FROM OUTSIDERS TO INSIDERS: EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF SOCIALIZATION TACTICS ON ORGANIZATIONAL NEWCOMERS’ INCLUSION OUTCOMES By Sarah Kuang A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Psychology — Doctor of Philosophy 2023 ABSTRACT While companies continue to diversify their workforce and create inclusive experiences for their employees, research related to how organizations can promote inclusion for new employees in the socialization and onboarding context remains unexamined. The current dissertation aimed to 1) further extant socialization by redefining investiture and divestiture as separate tactics that address newcomers’ negotiation of their personal and organizational identity and 2) examine the effects of both investiture and divestiture on proximal (i.e., inclusion) and distal (i.e., job satisfaction and job embeddedness) outcomes. I anticipated that investiture and divestiture are not bipolar tactics and that newcomers who experience socialization comprised of both investiture and divestiture would experience the most positive impacts. Results from Study 1 support the notion that divestiture does not exist only in the absence of investiture, but both are instead separate-but-related socialization tactics. Results from Study 2, however, suggest that affirming newcomers’ unique identity (i.e., investiture) has the most positive impacts on newcomers. Specifically, the results revealed that only investiture increased newcomers’ perceptions of inclusion and this, in turn, predicted greater job satisfaction and job embeddedness. Implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed. This dissertation is dedicated to my parents. The achievement is as much theirs as it is mine. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to first thank my dissertation guidance committee, Dr. Quinetta M. Roberson Connelly, Dr. Christy Zhou Koval, Dr. Christopher D. Nye for the ideas discussed in this dissertation has gone through various iterations as different milestones and I am grateful for the feedback I received every step of the way. I would especially like to thank my dissertation committee chair and advisor, Dr. Ann Marie Ryan for her guidance through this process. Thank you for all the time you have dedicated to mentoring me in both academic and professional contexts, modeling what it means to become a true scientist-practitioner. Recounting how I persisted through this process, who I am and what I have created are all made up of pieces of the friends and family who have encouraged me along the way. From my roommate in the room down the hall to relatives oceans away, from brothers and sisters from church who practically took me in as family 5 years ago when I moved to Michigan to my parents who made the decision to immigrate the family to California, from my childhood friend from the 3rd grade to ones I have just made this past year, I am blessed with interactions that both inspired me to pursue this topic and persist in my endeavors. Whether we met everyday in the office, every week over virtual game nights during COVID, or at random frequencies just to motivate each other in times of hardship – my community, my academic support system, my close and distant friends, you have always reminded me that I was not alone in this process. Thank you all for listening to me recount my struggles, cheering me on, and celebrating all of my achievements. My heart is full. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................4 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................14 STUDY 1 METHODS...................................................................................................................25 STUDY 1 RESULTS .....................................................................................................................29 STUDY 1 DISCUSSION...............................................................................................................32 STUDY 2 METHODS...................................................................................................................34 STUDY 2 RESULTS .....................................................................................................................38 STUDY 2 DISCUSSION...............................................................................................................46 GENERAL DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................48 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................57 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................58 APPENDIX A: TABLES...............................................................................................................65 APPENDIX B: FIGURES .............................................................................................................78 APPENDIX C: SCREENING QUESTIONS ................................................................................87 APPENDIX D: STUDY 1 SCALE VALIDATION CONSENT FORM ......................................88 APPENDIX E: STUDY 1 MEASURES........................................................................................90 APPENDIX F: STUDY 2 HYPOTHESIS TESTING INFORMED CONSENT FORM .............98 APPENDIX G: STUDY 2 TIME 1 MEASURES .......................................................................100 APPENDIX H: STUDY 2 TIME 2 MEASURES .......................................................................107 v INTRODUCTION Due to the changing demographic composition of modern workforces, organizations have invested heavily in developing inclusive human resource (HR) practices as inclusion has become increasingly essential in recruiting, selecting, and retaining diverse talent (Chiu, 2022). Specifically, some organizations have focused on building socialization processes focus on inclusion due to the nature of socialization and onboarding as the first experiences new employees have as they transition into their new roles as a member of the organization. For example, IBM’s onboarding process consists of not only connecting with new colleagues and learning about the company, but also assigning mentors and sending personalized affirmations to newcomers (Heyward, n.d.). It is especially important to focus on this time point in the employee lifecycle, as a study of full-time and part-time workers in the U.S. revealed that 34% of participants have left a job within their first 90 days (Gupta et al., 2018; Jobvite, 2020). The cost of turnover has been well documented by organizational research, including the cost of hiring and replacing talent (90%-200% of a position’s annual salary; Allen et al., 2010), disruption in productivity (Hausknecht et al., 2009), and reduced competitive advantage (Agarwal et al., 2009). Therefore, ensuring that socialization processes promote inclusion among all individuals, especially those with minoritized identities, is important to help reduce turnover and more effectively onboard employees (Simosi, 2020). Currently, organizations have two strategies for onboarding newcomers with regards to the social aspect of socialization: one is affirming newcomers’ identity and another is denying newcomers’ identity as different ways to socialize newcomers. Specifically, in the first strategy, organizations can decide if they want newcomers to be affirmed in their personal identity to provide unique perspectives. For the second strategy, organizations may emphasize newcomers 1 changing and adapting to their new organizational identity and upholding the existing culture. In this case, personal identity refers to how newcomers see themselves as different from others aside from their new role and organizational identity refers to how newcomers see themselves as the same as those in their organization or workgroup (Nicholson, 1984). However, this is not always useful because it rests on the assumption that these approaches are mutually exclusive and this assumption ultimately results in disjointed socialization programs that either 1) only accept newcomers as insiders when they conform or 2) value, but alienate, newcomers for their differences. Instead, I draw from Shore et al (2011)’s inclusion framework -- which uses Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (ODT; Brewer, 1991) -- to suggest that organizations should both encourage newcomers’ uniqueness and emphasize how they belong to the organization. By reframing socialization as a process that considers both newcomers’ individual and organizational identity, organizations can view socialization as an early point of intervention to promote inclusion and retain their new talent. Therefore, the proposed framework of socialization contributes to the literature in multiple ways. First, I disentangle the concepts of investiture and divestiture, i.e., organizations affirming newcomers’ unique characteristics and reinforcing the organization’s values to the newcomers, and I create a new socialization scale that reflects this reconceptualization. Challenging the socialization literature and its current conceptualization of investiture and divestiture as opposites on the same spectrum, I instead use ODT to propose that investiture and divestiture supplement each other in newcomer socialization by addressing seemingly competing but related needs embedded within inclusion. By doing so, I demonstrate how emphasizing both newcomers’ personal identity and their new organizational identity can lead to positive inclusion outcomes. Second, I integrate socialization and inclusion literature further by testing a model that demonstrates the effect of socialization tactics on work 2 outcomes as mediated by perceptions of inclusion – a pathway that has not been empirically explored in past studies on socialization. Third, while there are a couple of studies on the socialization of people with disabilities or recent immigrant newcomers (Kulkarni & Lengnick- Hall, 2011; Malik & Manroop, 2017), research has largely omitted underrepresented minorities and their inclusion experiences – despite an increasingly diverse workforce. In addition to establishing that the reconceptualization of investiture-divestiture promotes inclusion for all newcomers, I also draw on research focused on underrepresented minorities to consider how socialization has differential effects on different groups’ experiences of inclusion. Thus, I present a new measurement of socialization by integrating organizational socialization tactics and Optimal Distinctiveness Theory, test the relationships between socialization tactics with relevant proximal (inclusion) and distal (job satisfaction, job embeddedness) outcomes, and explore how the strength of these relationships differ for majority vs. minority group members. The introduction will be organized as follows: First, I will review the literature on organizational socialization tactics, specifically investiture and divestiture, and how both are beneficial for newcomers. In this section I will also briefly review the inclusion literature and its relevance to socialization. I will then provide the theoretical framework by reframing investiture and divestiture as bilateral tactics that parallel the components of ODT (Brewer, 1991). Next, I will present my proposed framework of socialization which reframes investiture and divestiture as bilateral tactics that promote newcomers’ inclusion perceptions and subsequent work outcomes. Then I will review possible contextual factors that affect the experience of inclusion, such as cultural conflict and one’s status as a majority or nonmajority group member. as well as job satisfaction and job embeddedness as relevant outcomes for the new conceptualization of socialization. 3 LITERATURE REVIEW Socialization Tactics Organizational socialization, or “the process by which newcomers [to an organization] make the transition from being organizational outsiders to being insiders (Bauer et al., 2007, p. 707).” has been examined through the framework of organizational socialization tactics. To understand how organizations can influence newcomers’ socialization experience and subsequent outcomes, I will first focus on reviewing the literature on organizational socialization tactics. As proposed by Van Maanen and Schein (1979), organizational socialization tactics are characterized by bipolar, mutually exclusive anchors that organizations can choose to engage in to structure the socialization experience. These tactics were then categorized by Jones (1986) into two types of socialization: institutionalized and individualized. For example, newcomers experiencing institutionalized socialization would go through socialization as a part of a group (collective), separated from current employees (formal), progress through specific phases (sequential) following a specific timetable (fixed) with the help of an organizational insider (serial), and affirmed of their uniqueness (investiture). For a complete list of socialization tactics, see Table 1. Of the six tactics and the different categorizations, I will only discuss socialization in terms of investiture – divestiture, i.e., affirm newcomers in their uniqueness or change them to fit in with others, because it is the only tactic that characterizes how an organization treats newcomers as they negotiate their identity, which is directly relevant to newcomers’ inclusion experience. Other organizational socialization tactics are not designed to impact newcomers’ identity and focus more on how socialization is enacted (e.g., timing, sequence, formality) rather 4 than on the aims or focus of the activities. While they may impact outcomes of inclusion (e.g., using a serial tactic by assigning mentors to newcomers), these organizational socialization tactics are likely to have more distal and indirect effects which are beyond the scope of this proposal. Therefore, it is more important for this paper to focus on investiture-divestiture and address how an organization’s approach to newcomers and their identities may lead to the experience of inclusion. It should be noted that Van Maanen and Schein (1979)’s framework for socialization, while widely used but has had mixed support – particularly with regard to investiture-divestiture. Specifically, research has shown that investiture-divestiture was not highly correlated with the other pairs of tactics (Baker & Feldman, 1990). In addition, the six pairs of socialization tactics as theorized by Van Maanen and Schein (1979) were grouped by Jones (1986)’s measurement into two broad approaches to socialization: institutionalized and individualized. Typically, socialization research based on Jones’s framework has found that the more structured, institutionalized approach (collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial, investiture) is associated with more positive outcomes (e.g., greater organizational commitment; Allen & Meyer, 1990; Jones, 1986). However, some studies have found that investiture is not consistently correlated with other institutionalized tactics (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). In fact, both Van Maanen and Schein (1979)’s original theory and subsequent research have shown that there is conflicting information on how investiture relates to other tactics and outcomes. This calls to question whether investiture and divestiture exist at opposite ends of the same spectrum or are different concepts entirely. While Van Maanen and Schein (1979)’s model presents socialization tactics as either-or options, Jablin (1987)’s model of socialization, which stems from communication studies, is 5 defined by two simultaneous and conflicting processes: 1) how employees “learn the ropes” or familiarize themselves with the organization’s culture (e.g., goals and values) and 2) how employees put their distinctive stamp on the organization (Jablin, 2001). These processes are sometimes called role-taking and role-making and in some ways parallel divestiture and investiture, respectively. While research in organizational sciences has focused on Van Maanen and Schein (1979)’s organizational socialization tactics, studies in communication and other disciplines have grounded their definition of socialization – particularly with regard to identity – in Jablin’s (2001) conceptualization. Studies in the communication literature have shown support for Jablin’s (1987) framework, particularly how reinforcing newcomers' distinctiveness is complemented by fostering their identification with the organization or workgroup during socialization. Studying socialization and resocialization as a result of organizational restructuring, Hart et al. (2003) found that “newcomers” and incumbents experienced reduced role conflict when socialization was conceptualized as both refreshing common organizational values and accepting employees’ personal characteristics. Apker et al.’s, (2005) study of nurses’ integration into healthcare teams detailed how nurses both negotiated their role status and identified with other members of the team in their socialization process. Qualitative studies focused on memorable messages, which serve as first impressions, during socialization found that messages that accommodated employees’ values with organizational values were helpful in integrating newcomers (Barge & Schlueter, 2004; Guo et al., 2008). In sum, Van Maanen and Schein (1979)’s six pairs of bipolar tactics and subsequent research in organizational science have failed to consider socialization tactics as being comprised of dual processes, as defined by Jablin (1987). Further, Jablin’s dual process ideas have received 6 more empirical support than the conceptualization of investiture/divestiture as opposites. Therefore, for the following sections, I will review investiture and divestiture as separate concepts rather than opposites on the same continuum. By building my proposed framework on the literature reviewed with this lens, organizational research on socialization will be more complete. Investiture and Divestiture Investiture and divestiture were originally conceptualized as bipolar dimensions of one tactic, suggesting that organizations have one of two ways to socialize newcomers. In the original conceptualization from Van Maanen and Schein (1979), investiture was defined as a process that affirms newcomers of “the viability and usefulness of the personal characteristics they bring with them to the organization” (p. 64). In other words, the organization does not wish to change the newcomer but rather wishes to take advantage of the individual attributes the newcomer already possesses. This definition has largely remained unchanged throughout studies (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Jones, 1986) and this is the definition I adopt here. Extant research associates investiture with positive outcomes such as creativity, engagement, social adjustment, job satisfaction, and task performance (Cable et al., 2013; Dufour et al., 2021). Particularly, Cable et al. (2013) conducted both field and lab experiments that tested the differential effects of socialization that focuses on personal identity (investiture) and socialization that focused on organizational identity. In the field study, Cable et al. found that socialization focused on personal identity led to stronger employment relationships (e.g., lower turnover) compared to socialization focused on organizational identity. These findings were replicated in a lab study where students were socialized upon joining a temporary research team. From this study, the authors found that students in the investiture condition had higher 7 engagement, more satisfaction, better performance, and lower intentions to quit than those in the divestiture condition. For both studies, Cable et al. attributed their findings to authentic self - expression and found that it was a significant mediator between investiture socialization and work outcomes. In their three-wave longitudinal field study on 325 supervisor-newcomer dyads, Dufour et al. (2021) also examined the effects of supervisors’ support for newcomer creativity (investiture) on newcomers’ adjustment outcomes. Similar to Cable et al., (2013), Dufour et al. (2021) found that supervisors’ use of investiture led to better task performance, greater social