with
the role” (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Employees seek to change the way the duties of
their role are performed or alter what duties are assigned. Van Maanen and Schein
(1979) propose that individuals’ custodial responses (accepting the role as presented) and
innovative responses (role innovation) depend on the socialization tactics used by the
organization. In addition. innovative responses can be viewed as newcomers’ responses
to role sending efforts during organizational socialization as newcomers move to the role
making phase of the role episode (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Several studies based on Van Maanen and Schein’s ( l 979) socialization tactics
examine the relationship between tactics and attempted or actual role innmration. In

general. studies (Allen & Meyer. 1990: Ashforth & Saks. 1996: Black & Ashforth. 1996:

k)
b.)

Mignerey. Rubin. & Gorden. 1995) ﬁnd that individualized socialization (or the absence
of institutional tactics) results in higher levels of attempted or actual role innovation. In
other words, newcomers innovate their role when there is not a speciﬁc. prepared body of
materials for newcomers. Unfortunately, these studies do not provide insight into the
nature of information that is or is not transmitted to newcomers. information that directly
affects how a newcomer responds to a role. That information and the way in which it is

transmitted are likely to impact role innovation.

. ‘cf‘

Organizational Commitment. Organizational commitment commonly is viewed as

 

an indicator of newcomer adjustment to socialization experiences (Allen & Meyer. 1990;
Ashforth & Saks. 1996; Baker. 1992; Jones. 1986; Laker & Steffy. 1995). Commitment
can be deﬁned as “an affective attachment to an organization characterized by shared
values. a desire to remain in the organization, and a willingness to exert effort on its
behalf’ (Allen & Meyer. 1990, p. 849). Jones (1986) argues that “institutional”
socialization tactics lead to greater commitment as these tactics provide more information
which “present newcomers with less problems in searching for situational consistency”
(p. 266). However. it is critical to identify the information content embedded in
institutional socialization tactics that facilitates commitment as such research efforts may
identify stronger relationships between incumbents’ socialization efforts and their
organizational commitment. In addition, examination of informal socialization
experiences and communication relationships may also enhance our understanding of this

relationship.

Models of Organizational Socialization and Communication

 

To date, the predominant model of socialization (Van Maanen & Schein. 1979)

posits that socialization tactics are direct predictors of role outcomes and organizational

adjustment. Of particular interest are the outcomes of role ambiguity. role innovation, and

organizational commitment as they indicate the success of socialization efforts from both

the organization’s and newcomer’s perspective (Ashforth & Saks. 1996: Baker, 1992;

Baker & Feldman. 1990; Jones, 1986; Laker & Steffy, 1995). ’7‘
While formal and informal socialization experiences. socialization message 2

content. and communication relationships contribute to newcomers’ level of role

ambiguity. role innovation, and organizational commitment. the nature of these

relationships are unclear. In particular, the elements ofcommunication pose a dilemma.

Where do message content and relationships ﬁt in a socialization model? Or stated more

practically, how does communication impact socialization outcomes in conjunction with

formal and informal socialization experiences? To explore these issues. this dissertation

proposes that these relationships be examined through tests ofthree competing models of

explanation: a direct predictor model, a mediated predictor model. and a moderated

predictor model.

Direct Predictor Model. In keeping with the traditional model of socialization. the

 

direct predictor model (Figure l) argues that socialization experiences. message content,
and communication relationships directly contribute to socialization outcomes. This
model is consistent with the traditional model (Van Maanen & Schein. 1979) that
identiﬁes socialization tactics as direct predictors of socialization outcomes. It further

builds upon the traditional model by incorporating communication factors as additional.

direct predictors of socialization outcomes. Given that research on formal socialization
tactics explains a moderate portion of the variance related to this phenomenon. the direct
model allows for a statistical test of how much variance is accounted for by socialization
tactics in contrast to socialization content and communication relationships. In essence,
this model states that each socializing inﬂuence is theoretically important. and analyses

will indicate their contribution to each outcome.

1

Support for the direct model is evident in tests of Van Maanen and Schein’s ( l 979)

“‘* --

propositions. Formal socialization experiences have a negative impact on role ambiguity
and a positive impact on organizational commitment (e.g., .lones, 1986: Allen & Meyer,
1990). Formal socialization experiences negatively impact role innovation while informal
socialization experiences positively impact on role innovation (e. g Jones, 1986;
Ashforth & Saks, 1996). In addition, newcomers receiving information about how to
perform theirjobs adequately and the organization/unit’s jargon will have greater clarity
ofothers’ expectations and better knowledge of task accomplishment. reducing role
ambiguity (Chao et al. 1994). Performance proﬁciency and political messages lead to role
innovation as they identify the parameters necessary for acceptable role innovation.
provide guidelines for acceptable behaviors. and point to key individuals who may be
allies or enemies of role innovation (Ashforth and Saks. 1997: Chao et al. 1994).

Attachment to the organization is strengthened by messages indicating acceptance
into the workgroup and the awareness of organizational goals and values messages which
provide the means for newcomers to judge organizational actions and to organize their
own behavior (Chao et al., 1994). In addition. histories of the organization and unit

provide an understanding of its past and an appreciation ofthe present. Finally. a high

26

LMX relationship and supportive coworker relationships are likely to provide newcomers
with in-depth and meaningful information to clarify role expectations. vuide changes to
the role, and foster organizational commitment (Fairhurst, in press). Thus. this model
hypothesizes:
Hypothesis 1: Informal socialization experiences. stu'ializalion messages. and
communication relationships will lead to reduced role ambiguity as
well as increased role innovation and organizatiotml commitment while 1'“
_ formal socialization experiences will lead to reduced role ambiguity L
and role innovation as well as increased organizational commitment.
U nfortunately, the direct predictor model treats socialization tactics. socialization
content and communication relationships as separate entities rather than co-occurring
phenomena. More importantly, the direct predictor model does not offer a clear
explanation of the relationship between socialization tactics. socialization content and
communication relationships when they clearly inﬂuence and shape each other. Finally.
the direct predictor model may not be suited for longitudinal explorations of
socialization. For instance, socialization tactics may be most prevalent in the ﬁrst few
weeks of entry while socialization content and relationships have repetitive inﬂuences
throughout the entry process (Hart et al., 1998). Yet, researchers may measure predictors
in the model only once and outcomes several times instead of measuring predictors at
multiple times if present research patterns continue (e. g., Allen & Meyer. 1990; Saks &
Ashforth, 1997).

Mediated Model. As Jablin (1987) and Chao et al. (1994) suggest. socialization

 

experiences (both formal and informal) are more likely to directly impact the

27

communication processes rather than directly impact socialization outcomes, with the
result being that messages received during socialization mediate the relationship between
socialization experiences and outcomes. Newcomers are likely to get a better sense of
their role, understand acceptable aspects of role innovation. and develop affective bonds
more quickly through explicit messages. not context. The mediated model (Figure 2)
posits that socialization experiences create the context through which intonnation is
communicated to newcomers. Formal and informal socialization experiences determine
the content of messages. and the content directly impacts socialization outcomes. L

This mediated model is attractive because it explains the relationship between
content and tactics and emphasizes socialization as a learning process in which
information is communicated to employees. The model also allows researchers to specify
content areas associated with particular socialization experiences. increasing our
understanding of the socialization process. As proposed in Figure 2. organizations use
formal and informal socialization experiences to convey performance prtniciency.
organizational history. work unit history, people, politics language. and organizational
goals and values messages to newcomers. However. newcomers are more likely to
receive messages about these content areas when top management. supervisors.
coworkers. and subordinates create robust formal and informal socialization contexts for
new hires than when few socialization methods are utilized (Van Maanen & Schein.
1979).

In addition. messages associated with formal and informal socialization experiences

are likely to emphasize different message content areas. For example. messages

\—

associated with formal socialization experiences are likely to focus on performance

proﬁciency. Most formal socialization methods are specifically targeted at improving

employee performance ofjob duties and. thus. emphasize performance proficiency

messages. Sequential socialization tactics identify the steps the employee needs to
achieve in order to acquire a particular organizational role (Van Maanen & Schein.

I979), formal socialization tactics give newcomers specific experiences designed to

improve their performance (Van Maanen & Schein. 1979). Thus this model

hypothesizes:

Hypothesis 2: Formal socialization experiences will emphasize messages about
performance proficiency more than messages about people. politics,
language, goals and values, and history.

Likewise. informal socialization experiences are key conduits for messages about
performance proficiency. acceptance into the organization/unit. politics. and language.
Stories inform newcomers about the ways in which ajob has been performed and indicate
the best or worst way to do ajob (Hafferty, 1988). Similarly. informal initiations/rituals,
group orientations, and social activities provide forums for role-set members to disclose
tips on more efﬁcient task accomplishment (Wexley & Latham. 1991).

Newcomers also are most likely to receive messages about their acceptance into
the work unit. or the people content area, as part ofthe informal socialization process.
Informal initiations/rituals speciﬁcally tell the newcomer they have now formed
successful work unit relationships and are part of the work unit (Zurcher. 1983).

In addition, newcomers are most likely to obtain information about politics
through informal socialization experiences. Some researchers argue that work groups

informally socialize newcomers as to how things really work in the organization (Chao.

 

1997; Chao et al.. 1994; Zurcher, 1983). While the formal socialization experiences of an
employee are likely to teach newcomers about the formal organizational hierarchy and
relationships, informal socialization experiences emphasize the informal power structures
and motives of members within the organization. Chao ( 1997) points out that informal
socialization can contradict the information obtained during formal socialization and that
informal socialization experiences are likely to provide more accurate information about

politics than formal socialization experiences.

Pub 1 '3

Finally, newcomers are likely to learn the language ofthe organization through
informal socialization. The work group is the primary place where newcomers will gain
knowledge of and use organizational and work unit language on a day-to-day basis.
Stories, infomial initiations/rituals. group orientation. and social/recreational activities

31y. While formal socialization

‘—

emphasize organization- and group-speciﬁc terminolo
introduces the organization’s terminology, newcomers are likely to acquire a better
understanding of the meaning of that language through informal socialization. Chao et
al. (1994) argue that newcomers must obtain a base knowledge of organization-specitic
language in order to understand what other organizational members are communicating
to them. In addition. mentors are likely to tell newcomers what the language means and
informally tell them how to use it. Thus, this model hypothesizes:

Hypothesis 3:1nformal socialization experiences will emphasize messages about
performance proficiency, people, politics. and language more than
messages about history and organizational goals and values.

In addition to identifying the relationship between socialization experiences.

message content. and outcomes, the mediated model also makes it possible to more

clearly examine the relationship between message content and socialization outcomes.

For example, as was argued previously, prior research indicates that formal socialization

experiences generally result in decreased role ambiguity (e.g., Ashforth & Saks. 1996;

.Iones. 1986; Zarly & Tosi, 1986). but these studies have not explicitly examined message

content during socialization. It is likely that messages about role-related information will

have a greater impact on role ambiguity than socialization experiences. In particular.
newcomers who receive messages related to performance proﬁciency and language are
likely to experience lower levels of role ambiguity. Newcomers receiving information
about how to perform theirjobs adequately as the jargon ofthe organization/unit will
have greater clarity of others’ expectations and better knowledge oftask accomplishment.

Thus, this model hypothesizes:

Hypothesis 4: Performance proficiency and language messages will mediate the
relationship between formal socialization experiences and reduced role
ambiguity.

A similar argument can be made for the impact of message content on role
innovation. Again, as was mentioned previously. socialization experiences do have an
impact on role innovation, but no study has looked at the impact of speciﬁc message
content. This model proposes that messages about performance proficiency and politics
are likely to have considerable inﬂuence on newcomers’ propensity to engage in role
innovation, especially, as previously noted, several months after their initial
organizational entry (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Although individual tactics provide new
hires with fewer expectations about role performance, messages about performance

proﬁciency identify role performance parameters necessary for acceptable role

innovation. Messages concerning politics provide guidelines for acceptable behaviors

and point to key individuals who may be allies or enemies of role inntwation. Thus. this

model hypothesizes:

Hypothesis 5 .' Messages of'performance proficiencv and politics will mediate the
relationships between informal socialization experiences and increased
role innovation.

Finally, in keeping with Saks and Ashforth’s (1997) argument that certain
outcomes are more appropriately measured several months following organizational
entry, it is important to consider the cumulative impact of people. organizational goals
and values, organizational history, and work unit history messages on their commitment
to the organization. For example. people messages provide newcomers with a sense of
attachment to the group and/or organization. Organizational goals and values messages
convey the means for newcomers to judge organizational actions and to organize their
own behavior. In turn, histories of the organization and unit provide an understanding of
the firm’s past and an appreciation of the present. Together. over time these messages
create a basis for commitment to an organization. Thus. this model hypothesizes:
l'lt‘pothesis 6: People. organizational goals and values. organizatitmal history, and work

unit history messages will mediate the relationship between formal
socialization experiences and increased organizational commitment.

While the mediated model enables tests of the relative impact of socialization
experiences and messages on outcomes. the model does not consider the role of
communication relationships in shaping socialization outcomes. Further. the model

suggests that the impact of all socialization tactics is mediated by socialization content

b)
to

when some tactics such as investiture or trial-by-ﬁre may actually have a direct impact on
the outcomes (Hart et al., 1998; McCall et al., 1988). F inally. the mediated model
excludes the possibility that certain content such as history and goals have very little
direct impact on newcomer role ambiguity or role orientation. As such. the model does
not consider that some content messages only have an indirect effect.

Moderated Model. In contrast to the other models. the moderated model (Figure

 

3) posits that the effectiveness of socialization message content depends on newcomers’
relationships with their role set. In keeping with earlier criticisms of the indirect effect of
formal and informal socialization experiences. the moderated model suggests that
previous socialization tactic-outcome ﬁndings are an artifact ofcommunication messages
conveyed to new hires. Tactics are less important than what a newcomer knows. which is
in turn determined by the quality of the newcomer’s relationship with the supervisor and
coworkers.

