a contingency theory of socialisation feldman

7/27/2019 A Contingency Theory of Socialisation Feldman

1/21

A Contingency Theory ofSocialization

Daniel CharlesFeldman

A model of individual socialization into organizations ispresented and tested. The model (a) identifies three dis-tinct stages of socialization, (b) specifies the activities en-gaged in by an individual at each stage, and (c) specifiesthe personal and organizational contingencies that controlan individual's m ovem ent through th e stages. Interviewand questionnaire data collected from 118 hospitalemployees nurses, nurse's aides, radiology

technologists, tradesm en, and accounting clerks we reused to deve lop, refine, and test the mo del. The mo delbasically wa s sup ported by the d ata. Four variables areIdentified as possible ou tcomes of the socialization pro-cess: general satisfaction, mutual influence, internal workm otivation, and job involvem ent. Tw o of these variables general satisfaction and mutual influence are empir-ically linked with important aspects of the socializationprocess, and are show n to increase steadily as individualsprogress throug h socialization. The differences betw eenthe so cialization experiences of professional, paraprofes-sional, and nonprofessional workers are identified andexplain ed, and implications for the conduct of socializa-tion programs are drawn.

Scholars of organizational behavior and managers of organiza-tions increasingly are becoming interested in the ways inyvhich employees are socialized into work organizations.There has already been a considerable am ount of w ork doneon describing the phases and activities of the socialization

process (Porter, Lawler, and Hackman, 1975; Van Maanen,1975; Schein, 1968), explaining the rec ruitmen t process andthe methods of socialization (Wanous, 1973; Caplow, 1964),and demonstrating the impact of the job environment, jobduties, and supervisors on ne w recruits (Gom ersall andMyers, 1966; Dunnette, Arvey, and Banas, 1973; Schein,1964).

Altho ugh research in organizational socialization has progresse din generating descriptive models of the socialization process,empirical research testing these mod els has lagged far beh ind(Van M aane n, 1975). There are fe w empirical studies thatidentify the critical variables in the socialization p roces s, orspecify yvhen or how they operate. The current state of kn ow ledge about outcom es o f socialization is likew ise limite d; th erare fe w studies that both identify the outcom es of the socializa-tion process and specify wh at variables determ ine w he the rindividuals attain those outc om es.

This research develops a model that clearly conceptualizesthe socialization process. It identifies the stages of socializa-tion, the activities engaged in at each stage in the process,and possible o utcom es of socialization expe riences. The re-search then presents empirical evidence that demonstrateswhich variables influence whether individuals proceed


2/21

AnticipatorySocialization

Realism

Congruence

Accommodation

Initiation to the task

Role definition

Congruence ofevaluation

Initiation to the group

RoleManagement

Resolution ofoutside-life conflicts

Resolution ofconflictingdemands at work

Outcomes

General satisfaction

Mutual influence

Internal workmotivation

Job involvement

Figure 1 . Process and outcome variables of socialization.

the values of their neyv job settings (Van Maanen, 1975). T

research looks at tyyo other parts of the socialization procesthat occur along vyith the learning of the neyv values, and tare heavily influenced by this learning: adjustment to theyvork environment and development of yvork skills.

Specifically, the research looks at two types of variables inthis socialization-as-adjustment process. Eight process variables are identified. Each signifies the extent to yvhich anindividual has concluded favorably a particular activity in tsocialization process; each reflects the consequences ofday-to-day organizational events on individual feelings aboparticular aspect of the socialization experience. Four out-come variables are also identified. Each of these can beconsidered an indicator of the success of the entire socializtion experience.

The model tested proposes that there are three stages in thsocialization proces s, and identifies the d istinct, and differsets of activities that emp loyees engage in at each stage.Each of the stages in the process, as yvell as its set ofactivities and process variables, is described in turn. Next,four possible outcom es of socialization are identified and dscribed. Finally, the ass um ptions about the order of th e

stages and variables are discus sed, and a distinction is drawbetween successful and complete socialization.

Ant icipatory Social izat ion

This first stage of the socialization process encompasses athe learning that occurs before the recruit enters the organtion (Van Maanen, 1975; Clausen, 1968; Brim and Wheele1966). The stage has been labeled as pre-arrival by Porter,Lawler, and Hackman (1975). The main activities theindi-vidual engages in at this stage are form ing e xpectations abjobs transmitting, receiving, and evaluating informationwith prospective em ployers and making decisions abouemployment.


3/21

Socialization

Congruence. This is the extent to which the organization's resources andindividual needs and skills are mutually satisfying. It indicates how successfulindividuals have been in making decisions about employment.

AccommodationAccommodation, the second stage of the socialization pro-cess, is that period in w hich the individual sees wha t theorganization is actually like and attempts to become a par-ticipating member of it. This phase encompasses the en-counter stage of Porter, Lawler, and Hackman (1975) and VanMaanen (1975), and parts of their change and acquisition andmetamorphosis stages. There are four main activities thatnew employees engage in at the accom modation stage;learning new tasks, establishing new interpersonal relation-ships wit h cow orkers , clarifying their roles in the organizationand evaluating their progress in the organization.

At accommodation, there are four process variables that indi-cate progress through socialization.

Initiation to the task. This is the extent to which the employee feels compe-tent and accepted as a full wo rk partner. It indicates how success fully th eemployee has learned new tasks at work.

