newcomer and organizational socialization tactics:...

NEWCOMER AND ORGANIZATIONALSOCIALIZATION TACTICS: AN

INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE

Andrea E.C. Griffin

Adrienne ColellaSrikanth Goparaju

Texas A & M University, College Station, TX, USA

During the past 15 years, organizational socialization research has focused

on two issues. The first is the need for researchers to take an interactionist

perspective on the process. The second has been both a conceptual and

empirical concern with the pro-active socialization techniques employed by

newcomers. The present article takes an interactionist perspective by

presenting a model and propositions of how organization socialization

tactics impact on and interact with newcomer pro-active socialization tactics

to influence socialization outcomes.

Organizational socialization has been defined as the process by which an

individual acquires the attitudes, behavior, and knowledge needed to partici-

pate as an organizational member (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). It is a

process that involves both the organization and the employeeÐwith an

ultimate outcome being mutual acceptance (Wanous, 1980). Thus, the actions

that each take to bring about organizational socialization are mutually inter-

dependent (Reichers, 1987). The focus of this article is to first review newcomer

pro-active socialization tactics and organizational socialization tactics and

then put forth propositions about how these actions on both parties interact

to influence the socialization process and outcomes.

The research on organizational socialization has evolved, particularly in

the theoretical realm, over the last several decades (Bauer, Morrison, &

Callister, 1998; Fisher, 1986), but there is one perspective that has not been

adequately addressedÐthe interactionist perspective. Early work in the area

of socialization focused primarily on how organizations socialized newco-

mers, i.e., emphasis was placed on what organizations did (Fisher, 1986;

Direct all correspondence to: Andrea E.C. Griffin, Department of Management, Lowry Mays College and

Graduate School of Business, Texas A & M University, 4221 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4221, USA.

Human Resource Management Review, Copyright # 2000

Volume 10, Number 4, 2000, pages 453±474 by Elsevier Science Inc.

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN : 1053 ± 4822

Van Maanen, 1976; Wanous & Colella, 1989). In the late 1980s, several

researchers argued that the socialization literature should take an interac-

tionist perspective (Jones, 1983; Reichers, 1987; Schneider, 1983). These

arguments helped to spur a flurry of research activity in the 1990s, which

focused on the manner in which newcomers pro-actively behave to facilitate

their own socialization process (e.g., Ashford & Taylor, 1990; Bauer et al.,

1998). Thus, researchers have examined the theoretical underpinnings of

socializationÐboth in content and process, and empirical studies have

moved this work forward, but have examined them either primarily from

the individual's or the organization's perspective. The interactionist perspec-

tive would seek to integrate these two areas by examining how newcomer's

attempts at self-socialization work in tandem with the organization's at-

tempts at socialization to influence socialization outcomes. Specifically, this

article explores how the socialization tactics employed by the organization

will impact on, and interact with the pro-active tactics used by newcomers to

influence the socialization process. Before presenting this portion of the

article, we present a brief review of the newcomer pro-active socialization

tactics literature, followed by a brief review of Van Maanen and Schein's

(1979) model of organizational tactics.

NEWCOMER PRO-ACTIVE SOCIALIZATION TACTICS

During the last decade, there has been a fairly large number of studies

which have empirically examined pro-active behaviors by newcomers, many

of which focus on the information-seeking efforts in which newcomers

engage (Bauer et al., 1998). We conducted computerized searches of psy-

chology and organizational science literature to locate work that specifically

examined newcomer pro-active socialization. A listing of these articles and

the pro-active socialization tactics examined is presented in Table 1. Based

on this review, we uncovered the following pro-active socialization tactics

that newcomers may engage in and have been found to be related to the

socialization process and/or its outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, turnover, perfor-

mance): performance feedback seeking, information seeking from technical

sources, information seeking from co-workers, information seeking from

supervisors, relationship building with co-workers, relationship building

with supervisors, informal mentorship, job change negotiation, positive

framing, involvement in work-related activities, behavioral self-management,

and observation/modeling.

Feedback and Information Seeking

There are several conceptualizations of the socialization process that focus

on newcomers' ability to acquire information. Louis' (1980) newcomer sense-

making model is one such theory. Also, Miller and Jablin's (1991) model

focuses on newcomers' pro-active search for information in order to reduce

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 10, NUMBER 4, 2000454

the uncertainty associated with organizational socialization. Most empirical

research on pro-active socialization has focused on information-seeking beha-

viors. For example, Morrison (1993a) investigated several types of information

that newcomers seek: referent, social, feedback, technical, normative informa-

tion as it relates to the behavioral and attitudinal expectations of the organi-

zation. Ostroff and Kozlowski (1992) reported that newcomers searched for

information that included not only task-related, referent, and social informa-

tion, but also organizational information about the company's structure,

procedures, products, performance, and power distributions. Morrison (1995)

provided an integration of these frameworks by suggesting that there are

seven primary types of information that organizational newcomers will seek

during the socialization process: technical, referent, social, feedback, norma-

tive, organizational, and political.