Newcomers who are befriended by incumbents or their supervisor fair
considerably better than others who do not have access and are not given insider
information on the way the organization really works or the best way to perform a job
(Feldman, 1976; Graen & Scandura, 1987; Zurcher. 1983). High LMX relationships and
coworker supportiveness also create an environment that provides emotional support
while newcomers ﬁgure out the organization’s and job’s complexities (.Iablin. 1987; Sias
& Jablin, 1995; Stohl, 1985). In contrast, new hires who find themselves excluded from
task and social networks often become targets for pranks. ridicule. unfavorable
assignments. and unpleasant working conditions (Zurcher. 1983). Even in less extreme

cases, new hires often struggle to learn the ropes and attain satisfactory task competencies

9)
DJ

~ ‘._i

levels without the help of a cohort (F eldman, 1976). Newcomers are likely to find

supportive coworkers and supervisors with whom they have a hiin LMX relationship to

be particularly helpful in sorting through the importance of various messages and in
solving dilemmas associated with their organizational roles. Thus this model proposes
the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 7.‘ Lil/[X and coworker supportiveness will moderate the impact of
socialization message content on role ambiguity, role innovation. and
organizational commitment such that even lot-rer levels ofrole ambiguity
and even higher levels of role innovation and organizational commitment
will result from socialization message content when LMY and coworker
supportiveness are high.

While the moderator model may be very attractive to communication researchers
and others because it emphasizes the nuances of personal relationships (Fairhurst, in
press; Sias & Jablin. 1995). it omits socialization tactics. a major inconsistency with
current theory and research ﬁndings that strongly support its basis. In addition. the
moderator model provides an all-or-nothing approach to role adjustment. Those new hires
who are in high LMX relationships and have supportive coworkers will fair well
according to the model. Yet, newcomers without these beneﬁts or even in hostile settings
are known to adjust to the organization and develop high levels of performance (Zurcher.
1983; Van Maanen, 1975). Finally, the moderator model is problematic because it is not
possible to test the ﬁt of the model in comparison to the direct predictor model and the

mediating model because of the moderating relationship speciﬁed in the model.

Contributions of Examining the Three Models. Examination ofthe three models

 

makes two contributions to socialization research. One contribution is the suggestion to
examine explicitly communication messages and relationships during entry as an equal, if
not possibly better, predictor of new hires’ role ambiguity, role orientation. and
organizational commitment. While Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) model is not
without communicative aspects, they are mostly implicit. One result of this implicit
approach to communication is the neglect of the impact of role-sending efforts by the
organization and role set members in theory and subsequent research. In contrast. this
dissertation attempts to identify the beneﬁts of an explicit examination of persuasive.
informative, and supportive message sending efforts.

Another contribution of the three models is the offering of several models to
explain the unique contribution of socialization experiences and communication. Each
model suggests ways to test communication as a central feature of socialization. While
we may tell our students that information is the key to learning and communication is the
key to transmitting information, it is time to examine these beliefs in the organizational

entry setting. The three models can begin to test those beliefs.

CHAPTER 2: Methodology

Participants

Data were collected from 85 full-time newly hired managers of a major hotel
corporation during their entry period. According to Brett (1984). the entry period
generally ranges from 1 week through 6 months. Other investigatitms of newcomer
socialization experiences report sampling employees from the 3rd week through the 12'h
month of employment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Bauer & Green. 1994). Consistent with
these perspectives, the participants completed an initial survey, which focused primarily
on their socialization experiences, during their 3rd through 12th weeks of employment. A
second survey, which primarily included measurements ofthe outcome variables. was
completed by the participants six weeks after the return of the first survey. Both surveys
were paper and pencil surveys and contained a note guaranteeing confidentiality and an
addressed reply envelope in which the completed survey could be inserted. sealed and
mailed. A human subjects permission form was included and returned with the ﬁrst
survey.

Access to the hotel corporation new manager database. which included names.
work addresses. start dates, and position title, was granted after negotiations with
representatives of the corporation’s upper management. Upper management
representatives reviewed the survey items before giving ﬁnal approval to sending the
surveys to the new managers. The hotel corporation paid for the cost of mailing the
surveys as well as the return postage for completed surveys. No other financial
compensation was provided to the researcher by the hotel corporation. The researcher

agreed to provide a written report of the study’s findings for the management

representatives in exchange for access to the hotel corporation new manager database and
mailing compensation. The participants were not given a monetary incentive to complete
the survey: their participation was completely voluntary.

Initially. 201 managers were solicited. Of that number. 102 managers completed
the Time 1 survey, representing a response rate of 50.7%. 85 managers who completed
the Time 1 survey also completed the Time 2 survey, representing a response rate of
83.3%. Only those participants who completed both the Time I and Time 2 surveys were
included in the study.

In terms of demographic characteristics ofthe study’s sample, almost two-thirds
of the participants (62.4%. 9:53) were female while 37.6" o (3:22) were male. Most of
the participants (84.7%, 11:72) were between the ages of 18-24 years while the remainder
(15.3%, Q=13) were between the ages of 24-35 years. The vast majority ofthe
participants (77.6%. i_i_=66) considered themselves of a European-American background
while 9.4% (p=8) considered themselves ofa African-American background, 8.2% (g=7)
considered themselves of a Hispanic-American background. and 4.7% (3:4) considered
themselves of a Native-American background. Most of the participants (90.6%, 3:77)
had completed a bachelors degree while 4.7% (2:4) had completed a graduate or
professional degree and 4.7% (3:4) had taken some graduate or professional courses.

While the participants were all employed as managers, they represented a wide
variety of specializations within the hotel corporation and worked in one ofa number of
properties or subsidiaries. The breakdown of specializations was as follows: Twenty
percent (9:1 7) were front desk managers: 16.5% (g=14) were restaurant managers:

10.6% (g=9) were sales managers: 9.4% (g=8) were account managers: 8.2% (p=7) were

housekeeping managers: 5.9% (9:5) were event managers: 59% (QZS) were general
management trainees: 4.7% (3:4) were guest care managers: 4.7% (13:4) were catering
managers: 3.5% (9:3) were operations managers: 3.5% (g=3) were conference services
managers; 1.2% (g=1); and 5.9% (g=5) ofthe participants did not indicate a specific
specialization.

Prior to beginning work at their assigned property. all the managers participated
in a one week off-site training program. which familiarizcd them with the general
operations and culture of the hotel corporation. Once this training was completed. the
managers then began work at a specific hotel site. These hotels represented one of four
property types. The ﬁrst property type included hotels that are designed to accommodate
the needs ofthe average traveler. and 70.6% of the participants (3:60) were employed in
hotels representing this property type. The second included hotels specifically designed to
accommodate the needs ofthe business traveler. and l 1.8% ofthe participants (3:10)
were employed in hotels representing this property type. The third property type
included hotels designed for travelers who are planning to stay at a location for a longer
period of time or need additional space. and 12.9% of the participants ( 3:1 1) were
employed in hotels representing this property type. The fourth included hotels that are
designed to meet the needs of travelers who V out more luxurious accmnmodations than
the typical traveler. and 4.7% ofthe participants (3:4) managers were employed in hotels
representing this property type.

Nearly half of the participants (47.1%. 3:40) had been working in their current
position for a period of 10-12 weeks. Twenty-three participants (27.1%) had been

working in their current position for a period of4-6 weeks. while 22 articipants

(25.9%) had been working in their current position for a period of 7-9 weeks. A large
majority of the participants had not worked for the hotel corporation previously (67.1%,
g=57). Sixteen participants (18.8%) had worked for the hotel corporation for a slightly
longer period (5-12 months) than the time they had been in their current position. A
smaller number (3:12. 14.1%) had worked for the corporation from 1-5 years. None of
the participants had worked for the hotel corporation longer than 5 years. Finally. the
vast majority of the participants (90.6%. Q=77) were recent college graduates while just
4.7% (g=4) were previous full-time employees of the hotel corporation and another 4.7%
(g=4) were previously full-time employees at an organization outside of the hotel
corporation.
Instruments

Eight Likert-type scale instruments were used to measure the following variables
in this study: formal socialization experiences, informal socialization experiences.
socialization message content, role ambiguity. role innovation. organizational
commitment. leader-member exchange. and coworker supportiveness. Unless otherwise
noted, all scales used a 5 point metric ranging from I = “to a very little extent” to 5 = “to
a very great extent”. One nominal measure was used to measure socialization message
sources. Additional single-item Likert-type measures asked participants the extent to
which they (a) received socialization content messages. (b) sought out socialization
content messages. and (c) received consistent informaticm from the message sources.

Conﬁrmatory factor analysis tests of’internal and external consistency were
applied to each multi-item instrument to determine its dimensionality (Hunter, 1980:

Hunter & Gerbing, 1982). Conﬁrmatory factor analysis tests examine the internal and

external validity for each dimension measured by the scales as well as for the scales as a
whole. All retained items met the criteria for internal consistency: (a) face validity: (b)
primary factor loading of at least .4; (c) less than 5% ofthe discrepancies between
predicted and observed within-scale item correlations were outside the confidence
interval range (at p<.05): and (d) a nonsigniﬁcant sum of squared errors showing no
departure from the hypothesized unidimensional model. All retained items also met the
criteria for external consistency or parallelism: (a) items load on the factor of interest. and
(b) less than 5% of discrepancies between predicted and observed COl‘l‘ClilIlOIlS on
between-scale items were outside the conﬁdence interval (at p<.05’). Reliability of each
dimension was assessed through C ronbach’s alpha. See Table 2 for item descriptions,
factor loadings, and reliability of each scale.

Formal Socialization Experiences. Jones’ (1986) Socialization Tactics Scale,

 

composed of 30 items. was used to measure the extent to which employees perceive they
have experienced collective. formal, sequential. ﬁxed. and investiture socialization tactics
(see Table 2). Due to low reliability, the collective ((1 = .32) and formal (or = .16)
subscales were dropped from the study’s analysis. Of the remaining subscales. two out of
five items were dropped from the sequential subscale. one out of ﬁve items was dropped
from the ﬁxed subscale. one out of ﬁve items was dropped from the serial subscale. and
one out of ﬁve items was dropped from the investiture subscale. Subsequent tests of
internal and external consistency revealed that any discrepancies between the observed
and predicted correlations did not exceed 5%. and the sum of squared errors was

nonsigniﬁcant for each of the subscales (Sequential: x: (3)=.05. p>.05. or = .68;

Fixed: x2 (6)=2.13. 9205. a = .62; Serial: )8 (6):.30. p>.()5. or = .70;

40

lnvestiture: x2 (6)=.3.23, p>.05. or = .65).

Informal Socialization Experiences. An informal socialization tactics instrument.

 

composed of20 items. was created to measure the extent to which employees experience
stories. informal initiations/rituals, group orientation/norm reinforcement.
social/recreational activities, and trial by ﬁre tactics identified by Brown (1985).
Moreland and Levine (1989), Bullis and Bach (1989). and McCall. Lombardo, and
Morrison (1988). Each subscale contained 4 items for each of these tactics (see Table 2).
Confirmatory factor analyses of internal and external consistency retained three out of
four items for the stories subscale, three out of four items for the initiations/rituals
subscale, all four items for the group orientation/norm reinforcement subscale, all four
items for the social/recreational activities subscale. and all four items for the trial by ﬁre
subscale. These analyses found that the number ofdiscrcpancics between the observed
and predicted correlation did not exceed 5% and the sum of squared errors was
nonsigniﬁcant for each subscale (Stories: )6 (3)=.03. p>.05. (x = .59: Initiations/Rituals:
12 (3):.03. p>.05, or = .82; Group Orientation/Norm Reinforcement: 13(6)=1.95. p>.05.
or = .56: Social/Recreational Activities: )8 (6):.06. p>.05. (x = .87: Trial by Fire:
x2(6)=.03,2>.05,(1 = .76).

Socialization Message Content. A 30-item, modiﬁed version of Chao et al.’s

 

(1994) Socialization Content Scale was used to assess the extent to which employees
report messages about performance proﬁciency. organizational history. work unit history.
people, politics. language. and organizational goals and values being emphasized during
organizational entry. For the purposes of this study. the two history subscales were

combined into one organizational history subscale. and five items were used to measure

41

each dimension. In addition, Chao et al.’s (1994) original scale asked if participants
possessed knowledge about the content areas, but did not reflect whether messages had
been received. Consequently, as reported in Table 2 all items were reworded to better
reﬂect the extent to which information has been emphasized (through a message) about
each content area. After dropping one item from the performance proﬁciency subscale.
three items from the organizational history subscale. one item from the people subscale.
one item from the politics subscale, two items from the language subscale. and one item
from the organizational goals and values subscale. the remaining items were internally
and externally consistent and the sum of squared errors was nonsignificant ( Performance
Proficiency: 12 (6):.08, p>.05. 0t = .88; Organizational History: 12(1):.01. pl‘>.05.

or = .73: People: )6 (6):.07. p>.05, (x = .77; Politics: 13(6):.90. pi>.05. or = .71:
Language: )8 (3)=.03, p>.05. or = .87; Organizational Goals and Values: 7.2 (6):. l 2.
p>.05, or = .85).

Role Ambiguity. Rizzo, House. and Lirtzman’s ( l 970) six-item Role Ambiguity

 

Scale was used to assess the extent to which employees are unclear about their role
requirements (see Table 2). After two items were dropped. the scale passed the tests for
internal and external consistency with a nonsignificant sum of squared errors (7} (6):.21,
p>.05, or = .60).

Role Innovation. Jones’ (1986) ﬁve item Role Orientation Scale was used to

 

measure the extent to which employees engage in role innovation (see 'l’able 2). After
three items were dropped, the remaining items met the tests for internal and external

consistency with a nonsigniﬁcant sum of squared errors (12(1):.1'11. p>.()5. or = .61).

Organizational Commitment. A 10 item shortened version of Porter, Steers.

 

Mowday, and Boulian’s (1974) Organizational Commitment Scale used by Jones (1986)
assessed the extent to which employees are committed and loyal to their organization (see
Table 2). After six items were dropped, the scale passed the tests for internal and
external consistency with a nonsigniﬁcant sum of squared errors (13 (6)=2.66. p>.05.

or = .55).

Leader-Member Exchange. Schriesheim. Neider. Scandura, & Tepper’s (.1992)

 

six-item LMX Scale was used to measure the extent to which employees perceive a high
quality leader-member exchange relationship (see Table 2). After four items were
dropped. the scale passed tests for internal and extemal consistency with a nonsigniﬁcant

sum of squared errors (x2 (1)=.00, p>.05. or = .83).

