_
=
~
—
h
—
_
—
—
—
_
—
—
—
‘
=

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

The Socialization of Newcomers

to the Work Setting

presented by

Russell C. Barnes

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Arts degreein Psychology

(7

Major professor

Date 5-12-83

 

0-7639

 

 

MSU

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from

 

 

LIBRARIES
“ your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.
“““¥I==!u.
"'3’ i

.. ,: M
6 V {I

~J
\I
K)

 

 

THE SOCIALIZATION 0F NENCOMERS
TO THE WORK SETTING

By

Russell C. Barnes

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1983

ABSTRACT

THE SOCIALIZATION 0F NENCOMERS
TO THE WORK SETTING

By

Russell C. Barnes

This thesis focuses on the influence of informal interactions on
the amount of time newcomers later spend working on tasks. Further, it
investigates the influence of newcomer proaction on their eventual
adjustment to the new work setting.

Observational data was collected on 26 male and female participants
spanning a twelve week period. The participants were newly hired to one
of the following organizations: (a) a large midwestern university,

(b) a large dry goods department store, and (c) a midwestern health
maintenance organization.

It was found that large amounts of informal interactions during
early work experiences were not a significant factor to consider in
regards to facilitating the quantity of time a new worker will later
spend working on task related matters. Informal interactions were also
negatively related to how adjusted newcomers felt while formal inter-
actions were positively related. Proactive behavior was not connected
to feelings of adjustment. Further research was recommended to clarify

issues raised by this research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank several people for their invaluable help:
Ben Schneider, Mary Zelesny, and Neal Schmitt for their wisdom and
guidance; Beth Shapiro for her understanding. I would also like
to posthumously thank my parents for their decision to make my
life possible. Finally, I thank the process of life for shaping

my spirit.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES ......................... 1V
LIST OF FIGURES ........................ v
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ....................... l
Socialization: General Issues ............ 2
Recurrent Research Themes .............. 2
The Context of Socialization: Preadult vs.
Adult ....................... 4
Socialization: The Work Setting ........... 5
Role Theory ..................... 7
Four Stages of Role Acquisition ........... lO
CHAPTER 2
METHODS .......................... l8
Sample ........................ lB
Task Coding ..................... l8
Relationship Coding ................. 21
Adjustment ...................... 24
Coders ........................ 26
Analyses ....................... 27
CHAPTER 3
RESULTS .......................... 29
Dependent Variable Reliability ............ 29
Hypotheses land 2 .................. 32
Post-hoc Analysis .................. 36
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION ........................ 42
REFERENCES ........................... 50

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
l. Intercoder Reliability .................. 30
2. Item Correlation Matrix for the Semantic Differential . . 33

3. Informal Interaction and Time Spent Working on Non-Task
Matters ......................... 40

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
l. Task Coding Form ..................... 19
2. Relationship Coding Form ................. 23
3. Self-Report Measure ................... 25

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

In past years, an abundance of literature has been produced in the
social science disciplines regarding the processes of socialization.
Traditionally, the view has been held that significant socialization
experiences only took place during childhood. However, this view has
shifted rapidly as researchers have accumulated an extensive body of know-
ledge suggesting that meaningful socialization experiences also occur
during adulthood (Becker, 1970; Clausen, 1972; Inkeles & Smith, 1974).
Some of the varied areas of interest in adult socialization include
life-span development (Goulet & Baltes, 1970; Neugarten, 1968a), the
midlife crisis (Brim, 1976; Levinson, 1977; Levinson et a1., 1974),
aging (Bengston, 1973; Blau, 1973; Rosow, 1974), education (Becker et a1.,
1961), occupations (Moore, 1969), and the family (Hill & Aldous, 1969).
The emphasis of this paper will focus on organizational socialization.

According to Schein (1968), organizations socialize their new
members by creating a series of events which serve the function of un-
doing old values so the new hire will be prepared to learn new values.
This process of undoing or unfreezing is often unpleasant and requires
strong motivation (on the part of the newcomer) or strong organizational
forces to make the new person endure it. As it stands, the formation and
utilization of peer groups can strongly enhance the socialization process

of peer group norms support organizational norms.

Socialization: General Issues

Socialization, be it of the childhood or adulthood variety, has
a dual perspective in that it must be viewed from the vantage of the
group as well as the individual (Clausen, 1968). From the standpoint of
the group, socialization may be thought of as a mechanism through which
new members learn the values, norms, knowledge, beliefs, and the inter-
personal and other skills that facilitate role performance and further
group goals. By contrast, the socialization process of an individual
learning to participate in the work setting of the organization, and
interactions (with others, physical work conditions, task, and social)
related to the work setting, requires minimally stable and predictable
behaviors on the part of the newcomer. The process does not include all
changes in personality and behavior that occur in response to an infinite
number of stimuli, rather, the focus of the process refers only to the
learning that is relevant to social behavior and/or role enactment
necessary for a smooth articulation between the new hire and his or her

work setting.

Recurrent Research Themes

There appear to be two predominant themes which surface repeatedly
during research of socialization in the post-adolescent phases of life.
The first theme concerns the degree of consistency in personality and
social behavior as individuals move through age-graded social roles and
groups (Brim, 1968, 1970; Gerth & Mills, 1953; Haan, 1972; Mortimer &
Simmons, 1978). Research findings on this perspective range from the
claim that personality is completely shaped during early childhood to

the belief that individuals are completely malleable throughout their

3
life span. However, the most popular belief assumes an intermediate
position on the continuum, arguing that the core personality is
established early in life while more specific changes occur later in
response to acquisition of new group memberships and exposure to
differently structured social situations (Brim, 1966; Cottrell, 1969).
Kuhn and Schooler (1978) provide evidence that indicate long-term per-
sonality consistency for intellectual flexibility was stable (over a ten
year period) while other data generated in the same study demonstrate
the propensity of adults to change in response to a change in their en-
vironment. Similarly, Maas and Kuypers (1974), in tracing the personality
of parents between middle adulthood and old age found overall stability
over time. However, their data also support the position that changes
in social contexts (divorce or widowhood) are highly influential in
shifting patterns of social behavior in later years. Overall, a number
of other researchers have also noted that the scope of individual change
in later years is determined by the amount of change in social situations,
role demands, and challenges encountered throughout one's lifetime
(Elder, 1974; Fendrich, 1976; Moss & Kagan, 1972; Newcomb, 1967; Renshon,
1974).

The second major theme, regarding adult socialization, concerns the
difference between childhood/adolescence and adult socialization.
Differences between these socialization periods are usually analyzed in
terms of content, context, and the typical response set of the newcomer.
In terms of content (Brim, 1966), childhood socialization is concerned
with the regulation of biological drives; adolescence, with the develop-
ment of values and self-image (Simmons et a1., 1973); while adult

socialization is seen as involving more overt and specific norms and

4
behaviors (e.g., work related roles). In addition, it has been suggested
that preadult socialization involves learning new information and that
the fecus of this stage is more idealistic than the more realistic focus
of adult socialization which is subjected to daily pressures (e.g., work
related stress). Adult socialization, then, appears to be more mundane,
involving the integration of what has been learned early on in the life
process and the development of modes of reconciling contradictory normative

standards (Clausen, 1968; Cottrell, 1969; Riley et a1., 1969).

The Context of Socialization: Preadult vs. Adult

When the context of socialization is analyzed, preadult socialization
clearly occurs within the family, peer group, or the school. Consequently,
the newcomer assumes the role of learner in these affectively charged
situations. Similarly, adulthood socialization also shares these same
aspects as many of adult situations (apprenticeship programs, professional
schools, etc.) are affectively charged, occur in the same contexts, and
the newcomer assumes the role of a student. Thus, two primary contextual
distinctions between adult and childhood socialization are: (a) an
extensive amount of socialization occurs after the newcomer has assumed
full incumbency of the role (e.g., after being hired into the organization),
and (b) there is greater likelihood of more formal secondary relationships
(as with occupational superiors, co-workers, clients/customers, and
other organizational members) in adult socialization (Mortimer & Simmons,
1978).

Finally, adult and preadult socialization are distinguished by the
typical response of the learner. For example, owing to the adult's
considerable socialization experience, he may have more clearly defined

expectations, hence, one could expect a greater amount of resistance to

5
change in the new socialization experience of an adult than in the more
malleable preadult (Brim, 1968; Goslin, 1969; Riley et a1., 1969; Rosow,
1974; White, 1952). It follows that much of the socialization which goes
on in adulthood is selective, self-initiated and voluntary (Brim, 1969;
Cottrell, 1969). Further, owing to the extensive repertoire that the
adult has come to master via earlier socialization attempts, the adult
is more able to resist involuntary socialization attempts (Brim, 1968;
White, 1952) and find a role which is more congruent with their past

socialization experiences.