The methods by which newcomers seek information have also been the

subject of empirical investigation. Research has shown that organizational

newcomers will vary their tactics based on the type of information they are

trying to obtain (Bauer et al., 1998). Morrison (1995) found that newcomers

would use tactics such as inquiry to obtain technical information, but use

more indirect tactics for other types of information. In the same vein,

supervisors, more than other sources, are relied upon for technical, referent,

and feedback information, and peers more for social information (Bauer et al.,

1998). Settoon and Adkins (1997) suggested that while newcomers will seek

information from family and friends in addition to supervisors and co-work-

ers, the information from supervisors and co-workers predicted socialization

outcomes as their tenure in the organization increased. Although several

studies have linked newcomers' pro-active information-seeking behavior to

important outcomes (e.g., Holder, 1996; Morrison, 1993b; Ostroff & Kozlows-

ki, 1992), other studies have been inconclusive about the impact of pro-active

information seeking (e.g., Ashford & Black, 1996; Bauer & Green, 1998;

Kramer, Callister, & Turban, 1995; Morrison, 1993a). One of our arguments

in the current article is that the type of socialization tactic employed by

organizations may impact on the effectiveness of newcomer pro-active socia-

lization behavior, and thus, explain some of the inconsistency in past

research findings.

For the purposes of our analysis, we have distinguished four different

information-seeking strategies, differentiated based on both content and

source: feedback seeking, information seeking from technical sources, informa-

tion seeking from co-workers, and information seeking from supervisors. We

kept feedback seeking a separate category because feedback seeking is often a

psychologically different process than asking for other less self-referent in-

formation (Ashford, 1986; Ashford & Cummings, 1983). For other types of

information, we distinguish between technical, co-worker/peer, and super-

visory sources. This distinction is often made in other studies. Also, as

discussed later, the ease and effectiveness of seeking information from these

different sources is proposed to vary as a function of organizational socializa-

tion tactics.

SOCIALIZATION TACTICS: INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE 455

TA

BL

E1

Sum

mary

(Sam

ple

)of

Stu

die

sth

at

Exam

ined

Indiv

idualM

odes

of

Self-

Socia

lizatio

n

Stu

dy

Tactic

sD

ependent

variable

sJob

Stu

dy

desig

n

Ashfo

rdand

Bla

ck

(1996)

Rela

tionship

build

ing,

sensem

akin

g,jo

bchange

negotia

tion,

fram

ing

Job

perf

orm

ance,

job

satis

factio

n,

desire

for

contr

ol,

dom

ain

know

ledge

Engin

eering

and

manage-

ment

underg

raduate

stu

dents

Longitu

din

al

Bauer

and

Gre

en

(1994)

Involv

em

ent

inw

ork

-rela

ted

activ

ities

Accom

modatio

n,

work

outc

om

esuch

as

perf

or-

mance

(i.e

.,re

searc

hpro

-ductiv

ity),

com

mitm

ent

Faculty

mem

bers

and

docto

ralstu

dents

Longitu

din

al

Bauer

and

Gre

en

(1998)

Task-

and

socia

l-oriente

din

form

atio

nseekin

gA

ccom

modatio

nra

tings

(role

cla

rity

,perf

orm

ance

eff

ica

cy,

fee

lings

of

ac-

cepta

nce

by

the

manager)

Colle

ge

gra

duate

s,

their

co-w

ork

ers

,m

anagers

Longitu

din

al

Socia

lizatio

noutc

om

es

(pe

rform

an

ce

,jo

bsa

tis-

factio

n,

com

mitm

ent)

Bla

ck

and

Ashfo

rd(1

995)

Self-

change,

job

change

Modes

ofadju

stm

ent

(satis

factio

n,c

om

mitm

ent)

Underg

raduate

busin

ess

and

MB

Astu

dents

Longitu

din

al

Bre

tt,

Feld

man,

and

Wein

gart

(1990)

Feedback

seekin

gfr

om

co

-wo

rke

rs,

su

pe

rvis

or

(activ

edis

cussio

n)

Feedback

seekin

g,

Adju

stm

ent

Consum

er

pro

ducts

em

plo

yees

Longitu

din

al

Chao

et

al.

(1992)

Form

aland

info

rmalm

en-

tors

hip

(psychosocia

land

care

er-

rela

ted

functio

ns)

Job

satis

factio

n,

org

aniz

a-

tionalsocia

lizatio

n,

sala

ryA

lum

ni

Cro

ss-s

ectio

nal


Fedor

et

al.