 

C oworker Supportiveness. Taylor and Bowers’ (I972) four-item Coworker
Supportiveness Scale was used to measure the extent to which employees perceive their
coworkers to be friendly and approachable (see Table 2). After two items were dropped,
the remaining items met tests for internal and external consistency with a nonsigniﬁcant
sum of squared errors ()8 (1):.03. p>.05, or = .56).

Socialization Message Sources. To measure the sources of socialization

 

messages. participants were presented with six descriptions of socialization message
content (based on C hao. et al.. 1994) and asked to indicate the organization, supervisor.
coworkers. or subordinates as the primary source for each message content area (see
Table 3 for descriptions of socialization message content). Subsequently. to measure the
extent to which Socialization Message Content was obtained as the result of information

receiving or information seeking. following the six descriptions of Socialization Message

 

Content participants were first asked to indicate the extent to which they obtained each
message content area as a result of others’ initiating the information exchange
(information receiving). Participants were then asked the extent to which they obtained
each message content area as a result of their own initiation ofthe information request
(information seeking). In addition, to measure the extent to which the participants

received consistent information from message sources. participants were asked to assess

 

the extent to which the organization. supervisor. coworkers. and subordinates provided
them with information that was consistent with information provided by the other
sources. Again. participants were asked to respond to the single item. five-point Likert-
type scale adjacent each of the Socialization Message Sources.

In sum. the initial survey was composed of measures of(a) formal socialization
experiences. (b) informal socialization experiences. (c) socialization message content. (d)
the extent of information receiving, information seeking. and information consistency
from socialization message sources, and (e) demographic characteristics. The second
survey was composed of measures of (a) role ambiguity. (b) role innovation, (c)
organizational commitment. (d) leader-member exchange. and (e') coworker
supportiveness.

Analysis

Data from this study were analyzed in a number of ways. First. confirmatory
factor analysis tests assessed the internal and external consistency of Likert-type scales.
Second. descriptive statistics were computed for each variable. These statistics were
used, in part, to answer Research Questions 1 and 6. Third. a correlation matrix of formal

and informal socialization experiences was used to test Research Question 2. Fourth. a

44

series of paried t-tests was used to answer Research Questions 3 and 5. Fifth. straight
percentages with a C hi-Square test for differences were used to answer Research
Question 4.

Based on the results of the confirmatory factor analysis. a structural equation
model analysis (Hunter & Gerbing, 1982) was used to test the fit of relationships
proposed in the Direct Predictor Model and the Mediated Predictor Model. These
analyses also allowed Hypotheses 1-6 to be examined. Stepwise multiple regression was
also used to test the unique contributions of the independent variables in the Direct
Predictor Model. The impact of the moderating variables proposed in the Moderated
Model and Hypothesis 7 were not included as part of the structural equation model test
because moderator variables cannot be analyzed in a structural equation model
(Arbuckle, 1997; Hunter & Gerbing, 1982). Consequently. this model was tested through
stepwise multiple regression analyses of interaction effects by testing product terms for
potential interactions and testing the signiﬁcance of their impact (Cohen & Cohen. 1983;
Berry & F eldman, 1985). In addition, a moderator median split analysis (.laccard. Turrisi.
& Wan, 1990; Berry & F eldman, 1985) was conducted for significant interactions to
determine the direction of the moderator relationship and to provide a further test of the
signiﬁcance of the moderator relationship. This analysis dichotimizes the moderator
variable with a median split and runs separate regressions at the two levels of the
moderator. One can then identify the direction of the moderator relationship. A t-test is
then used to detect the significance of the difference between the two unstandardized

regression coefﬁcients.

45

CHAPTER 3: Results

Socialization Experiences

 

The first research question investigated the extent to which formal and informal
socialization tactics described newcomer socialization experiences. In general.
newcomers experienced more formal than informal tactics. As indicated in Table 4.
newcomers in this study reported experiencing formal socialization tactics at a moderate
level while experiencing informal tactics at a moderate to low level. Specifically. in terms
of formally designed experiences. investiture tactics were experienced most readily
(M = 4.00/5). followed by sequential (M = 3.91/5). serial (M: 3.64/5). and fixed tactics
(M = 3.36/5). Of informal. non-organizationally orchestrated experiences. newcomers
reported experiencing group orientation most often (M = 3.74/5). followed by stories
(M = 3.31/5), trial-by-ﬁre experiences (M = 2.79/5). social activities (M = 2.52/5). and
informal initiations (M =2.18/5).

Relationship between Formal and Informal Socialization Experiences

 

The second research question inquired into the relationship between formal and
informal socialization experiences. As reported in Table 4. investiture tactics were
significantly related to four of ﬁve informal socialization experiences. Speciﬁcally,
investiture tactics were significantly (p< .05) negatively related to informal initiation
(g = -.45) and trial-by-ﬁre experiences (r = -.39). but positively related to social activities
(l_‘ = .26) and group orientation tactics (r = .23). None ofthe other formal experiences
was signiﬁcantly related to more than two of the informal experiences.

In turn, informal initiations were signiﬁcantly (p< .05) and negatively related to

investiture tactics to serial ([ = -.28) and ﬁxed tactics (r = -.26). Further. trial-by-ﬁre

46

experiences were significantly (p< .05) and negatively related to serial (r = -.56) and
fixed tactics (_r_ = -.36).
Information Receivingversus Seeking of Socialization Messages

The third research question assessed newcomers’ acquisition of socialization content
primarily as a result of their active information seeking efforts or receiving information
from others. Results (see Table 5) indicated that performance proﬁciency message
content was gained equally through passive information receiving from others
(M = 4.09/5) and as the result of active information seeking efforts (M = 4.28/5).
Similarly, no signiﬁcant differences were present in how often language message content
was obtained through information receiving (M = 3.95/5) and information seeking
(M = 4.04/5). However. newcomers acquired history message content significantly more
often through information receiving (M_ = 3.88/5) than through information seeking
(M = 3.24/5). Message receiving as opposed to message seeking was also the primary
medium for acquiring message content about people (M = 4.02/5 vs. M = 3.69/5.
respectively), politics (M = 3.78/5 vs. M = 3.49/5, respectively). and organizational goals
and values (M = 4.27/5 vs. M = 3.74/5. respectively).

Primary Information Sources

 

The fourth research question asked who (the organization. supervisors, coworkers.
or subordinates) were the primary sources of information for each of the socialization
message content areas. The majority of newcomers (54.1%) identified their supervisor as
the primary source for performance proﬁciency message content while 30.6 percent
indicated their coworkers, 9.4% selected the organization. and 5.9% picked their

. . . .. . 7
subordinates as their primary source of performance prof1c1ency messages (7“ = 50.58.

\a

47

3 DE, p<.05). In contrast, coworkers were reported to be the primary source (61.2%) of
people messages while 17.6% selected their supervisor. 14.1% reported the organization,
and 7.1% selected their subordinates (x2 = 61.31. 3 DJ:, p<.05). Coworkers were also
identified by almost half (48.2%) of the participants as the primary source of politics
message content, followed by the supervisor (32.9%). the organization (14.1%). and
subordinates (4.7%) (x2 = 38.53, 3 DE. p<.05).

In terms of history and language messages, the distribution of primary
information sources was more balanced. For information on the history of the
organization, 35.3% identiﬁed their coworkers. 34.1% selected their supervisor. 20%
reported the organization, and 10.6% noted their subordinates as the primary message
source (x2 = 14.34. 3 DE. p<.05). For the primary source of information for organization-
and unit-language, 36.5% identified their coworkers. 32.9% selected supervisor. 27.1%
reported the organization. and 3.5% selected subordinates (12 = 22.44. 3 DE. p<.05).
Finally. the organization was identiﬁed as the primary source of goals and values
message information by over half of the participants (50.6%). followed by the supervisor
(40%). coworkers (8.2%). and subordinates (1.20 o) (y2 = 58.76. 3 I_)_F._D<.05).

Message Consistency

 

The ﬁfth research question investigated the extent to which newcomers received
consistent information from the organization. supervisors. coworkers. and subordinates
during organizational entry. In general, newcomers reported that their information
sources were moderately consistent with information provided by the other sources
(Organization: M = 3.84/5, S_D = .98, p = 64: Supervisor: M = 4.13/5. S_D = .97. g =64;

Coworkers: M = 4.06/5. S_D = .85, 3 =64; Subordinates: M =3.29/5. DD = .96. n_ = 63).

48

An analysis of differences in the consistency of message sources indicated that
subordinates provided less consistent information compared to other sources
(Organization vs. Subordinates: g: 3.64, p = .001; Supervisor vs. Subordinates: g = 5.35.
p = .001; Coworkers vs. Subordinates: t = 5.75. p = .001). Other differences in message
consistency between sources were not signiﬁcant.

Communication Relationships

 

The sixth research question inquired into the quality of newcomers’ relationships
with coworkers and supervisors. Both of these relationships were of a high quality.
More specifically, the participants indicated that their coworkers were highly supportive
(M = 4.21/5, SD = .73). Additionally, they also reported a high level of Leader Member
Exchange with their supervisors (M = 4.02/5, S_D = .70).

Direct Predictor Model

 

The ﬁrst hypothesis represented the direct predictor model (see Figure l), positing
that (a) informal socialization experiences. socialization messages. and communication
relationships would lead to reduced role ambiguity as well as increased role innovation
and organizational commitment and (b) formal socialization experiences would lead to
reduced role ambiguity and role innovation as well as increased organizational
commitment. This hypothesis was partially supported. In order to identify a more
parsimonious direct predictor model, a second order factor analysis was attempted to test
the presence of second order factors (e.g. formal socialization experiences) behind the
study’s variables. This analysis failed to identify the presence of any second order
factors. Subsequently, a global path analysis tested the individual links between the

variables as identified in Figure 1. Results of this analysis indicated that the direct

49

predictor model represented a good fit to the data (x2 = .45. 3 DE. 9 > .90). Three of 17
links between the predictors and role ambiguity were significant at p<.05. Three
signiﬁcant links were also present as predictors of role innovation and organizational
commitment respectively. Table 6 lists the path coefﬁcients for all predictor variables
with all outcome variables.

In an effort to identify a revised direct predictor model with a better fit to the data.
a model including only those links that were significant was tested. This model was
judged to be a better fit to the data (x2 = 13.61. 21 D_F. p > .925) than the global model as
indicated by the higher p value. Results indicated that role ambiguity was signiﬁcantly
predicted (at p < .05) by the informal socialization experience of trial-by-fire tactics
([3 =28) and by performance proﬁciency socialization messages ([3 = -.37). Politics
messages ([3 =-.21) no longer signiﬁcantly predicted role ambiguity as they had in the
original direct predictor model. Role innovation was significantly predicted by the
formal socialization experience of investiture tactics (B = -.42) and the communication
relationship variable ofcoworker supportiveness (B = .29). but the informal socialization
experience of group orientation (0 = .21) was no longer significantly predictive as it had
been in the original direct predictor model.

In turn. socialization messages of language ([3 = -.26) and organizational goals
and values (B = .22) signiﬁcantly predicted organizational commitment. The link
between the formal socialization experience ofserial tactics ([3 = -.()47) and organizational
commitment was no longer signiﬁcant as it had been in the original direct predictor
model.

To further test the direct predictor model. stepwise multiple regression was used

50

to identify which independent variables were significantly contributing to the outcomes
after eliminating those independent variables that were not signiﬁcant contributors.
These analyses yielded results that supported the revised direct predictor model. Table 7
reports the complete results of the stepwise multiple regression analyses of the direct

predictor model.

The Mediated Model

 

Hypotheses pertaining to the mediated model (Figure 2) predicted that the impact of
formal and informal socialization experiences on role ambiguity. role innovation, and
organizational commitment were mediated by the content of received socialization
messages. A global path analysis tested the mediated model and results indicated this
model to be a good fit to the data (x2 = 36.08, 45 DE. 9 > .80). Table 8 reports all the
path coefﬁcients in the test of the mediated model.

In terms of the hypotheses pertaining to the mediated model. the second
hypothesis, predicting that formal socialization experiences would emphasize messages
about performance proﬁciency, organizational goals and values. and organizational
history more than messages about people, politics. and language. was partially supported.
Fixed tactics were signiﬁcantly (at p<.05) associated with performance proficiency
(B = .27), politics ([3 = .24), and goals and values ((3 = .32) message content. Serial
tactics positively predicted newcomer’s receiving performance proficiency message
content (B = .42). but were negatively associated with language message content
(B = -.33). Investiture tactics. on the other hand, were significantly associated with
people message content ([3 = .30). Sequential tactics were not significantly predictive of

the message content areas.

The third hypothesis, which posited that informal socialization experiences would
emphasize messages about performance proﬁciency. people. politics. and language more
than messages about history and organizational goals and values. was also partially
supported. Newcomers’ experiences of stories positively predicted people ([3 = .27) and
politics messages ([3 = .25). In contrast, informal initiation experiences resulted in

newcomers receiving reduced levels of language message content ([3 = -.24). Group
orientation. social activities. and trial-by-f‘ire tactics were not signiﬁcantly related to the
reception of the message content areas.

The fourth hypothesis predicted that performance proficiency and language
messages would be more direct predictors of reduced role ambiguity than formal
socialization experiences and was partially supported by the test of the mediated model.
Speciﬁcally, performance proﬁciency messages resulted in reduced levels of role
ambiguity ( [3 = -.50) while language message content was not predictive of role
ambiguity. In turn. earlier analyses indicated that newcomers’ formal socialization
experiences were not predictive of role ambiguity.

The ﬁfth hypothesis argued that messages of performance proficiency and politics
would be more direct predictors of increased role innovation than informal socialization
experiences, and was not supported. Neither performance proficiency nor politics
message content was a signiﬁcant predictor of role innovation while group orientation
was predictive of role innovation.

Finally, the sixth hypothesis, which stated that people. organizational goals and
values, organizational history, and work unit history messages would be more direct

predictors of increased organizational commitment than formal socialization experiences.

IJI
N

was not supported. None of the predicted message content areas was significantly related
to organizational commitment. Consistent with earlier analyses. language message
content had a significant relationship, and it resulted in lower levels of organizational
commitment ([3 = -.27). On the other hand, organizational goals and ’alues messages
which had significantly predicted organizational commitment in earlier analyses was no
longer signiﬁcantly predictive at p<.05 ([3 = -.21) in this analysis.