integration, and greater job satisfaction. These findings are confirmed by interviews conducted with supervisors in the same study which showed that supporting newcomers in their uniqueness helps them refine and express their own ideas. Indeed, by affirming newcomers of their identity, investiture removes potential concerns of identity conflict and allows individuals to engage in core aspects of themselves and authentically express their best selves (Nishii, 2013; Roberts et al., 2005; Settles et al., 2002). From a resource perspective, investiture also reduces the potential of psychological depletion that results from having to suppress one’s identity (Grandey, 2003; Thoits, 1991). Divestiture in the original conceptualization was defined as a process that “seeks to deny and strip away certain personal characteristics of a newcomer” (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; p. 64). Later, Jones (1986) built upon Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) work to create one of the first scales to study organizational socialization. Given that investiture and divestiture are conceptualized as being at opposite ends of a spectrum, divestiture in this scale was characterized as the absence of support, or negative social experiences. Using this definition, Jones (1986) proposed that divestiture enabled newcomers to excel by questioning the environment (Burke, 2009). Because other works that use Jones (1986)’s scale have defined 8 divestiture as the absence of investiture, i.e. positive social support and identity confirmation, subsequent research studies are not aligned in the operationalization of divestiture. Characterizations of divestiture include receiving negative social support (e.g., discouraging newcomers in their self-expression) or not experiencing positive interactions (e.g., neglecting the newcomer) until they begin to fulfill expectations (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Cable & Parsons, 2001; Kammeyer-Mueller et al., 2012) Still another view of divestiture emphasizes organizations rebuilding newcomers’ self- image, including discovering that they can do things they had not considered to be able to do previously and taking on a new organizational identity. In this view, the goal of divestiture is to address the inevitable uncertainty and anxiety that newcomers feel as they enter the organization (Berger & Calabrese, 1975) by conveying a consistent message to newcomers about the organization’s values and how to interpret and respond to different situations; thus, newcomers are given a clear guideline of what is acceptable in the organization (Levine & Moreland, 1991). However, because divestiture was conceptualized to be on the same continuum as investiture, it has been more commonly defined as disconfirming, denying, and stripping newcomers of their personal characteristics (Bauer et al., 2007). There is evidence to suggest that divestiture – as defined above and in this paper – facilitates newcomers’ sense of belonging. Specifically, divestiture was found to reduce newcomers’ experience of ambiguity and anxiety around fitting in, or belonging, by aligning newcomers’ values and goals with that of the organization (Cable & Parsons, 2001; Kim et al., 2005). In an empirical study, Kim et al. (2005) examined the relationship between socialization tactics and person-organization (P-O) fit for 279 employee-supervisor pairs across seven organizations and found that employees experienced greater congruence or identification with 9 organizational culture when their organization communicated their values through a common message and positive role models. This then resulted in a continuity of company values, facilitated coordination with other employees, and led to overall greater compatibility between newcomers and their organization. Given the variety in the conceptualization of divestiture, I define divestiture as a process that imbues newcomers with attitudes and values that match those of the organization. I have conceptualized divestiture in this way because it no longer defines divestiture as the absence of investiture. Instead, divestiture functions as a simultaneous or dual process with investiture. For example, a company that values proactiveness may use both investiture and divestiture to reinforce this value during socialization to ensure that all newcomers are able to succeed in the organization. High divestiture in this situation is the reinforcement of the organization’s value of being proactive in newcomers while high investiture is the affirming newcomers in their identity and own values regarding proactivity. An illustration of using both high investiture and high divestiture tactics would be an onboarding process that communicates not only the importance of being a proactive member of the organization, but also how this value can manifest differently based on the newcomers’ individual qualities. Low investiture and high divestiture would be a process that focuses only on organizational values, while high investiture and low divestiture would focus only on the individual’s chosen values regarding proactivity. Socialization low in both tactics may involve little to no effort to help newcomers adopt these values or express their existing values, thereby subjecting the newcomers to “sink or swim” in terms of navigating their personal and organizational identity. Taken together, both investiture and divestiture can be beneficial for newcomers’ work outcomes. This, however, creates a paradox between celebrating individuals for their identity and 10 integrating them into the larger group. Therefore, to draw from the benefits of both investiture and divestiture, I turn to the inclusion framework which addresses this tension. Inclusion In the organizational science literature, researchers have emphasized the importance of inclusion; yet there is little agreement on how inclusion should be studied or defined. Because the scholarship on inclusion is still nascent, there are many different ideas of what constitutes inclusion (e.g., inclusive climate, perceived organizational inclusion). One of the most cited approaches to inclusion defines it as “the degree to which an employee perceives that he or she is an esteemed member of the work group through experiencing treatment that satisfies his or her needs for belongingness and uniqueness” (Shore et al., 2011, p. 1265). Different inclusion constructs and their components are reviewed in Table 2. Similar to what Shore et al (2011) noted in their review of definitions of inclusion, some common themes that emerge from definitions of the inclusion constructs are meeting needs relating to belongingness (e.g., insider, decision-making participation, information sharing) and uniqueness (e.g., value in authenticity, integration of differences). Shore et al. (2011) then conceptualized these needs to be simultaneous and continuous. Similar to what is demonstrated in Figure 1, this creates a 2 x 2 framework of inclusion: exclusion (low belongingness x low uniqueness), assimilation (high belongingness x low uniqueness), differentiation (low belongingness x high uniqueness), and inclusion (high belongingness x high uniqueness). Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (ODT; Brewer, 1991), the theory on which Shore et al. (2011) based their framework, provides reasons as to why investiture alone might be insufficient in addressing how one might experience inclusion at work. This theoretical framework focuses on the notion that individuals have a need for similarity with and validation from social units 11 (e.g., workgroups, organizations) as well as a need for uniqueness and distinction from others. These needs are defined as need for belonging and need for uniqueness, respectively. Need for uniqueness is defined as the need to maintain differentiation from others and need for belongingness is defined as the need to feel close to the group (Pickett et al., 2002). Although uniqueness and belonging are seen as competing needs, past empirical studies built on ODT have shown that satisfying both needs leads to individuals feeling more included. Tests of ODT have shown that inclusion is also contingent upon the connection that is created with others as these connections buffer against the isolation one may experience if one becomes highly individuated (Pickett et al., 2002; Pan et al., 2014). According to Pickett et al. (2002), individuals choose to socially identify with a particular group when it satisfied their needs for both uniqueness and belongingness. Modeling optimal distinctiveness and team processes outcomes as curvilinear relationships, Way et al (2022) also found that individuals who were not too similar or distinct to other team members were more committed to and satisfied with their team. It is important to note how inclusion as defined by Shore et al. (2011) and ODT parallels socialization. ODT parallels the framework of socialization because organizations need to deal with two issues: 1) the extent to which they encourage or impose newcomer identification with a dominant organizational identity (i.e., divestiture) and 2) the extent to which they allow or encourage newcomers to retain aspects of their personal identity that are divergent from the dominant group (i.e., investiture). Shore et al (2011)’s framework provides a theoretical underpinning that is more suitable for the proposed study as it focuses on the social aspects of inclusion, as opposed to the task- related (e.g. information-sharing or decision-making) processes. By focusing on the different 12 needs of individuals, which may be context-dependent, Shore et al. (2011)’s framework provides a more actionable approach that informs organizations of what to leverage in order to promote inclusion, especially for newcomers. 13 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Socialization Model as Informed by ODT As demonstrated by ODT, investiture and divestiture are not mutually exclusive. By viewing socialization as a bilateral process through ODT, researchers can better understand how socialization leads to experiences of inclusion for newcomers. Specifically, ODT conceptualizes inclusion from the lens of meeting the competing but related needs for belonging and uniqueness. This is conceptually similar to the current reconceptualization of socialization as companies deploying investiture and divestiture tactics. Indeed, research based on ODT has shown that when individuals receive feedback that suggests they embody a characteristic shared by the group, similar to divestiture, their feeling as an insider in the group is increased (Burris & Jackson, 2000). The same has been found for research on ODT and the need for uniqueness. Specifically, individuals also feel more accepted in groups that validate their existing beliefs, thereby satisfying their need for uniqueness (Correll & Park, 2005). By viewing socialization as a bilateral process through ODT, researchers can better understand how socialization leads to experiences of inclusion for newcomers. Below, I propose a new framework for socialization based on the research discussed thus far. Investiture. Taking from socialization literature, newcomers are affirmed in their incoming identities and personal attributes in this type of socialization (Nguyen et al., 2021). An organization may be adopting this approach when newcomers of underrepresented backgrounds are solely given positive feedback and praise for the different perspectives they bring, thereby emphasizing their idiosyncrasies. ODT suggests that while investiture – a socialization tactic that focuses on individuality – would fulfill the need for uniqueness, it is not the best socialization tactic that promotes 14 inclusion. Instead, Shore et al. (2011)’s inclusion framework would suggest that an organization that promotes high uniqueness-low belongingness would result in employees whose unique characteristics are seen as valuable and required for organizational success, but these employees are not treated as insiders at work. Indeed, conducting experimental studies across many samples (e.g., LGBTQ+ professionals, STEM women job seekers, and African Americans students), Georgeac and Rattan (2022)’s research on cases for organizational diversity suggests that such an instrumental rhetoric that depicts diversity as a means to an end (e.g., “business case for diversity”) reduces a sense of belonging for underrepresented group members. Further, research on the theory of proportional representation and tokenism suggests that the numerical scarcity of those with marginalized group membership (e.g., Black women in STEM) leads to heightened scrutiny or hypervisibility (Kanter, 1977). In other words, organizational socialization focused on recognizing newcomers for only their “otherness”, such as investiture, is predicted to result in newcomers’ exclusion and being treated as outsiders (Dickens et al., 2019; Settles et al., 2019). Divestiture. Building on the previously stated definition of divestiture, this type of socialization is characterized by reinforcing alignment with the company. Using divestiture as a socialization tactic, companies are likely to encourage and expect individuals to emphasize their similarities with the group (e.g., organization, workgroup) and demonstrate how they fit the group’s mold. ODT suggests that as a newcomer becomes increasingly characterized by the attributes that are prototypic of the group (e.g., attitudes and values), they will experience greater inclusion within the group (Leonardelli et al., 2010). Previous research has also shown that promoting shared organizational identity among employees is related to greater team identification and reduced burnout (Van Dick et al., 2021). 15 However, even with this reconceptualization divorced from investiture, divestiture alone is unlikely to lead to the best inclusion outcomes. Based on Shore et al. (2011)’s framework, employees are treated as insiders when they are aligned with the dominant/organizational culture and norm. While previously discussed findings have shown positive outcomes of divestiture (e.g., team identification), perceived intensity of divestiture socialization has also been found to stifle newcomers’ adjustment and self-expression (Montani et al., 2019). In addition, Guo et al. (2008) examined the socialization strategies of two banks in New Zealand and found that both banks assimilate Asian employees by organizing Westernized social functions (e.g. mini-golf) that reflected their culture of competitiveness. While some employees felt encouraged to position themselves as Westernized individuals to demonstrate their insider status, others kept their distance and resisted having their culture and values replaced. Extending from the inclusion framework, this finding suggests how emphasizing company values during socialization can be seen by some as an opportunity to align with the company while others perceive it as an infringement on their currently held values. Investiture × Divestiture. As it stands, investiture and divestiture both have their drawbacks but may remedy each other when combined to predict what Shore et al. (2011) refers to as inclusion. Indeed, Chung et al. (2020) conducted an empirical study by administering surveys to employees and their corresponding supervisors at a university. Supervisors were specifically asked to rate their employees’ helping behavior, creativity, and job performance. In this study, Chung et al. (2020) found that inclusion, which was defined as being comprised of belonging and uniqueness components, is associated with greater helping behavior, creativity, job performance, and lower turnover intentions. These findings are supported by earlier acculturation research which focused on the effectiveness of strategies that coupled identification 16 with dominant mainstream culture and identification with personal heritage culture. Specifically, Peeter and Oerlemans (2009) found that such a strategy is positively associated with higher job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and lower burnout. Organizations’ use of this strategy is also associated with greater perceived social support from and social interactions with outgroup coworkers (Komisarof, 2009). Compared to assimilation, promoting personal identity and shared organizational identity is associated with greater work stability (Rojas & Metoyer, 1995). I propose that these positive findings from inclusion exist also for how organizations socialize newcomers and that this path occurs through the mechanism of perceived inclusion and ultimately leads to work outcomes (see Figure 2). While investiture and the emphasis have been found to increase feelings of acceptance and inclusion, ODT and previous literature would suggest that investiture and divestiture not only each promote inclusion by addressing the needs of newcomers as they navigate their new organizational identity and unique attributes in their new workplace, but one also strengthens the relationship of the other in predicting inclusion perceptions. That is, in addition to validating one’s unique attributes and unique contributions (investiture), I expect that socialization that emphasizing shared organizational values (divestiture) will more holistically address perceptions of inclusion by mitigating potential downsides of investiture and thereby strengthening the relationship between investiture and perceived inclusion. Thus, I hypothesize that: Hypothesis 1: Investiture positively predicts inclusion perceptions. Hypothesis 2: Divestiture positively predicts inclusion perceptions. Hypothesis 3: Divestiture moderates the relationship between investiture and perceived inclusion. Specifically, at high levels of divestiture, the strength of the relationship 17 between investiture and perceived inclusion increases such that when newcomers experience high divestiture, the relationship between investiture and inclusion is stronger and when newcomers experience low divestiture, the relationship between investiture and inclusion is weaker (see Figure 3). Workgroup Inclusion and Work Outcomes There may be many outcomes of socialization focus on inclusion, but here I focus on three: job satisfaction, job embeddedness, and turnover intentions. I first discuss job satisfaction as an indicator of employee wellbeing and how extant literature supports it as an outcome of inclusion. Next, I discuss job embeddedness and turnover intention to address retention concerns, which are specifically relevant for newcomers (Bauer et al., 2007; Saks et al., 2007). Then, I explain the rationale for choosing to test the model with job embeddedness instead of turnover intentions. Wellbeing – Job Satisfaction The subjective wellbeing of employees has often been studied by examining job satisfaction, which involves the positive emotional response that results from one’s evaluation of their job or job experiences (Locke, 1976). In one of the few stud ies empirically examining outcomes of inclusion, Acquavita et al. (2009) found that inclusion, operationalized as the degree to which employee feels they are a part of organizational processes, was related to the job satisfaction of social workers. In addition, there is evidence to suggest that one’s feeling of uniqueness and sense of belonging are related to psychological well-being, including job satisfaction (Ménard & Brunet, 2011). For example, using a state conceptualization of authenticity at work, Van den Bosch and Taris (2014) found that employees who feel that they act in accordance with their own values and beliefs in the workplace are more satisfied with their job and more engaged. 