(1992)

Feedback

seekin

gÐ

elic

iting

vers

us

monito

ring

(in-

direct

techniq

ues)

Costs

of

feedback

seekin

gH

elic

opte

rpilo

tsLongitu

din

al

Heim

ann

and

Pitt

enger

(1996)

Form

alm

ento

rship

work

inte

ractio

nw

ith

me

nto

rclo

seness

of

rela

tionship

Valu

eof

mento

rship

pro

gra

m,

so

cia

liza

tio

n,

com

mitm

ent

Faculty

mem

bers

Cro

ss-s

ectio

nal

Hold

er

(1996)

Info

rmatio

n-s

eekin

gstr

ate

gie

sovert

,in

direct,

and

third

part

ysourc

es

Role

am

big

uity

,ro

leconfli

ct,

socia

lcosts

ofin

form

atio

nseekin

g

Wom

en

innon-t

raditi

onal

care

ers

Cro

ss-s

ectio

nal

Morr

ison

(1995)

Inquiry

or

monito

ring

of

tech

nic

al,

refe

ren

t,a

p-

pra

isal,

socia

l,org

aniz

a-

tional,

norm

ativ

e,

or

polit

icalin

form

atio

n

Usefu

lness

of

info

rmatio

n,

how

info

rmatio

nis

taken

or

receiv

ed

MB

Agra

duate

sC

ross-s

ectio

nal

Morr

ison

(1993a)

Activ

eand

passiv

eseekin

gte

chnic

ali

nfo

rmatio

n,per-

form

ance

feedback,

nor-

ma

tive

info

rma

tio

na

nd

socia

lfe

edback,

refe

rent

info

rma

tio

n,

fro

mp

ee

rs,

superv

isors

,and

thro

ugh

observ

atio

n

Accultu

ratio

n,

task

maste

ry,

role

cla

rity

,a

nd

so

cia

lin

tegra

tion

Accounta

nts

Longitu

din

al

(contin

ued

on

next

page)


TA

BL

E1

(Contin

ued)

Stu

dy

Tactic

sD

ependent

variable

sJob

Stu

dy

desig

n

Morr

ison

(1993b)

Info

rmatio

nseekin

gÐ

technic

al,

norm

ativ

e,

refe

rent

info

rmatio

n,

perf

orm

ance,

and

socia

lfe

edback

How

info

rmatio

nobta

ined

Accounta

nts

Longitu

din

al

Ostr

off

and

Kozlo

wski

(1993)

Mento

rship

Effic

acy

of

info

rmatio

nacquis

ition

Busin

ess

and

engin

eering

stu

dents

/gra

duate

s

Cro

ss-s

ectio

nal

Ostr

off

and

Kozlo

wski

(1992)

Observ

atio

n,

obje

ctiv

ere

fere

nts

,co-w

ork

ers

,experim

enta

tion,

mento

r-in

g,

superv

isors

Job

satis

factio

n,

com

mitm

ent,

turn

over,

inte

ntio

ns

tole

ave,a

dju

st-

mentto

str

ess

Busin

ess

and

engin

eering

stu

dents

/gra

duate

s

Longitu

din

al

Saks

and

Ashfo

rth

(1996)

Self-

observ

atio

n,

self-

goal

settin

g,

self-

rew

ard

,self-

punis

hm

ent,

rehears

al

Motiv

atio

n,j

ob

perf

orm

ance,

an

xie

ty,

co

mm

itm

en

t,tu

rnover,

job

satis

factio

n

Entr

yle

velaccounta

nts

Longitu

din

al

Settoon

and

Adkin

s(1

997)

Use

of

intr

a-o

rganiz

atio

nal

(superv

isors

,co-w

ork

ers

)a

nd

extr

a-o

rga

niz

atio

na

l(f

am

ily,

frie

nds)

refe

rents

Role

am

big

uity

,ro

leconfli

ct,

job

satis

factio

n,

org

aniz

a-

tional

com

mitm

ent,

inte

n-

tion

tole

ave,

se

lf-r

ate

dperf

orm

ance

Menta

lhealth

specia

lists

Longitu

din

al

Sm

ithand

Kozlo

wski

(1994)

Socia

lle

arn

ing,

info

seekin

g,

inquiry,

experim

enta

tion

Use

of

str

ate

gie

sN

ew

com

ers

invarious

org

aniz

atio

ns

Cro

ss-s

ectio

nal


Relationship Building

The informal relationships newcomers form with co-workers, supervisors,

and mentors has also been an important means of successful socialization

(Louis, 1980; Reichers, 1987). These relationships can help the socialization

of newcomers by serving as a means of information, advice, social support,

stress reduction, and/or skill and role behavior instruction (Louis, Posner,

& Powell, 1983; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner, 1995; Nelson &

Quick, 1991; Reichers, 1987). Empirical research has indicated that new-

comers' efforts to build relationships with both peers and supervisors is

important to the socialization process (e.g., Ashford & Black, 1996; Settoon

& Adkins, 1997).