In sum. the mediated model did not provide as good a fit to the data as the direct
predictor model due to the lower 9 value, although several mediated relationships were
identiﬁed. Additional tests did not reveal other mediated relationships between formal
socialization experiences and role innovation or organizational commitment. However.
analyses revealed a previously unspecified mediator of role ambiguity (see Figure 4). In
this case. ﬁxed and serial tactics were positive predictors of receiving performance
proﬁciency messages ([3 = .34 and .46, respectively). which along with sequential tactics
resulted in lower levels of role ambiguity ([3 = -.40 and -.22. respectively). In addition.
trial-by-ﬁre tactics resulted in higher levels of role ambiguity ( [3 = .28). This model
(:13 = .43, 4 D_. 9 >975) represented a better fit to the data than the direct predictor
model, the revised direct predictor model. or the mediated model as indicated by its
higher p value.

Moderated Model

 

The moderated model, proposed in the seventh hypothesis. posited that LMX and
coworker supportiveness would moderate the impact of socialization message content on
role ambiguity, role innovation, and organizational commitment such that even lower

levels of role ambiguity and even higher levels of role innovation as well as

U1
b)

organizational commitment would result from socialization message content. Stepwise
multiple regression analysis of the impact of the interaction between LMX and the
message content areas as well as the interaction between coworker supportiveness and the
message content areas found only limited support for this model. First. none of’the
interaction terms had a significant impact on role innovation or organizational
commitment. Second. while the interaction of performance proficiency message content
with coworker supportiveness did have a significant impact on role ambiguity ([3 = -.54)
in the direction proposed in Hypothesis 7, this ﬁnding can largely be attributed to the
strong relationship between performance proficiency message content and role
ambiguity. More specifically. when the sample was equally split between high and low
levels ofcoworker supportiveness (above and below the median). the impact of
performance proficiency message content was stronger for higher levels of coworker
supportiveness (f3 = -.64) as compared to lower levels ofcoworker supportiveness
( [3 = -.54) as proposed in Hypothesis 7. However. since the median ofcoworker
supportiveness was so high (ﬂip = 4.50, M = 4.21). there were not a substantial number
ofcases that could truly qualify as lo_w coworker supportiveness. Furthermore. the
moderator median split analysis revealed that the difference between these regression
coefﬁcients was not signiﬁcant (t = .78. 81 DE, 9 > .05). thus most ofthe impact of the
interaction term could be attributed to the inﬂuence of performance proficiency message
content.

Interaction between politics message content and LMX also had a significant. but
weak impact on role ambiguity ([3 = -.20), again in the hypothesized direction and with a

R_2 = .44. Yet. the interaction’s impact on role ambiguity could largely be attributed to

IJI
.5

politics message content. which had a signiﬁcant but weak impact only in the direct
predictor model ([3 = -.20). LMX did not signiﬁcantly impact role ambiguity in any of

the models.

CHAPTER 4: Discussion

Despite the extensive amount of research and theory in the area of organizational
socialization, the link between conceptual and operational definitions of relevant
constructs is frequently unclear and often shaky. Studies examining communication
during organizational entry assimilation often only address new hires’ structured
socialization experiences and ignore the efforts of incumbents. training. and work
experiences in shaping newcomers’ inculcation and acclimation (.Iablin. 1987; Miller,
Fritz-Harden, & Hart. 1999). This research advances knowledge of these linkages in three
important ways. F irst. this study’s ﬁndings suggest that the operational focus on
institutional tactics has been simplistic, considering the broad theoretical definition of
organizational socialization. Second. socialization experiences. whether formal or
informal. only represent a portion ofthe socialization process while communication
factors are central to the essence of organizational socialization. Third. results herein
make a strong case for future investigations to examine both informal experiences and
communication factors as central elements of organizational socialization.

In this chapter each ofthese contributions will be discussed by examining the
study’s ﬁndings. At the same time. limitations ofthis study will be discussed. Finally.
some thoughts about directions for future research will be presented.

Formal and Informal Socialization Experiences
To date, much of the research in terms of socialization experiences focuses on the
impact of the institutionalized tactics (associated with formal experiences in this study)

described by Van Maanen and Schein (1979) and operationalized by Jones (1986) (e.U

c”

Allen and Meyer. 1990; Ashforth and Saks. 1996: Black. 1992: Laker & Steffy. 1995:

Orpen, 1995). These studies argue that the absence of institutionalized tactics infers
individualized socialization experiences, which represents a major weakness in current
socialization research. In fact. if newcomers do not experience institutionalized tactics as
measured by Jones’ (1986) scale. researchers have little way of detecting the extent to
which newcomers received input and/or feedback from coworkers. had access to a set
body of training materials on computer disk or in manuals. or were truly left on their own
to ﬁgure their jobs out. In contrast, by explicitly broadening the operationalization of
socialization experiences to include both formal and informal elements and identifying
how these elements relate to each other. this study moves beyond the weaknesses
imbedded in prior socialization tactic research.

A chief contribution of this investigation is the conceptualization and measurement
of newcomers’ informal socialization experiences. New managers report encountering
moderate levels ofinformal tactics such as informal initiations. social activities. and trial-
by-ﬁre experiences. In particular, stories and group orientations are very common. ()thcr
recent investigations extend beyond Van Maanen and Schein’s ( 1979) and .Iones’ ( I 986)
frameworks. For instance. Flion and Pepermans (1998) examine the impact of a number
of“orientation tactics” on job satisfaction. Tactics include a tour ofthe department.
introduction to colleagues. explanation about task responsibilities and explanation toward
the newcomer. overview of the organization. explanation ofcompany values. explanation
of compensation. meeting with higher management. provision of safety information.
explanation of employee and union relationships, description of economic factors
inﬂuencing employee work, design of an apprentice program. explanation about job

speciﬁc rules and procedures, assignment ofa mentor. and completion of an intermediate

'JI
\l

 

 

 

 

evaluation. Likewise, Cawyer and Friedrich (1998) examine the impact ofa host of
orientation activities on new communication faculty members’ satisfaction. These
activities include departmental orientation. discussion of teaching expectations.
discussion of research expectations, discussion of available research resources.
explanation of internal and external research funding, explanation of expectations for
service. explanation of ﬁrst year progress toward tenure. explanation ofexpectations for
promotion, support from chair/director, support from fellow faculty members. support
from staff, receipt of social activities. discussion ofexpectations for departmental
citizenship, orientation to institutional and community resources. meeting with
community members. and discussion about consulting and outside activities.

While many of the above numerous actions mirror either the formal experiences
identified by Van Maanen and Schein (1979) or the informal activities identiﬁed in this
investigation, by-in-Iarge they reﬂect actions pertinent to specific occupations or
organizations and may not be appropriate for sampling a wide range of newcomer
experiences. In contrast. this investigation provides a theoretical basis for distinguishing
between formal and informal socialization experiences in such a way that subsequent
operational deﬁnitions may be used to assess the socialization ofa broad population.
Thus, while recognizing the limitations to the measurement of newcomer socialization.
this study moves beyond Van Maanen and Schien’s (1979) and Jones’ ( l 986)
institutional tactics and provides researchers with a greater array of measurement options.

A number of scholars (Chao, 1997; Jablin, 1987; Scott. C orman. & Cheney, 1998)
suggest that formal and informal socialization experiences occur in conjunction with each

other rather than in opposition to each other. In this study. newcomers do not report

58

experiencing formal and informal socialization tactics as occurring at equal levels. In
addition. with the exception of investiture tactics and a variety of informal experiences.
there are few significant correlations between formal and informal experiences. Yet. it is
premature, based on this limited sample, to suggest formal and informal socialization
experiences do not co-occur. Rather, the lack of support for their co-occurrence may stem
from this sample’s organizational context (Colarelli. 1996). Nonetheless. this study’s
findings indicate that the relative impact of formal and informal socialization may be
equally important. In several instances, both formal and informal socialization
experiences were both found to be signiﬁcant predictors of socialization outcomes.
Consequently. their importance to employee adjustment may be the more important
question to address in future research.

Several scholars (Bauer. Morrison. & Callistcr. 1998; Fisher, 1986: Saks &
Ashforth. 1997) argue that the context is likely to influence organizations" choice and the
subsequent helpfulness of socialization tactics. For example. Ashforth. Saks and Lee’s
(1998) report that mechanistic organizational structures (i.e., characterized by specialized
jobs, formalized behaviors. centralized decision making. chain ol’command
communication). organizational size, and jobs of high motivational potential are
positively associated with Jones’ (1986) institutional socialization tactics. In this
investigation, the context of a large, international hotel corporation with numerous job
specializations may contribute to new managers’ experiencing more formal than informal
socialization tactics. While research participants worked at a variety of different hotel
brands and properties. no signiﬁcant differences in responses due to hotel brands are

present. Future research should examine work contexts where informal experiences are a

pivotal aspect to socialization in order to understand more clearly the relationship
between formal and informal socialization experiences.

Formal tactics’ prominence in this study may also reflect the timing ofthe
dissemination of the survey. which came after all newcomers participated in a formal
training program. The recentness of the training program constituted a major part of their
socialization at the time of data collection. Saks and Ashforth (1997) argue that “the
structure provided by institutionalized socialization may help alleviate the debilitating
uncertainty described by URT (Uncertainty Reduction Theory” (p. 25 7). and may be
more important to newcomer adjustment during the first several months of work. It can
also be argued that formal tactics occur more frequently and more intensely at the early
stages ofemployment as organizations “front-load” their orientation programs so that
most of the structured activities occur at the beginning of newcomers’ employment
(Wanous. 1992). If the relationship between socialization experiences and outcomes are
dynamic and change over time, informal experiences grow in importance — especially as
newcomers become embedded in work units and establish relationships. It is important
that scholars follow Saks and Ashforth’s (1997) suggestion to investigate socialization
activities over multiple time periods in an effort to understand socialization’s dynamic
processes.

Communication Factors

 

The comparison of the three models of communication during socialization in this
investigation also creates a stronger link between the theoretical and operational
deﬁnitions of organizational socialization. Clearly. communication is a central feature of

any socialization act. This investigation operationalizes communication by measuring the

60

extent to which particular message content was received. the supportive relationships of
supervisors and coworkers, the sources of message content. and the extent to which
newcomers engaged in information seeking and receiving. A primary focus of the study
pertains to the test of three models that sought to explain the function oforganizational
message-sending during socialization.

Direct Predictor Model. The direct predictor model posits that communication

 

messages, along with formal and informal socialization experiences and communication

relationships, each contribute directly to newcomer outcomes of role ambiguity, role

t...‘ u' I.‘-.

innovation, and organizational commitment. As such. this model is helpful in identifying
the relative contribution of socialization experiences and communication factors to the
speciﬁed outcomes. Results indicate that elements of experiences (sequential tactics. trial
by ﬁre tactics. investiture tactics. group orientation tactics) ggd communication
(performance proﬁciency message content, politics message content. coworker
supportiveness) inﬂuence newcomers’ role ambiguity and role innovation. In this model,
communication factors are important to understanding how socialization impacts
newcomer adjustment.

Mediated Model. The mediated model posits that the impact of formal and

 

informal socialization experiences on newcomers depends upon the messages that are
communicated in association with those experiences. In other words. a fixed socialization
tactic is only as inﬂuential as the communication message associated with it. Tests of this
model and its ﬁnal version are some of the most intriguing ﬁndings of the study. The
final model, which identiﬁes the importance of performance proficiency messages in

reducing role ambiguity. provides the best explanation ofany of" the path analytic models.

61

In addition, three out of the five hypotheses for this model were also at least partially
supported, providing further support for this model.

Performance proﬁciency messages seem to be a key element in newcomers’
adaptation to their roles. Even the additional signiﬁcant links of sequential tactics and
trial-by—ﬁre experiences to role ambiguity have aspects of performance proficiency
message content. Sequential tactics tell the newcomer what he or she needs to do to
move from one role to the next. In contrast. since newcomers really do not know what
they are doing in a crisis situation, trial-by-ﬁre tactics do not provide directions for
newcomers and appear to increase their role ambiguity. These ﬁndings are not all that
surprising. If an employee receives explicit messages about how to do their job well then
he or she is going to more likely to understand his or her role.

It is possible that tactics identiﬁed in other studies primarily provide performance
proficiency message content. For example. Cawyer and Friedrich’s (I998) orientation
activities of discussion of teaching expectations, discussion of research expectations. and
such convey message content that deals specifically with performance proﬁciency for
new university professors. Cawyer and Friedrich (1998) also report that faculty are
generally more satisﬁed with the job interview than with the orientation activities.
possibly because they received more detailed performance proficiency information (such
as teaching, research, service, and promotion expectations) during the job interview than
in the orientation. Similarly, Flion and Pepermans (1998) ﬁnd that orientation tactics such
as explanations about task responsibilities and expectations help to increase job
satisfaction. These findings also build upon Chao et al.’s (1994) work. which finds that

knowledge of performance proﬁciency information has its strongest positive correlation

62

 

 

   

with identity resolution (which is similar to role clarity. the opposite of role ambiguity).
but also has positive correlations with other indicators of’career success including
personal income, career involvement, adaptability. and job satisfaction.

The importance of performance proficiency message content is also reflected in
Tierney’s (1997) interviews of over three hundred faculty in higher education, which find
that the lack of’clear-cut performance proﬁciency information in reference to

organizational expectations is one of the weaknesses of their socialization.

‘7!

One point these interviews underscore is the value and import of looking at

the implicit factors of socialization rather than the flash points that Van Maanen
noted were overstudied. With few exceptions the participants did not speak of
presidential speeches, convocations, or intensive introductory training sessions

as ways in which they learned about the organization. Instead, they emphasized
that the goals for tenure were unclear: they knew they needed to “produce”- to be
a triathlete, one person said- and that the work took a phenonomenal amount of
time. . .Grand markers that conveyed institutional meaning were absent, as were
explicit, consistent messages on a more intimate level about what really mattered.