Initiation to the group. This is the extent to which an employee feelsaccepted and trusted by cow orkers. It indicates how successful theemployee has been in establishing new interpersonal relationships.

Role definition. Role definition is an implicit or explicit agreement with thework group on what tasks one is to perform and what the priorities and timeallocation for those tasks is to be. It indicates the extent to which employeeshave fully clarified their roles.Congruence of evaluation. This is the extent to which an employee and asupervisor similarly evaluate the employee's progress in the organization. Itindicates the degree of agreement between employees and supervisorsabout the employees' overall progress in the organization and about theirparticular strengths and weaknesses.

Role ManagementIn the third stage of socialization, recruits already have cometo some tentative resolution of problems in their own workgroups, and now need to m ediate the co nflicts b etw een theirwork in their own group and other groups which may placedemands on them. There are two types of conflicts in particu

lar that are crucial to manage at this point: such conflictsbetween work life and home life as schedules, demands onthe employees' families, the effect of the job on the quality ohome life; and conflicts between their work groups and othegroups in the organization, such as over the inclusion orexclusion of certain tasks in the sets, priorities assigned cer-tain tasks, and so for th.At role management, two process variables are important.Resolution of outside life conflicts. This process variable indicates theextent to which em ployees have come to be less upset by home -life/work-life conflicts and the extent to which they have come to some decision rulefor dealing with these conflicts.Resolution of conflicting demands. This variable indicates th e ex tent to

hi h l h b l b fli


4/21

General satisfaction. This is "an overall measure of the degree to which employe e is satisfied and happy in his or her wo rk " (Hackman and Qldha1976). It has often been found to reflect differences in the nature of jobs work situations of individuals (Vroom, 1964).

Mutual influence. This variable is defined as the extent to which individufeel some control or power over the way work is carried out in their depaments. Lack of influence is one of the most frequently cited indicators ofineffective socialization (Schein, 1968; Dubin, 1959; Whyte, 1956; VanMaane n, 1975).

Internal work motivation. This is "the degree to which an employee isself-motivated to perform effectively on the job" (Hackman and Qldham1976). It is most frequently associated with job performance (Vroom, 19

Job involvement. This is the degree to which employees are personallycommitted and involved in their work (Lodahl and Kejner, 1965). WienerGechm an (1977) and Katz and Kahn (1966) both assoc iate job involvem entwith the values learned in the socialization process and with the degree ointernalization of organizational goals.

Assum ptions about Order of Variables

Several assum ptions are made abo ut the causal order of

variables in developing a contingency mo del of soc ializatioFirst, anticipatory socialization is assumed to precede ac-commodation in time. Second, accommodation is assumedprecede role management in time. Third, the process vari-ables of any stage are assumed to influence directly theprocess variables of the immediately subsequent stage, andonly indirectly influence variables of later stages. Finally, othose process variables at the role management stage areassumed to influence the attainment of outcomes (Figure 1

Successful versus Complete Socialization

A distinction is made here between successful and complesocialization. A socialization experience can be judged suc-cessful at any point in the proc ess. Progress is judge d to besucce ssful at any point in time if individuals can proceed ibecoming more proficient in the activities or resolving theconflicts of the stage they are in. If, however, an individualpersonally unable or structurally prevented fro m mak ing prress at a particular stage, then this em ploy ee's socializationnot success ful. For instance, if a married w om an w ith children cannot get her family to accept her wo rk com m itme nas legitimate and cannot get her employer to lessen her woload, she is not having a succ essful socialization e xperienceA complete socialization, on the other hand, occurs only wa person has proceeded through all three stages of the pro-cess and has concluded favorably th e activities at the role-management stage. It is expected that the further along inthe socialization process a person is, the greater an individual's outcomes will be, and that those individuals who havecompleted socialization will have the highest levels on theoutcom e variables.

METHODOLOGYSample


5/21

he interview schedule and the question-aire used in this study were developedy the researcher, and are presented inll in Feldman (1976), All questionnaire

ems except those for general satisfac-on, internal work motivation, and job in-olvement are new in this research; gen-al satisfaction and internal work motiva-on items we re developed by Hackmannd Oldham (1975); the job involvementems come from Lodahl and Kejner965). Sample questionnaire items andterview questionnaires appear in the ap-

endix to th is article.

able 1

Socialization

clerks; 19 radiology technologists; 22 registered nurses; and24 nursing technicians orderlies, nu rse's aides. Eighty per-cent of th e en gineers, accounting clerks, and radiologytechnologists participated, w ith only those employees w howere on sick leave or vacation leave not participa ting. Thesample of nurses and nursing technicians presents 33 per-cent of the nursing service population and were selectedrandomly. There were 79 female subjects and 39 male sub-

jects; their average age was 3 3. Alm ost all of the latter groupwere engineers. Forty percent of the sample had beenem ployed by the hospital less than one year; 60 percent hadbeen employed more than one year.Procedures

Interviews and questionnaires were used to obtain ratings foreach em ployee on the eight process variables and the fouroutcome variables.* Each employee was inten/iewed indi-vidually for 45 minutes about his or her socialization experi-ence, during which time the researcher rated the employeeon each of the variables. At the end of the interview, theemployee was given a questionnaire of 47 Likert items tocomplete; the questionnaire went over much of the materialin the inten/iew. All data collection activities were conductedby the researcher during a six-wee k p eriod.Scales