Socialization: The Work Setting

To date, there have been extensive efforts, by researchers, to
develop a viable concept of the adult socialization process. The product
of this intensive energy expenditure can be seen in the number of
theories this labor has produced. Identification theory (Bandura, 1969;
Block & Haan, 1971: 257-58; Dager et a1., 1976; Rosow, 1974), generali-
zation theory (Inkeles & Smith, 1974; Kanter, 1977a; Kohn, 1969; Kohn &
Schooler, 1973; Schooler, 1972; Seeman, 1967), symbolic interactionism
(Bengston & Acoek, 1977; Cottrell, 1969; Greer, 1972; Van Maanen, 1976),

exchange theory (Homan, 1961), and role theory (Brim, 1966; Merton, 1957;
Turner, 1974: 160-76) are the predominant theoretical approaches to adult
socialization.

Identification theory assumes a strong affective relationship between
the role model and the newcomer. Under this assumption, the newcomer is
perceived as dependent and having a strong emotional attachment to the
role model. In fact, the attachment is so strong that the newcomer

emulates the model's behavior. Rosow (1974) suggests three elements to

6
this model of socialization: (a) cathexis of the role, (b) identification
with a real or ideal model, and (c) introjection of the model's values.
In adapting the identification theory to an organizational socialization
setting, the loose bolt within this structural model is readily observable.
That is to say, this model cannot be used in many work settings as it is
certainly unrealistic to assume that a desirable role model will be avail-
able for the new hire to emulate in the new work setting. Highly affective
relationships (to the degree of emulating and introjection of values)
are specific to rare combinations of individuals.

Generalization theory hypothesizes that the socialization of attitudes,
values, and ways of thinking are abstracted and generalized from modes of
successful adaptation to daily life pressures and situations (Inkeles &
Smith, 1974; Kanter, 1977a; Kohn, 1969; Kohn & Schooler, 1973; Schooler,
1972; Seeman, 1967). Specifically, this model recognizes the importance
of the actor's inferences from concrete experiences and assumes that
actors choose to mold their new roles in accordance with previously
developed cognitive orientations. On the same note, this model de-
emphasizes the newcomer's role in the determination of outcomes and
assumes the newcomer is passive and unable to influence the socialization
process to any substantial degree. The proactive individual and his/her
personalization of novel situations cannot be accounted for.

Symbolic interactionism represents still another theory concerning
the socialization of adults. The perspective of this concept is that
newcomers constantly create new meanings, develop their own understandings
and definitions of the situation, and structure ambiguous social settings
to meet their goals and solve common problems (Cottrell, 1969; Greer,
1972). Thus, the newcomer's perception (attitudes, situations, etc.) of

what goes on in the new work setting becomes all important.

7

Similarly, exchange theory assumes that the newcomer is an inde-
pendent and active negotiator for advantages in relationships with role
partners and membership groups (Mortimer & Simmons, 1978). Conceptions
of equity regulate the exchange processes and outcomes are heavily
influenced by one's own resources (including alternative sources of re-
ward) and bargaining strategies (Homans, 1961). This theory is closely
related to Lawler's (1973) expectancy theory, which also attaches a
great deal of importance to the actor's expectations regarding the be-
havioral outcomes of his or her efforts and the group's response to them;

Finally, we come to what may be the most interesting of any single
theory of adult socialization; role theory. In contemporary role theory
(Brim, 1966; Merton, 1957; Turner, 1974: 160-176), socialization is
seen as a process where a newcomer acquires the norms, attitudes, self-
images, values, and role behaviors that enhance acceptance to the group
and the effective performance of the new role. Of paramount importance,
regarding the mechanics of role theory, is that the newcomer learns
primarily through interaction with significant others (peers, co-workers,
supervisors, clients/customers, etc.) and observation of reference groups

(Mortimer & Simmons, 1978; Thornton & Nardi, 1975).

Role Theory

 

Thornton and Nardi (1975) present a very complete concept of role
theory. Their theory is presented such that several distinct stages are
clearly represented and most important, they stress the significance of
interaction between the individual and the role as well as between the
individual and those persons in the novel setting (e.g., peers, superiors,

clients/customers, supervisors, etc.). Before discussion of the stages

8
of their role acquisition, perhaps an explanation of some key
terminology might prove useful.

First, there is the term expectation. Expectations may be behavioral,
and refer to ways in which an incumbent should behave, attitudinal, re-
ferring to ideal attitudes and values, or cognitive, and refer to certain
knowledge and skills the incumbent should process. Further, these ex-
pectations may be either explicit and formal or implicit and a part of
the informal social process.

Expectations, during the socialization process, have several distinct
origins. They may come from society at large, e.g., mass media. Secondly,
they may originate from members of the role sets (peers) and reciprocal
others (clients/customers, patients, etc.). Finally, the newcomers may
be a source of expectations for their own role enactment.

Thus, the socialization process involves an increasing awareness
of not only the explicit formal expectations encompassing the range of
attitudes, values, behaviors, knowledge, and skills but also includes
those implicit informal expectations that are generally not a part of
the rules and duties assigned to the newcomer (Thornton & Nardi, 1975;
Weiss, 1978).

Next, a distinction must be made between social adjustment,
psychological adjustment, and adaptation. Social adjustment refers to
the degree to which the newcomer adequately meets role expectations,

i.e., their level of performance with regards to the role. By contrast,

 

psychological adjustment involves the achievement of congruity between
the newcomer's psychological needs and wants and the role. According
to Schachter and Singer (1962), the newcomer may attain this congruity

by using others in the work setting as a source of information. For

9
instance, Schachter and Singer investigated how pepple react in novel
situations when reality is unclear. Overall, they found that the re-
search participants used other people as information sources to assess
how they should feel and behave. Participants were less likely to use
these sources of information if: (a) they were forewarned of coming
events, and (b) they perceived themselves not to be on the same level as
other cohorts. On a similar note, Bem (1965) contends that people learn
about their own feelings and attitudes (as well as those of others) by
examining their own behavior and the context in which it occurs. Hypo-
thetically, according to Bem and Schachter, a newcomer faced with the
novel situation of a new work setting could not only gain knowledge
about the role expectations, but could also attain information from
incumbents regarding how comfortable or adjusted they feel about their
newly acquired behavior. Thus, a newcomer's psychological adjustment
can be influenced by observations/interactions with incumbents.

How can one determine whether the newcomer is becoming adjusted or
not? What are some indicators of adjustment? One such indicator is
input from the person that is most concerned and in touch with the
process and who consequently could provide the most accurate information.
That is to say, if one were looking for an accurate measure of how
confortable and adjusted a person was feeling in any given situation,
the most direct way of obtaining this information would be to ask the
person. Thus, while other measures of adjustment might exist
(observation, performance, etc.), the self-report measure appears to be
the most direct and accurate indicator of how psychologically adjusted

one feels or how congruent their needs are with the new role.

10

Four Stages of Role Acquisition ,

The four stages of role acquisition are as follows: (a) antici-
patory, (b) formal, (c) informal, and (d) personal. During each stage,
newcomers are exposed to expectations that are external to them. This
includes interactions, initiated by the newcomer, which are proactive
and meant to influence expectations of others as well as interactions
initiated by others.

The anticipatory stage of role acquisition is the time before in-
cumbency in the new position during which those aspiring to membership
in groups begin to adopt group values that prepare them for the future
transition into the group (Merton, 1957a). Anticipatory socialization,
then, aids the individual in dealing with the reality that is to follow
by helping the person to form a framework or structure fbr the new
context in which the individual will soon operate.

During the anticipatory socialization period, there are again
several sources from which role expectations may be drawn. The mass
media (newspapers, television, etc.) is one such information bank.
Other sources include those individuals who are already incumbents on
the job or social position and reciprocal-role others (clients/
customers, or patients, etc.). ‘

Overall, it may be said that during this phase of socialization,
individuals develop images of future expectations and thus prepare
themselves psychologically for their new role.

Unfortunately, this psychological preparedness is based on the
selective attention of the individual to a specific range of information.
The consequence of this interaction is that adjustment to the new

position is dependent on the accuracy of the information conveyed and

11
perceived during this period, and inaccurate information actually impedes
adjustment as an unlearning process must then be utilized to undo the
faulty learning (Thompson, 1958; Johnson & Hutchins, 1966; Wright, 1967;
Olesen & Whittaker, 1968).

The formal stage begins after new individuals assume their new role.
Unlike the anticipatory stage, expectations are predominantly derived
from members within the organization and primarily from those who are
peers, co-workers, and reciprocal role others. These expectations tend
to be straight-forward, explicit, and written in one farm or another.

For example, they may take the form of a job description or an employee
handbook.

Quite unlike the formal stage of socialization, the rules and re-
gulations of the informal stage are not documented in any written form.
Rather, the context and climate of the informal stage are contained and
exchanged via interactions between the new hire and more senior incum-
bents, supervisors, and others (clients/customers, patients, etc.).