(pp. 10-11)

if

In addition, Stohl (1986) reports that 48% of newcomers’ memorable messages deal with
the topic of role behavior and 10% pertain to evaluation. Messages related to how to
perform the role are among the most remembered and consequently. are probably among
the most important messages during organizational socialization. Consequently,
employers should consider the extent to which they convey performance proficiency
messages during entry. Employees who receive detailed information about how to
perform their tasks will be more certain of the nature of their roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978),
better adjusted (Ostroff& Kozlowski, 1992). and. most likely. more successful
employees (Chao et al., 1994; Ostroff& Kozlowski. 1992). In short. the mediated model
suggests that the information contained in the socialization messages are important

factors, not just the tactic through which messages may or may not be communicated.

Moderated Model. The moderated model posits that the impact of socialization

 

messages on new hires varies in keeping with the supportiveness of the supervisory and
coworker relationships. In other words, messages communicated by supportive focal
group members will have a greater impact compared to those sent by non-supportive
others. This model did not ﬁnd support in this study. At least two explanations may
account for the lack of support for the moderated model.

First, the study is limited by the fact that most of the participants report generally
high levels ofcoworker supportiveness and leader-member exchange. The sample is
somewhat skewed toward participants who have good relationships with both their
coworkers and their supervisors. Thus, variance in responses is limited. and it is difﬁcult
to conduct an effective test of the moderator relationship.

A second explanation is that the relationships with supervisors and coworkers are
not that inﬂuential in determining the impact of message content on socialization
outcomes. Most ofthe socialization messages assessed in this study. other than
performance proﬁciency and maybe politics, do not have a significant impact on role
ambiguity, role innovation, or organizational commitment. As such. the overall
relationship between the new employee and their coworkers and supervisors may be more
important in directly determining socialization outcomes rather than moderating the
impact ofcontent. As long as the information is received, the new employee is going to
understand their job, regardless of whom the information is from. In addition, it may also
be the case that relationships with an employee’s role set are a more important factor in
determining access to information (Stohl, 1986) than the extent to which that information

impacts socialization outcomes. which was the focus of this study. Future research will

64

need to clarify this issue by investigating the extent to which particular kinds of message
content were communicated by different sources.

Information Sources. Despite the just mentioned limitation about this

 

investigation’s inadequate examination of access to information. ﬁndings herein suggest
that coworkers are vitally important sources of information during socialization. A vast
amount of literature attests to the importance of communication between supervisors and
subordinates (e.g., Jablin, 1980; Jablin, 1981; .Iablin, 1982; Tjosvold, 1984; Wheelcss.
Wheeless, & Howard, 1984; Pincus, 1986), but research on communication between
peers in organizations is relatively new (e.g., Comer. 1991: Sias & Jablin. 1995). While
the findings ofthis investigation indicate the supervisor is an important source of
information in all the content areas with the exception of people. coworkers are equally
important source of information in all the content areas except goals and values. These
ﬁndings further support the trend toward investigating the nature of and the impact of
coworker communication.

This investigation also ﬁnds that peers are a primary source of information for
people and politics message content. Since newcomers generally operate in a work unit.
the coworkers are in the best position to indicate their acceptance into the work unit
(people). In addition, it may also be the case that coworkers are the ones who can tell
newcomers how the balance of power really functions in the organization (politics), or at
least newcomers perceive that they are the best source of that kind of information.
Newcomers may perceive the supervisor as the main source of information for
performance proﬁciency because (a) the supervisor is mainly concerned with employee

performance and (b) newcomers are concerned with the evaluation the supervisor can

65

provide and listen most intently to what their supervisor tells them about this area.
Another, notable content area concerns goals and values messages. which a majority of
the participants indicate the organization as the primary source of in formation. This hotel
corporation spends a considerable amount oftime during the formal training discussing
the goals and values of the corporation. so it is not surprising that these messages are
acknowledged. It is also not surprising that the other sources are not viewed as primary
for this content area. In other non-managerial settings. coworkers may be the best source
for newcomers to understand the “real” goals and values ofthe organization (Zurcher.
1983)

In terms of’consistency between the sources of information. it is surprising that
subordinates are signiﬁcantly less consistent than the other sources. Three different
reasons may explain this ﬁnding. First, subordinates may not have enough ofa
knowledge base to pass along accurate information to their new supervisors. Second, the
new supervisors may not view subordinates as credible sources of information and may
perceive the information received from them as less accurate. Third. this investigation is
limited in that no measure was taken of how many managers actually had subordinates
underneath them. It may be the case that only a small number did, and thus. it would be
difﬁcult to compare the results for subordinates as an information source to the results for
the other sources. The consistency between the other sources is also present in Stohl
(1986) who reports that the consistency of messages held across organizational levels

from vice-president to coworkers. However, those messages communicated informally

outside of ofﬁcial organizational channels are the more memorable ones.

66

Information Seeking vs. Information Receiving The final area ofcommunication

 

during socialization that this investigation studied is the issue of information seeking
versus information receiving. In general, newcomers engage in information seeking
during their socialization at least at a moderate level. which is consistent with what has
been found and theorized in the work of other scholars (e. g.. Miller & .lablin. 1991:
Morrison, 1993; Myers. 1998) who argue that information seeking is an extremely
important means by which newcomers obtain information. At the same time. passive
information receiving is also just as important if not more important means of obtaining
information (Ashford, 1986). In this investigation, particular kinds of information are
more likely to be communicated through passive information receiving. History and
organizational goals and values message content may be more likely to be communicated
through information receiving because they are often common topics of formal
socialization programs. People and politics message content may be more likely to be
communicated through information receiving because there are status issues involved
with that kind of information that may make a newcomer more hesitant to engage in a lot
of information seeking about those types of information. It is not as easy to ask others
whether one has been accepted into the work group or who the “real” power brokers are
in the organization due to the fear of looking “nosy” or ambitious (Miller & .Iablin.
1991). In turn, information related to performance proficiency is equally likely to be
obtained through either information seeking or information receiving. Newcomers are
often encouraged to ask speciﬁc questions related to how to perform theirjob duties well.
The same may be the case with language, which is often related specifically to the

performance ofjob duties. so newcomers may feel less hesitant to ask questions about

67

that kind of information.

Additional Limitations of the Study

 

While a number of limitations of this study are mentioned to this point. four
additional limitations merit discussion.

First, as mentioned earlier, the sample for this study was limited to new hotel
managers working for the same corporation. This sample stands in contrast to other
socialization studies that typically track graduates of business programs who work in a
wide variety of professions (e.g., Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Jones. 1986; Louis et al., 1983;
Orpen, 1995). In addition, the participants in this study were self-selected to some extent.
Although the sample was targeted by the hotel corporation and the researchers. the
participants made the decision as to whether they were going to participate or not. It is
possible that some common characteristic, such as a sense of responsibility to the
organization, led the participants to be more motivated to complete the surveys (Schmitt
& Klimoski. 1991). Consequently, the generalizability of these results to other
organizational cultures and professions is uncertain as unique characteristics of’this hotel
corporation and the participants may contribute to this study’s outcomes. At the same
time, it should be noted that the participants did work in a variety of positions and
locations. Each property has its own organizational culture. which may counter the
limitation of using one organization and provide some degree of broader generalizability.
In addition, some notable socialization studies assess employees in the same profession
and even the same organization (e.g., Black. 1992: Zahrly & Tosi. 1989).

Second, the number of subjects (N =85) limits the statistical power ofthis study to

detect potentially important. but weak relationships. The likelihood of detecting

68

statistically significant relationships increases as the sample size increases (Schmitt &
Klimoski, 1991). C onsequently, the statistical tests in this study may not have sufﬁcient
power to detect signiﬁcant. weak relationships based on this sample size (Sachs. 1984).
For example, in this study, the statistical power ofthe test to detect significant
correlations at p<.05 was equal to .52, a moderate power level (Welkowitz. Ewen. &
Cohen, 1971). It would have been preferable to reach higher power levels. which could
have been done with a larger sample size. In addition. the sample size may also
contribute to the loss of items and even variables such as formal socialization tactics.
Wide variations in responses from a small sample size are more likely to decrease the
reliability of items and scales due to increased standard errors (Schmitt & Klimoski,
1991). Yet, with regard to this particular sample, the length and longitudinal nature of
the survey may have discouraged some employees from filling it out. In addition. the
hotel corporation limited the researcher’s access to the participants to mail contact.
Telephone calls or e-mails may have increased the sample size. In a voluntary study.
more active means of encouragement may be necessary to increase the response rate
(Schmitt & Klimoski, 1991). Still, the number of participants in this study is comparable
to other notable socialization studies whose sample sizes range from 91 to 105 (e.g.,
Allen & Meyer. 1990. Laker & Steffy, 1995; Orpen. 1995).

Third, the loss of the collective and formal socialization tactics subscales limits this
study’s comparison to other socialization studies utilizing Jones’ (1986) scale (e.g., Baker
& Feldman, 1990; Black, 1992; Orpen, 1995). In this case. conf’usion on the part of the
participants over the nature of their socialization experiences may have contributed to the

loss of these subscales. For example, all the managers went through a group socialization

69

experience (i.e.. collective tactic) when they went through the one-week off-site training
program. They were surveyed after they started to work in their new positions where
they may have encountered individual socialization tactics. The lack ofclear references
to the off-site training programs or the start of work in their unit may have led to a mixed
impression of this particular aspect of their experience. creating an unreliable measure.
At the same time, this study argues that Jones’ (1986) scale represents only a portion of
socialization experiences and the measurement of other tactics may enhance our
understanding of their overall socialization experience.

A ﬁnal limitation centers around the use of a single item measure to identify
information seeking. It would have been helpful to measure specific information seeking
tactics identified by Miller and Jablin (1991) or others (Ashford 1986; Morrison. 1993).
It is possible that information about people or politics is obtained through more covert
information seeking tactics like observation, which the participants may consider to be
part of passive information receiving. Indeed, Morrison (1993) and Myers (1998) report
that newcomers use a variety of information seeking tactics. but they may use different
tactics to obtain different kinds of information. Unfortunately. the length ofthe survey
prevented the use of multi-item measures to assess specific information seeking tactics.
This study’s findings suggest that future research should examine which tactics are used
to obtain speciﬁc kinds of information. For instance. researchers should explore the
extent to which threats to newcomers’ status in obtaining particular kinds of information
influence information seeking tactics selection or sources (Miller. 1996). The distinction
between information seeking and information receiving may be a false one in that

newcomers are always seeking information during their socialization and the level of

70

activity in the seeking out that information is the most critical element.

Directions for Future Research

 

Individuals not only allow organizations and their assigned work units to influence
them, but they also contribute to their own socialization in the assimilation process by
seeking information. enacting scripts, and responding to cues l’rom supervisors.
coworkers, and other newcomers ( Louis, 1980; Miller & .Iablin. 1991; Morrison. 1993;
Ostroff & Kozlowski. 1992; Saks & Ashforth, 1997; Zurcher, 1983). Consequently.
theorists argue that communication between organizational oldtimers and newcomers
creates and then reifies structures associated with socialization (Jablin. I987; Saks &
Ashforth, 1997). This study explores the role of very definable and obvious acts of social
structuring which are considered to be the cornerstone of’employee socialization. In
focusing on organizational role-sending efforts and its communicative aspects. this work
proposes and tests a broader, alternative schema to the contextual one that dominates
current socialization research. The focus on relationships between formal and informal
socialization experiences. socialization message content. and communication
relationships within the role set provides further insight into the consequences of
organization-generated structuring activities. In particular, by examining the types of
messages received by new hires and their impact on newcomers’ adjustment. we move
closer to understanding communication as an inﬂuence during organizational entry
(Jablin, 1987).

Future research, however, should continue to identify and test the impact of a
broader range of tactics beyond those identiﬁed by Jones’ (1986). In particular. the

ﬁnding that newcomers do experience informal socialization and that those experiences

71

impact their adjustment bolster C hao’s (1997) argument about the impm'tance of informal
socialization. As this study demonstrates, further investigations of those experiences can
help to develop a more complete, testable model of socialization experiences.

This study also suggests that communication messages and relationships during
entry, compared to more traditional contextual approaches such as Van Maanen and
Schein (1979) and Jones (1986), may be substantial predictors of new hires’ role
ambiguity. role orientation, and organizational commitment. In moving beyond Van
Maanen and Schein’s (1979) approach where communication is largely implicit.
researchers are able to examine the efﬁcacy of organizational and role set members’ role-
sending efforts. Indeed, as numerous scholars (e.g., Brim & Wheeler. 1966; Feldman.
I976: .lablin, 1987; Stohl, 1986) note. information provided (i.e.. communicated) to
newcomers by role set members is a vital component to adjustment. As such, future
research should continue to investigate the acquisition and impact of socialization
message content as articulated by Chao et al. (1994). The communication models
identiﬁed in this study offer numerous possibilities for further investigation. They need
to be tested with other groups of newcomers so that the role of communication during
socialization can continue to be more clearly identified.

In addition, while this study considers six types of messages using an adapted
version ofChao et al.’s (1994) scale. other content areas may be equally important. For
example. performance proﬁciency message content may be delineated into subcategories.
Messages pertaining to the technical aspects 0f satisfactorily completing a task may only
partially contribute to achieving competencies in that task. Messages guiding newcomers

in how to develop relationships with incumbents or clients may be equally important in

 

 

 

eests that

\—

successful task performance. In fact, earlier research by Stohl ( 1986) sug
newcomers recall messages that situate themselves in their work setting in addition to
those that convey workgroup acceptance.

Furthermore, Stohl’s (1986) framework for identifying memorable messages and
even Louis et al.’s (1983) investigation of helpful socialization practices may offer other
ways to investigate communication during socialization in future research. This study
asked newcomers which messages were emphasized and then related those messages to
traditional newcomer adjustment outcomes. which is one route to identify the importance
of messages. It may be more productive to directly ask newcomers which messages they
remember best and which messages they felt were most helpful to their success as new
employees. Those questions may be better indicators ofthe importance of socialization
messages and may provide more practical recommendations for successful socialization.

Other aspects of message-sending such as source credibility also should be the
focus of future research. Prior research suggests that supervisors and coworkers vary as
sources in terms of their helpfulness (Louis. 1983; Ostroff& Kozlowski, 1992). From
new managers’ report on the lack of’consistency in messages from their subordinates. it is
plausible that these new managers did not view their direct reports as credible. However,
further investigation is warranted in this case as secretarial or administrative staff may
need to be differentiated from the broad “subordinate” category. Often these
subordinates are among the most helpful information sources (Louis. 1983) as they are
gatekeepers of’departmental information. It is likely that supervisors view the reliability
of information from subordinates differently depending on whom it is coming from.