Interview ratings and questionnaire items were combined inthe formulation of the final scales; the interview rating wastreated as an additional questionnaire item , and w as averaged

with the other questionnaire items in a scale. Interview-questionnaire correlations were sufficiently high to make thisa reasonable strategy. Sixty-seven percent of the interviewratings correlated with their respective questionnaire items atth e .001 level, and 88 percent of the interview ratings correlated

cale Score S tatistics

cale

ealismongruence

nitiation to taskole definitionongruence of

valuationnitiation to g roupesolution ofonflicting demandsesolution of out-de-life conflicts

l f

Mean

4.5234.9325.036

4.962

4.2125.079

4.715

4.766

StandardDeviation

1.2531.301

.8461.235

1.3871.026

1.130

1.015

Meanw i th in

ScaleCorre la t ion

.414

.502

.201

.463

.491

.345

.333

.181

Meanouts ide

ScaleCorrelation

.126

.157

.113

.206

.180

.122

.127

.094

S p earm an -

B r o w nReliability

.739

.751

.501

.775

.743

.612

.667

.400


6/21

w ith their respective questionnaire item s at the .05 level. descriptive statistics for the scales are presen ted in Table 1scales have mo derate internal consistency and are indep ende nt; the average Spe arma n-Brow n reliability, corrected fattenu ation, is .65 and the average correlation of scale itemw ith items not in the sam e scale is .1 3.

A factor analysis w as done to exam ine the underlying p aof the variables and to determine whether the variables ctered around the stage they w ere in, an aspect of the wo renvironment they represented, or som e other dimen sionfactor pattern matrix, which w as derived from an obliquerotated fac tor analysis, is repre sen ted in Table 2. Four factemerged. Tw o of these factors consist of an outcom e varable and the process variables w hic h are correlated w ith another factor consists of the tw o role-managem ent vari-ables; no variable loads highly on the fou rth factor.

Table 2

Factor Analysis*

RealismCongruenceInitiation to taskInitiation to grou pCongruence of evaluationRole definitionResolution of conflictingdemandsResolution of outside-life conflictsGeneral satisfactionMutual influenceInternal work motivationJob involvement

Factor I f

.401

.849

.036

.091

.276

.558

.085

.093

.826- . 030

.075- . 0 1 9

Factor 2

.003- . 2 1 6- . 0 6 1- . 0 7 0

.172

.224

.436

.514

.013

.106- . 378- . 2 7 0

Factor 3

.104- . 0 37

.490

.394

.495

.081

.299

.099- . 0 1 9

.607

.002

.216

Factor

- . 3 0 9.205.023.327

- . 0 4 7- . 2 1 4

- . 0 1 3

.318

.077- . 0 3 1

.110- . 0 5 5

Factor pattern matrix: the square of a pattern matrix coefficient representdirect contribution ofa given factor to th e variance of a variable.

tFactor 1 correlates. 133 wi th Fac tor2, .435 w ith Fac tor3, and .034 with FFactor 2 correlates .057 wit h Factor 3 and -.0 81 wi th Factor4 ; Factor 3correlates .013 with Factor 4.

Data Analysis

Partial correlations were used to determine the relationshbetween variables. The assumptions about the time order variables outlined above imply that there are sets of interving variables that are intermedia te in the causal sequ encebetween stages in the socialization process and the set ofoutc om es (Blalock, 1 964). Partial correlations allow the r

h l k h li l i hi b


7/21

Socialization

have been used alternatively to de term ine the relationshipsbe twe en variables.

The follo win g rules we re used in calculating the partial correlations.

Betw een variables in tw o different stages. (1) Betweentwo variables in two successive stagesbetween process

variables of anticipatory socialization and accom m oda tion, be -tween process variables of accommodation and role man-agem ent, and betw een process variables of role mana gementand outcomes^all the o ther variables in these tw o stageswere controlled. This was done because it might be possiblefor variables at one stage to be correlated generally w ith eachother, and it was necessary to identify whether specific two-variable correlations were spurious.

(2) Betw een tw o variables from stages which w ere notsuccessivebetween process variables of anticipatory

socialization and role management, between process vari-ables of anticipator/ socialization and outcomes, and betweenprocess variables of accommodation and outcomes^theother variables in those tw o stages, as well as all variablesfrom the intervening stages, were controlled. Here, it wa simportant to identify not only if correlations were spurious,but also if variables intervened in ways consistent with themodel's assumptions about time.

Between tw o variables in the same stage. This is withinanticipatory socialization, within accommodation, within rolemanag ement, and betw een outcom es. (1) At anticipatorysocialization, a simp le Pearson correlation be twe en realismand congruence was calculated. No prior causes to these twovariables were assumed, nor were there other variables atthis stage that might cause the relationship between congru-ence and realism to be spurious or suppressed.

(2) Be twee n any tw o variables in accomm odation, the othertwo variables in accommodation as well as realism and con-gruence were held constant. It is assumed that only thevariables from the immediately prior stage or the same stagecould be the source of spurious relationships.

(3) Be twe en resolution of conflicting demands and resolutionof outside -life co nflicts, the four variables of the mo st priorstage, accomm odation, we re controlled to eliminate a spuri-ous or identify a suppressed relationship. It is assumed thatonly the variables from the immediately prior stage could bethe source of these correlations.