Informal Mentor Relationships

Newcomers may also form relationships with other insiders who act as

informal mentors (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992). There is a great deal of

research which points out the positive effects of mentoring on newcomer

adjustment (e.g., Chatman, 1991; Dreher & Asch, 1990; Kram, 1985). Here,

we only consider informal mentor relationships, or the initiation of such, as a

pro-active tactic, because formal mentorship programs are instituted by the

organization, not newcomers. In a study comparing proteÂgeÂs in formal and

informal mentor relationships, Chao et al. (1992) found that those in informal

relationships received more career-related support from their mentors and

higher salaries than those in formal mentor relationships. Those in informal

relationships reported many more favorable outcomes than those who were not

mentored at all.

Job Change Negotiation

Job change negotiation has been another way that newcomers have been

proposed to gain control and overcome uncertainty during socialization (Ash-

ford & Black, 1996; Dawis & Lofquist, 1978; Nicholson, 1984). This pro-active

behavior involves newcomers attempting to change their job duties or the

manner and means by which they carry out their jobs. For example, new-

comers may focus on the tasks they perform well or on tasks that provide more

developmental opportunities. Recent empirical work (Ashford & Black, 1996)

has found equivocal results regarding the impact of this tactic on newcomer

performance and job satisfaction.

Positive Framing

Positive framing has also been demonstrated to be a pro-active tactic used

by individuals to adapt to new, uncertain, or stressful situations (Ashford &

Black, 1996). Positive framing can be viewed as a form of cognitive self-

management whereby individuals consciously control how they frame various


situations so as to increase their self-confidence and self-efficacy (Ashford &

Black, 1996). Ashford and Black (1996) found positive framing to be related to

both newcomer performance and job satisfaction.

Involvement in Work-Related Activities

Involvement in work activities is defined as newcomers' pro-active

involvement in ``extra-curricular'' work-related activities. These are activ-

ities that, while work-related, are not part of the newcomer's defined role

behaviors. An example of this pro-active socialization technique is pro-

vided by Bauer and Green (1994) who found that graduate students'

``professional involvement'' (measured by the degree that they engaged

in various extra-role activities such as attending non-mandatory seminars

and social events) was related to their performance, role ambiguity,

acceptance, and commitment.

Behavioral Self-Management

Saks and Ashforth (1996) examined the effectiveness of behavioral

self-management techniques as a form of pro-active newcomer socializa-

tion. Specifically, they considered self-observation, goal setting, self-re-

ward and punishment, and rehearsal. While their results were mixed,

they did find that such behavioral management techniques helped reduce

early anxiety. Behavioral self-management may be any type of behavior

or strategy that newcomers employ to improve their own performance

and/or learning.

Observation/Modeling

Social learning theory posits that one of the primary ways in which people

learn, a primary task of socialization, is through the observation and modeling

of the behavior of appropriate others (Bandura, 1971). Several scholars have

posited that observation and modeling are an important way in which new-

comers learn during socialization (Miller & Jablin, 1991; Ostroff & Kozlowski,

1992; Smith & Kozlowski, 1994; Weiss, 1978). Indeed, Ostroff and Kozlowski

(1992) found that observation was the most common way that newcomers

reported learning on the job.

In summary, there has been a great deal of recent research which has

examined the behaviors that newcomers use to pro-actively facilitate their own

socialization and the effectiveness of those behaviors (or cognitions) in doing

so. However, empirical research, where there exists a substantial body,

indicates conflicting and/or equivocal results. In other words, pro-active

socialization behavior is not always found to be related to the socialization

outcomes as predicted. Our argument here is that the effectiveness of these

tactics is also a function of the tactics used by the organization. Thus, we now

turn to a discussion of organization socialization tactics.


ORGANIZATION SOCIALIZATION TACTICS

Most research on organization socialization tactics has been based on Van

Maanen and Schein's (1979) model developed to predict the role orientation

which would be adopted by newcomers. Essentially, this model posits that the

type of tactics employed by organizations will influence whether newcomers

adopt a custodial, status quo, or innovative role response. Van Maanen and

Schein (1979) proposed six tactics that organizations can use to structure the

socialization experience of employees. Each of the six socialization tactics

consists of a bipolar continuum where one end represents institutionalized

socialization and the other represents individual socialization (Jones, 1986).