18 Self Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000), which conceptualizes meeting basic psychological needs as essential for wellbeing, provides an explanation for these findings. Just as how ODT informs the conceptualization of socialization to promote workgroup inclusion by satisfying both belonging and uniqueness needs, SDT explains how inclusion leads to work outcomes by fulfilling some fundamental needs in a group context. According to SDT, when peoples’ needs for competence (i.e., feeling a sense of mastery over the environment), autonomy (i.e., experiencing volition and psychological freedom), and relatedness (i.e., feeling connected to others and experiencing a sense of communion) are met, they demonstrate greater levels of job satisfaction, as well as lower burnout and strain (Van den Broeck et al., 2016). Though competence may be related to inclusion, relatedness, and autonomy as psychological needs closely resemble needs specified by ODT. Specifically, relatedness parallels the need for belongingness as both involve being connected to others. Autonomy, then, parallels the need for uniqueness due to their shared emphasis on individuality. As Jansen (2014) puts it, autonomy answers the identity-related question of “who am I allowed to be?” (p. 371). In sum, because inclusion is conceptually comprised of belonging and uniqueness, it meets fulfills individuals’ desires to feel connected to others and behave in accordance with their sense of self. Thus, I hypothesize the following: Hypothesis 4: Inclusion perceptions positively predict job satisfaction. Retention – Job Embeddedness There is also evidence to suggest that employees’ experience of inclusion upon organizational entry influences their decision to stay at the company. Theoretical underpinnings of job embeddedness explain why inclusion is related to retention in the workplace. In their seminal paper, Mitchell et al (2001) used embedded figures and field theory to describe how just 19 as images in a psychological test that features figures immersed in the background, individuals are enmeshed in a larger social system. Based on this, they defined job embeddedness as “the extent of an employee’s ‘stuckness,’ or enmeshing, within a larger social system” that results from external or contextual forces (Lee et al., 2014, p. 201). In the current context, the individuals are newcomers in the workplace and the larger social system is their workgroup. To date, there is little empirical research on the relationship between inclusion and job embeddedness. One study that addresses this relationship is Halvorsen and Ng (2016)’s multiwave study on migrant workers. In their study, Halvorsen and Ng found that migrant workers were more perceptive to inclusion climates and that perceiving this positive climate was related to greater job embeddedness. This study was also able to replicate the predictive validity of job embeddedness for turnover outcomes (e.g., intention to leave). Aside from prior research, job embeddedness was also chosen as the outcome of interest for the following reasons. One reason for studying job embeddedness over other turnover outcomes (e.g., intent to quit, actual turnover) is because the study focuses on the population of organizational newcomers. Drawing on socialization research, Boswell et al. (2009) have shown that the newness of a job facilitates a honeymoon effect for newcomers. Thus, unless there is a particularly negative experience on the job, newcomers are likely to be less aware of their intent to leave. For studying those who are still in the early stages at their new organization, a measure of connectedness is more meaningful. Relatedly, while many diversity initiatives are concerned with and measure metrics such as attrition, the shift in focus from “why do people leave” to “why do people stay” in the job embeddedness literature is more relevant for inclusion and thus will be examined in this proposed study. For the findings and reasons above, I hypothesize the following: 20 Hypothesis 5: Inclusion perceptions positively predict job embeddedness Further, the socialization literature has consistently reported the relationships between socialization tactics on work outcomes (see Bauer, 2007; Saks et al., 2007). Based on the review of both the socialization literature and the nascent inclusion literature, I argue that the positive effect of socialization tactics on work outcomes is due to socialization tactics increasing perceptions of inclusion among newcomers. Therefore, I hypothesize that: Hypothesis 6: Inclusion perceptions mediate the relationship between a) socialization tactic and job satisfaction and b) socialization tactic and job embeddedness. Boundary Condition for Socialization While the previous findings suggest that both emphasizing personal identity and shared organizational identity best promotes newcomers’ experiences of workgroup inclusion, it may not always be desired or lead to positive outcomes as one might expect. Particularly, one limitation or boundary condition of focusing on both individuals’ uniqueness and belongingness in an organization is the conflict between organizational culture and personal identity. That is, newcomers’ experience of inclusion results from socialization may differ depending on the compatibility between employees’ personal identity and their new organizational culture. Therefore, I will examine one component of identity integration from acculturation research – cultural conflict. In Berry (1980)’s acculturation model, which pertains to the adaptation to and negotiation of two cultures, integration corresponds to the concept of including both investiture and divestiture in the current framework. In acculturation, integration – synonymous with biculturalism – is defined as high orientation to heritage culture and majority culture. This 21 parallels socialization focused on inclusion as this conceptualization of socialization focuses on both personal identity and organizational culture. As a process that involves the active negotiation of two cultures, biculturalism is then further broken down into two components: cultural distance/overlap and cultural conflict/harmony (Benet-Martínez & Haritatos, 2005). Whereas cultural distance focuses on the compartmentalization of the two cultural orientations, cultural conflict is the perception that there is a lack of compatibility, complementarity, and harmony between an individual’s two cultures (Huynh et al., 2011). A related concept has also been explored in organizational science as identity conflict, meaning that the identities held by an individual are seen as incompatible, i.e., “I can’t be both A and B”. In a review on the dark side of strong identification in organizations, Caprar et al. (2022) argued that while having multiple identifications can alleviate some of the negative effects of exclusively identifying with an organization, strong identification with an organization and having multiple identifications may result in identity conflict. Based on this, I posit that subjective cultural conflict – that is, as perceived by newcomers – becomes a boundary condition of how socialization leads to perceived inclusion. Up to this point, I have described socialization involving both investiture and divestiture as most beneficial in promoting perceptions of inclusion because it integrates and emphasizes both personal identity (from investiture) and organizational culture (from divestiture). However, this assumes the two are not in conflict with each other. If the assumption is violated – that is, a newcomer perceives their personal identity (e.g., gender identity) and organizational culture as incompatible – the degree to which implementing both investiture and divestiture is effective in promoting newcomers’ experience of inclusion will be diminished. A study on the police force in a Western European country found that female police officers who experienced more cultural 22 conflict also experienced lower team identification, low job satisfaction, and greater turnover intentions (Veldman et al., 2017). It should be noted that some incompatibilities between organizational identity and personal identity are not inherent, but are socially constructed or results of historical, cultural, or political contexts. Using the study on female police officers as an example, until a few decades ago, women were not allowed to be a part of the police force in many European countries. This underrepresentation of women furthers the stereotype that the prototypical police officer is not a woman. Thus, it may not be the nature of policework that affects female police officers’ experience of cultural conflict or incongruity between their personal identity and organizational identity. To remedy the cultural conflict experienced by individuals who are typically underrepresented in their organization or profession, it may be especially helpful for the organization to adopt multicultural components as a part of its climate and culture (e.g., history, policies, practices) so that the uniqueness of newcomers is not seen as irrelevant, but rather welcomed and accepted. Indeed, a study on sponsorships found that when an organization’s cultural norms perpetuate exclusive behavior, racial minorities feel like they need to compromise their authenticity to conform to their company’s standards of demeanor (Winters, 2014). Furthermore, newcomers also need to value belongingness such that they desire to be a part of the organization they have joined and want to be connected and included in their workplace. Therefore, findings from acculturation and identity integration suggest that cultural harmony potentially moderates the extent to which socialization focused on both investiture and divestiture creates feelings of inclusion such that Research Question 1: To what extent does cultural conflict affect the relationship between investiture, divestiture, and inclusion perceptions? 23 Inclusion for Nonmajority vs Majority Group Members The effects of workgroup inclusion on job satisfaction and job embeddedness may differ between majority and nonmajority (i.e., underrepresented) newcomers. Some research has shown that cultural majority group members are likely to experience exclusion in groups that emphasize the benefits of uniqueness, through relative deprivation, stereotyping, etc. (Plaut et al., 2011). Jansen (2014) argues that majority group members benefit less from the appreciation and emphasis on uniqueness due to their prototypicality. Thus, it may be that feelings of inclusion are less impactful on subsequent work outcomes for majority newcomers (i.e., cis, White men) compared to underrepresented newcomers. However, studies on university students at predominantly White institutions have found that, while White students reported greater overall sense of belonging compared to students of color, emphasizing demographic differences does not differentially affect sense of belonging for White students and students of color (Museus et al., 2018; Shaheed & Kiang, 2021; Villalpando, 2002). Thus, I seek to answer: Research Question 2: Are the impacts of inclusion on job satisfaction and job embeddedness the same for majority and nonmajority newcomers? 24 STUDY 1 METHODS The purpose of the first study was to create a scale reflecting socialization that consists of both investiture and divestiture as described in the previous sections. To do so, I model Study 1 after Hinkin’s (1998) tutorial for scale development. As described in Hinkin (1998), the study is structured in the following steps: item generation, questionnaire administration, initial item reduction (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and convergent/discriminant validity. Step 1: Item Generation During Phase 1, I reviewed the existing literature on socialization and inclusion to create and refine items. I followed Hinkin’s (1998) recommendations to begin with a strong definition of the constructs and created items that matched the definitions of investiture and divestiture as discussed in this paper. A total of 28 items were created, with 14 items for each construct, i.e., investiture and divestiture. I provided four subject matter experts (SMEs), all scholars in the field of diversity/inclusion, with definitions of investiture and divestiture as provided in this paper and asked them to identify the extent to which each item assessed investiture and divestiture. All items were correctly identified by all SMEs. Step 2: Item Reduction (EFA) To reduce the number of items for redundancy and a bunch of other reasons, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was completed as a part of Study 1. To do so, data was collected from participants, as described in the following section. Participants Participants were recruited on Prolific first by using a screener survey. Participants were asked about their employment status, whether they are part of a workgroup, and how long they have been with their current employer. Those who answered that they are working full-time, 25 working as a part of a workgroup of any size, and having up to one year of tenure with their current employer were identified as potential participants for the subsequent scale validation survey. Participants were allowed to return their submissions if they wished to withdraw their consent or if they were no longer qualified for the survey. For this screening survey, I sampled 2250 participants. The survey was also set up such that participants’ responses were rejected if they did not pass the two attention check items embedded within the survey (i.e. “Please select Disagree/Strongly Agree”). Those who meet all the criteria have been retained in the final sample. The survey was expected to take 10 minutes and participants were paid hourly rates of $12/hr. Therefore, participants received $2.00 for their participation in Study 1. A total of 280 individuals were identified as qualifying for the scale validation survey. For gender, participants were 55% male, 40.2% female, and 4% trans or genderqueer. For race and ethnicity, 66.7% of participants identified as Caucasian American, 14.1% as Asian American, 7.6% as African American, 7.2% as Hispanic American, 2.4% as biracial/multiracial, and 0.8% as Native American or Alaskan Native. The average age of participants was 32 years (SD = 8.5 years). Procedure After completing the consent form (see appendix), participants were first asked to think about the things their organization has done to familiarize newcomers with the organization’s culture then asked to indicate their organization’s approach to socialization using the full 28-item new socialization scale. After, participants were asked to complete a set of measures in the order listed (See Appendix C.) 26 Measures Invesiture-Divestiture. To compare findings from the current scale to an existing investiture-divestiture measure, I used the items measuring Investiture-Divestiture tactics from Jones (1986)’s Socialization scale (α = .94). There were five items measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree)” to 7 = “strongly agree”. An example item is “I have been made to feel that my skills and abilities are very important in this organization.” Perceived P-O fit. P-O fit has been shown to be related to socialization tactics. To replicate this, I used Cable and DeRue (2002)’s P-O fit measure (α = .94) and examine perceived fit. There were three items measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = strongly agree”. An example item is “This organization’s values and culture provide a good fit with the things that I value in life.” Organizational Commitment. To measure organization commitment as an outcome fo socialization tactics, I used Mowday et al (1979)’s Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (α = .93). There were nine items measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = strongly agree”. An example item is “I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this organization.” Personality. To measure the five factors of personality, I used Soto & John (2017)’s Big Five Inventory (BFI-2-XS; extraversion α = .64; agreeableness α = .46; conscientiousness α = .63; neuroticism α = .73; openness to experience α = .64). There were 15 items measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “Disagree strongly” to 5 = “Agree strongly”. An example item of agreeableness is “Is compassionate, has a soft heart.” 27 Demographics. Finally, participants reported their race/ethnicity, gender, and age as well as information related to their work experience, e.g. employment status and tenure at their current organization. 28 STUDY 1 RESULTS EFA Results Prior to the EFA, a parallel analysis was performed by generating a random, simulative dataset and plotting its estimated values against the eigenvalues alongside the scree plot from the actual dataset (see Figure 4). This parallel analysis revealed that, compared to chance alone, there are two latent factors that explain the relationship between the items. The subsequent EFA indicated similar results. The EFA was conducted using maximum likelihood estimation and oblimin rotation, as factors are expected to be oblique. Results indicated items loading highly onto respective factors, ranging from .46 to .89, with minimal cross loadings (see Table 3). For the sake of parsimony, the scale was reduced by revisiting established definitions of investiture and divestiture as well as by examining the highest factor loadings from the EFA. A total of 16 items were retained overall. Step 3: Construct validity (CFA) A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the same sample using these 16 items as a follow-up to these findings (see Table 4). Consistent with recommendations that multiple fit indices be used in assessing model fit (Kline, 2005), I reported the comparative fit index (CFI; value greater than .95 indicates good fit), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR; value less than .08 indicates good fit), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA; value less than .06 indicates good fit) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). I first ran a single-factor model which indicated poor fit: χ2 = 983.36 (df = 104), CFI = .65, SRMR = .22. RMSEA = .19. Next, I ran a two-factor model in which we allowed the two factors to correlate. Fit indices for that model were generally good, χ2 = 166.97 (df = 103), CFI = .98, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .05, and were significantly better than the single-factor 29 model. While CFI, RMSEA, and SRMR indicated the two-factor model as better fitting, a relative fit index, Akaike information criterion (AIC), was also examined as evidence to further strengthen the argument for treating investiture and divestiture as separate constructs. Indeed, the CFAs revealed a lower AIC for the two-factor model than that of the one-factor model, 8442.61 and 9253.61, respectively. As expected, these results support the current argument that socialization is comprised of investiture and divestiture. Step 4: Convergent and Divergent Validity To establish a nomological network to further validate the measure, I used the data to show convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity. Table 5 provides descriptive statistics, alpha reliabilities, and correlations for Phase 2. As evidence for convergent validity, I found that the current socialization scale was significantly correlated with Jones’s (1986) investiture- divestiture subscale (r = .52, p < .001), as expected. However, it should be noted that though both scales are designed to assess investiture and divestiture, only the investiture factor was significantly correlated to Jones’s scale (r = .62, p < .001). Conversely, divestiture was not significantly correlated to Jones’s scale (r = .11, p = .08). This supports an earlier argument that Jones’s scale is not comprehensive in operationalizing investiture-divestiture. Next, I considered the relationships between socialization tactics and conceptually related measures: subjective fit (three items, Cable & DeRue, 2002) and organizational commitment (15 items, Mowday et al, 1979). Table 5 shows that socialization as a whole and the investiture factor were strongly related to fit (rs = .58 and .66, respectively). To a lesser extent, the divestiture factor was also significantly related to fit (r = .19). Similarly, socialization as a whole and the investiture factor were strongly correlated with organizational commitment (rs = .67 30 and .60, respectively; all p < .001), while the divestiture factor was less correlated with organizational commitment (r = .20, p < .01). To establish discriminant validity, I collected personality data with Soto and John (2017)’s Big Five Inventory (BFI)-2-XS. As shown in Table 5, correlations between socialization tactics and the five personality dimensions were generally low, differing in statistical significance and ranging from -.26 to .28. In particular, none of the five personality dimensions significantly correlated with divestiture. 