Such informal expectations are concerned with establishing and main-
taining the group/organizational norm and the acceptable way to do

things in the work setting. This informal stage is sometimes at odds
with the formal stage and often its effects have more impact on newcomers
than the formal stage (with regards to individual adjustment) in the new
work setting. For example, an employee may learn from the new employee's
handbook that coffee breaks may last only 15 minutes per episode.
However, peers may interact with the new hire during a coffee break and
let the new person know it's okay (even expected) with management, for
them to stay on break for 20 minutes. Thus, the informal communication

of norms aids the new individual to learn the rapes or become adjusted

12
to the new role and new work setting. That is, they learn the unofficial
restrictions and the extent to which formal expectations can be bent.

What is crucial about the communication of these kinds of norms is
that it is done through the informal interactions between the new hire
and incumbents, supervisors, and reciprocal role others. Peer groups,
work groups, cliques and similar groups form the primary source for the
transmission of informal expectations. Gomersall and Meyers (1966)
provided interesting research with regards to the transmission of this
kind of information and adjustment. The experiment involved two groups
of newly hired machine operators. The first group was oriented in the
traditional way while the experimental group was given a new type of
introduction to the work setting that included informal interactions
with their peers.

Members of the control group received a two-hour personnel briefing
and the following instructions from a friendly but apparently busy
supervisor.

I would like you to take the sixth yellow chair on
this assembly line, which is in front of bonding machine
number 14. On the left side of your machine you will
find a wiring diagram indicating where you should bond
your units. On the right-hand side of your machine
you will find a carrying tray full of l4-lead packages.
Pick up the headers, one at a time, using your 3-c
tweezers and place them on the hot substrate below the
capillary head. Grasp the cam actuator on the right
side of the machine and lower the hot capillary over
the first pad indicated by the diagram. Ball bond to
the pad and, by moving the hot substrate, the wire to
the pin indicated by the diagram. Stitch bond to this
lead, raise the capillary, and check fOr pigtails.

When you have completed all leads, put the unit back
into the carrying tray.

Your training operator will be around to help
you with other details. Do you have any questions?

13
An overwhelming number of the new hires in the control group found it
very difficult to cope with the instructions given by the supervisor
even though he was polite and friendly.

By contrast, the experimental groups were given a different inter-
actional sequence. First, they were isolated in a conference room and
asked to relax and to get acquainted with one another.

Next, a few specially selected senior incumbents initiated inter-
actions with the new hires and answered questions from the new hires
regarding rules and regulations and, perhaps more significantly, the
informal workings of the organization. In addition, the remainder of
the encounter was structured to include discussions specifically
focused on four major issues that revolved around learning the ropes.
The first issue stressed that each new hire had a good opportunity to
succeed in the work setting. Second, each new worker was told to expect
some form of hazing, from peers not associated with the encounter, and
to simply ignore such activity. The new hires were also encouraged to
be proactive and take the initiative in communications with others in
the work setting. They were told the supervisors expected new workers
to ask questions and the management would not be offended by such
questions. Finally, all of the new hires were given briefings about
the specific personality of each supervisor (to whom they were assigned)
which included such informal information as their overall character,
hobbies, and other interests.

The results of this study indicate that the experimental group
attained the organization-established level of competence for the job
an average of four weeks sooner than the control group members. Similar

results were replicated by these researchers using other groups of new

14
employees. With regards to this study, it appears that this structured
concentration of learning informal expectations facilitated the adjust-
ment of the experimental group while the control group, who were left
to the traditional methods of learning informal expectations, appeared
to become adjusted more slowly.

Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, and Rosenthal (1964) have investigated
the phenomenon of these traditional ways of communicating expectations
between organization members and have termed the process role episodes.
According to Kahn, role demands initially arise from the organizational
situation. These demands become expectations for focal individua1(s)
in the role set. The role expectations are then communicated by the
role set to the individua1(s) in question and received by them in one
form or another (sometimes distortion of messages occurs which yields
an improper perception). The focal individua1(s) must then interpret
the expectations and translate them into appropriate behavior(s). If
unclear, indirect, or misperceived communications develop, oftentimes,
the result might manifest itself in inappropriate behavior.

.Thus, it is clear that these informal expectations are communicated
through interactions between the new hire and others (supervisors, peers,
others) in the work setting. Norms are not formally stated, but learned
only after a period of interaction (Thornton & Nardi, 1975).

Numerous researchers have noted the influences of organizational
members on the adjustment of new hires to the work setting and through
consensus have indicated that the organizational socialization process
occurs primarily in a social context. Supervisors, co-workers, peers,
and reciprocal role set others often provide psychological support and

the information needed to reduce uncertainty and clarify roles. Feldman

15
(1976), Meissner (1976), Evan (1963), and Louis (1980b) have all indicated
that new employees interact more with co-workers and peers than with
supervisors and that these interactions were instrumental with regard to
the individual's adjustment to the work setting.

Overall, it appears that informal communication of norms aids the
new individual to learn the ropes of the organization and become adjusted.
This exchange is fostered by informal interactions among supervisors,
co-workers, and others at the job setting. In addition, it should be
clear that this communication exchange is either initiated by or directed
toward the new individual and that the frequency/quality of the exchange
greatly enhances the rate of adjustment. For example, Kendon (1963)
found that smoothness of establishing a network (meshing) was an
essential part of the ability to establish an easy pattern of interaction.
Meshing involves several underlying characteristics including: (a) rapid
accommodation to the timing and emotional state of others, and (b)
frequent initiation of interactions with few pauses or interruptions.
Further, Kendon reports that individuals become more effective during
interactions as they take the initiative, and consequently the control,
in social interactions.

In summary, when one considers the evidence presented regarding
such variables as informal interactions, proactive behavior and adjustment
to the work setting, a distinct set of possibilities begins to form
regarding the socialization and rapid adjustment of new employees to
the work setting. Perhaps the informal and non-task related interactions
one encounters just after joining an organization has some impact on
the new worker. Does increasing amounts<rfinformal interactions

facilitate the process of adjustment of the new worker to the work

16
setting and consequently allow them to spend more time working or do
formal interactions enhance this process? In order to investigate this
issue more completely, the following hypotheses are offered:
Hypothesis la: There will not be a significant positive
correlation between the early total amount of informal
interactions and later time spent working on tasks.
Hypothesis lb: There will not be a significant positive
correlation between the early total amount of formal
interactions and time later spent working on tasks.

Another closely related aspect that requires clarification involves
Kendon's view of the proactive newcomer. Are the more proactive new-
comers also more adept at becoming adjusted to new work settings?

Schein (1971) suggests that the manifestation of high levels of pro-
active behavior early on during the socialization process is simply an
adaptational pattern characteristic of innovators (newcomers who actively
seek new information and then utilizes that information to personalize
the new environment). If Schein and Kendon are correct in their
speculations regarding the proactive behavior of newcomers, perhaps it
would be beneficial to further investigate the relationship between
active solicitation of information at the work setting and the newcomers
feelings of adjustment. To this end the following hypotheses are offered:
Hypothesis 2a: The total number of newcomer proactive
interactions experienced early on in the socialization

process will not be positively correlated with the later
completed se1f1report measure of adjustment.

 

Hypothesis 2b: The total number of other initiated
interactions experienced by the newcomer early on in the
socialization process will not be positively correlated
with the later completed selfereport measure of
adjustment.

 

Even though newcomer initiated interaction is an important portion

of the socialization process and a great deal of information may be

17

gleaned from these interactions, interactions initiated by others
provided additional information regarding how the newcomer can best
adjust to the new job setting. Gomersall and Meyers (1966) present
evidence that speculates that newcomers adjust more successfully when
incumbents initiate interactions. On the other hand, the research of
Schein (1971) and Kendon (1963) suggest that newcomers become adjusted
more easily if they are proactive in their interactions with others at
the work setting. Thus, the literature presents two very different
views regarding the type of interactions that facilitate the adjustment
of newcomers to the job setting. In light of these research findings,
the following hypothesis is offered:

Hypothesis 2c: The combination of newcomer proactive

interactions and other initiated interactions ex-

perienced early on will not be more highly correlated

with adjustment than either the proactive or other
initiated interactions alone.

CHAPTER 2

METHODS

Sample

The participants in this study were 26 people who were newly hired
to an organization. It was mandatory that each person was not acquainted
with any member of the new work setting.

The organizations which were used in this study were a large dry
goods department store, a large midwestern university, and a midwestern
health maintenance organization (HMO).

The employees who participated in this study included both males
and females who worked at various levels within their respective
organizations, e.g., administrative clericals (first line supervisors),
clerical and technical workers (typists, lab technicians), building
sanitation workers, and sales clerks. These participants were asked,
upon being hired, whether or not they desired to participate in this
study. Twenty-nine pe0ple were initially asked to take part in this

research. Thus, only three individuals refused to participate.