The tactic of collective (vs. individual) socialization refers to the grouping of

organizational newcomers and putting them though a common set of experi-

ences, rather than providing each newcomer with a set of unique experiences.

Formal (vs. informal) socialization focuses on segregating organizational new-

comers from other organizational members during a defined socialization period,

as opposed to integrating newcomers with more experienced organizational

members. Sequential (vs. random) socialization provides a fixed sequence of

socialization steps that leads to the assumption of the new organizational/job

role, as opposed to random socialization, which is characterized by ambiguous

and changing sequences of events. Fixed (vs. variable) socialization provides an

established timetable for the initial socialization and integration process,

whereas a variable socialization tactic provides no set timetable for the unfolding

of the process. Serial (vs. disjunctive) socialization processes are characterized by

newcomers being socialized by an experienced member of the organization (i.e., a

mentor), whereas disjunctive processes do not utilize specific role models.

Investiture (vs. divestiture) socialization focuses on validation of the incoming

identity and personal characteristics of the newcomer, rather that focusing on

stripping these characteristics away (often in a demoralizing way).

Rather than treat each dimension separately, we adopt Jones' (1986) three-

dimensional grouping based on Van Maanen and Schein's (1979) typology and

later factor analysis findings. Collective±individual and formal±informal tech-

niques are grouped together to form a context-related tactic. Collective/formal

represent the institutional end of the continuum. Sequential±random and

fixed±variable tactics are linked together to comprise a content-related tactic.

Sequential/fixed represent the institutional end of the continuum. Finally,

serial±disjunctive and divestiture±investiture are combined to form a social-

related socialization tactic. Serial/investiture represent the institutional end of

the continuum. We classify investiture as an institutional tactic based on the

findings of Allen and Meyer (1990) and Jones (1986).

Organizations that use more institutionalized tacticsÐby formally orienting

newcomers in groups, providing a fixed career sequence, providing insider role

models for newcomers, and providing interpersonal support and acceptance to

newcomers are thought to yield more compliant employees who understand

and accept organizational values. Individualized tactics, which involve indivi-

dual orientation, more variable career progression, few role models, and


pressure newcomers to change their self-identities are thought to yield more

innovative employees who are less accepting of the status quo (Allen & Meyer,

1990; Jones, 1986; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).

Chao et al. (1994) propose that other sources of variance in the socializa-

tion process should also be addressed. We are suggesting that one source of

variance is the newcomer's attempts at self-socialization. In other words,

socialization outcomes will be a function of the interaction between new-

comer's pro-active socialization tactics and the socialization tactics employed

by the organization. We now turn to a discussion of our model of how

newcomer and organization socialization tactics may interact to influence

socialization outcomes.

NEWCOMER±ORGANIZATION TACTIC INTERACTION MODEL

Fig. 1 presents a schematic model of the ideas presented in this article. Before

examining the model in more detail, the assumptions and boundary conditions

of the model need to be discussed. First, we assume that newcomers are

somewhat stable in their employment of various pro-active socialization tactics

due to particular learning or interpersonal preferences on the part of the

newcomer (Louis, 1980). Indeed, what little research that has focused on why

newcomers engage in various pro-active behaviors has focused on stable

personality traits. For example, Ashford and Cummings (1985) found a

relationship between individuals' tolerance for ambiguity and pro-active feed-

back-seeking behavior. Reichers (1987) suggested that individual difference

variables such as tolerance for ambiguity, field dependence, and need for

affiliation would be related to higher incidences of newcomer pro-active

behaviors. Ashford and Black (1996) found that individuals with a high desire

for control tended to engage in more information seeking, relationship building

with co-workers, job change negotiations, and positive framing. Major and

Kozlowski (1997) studied the role of self-efficacy in information-seeking beha-

viors exhibited by newcomers. Thus, since newcomer pro-activity is linked with

stable traits, it is unlikely that newcomers will immediately change their own

tactics when those tactics fail to achieve desired results. However, we also

propose below that the tactics used by the organization will influence the

likelihood of newcomers engaging in various pro-active tactics, no matter what

their personal propensity is.

Although newcomers may be fairly stable and persistent in their use of

various pro-active tactics, it is unreasonable to assume that they would persist

in the long-term in using the same tactics if they resulted in negative feedback

or sanctions from the organization. Thus, one boundary condition of this article

is that it focuses on early socialization and does not consider long-term effects of

the use of ineffective socialization tactics. It is reasonable to focus solely on

early socialization since research has demonstrated that the dynamics which

occur during the first months of socialization can have long reaching effects

(Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Bauer et al., 1998; Engle & Lord, 1997; Liden, Wayne,


& Stilwell, 1993; Wanous, 1980). Yet, it is important to note here that future

work in this area should also focus on the long-term process of how newcomers

learn to adjust their pro-active tactics to better use in a particular organiza-

tional environment.