31 STUDY 1 DISCUSSION I created and validated a new socialization scale, that is comprised of both investiture and divestiture. Specifically, CFA results support a two-factor structure for socialization over a one factor structure. This is consistent with the premise in the current paper that investiture and divestiture do not exist as opposite ends of the same spectrum. Establishing convergent validity, socialization tactics were strongly correlated with an existing socialization scale. It is worth noting that only the investiture dimension of the current socialization scale strongly correlated with Jones (1986)’s socialization scale. This provides further support that previous scales primarily focused on measuring investiture, rather than measuring both investiture and divestiture. Significant positive correlations between socialization tactics and subjective fit and organizational commitment provide further evidence of convergent and criterion-related validity, respectively. Socialization tactics were also demonstrated to be generally unrelated to the Big Five personality dimensions, thereby providing evidence of discriminant validity. Though correlations related to socialization and its component (investiture and divestiture) are statistically significant, it should be noted that investiture and divestiture differ in the strength of correlations with other variables. Namely, compared to investiture, divestiture consistently demonstrated smaller correlations with subjective fit and organizational commitment. This suggests that divestiture may provide incremental validity and be supplemental in predicting other outcomes traditionally related to socialization tactics. It should be noted that this study is not without its limitation. Most notably, the EFA and CFA were conducted on the same sample. This practice has been suggested to overfit the model to the dataset used and inflate fit indices as the CFA confirms the factor structure discovered 32 with the EFA and. Relatedly, Campbell (1976) suggests that it is inappropriate to use one sample for scale development and assessing psychometric for the same scale due to concerns with common method variance. Therefore, future steps in scale development should involve replication by administrating the new socialization scale in another independent sample. Because of this, I continued to conduct another CFA of the socialization scale in Study 2. 33 STUDY 2 METHODS To test the proposed model (see Figure 2), I conducted a two-time point study in which participants indicate the socialization tactic implemented by their organization and report their perceptions of inclusion, job satisfaction, and job embeddedness. Participants’ responses across time were tracked via respondent ID as provided by Prolific. Participants Participants were recruited from Prolific. A screening survey was conducted on Prolific so that in order to be considered for the study, participants must be over the age of 18, located in the United States, work full time, have worked for up to one year at their current organization, work as a part of a workgroup in their organization, i.e., does not work in isolation at their job (see Appendix A), and have not participated in Study 1. Participants were allowed to return their submissions if they wished to withdraw their consent or if they were no longer qualified for the survey. 345 of those participants met the criteria and were invited to participate in the study. For this screening survey, I sampled about 2000 participants. I also included attention check items (i.e. “Please select Disagree/Strongly Agree”) to ensure the sample consists of participants who are engaged in the study. In addition, I included open-ended questions to both prompt participants to reflect on their socialization and inclusion experiences and as data quality checks. Those who meet all the criteria have been retained in the final sample. At each time point, the survey was expected to take 10 minutes. Participants were paid hourly rates of $12/hr for the first and second time point. Therefore, participants received $2.00 for their participation at both time points. Participants who completed surveys at both time points were given a bonus payment of $1. A total of 217 participants completed both surveys, showing a 37% attrition rate across the two time points. For gender, participants were 45.8% male, 49.5% female, and 4.6% trans or 34 genderqueer. For race and ethnicity, 72.2% of participants identified as Caucasian American, 8.3% as Asian American, 7.9% as Hispanic American, 6.5% as African American, 3.7% as biracial/multiracial, and 0.5% as Native American or Alaskan Native. On average, participants were 33 years old (SD = 10.1 years) and have been at their jobs for 7.44 months (SD = 9.81). Participants worked at companies of varying sizes, most working at companies with at least 50 people: 37.03% work at companies with over 1000 people, 15.28% work at companies with 250 - 999 people, and 25% work at companies with 50 – 249 people. Procedure Participants were surveyed at two time points, one week apart. At Time 1, participants were asked to qualitatively describe their socialization experience during their first months on the job after completing the consent form (see Appendix D). After answering, participants were asked to report their experiences of inclusion, cultural conflict, and socialization, i.e. divestiture and investiture. At Time 2, participants were asked to report their job satisfaction and job embeddedness as well as qualitatively describe their experience of inclusion (See Appendix E.) Measures (Time 1) Cultural Conflict. To measure cultural conflict, I used an adapted version of Benet- Martínez & Haritatos (2005)’s Bicultural Identity Integration Scale – Version 1 (BIIS-1; α = .88). There were four items measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = strongly agree”. An example item is “I feel caught between my identity and the company culture.” Workgroup Inclusion. To measure inclusion, I used an adapted version of Chung et al. (2019)’s Workgroup Inclusion scale (α = .92), which measures both sense of belongingness and sense of uniqueness. There was a total of 10 items measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging 35 from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = strongly agree”. An example item for sense of belongingness is “I am treated as a valued member of my organization.” An example item for sense of uniqueness is “I can share a perspective on work issues that is different from people I work with.” Investiture and Divestiture. To measure investiture and divestiture, I used the socialization scale I validated from Study 1 (investiture α = .95; divestiture α = .89). Items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = strongly agree”. An example item of investiture is “The following statement describes the attitude of my organization toward newcomers: ‘We like you as you are.’” An example item of divestiture is “The organization reinforces its value and norms to newcomers.” The replication of Study 1 on the factor structure of this scale is further discussed in Study 2 results. Demographics. Finally, I collected information regarding the participants’ gender, race/ethnicity, and age. I also collected information on participants’ work, such as their tenure at their job, their tenure in their industry, and their company size. Measures (Time 2) Job Satisfaction. To measure job satisfaction, I used Quinn and Shepard (1974)’s Job Satisfaction measure (α = .89). There were four items measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = strongly agree”. An example item is “All in all, I am very satisfied with this job.” Job Embeddedness. To measure job embeddedness, I used Crossley et al. (2007)’s Global Job Embeddedness measure (α = .92). There were seven items measured on 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = strongly agree”. An example item is “I feel attached to this organization.” 36 Workgroup Inclusion. To measure inclusion, I used Chung et al. (2019)’s Workgroup Inclusion scale (α = .93). There were 10 items measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = strongly agree”. An example item for sense of belongingness is “I am treated as a valued member of my organization.” An example item for sense of uniqueness is “I can share a perspective on work issues that is different from people I work with.” Exploratory Measure (Time 2) Turnover Intention. Components of inclusion (e.g., sense of belonging) have been found to be relation to turnover. To measure turnover intention, I used Crossley et al (2002)’s Intention to Quit measure (α = .93). There were five items measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”. An example item is “I intend to leave this organization soon.” 37 STUDY 2 RESULTS Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations between all variables are available in Table 6. To reexamine the psychometric qualities of the socialization measure created in Study 1, I conducted another CFA to determine whether the factor structure and good model fit held across samples (see Table 4 for factor loadings). Model fit indices in Study 2 demonstrated that, compared to a one-factor structure (χ2 = 817.65 (df = 104), CFI = .70, SRMR = .18. RMSEA = .19), the two-factor structure solution provided better fit indices (χ2 = 218.95 (df = 103), CFI = .95, SRMR = .05, RMSEA = .07) and indicates good fit. CFAs again revealed a lower AIC for the two-factor model than that of the one-factor model, 7463.86 and 8059.55, respectively. Thus, Study 2 was able to replicate the findings from Study 1. Given the high correlation between investiture and inclusion measured at Time 1, more CFAs were conducted to determine whether the measures are distinct. A two-factor structure CFA with investiture items loading onto one factor and inclusion items loading on another had adequate model fit (RMSEA = .12, CFI = .87, SRMR = .07). However, a one-factor model with all investiture and inclusion items loading onto a single factor also revealed adequate fit (RMSEA = .14, CFI = .81, SRMR = .07). As the RMSEA and CFI indicated the two-factor model as better fitting, and a relative fit index, comparing AIC between the two CFAs revealed a lower AIC for the two-factor model than that of the one-factor model, 7943.88 and 8123.02, respectively, investiture and inclusion were treated as distinct. This is aligned with the conceptualization of the two constructs as investiture is a measure of what the organization is doing and inclusion is a measure of how the individual feels. 38 Hypothesis Testing Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2, and Hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 predicted a positive relationship between investiture and divestiture – respectively – and inclusion perceptions. Further, Hypothesis 3 suggests an interaction between investiture and divestiture on perceived inclusion. Specifically, Hypothesis 3 states when newcomers at high levels of divestiture, the strength of the relationship between investiture and perceived inclusion increases. Accordingly, a multiple regression with investiture, divestiture, and investiture X divestiture as the predictors (centered) and perceived inclusion as the outcome was conducted. Main effects were entered into moderated regression model on the first step and the interaction term was entered as the second step (see Table 7). Support was found for Hypothesis 1 but not Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 (see Table 7). Specifically, there was a main effect of investiture such investiture positively predicted greater inclusion perceptions, b = .62, SE = .04, p < .001. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was supported. Conversely, there was no main effect of divestiture (b = .10, SE = .06, p = .06) and no significant interaction between the investiture and divestiture (b = .01, SE = .04, p = .76), indicating that the strength of the relationship of investiture on inclusion was not affected by the level of divestiture experienced; therefore, Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 were not supported. The examination of Figure 5 similarly reveals that, across all levels of divestiture, newcomers who report higher levels of investiture have the greater levels of perceived inclusion. Hypothesis 4. Hypothesis 4 suggested that newcomers’ inclusion perceptions positively predicts job satisfaction. Indeed, a simple regression with perceived inclusion as the predictor and job satisfaction as the outcome shows that perceived inclusion significantly predicted greater job satisfaction, b = .78, SE = .05, p < .001. Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was supported. 39 Hypothesis 5. Hypothesis 4 suggested that newcomers’ inclusion perceptions positively predicts job embeddedness. Indeed, a simple regression with perceived inclusion as the predictor and job embeddedness as the outcome shows that perceived inclusion significantly predicted greater job embeddedness, b = .75, SE = .07, p < .001. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was supported. Hypothesis 6. Given support for Hypotheses 1, Hypothesis 4, and Hypothesis 5, a moderated mediation linking investiture and divestiture to perceived inclusion was conducted for outcomes of job satisfaction and job embeddedness. To test for moderated mediation in both of the following sections, I used the processR package to test Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS Model 7. Job Satisfaction. To examine the extent to which inclusion mediates the relationship between investiture and job satisfaction and whether the strength of this indirect effect was dependent on the level of divestiture, I used the lavaan package in RStudio to evaluate the conditional indirect effect. Support for moderated mediation was not found, as the confidence interval of the bootstrapped index of moderated mediation of investiture on job satisfaction via inclusion, moderated by divestiture, was not significant, b = .01, z = .32, SE = .03, 95% CI [-.05, .07], p = .75. There was, however, a significant indirect effect of investiture on job satisfaction via inclusion perceptions at both low and high levels of investiture (low investiture: b = .47, z = 8.45, SE = .06, 95% CI [.36, .58], p < .001; high investiture: b = .48, z = 7.71, SE = .06, 95% CI [.36, .61], p < .001.) Job Embeddedness. To examine the extent to which inclusion mediates the relationship between investiture and job embeddedness and whether the strength of this indirect effect was dependent on the level of divestiture, I used the lavaan package in RStudio to evaluate the conditional indirect effect. Support for moderated mediation was not found, as the confidence interval of the bootstrapped index of moderated mediation of investiture on job embeddedness 40 via inclusion, moderated by divestiture, was not significant, (b = .01, z = .32, SE = .03, 95% CI [-.05, .07], p = .75). There was, however, a significant indirect effect of investiture on job embeddedness via inclusion perceptions at both low and high levels of investiture (low investiture: b = .49, z = 7.10, SE = .07, 95% CI [.36, .63], p < .001; high investiture: b = .51, z = 6.64, SE = .08, 95% CI [.36, .66], p < .001.) RQ1. 3-way Interaction with Investiture, Divestiture, and Cultural Conflict To examine the relationships between investiture, divestiture, cultural conflict, and perceived inclusion, a multiple regression with investiture, divestiture, cultural conflict, investiture X divestiture, investiture X cultural conflict, divestiture X cultural conflict, and investiture X divestiture X cultural conflict as the predictors (centered) and perceived inclusion as the outcome was conducted. Results showed that there is no statistically significant effect of cultural conflict on the relationship between investiture, divestiture, and inclusion perceptions (see Table 8). Specifically, the three-way interaction between investiture, divestiture, and cultural conflict did not significantly predict perceived inclusion, b = -.05, SE = .04, p = .17. RQ2. Effect of Inclusion on Work Outcomes for White Newcomers vs. Newcomers of Color. To examine whether the relationships between inclusion and job satisfaction differ based on majority vs nonmajority status, a multiple regression with perceived inclusion, group status (White newcomers vs newcomers of color), and perceived inclusion X group as the predictors (centered) and job satisfaction as the outcome was conducted. Main effects were entered into moderated regression model on the first step and the interaction term was entered as the second step (see Table 9). 41 Results demonstrated that there was a main effect of inclusion such that perceived inclusion positively predicted greater job satisfaction, b = .79, SE = .06, p < .001. However, there was no main effect of group status (b = -.12, SE = .08, p = .15) and no significant interaction between the perceived inclusion and group status (b = .00, SE = .12, p = .99). The examination of Figure 6 similarly reveals that the relationship between inclusion and job satisfaction for White newcomers is not different from the relationship between inclusion and job satisfaction for newcomers of color, such that inclusion consistently positively predicts job satisfaction across groups. To examine whether the relationships between inclusion and job embeddedness differ based on majority vs nonmajority status, a similar multiple regression was conducted with job embeddedness as the outcome. Main effects were entered into moderated regression model on the first step and the interaction term was entered as the second step (see Table 10). Results again demonstrated that there was a main effect of inclusion such that perceived inclusion positively predicted greater job embeddedness, b = .81, SE = .08, p < .001. However, there was no main effect of group status (b = .01, SE = .11, p = .90) and no significant interaction between the perceived inclusion and group status (b = -.26, SE = .16, p = .10). Figure 7 plots the relationship between inclusion and job embeddedness for both White newcomers and newcomers of color. While a visual inspection reveals that the relationship between inclusion and job embeddedness may differ between White newcomers and newcomers of color, such that White newcomers who perceived greater inclusion perceptions report higher job embeddedness than newcomers of color, these differences are not statistically significant. While the nonsignificant results indicate that the strengths of the relationships between perceived inclusion and work outcomes (job satisfaction and job embeddedness) were not 42 significantly affected by group status, it should be noted that the analyses conducted for this research question were conducted with unequal group sizes. Specifically, the number of White newcomers in the sample was more than twice the number of newcomers of color, n = 148 and n = 68, respectively. This likely affected the power to detect moderation effect and would explain the visual representation of an interaction, but no statistically significant interaction term for the relationship of inclusion predicting job embeddedness as it differs between White newcomers and newcomers of color. Exploratory Analyses Supplementary to Hypothesis 1. While results of Hypothesis 1 revealed that only investiture significantly predicts perceived inclusion, I also examined the effect of investiture and divestiture on the components of inclusion, i.e., uniqueness and belonging. Like the new socialization scale, the fit indices from a two-factor solution indicate good fit, RMSEA = .08, CFI = .97, SRMR = .05. Regression models with investiture and divestiture as the predictors were conducted. With uniqueness as the outcome, results replicated what was observed for Hypothesis 1 such that investiture emerged as the only significant predictor (b = .66, SE = .06, p < .001) and that divestiture was not a significant predictor (b = .12, SE = .07, p = .08.) The same was found for belonging as a predictor: investiture was a significant predictor (b = .59, SE = .05, p < .001) while divestiture was not (b = .08, SE = .06, p = .17). Supplementary to Hypothesis 5. In addition to examining the effect of inclusion on job embeddedness, the effect on turnover intentions was examined as well. A simple regression with perceived inclusion as the predictor and turnover intentions as the outcome showed that perceived inclusion significantly predicted greater job satisfaction, b = -.86, SE = .07, p < .001. Given the finding of a significant relationship between inclusion perceptions and turnover 43 intentions, a moderated mediation linking investiture and divestiture to perceived inclusion was conducted for turnover intentions. To examine the extent to which inclusion mediates the relationship between investiture and turnover and whether the strength of this indirect effect was dependent on the level of divestiture, I used the lavaan package in RStudio to evaluate the conditional indirect effect. Support for moderated mediation was not found, as the confidence interval of the bootstrapped index of moderated mediation of investiture on job embeddedness via inclusion, moderated by divestiture, was not significant, (b = -.01, z = -.32, SE = .03, 95% CI [-.08, .06], p = .75). There was, however, a significant indirect effect of investiture on job satisfaction via inclusion perceptions at both low and high levels of investiture (low investiture: b = -.57, z = -7.80, SE = .07, 95% CI [-.71, -.43], p < .001; high investiture: b = -.59, z = -7.20, SE = .08, 95% CI [-.75, -.43], p < .001.) Supplementary to Research Question 2. To examine whether inclusion provides similar benefits to all genders, a multiple regression with perceived inclusion, gender (men vs women), and perceived inclusion X gender as the predictors (centered) and job satisfaction as the outcome was conducted. Main effects were entered into moderated regression model on the first step and the interaction term was entered as the second step (see Table 11). 