A ﬁnal direction for future research is how individual characteristics affect the

73

perception of messages during socialization as well as newcomers’ overall adjustment.
This study investigates the extent to which newcomers engage in active information
seeking and that has been an important area of socialization research. but there are many
other individual characteristics of newcomers that are likely to impact socialization. For
example, Saks and Ashforth (1997) point out that personality characteristics. affective
dispositions. values and beliefs, needs and motives. and demographic variables are likely
to impact newcomers’ ability to learn during socialization and reduce their uncertainty.
Wanous (1992) also argues that individual factors like willingness to conform may affect
the acceptance of pivotal and relevant norms during socialization. Individual factors may
determine which messages are remembered and considered helpful. and ultimately. the
success of socialization efforts. Research to date tends to ignore individual differences
during socialization (Saks & Ashforth. 1997). but their potential impact necessitates their
investigation.

To conclude. this study’s objective was to examine the role of communication in
the newcomer socialization. Its ﬁndings suggest that communication indeed is a central
component to this process. Researchers should now focus more specifically on many of
the communication issues identiﬁed in this study such as message content and sources as
well as information seeking and consistency. They should study these issues in greater
depth and continue to more clearly identify exactly how communication contributes to
the successful adjustment of new employees. Ultimately. we can discover what it takes
to create a learned and well-adjusted employee, which both organizations and employees

would certainly like to know.

74

Endnotes
’ Taking a role-making perspective as opposed to a role-sending or role-taking
perspective (Jablin, I987; Katz & Kahn, 1978), a number of scholars (e.g., Miller &
.lablin. 1991; Morrison. 1993) also examine new hires’ information seeking and pro—
active adjustment efforts. The distinctions between role-taking. considered to be a vital
aspect oforganizational message-sending during socialization. and role-making. a
fundamental aspect of individualization, are critical to this review and the
conceptualization of the models posited. As stated earlier, our focus is on organizational
socialization (i.e.. role-sending) efforts.
2 When organizations provide inadequate or unclear role related information, newcomers
may become more proactive in obtaining role information from socialization agents
(Miller & Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1993; Ostroff& Kozlowski. 1992).
" While Van Maanen and Schein (1979) propose that divestiture socialization tactics lead
to custodial responses and investiture tactics lead to innovative responses. Jones (1986)
posits and reports the opposite result.
4 Although research has indicated the importance of upward communication. little effort
has been made to examine the role of subordinates during organizational socialization.
Research on upward communication suggests that new supervisors are likely to receive
information about subordinates’ work, unsolved work problems. suggestions for
improvement. and feelings subordinates have about theirjob and others in the work unit
(Katz & Kahn, 1978).
5 In addition, innovative responses can be viewed as newcomers’ response to role sending

efforts as they move to the role making phase of the role episode (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

References
Allen. N.J., & Meyer, JP. (1990). Organizational socialization tactics: A
longitudinal analysis of links to newcomers’ commitment and role orientation. Academy

of Management Journal. 33. 847-858.

 

Allen, T.D.. Poteet, M.L., Russell, J.E., & Dobbins. GH. (1997‘). A field study of

 

factors related to supervisors’ willingness to mentor others. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, §Q. l-22.

Ashford, SJ. (1986). The role of feedback seeking in individual adaptation: A

rrrz‘";

resource perspective. Academy of Management Journal. 29. 465-48 7.

 

Ashforth, B.E., & Saks. AM. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on

newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39. 148-178.

 

Ashforth, B.E. Saks, A.M., & Lee, RT. (1998). Socialization and newcomer

adjustment: The role of organizational context. Human Relations. 51. 897-926.

 

Baker. III, HE. (1992). Employee socialization strategies and the presence of union

representation. Labor Studies Journal, 17. 5-1 7.

 

Baker III. H.E.. & Feldman, DC. (1990). Strategies oforganizational socialization

and their impact on newcomer adjustment. Journal of Managerial Issues. 2. 198-212.

 

Baker, WK. (1995). Allen and Meyer 1990 longitudinal study: A reanalysis and

reinterpretation using structural equation modeling. Human Relations. 4E, 169-186.

 

Bauer. T.N., & Green, SO (1994). Effect of newcomer involvement in work-related

activities: A longitudinal study of socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology. 79. 21 l-

 

223.

Bauer, T.N., Morrison. E.W., & Callistcr. RR. (1998). Organizational socialization:

76

A review and directions for future research. In G.R. Ferris and K.M. Rowland ( Eds.)

Research in personnel and human resources management. (pp. 149-214). Greenwich. CT:

 

J AI Press.

Berry. W.D. & Feldman. S. (1985). Multiple regression in practice. Newbury Park.

 

CA: Sage.
Black, J .S. (1992). Coming home: The relationship of expatriate expectations with

repatriate adjustment and job performance. Human Relations. 45. 177-192.

"‘51

 

Black, J.S., & Ashford, SJ. (1995). Fitting in or makingjobs ﬁt: Factors affecting

the mode of adjustment for new hires. Human Relations, 48. 421 -437.

 

Boudette. NE. (1989, September 18). High-risk actions-with no real risk. Industry
Week 59-61.
Bowers. D.G.. & Seashore. SE. (1966). Predicting organizational effectiveness with

a four factor theory of leadership. Administrative Science Qualterly. 1 1. 238-263.

 

Brett, J .M. (1984). .Iob transitions and personal and role development. Research in

IJI

Personnel and Human Resources Management. 2. 155-18

 

Brim, O.G., & Wheeler. S. (1966). Socialization after childhood. New York: Wiley.

 

Brown, M.H. (1985). That reminds me ofa story: Speech action in organizational

socialization. The Western Journal of Speech Communication. 49. 27-42.

 

Bullis. C. (1993). Organizational socialization research: Enabling. constraining. and

shifting perspectives. Communication Monographs. 60. 10-17.

 

Bullis. C. and Bach. B.W. (1989). Socialization turning points: An examination of

change in organizational identiﬁcation. Western Journal of Speech Communication. 53.

 

273-293.

77

 

 

 

Camevale, A.P., & Gainer, L.J. (1989). The learning enterprise. Washington, DC:

 

American Society for Training and Development and Department of Labor.
Cawyer, C.S. & Friedrich, G.W. (1998). Organizational socialization: Processes for

new communication faculty. Communication Education. 47. 234-245.

 

Chao, GT. (1997). Unstructured training and development: The role of
organizational socialization. In J .K. Ford, S.W.J. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas, &

M.S. Teachout (Eds), Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 129-

 

151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

E‘: ”z“:

Chao, G.T., O’Leary-Kelly, A.M., Wolf, S., Klein. H.J., & Gardner. PD. (1994).

Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied

 

Psychology, 79, 730-743.

 

Chatman, J.A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and

socialization in public accounting ﬁrms. Administrative ScienCe Quarterly, 36, 459-484.

 

Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for

 

the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlmbaum Association.

 

Collarelli, SM. (1996). Establishment and job context inﬂuences on the use of hiring

practices. Aptﬂied Psychology: An International Review. 45. 153-176.

 

Comer, DR. (1991). Organizational newcomers’ acquisition of information from

peers. Management Communication Quarterly, 5, 64-89.

 

Duarte, N.T.. Goodson, J.R., & Klich, NR. (1994). Effects ofdyadic quality and

duration on performance appraisal. Academy of Management Journal. 37, 499-521.

 

Duncan, CS. (1986). The job aid has a future. In Introduction to performance

 

technology (pp. 125-128). Washington. DC: National Society for Performance

78

Instruction.
Enoch, Y. (1989). Change of values during socialization for a profession: An

application of the marginal man theory. Human Relations. 42. 219-239.

 

Eurich, NP. (1985). Corporate classroom: The learning process. Princeton, NJ: The

 

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Fairhurst, GT. (in press). Dualisms in leadership communication research. In F. M.

Jablin & L. L. Putnam, The new handbook of organizational communication. Newbury

 

Park, CA: Sage Press.

......g..._
If A . L _ :Pl
.

F airhurst, G.T., & Chandler, TA. (1989). Social structure in leader-member

interaction. Communication Monographs, 56. 215-239.

 

Feldman, DC. (1976). A practical program for employee socialization.

Organizational Dynamics, 51, 64-80.

 

Feldman, DC. (1989). Socialization, resocialization. and training: Reframing the

research agenda. In I. Goldstein & Associates ( Eds.) Training and development in

 

organizations (pp. 376-415). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

 

Fisher, CD. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. In K.M.

Rowland and GR. Ferris (Eds) Research in personnel and human resources management

 

(pp. 101-145). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Flion, I.A. & Pepermans, R.G. (1998). Exploring the relationship between

orientation programs and current job satisfaction. Psychological Reports. 83, 367-370.

 

F ord, J.K., & Wroten, SP. (1984). Introducing new methods for conducting training

evaluation and for linking training evaluation to program design. Personnel PsychologL

 

31. 651-665.

79

Friedman. R., Kane, M, & Cornﬁeld, DB. (1998). Social support and career
optimism: Examining the effectiveness of network groups among Black managers.

Human Relations, ﬂ, 1155-1177.

 

Gomersall, E.R.. & Myers, MS. (1966). Breakthrough in on-the-job training;

Harvard Business Review, 43(4), 62-72.

 

Goodman, N. (1985). Socialization II: A developmental view. Studies in Symbolic

 

Interaction 95-1 16.

Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T. (1987). Toward a psychology ofdyadic organizing. In
B. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 175-
208). Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.

Graham, 8.. Wedman, J .F., & Garvin-Kester, B. (1994). Manager coaching skills:

What makes a good coach? Performance Improvement Quarterly. Z. 81-94.

 

Hafferty, PW. (1988). Cadaver stories and the emotional socialization of medical

students. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 29, 344-356.

 

Hart, 2., Miller, V., & Johnson, J. (1998). The socialization of new hires and
resocialization of incumbents: The role of tactics and communication relationships.
Competitive paper presented at the 84th meeting ofthe National Communication
Association.

Hanser, L.M., & Muchinsky. RM. (1978). Work as an information environment.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, A, 47-60.

 

Hassett, J ., & Dukes. S. (1986, September). The new employee trainer: A floppy

 

disk. Psychology Today 30-36.

Hellman, C.M.. & McMillin, W.L. (1994). Newcomer socialization and affective

80

commitment. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 261-262.

 

Hollmann, R.W. (1976). Let’s not forget about new employee orientation.

Personnel Journal, 53, 244-250.

 

Ilgen, D.R., & Hollenbeck, J .R. (1990). Structure of work: Job design and roles. In

M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational

 

psychology, (Vol. 2), (pp. 165-207). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists, Inc.

Jablin, FM. (1980). Superior’s upward inﬂuence, satisfaction, and openness in

'1'
n

superior communication: A reexamination of the “Pelz Effect”. Human Communication

 

At—a—‘lm' I ah.

Research, 6, 210-221.

 

Jablin, FM. (1981). An exploratory study of subordinate’s perceptions of

supervisory politics. Communication Quarterly, 29, 269-275.

 

Jablin, F .M. (1982). Formal structural characteristics of organizations and superior-

subordinate communication openness. Human Communication Research, 8, 338-347.

 

Jablin, F .M. (1984). Assimilating new members into organizations. In R.N. Bostrom

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 8 (pp. 594—626). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

 

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: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 679-740). Newbury Park, CA:

 

Sage.

Jaccard, J., Turrisi, R., & Wan, CK. (1990). Interaction effects in multiple

 

regression. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jones, GR. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments

to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262-279.

 

81

Judah, EH. (1979). Values: The uncertain component of social work. Journal of

Education for Social Work, 15, 79-86.

 

Katz, R. (1980). Time and work: Toward an integrative perspective. In B.W. Staw &

L.L. Cummings (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 81-128). Greenwich,

 

CT: JAI Press.

Katz, D., & Kahn, KL. (1978). The social psychology of’organizations (2"d edition).

 

New York: John Wiley & sons.
Kramer, M.W. & Miller, V.D. (1999). A response to criticisms of organizational
socialization research: In support of contemporary conceptualizations of organizational

assimilation. Communication Monographs, 66, 358-367.

 

Kristoff, AL. (1996). Person-organization ﬁt: An integrative review of its

conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.

 

Laker, D.R., & Steffy, B.D. (1995). The impact of alternative socialization tactics on

self-managing behavior and organizational commitment. Journal of Social Behavior and

 

Personality, 10, 645-660.

 

Latham, G.P., Mitchell, T.R., & Dossett, D.L. (1978). Importance of participative
goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal difﬁculty and job performance. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 63, 163-171.

 

Louis, MR. (1980). Suprise and sensemaking: What newcomers experience in

unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly. 25, 226-251.

 

Louis, M.R., Posner, B.Z., Powell, G.N. (1983). The availability and helpfulness of

socialization practices. Personnel Psychology, 36, 857-866.

 

McCall, M., Lombardo, M., & Morrison, A. (1988). The lessons of experience.

 

82

d'lt‘:

1rd

Lexington Books.

McQuail, D. (1987). Functions of communication: A nonfunctionalist view. In C.R.

Berger & S.H. Chaffee (Eds), Handbook of communication science (pp. 327-349).

 

Newbury Parl, CA: Sage.
Mignerey. J .T.. Rubin, R.B., & Gorden, WI. (1995). Organizational entry: An

investigation of newcomer communication behavior and uncertainty. Communication

 

Research, 22, 54-85.

 

Miller, V.D. (1996). An experimental study of newcomers’ information seeking

behaviors during organizational entry. Communication Studies, 47, 1-24.

 

Miller, V.D., Harden-Fritz, J .M., & Hart, Z. (1999). Introducing communication
assessments into organizational socialization survey instruments. Competitive paper
presented at the 85th meeting of the National Communication Association.

Miller, V.D. & Jablin, FM. (1991). Newcomers' information seeking behaviors

during organizational encounter: A typology and model of the process. Academj of

 

Management Review, 16, 92-100.

 

Morrison, E.W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes,

sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36. 557-589.

 

Myers, SA. (1998). GTAs as organizational newcomers: The Association between

supportive communication relationships and information seeking. Western Journal of

 

Communicatiorg 62, 54-73.