(4) Betw een any tw o o utcom e variables, the other two out-come variables, as well as resolution of conflicting demands

and resolution of outside-life conflicts, were held constant.Once again, it is assum ed that only the variables from theimmediately prior stage or same stage could contribute to


8/21

Table 3

Zero-Order and Higher-Order Correlations among

Variables

Congruence withRealismInitiation to taskInitiation to groupCongruence of evaluationRole definitionResolution conflicting demandsResolution outside-life conflictsGeneral satisfactionMutual influenceWork motivationJob involvementRealism w ithInitiation to taskInitiation to groupCongruence of evaluationRole definitionResolution conflicting demandsResolution outside-life conflictsGeneral satisfactionMutual influenceWork motivationJob involvementInitiation to task withInitiation to groupCongruence of evaluationRole definitionResolution conflicting demandsResolution outside-life conflictsGeneral satisfactionMutual influenceWork motivationJob involvementInitiation to group withCongruence of e valuationRole definitionResolution conflicting demandsResolution outside-life conflictsGeneral satisfactionMutual influenceWork motivationJob involvementCongruence of evaluation withRole definitionResolution conflicting demandsResolution outside-life conflictsGeneral satisfactionMutual influenceWork motivationJob involvementRole definition withResolution conflicting demandsResolution outside-life conflictsGeneral satisfactionMutual influenceWork motivationJob involvementResolution conflicting demands withResolution outside-life conflictsGeneral satisfactionMutual influenceWork motivationJob involvementResolution outside-life conflicts withGeneral satisfactionMutual influenceWork motivationJob involvementGeneral satisfaction with

Mutual influenceWork motivationJob involvementMutual influence with

Zero-OrderCorrelation

.283

.226"*

.306*

.351*

.377*

.124

.094694*

.134

.117

.034

.152 '*07 6.227**.380*.119.021.336*.202***

- .094.053

.294

.294*.19^*"

.220*

.031

.152**

.273*

.016

.105

.228*10 7

.112

.164*

.206*219

.082

.064

434.356.213**.422*.452*

- .003.078

.307^9^^All*

.173*"*- .0 3 6- .0 6 8

. 2 6 7 "

.217**

.209'- . 2 11 * * *

.040

.236j75

- .141- .117

.213.026

.085

Scaie Scores

PartialCorrelation

.063

.232

.158***

.214***- . 0 6 5- .013

.605*- .0 9 5

.104-.081

.061- .029

.033

. 2 7 2 "- .004- .0 6 0

112.124

- .124.048

.229

.124

.052

.141- .094- .014

.159*"*

.020

.077

.114- .0 6 4- .027

.137

.101

.079

.095

.015

.317*

. 210 '**

.081

.114

.347*

.053

.059

.148

.085

.237

.150- 1 3 0- .002

201*

.144

- .0 2 6

.189*

.108- .092- .132

.143.085

.095


9/21


Socialization

AccommodationRoleManagement Outcomes

Initiationto thetask

.16' Mutualinfluence

Congruence

.23*

.28*

initiationto thegroup

Congruenceofevaluation

Realism.21'

.32*

Roledefinition

Resolutionofconflictingdemands

Generalsatisfaction

^.001 p^.Ob

Internalworkmotivation

Resolutionof outside-lifeconflicts

Jo binvolvement

ure 2. Significant correlations between process and outcome variables.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For each stage in the socialization process, the relationshipsamong the variables at that stage are examined, followed byan exam ination of the relationships with prior variables.Therelationships between outcomes and between outcomes andprevious process variables are then discussed. Data are pre-sented to illustrate the differences in outcome levels by jobcategory and by point of progress in the socialization process.

Anticipatory SocializationCongruence and realism are correlated significantly with eachother ( r=.28 ,p^ .001) . In cases where individuals withheldinforma tion fro m the hospital during the selection process toobtain jobs, or where the hospital held back significant factsfrom employees to get them to take positions, employeeswere more likely to end up with jobs that were not meetingsome of their important needs.

The behavior of both employees and supervisors in the Ac-counting D epartment during the selection process illustrates

this relationship. The employees in accounting mainly do suchclerical work as billing, typin g, filing,and keypunching. A veryimportant aspect of these jobs however is dealing with


10/21


11/21

Socialization

the supervisors may give workers more opportunities to learnnew tasks and skills, and be more willing to let them pass onunwanted chores to others. If, however, employees considerthemselves quite competent, but the supervisors do notshare that viewlow congruencethe supervisors may loadall the simpler tasks on them or hold them back from doingmore challenging tasks until the supervisors feel theemployees have mastered the tasks already assigned them.

Mo reover, if emp loyees define their tasks and priorities in away consistent with supervisor preferences, theseemployees will experience a greater congruence of evaluationwith the supervisors.An example of this relationship comes from nursing service.Three-year diploma nurses tended to feel the mark of a goodnurse is the ability to keep on schedule, to handle all patientsquickly and efficiently, and to be solicitous of the attendingphysician's demands. In contrast, four-year degree nursestended to feel that the mark of quality nursing care is em-phasis on the total patientboth their physical and psycholog-ical needsand that the nurse should share more fully in thediagnosis and treatment decisions made on the floor. Thesetwo views of nursing entail desires for very different types oftasks to perform and very different priorities among thesetasks. Head nurses differed in the extent to which theyshared these two views of the nursing role. Those nurseswho shared their head nurse's philosophy and defined theirjobs accordingly also tended to feel more fairly and equitablyevaluated on their job performance.