99 men and 107 women were included in the following analyses. Results again demonstrated that there was a main effect of inclusion such that perceived inclusion positively predicted greater job satisfaction, b = .81, SE = .08, p < .001. However, there was no main effect of group status (b = .10, SE = .08, p = .19) and no significant interaction between the perceived inclusion and group status (b = -.02, SE = .11, p = .88). The examination of Figure 8 demonstrates that the relationship between inclusion and job satisfaction for men is 44 not different from the relationship between inclusion and job satisfaction for women, such that inclusion consistently positively predicts job satisfaction across groups. To examine whether the relationships between inclusion and job embeddedness differ men and women, a similar multiple regression was conducted with job embeddedness as the outcome. Main effects were entered into moderated regression model on the first step and the interaction term was entered as the second step (see Table 12). Results replicated previously demonstrated main effect of inclusion such that perceived inclusion positively predicted greater job embeddedness, b = .73, SE = .10, p < .001. However, there was no main effect of group status (b = .16, SE = .11, p = .14) and no significant interaction between the perceived inclusion and group status (b = .03, SE = .14, p = .80). The examination of Figure 9 demonstrates that the relationship between inclusion and job embeddedness for men is not different from the relationship between inclusion and job satisfaction for women, such that inclusion consistently positively predicts job embeddedness across groups. 45 STUDY 2 DISCUSSION In this study, I validated the new socialization scale and found support for some of my hypotheses. First, to verify the factor structure of the measure created in Study 1, I conducted another CFA of the socialization measure. Results of the CFA demonstrated further support for the two-factor structure with similar fit indices found in Study 1. Results of the second study partially supported the hypotheses. Specifically, I found that that only investiture, not divestiture, was significantly predictive of newcomers’ inclusion perceptions. The lack of finding a significant interaction suggests that newcomers who experience more investiture at any level of divestiture are likely to experience greater inclusion perceptions. Further, hypotheses related to inclusion perceptions as a predictor of job-related outcomes were all supported. Using a moderated mediation model, I also examined the effect of socialization tactics on job-related outcomes via inclusion perceptions for both job satisfaction and job embeddedness. Results showed that while there is an indirect effect of investiture on job satisfaction and job embeddedness mediated by inclusion perceptions, the strength of the indirect effect was not affected by the level of divestiture. Exploratory analysis demonstrated similar results of inclusion significantly predicting turnover intentions as well as the mediation of inclusion in the relationship between investiture and turnover intentions. These findings consistently demonstrate that greater investiture is related to more positive outcomes, i.e. greater inclusion, and by extension, greater job satisfaction, greater job embeddedness, and less turnover intentions. The extent to which cultural conflict affected the relationship between investiture, divestiture, and perceived inclusion was explored with Research Question 1. Results showed that there is no significant three-way interaction between cultural conflict, investiture, and divestiture 46 on perceived inclusion. Research Question 2 focused on the effect of inclusion on work outcomes for those belonging to different groups, namely examining whether majority group members experience positive outcomes from inclusion to the same extent as minority group members. Analysis for this research question focused on racial differences with White newcomers categorized as belonging to the majority group and newcomers of color categorized as belonging to the nonmajority group. Results demonstrated that the relationships between inclusion and job-related outcomes do not significantly differ between White newcomers and newcomers of color. 47 GENERAL DISCUSSION The purpose of these two studies was to create a reliable and valid measure of investiture- divestiture and to test a model linking socialization with inclusion and other work outcomes for organizational newcomers. Study 1 involved the scale development of a new measure of socialization, specifically focused on measuring both investiture and divestiture. Contrary to what previous measures and the socialization literature might suggest, confirmatory factor analysis results revealed that investiture and divestiture are not opposites of one another, but are instead related, yet distinct, approaches to socialization. Using a sample independent from Study 1, Study 2 both replicated this finding using a new sample and tested the relationship between socialization tactics, inclusion perceptions, and job-related outcomes, i.e. job satisfaction and job embeddedness. Results indicated investiture as a significant predictor of inclusion and subsequent outcomes. Across the two samples, the psychometric properties of the socialization measure were supported through factor analysis, internal consistency, and construct validity. Results from factor analyses in Study 1 and Study 2 support a two-factor, rather than one-factor, solution for investiture and divestiture as socialization tactics. In Study 1, my measure of socialization also demonstrated convergent validity with related constructs, such as Jones’s (1986)’s socialization tactics. Results from Study 1 also demonstrated discriminant validity of the socialization measure in terms of its relationship with the Big Five personality dimensions. While measuring investiture and divestiture has shown promising psychometric properties as a scale, results from hypothesis testing revealed that it is investiture that promotes inclusion. Hypothesis 1, 2, and 3 examined the relationship between investiture, divestiture, and inclusion perceptions. Only investiture was a significant positive predictor of inclusion 48 perceptions (Hypothesis 1). This suggests investiture tactics alone may promote newcomers’ inclusion perceptions by addressing needs of both belongingness and uniqueness. This supports the findings largely across the socialization literature that emphasizes the positive effects of investiture on work-related outcomes (e.g., engagement, job satisfaction, retention, affective commitment; Cable et al., 2013; Simosi, 2010). The lack of influence of divestiture on inclusion perceptions (Hypothesis 2) suggests that it may be relatively unimportant/ineffective in influencing newcomers’ inclusion perceptions when compared to investiture. It is important to note that while divestiture did not positively predict inclusion nor did it strengthen the relationship between investiture and inclusion as a moderator (Hypothesis 3), it also did not lead to detrimental outcomes. This is divergent from extant literature and findings related to divestiture, which has mainly reported negative outcomes such as lower performance, job satisfaction, creativity, and social integration (Montani et al., 2019). In addition, the lack of significant findings with regards to divestiture coupled with significant positive effects of investiture suggests that organizations can promote perceptions of inclusion among newcomers during the socialization process by affirming newcomers of their personal identities and attributes at any level of divestiture. From Table 6, divestiture is associated with positive job outcomes (greater job satisfaction, greater job embeddedness, less turnover intentions). It may be that divestiture defined as the organization emphasizing its values to newcomers is predictive of these outcomes through other mechanisms such as adjustment, role clarity, or self-efficacy by creating a shared mental model among newcomers in the workplace. These findings may be attributed to the difference in context. It may be that affirming newcomers’ personal identities and attributes is more salient than imbuing newcomers with attitudes and values that match the organization in social contexts. While divestiture, as defined 49 in this paper, is still concerned with newcomers’ relevant attitudes and values, it may be seen as more adjacent to role clarity and job content. That is, divestiture may be more knowledge-based and seen as the organization disseminating information about itself (e.g., its values), compared to investiture which is explicitly focused on each newcomers’ individuality. Another reason why the level of divestiture may not have been found to be a significant predictor of inclusion may be its relevance and proximity in a workgroup context. Similar to an earlier argument that divestiture may not be as salient in social contexts, it may be that the organization’s efforts of instilling company values are more distal from newcomers’ experience of inclusion. It may be that workgroups are more likely to deploy investiture as a tactic by informally engaging in interpersonal affirmation of newcomers while the work of instilling company values is either more covert or left to formal onboarding activities conducted at the organizational level. While no studies have approached socialization from a multilevel perspective, Manata et al (2016) recommend that scholars specify the different factors that originate from different levels to examine processes and phenomena of interest, such as how company-wide policies and espoused values have more influence in certain departments’ socialization practices but not in others. Given the positive correlations between divestiture and outcomes of interest in the current study (e.g., inclusion, job satisfaction, job embeddedness; Table 6), future research can examine team- or organizational-level identification as possible mechanisms that explains these positive associations, as suggested by previous findings of divestiture on team identification (Van Dick et al., 2021). Inclusion also emerged as a predictor of wellbeing and retention-related work outcomes. As the support for Hypothesis 4 and 5 suggest, inclusion in the workplace may be an important lever to pull to improve newcomer job satisfaction and embeddedness. Though previously 50 unexamined in a newcomer socialization context, extant inclusion climate research supports the present findings which suggest that the extent to which employees feel like they are valued members of their workgroup is related to positive attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (Holmes et al., 2021; Nishii, 2013). Further, Study 2 also suggests that inclusion emerging as a significant mediator suggests that it is the mechanism through which socialization, particularly investiture, affects work outcomes. While previous meta-analyses have consistently established significant positive relationships between institutionalized tactics, such as investiture, and work outcomes, these findings of inclusion perceptions as the underlying mechanism explaining the relationship between socialization and outcomes provide a more comprehensive explanation surrounding tactics used to socialize organizational newcomers (Bauer et al., 2007; Saks et al., 2007). Focusing more on the usefulness of socialization tactics in promoting inclusion, especially for underrepresented newcomers, I examined cultural conflict as a potential boundary condition of the relationships between investiture, divestiture, and inclusion. However, no significant effects were found which suggests the extent to which newcomers experience cultural conflict does not affect inclusion perceptions nor the effectiveness of socialization tactics at promoting inclusion. Yet, it is interesting to note that cultural conflict is associated with negative outcomes; that is, it is significantly negatively correlated with inclusion, job satisfaction, and job embeddedness. The lack of a significant finding of cultural conflict as reducing inclusion may be the effect of the sample used in Study 2. Cultural conflict is a component of bicultural identity that is typically studied with those who identify with multiple identities (e.g., immigrants identifying with both dominant host culture and heritage culture; Berry, 1980). Thus, it may be beneficial to sample from populations that are typically studied in the acculturation literature when studying 51 the effects of cultural conflict or other acculturation constructs in the work context (e.g., women in STEM). Another reason why I did not find cultural conflict to be a significant moderator may be due to the lack of specificity in the study, as no specific cultural or demographic identity was specified as the focus of the measure in this study; using an identity-specific measure (e.g., conflict between your racial identity and organizational identity) might yield different results. In Study 2, the positive effects of inclusion were supported for both majority and minority group members as the relationship between inclusion and outcomes was not significantly different across groups. In the examination of inclusion initiatives and the effects on majority vs minority group members, research has found that advantaged and dominant group members (e.g., White Americans) associate multicultural practices, e.g., investiture which emphasizes newcomers’ uniqueness, with exclusion (Plaut et al., 2011). However, the findings from Study 2 provide more support to the perspective that emphasizing inclusion does not disadvantage majority group members, but instead leads to more positive outcomes for all. Different kinds of However, as the actual representation of minorities as well should be noted. Theoretical and Practical Implications From a theoretical standpoint, the current paper contributes to understanding by extending the socialization literature in organizational sciences by untangling the concepts of investiture and divestiture. Contrary to extant socialization research, divestiture does not only exist as the antithesis of investiture and should not be measured as such. Instead, Study 1 from the current paper demonstrated the relatedness and distinctiveness of each factor in the inclusion socialization scale. Having developed strong definitions for investiture and divestiture, future research can better examine the effects of each tactic on relevant cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral outcomes. In addition, future research can extend the current scale validation by 52 examining more related constructs (e.g., other socialization tactics) and outcomes of interest with regard to newcomer adjustment (e.g., role clarity, self-efficacy, social acceptance). The present paper also provides a more comprehensive understanding of inclusion in the organizational newcomer context by recognizing inclusion as the link between investiture and positive work outcomes. While past research has demonstrated many positive effects of institutionalized tactics, social tactics, or specific investiture tactics (Bauer et al., 2007; Saks et al., 2007), the underlying mechanism that associates certain tactics to positive outcomes remained unexamined. Understanding that inclusion is what connects investiture and work outcomes suggests that whether or not newcomers are satisfied with their new job and whether or not newcomers think about staying/leaving the company they have just joined is indirectly impacted by the degree to which organizations affirm newcomers’ identities, which makes them feel included. Practically, the finding from this paper can help organizations plan how they want to design the newcomer socialization experience. The current finding suggests that in order to promote inclusion perception, across all newcomers, organizations ought to invest more in activities and approaches that more closely embody investiture and should focus on emphasizing the newcomers’ idiosyncrasies and their existing attributes are added strengths to the company. To determine whether or not newcomers perceive their new company in this way, organizations can incorporate the new socialization scale into their 30-60-90 days plan and ensure that inclusion is incorporated throughout their onboarding experience. Emerald Technologies, a biotech startup, exemplifies this by implementing “fresh eye journals” as a part of onboarding their newcomers (Liberto, 2014). Newcomers have three months to complete this journal with novel ideas of how they would like to see the company improve. 53 In addition to findings related to investiture, it should be noted that divestiture is still positively associated with work outcomes, even if not through the mechanism of inclusion. Therefore, similar to Montani et al. (2019) suggestion, organizations should take care to establish newcomers’ new organizational identity in the socialization process, knowing that it will not detract from the positive effects of investiture at any level. This will also allow companies to allocate their resources more freely in creating newcomers’ socialization experience. Limitations and Future Directions The current paper has limitations that should be acknowledged. In Study 1, the EFA and CFA were conducted with the same sample. While this has been supplemented with another CFA, it is worthwhile to specifically examine the experience of nonmajority members. Given that a focus on inclusion may represent an identity-blind approach (Roberson, 2006) and previous research has shown the detrimental effect of such ideologies on members of marginalized communities, especially with regard to race, it is worthwhile to shift the focus on generalizing the socialization experience to specifically how it affects racial minorities (Leslie et al., 2019). An examination focused on newcomers who identify as racial minorities in their workplace may reveal measurement nonequivalence between majority and nonmajority groups. Thus, future research can benefit from specifically sampling underrepresented newcomers and testing the factor structure between different groups and examining whether the findings from this paper are reproducible across samples. Further, future studies can address different types of diversity by sampling from populations that differ on other characteristics (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, age, religion) as well as clarify whether those who identify as racial minorities are considered underrepresented, numerical minorities in their new workplace. 