A second boundary condition of this model is that we conceptualize the

notion of socialization outcomes broadly. The socialization literature has

examined many possible outcomes, and it not our intent to introduce new

outcomes here. Neither is it our intent to make predictions about certain,

specific outcomes. The socialization outcomes that have been traditionally

studied in the literature have focused on attitudinal or performance-based

measures, such as job satisfaction, job performance, learning, organizational

commitment, stress, intentions to leave, and actual turnover (Ashforth & Saks,

1996; Bauer et al., 1998; Fisher, 1986; Wanous, 1980; Wanous & Colella, 1989)

as the determinants of effective socialization. Others have also focused on the

newcomer's perceived level of social integration (Morrison, 1993a; Wanous,

1980) (e.g., employee alienation, mutual acceptance, integration) as well as

their decision to participate in the workplace (March & Simon, 1958). These

variables may be seen as antecedents to the traditional attitudinal variables,

as well as performance-based measures that are often used to determine the

effectiveness of organizational socialization tactics. Thus, when we refer to

``socialization outcomes'' or the ``effectiveness of socialization,'' we are referring

to any or all of the outcomes listed in Fig. 1.

Figure 1. Model of Organizational Socialization Tactics on the Effectiveness of NewcomerPro-Active Tactics.


The most important section of our model is that which illustrates how

organizational tactics will (1) impact on the likelihood that newcomers will use

various tactics; and (2) moderate the relationship between newcomer tactics

and socialization outcomes. As depicted in Fig. 1, we argue that the two types

of tactics work together through two mechanisms. First, organization tactics

can impact on the likelihood that a newcomer can effectively execute a

particular tactic. For example, the organizational context can prevent a

newcomer who is trying to seek performance feedback from actually obtaining

any information. Second, organization tactics can impact on how effective a

tactic actually is when employed by the newcomer. For example, a newcomer

may seek feedback, actually obtain it, but is perceived poorly for doing so or

obtains inaccurate information. In this case, the newcomer sought feedback,

obtained it, but the behavior is not effective due to the organizational context.

The next section of the article focuses on these relationships and presents

specific propositions.

NEWCOMER±ORGANIZATION TACTIC INTERACTIONS:SOME PROPOSITIONS

In order to clarify the following presentation, we concentrate on how each

general category of organization tactics (context, content, and social aspects)

will impact on (1) the likelihood that various newcomer tactics can be enacted;

and (2) the likelihood that the newcomer tactic will be successful.

Context-Related Organizational Tactics

The institutional context of organizational socialization is typically char-

acterized by socialization processes that are formal and collective (Van

Maanen & Schein, 1979). In this context, newcomers are usually provided

with orientation in a group setting, separated from current employees, and

provided with more structured formal experiences. Newcomers are not likely to

have many interactions with experienced co-workers or even supervisors. In

contrast, socialization contexts that are more individually oriented offer

informal learning experiences that are often ad hoc, and individuals are

socialized separately (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).

When the context of organizational socialization is institutionalized, new-

comers will be unlikely to interact with experienced co-workers, supervisors,

and potential mentors, indeed, most contact will be with other newcomers.

Therefore, their ability to seek information from and build relationships with

these sources will be seriously curtailed. Also, due to the structured nature of

the entry experience, where activities and work are specifically defined, new-

comers will be less likely to be able to engage in job change negotiations or

involve themselves in extra work-related activities. There is nothing inherent

about an institutional context that would prevent newcomers from engaging in

feedback seeking (they would have a large normative comparison group of


other newcomers), positive framing, behavioral self-management, or observa-

tion modeling. Furthermore, there is nothing inherent about individualized

contextual tactics that would prohibit newcomers from engaging in any pro-

active socialization tactic. Thus, we propose:

Proposition 1a. When the context of organizational socialization isinstitutionalized (collective and formal), newcomers will be less likely toengage in the following pro-active individual socialization tactics:information seeking from co-workers and supervisors, informal mentor-ship, job change negotiation, and extra work-related activities.

It can be argued that, overall, newcomer pro-active socialization tactics

would be more necessary in an individual contextual socialization environment

than in an institutionalized environment. Because socialization experiences

are structured and uniformly applied to all newcomers in an institutional

context, those tactics that newcomers are able to use are likely to matter less,

then when the newcomer is not provided with specific socialization experi-

ences, which is the case with individual contexts. In other words, because

newcomers in individual contexts are not provided with specific socialization

experiences, anything that they can do to facilitate their own socialization

should have a bigger effect than if they were provided with lock-step socializa-

tion experiences. Thus, we propose:

Proposition 1b. All newcomer pro-active socialization tactics shouldbe more strongly and positively related to socialization outcomes whenthe context of organization tactics are individualized as opposed to whenthey are institutionalized.