Procedure

Task Coding

 

The primary concern for the coding of tasks was to record the
various activities in which each newcomer engages. The coding form was
segmented into four categories of (on-task, interpersonal-task,

interpersonal-social, other) activities (see Figure 1).

l8

19

Actor's No. Page of
Actor's Name Today's Date

Coder's Name Time: from to
Location

 

 

 

On Task lnterpers-Task Interpers-Social Other

DONOUI&UN-l

NNNNNNNNNN—ld—l—l—l-‘d—l-fld
omummbuN-ocsomumm-huN-ao

 

to
0

Figure 1. Task Coding Form

20

When a newcomer was observed to be engaged in activities directly
related to their major task function, they were considered to be on-task,
i.e., a secretary performing routine duties, e.g., typing, filing, etc.,
was considered to be on-task and working on a segment of his/her major
task function. Their behavior was then recorded by the observer as on-
task. A one or two word description of the observed behavior was written
in the space provided on the task coding form, in addition to a number
indicating how many seconds (1-60) the new employee spent engaged in
this behavior.

Interpersonal-task behavior was determined to be an interpersonal
interaction that was intended to concern task-related matters (not
work-related matters). For example, asking for or giving task-related
information would be considered interpersonal-task behavior. Interpersonal-
task behavior, like on-task behavior, was coded using the Task Coding
Observation form, and applying the aforementioned coding procedure.

Interpersonal-social behavior was determined to be interactions
(with peers, supervisors, or others) whose main content was non-task
matters. More global work-related issues, e.g., discussions between
employees regarding the organization in general would fall into this
category as would general social talk, e.g., discussions about the
weather, sports, and so on.

Behavior which fell into the gthgr_category was determined to be
that which was not related to the task at hand or to social interaction,
e.g., daydreaming and reading non-work materials, etc.

Each task coding observation period was preceded by a relationship
observation period, lasting 20 minutes, and was conducted by an observer

who watched from an unobtrusive position in the work setting.

21

Relationship Coding

 

The relationship observation was done separately from the task
coding and was also a 20 minute time sample. The relationship coding
involved observing and recording the informal interactions which went on
during the normal course of work. The interactions that were observed
were those which occurred between the actor (new hire) and the supervisor(s),
peer(s), and/or others (clients, customers, etc.) who appeared at the
work setting. Thus, the relationship coding form (Figure 2) reflects
these three major categories of interaction (between superior, peer,
other) which were most likely to occur in a work setting.

An early attempt to develop a coding form which would allow the
aforementioned interaction information to be coded proved useful in
that its design captured the general flavor of the information desired.
Yet, its complexity was such that it hindered observers from making
accurate observations.

One problem associated with the use of the first relationship
coding form was that observers had difficulty recording a sequence of
related verbal exchanges as one complete interaction, i.e., natural lags
in conversation were interpreted as signifying a new interaction
episode. In other words, a complete interaction is a sequence of
interactions between individuals that continues in time (Bakeman, 1978).
For clarity, consider the following scenario. A secretary is typing
at his/her work station when from across the room, a graduate student
asks for information regarding the functioning of the copy machine.
He/she gives the student the appropriate information then resumes his/
her typing. After a minute of silence, the student inquires once

again because he/she had difficulty following the first instructions.

22
The secretary stops his/her typing, walks over to the copy machine, and
delivers a 45 second spiel of information which explains the first
instructions in greater detail. The student then acknowledges under-
standing, thanks the secretary, and begins to operate the copy machine
whereupon the secretary returns to the work station and continues typing.
According to the definition of an interaction adopted here, this entire
sequence would be coded on the relationship form as one interaction.

Now, compare the following scenario to the one just given. Again,
the secretary is typing at the desk when he/she is interrupted by the
graduate student who asks for instructions regarding the operation of
the copy machine. This time, he/she gives him/her instructions, he/she
understands, and operates the machine without difficulty. After 25
seconds, the graduate student begins to talk to the secretary about a
recent weekend experience. They chat on the subject for a minute
whereupon the student leaves the office and the secretary resumes typing.
Using the newer and more simplified version of the relationship coding
form (Figure 2), this sequence of behaviors would be coded as two
distinct interactions; the first interaction would involve the request
and response for instructions while the second interaction would be the
conversation regarding the weekend experience.

Further, the first of the aforementioned interactions would be
coded formal-oriented (T) and be preceded by a check mark (7) to indicate
that the student initiated the interaction, e.g., JT (all interactions
in which a person not assigned to the actor's work station enters that
work station are considered to be initiated by the individual who
enters the actor's work station). The /T would be coded in the 9thgr.

column as this interaction occurred between the actor and someone other

23

Actor's No. Page of

 

Actor's Name Today's Date

 

Coder's Name Time: from to

 

Location

 

M Notes

Initiator of
Interaction

actor: *
other: I

 

Figure 2. Relationship Coding Form

24

than a supervisor or peer/co-worker. The second interaction involving
the weekend experience (a non-task related issue) would be considered an
informal-oriented (S) interaction and again be preceded by a check mark
(l), e.g., JS. As before, the JS interaction would be coded in the
gthgr_column of the relationship coding form. Had the circumstances
for this scenario been different, e.g., if the interaction had occurred
between a peer/co-worker or supervisor, the interaction would have been
recorded in the peer or supervisor column respectively. In addition,
since peers and supervisors very often are assigned to the.same work
station, there is the occasion for the actor to initiate an interaction.
All interactions initiated by the actor were coded with an asterisk (*)
preceding the actual description of the interaction, e.g., *T or *S.

The relationship coding, like the task coding, was performed by

observers who watched from an unobtrusive position in the work setting.

Adjustment

 

The adjustment of newcomers to the work setting was determined by
two separate indices which were then combined to form one measure.

The first index of adjustment was a self-report measure that was
completed after the last observation session. Each participant was
asked to circle the face on the scale (Kunin, 1955) that best described
how they felt about their job since joining the organization (Figure 3).

The second index of adjustment was also a self-report measure that
participants completed after the final observation session. Each
participant was asked to complete a semantic differential that asked
them to circle the number which best representated how they felt they

were getting along in their work setting. The bipolar scales consisted

25

YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT HOW YOU ARE GETTING ALONG. For each set of words, circle the number
which best represents how you feel you are getting along in your work settin. That is,
tell us the extent to which you feel adjusted, adapted, settled in, an so orth. Give

us your first impression.

adjusted

adapted

settled in

uninvolved

on the outside

participating

not comfortable

not confused

accepted

relaxed

YOUR FEELINGS ABOUT YOUR JOB.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 3 __4_ _5_ _6_ 7 unadjusted

I 3 : __:_: _5_: L: _7_: not adapted

I : 3 4 : 5 6 7 not settled in

1 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : involved

I : 3 ° 4 5 : 6 : 7 : on the inside

I : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 : not participating
I 3 4 5 6 7 : comfortable

1 3 4 5 6 7 confused

I : 3 4 5 6 7 unaccepted

1 3 : 4 5 6 : 7 tense

 

Circle the number below the pair of faces that best

describes how you feel about your 129.

033!

GT. @1

Figure 3. Self-Report Measure

d1
0

«l
005' D

@@@a

J 2 l

26
of the following terms (and their polar opposites): adjusted, adapted,
settled in, uninvolved, on the outside, participating, not comfortable,

not confused, accepted, and relaxed (Figure 3).

9.0m;

All of the observers who collected data during this study were
trained to discern the specific behaviors in question but were not told
about the suggested hypotheses.

The extent of agreement between coders was determined by first re-
cording their independent judgments of the variables to be analyzed
during random coding sessions. For the nominal-scale attributes proposed
for examination in this research, §_(Scott, 1955) was the appropriate
tool with which to measure interrater reliability. Essentially, g_re-
presents the extent to which two coders agree beyond the level of that
expected by chance alone.

Scott and Wertheimer (1967) developed the g_index of intercoder
agreement for nominal—scale judgments. According to their computational
model, the chance or expected agreement between raters is represented as
33 and may be estimated by the following formula: is = 2 912 where pi
designates the proportion of cases assigned to the jth_category. The
rationale for this computation is that chance probability of both judges
placing item A into category 8 equals the product of the separate
probabilities that each judge will place item A into category B; i.e.,
(PB) (PB) or P32. By the same token, the probabilities of agreement of

placements in categories D, E,...Z can be represented as P02, P 2,...P22.

Pg.has a maximum value of 1.00 and this value occurs when a single

category contains all observations while the minimum value (Ilk) occurs

27
when all K categories have equal frequencies. Thus, it follows that a
useful index of coding reliability would be the degree to which observed
intercoder agreement (£9) exceeds the level of agreement that would be
expected via chance alone (Be). This index of intercoder reliability

is termed g_and is calculated as follows:

= P0 - Fe
1 — Pe

E.
The upper limit of g_is 1.00 and its lower limit is 0.00. However,
if the judges' agreement is less than chance, g_will take on a negative
value (e.g., -.OO). Pg is calculated from the total number and
distribution of all observations over the entire set of categories.
39, on the other hand, is the proportion of times judges agree (regardless

of categories) after independently coding an observation session.