 

Moreland, R.L., & Levine, J .M. (1982). Socialization in small groups: Temporal

changes in individual-group relations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.) Advances in experimental

 

social psychology (pp. 137-192). New York: Academic Press.

 

83

-.A“

Moreland, R.L., & Levine, J.M. (1989). Newcomers and oldtimers in small groups.

In P.B. Paulus (Ed.) Psychology of group inﬂuence (pp. 143-186). Hillsdale, NJ:

 

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Morrison, E.W. (1993). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on

newcomer socialization. Journal of Apined Psychology. 78. 173-183.

 

Nelson, D.L. (1987). Organizational socialization: A stress perspective. Journal of

Occupational Behavior. 8, 31 1-324.

 

Nelson. D.L., & Quick, JG (1991). Social support and newcomer adjustment in

.Ez‘:"“""’q
A ‘_ A.

organizations: Attachment theory at work?. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 12. 543-

 

554.
Orpen, C. (1995). The effect of socialization tactics on career success and

satisfaction: A longitudinal study. Psychological Bulletin. 40. 93-96.

 

Ostroff. C.. & Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1992). Organizational socialization as learning

process: The role ofinformation acquisition. Personnel Psychology. 45. 849-874.

 

Pincus, J .D. (1986). Communication satisfaction, job satisfaction, and job

performance. Human Communication Research, 12. 395-419.

 

Porter, L., Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., & Boulian, P.V. (1974). Organizational
commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover amongst psychiatric technicians. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609.

 

Posner, B.Z. (1992). Person-organization values congruence: No support for

individual differences as a moderating inﬂuence. Human Relations. 45. 351-361.

 

Rizzo. J., House. R.J., & Lirtzman, SI. (1970). Role conflict and role ambiguity in

complex organizations. Adminstrative Science Quarterly. 15. 150-163.

 

84

Rothwell, W.J., & Kazanas. H.C. (1990). Planned OJT is productive OJT. Training

& Development Journal, 45, 43-46.

 

Sachs, L. (1984). Applied statistics: A handbook of techniques. New York: Springer-

 

Verlag.
Saks, A.M., & Ashf’orth, BE. (1997). Organizational socialization: Making sense of

the past and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 51.

 

234-279.

Scandura, TA. (1998). Dysfunctional mentoring relationships and outcomes. Journal

of Management, 24, 449-467.

 

Schein. EH. (1968). Organizational socialization and the profession of management.

Industrial Management Review, 9, 1-16.

 

Scmitt, N.W. & Klimoski, RI. (1991). Research methods in human resources

 

management. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing Co.

 

Scott, C.R., Corman, S. R., & Cheney, G. (1998). Development of’a structurational

model of identification in the organization. Communication Theory, 8, 298-336.

 

Sias, P.M., & Jablin, FM. (1995). Differential superior-subordinate relations,

perceptions of fairness, and coworker communication. Human Communication

 

Research, 2_2, 5-38.

 

Staton-Spicer, A.Q., & Darling, AL. (1986). Communication in the socialization of

preservice teachers. Communication Education. 35. 215-230.

 

Stohl, C. (1986). The role of memorable messages in the process of organizational

socialization. Communication Quarterly, 34, 231-249.

 

Stohl, C.S., & Redding, WC. (1987). Messages and message exchange processes. In

85

.u ..u’a‘n
A »H_ . "
l -

F.M. Jablin, L.L. Putnam, K.H. Roberts, & L.W. Porter (Eds). Handbook of

 

organizational communication (pp. 451-502). Newbury Park. CA: Sage.

 

Taylor. F.C.. & Bowers. D.G. (1972). Survey oforganizations: A machine scored

 

standardized questionnaire instrument. Ann Arbor. MI: Institute for Social Research.

 

University of Michigan.
Tierney. W.G. (1997). Organizational socialization in higher education. Journal of

Higher Education, 68, 1-16.

 

Tjosvold. D. (1984). Effects of leader warmth and directiveness in subordinate

if“"‘“"""l

performance on subsequent task. Journal of Applied Psychology. 69. 422-427.

 

Van Maanen, J. (1975). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Edg),

Handbook of work. organization and society (pp. 67-120). Chicago: Rand McNally.

 

Van Maanen, J. (1978). People processing: Strategies of organizational socialization.

Organizational Dynamics 19-36.

 

Van Maanen. J., & Schein, EH. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational

socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264.

 

Wanous, J .P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment. selection. orientation. and

 

socialization of newcomers. (pp. 187-235). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing

 

Company.

Wexley, K.N., & Latham, GP. (1991). Developing and training human resources in

 

organizations. New York: HarperCollins.

 

Wheelcss. L.R., Wheeless, V.E., & Howard, RD. (1984). The relationships of
communicatin with supervisor and decision-participation to employee job satisfaction.

Communication Quarterly, 32. 222-232.

 

86

Widom, C .S., & Burke, B.W. (1978). Performance, attitudes. and professional

socialization of women in academia. Sex Roles, 4, 549-562.

 

Welkowitz, J., Ewen, R.B., & Cohen, J. (1971). lntroductorgstatistics for the

 

behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Zahrly, J ., & Tosi, H. (1989). The differential effect of organizational induction
process on early work role adjustment. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 10. 59-74.

Zemke, R. (1986). Off-site training. Training. 23. 56-66.

 

Zey-Ferrell, M. (1979). Environment. context. structure. process. and performance.

Santa Monica. CA: Goodyear Publishing Company.
Zurcher, LA. (1983). Social roles: C onforrnity. conflict. and creativity. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.

87

ET:?"‘-‘“‘“"El

 

Communication Relationships

LMX
Coworker Supportiveness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Socialization Experiences Outcomes

Formal Experiences ———V Role Ambiguity

Informal Experiences Role Innovation
Organizational Commitment

 

 

 

 

Socialization Content

Performance Proﬁciency
History

People

Politics

Language

Organizational Goals and Values

 

 

 

Figure 1.

Direct Predictor Model ofCommunication During Organizational Socialization

88

—. 5.4.1111.

cosmﬁﬁﬁom _§_o:mNEmw._O wEEQ :ocmoiszaau CO 6.32 @0532

 

 

 

EoEﬁEEoU EcosmNEmeO
20:39:: 20%
waEE< 20% Al

 

mos—82.0

 

 

moEa> was 2.36 Ecoumﬁsmwhmu
owmswcmq

momﬁom

Bacon

3on5

55850.5 mommEcoﬁom

2.3.50 553:3on

 

.m 95:5

89

 

 

moocotomxm EEeomE
mooaotomxm Enron

 

meager—enum— 5:35.325

 

 

 

a -3 I .. ..
ll.

 

 

EoExEEoU RaocmNEmeO
«SEES: 20m
3338... 2am

8582.9

cosmmzﬂoom 5553:8ch wEEQ cocmoﬁzﬁEoU mo .352 38532

.m 2:5

 

 

 

 

 

 

mos—Er was 286 Ecocmﬂcmwco
owmswcmq

mouzom

228m

beam;

gnome—moi ooamgotom

 

2.3.80 :czanmﬁmoem

 

 

 

mmocoztommsm Sick/cu
XS:

33223.3” =3§3==EE¢U

 

 

90

«I- F.“

 

 

bias—5. 2am

 

 

wN.

ovr

eons—2; $565000 55 HE? 3302 @2332 3.0.33”

 

 

3303. BE 3 RE.

mugging—NH—
:ﬁEﬁEBam .558:—

 

 

 

 

mouomrw .Eucoscom

328:2.an
:ozagﬁocm 35.8,.—

 

 

 

 

.Aocomomoi ooggoﬁom

2.3.30 magma—2

 

cw.

... 2%;

 

 

8:05. 3.5m

moo—522.5—
:ozgzﬁoom 35.—cm

 

 

 

 

8303. 35m

39:33:5—
=ezan=ﬁuom .553—

 

 

91

Table 1

Features of Formal and Informal Socialization Experiences

 

 

 

Formal Socialization Informal Socialization
General Characteristics General Characteristics
Structured Unstructured

Purposeful Random

Organization Level Focus Work Unit Level Focus
Tactics Tactics

Collective vs. Individual Stories

Formal vs. Informal Informal Initiations/Rituals
Sequential vs. Random Group Orientation/Norm Reinforcement
Fixed vs. Variable Social/Recreational Activities
Serial vs. Disjunctive Trial By Fire

Investiture vs. Divestiture

92

F411..." 'HJ.A‘I‘1
.. C

Table 2

Item Descriptions. Factor Loadings, and Reliabilities of Multi-Item Instruments

 

Formal Socialization Experiences Scale (Jones. 1986) Factor Loading

 

 

( 'u/lcclive versus Individual (Subscale dropped from analysis)

1. In the last six months, I have been extensively involved with

other new recruits in common. job related training activities. N/A
2. Other newcomers have been instrumental in helping me to

understand my job requirements. N/A
3. This organization puts all newcomers through the same set of

learning experiences. N/A
4. Most of my training has been carried out apart from other

newcomers. (R) N/A
5. There is a sense of“being in the same boat" amongst newcomers

in this organization. N/A

Formal versus Informal (Subscale dropped from analysis)

6. I have been through a set of training experiences which are

speciﬁcally designed to give newcomers a thorough knowledge

ofjob related skills. N/A
7. During my training for this job. I was normally physically apart

from regular organizational members. N/ A
8. I did not perform any of my normal job responsibilities until I was

thoroughly familiar with departmental procedures and work methods. N/ A

C). Much of my knowledge has been acquired informally on a trial and
error basis. (R) N/A
10. I have been very aware that I am seen as “learning the ropes" in this
organization. N/A

Table 2 (cont.)

Item Descriptions, Factor Loadings. and Reliabilities of Multi-Item Instruments

 

 

Sequential versus Random Factor Loading
11. There is a clear pattern in the way one role leads to another

or one job assignment leads to another in this organization. .71
12. Each stage of the training process has, and will, expand and

build upon job knowledge gained during the preceding stages

of the process. 53
13. The movement from role to role and function to function to
build up experience and a track record is very apparent in this
organization. .71
14. This organization does not put newcomers through an identiﬁable
sequence of learning experiences. (R) Item dropped
15. The steps in the career ladder are clearly speciﬁed in this
organization. Item dropped
Fixed versus Variable
16. I can predict my future career path in this organization by
observing other people’s experiences. .42
17. I have a good knowledge of the time it will take me to go through
the various stages of the training program in this organization. .76
18. The way in which my progress through this organization will
follow a ﬁxed timetable of events has been clearly communicated
to me. .45
19. I have little idea when to expect a new job assignment or training
exercise in this organization. (R) .56
20. Most of my knowledge of what may happen to me in the future
comes informally, through the grapevine, rather than through
regular organizational channels. (R) Item dropped

94

Table 2 (cont.)

Item Descriptions. Factor LoadingsZ and Reliabilities of Multi-Item Instruments

 

 

Serial versus Disjunctive Factor Loading
21. Experienced organizational members see advising or training

newcomers as one of their main job responsibilities in this

organization. .69
22. I am gaining a clear understanding of my role in this organization

from observing my senior colleagues. Item dropped
23. I have received little guidance from experienced organizational

members as to how I should perform my job. (R) .66
24. I have little or no access to people who have previously performed

my role in this organization. (R) .47
25. I have been generally left alone to discover what my role should be

in this organization.(R) .62

Investiture versus Divestiture

26. I have been made to feel that my skills and abilities are
very important in this organization. Item dropped
27. Almost all of my colleagues have been supportive ofme
personally. .73
28. I have had to change my attitudes and values to be accepted in
this organization. (R) .58
29. My colleagues have gone out of their way to help me adjust to
this organization. .48
30. I feel that experienced organizational members have held me at
a distance until I conform to their expectations. (R) .49

95

Table 2 (cont.)

Item Descriptions. Factor Loadings, and Reliabilities of Multi-Item Instruments

 

Informal Socialization Experiences Scale

 

 

Stories Factor Loading
1. Stories that are passed down from incumbent employees to

newcomers are very important in this organization. .55
2. I have heard a lot of stories from “oldtimers” about things that

have happened in this organization. Item dropped

1 have learned a lot about the organization and my job from stories

Lu

that have been told to me. .52
4. Stories are frequently passed on from oldtimers to newcomers in
this organization. .64

Informal Initiations/Rituals

5. In this organization. new employees must pass certain “unofficial
tests” before they are accepted as full members. ’ .77
6. This organization has many informal initiations and rituals. Item dropped
7. New employees must complete “unofﬁcial tests" before they are
accepted into the organization. .88
8. Informal initiations and rituals have been a part of my socialization
into this organization. .69

Group Orientation/Norm Reinforcement

9. My coworkers have been active in socializing me into the

work unit. .78
10. It is very important to learn the rules and norms of my work unit. .48
1 1. Members of my work group have primarily been responsible for

socializing me to the work norms and values. .49
12. My interactions with workgroup members have taught me much

about the “ropes” of the organization. .47

96

Table 2 (cont.)

Item Descriptions. Factor Loadings. and Reliabilities of Multi-ltem Instruments

 

 

Sueial/Recrealional A etivities F actor Loading
13. I hang out after work with my coworkers. .89
14. I often meet other employees outside of work for social
activities. .87
15. I participate in outside-of-work recreational activities with
other employees. .89
16. I often do things with other employees outside of work hours. .55

Trail- By- Fire

17. I am given job assignments for which my formal training did
not prepare me. 55
18. There is a lot oftriaI-by-ﬁre learning in thisjob. .75
19. Newcomers are thrown into sink-or-swim situations in this job. .66
20. I’ve learned more about the organization from dealing with crises
than from formal training experiences .70

Socialization Message Content Scale* (adapted from Chao et al.. 1993

 

Please indicate the extent to which the following information has been emphasized since
joining the organization.

Performance Proficiency

1. “The ropes" of your job. Item dropped
2. How to successfully perform your job in an efﬁcient manner. .71
3. The required tasks of your job. .89
4. The appropriate skills and abilities necessary to successfully
perform your job. .78
5. All the duties your job entails. .85

97

Table 2 (cont.)