Relationships with prior variables. Realism and congruenceare both significantly correlated with the outcome ofemployee role definition activities (r=.27,p ^ . 0 1 , and r = . 2 1 ,p^.O5, respectively). The more realistic picture employeeshave of the hospital, the easier will be their attempts todiscover what is and is not expected of them at work.Employees who feel that they have incomplete or incorrectinformation will have a much more difficult time sorting owhat exactly they are supposed to be doing.

The relationship of congruence and role definition is largely aresult of the fact that employees who feel that they are suitedto their jobs are more likely to find the set of tasks they arerequired to pe rform to be pleasant or enjoyable, and are lesslikely to desire to rearrange or redefine the ir job du ties. On th eother hand, where the initial congruence between employeesand their jobs is low, e mp loyees may have to invest a gooddeal of energy in trying to restructure their jobs so that theycan spend time doing those few tasks for which they feelthey are well suited.

Examples of the relationships of realism and congruence withrole definition come from the nursing technicians. Aboutone-third of these technicians had had previous work experi-ences before coming to this particular hospital, and knew


12/21

Congruence is also correlated with congruence of evaluati(/-= 16 ,p^ .O 5). The more people perceive that they are suitto their^ jobs, the more likely they w ill feel fairly and equitaevaluated by their supervisors. Employees who feel that thare not we ll suited for their jobs are more likely to find thcriteria by which supervisors evaluate them to be unfair anthe expectations which supervisors set for them to be un-realistically high. In accounting, for example, clerks who w

actually better suited for bookkeeping jobs rather than fortheir present clerk-typist jobs felt that they should beevaluated more on accuracy of work than on speed in typiand felt supervisors set unrealistic goals for th em .

Role Management

The two process variables of role management, resolutionconflicting demands and resolution of outside-life conflicare significantly and positively correlated w ith each other(r= 20,p^.O5) Two factors seem to account for this corretion. Both these variables entail the same typ e of a ctivity,there are probably individual differences between people perceiving and understanding the types of conflicts that egenerating solutions which do not involve other people loface, and having interpersonal competence in dealing withother people to resolve these conflicts. Second, this particorganization takes the same stance toward both kinds ofconflictpassive and inflexible. Those individuals who dpend on the flexibility of management to resolve their coflicts Will meet with the same type of negative response inaction.

There is a positive relationship b etw ee n congruence of evation and resolution of conflicting demands(r=.21, p^.O5Employees w ho fee l that supervisors share the sam e evalution of their work as they them selve s have also feel that thsupervisors may recognize the same role conflicts they reognize, similarly evaluate solutions to thes e c onflicts , anmore flexible and active in resolving con flicts.

OutcomesThe research examines four possible outcomes of the soczation process: general satisfaction, mutual influence, inwork motivation, and job involvement. These four variabare independent statistically; they are not significantly clated with each other (Table 3). The relationships of eachoutcome with prior process variables will thus be discusseparately. Mean differences between job categories on four o utcom e variables are also explained in terms of therelationships of outcomes with process variables. The mdifferences for ali process and outc om e variables are displayed in Table 4.

General satisfaction. Four variables are significantly andpositively correlated with general satisfaction: congruenrole definition, resolution of conflicting demands, and reti f t id lif fli t C i t t


13/21

Socialization

abie 4

cale Scores by Job Categ ory

cale

ealism*ongruence

nitiationo tasknitiationo groupongruenoeof

valuationRole

efinitionResolution ofonflictingennands

Resolution ofutside-feonflicts

Generalatisfaction*

Mutualnfluenceobnvolvement*nternal

workmotivation*

-test significant

To ta lS am p le

4.524.93

5.03

5.07

4.21

4.96

4.71

4.76

5.21

3.40

3.46

5.62

at .05 level.

Engineers

4.395.33

5.17

5.08

4.28

5.07

5.02

4.90

5.63

3.44

3.77

5.42

Radio logyTechno log is ts

5.365.03

5.05

4.87

4.52

5.32

4.55

4.93

5.39

4.12

3.61

5.76

A cco u n t in g

4.204.78

4.68

4.84

4.08

5.03

4.59

5.04

5.25

3.12

2.87

5.53

Nurs ingTechnicians

4.444.48

4.92

4.97

4.44

4.84

4.94

4.65

5.03

3.04

3.49

5.46

Nurses

4.404.98

5.36

5.63

3.74

4.55

4.35

4.25

4.68

3.45

3.57

6.03

Role definition and general satisfaction are also positivelycorrelated (r=.24,p^.O1). Individuals who could largely de-termine what tasks they would do and how they could allo-cate their time among those tasks expressed more positiveattitudes about the nature of their work and their relationshipwith other members of their work group. This is consistent

w ith Dansereau, Graen, and Haga's previous wo rk (1975) onthe development of superior-subordinate relationships. Theyfound that members of work groups with more latitude innegotiating roles reported less difficulty in dealing withsuperiors, perceived the superior's behavior as more respon-sive to their job needs, and expressed more positive attitudesabout the intrinsic outcomes of their work and interpersonalrelationships.Given the prevalence of role conflict in this hospital setting, iis not surprising that resolution of conflicting demands ispositively related to general satisfaction (r=.16, p=^.O5). Roleconflict with other departments serves as a constant irritantto hospital employees, making the overall quality of the work