Furthermore, some socialization experiences may actually be ineffective in

institutionalized contexts. Often, newcomers are put through institutionalized

socialization contexts so that they form an ``esprit de corps'' among themselves.

This is why this tactic is so common in military and police organizations (Van

Maanen & Schein, 1979). Relationship building with other newcomers may

provide an important opportunity to create a support network that may be

essential to the success of the new employees as they progress in the

organization (Chatman, 1991). Thus, any type of pro-active behavior that

would cause them to be perceived negatively by other newcomers could

actually be detrimental to long-term socialization. Job change negotiations

that could be perceived by other newcomers as breaking equity or procedural

justice rules would be one such tactic (Greenberg, 1990).

Another newcomer tactic that may interact negatively with institutional

contexts is observation/modeling. It is generally argued that the successful

impact of modeling on individual performance outcomes depends on people

choosing a successful model (Weiss, 1978). Because newcomers in an

institutional context may choose other newcomers as models, they may

learn behaviors that are idiosyncratic to the model but not necessarily

rewarded by the organization. This is less of a problem if newcomers can


choose co-workers or supervisors as models because the newcomer is also

likely to observe how that model has been rewarded by the organization

over a period of time (Smith & Kozlowski, 1994). Consequently, newcomers

would be less likely to choose experienced co-worker or supervisor models

who did not behave in a manner rewarded by the organization (Weiss,

1978). However, experienced co-worker and supervisor models are less

available to newcomers in an institutionalized context.

Proposition 1b predicted that overall, pro-active socialization tactics would

be less effective, but still positively related to socialization outcomes. Given the

above discussion, we add the caveat that some newcomer tactics may actually

be negatively related to outcomes. We propose:

Proposition 1c. When the context of organizational socialization isinstitutionalized (collective and formal), the following newcomer pro-active socialization tactics of job change negotiation and observation/modeling will be negatively related to socialization outcomes.

Content-Related Organizational Tactics

Institutionalized content tactics (sequential and fixed) are characterized by

having newcomers move through a specific order of assignments or positions

according to a set timetable, i.e., there is a specific set of socialization steps

which occur at specific intervals (Black & Ashford, 1995). Individualized

content tactics (random and variable) are characterized by having no set

pattern of positions or timetables for newcomers to follow as they become

socialized. Thus, the content dimension of organizational socialization tactics

varies the degree of ambiguity faced by newcomers (Allen & Meyer, 1990;

Baker, 1995).

We argue that the content of organizational socialization tactics will

influence the likelihood of four types of pro-active behaviors: feedback seeking,

information seeking from supervisors, information seeking from experienced

co-workers, and job change negotiation. First, feedback-seeking behavior

(Ashford, 1986; Fedor, Rensvold, & Adams, 1992) and other information-

seeking behavior (e.g., Morrison, 1993a,b) are more likely to be employed

when newcomers face an ambiguous and uncertain socialization environment

where expectations, role requirements, and progress criteria are unclear. Thus,

when the content of socialization is individualized (i.e., random and variable),

and newcomers face a more uncertain course of progression (Jones, 1986), it

would be expected that they would engage in more feedback- and information-

seeking behaviors than when the content of socialization was more institutio-

nalized (i.e., sequential and fixed).

Second, empirical research examining the effects of organizational socializa-

tion tactics on newcomers' role orientation has consistently found that sequen-

tial and fixed tactics are negatively related to role innovation (Allen & Meyer,

1990; Ashforth & Saks, 1995; Baker, 1995; Black, 1992; Black & Ashford, 1995;

Jones, 1986). Because common measures of role innovation (Jones, 1986; West,


1987), in part, assess a newcomer's attempts at changing his or her job duties,

one can extrapolate to say that newcomers are less likely to engage in job

change negotiations when the content of socialization is institutionalized.

Jones (1986) suggests that the reason for this is because newcomers are

unwilling to ``rock the boat'' if their progression in the organization has already

been determined. Thus, we propose:

Proposition 2a. When the content of organizational socialization isinstitutionalized (sequential and fixed), newcomers will be less likely toengage in the following pro-active individual socialization tactics:feedback seeking, information seeking from co-workers and supervisors,and job change negotiation.

In terms of the moderating role of socialization content tactics on the

effectiveness of various pro-active tactics, there is no reason to believe that

those tactics influencing the performance of newcomers (i.e., feedback seeking,

information seeking, behavioral self-management, and observation/modeling)

would be more or less effective under institutionalized or individualized

content scenarios. Anything that could help a newcomer perform better in

either case should be positively related to socialization outcomes.