Item Descriptions. Factor Loadings. and Reliabilities of Multi-Item Instruments

 

 

Organizational llisun'y Factor Loading
6. The organization’s customs and rituals. Item dropped
7. The organization’s long-held traditions. Item dropped
8. The history of your organization. Item dropped
9. The history behind your work unit. .77
10. The background of your work unit. .77
People
1 1. That your coworkers are your friends. .71
12. Invitations to social gatherings given by other people in the

organization. Item dropped
13. You are “one of the gang.” .73
I4. Invitations to be a member of informal networks or gatherings

within this organization. .59
15. That most of your coworkers like you. .67
Politics
16 How things “really work” on the inside ofthis organization. .64
17. Who the most inﬂuential people are in your organization. .53
18. Explanations of the politics in your organization. .73
19. What needs to be done in order to get the most desirable

assignments in your area. .56
20. The people in this organization who are most important in

getting work done. Item dropped

98

Table 2 (cont.)

Item Descriptions. Factor Loadings. and Reliabilities of M ulti-ltcm Instruments

 

 

Language Factor Loadiig
21. The specialized terminology and vocabulary of your

trade/profession. .91
22. This organization‘s slang and special jargon. Item dropped
23 The meaning of this organization‘s abbrexwv'iations and acronyms. .71
24. The meaning ofspeciﬁc words and jargon in your

trade/profession. .88

The meaning of most acronyms and abbreviations used in
your trade/profession. Item dropped

IQ
UI

Organizational Goals and Values

26. The goals ofthis organization. .80
27. The values ofthis organization. .80
28. What a good representative of your organization would
be like. Item dropped
29. The ideology of your organization. .69
30. This organization's mission. .79

*All items ofthis scale were modiﬁed for this study.

99

Table 2 (cont.)

Item Descriptions. Factor Loadings. and Reliabilities of Multi-Item Instruments

 

 

 

 

Role Ambiguity Scale (Rizzo. House. & Lirtzman. 1970) Factor Loading
1. I feel certain about how. much authority I have. (R) .40
2. Clear, planned goals and objectives exist for my job. (R) .70
3. I know that I have divided my work time properly. (R) .47
4. I know what my job responsibilities are. (R) Item dropped
5. I know exactly what is expected of me. (R) Item dropped
6. Explanations of work assignments are clear. (R) .70
7. Clear, planned goals and objectives exist for my work

unit. (R) Item dropped

Role Orientation Scale (Jones, 1986)

 

1. I have made an attempt to redeﬁne my role and change what

I am required to do. . .68
2. While I am satisﬁed with my overall job responsibilities. I have

altered the procedures for doing my job. Item dropped
3. I have changed the mission or purpose of my job. .68
4. The procedures for performing my job are generally appropriate

in my View. (R) Item dropped
5. I have tried to change the procedures for doing my job and to

institute new work goals. Item dropped

100

Table 2 (cont.)

Item Descriptions. Factor Loadings. and Reliabilities of Multi-Itcm Instruments

 

Organizational Commitment Scale

 

(Porter. Steers. Mowday, & Boulian, 1974) Factor Loading

 

 

IQ

'JJ

10.

I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization
to work for. .45

I feel very little loyalty to this organization. (R) Item dropped

I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep
working for this organization. Item dropped

I am proud to tell others that I am part ofthis organization. Item dropped

I could just as well be working for a different organization as long
as the type of work was similar. (R) .76

It would take very little change in my present circumstances to

cause me to leave this organization. (R) .55

I am extremely glad I chose this organization to work for over

others I was considering at the time I joined. Item dropped
There is not much to be gained by sticking with this organization
indeﬁnitely. (R) Item dropped
For me. this is the best of all possible organizations for which to

work. Item dropped
Deciding to work for this organization was a deﬁnite mistake on

my part. (R) .47

101

Table 2 (cont.)

Item Descriptions. Factor Loadings. and Reliabilities ofMulti-Item Instruments

 

Leader-Member Exchangg Scale
(SchriescheimgNeidegcandura, & Tepperi 1992) Factor Loading

 

 

 

*Responses varied for each item and are indicated below the item

1. The way my supervisor sees it. the importance of my job to
his/her performance is: ° Item dropped

(5) Very Great - it critically affects his/her performance

(4) Great

(3) Moderate

(2) Somewhat

(1) Slight to none - it has little effect on his/her performance

R)

My supervisor would probably say that my work goals
and his/hers are: .84

(5) The same
(4) Similar
(3) Unrelated
(2) Different
(1) Opposite

On my present job. this is how I feel about the way my
supervisor and I understand each other: Item dropped

2»)

(5) Very satisﬁed

(4) Satisﬁed

(3) Undecided or neutral
( 2) Dissatisﬁed

(1) Very dissatisﬁed

4. The way my supervisor sees me. he/she would probably say
that my ability to my job well is: Item dropped

(5) Exceptional

(4) Good to very good
( 3) Average

(2) Below average

(1) Poor

102

Table 2 (cont.)

Item Descriptions, Factor Loadings. and Reliabilities of Multi-Item Instruments

 

Leader-Member Exchange Scale (cont.)
(Schriescheim, Neider, Scandura, & Tepper. 1992) Factor Loading

 

 

 

5. I feel that my work goals and those of my supervisor are: .84

(5) The same
(4) Similar

( 3) Unrelated
( 2) Different
(I) Opposite

6. On my present job, this is how I feel about the way my
supervisor and I understand each other: Item dropped

(5) Very satisﬁed

(4) Satisﬁed

(3) Undecided or neutral
(2) Dissatisﬁed

(1)Very dissatisﬁed

C oworker Supportiveness Scale (Taylor & Bowers. 1972)

 

I. How friendly or easy to approach are the members of your
work unit? .64

2. When you talk with members of your work unit. to what extent
do they pay attention to what you’re saying? Item dropped

b.)

To what extent are members of your work unit willing to listen to
your work related problems? Item dropped

4. To what extent do members of your work unit communicate work
related information to you? .64

103

Table 3

Item descriptions for information sources, seeking and receiving instruments

Information Source, Receiving, and Seeking

 

Below are listed types of information typically received by new employees. Next to each
type of information, circle the primary source of this information since you have been in

this organization.

Next, indicate the extent to which you obtained this information as a result of the other
person initiating the information exchange (i.e., giving you the information), or as a result
of your initiating the information request (i.e., your seeking out the information).

 

 

 

 

EXAMPLE: If your supervisor was the primary source if information aHout your
organization 's health insurance coverage and you obtained this information as a
result of your supervisor ’s extensive eﬂorts to inform you while you also exerted
some effort to obtain this information, you would respond asfollows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Primary Giving You Your Seeking Out
Type of Infonnation Source Information the Information
1.Information on your Organization 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
organization’s Supervisor
health insurance Coworker
coverage. Subordinates
(Circle one)
Primary Giving You Your Seeking Out
Type ofInformation Source Information the Information
1. Information about how Organization 1 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5
to perform the tasks Supervisor
necessary to do your Coworker
job Subordinates
(Circle one)
2. Information about your Organization 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
organization’s and work Supervisor
unit’s past. Coworkers
Subordinates
(Circle one)
3. Information indicating Organization 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

your acceptance into
your work unit.

Supervisor

Coworker
Subordinates
(Circle one)

104

Table 3 (cont.)

Item descriptions for information sources. seeking and receiving instruments

 

 

 

Primary Giving You Your Seeking Out

Type of Information Source Information the Information
4. Information about Organization 1 2 3 4 5 I 2 3 4 5

formal and informal Supervisor

work relationships Coworker

as well as power Subordinates

structures within (Circle one)

your organization.
5. Information about your Organization 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

profession’s technical Supervisor

language as well as Coworker

jargon which is unique Subordinates

to your organization. (Circle one)
6. Information which Organization 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

provides an Supervisor

understanding of the Coworkers

rules or principles that
maintain the integrity of
your organization.

Subordinates
(Circle one)

105

-i""

53 ...-Emma .0 mm. H m
8.3 .5805 .0 mm. H m

 

8.- 8.- 8. 3. 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 8.- :.- 8. 8. 8.- 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8... ...EEoo.8.

of 2. S.- tr 3.. mo.. 3.- 2.- $.- ow. mo. mt mm. 2. om..- 2.. cm.-
mwr 3.- 3.- 8.. mar wmr Km... 5.. mv. NT 9.. 3.

..- 8. 8. 2. t. 8.
8. 8.- 8. 8.

8. 8. 8.

-.. 8. 8.

8.

NF.
8.
mm.
mm.
mv.
mm.

or.
3.
mm.
3..
mm.
3..
me.

o—r m—. we. mvr mF. mm. mm
No. oo- mor mo. Nor me. or.
Nmr mo. vm. emu NF. Fe. Km.
mpr mF. om. nmr mo. om. co.
wmr NF. NF. mFr om. mm. om.
Nmr mm. KN. ﬁve mm. NV. am.
mwr mop mF. o—r om. mm. ow.
vvr no. mP. mpr oo- mm. om.

S. 3.- mm.. 3.-

mo.
3.
ma.

2.-8. 8. 8.8 8.28.2.
8.8. 8. 8.8 50.88:
8. 8. 8. 8... 8882:.
8. 8. 8. 8... 82:8.
8. 8. 8. 8... 88.8.
8. 8. 8. 8.8 8883.3.
8. E. 8. :8 8....85.
8. t. 8. 8.8 8.88.8:
8. 8. 8. 8.8 Serf.
3.. 8. 8. 8.8 8588.2.

8. 8.- 8. 3. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.8. 8. 8.8 28-3.85.

am. 8. No; om. mo.

-.. 8. 8. 8. 8.-
8. 8.- 8.- 8.-
8.- 8.- 2.-

..- mm.

C.
3.

mm.
3.

68:38:38.5..3:2§:::o: a. a. E a. E .... a .8.

8. 8. m: 8.8 ..8 .88 a.
3. 8. 8. :8 .880 .38
8. 8. 8.. 8.8 ...... .28.... a.

8. 8. 8. 8.8 888.8.
8. 8. 8. 8... 22.88:...
8. 8. 8. 8.8 .885
8.. 8. 8. 8.8 BEE

i 8. E. 8.8 8888:.

E e 8 s. 28...;

 

22.38.00 98 mm_.__5m__om 8:28:85 82885 .282 man-HES

v 2an

106

Table 5

Results of Paired T-tests Between the Means of Passive Information Receiving and

Active

Information Seeking for Each of the Message Content Areas

Message Content Area

 

Information Receiving lnlormation Seeking

 

 

Mean and Standard Deviation Mean and Standard Deviation

Performance Proficiency M = 4.09 Sl)_= .93 M = 4.28 SQ = .93

History

People

Politics

Language

Goals and Values

(t=-l.33-Q=.l9)

M=3.88 S_D=.92 154:3.24 sn=|.13

(t = 4.20. 9 = .00)

M=4.02 SD=l.12 M=3.69 SD=l.l3

 

M=3.78 SD=-97 M=3.49 19:96

54:395 so=1.12 14:41.04 §I_)_=l.()2

 

m=427 g: .85 M=3.74§Q= 1.04

107

Table 6

Path Coefﬁcients for Direct Predictor Model

 

Role Ambiguity Role Innovation Organizational Commitment

 

 

Predictor Variables

 

Formal Socialization

Experiences

Sequential Tactics -.16 -.01 .12
Fixed Tactics --05 -.11 .03
Serial Tactics -.07 -.04 -.31*
Investiture Tactics -.14 --32* -.03

Informal Socialization

Experiences

Stories Tactics .10 -.05 .03
Informal Initiation Tactics -.19 .21 .17
Group Orientation Tactics -.08 .23* -.17
Social Activities Tactics -.Ol .05 .03
Trial by Fire Tactics .28* -.17 -.20

Message Content Areas

Performance Proficiency -.23* -.02 .21
History .02 -.13 .03
People .03 -.02 -.15
Politics -.29* .16 .03
Language .01 -. 15 -.32*
Goals and Values .1 1 .00 .22*
*p < .05

108

Table 6 (cont.)

Path Coefﬁcients for Direct Predictor Model

 

Role Ambiguity Role Innovation Organizational Commitment

 

 

Predictor Variables

 

Communication
Relationship Variables

LMX -.05 -.01 .04
C oworker Supportiveness -.17 .32* .15
*p < .05

109

Table 7

Stepwise Multiple Regression Results of the Direct Predictor Model

 

Role Ambiguity as the Outcome Variable

 

37; = .54

Predictor Variable [3 I
Trial by Fire Tactics .28 3.24
Performance Proﬁciency

Message Content -.28 -2.59
Sequential Tactics -.21 -2.5 1

Politics Message Content -.20 -2.17
C oworker Supportiveness -.16 -2.04

Role Innovation as the Outcome Variable

 

R: = .21
Predictor Variable Q I
Investiture Tactics -.42 -4.03

C oworker Supportiveness .29 2.88

Group Orientation Tactics .21 2.08

Signiﬁcance ofT

 

.00

.01

.01

.04

Significance ofT

 

.00

.01

.04

Organizational Commitment as the Outcome Variable

None of the predictor variables reached a I value that was significant.

110

no.-

no.-

2.

$.-

2.

M2.

835/ was

2.80

owmzaosﬂ

823

3.

mo.

5.-

no.

00.-

D_moom

mo.-

5.-

no.

3.

3.

Z.

0—.

.2.

f.

2.-

8. v m...
888. 2E E 35

5.- 853- moE>co< 309m

3.

mo.

no.

moses-r .Eozo 95.5
mucus-r .2: .3585

mucus-w motowm

mmutmtmamﬁm :SEmtEuoh Eatosxs

mo.-

mocumh 23:ng
meson;- Etom
moron-H voxE

meson-r Essa—com

amummEmQ-Hm aotcwtcwucm. 2::an

 

>8me cmocﬂomoi
BEE—£8;

 

 

853:3 88:55

 

382 858: .é aceoaooo as

w 033-

111

2.

 

wGOmﬁ—HWEF—OU

 

88338890

2.
mo.
3.-

S.-

:o:w>0::~
2cm

m0. V NF.

8.. 823/ 98 2.80
mo. owmzmswq
w _ ... mouzom
mo: 28me
oo.- >835
*Omr homomomoi 885820;

89% 28:80 8.3.3:

 

583293 852:; 89060.5
08%

 

8.82 38632 8% £88580 53

953 w 2ng

112

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

3 1293 02102 1823