Analyses

Testing the first hypothesis involved correlating the total number
of newcomer initiated informal interactions that occurred during the
first ten observation sessions with the total amount of time the new-
comer spent working on task related matters during the second ten
observation sessions. Next, the total number of newcomer initiated
formal interactions that occurred during the first ten observation
sessions were correlated with the total amount of time the newcomer
spent working on task related matters during the last ten observation
sessions. Testing whether the informal interactions or formal inter-
actions had more influence on the amount of time each newcomer spent
working on task related matters involved determining whether the
correlations of both informal and formal interactions with the amount

of time spent on task were significantly different from each other.

28

Testing Hypotheses 2a and b involved counting the total number of
newcomer initiated interactions that occur during the first ten observa-
tion sessions and correlating that total with the self-report measure of
adjustment. Similarly, the other initiated interactions that occurred
during the first ten sessions were tabulated and correlated with the
self-report measure of adjustment. The effect of the newcomer initiated
interactions was ascertained by determining whether or not the correlation
of newcomer initiated interactions and other initiated interactions with
adjustment were significantly different from each other.

Finally, Hypothesis 2c was tested by determining the correlation
between all newcomer initiated interactions (both informal and formal)
and all other-initiated interactions during the first ten observation
sessions with the self-report measure of adjustment. This was tested by
determining if the correlation of the combined newcomer interactions
with the measure of adjustment was significantly different than either

newcomer or other initiated interactions alone.

CHAPTER 3
RESULTS

Table 1 provides the intercoder reliability as assessed via
nominal-scale judgments measured by n, For the present study, the
average of six sessions in which interrater agreement was assessed
yielded g_= .90. Among the six sessions analyzed, the lowest g_was .76

and the highest was 1.00.

Dependent Variable Reliability .

There were two indices of adjustment used as dependent variables in
this research. The first index was the face each participant circled on
the Kunin (1955) scale that best described how they felt about their
job. The second index was the semantic differential that also was com-
pleted by each participant the last time they were observed. In order
to determine the relationship between these separate measures of adjust-
ment, a Pearson Product moment correlation was computed between the
degree of adjustment measured by the Kunin scale and the summed semantic
differential ratings made by participants the last time they were ob-
served. That analysis revealed a correlation of .66 (p_< .001). This
correlation indicates that the two measures overlapped significantly in
measuring the extent to which pepple felt adjusted to their new work
setting. The Kunin scale and the semantic differential were then

combined to form one measure of adjustment by reverse scoring items

29

3O

neuuu>uuue aqeoeuuauoueu I 0
seen so oeuxuo: aces. clan a n
cobauueuouoa so.» a c
occuuueuoueu undue. a n
vouuuuueu neguo a u

veg-«auca uouoe I a

 

maun<d rKOOfih<u

 

s.
«88.5.5.3632159.5955... o .3 n 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8-. 3.. at. 2... n8. 5. 1
3 a 3 a o . o z.
u a
3 3 a
n n 1
o u o n
. ~
8 . o _

o a e n u .

MAHMm

 

.53....2.r...t.r.=:.r..§.¥.:l.. . .3

»S_P_aaa_em aaeouaaael
P 222.

u‘. :0.

at.

 

“coco-«euavn_ap.

non.
~A§ovouaao.v6u3-40~3¢046~3=.‘uaaué I a: u I ’-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. a. 3.. 3.. flu. 1
2 3 «a . 2 a. E
o o
8 3 a .
o. 2 . a
a a a
= c a n
8 c a a n. .
as. n o .n d u

1.1mm

31

oo.I
o

u + S. + a + 2.. + 2. + 8. a 322.2.-

HOSONOHOQOOI‘

no. I
also}...x......:.=x.r.:8.¥..8... . «3 . a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8. 8.. n8. .8. 8.. 1
3 8 a a a
j“ H H m
8 8 u
c
a a n
a a n
.
o a c a u _
a .88

 

e o e c e o o o I
«an. I
~a§.v§na3.v¢un~8$¢~a¢=Jena:.voungé I has" I ’-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.. 8. 3.. 3.. a. 8....
t a I c 3 2 . .6
“1|“ ,
a a o
a 8 a
v .— v
z c n
.— ow a
c - . a
2. o a q a a .
.386
a...
$I-
to:
8....
uefleooNeflouul
8a..

«88.3.5.2..3. ~83.¥..§.3€8.. . .3 u z

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.8. 8.. 8.. o... 2.. 8.. X

8 cl 8 s a 2 a .a
I] I I)
. . a
a a a
. . o e
. . . u
z 2 n
u a u
o a . - ~ .
a

A.Seaev P apaae

so:

.88

32
1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, and 10, summing over the ten items, dividing that total
by 10, and adding the resultant score to the Kunin score. A Spearman-
Brown estimate of reliability for these measures yielded a coefficient
of 1.

In addition to the Pearson correlation between the two more global
indices, analysis was performed on the semantic differential scale in
order to assess its internal consistency. This analysis yielded a
Cronbach's alpha of .90 which is indicative of high internal consistency
(Table 2).

It should be noted that none of the measures mentioned in Table 2

were tested for retest reliability.

Hypotheses l and 2

 

Hypothesis 1 suggested that informal (rather than formal) communi-
cation of norms helps the newcomer to learn the ropes of the organization.
It was also expected that the communication exchange between the neophyte
and incumbents was traditionally the process through which most of this
informal communication was exchanged.) With these ideas clearly outlined,
Hypothesis 1 stated that the informal and non-task related interactions
the newcomer encounters just after joining an organization, will not have
a major impact on the amount of time each newcomer later spent working on
tasks. Specifically, it was suggested that there would not be a signi-
ficant difference between the correlation relating the total amount of
informal interaction and time each worker later spent working on tasks
and the correlation relating the total amount of formal interaction and
the time each newcomer later spent working on tasks.

Analysis of the data regarding Hypothesis 1 revealed a negative

and nonsignificant correlation (-.26, p_< .13) between the amount of

33

.momau mN cm>o vmmaeo>a mam: msmum F~< .nmeoum comem>me
mew: op can .m .m .o .m .N .F mama? use so»? some com com: me: mpmum ucwoa cm>mm < .muoz

 

 

mmcmu...umxapme u op muwmcv we» co...oummp=o on» no u m
umpaouumcs...uouawoom u m um>Po>:w...cm>~o>cm:: u e
vomzccoo...uom:meou yo: u w cw umppumm uo:...=a umpuumm u m
mpnaueowEou...mpaaueomsoo yo: u N umuamum uo:...umuaaum u N
mcppmaeuppeaa poa...m:wpaawowueaa u m umpmznumcz...umpmanva n P
oo.P mm. m_. on. «N. NN. oe. am. mm. NN. op
oo.P me. mu. mm. Nm. mm. on. NN. oo. o
oo.P mm. mm. mm. mN. mp. ON. FN. w
oo.F om. mm. mm. Pm. mm. mm. N
oo.F we. ow. mo. mp. mp. m
oo.P Po. ON. Nm. aN. m
oo.~ NN. Nm. we. a
oo._ mm. NR. m
oo._ om. N
oo.p F
op m m N o m a m N F
¢.m m.m m.m m.m m.m m.m m.m m.m m.m m.m cam:
N.P m._ o.F N.P m.F m.F m._ m.F m._ m.F caveme>oo
weaucaum

meucmemeema ompcasmm ecu com xweuaz :ovpapmeeoo EmpH

N oFth

34
informal interaction that occurs during the first ten observation
periods and the time each worker spent working on tasks during the last
ten observation periods. The correlation between the number of formal
interactions in the first ten observation periods and the time spent
working on tasks during the last ten periods also proved not to be
significant (.16, p_< .25). However, there was a significant difference
between these two correlations. This assumption was tested by the

v’_i:1

following formula:
(r12 ' r13)

 

 

V/(1'riz’2 + (1"13)2 ' 2'33 ' (2'23 ' ’12 '13) (1"12 '“13 -r§3)
Where N = sample size
r12 = correlation between informal interactions and time spent
working.
r13 = correlation between formal interactions and time spent
working.
r23 = correlation between informal and formal interactions.

For Hypothesis 1:

1’ 26- 1 (- .26) — (.16)

2= = -2.1o= 1.95
v/ .8595 + .9494 - .001 - (.9568) (.6771) 1.077

 

 

Given a one tailed test, this Z_score yielded an area of .95 of the
total area under a normal curve and a corresponding p_< .05.
Thus, Hypothesis la was rejected as the formal interactions were
more positively related to the dependent measure than the informal
interactions.