54 While the research design for Study 2 is a survey study across time points to address issues of common method variance, caution should be used in making causal inferences. Data collection was set at one week apart and it is difficult to determine whether this separation in time is enough to support strong conclusions of causal relationships. However, the separation of socialization and inclusion variables across two time points in data collection and theoretical guidance from the extant literature supports such causal ordering (Matthieu & Taylor, 2006). In addition, for both studies, the use of varied scale anchors, the requirement of qualitative responses, and the variability in the magnitude of relationships of measures help to lessen concerns about the potential effects of common method variance. Future research should incorporate multiple time points in the study and examine the model over time. It should be acknowledged that the current studies sampled employees who have up to one year of tenure as organizational newcomers across industries. While capturing a wide variation of newcomers across different industries provides the ability to obtain variability in socialization tactics, examining newcomers within the same industry experiencing different socialization lengths and norms might be a fruitful direction. Depending on different organizations’ socialization processes, the current sample may have captured newcomers at various stages in their socialization process. In addition, having participants that ranged from having less than one month of experience to a full year of tenure at their new organization may affect how participants recall their experience of being onboarded and whether the tactics used are reflective of their experience. The current dataset, however, indicates that tenure is not significantly correlated with any of the study’s key variables (e.g., investiture, divestiture, inclusion). Future research can aim to target a cohort of newcomers with a smaller range of tenure and follow their experience across time. Referring to the increase in job satisfaction 55 during the year of the job change, Boswell et al. (2009) has found the presence of a honeymoon effect for newcomers and this effect may also be present in experiences of inclusion. Specifically, the newcomers may similarly experience an initial high in inclusion perceptions after a few months on the job and future research can examine the persistence of the effect of socialization on inclusion: what is the duration of the effect of investiture on promoting inclusion for newcomers? Do newcomers continue to experience greater inclusion outcomes when they cease to be newcomers? Research design of future socialization studies could address this concern by collecting data over a longer period of time. Studies can mimic Boswell et al. (2009)’s example and collect data at the same measurement time points (Day 1, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year), or conduct a field study following organizational newcomers during their 30-60-90 day journey. 56 CONCLUSION The topic of inclusion has gained great momentum as it is being integrated into various HR practices, including socialization and onboarding. Extending beyond current socialization literature which only conceptualizes identity-related socialization tactics as affirming or denying newcomers’ incoming personal attributes, the current dissertation used Shore et al. (2011)’s inclusion framework and focused on defining investiture and divestiture as socialization tactics that focus on personal identity vs. organizational identity. I hypothesized that as a result of measuring investiture and divestiture in this way, both tactics will be shown as necessary to ensure socialization. While scale validation efforts support that investiture and divestiture are dual processes, results from hypothesis testing demonstrated that it is through investiture, or the affirmation of newcomers’ existing identity and qualities, that socialization impacts newcomers’ experience of inclusion and subsequent work outcomes. These finding and the development of a new socialization scale creates an avenue for future empirical research on the social integration of newcomers into the workplace. 57 REFERENCES Acquavita, S. P., Pittman, J., Gibbons, M., & Castellanos-Brown, K. (2009). Personal and organizational diversity factors' impact on social workers job satisfaction: Results from a national study. Administration in Social Work, 33, 151–166. Agarwal, R., Ganco, M., & Ziedonis, R. (2009). Reputations for toughness in patent enforcement: Implications for knowledge spillovers via inventor mobility. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1349–1374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.792 Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24, 48–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMP.2010.51827775 Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). Organizational socialization tactics: A longitudinal analysis of links to newcomers’ commitment and role orientation. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 847–858. Apker, J., Propp, K. M., & Ford, W. S. Z. (2005). Negotiating status and identity tensions in healthcare team interactions: An exploration of nurse role dialectics. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 93–115. Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149–178. Baker III, H. E., & Feldman, D. C. (1990). Strategies of organizational socialization and their impact on newcomer adjustment. Journal of Managerial Issues, 198-212. Barge, J. K., & Schlueter, D. W. (2004). Memorable messages and newcomer socialization. Western Journal of Communication (includes Communication Reports), 68(3), 233-256. Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer adjustment during organizational socialization: A meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 707-721. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.707. Benet‐Martínez, V., & Haritatos, J. (2005). Bicultural identity integration (BII): Components and psychosocial antecedents. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 1015-1050. Berger C. R., Calabrese R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: toward a development theory of interpersonal communication. Hum. Commun. Res. 1:99–112. Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models, and some new findings (pp. 9-25). Boulder, CO: Westview 58 Boswell, W. R., Shipp, A. J., Payne, S. C., & Culbertson, S. S. (2009). Changes in newcomer job satisfaction over time: examining the pattern of honeymoons and hangovers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 844. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475-482. Burke, S. E. (2009). A longitudinal investigation of newcomer adjustment inside both an institutionalised and individualised workplace. [Doctoral thesis, Victoria University of Wellington]. http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10063/1079/thesis.pdf?sequence=1 Burris, C. T., & Jackson, L. M. (2000). Social identity and the true believer: Responses to threatened self‐stereotypes among the intrinsically religious. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(2), 257-278. Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person–organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54, 1–22. Cable, D. M., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2013). Breaking them in or eliciting their best? Reframing socialization around newcomers’ authentic self-expression. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(1), 1-36. Chiu, B. (2022, March 1). Investors are waking up to market potential of diversity, equity and inclusion. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bonniechiu/2022/03/01/investors-are- waking-up-to-market-potential-of-diversity-equity-and-inclusion/?sh=5e5d72ce5597. Chung, B. G., Ehrhart, K. H., Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Dean, M. A., & Kedharnath, U. (2020). Work group inclusion: Test of a scale and model. Group & Organization Management, 45(1), 75-102. Correll, J., & Park, B. 2005. A model of the ingroup as a social resource. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 9: 341-359. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self‐determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 319–338. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01. Dickens, D. D., Womack, V. Y., & Dimes, T. (2019). Managing hypervisibility: An exploration of theory and research on identity shifting strategies in the workplace among Black women. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 113, 153-163. Dufour, L., Escribano, P. I., & Maoret, M. (2021). (How) Will I Socialize You? The Impact of Supervisor Initial Evaluations and Subsequent Support on the Socialization of Temporary Newcomers. Organization Science, 32(3), 881-908. 59 Ferdman, B. M. (2017). Paradoxes of inclusion: Understanding and managing the tensions of diversity and multiculturalism. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(2), 235- 263. Georgeac, O. A. M., & Rattan, A. (2022, June 9). The Business Case for Diversity Backfires: Detrimental Effects of Organizations’ Instrumental Diversity Rhetoric for Underrepresented Group Members’ Sense of Belonging. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000394 Grandey, A. A. (2003). When “the show must go on”: Surface acting and deep acting as determinants of emotional exhaustion and peer-rated service delivery. Academy of Management Journal, 46(1), 86-96. Guo, S., Cockburn-Wootten, C., & Simpson, M. (2008, July). The socialisation processes of ‘Asian-bringing employees’ in the New Zealand banking industry. Paper presented at the Australian New Zealand Communication Association conference, Wellington, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.anzca.net/component/docman/cat_view/15- anzca- 08/16-refereed-proceedings.html Gupta, P. D., Bhattacharya, S., Sheorey, P., & Coelho, P. (2018). Relationship between onboarding experience and turnover intention: Intervening role of locus of control and self-efficacy. Industrial and Commercial Training, 50(2), 61-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICT-03-2017-0023 Halvorsen, B. & Ng., Y. L. (2016, December 6-9 December). Migrant employees, job embeddedness and intention to leave: The mediating influence of climate for inclusion. Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2016 Conference. Brisbane, Australia. https://www.anzam.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf-manager/2758_ANZAM- 2016-077-FILE001.PDF Hart, Z. P., Miller, V. D., & Johnson, J. R. (2003). Socialization, resocialization, and communication relationships in the context of an organizational change. Communication Studies, 54, 483–495. Hausknecht, J. P., Trevor, C. O., & Howard, M. J. (2009). Unit-level voluntary turnover rates and customer service quality: Implications of group cohesiveness, newcomer concentration, and size. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1068–1075. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015898 Heyward, M. (n.d.) Winning with diversity & inclusion - Companies with the best onboarding practices. PositiveHire. https://positivehire.storychief.io/companies-best-onboarding- practices. Huynh, Q.-L., Nguyen, A.-M. D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2011). Bicultural identity integration. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Ed s.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 827–844). Springer. 60 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). Sage Publications, Inc. Jablin, F. M. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/ exit. In F. M. Jablin, & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 732–818). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jansen, W. S., Otten, S., van der Zee, K. I., & Jans, L. (2014). Inclusion: Conceptualization and measurement. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 370-385. Jobvite. (2020). Job seeker nation study: When change is the only constant. https://www.jobvite.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/FINAL-Jobvite-JobSeekerNation- Report1_5-11.pdf. Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279. Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Simon, L. S., & Rich, B. L. (2012). The psychic cost of doing wrong: Ethical conflict, divestiture socialization, and emotional exhaustion. Journal of Management, 38(3), 784-808. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. Basic Books. Kim, T. Y., Cable, D. M., & Kim, S. P. (2005). Socialization tactics, employee proactivity, and person-organization fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 232. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford publications. Komisarof, A. (2009). Testing a modified interactive acculturation model in Japan: American– Japanese coworker relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 399– 418. Kulkarni, M., & Lengnick‐Hall, M. L. (2011). Socialization of people with disabilities in the workplace. Human Resource Management, 50(4), 521-540. Leonardelli, G. J., Pickett, C. L., & Brewer, M. B. (2010). Optimal distinctiveness theory: A framework for social identity, social cognition, and intergroup relations. In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 63-113). Academic Press. Leong, F. T. (2001). The role of acculturation in the career adjustment of Asian American workers: A test of Leong and Chou’s (1994) formulations. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7, 262–273. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1991). Culture and socialization in work groups. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (pp. 257–279). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 61 Liberto, J. (2014). The most important question to ask new employees. Fast Company. https://www.fastcompany.com/3035458/the-most-important-question-to-ask-new- employees Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 1297–1343). Chicago: Rand McNally. Malik, A., & Manroop, L. (2017). Recent immigrant newcomers‟ socialization in the workplace: Roles of organizational socialization tactics and newcomer strategies. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 36(5), 382-400. Manata, B., Miller, V. D., DeAngelis, B. N., & Paik, E. J. (2016). Newcomer socialization research: The importance and application of multilevel theory and communication. Annals of the International Communication Association, 40(1), 307-340. Ménard, J., & Brunet, L. (2011). Authenticity and well‐being in the workplace: A mediation model. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 331–346. doi: 10.1108/02683941111124854. Miller, M. J., & Manata, B. (2020). The effects of workplace inclusion on employee assimilation outcomes. International Journal of Business Communication, 2329488420976805. Montani, F., Maoret, M., & Dufour, L. (2019). The dark side of socialization: How and when divestiture socialization undermines newcomer outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(4), 506-521. Mor-Barak, M. E., & Cherin, D. A. (1998). A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce diversity: Exploring a measure of inclusion-exclusion. Administration in Social Work, 22(1), 47-64. Museus, S. D., Yi, V., & Saelua, N. (2018). How culturally engaging campus environments influence sense of belonging in college: An examination of differences between White students and students of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 11(4), 467–483. https://doi.org/10. 1037/dhe0000069 Nguyen, T. N. T., Bui, T. H. T., & Nguyen, T. H. H. (2021). Improving employees’ proactive behaviors at workplace: The role of organizational socialization tactics and work engagement. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 31(6), 673-688. Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 172–191. Nishii, L. H. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754-1774. 62 Pan, Z., Lu, Y., & Gupta, S. (2014). How heterogeneous community engage newcomers? The effect of community diversity on newcomers’ perception of inclusion: An empirical study in social media service. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 100-111. Pelled, L. H., Ledford, G. E., & Mohrman, S. A. 1999. Demographic dissimilarity and workplace inclusion. Journal of Management Studies, 36: 1013-1031. Pickett, C. L. & Bonner, B. L., & Coleman, J. M. 2002. Motivated self-stereotyping: Heightened assimilation and differentiation needs result in increased levels of positive and negative self-stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82: 543-562. Plaut, V. C., Garnett, F. G., Bufardi, L. E., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2011). “What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and Whites’ reactions to multiculturalism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022832 Quinn, R. P., & Shepard, L. J. (1974). The 1972-73 Quality of Employment Survey. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research. University of Michigan. Roberson, Q. M. (2006). Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations. Group & Organization Management, 31(2), 212-236. Roberts, L. M., Dutton, J. E., Spreitzer, G. M., Heaphy, E. D., & Quinn, R. E. (2005). Composing the reflected best-self portrait: Building pathways for becoming extraordinary in work organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 712-736. Rojas, R. S. & Metoyer, P. H. (1995). The Mexican American female worker: Perspectives on gender and culture in the workplace. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 163–178. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Socialization tactics and newcomer information acquisition. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5, 48–61. Saks, A. M., Uggerslev, K. L., & Fassina, N. E. (2007). Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: A meta-analytic review and test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70(3), 413-446. Settles, I. H., Buchanan, N. T., & Dotson, K. (2019). Scrutinized but not recognized:(In) visibility and hypervisibility experiences of faculty of color. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 113, 62-74. Settles, I. H., Sellers, R. M., & Damas Jr, A. (2002). One role or two?: The function of psychological separation in role conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 574. Shaheed, J., & Kiang, L. (2021). A need to belong: the impact of institutional diversity ideologies on university students’ belonging and interracial interactions. Social Psychology of Education, 24(4), 1025-1042. 63 Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1262-1289. Simosi, M. (2010). The role of social socialization tactics in the relationship between socialization content and newcomers' affective commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology. Thoits, P. A. (1991). On merging identity theory and stress research. Social Psychology Quarterly, 101-112. Van den Bosch, R., & Taris, T. W. (2014). The authentic worker's well-being and performance: The relationship between authenticity at work, well-being, and work outcomes. The Journal of Psychology, 148(6), 659-681. Van Dick, R., Cordes, B. L., Lemoine, J. E., Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., Akfirat, S. A., ... & Kerschreiter, R. (2021). Identity leadership, employee burnout and the mediating role of team identification: evidence from the global identity leadership development project. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(22), 12081. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209–264. Veldman, J., Meeussen, L., Van Laar, C., & Phalet, K. (2017). Women (do not) belong here: Gender-work identity conflict among female police officers. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 130. Veli Korkmaz, A., van Engen, M. L., Knappert, L., & Schalk, R. (2022). About and beyond leading uniqueness and belongingness: A systematic review of inclusive leadership research. Human Resource Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2022.100894 Villalpando, O. (2002). The impact of diversity and multiculturalism on all students: Findings from a national study. NASPA Journal. https://doi.org/10.2202/0027-6014.1194 Way, J. D., Conway, J. S., Shockley, K. M., & Lineberry, M. C. (2022). Predicting Perceptions of Team Process Using Optimal Distinctiveness Theory. Small Group Research, 53(3), 464-489. Winters, M. -F. (2014). From diversity to inclusion: An inclusion equation. In B. M. Ferdman & B. R. Deane (Eds.), Diversity at work: The practice of inclusion (pp. 229–259). San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass. 64 APPENDIX A: TABLES Table 1. Organizational Socialization Tactics (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979) and Reclassification into Institutionalized-Individualized Tactics (Jones, 1986) Organizational Socialization Tactics (Van Jones (1986) Maanen & Schein (1979) Collective – Individual: Institutionalized: collective, formal, socialize newcomers as a group or separately sequential, fixed, serial, investiture Formal – Informal: Individualized: individual, informal, random, keep newcomers apart from or together with variable, disjunctive, divestiture other existing employees Sequential – Random: socialize newcomers in consecutive or arbitrary steps Fixed – Variable: plan to socialize newcomers with start and stop dates or socialize newcomers without a specific timeframe Serial – Disjunctive: use or not use insiders as role models during socialization Investiture – Divestiture: affirm newcomers in their uniqueness or change them to fit in with others 65 Table 2. Inclusion Constructs Construct Definition Components Inclusion “The degree to which an employee is • Decisionmaking influence (Pelled et al., 1999) accepted and treated as an insider • Access to sensitive information by others in a work system.” (p. 1014) • Job security Organizational Inclusion Individual's sense of being a part of the • Involvement in work groups (Mor Barak & Cherin, 1998) organizational system in both formal • Participation in the decision-making process processes and informal processes • Access to information and resources where information exchange and decisions making often take place. Climate for Inclusion Shared unit-level perceptions of • Foundation of equitable employment practices (Nishii, 2013) inclusion which is “characterized by a • Integration of differences collective commitment to integrating • Inclusion in decision-making diverse cultural identities as a source of insight and skill.” (p. 1754) Perceived Group Inclusion “The degree to which an individual • Perception of belonging (group membership, (Jansen et al., 2014) perceives that the group provides him group affection) or her with a sense of belonging and • Perception of authenticity (room for authenticity.” (p. 373) authenticity, value in authenticity) Workgroup Inclusion Individuals’ experience of inclusion • Satisfaction of belonging needs (Chung et al., 2020) within the group. • Satisfaction of uniqueness needs Inclusive leadership Behaviors of leaders that promotes • Fostering employee’s uniqueness (Veli Korkmaz et al., 2022) inclusion for their employee, team, or • Strengthening belongingness within a team organization • Supporting organizational efforts • Showing appreciation 66 Table 3. EFA Results with Factor Loadings Loadings Factor 1 Factor 2 My early experiences with this organization indicate that they .88 value individuality. (I) My organization communicates that they are accepting of .84 newcomers’ personal characteristics. (I) The organization encourages me to engage in self-expression .83 as a newcomer. (I) From the day I was hired, I was given the message that my .83 uniqueness is valued here. (I) The organization engages in messages and activities that .82 encourage me to be myself at work. (I) The message of my organization toward newcomers is: “We .82 like you as you are.” (I) The organization recognizes that newcomers are unique. (I) .82 Drawing on my personal experiences and ideas has been .77 encouraged by this company. (I) The organization has encouraged me to bring my own views to .77 solving workplace problems. (I) The organization eased me into my job by building on my identity .76 and personal characteristics. (I) Becoming a part of the company involved sharing with my .73 colleagues what makes me “me”. (I) The company encouraged newcomers to leverage their signature .71 .12 strengths. (I) The onboarding process has emphasized that there is a wide range .71 of people and approaches here at my organization. (I) The organization has made it clear that I am expected to provide .60 my own interpretation of situations that arise at work. (I) Loadings Factor 1 Factor 2 This organization has focused on acclimating newcomers to .75 the corporate culture. (D) The organization reinforces its value and norms to newcomers. .73 (D) The organization encouraged me to embrace corporate values. .72 (D) Many of the messages to new employees are about the .72 organization’s values. (D) Since my first day on the job, I was encouraged to familiarize .72 myself with the organization’s culture. (D) The messages sent to new employees focus on learning how to .71 adapt to the organization’s culture and ways of doing things. (D) 67 Table 3 (cont’d). Throughout the onboarding process, newcomers are .71 encouraged to learn and demonstrate the company’s core values. (D) A lot of the activities I engaged in as a new employee were .66 designed to help me learn about and adopt the organization’s way of doing things. (D) New employees are encouraged to adopt the organization’s -.22 .66 identity and way of doing things. (D) My interactions at work have involved learning what we value at .14 .63 this company. (D) The organization has emphasized that it is important to focus on .13 .57 embodying what makes the organization special. (D) Developing a shared identity with my new colleagues was .55 emphasized by the organization as important in my becoming a part of this company. (D) Part of the onboarding by the organization includes sharing the .15 .49 values of those who have been at this company. (D) The organization emphasizes how newcomers become part of the .31 .47 team. (D) Note. Bolded items were retained 68 Table 4. CFA Factor Loadings Loadings Study 1 Study 2 (n = 250) (n = 217) The organization engages in messages and activities that .82 .83 encourage me to be myself at work. (I) The message of my organization toward newcomers is: “We like .84 .86 you as you are.” (I) Drawing on my personal experiences and ideas has been .78 .83 encouraged by this company. (I) The organization encourages me to engage in self-expression as a .82 .83 newcomer. (I) From the day I was hired, I was given the message that my .90 .89 uniqueness is valued here. (I) The organization recognizes that newcomers are unique. (I) .84 .89 My early experiences with this organization indicate that they .86 .91 value individuality. (I) My organization communicates that they are accepting of .79 .78 newcomers’ personal characteristics. (I) The organization encouraged me to embrace corporate values. (D) .63 .54 The organization reinforces its value and norms to newcomers. (D) .61 .65 The messages sent to new employees focus on learning how to .61 .73 adapt to the organization’s culture and ways of doing things. (D) A lot of the activities I engaged in as a new employee were .60 .58 designed to help me learn about and adopt the organization’s way of doing things. (D) Many of the messages to new employees are about the .61 .66 organization’s values. (D) Throughout the onboarding process, newcomers are encouraged to .61 .69 learn and demonstrate the company’s core values. (D) Since my first day on the job, I was encouraged to familiarize .62 .73 myself with the organization’s culture. (D) This organization has focused on acclimating newcomers to the .72 .75 corporate culture. (D) 69 Table 5. Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations between study measures in Study 1 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 Investiture 3.60 .86 (.95) - 2 Divestiture 4.00 .66 .19* (.89) 3 Socialization 3.72 .59 .83* .70* (.89) 4 Subjective Fit 3.54 .59 .66* .19** .58* (.94) Investiture 5 4.96 .91 .62* 0.12 .52* .55* (.75)) (Jones, 1986) Organizational 6 3.46 .86 .67* .20** .60* .76* .48* (.93) Commitment 7 Extraversion 2.92 .88 .16* 0.12 .18* .15* 0.05 .24* (.64) 8 Agreeableness 3.78 .78 .28* 0.08 .25* .36* .23* .34* .17* (.46) Conscientiousn 9 3.68 .87 0.07 0.1 0.11 0.04 0.09 0.02 .24* .17* (.63) ess 10 Neuroticism 2.86 1.02 -.26* -0.05 -.21* -.19* -.17* -.22* -.40* -.16* -.41* (.73) 11 Openness 3.82 .81 0 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.01 -0.03 .23* .17** .14* -0.11 (.64) NOTE. Bolded values are significant at p < .05. Cronbach’s alphas are reported in parentheses. *p < .05. Socialization is the aggregate of Investiture and Divestiture. All scales except for Investiture (Jones, 1986) were measured on a scale from 1 to 5. Investiture (Jones, 1986) was measured on a scale from 1 to 7. 70 Table 6. Means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations between study measures in Study 2 M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Investiture 3.61 .88 (.95) 2 Divestiture 3.79 .71 .39* (.89) 3 Inclusion (T1) 3.75 .71 .80* .40* (.92) 4 Inclusion (T2) 3.69 .78 .74* .37* .80* (.93) 5 Cultural Conflict 2.25 .94 -.56* -.15* -.53* -.50* (.88) 6 Job Satisfaction 3.84 .83 .55* .29* .63* .73* -.49* (.89) 7 Job Embeddedness 2.93 .96 .43* .21* .47* .61* -.24* .60* (.92) 8 Turnover 2.14 1.03 -.45* -.24* -.51* -.65* .42* -.76* -.57* (.93) NOTE. Bolded values are significant at p < .05. Cronbach’s alphas reported in parentheses. *p < .05. All scales were measured on a scale from 1 to 5. 71 Table 7. Multiple regression (investiture x divestiture) predicting perceived inclusion b SE t p ∆R2 Step 1 Investiture .63 .05 13.88 <.001 Divestiture .11 .06 1.85 .07 .54 Step 2 Investiture X .01 .04 -.01 .76 .00 Divestiture NOTE. Bolded values are significant at p < .05. Adjusted R 2 = .54. 72 Table 8. Multiple regression (investiture x divestiture x cultural conflict) predicting perceived inclusion b SE t p ∆R2 Step 1 Investiture .54 .06 9.52 <.001 Divestiture .09 .06 1.49 .14 Cultural Conflict -.07 .05 -1.55 .12 .56 Step 2 Investiture X Divestiture .02 .05 .29 .77 Investiture X Cultural Conflict .04 .04 1.21 .23 Divestiture X Cultural Conflict -.08 .07 -1.24 .22 .00 Step 3 Investiture X Divestiture X Cultural Conflict -.05 .04 -1.39 .17 .00 NOTE. Bolded values are significant at p < .05. Adjusted R 2 = .56. 73 Table 9. Multiple regression (inclusion x group status) predicting job satisfaction b SE t p ∆R2 Step 1 Inclusion .79 .06 13.95 <.001 Group Status -.12 .08 -1.44 .15 .54 Step 2 Inclusion X .00 .12 .01 .99 .00 Group Status NOTE. Bolded values are significant at p < .05. Adjusted R 2 = .54. 74 Table 10. Multiple regression (inclusion x group status) predicting job embeddedness b SE t p ∆R2 Step 1 Inclusion .81 .08 10.69 <.001 Group Status .01 .11 .13 .90 .37 Step 2 Inclusion X -.26 .16 -1.63 .10 .00 Group Status NOTE. Bolded values are significant at p < .05. Adjusted R 2 = .37. 75 Table 11. Multiple regression (inclusion x gender) predicting job satisfaction b SE t p ∆R2 Step 1 Inclusion .81 .08 10.53 <.001 Gender .10 .08 1.31 .19 .53 Step 2 Inclusion X -.02 .11 -.15 .88 .01 Gender NOTE. Bolded values are significant at p < .05. Adjusted R 2 = .54. 76 Table 12. Multiple regression (inclusion x gender) predicting job embeddedness b SE t p ∆R2 Step 1 Inclusion .73 .10 7.16 <.001 Gender .16 .11 1.48 .14 .37 Step 2 Inclusion X .03 .14 .26 .80 .00 Gender NOTE. Bolded values are significant at p < .05. Adjusted R 2 = .36. 77 APPENDIX B: FIGURES Figure 1. The individual-group relationship and frameworks of acculturation and inclusion 78 Figure 2. Proposed model linking socialization, inclusion, and outcomes Note. H6 hypothesizes indirect effects and is not pictured here. 79 Figure 3. The expected interaction between investiture and divestiture on perceived inclusion 80 Figure 4. Parallel analysis scree plot for Study 1 81 Figure 5. Interaction between investiture and divestiture on inclusion perceptions 82 Figure 6. Interaction between inclusion and group status on job satisfaction 83 Figure 7. Interaction between inclusion and group status on job embeddedness 84 Figure 8. Interaction between inclusion and gender on job satisfaction 85 Figure 9. Interaction between inclusion and gender on job embeddedness 86 APPENDIX C: SCREENING QUESTIONS Screener Questions (Provided by Prolific) 1. Employment Status: Participants were asked the following question: What is your employment status ? a. Full-Time b. Part-Time c. Due to start a new job within the next month d. Unemployed (and job seeking) e. Not in paid work (e.g. homemaker', 'retired or disabled) f. Other 2. Workgroups: Participants were asked the following question: Do you work as part of a workgroup within your organisation? a. I work alone b. I sometimes work as part of a group and sometimes alone c. I work as part of a small group 2-10 d. I work as part of a large group 10+ e. Not applicable Screening Survey 1. How long have you been with your current employer? a. Up to one year b. One to three years c. Three to six years d. More than six years 87 APPENDIX D: STUDY 1 SCALE VALIDATION CONSENT FORM Research Participation and Consent Form: You are being asked to participate in a research project. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may have. STUDY PURPOSE AND TASK: You are being asked to participate in a research study that focuses on newcomers. You will be asked to report your experience as someone who recently onboarded as a part of a new job. Your participation in this study will take about 10 minutes to complete. You may not participate if you are under 18 years of age. You will NOT be asked to provide your name, anyone else’s name, or any other information that could potentially identify you. You will then be asked several demographic questions about yourself so as to describe the nature of our sample. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND RISKS: The potential benefits to you for taking part in this study are a chance to gain further understanding on your own thoughts and feelings concerning diversity statements. There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. Completion and quality of data will be taken into consideration before compensation is provided. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: Your responses will be completely anonymous— neither the researchers nor anyone else will be able to link the data to you. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW: Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. COMPENSATION RULES: You will be monetarily compensated for your participation and completion of this survey according to the terms previously noted. The following are reasons why we would not be able to compensate you for your participation. By following these compensation rules, we hope to be as fair as possible to survey respondents who meet the study criteria, who access the survey only once, and who provide quality data for our study. Please note: • If you are not eligible to take this research survey based on the prescreening questions, we cannot compensate you for your participation and you will be asked to return your submission. The quality of our scientific study depends on participants meeting these criteria. • If you fail the CAPTCHA check, we cannot compensate you for your participation as we cannot ensure you are a human participant who is eligible for this research survey. • If you do not correctly answer attention check items, we cannot compensate you for your participation as we cannot be sure you have provided quality data. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS: If you have concerns or 88 questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researchers: Ann Marie Ryan, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, phone: 517-353-8855, e- mail: ryanan@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e- mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. 89 APPENDIX E: STUDY 1 MEASURES Socialization scale Instructions: When people are new to an organization, there a lots of things that are done along with traditional onboarding activities to get employees familiar with the organization and how things are done. Some of this is job specific training (e.g., how to use certain software or equipment) and some of it is routine information (e.g., company policies on time off, who to go to for what type of question). We’d like you to think about things your organization has done in the past several months to get you acquainted with how the organization operates and what the culture is like. Please answer the questions below with regard to activities and approaches the organization has used with you as a newcomer. Scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 4 = “Agree,” 5 = “Strongly agree”. Investiture 1. The organization engages in messages and activities that encourage me to be myself at work. 2. The message of my organization toward newcomers is: “We like you as you are.” 3. The organization eased me into my job by building on my identity and personal characteristics. 4. Drawing on my personal experiences and ideas has been encouraged by this company. 5. The organization encourages me to engage in self-expression as a newcomer. 6. The organization has made it clear that I am expected to provide my own interpretation of situations that arise at work. 7. The organization has encouraged me to bring my own views to solving workplace problems. 8. The onboarding process has emphasized that there is a wide range of people and approaches here at my organization. 9. From the day I was hired, I was given the message that my uniqueness is valued here. 10. The organization recognizes that newcomers are unique. 11. My early experiences with this organization indicate that they value individuality. 12. My organization communicates that they are accepting of newcomers’ personal characteristics. 13. The company encouraged newcomers to leverage their signature strengths. 14. Becoming a part of the company involved sharing with my colleagues what makes me “me”. Divestiture 90 1. The organization encouraged me to embrace corporate values. 2. The organization has emphasized that it is important to focus on embodying what makes the organization special. 3. My interactions at work have involved learning what we value at this company. 4. Part of the onboarding by the organization includes sharing the values of those who have been at this company. 5. Developing a shared identity with my new colleagues was emphasized by the organization as important in my becoming a part of this company. 6. The organization reinforces its value and norms to newcomers. 7. The organization emphasizes how newcomers become part of the team. 8. The messages sent to new employees focus on learning how to adapt to the organization’s culture and ways of doing things. 9. New employees are encouraged to adopt the organization’s identity and way of doing things. 10. A lot of the activities I engaged in as a new employee were designed to help me learn about and adopt the organization’s way of doing things. 11. Many of the messages to new employees are about the organization’s values. 12. Throughout the onboarding process, newcomers are encouraged to learn and demonstrate the company’s core values. 13. Since my first day on the job, I was encouraged to familiarize myself with the organization’s culture. 14. This organization has focused on acclimating newcomers to the corporate culture. 91 Jones (1986) Socialization scale Instructions: Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements regarding your current workplace during the onboarding process. Scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Somewhat Disagree,” 4 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 5 = “Somewhat Agree,” 6 = “Agree,” 7 = “Strongly agree”. 