14/21

There is a significant negative correiationbetween resolution of conflicting de-mands and internal wo rk motivation{r=- . 1 9 , p.O5). This result is more likely an

some provocative issues for the role of the organization in socialization process. The finding suggests that what happeto individuals outside of the work place does indeed influetheir satisfaction with their jobs. Moreover, w ith the exception of providing counse ling or being flexible in sche dulingthe organization may have little influence over a major deteminant of job satisfaction.When the correlations of the four variables which relate to

satisfaction are examined, the reason for the departmentdifferences in general satisfaction becomes clearer. Whilenurses and engineers both have jobs whic h suit their skillsand abilities, nurses have a good deal of difficulty in definitheir jobs because they have many different tasks to do anddisagreements about the priorities these tasks should claimMoreover, nurses have the severest role conflicts to handleat work managing the conflicting demands of medical andadministrative duties, and at home managing unusualscheduling problems and the effects of patients' problems them. In contrast, engineers have few inconsistent demandput on them' as they clarify their w ork roles. They have verylittle to do wit h the medical hierarchy, and can go about thebusiness fairly well without being bothered; rarely, if everthey have to work nights or weeke nds.

Mutual influence. Tw o vanables at the accom mo dation staare significantly related to mutual influence : initiation to ttask (r=.16,p^.O5) and congruence of evaluation (r=.35,p^ .001) .Employees beiieve that until such time as they feel on top

their jobs, they would look foolish trying to suggest changabout work-related activities to coworkers or supervisors.Moreover, people feel they need to earn the right to makesuggestions, and the way to do this is to dem onstrate co mpetence. The relationship between congruence of evaluatiand mu tual influence revolves around the probabilities thatemployees assign to the receptiveness of supervisors to thsuggestions. Where employees feel they themselves are nappreciated or evaluated fairly, they doubt their supervisorwill appreciate and evaluate their suggestions favorably.Supervisors are the people who will ultimately decide wh

suggestions to implement; when employees feel they arevalued by their supervisors, they have little reason to belisupervisors will heed their advice.

All procedures are determined at the upper echelons of thhospital, and not even first- and second-line sup ervisors hmuch influence in decisions which affect their work grouFor this reason, the m utual influence scores in the hospitaare consistently low.

Internal work motivation and job involvement. No variin this research is significantly and positively related to eiinternal wo rk m otivation or job involvem ent (Figure 2). Imo re likely that the nature of the w ork itself rather than t


15/21

Socialization

job involvement. When the significant department differenceson thes e t w o variables are exam ined, it can be seen that thethree jobs with the highest motivating potentialnurse,radiology technologist, and engineeralso have the threehighest scores on these two outcomes. These jobs involvethe use of several different skills; workers do identifiablepieces of work; and employees can tell right awayfrompatients, films, or equipmentwhether they have performed

effectively. In contrast, accounting clerks and nursing servicetechnicians have jobs with low motivating potential; their jobrequire fewer skills, allow less autonomy, and are much lessenriched than the other jobs studied.

There is additional evidence to support the hypothesis thatgeneral satisfaction and mutual influence, rather than internalwork motivation and job involvement, are outcomes ofsocialization. Earlier, a distinction w as drawn betw een suc-cessful and com plete socialization. It is expec ted that th efurther along in the socialization process individuals arethat

is, the more successful their socializationthe higher will betheir outcome levels, and that those individuals who havecompleted socialization will have the highest outcome levels.

To test this hypothesis, the researcher determined to whatstage in the socialization process each employee's socializa-tion had progressed. If an employee averaged 5.33 or higher,out of a possible 7, on the process variables of a stage, theperson was judged to have completed that stage in socializa-tion (C); if the average of the process variables of a stage wasat least 4 and lower than 5.33, that person was judged to be

making moderate progress in completing that stage (M); ifthe average of the process variables of a stage wa s lowe rthan 4, that person was judged to have made little progress atthat stage (L). These cut-off points roughly divide the sampleinto thirds across all variables. There was thus a coding of C,M, or L for each em ployee on each of the three stages ofsocialization anticipatory socialization, accom mo dation, androle management.

Table 5

Ou tcom e Levels by Stag e in Socialization Process

Progress General Mu tual Internal W ork JobPoin t Sat is fact ion* In f luence** Mo t ivat ion Invo lvem

(1.)(2.)(3.)(4.)(5.)