Hypothesis 2 focused on the proactive behavior of newcomers and

their adjustment to the work setting. It suggested that the total

35
number of newcomer initiated interactions (proactive behavior) ex-
perienced early on in the socialization process would not be more positively
correlated to the self-report measure of adjustment than the correlation
between interactions initiated by others and the self-report measure of
adjustment. Analysis of the data revealed that neither proactive behavior
nor other initiated behavior were positively correlated with adjustment
(-.l4 and -.43, p_< .05, respectively). The most important aspect of
this analysis showed that there was not a significant difference between
the correlation of proactive behavior and newcomer adjustment (-.14) and
the correlation of other initiated behavior and newcomer adjustment (-.43).

This assumption was tested by the fermula used in Hypothesis 1.

N-l (r12 -r13)

2 =

22 223 222
V//("'12) * (1"13’ ' z"23 ' (2'23 "12 "13’ ‘1'”12 "13 "23’

 

 

Where N = sample size

r12 = correlation between proactive behavior and adjustment.

correlation between other initiated behavior and adjustment.

correlation between proactive and other initiated behavior.

For the present study:

2 V 26-1 (-.14) - (-.43) _ 1.45

- = 1.64
V/ .9968 + .8881 - .3149 - (1.070) (.6492) .8832

 

 

Given a one tailed test, this Z score yielded an area of .89 of the
total area under a normal curve and a corresponding p_< .11. Thus,
Hypothesis 2a and b was not rejected.

Hypothesis 2c was formulated as a logical corrollary to Hypothesis 2a

and b. That is to say, even though newcomer proactive behavior was thought

36
to be a more important part of the socialization process and adjustment
than those interactions initiated by others in the work setting, the
interactions that were initiated by others in the work setting could
logically provide additional information regarding adjustment to the
new setting. Thus, Hypothesis 2b suggested that the sum of actor-
initiated plus other-initiated interactions would not be significantly
more strongly correlated with adjustment than either was alone.
Unfortunately, the analyses revealed that the correlation of proactive
behavior plus other initiated interactions with adjustment was not
significant (r = -.31). This finding matched the negative and non-
significant correlations reported earlier for the two kinds of inter-
action mentioned above. Finally, neither the correlation of actor initiated
interactions, or the correlation of other initiated interactions, with
adjustment, were significantly different from the correlation of the sum

of both kinds of interactions. Hypothesis 2c was thus not rejected.

Post—hoe Analysis

 

For the present study, further exploratory analyses were conducted.
For example, one of the major tenets of this study revolved around the
assumption that interactions experienced early in the socialization
process had a significant impact on the adjustment of the newcomer later
on in the socialization process. This impact was assumed to be fostered
by the informal interactions between newcomers, peers, supervisors, and
others in the work setting by reducing anxiety and surprise. It was
further assumed that this reduced anxiety made it easier for the newcomer
to adapt and become a more active participant in the new work setting.
When one reflects on this hypothesized process, a question that comes to

mind is: What is "early"?

37

"Early" can be defined in different ways. For instance, in the
present study, "early" was operationalized to mean those experiences
(interactions, time spent working, etc.) that occurred during the first
three weeks (10 observations) of incumbency. However, given the ag_hgg_
choice of three weeks, some post-hoc analyses were accomplished using
other time periods for defining "early."

During the first three weeks that the new workers spent working on
their jobs, they were observed a total of ten times. In order to examine
the effects of work experiences that occurred before that three week
period, the observations were divided and aggregated in the following
fashion: observation sessions one, two, and three (the first work week
for the new hire) were combined to form the first time unit of analysis,
and in turn were added to observation sessions four and five to form a
second time unit of analysis (approximately the first two weeks).
Similarly, observation sessions one through five were added to sessions
six and seven to form a third unit (about 2% weeks), while sessions one
through seven were added to sessions eight, nine, and ten (approximately
the first three weeks of work) to form the fourth and final time unit,
the unit used for the earlier analysis. Thus, the aggregation by session,
for the independent variable, takes on the following pattern: 1 + 2 + 3;
l + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5; l + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7; 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 +
8 + 9 + 10.

The dependent variable was divided in the following fashion: time
unit g_was composed of observation sessions 4 through 20, time unit b_was
composed of sessions 6 through 20, time unit g_was composed of sessions
8 through 20, and time unit g_was composed of sessions 11 through 20.

Each time unit of the dependent variable (DV) was then matched with the

38
appropriate time unit of the independent variable (IV). For example,
time unit 1 (IV) was matched with time unit a_(DV), unit 2 with 5, unit 3
with 9, etc. Using this arrangement, the match of the IV and DV, by
session, would form the following pattern: IV = 1-3 and the DV = 4-20;
IV

1-5 and the DV = 6-20; IV 1-7 and the DV = 8-20; IV = 1-10 and the

DV 11-20. Thus, in each instance, the dependent variable is collected
immediately after the independent measure. This breakdown was used
because the literature did not substantiate using any other scheme, and
because it seemed logical to sample the dependent variable immediately
after assessing the independent variable.

The first analyses under consideration are the formal interactions
and their association with the amount of time new hires later spent
working on tasks. As the reader will remember (from Hypothesis 1),
formal interactions had a weak correlation with the amount of time the
new worker spent working on task related matters (.16 at time unit four).
Further analyses, using the break down mentioned above, also proved
fruitless, revealing correlations of .09, .03, and .13 between formal
interactions in units one, two, and three (respectively) and the
amount of time the new workers later spent actually working on tasks.

The correlations between the amount of informal interactions each
new worker experienced and adjustment proved interesting. Correlations
of -.45, -.44, -.42, and -.54, were found to exist between these two
measures (for units one through four respectively), and they suggest a
moderate inverse relationship between the amount of informal interaction

new workers experienced and their later perception of how well adjusted

they felt.

39

While the inverse relationship of informal interaction and adjust-
ment appears to be interesting when compared to the positive relationship
between formal interactions and adjustment (.11, .02, .07, .01), the
amount of informal interactions presents yet another interesting view
when it is observed from a different angle.

The two groups of correlations in Table 3 represent the following:
(a) correlations of the amount of informal interaction occurring between
the new hire and others present in the work setting with the amount of
time the worker later spent participating in non-work related activities
(while at work), and (b) correlations of the amount of informal inter-
action and the amount of time the new hire spent engaged in work related
activities (see Hypothesis 1).

Table 3 reveals a strong negative relationship between the amount
of informal interaction workers experienced and the time they later
spent working on task related issues. On the other hand, Table 3 also
reveals a fairly consistent and positive relationship between the
amount of informal interaction and the amount of time each worker
spent engaged in non-task related matters. These results appear to make
sense logically as the variables time on task and time on non-task
issues are opposite in nature.

The final post-hoe analysis performed was a chi square test to
determine if the obtained frequencies in the set of categories formed
by the variables initiator (the person who initiated a conversation)
and others in the work setting (supervisor or peer) differed
significantly from the expected frequencies. Listed below are the

results of that chi square analysis.

40

Table 3

Informal Interaction and Time Spent Working on Non-Task Matters

Time on Non-Task Matters

 

a b c d
1 .19 .17 .17 .15
f 2 .49 .45 .47 .42
In ormal
Interactions 3 '40 ~44 ~40 .36
4 .41 .48 .41 .36

 

 

 

Informal Interaction and Time Spent Working on Task Matters

Time on Task

 

 

 

 

a b c d
1 -.26 -.32 -.35 -.4O
IllfOl‘lllaI 2 -956 -066 -07] -080
Interactions 3 -.44 -.56 -.63 -.68
4 -.37 -.51 -.59 -.62
Independent Variable (informal interactions)

 

time unit 1

amount of interactions during first week

(observation sessions 1-3)

time unit 2

amount of interactions during first 2 weeks

(observation sessions 1-5)

time unit 3

amount of interactions during first 2% weeks

(observation sessions 1-7)

time unit 4

amount of interactions during first 3 weeks

(observation sessions l-lO)

Dependent Variable (time on task/nontask)

 

time unit a

time spent working during last 11% weeks

(observation sessions 4-20)

time unit b

time spent working during last 10 weeks

(observation sessions 6-20)

time unit c

time spent working during last 9% weeks

(observation sessions 8-20)

time unit d

time spent working during last 8% weeks

(observation sessions 11-20)

The correlations on the diagonal represent the logical scheme of analysis.
The entire matrix was presented to emphasize the consistency of the

relationships regardless of the breakdown.

41

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Others in work setting
Raw
Supervisor Peer Total
L Actor 163 554 717
+3 43.6% 55.2%
35
5 Other 211 449 660
56.4% 44.8%
374 1003 1377

x2 = 14.8 (p_ < .001)

The results of the chi square analysis indicate that the two
variables differed significantly from the expected frequencies. The
percent of interactions that occurred between the actor (newcomer) and
peers were clearly higher than those that occurred between the newcomer
and the supervisor as they accounted for 73% of the total interactions.
In addition, when supervisors and newcomers were communicating, super-
visors initiated the majority of the interactions (56.4%). In the
newcomer peer condition, the opposite situation was found to exist, i.e.,

newcomers initiated the majority of the interactions (55.2%).

CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION

Although the results of this study were not as expected, the post-
hoc examination revealed that the amount of informal interaction newcomers
engaged in when they were new to the job correlated positively with the
amount of time they later spent working on non-task matters. There are
several alternative explanations for these positive correlations
(Table 3). For instance, one might view this phenomenon as a consequence
of the stability of the behavior of the person being observed, i.e., new
hires who spend a great deal of time involved in informal interactions
just after being hired will probably spend a great deal of time not
working at any given time during their incumbency. If, in fact, people
are consistent in their behavior over time, their behavior in time sample
one should not vary significantly from their behavior during time sample
2, 3, 4,...etc. Thus, this would account for the positive correlations
between the two variables.

The other workers present on the job offers yet another alternative
explanation why informal interactions correlated as they did with the
time newcomers spent working on non-task and task related matters. For
instance, suppose the newcomers observed were a part of a work group or
performed a task that was dependent on others. The amount of time
newcomers spent informally or formally may not have been a direct

reflection of the individuals adaptational style. Rather, the time

42

43

they spent in either of these situations could have been a function of
how well the group as a whole synchronized their work behavior.

From a different perspective, one might see the workload as the
binding link between these variables. For example, people working on
a job that has a very light workload may find themselves with a great
deal of idle time to waste and may consequently spend that time engaged
in informal interactions/behavior not related to the job. Given that
one's workload is consistent, the behavior may be expected later on
during incumbency and thus explain the positive correlations in Table 3.

The negative correlations between early informal interactions and
later time spent working on tasks (Table 3) may be explained by some
of the same reasoning introduced above. For instance, let us again
suppose the workload is consistent, but for this example high. A
newcomer in this situation would find it difficult to engage in fre-
quent informal interactions (just after being hired). Given that the
individual's workload is consistent, one would expect that the new hire
would later spend a great deal of time involved in task related
activities later on in the socialization process and relatively little
time engaged in non-task activities during the same period of time.
Thus, the negative correlations in Table 3 show that small amounts of
informal interactions are associated with large amounts of task behavior.

Finally, there is a most important issue which may well be the
best explanation for the positive correlations in Table 3. That is,
since the informal interaction variable was composed of only informal
interactions and the time spent on non-task behavior variable was
composed of informal interactions plus other behavior (reading non—work

material, personal phone calls, etc.), it is logical to expect the two

44
variables to have some overlap and consequently yield a positive
correlation regardless of the difference in the time each sample was
taken. Before leaving the topic of informal and formal interactions,
it is necessary to look at these variables and their relationship to
adjustment.

Both early informal and early formal interactions were correlated
(in the post-hoe analysis) with the self-report adjustment data collected
at the end of 12 weeks. These correlations proved to be interesting and
worthwhile as they were opposite in direction, with informal interactions
negative for all time periods sampled (-.45, -.44, -.42, -.54) and
formal interactions positive (.11, .02, .07, .01). People often inter-
pret adjustment as an issue determined by several facets of the work
setting: the work itself and informal and formal relationships. At
least for this sample, the more time people spend on their work the
more adjusted they feel. However, the more they spend time early on
with others (informally) the less adjusted they feel later. Perhaps
this phenomenon occurred because more information regarding what one
must know in order to adapt comfortably to a new work setting is passed
during formal interactions rather than during informal interactions.

The consequence of such an event(s) would yield the unique pattern of
correlations found in the present study.

While the hypotheses investigated were not disproved by the re-
search results presented here, the post-hoc analysis permitted examina-
tion of some hidden relationships which may fit very well with past
attempts in this vein. For example, the results of the present research
indicate that while informal interactions did not facilitate the

adjustment process, the amount of formal interactions received during

45
early work experiences certainly did. This conclusion is congruent with
the research of Moch (1980) who initially hypothesized that interpersonal
interaction within the work-group had a negative relationship to job
involvement, but later found these factors were positively related.
Similarly, it also fits in well with research conducted by Graen (1976),
who proposed the notion of interpersonal action in the socialization pro-
cess. This model suggests that the assimilation of a new member can be
modified by the interpersonal relationships between the new member, the
supervisor, and others in the organization.

Feldman's (1976) research looks at the new worker's adjustment to
the work environment as well as his/her development of new work skills.
According to his research, there are three stages of the socialization
process: anticipatory, accommodation, and role management. The
accommodation stage is most relevant to the results of the present study.
In this stage, the new hire sees what the organization is really like and
makes efforts to become a participating member of that organization.
There are two activities which go on during this stage that touch base with
the present research, i.e., initiation to the task (an indicator of how
successfully the employee has learned new tasks) and initiation to the
group (an index of how successful the new employee has been in establish-
ing new interpersonal relationships). Feldman found that initiation to
the group and initiation to the task were positively and significantly
related with each other (r = .23). In addition, Feldman concluded that
initiation to the group was directly related to how successful the new-
comer was on the job and speculated that successful interpersonal re-
lationships preceded initiation to the task. However, the data that

Feldman collected regarding initiation to the group and task were

46
collected during the same time sample and consequently were a measure
of covariance. The present study took Feldman's research a step further
by focusing in on the interaction process of interpersonal relationships
and then differentiating the interpersonal interactions, e.g., assessing
the type of interactions (informal vs. formal) and the initiator of
interactions. Further, this study measures the interpersonal inter-
actions at an earlier time than the newcomer's task behavior is observed
and consequently eliminates the covariance problem that hampered Feldman's
speculation regarding whether initiation to the group or initiation to
the task actually occurred first in the sequence of events.

Although research in organizational socialization has progressed in
generating descriptive models of the socialization process, empirical
research testing these models has lagged far behind (Van Maanen, 1975).
There are few empirical studies that identify the critical variables in
the socialization process, or specify when or by what method they Operate.
While the research attempts mentioned above are similar in nature to the
present study, they do not make distinctions regarding the qualitative
aspects of the interaction between neophyte and incumbents, e.g., formal
interactions vs. informal interactions. In this respect, the research
conducted here seemingly adds to or enhances the collective body of
knowledge generated by others.

One of the major difficulties in analyzing the data that were
collected for this study is the complication generated by the small
number of participants evaluated. That is, with a sample of 26
participants, it would be erroneous for one to assume that the statistics
arrived at could support, without further research, the generalization

of conclusions to a larger population. For that reason, the topics

47
discussed above are limited to and implicative of directions for
future research that might be carried out to clarify issues that the
present study has raised.

A post-hoc reflection of the methodology used to collect data for
the present research revealed several interesting insights. Without
question, the most significant problem involves the small number of
participants used in the study. If the results were significant, due
to the lack of statistical power, the generalizability would be non-
existent. Generalizability was again reintroduced as a problem when
two additional factors were taken into consideration: (a) multiple
employment levels, and (b) between organization sampling. The employees
who participated in this study were from a diverse range of both pro-
fessions and positions within their respective organizations (i.e.,
administrative professionals, custodians, secretaries, nurses, key-
punch operators, laboratory technicians, cashiers, etc.) Perhaps more
useful information could have been derived if the research had been
limited (focused) to one particular profession, or employment level. By
the same token, if a larger sample within each organization had been
used, comparisons between organizations might have proved both feasible
and useful.

There also remains the question of whether a Hawthorne effect was
operating when each participant was being observed. If in fact there
was such a phenomenon present during the data collect phase, it is very
questionable if the behavior exhibited by each participant during each
session was truly representative of their normal work behavior. The
consequences of this speculation is that the data collected represents

newcomer behavior when they knew they were being paid attention to.

48

Specifically, one topic that warrants further investigation is the
clarification of the relationship between formal interactions and the new
hire's feelings of adjustment. Given that the formal interactions that
the new hire experienced during the first week of incumbency correlated
highest with adjustment, it would seem appropriate to examine that time
period more exhaustively. In addition, it may prove useful to monitor
the source of the formal interactions in order to see who is responsible
for the majority of these types of interactions. Perhaps a laboratory
experiment might help to determine the answers to such questions as well
as questions regarding whether or not the job itself, individuals at the
job setting, or the new hire's adaptational style (e.g., whether or not
the newcomer is proactive) itself has any bearing on adjustment. In
addition, it might prove fruitful to examine the pattern of socialization
between organizations to determine if the climate of the worksetting has
any effect on adjustment.

Another facet of socialization research which deserves attention is
how the newcomer's performance fits into the adaptational process. For
instance, does a person who perceives they are adjusting to the job
actually exhibit behavior congruent with their perceptions? More
important, do their perceptions/behavior match their supervisors per-
ception or performance rating of the newcomer (Feldman, 1976). Perhaps
if these issues were more clear, one could better understand the overall
significance of the socialization process.