1. I have been made to feel that my skills and abilities are very important in this organization. 2. Almost all of my colleagues have been supportive of me personally. 3. I have had to change my attitudes and values to be accepted in this organization.* 4. My colleagues have gone out of their way to help me adjust to this organization. 5. I feel that experienced organizational members have held me at a distance until I conform to their expectations.* Note: * indicates reverse-coded item. 92 Cable and DeRue (2003) Fit measure Instructions: Using the provided scale, please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. Scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 4 = “Agree,” 5 = “Strongly agree”. Perceived P-O fit 1. The things that I value in life are very similar to the things that my organization values. 2. My personal values match my organization’s values and culture. 3. My organization values and culture provide a good fit with the things that I value in life. 93 Mowday et al (1979)’s Organizational Commitment Questionnaire Instructions: Using the provided scale, please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. Scale: Scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 4 = “Agree,” 5 = “Strongly agree”. 1. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful. 2. I talk up this organization to my friends as a great organization to work for. 3. I would accept almost any type of job assignment in order to keep working for this organization. 4. I find that my values and the organizations values are similar. 5. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization. 6. This organization really inspires the very best in me in the way of job performance. 7. I am extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined. 8. I really care about the fate of this organization. 9. For me this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work. 94 Soto & John (2017) Big Five Inventory (BFI)-2-XS Instructions: Here are a number of characteristics that may or may not apply to you. For example, do you agree that you are someone who likes to spend time with others? Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. Scale: 1 = “Disagree strongly,” 2 = “Disagree a little,” 3 = “Neutral; no opinion,” 4 = “Agree a little,” 5 = “Agree strongly” 1. Tends to be quiet.* 2. Is compassionate, has a soft heart. 3. Tends to be disorganized.* 4. Worries a lot. 5. Is fascinated by art, music, or literature. 6. Is dominant, acts as a leader. 7. Is sometimes rude to others.* 8. Has difficulty getting started on tasks.* 9. Tends to feel depressed, blue. 10. Has little interest in abstract ideas.* 11. Is full of energy. 12. Assumes the best about people. 13. Is reliable, can always be counted on. 14. Is emotionally stable, not easily upset.* 15. Is original, comes up with new ideas. Note: * indicates reverse-coded item. 1E, 2A, 3C, 4N, 5O, 6E, 7A, 8C, 9N, 10O, 11E, 12A, 13C, 14N, 15O 95 Demographics 1. Please indicate your ethnicity (i.e. peoples’ ethnicity describes their feeling of belonging and attachment to a distinct group of a larger population that shares their ancestry, colour, language or religion)? (Provided by Prolific) a. African b. Black/African American c. Caribbean d. East Asian e. Latino/Hispanic f. Middle Eastern g. Mixed h. Native American or Alaskan Native i. South Asian j. White/Caucasian k. White / Sephardic Jew l. Black/British m. White Mexican n. Romani/Traveller o. South East Asian p. Other (please feel free to let us know your ethnicity via email) 2. How do you describe your gender identity? (Provided by Prolific) a. Male b. Female c. Trans Male/Trans Man d. Trans Female/Trans Woman e. Genderqueer/Gender Non Conforming f. Different Identity g. Rather not say 3. What is your current age in years? [sliding scale] 4. Employment Status: Participants were asked the following question: What is your employment status? f. Full-Time g. Part-Time h. Due to start a new job within the next month i. Unemployed (and job seeking) j. Not in paid work (e.g. homemaker', 'retired or disabled) k. Other 5. Workgroups: Participants were asked the following question: Do you work as part of a workgroup within your organisation? l. I work alone m. I sometimes work as part of a group and sometimes alone n. I work as part of a small group 2-10 o. I work as part of a large group 10+ 96 p. Not applicable 6. How long have you been with your current employer? e. Up to one year f. One to three years g. Three to six years h. More than six years 97 APPENDIX F: STUDY 2 HYPOTHESIS TESTING INFORMED CONSENT FORM Research Participation and Consent Form: You are being asked to participate in a research project. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may have. STUDY PURPOSE AND TASK: You are being asked to participate in a research study that focuses on newcomers. You will be asked to report your experience as someone who recently onboarded as a part of a new job. Your participation in this study will take about 10 minutes to complete. You may not participate if you are under 18 years of age. You will NOT be asked to provide your name, anyone else’s name, or any other information that could potentially identify you. You will then be asked several demographic questions about yourself so as to describe the nature of our sample. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND RISKS: The potential benefits to you for taking part in this study are a chance to gain further understanding on your own thoughts and feelings concerning diversity statements. There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. Completion and quality of data will be taken into consideration before compensation is provided. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: Your responses will be completely confidential— neither the researchers nor anyone else will be able to link the data to you. By participating in the survey, your Prolific participant ID will be collected and used to link your data across time. This data will later be aggregated and deidentified. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW: Participation in this study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. COMPENSATION RULES: You will be monetarily compensated for your participation and completion of this survey according to the terms previously noted. The following are reasons why we would not be able to compensate you for your participation. By following these compensation rules, we hope to be as fair as possible to survey respondents who meet the study criteria, who access the survey only once, and who provide quality data for our study. Please note: • If you are not eligible to take this research survey based on the prescreening questions, we cannot compensate you for your participation. The quality of our scientific study depends on participants meeting these criteria. If we find that you have re-entered the survey multiple times after initially failing the prescreening questions, we also cannot compensate you. • If your survey responses include poor qualitative (written) responses, we cannot compensate you for your participation. Poor quality qualitative responses include, but are 98 not limited to, nonsensical text or lines copied and pasted from other internet sources. The rigor of our scientific study depends on high quality data. • If you do not correctly answer attention check items, we cannot compensate you for your participation as we cannot be sure you have provided quality data. CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS: If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researchers: Ann Marie Ryan, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, phone: 517-353-8855, e- mail: ryanan@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e- mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. By clicking the Next button, you are indicating your consent to participate in this study. If you do not consent to participate, please exit the survey now. Thank you for your participation. 99 APPENDIX G: STUDY 2 TIME 1 MEASURES Socialization Experience Instructions: How have organizational policies and practices helped you adjust to your new workplace? (e.g., orientation, training, mentoring, social activities, etc.) Using 2 - 3 sentences, give examples of how this process affirmed your personal attributes and/or emphasized the company’s values during your first month on the job. [Text response] 100 Length of Socialization Companies often help new employees adjust to their new workplace through socialization, the process of initiating new employees after they have been hired. How long is the socialization process at your job? • Less than one month • One to three months • Three to six months • Six months to a year • More than a year 101 Cultural Conflict measure Instructions: Using the provided scale, please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. Please note: By “my identity”, we mean ways you think about yourself, including social groups that you belong to. Scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 4 = “Agree,” 5 = “Strongly agree”. 1. I am conflicted between my way and the company’s way of doing things. 2. I feel like someone switching between my identity and my company’s identity. 3. I feel caught between my identity and the company culture. 4. I don’t feel trapped between my individual identity and the company culture.* Note: * indicates reverse-coded item. 102 Workgroup Inclusion measure Instructions: Please indicate the degree to which you personally agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the company at which you work. Scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 4 = “Agree,” 5 = “Strongly agree”. Belonging 1. I am treated as a valued member of my organization. 2. I belong in my organization. 3. I am connected to my organization. 4. I believe that my organization is where I am meant to be. 5. I feel that people really care about me at work. Uniqueness 1. I can bring aspects of myself to work that others in the company don’t have in common with me. 2. People at work listen to me even when my views are dissimilar. 3. While at work, I am comfortable expressing opinions that diverge from others at the company. 4. I can share a perspective on work issues that is different from the people I work with. 5. When my organization’s perspective becomes too narrow, I am able to bring up a new point of view. 103 Investiture- Divestiture scale Instructions: When people are new to an organization, there a lots of things that are done along with traditional onboarding activities to get employees familiar with the organization and how things are done. Some of this is job specific training (e.g., how to use certain software or equipment) and some of it is routine information (e.g., company policies on time off, who to go to for what type of question). We’d like you to think about things your organization has done in the past several months to get you acquainted with how the organization operates and what the culture is like. Please answer the questions below with regard to activities and approaches the organization has used with you as a newcomer. Scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 4 = “Agree,” 5 = “Strongly agree”. Investiture 1. The organization engages in messages and activities that encourage me to be myself at work. 2. The message of my organization toward newcomers is: “We like you as you are.” 3. Drawing on my personal experiences and ideas has been encouraged by this company. 4. The organization encourages me to engage in self-expression as a newcomer. 5. From the day I was hired, I was given the message that my uniqueness is valued here. 6. The organization recognizes that newcomers are unique. 7. My early experiences with this organization indicate that they value individuality. 8. My organization communicates that they are accepting of newcomers’ personal characteristics. Divestiture 1. The organization encouraged me to embrace corporate values. 2. The organization reinforces its value and norms to newcomers. 3. The messages sent to new employees focus on learning how to adapt to the organization’s culture and ways of doing things. 4. A lot of the activities I engaged in as a new employee were designed to help me learn about and adopt the organization’s way of doing things. 5. Many of the messages to new employees are about the organization’s values. 6. Throughout the onboarding process, newcomers are encouraged to learn and demonstrate the company’s core values. 7. Since my first day on the job, I was encouraged to familiarize myself with the organization’s culture. 8. This organization has focused on acclimating newcomers to the corporate culture. 104 Demographics 1. How do you describe your gender identity? a. Male b. Female c. Trans Male/Trans Man d. Trans Female/Trans Woman e. Genderqueer/Gender Non Conforming f. Different Identity g. Rather not say 2. Please indicate your ethnicity (i.e. peoples’ ethnicity describes their feeling of belonging and attachment to a distinct group of a larger population that shares their ancestry, colour, language or religion)? (Provided by Prolific) a. African b. Black/African American c. Caribbean d. East Asian e. Latino/Hispanic f. Middle Eastern g. Mixed h. Native American or Alaskan Native i. South Asian j. White/Caucasian k. White / Sephardic Jew l. Black/British m. White Mexican n. Romani/Traveller o. South East Asian p. Other (please feel free to let us know your ethnicity via email) 3. What is your age? [sliding scale] 4. What is your employment status ? q. Full-Time r. Part-Time s. Due to start a new job within the next month t. Unemployed (and job seeking) u. Not in paid work (e.g. homemaker', 'retired or disabled) v. Other 5. Do you work as part of a workgroup within your organisation? w. I work alone x. I sometimes work as part of a group and sometimes alone y. I work as part of a small group 2-10 z. I work as part of a large group 10+ aa. Not applicable 6. How long have you been with your current employer? 105 a. Less than one month b. One to three months c. Three to six months d. More than six months 7. How many months have you been in your current position? If less than one month, please indicate 0. 8. Which of the following best describes the sector you primarily work in? a. Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources b. Architecture and Construction c. Arts d. Business Management & Administration e. Education & Training f. Finance g. Government & Public Administration h. Medicine i. Hospitality & Tourism j. Information Technology k. Legal l. Policing m. Military n. Manufacturing o. Marketing & Sales p. Retail q. Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics r. Social Sciences s. Transportation, Distribution & Logistics t. Other u. Rather not say 9. How many months have you been in your industry? If less than one month, please indicate 0. 10. How many employees does the company you work for have? a. 1-9 b. 10-49 c. 50-249 d. 250-999 e. 1000+ 106 APPENDIX H: STUDY 2 TIME 2 MEASURES Turnover Intention measure Instructions: Using the provided scale, please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. Scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Somewhat disagree,” 4 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 5 = “Somewhat agree,” 6 = “Agree,” 7 = “Strongly agree”. 1. I intend to leave this organization soon. 2. I plan to leave this organization in the next little while. 3. I will quit this organization as soon as possible. 4. I do not plan on leaving this organization soon.* 5. I may leave this organization before too long. Note: * indicates reverse-coded item. 107 Job Satisfaction measure Instructions: Using the provided scale, please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. Scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 4 = “Agree,” 5 = “Strongly agree”. 1. All in all, I am very satisfied with this job. 2. If a friend told me she/he was interested in working in a job like this one, I would strongly recommend it. 3. In general, this job measures up to the sort of job I wanted when I took it. 4. Knowing what I know now, if I had to decide all over again whether to take this job, I would. 108 Job Embeddedness measure Instructions: Using the provided scale, please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. Scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 4 = “Agree,” 5 = “Strongly agree”. 1. I feel attached to this organization. 2. It would be difficult for me to leave this organization. 3. I’m too caught up in this organization to leave. 4. I feel tied to this organization. 5. I simply could not leave the organization that I work for. 6. It would be easy for me to leave this organization.* 7. I am tightly connected to this organization. Note: * indicates reverse-coded item. 109 Inclusion Experience Please write 2 - 3 sentence about how you have been made to feel included at work since you started your job. [text response] 110 Workgroup Inclusion measure Instructions: Please indicate the degree to which you personally agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the company at which you work. Scale: 1 = “Strongly disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neither agree nor disagree,” 4 = “Agree,” 5 = “Strongly agree”. Belonging 6. I am treated as a valued member of my organization. 7. I belong in my organization. 8. I am connected to my organization. 9. I believe that my organization is where I am meant to be. 10. I feel that people really care about me at work. Uniqueness 6. I can bring aspects of myself to work that others in the company don’t have in common with me. 7. People at work listen to me even when my views are dissimilar. 8. While at work, I am comfortable expressing opinions that diverge from others at the company. 9. I can share a perspective on work issues that is different from the people I work with. 10. When my organization’s perspective becomes too narrow, I am able to bring up a new point of view. 111 Demographics 3. How do you describe your gender identity? a. Male b. Female c. Trans Male/Trans Man d. Trans Female/Trans Woman e. Genderqueer/Gender Non Conforming f. Different Identity g. Rather not say 4. Please indicate your ethnicity (i.e. peoples’ ethnicity describes their feeling of belonging and attachment to a distinct group of a larger population that shares their ancestry, colour, language or religion)? (Provided by Prolific) a. African b. Black/African American c. Caribbean d. East Asian e. Latino/Hispanic f. Middle Eastern g. Mixed h. Native American or Alaskan Native i. South Asian j. White/Caucasian k. White / Sephardic Jew l. Black/British m. White Mexican n. Romani/Traveller o. South East Asian p. Other (please feel free to let us know your ethnicity via email) 5. What is your age? [sliding scale] 6. What is your employment status ? bb. Full-Time cc. Part-Time dd. Due to start a new job within the next month ee. Unemployed (and job seeking) ff. Not in paid work (e.g. homemaker', 'retired or disabled) gg. Other 7. Do you work as part of a workgroup within your organisation? hh. I work alone ii. I sometimes work as part of a group and sometimes alone jj. I work as part of a small group 2-10 kk. I work as part of a large group 10+ ll. Not applicable 8. How long have you been with your current employer? 112 a. Less than one month b. One to three months c. Three to six months d. More than six months 9. How many months have you been in your current position? If less than one month, please indicate 0. 10. Which of the following best describes the sector you primarily work in? a. Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources b. Architecture and Construction c. Arts d. Business Management & Administration e. Education & Training f. Finance g. Government & Public Administration h. Medicine i. Hospitality & Tourism j. Information Technology k. Legal l. Policing m. Military n. Manufacturing o. Marketing & Sales p. Retail q. Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics r. Social Sciences s. Transportation, Distribution & Logistics t. Other u. Rather not say 11. How many months have you been in your industry? If less than one month, please indicate 0. 12. How many employees does the company you work for have? a. 1-9 b. 10-49 c. 50-249 d. 250-999 e. 1000+ 113