LLL (/V=9)CLL (A/-8)CMM {A/=9)CCM (/V=12)CCC {A/=13)

4.115.465.475.776.17

1.963.173.294.053.59

5.885.785.615.645.59

3.283.073.423.643.67

Note. Group 1, LLL, represents tho se people w ho have made little progress atany stage in the socialization proc ess.Group 2, CLL, represents those people who have completed anticipatorysocialization, but have yet to make progress at the later two stages.Group 3, CM M , represents those people who have comp leted an ticipator/

i li ti d h d d t t th l t t t


16/21

Table 5 compares the means of five groups which have madiffering amounts of progress in the socialization process.These groups we re chosen because they represented thefive most frequent points employees were at in their sociazation process. Forty-four percent of the sample fell at thefive points.On general satisfaction, there is a perfect, steady increase ingroup means from those w ho have not completed anticipa-

to r/ socialization to those w ho have com pleted all threestages. A one-way analysis of variance indicates that the differences be twe en thes e five groups is significant at the .00level. On mutual influence, with one exception, there is alssteady increase in group means corresponding to degree ofprogress through socialization; the one -way analysis of variance is significant at the .05 level. In contrast, on the twooutcomes which were not correlated with any processvariablesinternal work motivation and job involvementdifferences between groups are small in magnitude and arnot statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONSThere are two types of conclusions and implications to bedrawn from this research: conclusions about the contingenmodel of socialization presented here, and implications theresearch has for organizational socialization in general. Eacof these is considered in turn.

The Contingency Model of Socialization

In Figure 2, the statistically significant correlations betweepairs of process and outco m e variables are displayed. A l-though these correlations seem reasonable in explaining thdata collected at this hospital, it is still not possible to statdefinitively that Figure 2 is the one model that best explaithe relationships between the process vanables and outcovariables of socialization.

Three correlations in particular seem to be significant duethe peculiarities of this particular hospital: the negative colation between resolution of conflicting demands and intework mo tivation, the positive correlation b etwe en resoluof conflicting demands and resolution of outside-life conand the positive correiation between congruence and initition to the group.

Second, there were no hypotheses made about the significance of specific linkages between pairs of variables. Toideally test the fit of a model to actual data, additional datwould have to be collected to see whether the relationshithat emerged as significant from this data would emerge significant again.

Third, it was not possible with this sample to sort out dif

ences between socialization experiences of males and thoof females, or to develop models specifically for particulaoccupational groups. An important research task stil! rema


17/21


SocializationAccommodation

RoleManagement Outcomes

Initiationto thetask

Mutualinfluence

Congruence

Initiationto thegroup

Congruenceofevaluation

RealismRoledefinition

Generalsatisfaction

Resolutionofconflictingdemands

Internal

workmotivation

gure 3. Contingency model of socialization.

Resolutionof outside-lifeconflicts

Jo binvolvement

tivities occur. Although the data collected at the hospital didnot indicate that the assumptions made about this order areincorrect, many alternative models could be proposed fromthe same set of variables using different time assumptions.

All information considered, the model proposed as the mostreasonable contingency model of socialization is displayed inFigure 3. While the time assumptions are kept the same, thethree relationships discussed above are now hypothesized tobe zero, and the relationship between congruence and initia-tion to the task is hypothesized to be significant. Since manyalternative models could be proposed from the same set ofvariables, it is important to compare this model to otherpossible models to see which best explains the socializationprocess. Moreover, since some relationships salient in hospi-tal settings may not be significant in other settings, and somerelationships not significant in this setting may be very impotant in other organizations, it would be helpful to determinethe appropriateness of the model for other types of jobs inother types of institutions.

Implications for Organizational Socialization

One of the major implications of this research for organiza-

tional socialization is that socialization programs may not beappropriate for achieving some of the results most frequentlyexpected from them What socialization programs do affect


18/21

REFERENCES

Aiderfer, Clayton P.1971 Existence, Relatedness, and

Growth: Human Needs in Or-ganizational Settings. NewYork: Free Press of Glencoe.

Blalock, Hubert M. Jr.1964 Causal Inferences in Nonex-perimental Research. NewYork: W. W. Norton.

Brim, Orville G. Jr., and StantonWheeler, editors1966 Socialization after Childhood.

New York: John Wiley andSons.

Caplow, Theodore1964 Principles of Organization.

New York: Harcourt, Brace,and World.

Clausen, John A., ed.1968 Socialization and Society. Bos-

ton : Little, Brown and Co.

Dansereau, Fred Jr. , GeorgeGraen, and William J. Haga1975 "A ve rtical dyad linkage ap-

proach to leadership withinformal organizations: alongitudinal investigation ofthe role making process." Or-ganizational Behavior andHuman Performance, 13:46 - 78 .

do not seem to affect are the type of internal work motivator job involvement associated with job performance, for nof the variables which have been commonly associated withe socialization process are correlated significantly w itheither internal work motivation or job involvement.

The results suggest an analogy to Herzberg's distinction be-tween hygiene and motivator variables (Herzberg, Mausnerand Snyde rman, 1959). Socialization processes functionsomewhat like hygiene variables; they are correlated posi-tively with indicators of the quality of the work environmrather than with the quality of the work itself. The nature othe work itself acts more as a motivator variable, and is mstrongly associated with employees' needs to self-actualizand to find self-realization through w ork (Aiderfer, 1971).

In short, the present research em phasizes the need for amore sophisticated and differentiated study of organizationsocialization. W itho ut such an analysis, general expec tatioabout the goals and advantages of socialization programsremain unclear and evaluations of actual socialization efforremain difficult to assess.Daniel Charles Feldman is an assistant professor at theUniversity of Minnesota Industrial Relations Center.

Dunnette, Marvin D., Richard D.Avery, and Paul A. Banas1973 "W hy do they leave?" Per-

sonnel , May-June: 25-39.