Another area of importance which the present study does not address is
how much a newcomer's skill on a task moderates their adjustment rate.
For example, one would clearly expect a newcomer with many years of

experience performing a particular task to be more competent than a

49
newcomer who is a novice at the same task. By the same token, one
might expect a newcomer who has performed a similar task on previous
jobs to adapt more quickly than the newcomer who is totally unacquainted
.with a task. Thus, it becomes quite clear that practice and transfer
of training have some effect on the socialization process.

The above remarks point out that large amounts of social inter-
actions during early work experiences were not a significant factor to
consider in regards to facilitating the quantity of time a new hire will
later spend working on task related matters. It was suggested that more
time working on task issues was a function of a consistent workload that
kept social behavior at a minimum. Further, informal interactions
experienced by the new hire early during incumbency were negatively re-
lated to how adjusted newcomers felt regarding their jobs, while f0rmal
interactions during this same period were positively related (especially
during the first week of incumbency). The explanation for this
phenomenon was that more information may be passed to the new hire
(concerning what one must know to adapt) during formal interactions
than informal interactions. Proactive behavior and/or other initiated
behavior were not connected to feelings of adjustment, however, it was
suggested that perhaps the time span used in the present study was
inappropriate. Finally, it was determined that this study lacked
statistical power and generalizability due to the small number of
participants. To this end, further research was recommended to clarify
issues raised by this research and to add statistical rigor to the

methodology.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Becker, H.S., Geer, 8., Hughes, E.C., & Strauss, A.L. Boy in white.

 

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Becker, H.S. The self and adult socialization. In H.S. Becker (Ed.),

Sociological Work: Method and Substance. Chicago: Aldine, 1970.

 

Bem, D.J. An experimental analysis of self-persuasion. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 199-218.

 

Bengston, V.L. Socialization and the social system. In the Social

psycholggy of aging. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1973.

 

Blau, Z.S. Old age in a changing society. New York: Franklin Watts,

 

1973.

Brim, O.G., Jr. Socialization through the life cycle. In O.G. Brim, Jr.,
and S. Wheeler (Eds.), Socialization after childhood. New York:
Wiley, 1966.

Brim, O.G., Jr. Adult socialization. In J.A. Clausen (Ed.), Socialization

and society. Boston: Little, Brown, 1968.

 

Brim, O.G., Jr. Theories of the male mid-life crisis. Counseling

Psychology, 1976, g, 2-9.

 

Campbell, 0.1., & Fiske, D.W. Convergent and discriminant validation by
the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 1959,
56, 81-105.

Clausen, J.A. Socialization as a concept and as a field of study. In
J.A. Clausen (Ed.), Socializatidn and society. Boston: Little,

Brown, 1968.
50

51

Clausen, J.A. The life course of individuals. In M.W. Riley, M. Johnson,
& A. Foner (Eds.), Aging and society: A sociolggy of age
stratification. New York: Russell Sage, 1972.

Cottrell, L.S. Interpersonal interaction and the development of self.
In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.

Elder, G.H., Jr. Children of the great depression. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1974.

Epstein, S. The stability of behavior: Implications for psychological
research. American Psychologist, 1980, 35, 790-806.

Feldman, D.C. A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative

 

Science Quarterly, 1976, 21, 433-452.
Fendrich, J.M. Black and white activitists ten years later: Political

socialization and left wing politics. Youth Society, 1976, 8, 81-104.

 

Gerth, H., & Mills, C.W. Character and social structure: The psychology

 

of social institutions. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Goffman, E. Encounters. Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill.

 

Gomersall, E.R. & Meyers, M.S. Breakthrough in on-the-job training.
Harvard Business Review, 1966, 44, 66-72.

Goslin, D.A. (Ed.). Introduction: Handbook of socialization: Theory and

 

research. 1969, 1-21.
Goulet, L.R., & Baltes, P.B. (Eds.). Life span developmental psychology.

 

New York: Academic Press, 1970.
Graen, G.B. Role-making processes within complex organizations. In M.D.
Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology,

Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1976.

52

Haan, N. Personality development from adolescence to adulthood in
Oakland growth and guidance studies. Seminars in Psychiatry. 1972.
4, 399-414.

Hill, R., 8 Aldous, J. Socialization for marriage and parenthood. In
D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.

Homans, G.C. Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York:
Harcourt Brace, 1961.

Horney, K. Our inner conflicts. New York, 1945.

Inkeles, A., & Smith, D. Becoming modern: Individual change in six
developingycountries. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press,
1974.

Johnson, O.G., 8 Hutchins, E.B. Doctor or dropout? A study of medical
school attrition. Journal of Medical Education, December 1966, 41,

1098-1269.

 

Kanter, R.M. Work and the family in the United States: A critical review
and agenda for research and poliey. New York: Russell Sage, 1977a.

Kohn, M.L. Class and conformity: A study in values. Homewood, IL.:

 

Dorsey Press, 1969.
Kohn, M.L., & Schooler, C. Occupational experiences and psychological
functioning: An assessment of reciprocal effects. American

Sociological Review, 1973, 48, 97-118.

 

Kohn, M.L., & Schooler, C. The effect of the substantive complexity of
the job on intellectual flexibility: A longitudinal assessment.

American Journal of Sociology, 1978, 84,

 

Kunin, T. The construction of a new type of attitude measure. Personnel

P§ycho1ogy, 1955, 8, 65-78.

53

Lawler, E.E., III. Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA.:
Brooks/Cole, 1973.

Levinson, D.J., Darrow, C.M., Klein, E.B., Levinson, M.H., and McKee, B.
The psychological development of men in early adulthood and mid-life
transition. In D.F. Ricks, A. Thomas, & M. Ruff (Eds.), tjfe_
history research in psychology. 1974.

Levinson, D.J. The mid-life transition: A period in adult psychosocial

development. Psychiatry, 1977, 48, 99-112.

 

Maas, H.S., & Kuypers, J.A. From thirty to seventy: A forty-year study
of adult life styles and personality. San Francisco: Jossey Bass,
1974.

Merton, R.K. Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press,
1957a.

Merton, R.K. The role set: Problems in sociological theory. British
Journal of Sociology, 1957b, 8, 106-120.

Mock, M.K. Job involvement, internal motivation, and employees'

integration into networks of work relationships. Organizational

 

Behavior and Human Performance, 1980, 88, 15-31.

Moore, W.E. Occupational socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook
of socialization: Theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.

Mortimer, J.T., & Simmons, R.G. Adult socialization annual review.
Sociology, 1978, 4, 421-454.

Moss, H.A., & Kagan, J. Report on personality consistency and change

from Fels longitudinal study. In D.R. Heise (Ed.), Personality and

 

socialization. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972.

 

Newcomb, T.M. Persistence and change, New York: Wiley, 1967.

 

54
Neugarten, B.L. Middle age and aging: A reader in social psychology.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968a.

Porter, L.W., Lawler, E.E., & Hackman, J.R. Behavior in organizations.

 

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Renshon, S.A. Psychological needs and political behavior. New York:
Free Press, 1974.

Riley, M.W., Foner, A., Hess, 8., & Toby, M.L. Socialization for the
middle and later years. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of

 

socialization: Theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969.

 

Rosow, I. Socialization of old age. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1974.
Schein, E.H. Organizational socialization and the profession of

management. Industrial Management Review, 1968, 9, 1-16.

 

Schooler, C. Social antecedents of adult psychological functioning.

American Journal of Sociology, 1972, 18, 299-322.

 

Scott, W.A. Reliability of content analysis: The case of the nominal

scale coding. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1955, 81, 265-276.

 

Seeman, M. On the personal consequences of alienation in work.

American Sociological Review, 1975, 88, 373-385.

 

Simmons, R.G., Rosenburg, F., & Rosenburg, M. Disturbance in the self
image at adolescence. American Sociological Review, 1973, 88,
553-568.

Schacter, 5., & Singer, J. Cognitive, social, and physiological
determinants of emotional state. Esychological Review, 1962, 88,
379-399.

Thompson, W.E. Pre-retirement anticipation and adjustment of retirement.

Journal of Social Issues, 1958, 14, 35-45.

 

55

Thornton, R., & Nardi, R.M. The dynamics of role acquisition. American
Journal of Sociology, 1975, 88, 870-885.

Toffler, B.L. Occupational role development: The changing determinants
of outcomes for the individual. Administrative Science Quarterly,
1981, 88, 396-418.

Turner, J.H. The structure of sociological theory. Homewood, IL.:
Dorsey Press, 1974.

Van Maanen, J. Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.),
Handbook of work, organization, and society, Chicago: Rand McNally,
1976.

White, R.W. Lives in progress: A study in the natural growth of
personality. New York: Dryden, 1952.

Wright, C. Changes in occupational commitment of graduate sociology

students: A research note. Sociological Inquiry, 1967, 8, 55-62.

"‘11111111111111)“