Feldman, Daniel Charles1976 A Contingency Theory of

Socialization. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Yale Uni-versity.

Gomersall, Earl R., and M. ScottMyers1966 "Bre akthro ugh in on-the-job

training." Harvard BusinessReview, 44, No. 4: 62-7 2.

Hackman, J. Richard, and EdwardE. Lawler III1971 "Em ploy ee reactions to job

charactenstics." Jou rnal ofApplied Psychology Mono-graph, 55: 2b9-286

Hackman, J. Richard, and Greg R.Oldham1975 "Dev elopm ent of the jobdiag-

nostic survey." Journal ofApplied Psychology, 60:159-170 .

1976 "Mo tivatio n through design ofwo rk: te st of a theo ry." Or-ganizational Behavior andHuman Performance, in press.

Herzberg, Frederick, BernardMausner, and Barbara B. Snyder-

Lodahl, Thomas M., and MathilKejner1965 "The definition and measu

ment of job involvement.Journal of Applied Psycho49: 2 4 - 3 3 .

Porter, Lyman W., Edward E.Lawler III, and Richard J. Hackm1975 Behavior in Organizations

New York: McGraw-Hill.Schein, Edgar H.1964 "H ow to break in the coll

graduate." Harvard BusinReview, 42: 68-76.

1968 "Organizational socializatand the profession of management." Industrial Management Review, 9: 1-16

Van Maanen, John1975 "Bre aking in : socializatio

work." In Robert Dubin (eHandbook of Work, Organt ion, and Society. ChicagoRand-McNally.

Vroom, Victor H.1964 Work and Motivation. Ne

York: John W iley and SonWanous, John P.1973 "E ffec ts of a realistic job

view on job acceptance, joattitudes, and job su rvivalJournal of Applied Psycho

58 : 327 - 3 3 2 .Whyte, William H., Jr.1956 The Organization Man. N


19/21

Social izat ion

APPENDIX: SAMPLE INTERVIEW AND QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS

Realism

What did you expect your job to be like before you started to work? What didyou think were the biggest advantages of that particular job? Disadvantages?Were your expectations confirmed? Disconfirmed? In what ways?

I knew wh at the good points and bad points of this job were wh en I washired.

I did nor know wha t to expect w hen I came to work for this hospital.

(Reverse score)

Congruence

In what ways do you think there is a good fit between you and your job? Didyou som etimes feel that the job was not the right job for you, or you m ightnot be the right person for the particular job you do?

In som e w ays , I feel like this is not the right type of w ork fo r m e, or I'm notthe right type of person for this job. (Reverse score)

I'm sure there mus t be another job in the hospital for w hich I am bettersuited.

Init iat ion to the Task

If you could get more training, what are the areas you'd like to get it in? Doyou feel the need for more training? What do you feel others think of yourwork? How would you feel about correcting other workers' errors?

I am sure that people around me are pleased with my work.

I feel confident enough about my abilities to correct other workers' errors.

Init iat ion to the Group

What w as it like trying to get accepted by other department mem bers? Howrelaxed do you think other department mem bers feel with you now? To w hatextent do people confide in each other? How about you?

My coworkers actively try to include me in conversations about things atwork.

I don't think my coworkers feel relaxed when they are with me. (Reversescore)

Congruence of Evaluation

What kind of procedures are there for performance evaluations? How doesthat system affect you? Do you feel you are doing a better job than you'regetting credit for?

People around here rarely tell you how good they think your work is. (Reversscore)

I think I may be doing better in my job than my supervisors give me credit fo(Reverse score)

Role Definit ion

Do people feel job descriptions are accurate? How about you? Are there jobsyou routinely do that you feel should be part of someone else's work? Canyou do anything about it?

I frequently w onder wh y I get assigned som e of the jobs 1 do. (Reversescore)Some th ings I continually have to do at w ork should really be part of so me -one else's job. (Reverse score)

Reso lu t ion o f Conf l ic t ing DemandsWhat other depa rtments do you deal with? Smoothly or w ith friction? W henthere is a conflict with another department how do you handle it?


20/21

Resolution of Outside-Life Conflicts

Do you feel as if your job interferes with your outside life? How much? Iwh at ways? Do your family or friends encourage you to talk about p robleat work outside the hospital?

My job schedule interferes wi th my life outside work. (Reverse score)

The people I see outside the hospital don 't l ike to hear about wh at go es omy job. (Reverse score)

General Satisfaction

Overall, how satisfied are you w ith the job? W here d o you think yo u'll byear from now? How optimistic are you about your future in the hospital

I am generally satisfied with the kind of work I do.

I frequently think of quitting this job. (Reverse score)

Mutual Influence

How much opp ortunity do you have to influence the way things are donaround your department? If you had an idea about improving the ways joare done around here, how likely do you think it is you could change somthing?

If I had an idea about im proving th e way jobs w ere d one in this depa rtmedou bt I could ge t action on it. (Reverse score)I feel I have a lot of influence in my unit.

Internal Work Motivation

I feel bad or unhappy when I discover that I have performed poorly on thjob.My own feelings generally areno t affected much one way or the other bhow well I do this job. (Reverse score)

Job Involvement

The most important things that happen to m e involve m y work on this j

Most people on this job are very personally involved in their work.


21/21

a contingency theory of socialisation feldman

Documents