However, because individualized content allows for variability in the socia-

lization and career paths of newcomers, the social guidance, career support,

and sponsorship gained from informal networks and mentors (e.g., Chao et al.,

1992) may play a more important role than when the newcomers' progression

is more institutionalized. Furthermore, any activities that give the newcomer

breadth of experience or exposure, such as engagement in extra work activ-

ities, should also be more effective when content tactics are individualized as

opposed to institutionalized. Thus, we propose:

Proposition 2b. Relationship building with co-workers and super-visors, forming informal mentor relationships and involvement in extrawork activities, should be more strongly and positively related tosocialization outcomes when the content of organization tactics areindividualized as opposed to when they are institutionalized.

Social-Related Organizational Tactics

Finally, the last two categorizations (serial vs. disjunctive and investiture

vs. divestiture) of socialization tactics developed by Van Maanen and Schein

(1979) refer to the social or interpersonal aspects of organizational socializa-

tion. On the institutional side of this continuum are serial tactics whereby

newcomers are provided with mentors or more experienced job incumbents to

serve as role models. On the individualized side are disjunctive tactics where

newcomers do not have access to prior job incumbents or role models. At the

institutionalized end of the continuum, investiture tactics suggest to the

newcomer that he or she is valued and the organization accepts his or her

identity. Individualized divestiture tactics communicate to newcomers that


their previous identity is not accepted and that they must change to fit the

organization. The above tactics vary primarily along the dimension of whether

the newcomer has social support or not.

Given that individualized social/interpersonal tactics (particularly divesti-

ture) can be personally threatening to newcomers, they may be more likely to

avoid seeking feedback in this instance because it would be too costly to do so

(Ashford, 1986; Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Indeed, one of the primary

deterrents to feedback-seeking behavior is ego-defensiveness whereby people

avoid looking for information about themselves that may be negative (Ashford,

1986). Newcomers in the individualized scenario may also avoid requesting

information from co-workers and supervisors for the same reasons. The nature

of the disjunctive experience would also deter newcomers from actively build-

ing relationships with co-workers and supervisors because the organization is

consciously demonstrating a lack of social support for these newcomers. It is

difficult to attempt to form relationships with others that are acting as though

one is not accepted by the group. In contrast, investiture tactics, which serve to

make newcomers feel valued and welcomed, should explicitly lead to such pro-

active bonding (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979).

On the other hand, due to the nature of the serial vs. disjunctive tactic, it is

also expected that newcomers in the individualized scenario would be more

likely to form informal mentor relationships and less likely to engage in

observation and modeling. Those in disjunctive situations are expected to be

more likely to form informal mentor relationships because they have not

received a formal mentor or role model as have newcomers in a serial situation.

Also, they would be less likely to engage in observation/modeling because there

is less likely to be an appropriate role model present.

The effects of these socialization tactics on job change negotiation are more

difficult to predict. In fact, there has been debate in the literature over this

issue (see Jones, 1986). Earlier, it was noted that job change negotiation could

be thought of as one aspect of role innovation. In that case, arguments have

been made that disjunctive tactics should lead to more innovation (or job

change negotiation) because they cause newcomers to excel in their roles (i.e.

``I'll show them!'') (Jones, 1986) or they should lead to more passive responses

(i.e., less job change negotiation) because newcomers are essentially broken

down (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Empirical research on this issue has not

solved the debate, thus, we do not put forth a specific proposition.

In summary, we propose:

Proposition 3a. When the social aspects of organizational tactics areinstitutionalized (serial and investiture), newcomers will be less likelyto form informal mentor relationships. When the social aspects oforganizational tactics are individualized (disjunctive and divestiture),newcomers will be less likely to engage in the following pro-activesocialization tactics: performance feedback seeking, information seekingfrom co-workers and supervisors, relationship building with co-workersand supervisors, and observation/modeling.


In terms of the effectiveness of various pro-active tactics, the social tactics

are expected to moderate relationships between information seeking from co-

workers and supervisors, positive framing, informal mentor relationships,

behavioral self-management, and observation/modeling. The individualized

aspects of social tactics (disjunctive and divestiture) should lead to stronger

relationships between information seeking, positive framing, and informal

mentor relationships and socialization outcomes than institutionalized social

tactics. On the other hand, institutionalized social tactics should lead to

stronger effects for observation/modeling.

First, under disjunctive tactics, newcomers are not given supervision or

help from an immediate predecessor (there may not even be one) or mentor.

Thus, their willingness to seek out information from other co-workers and

supervisors would be more important to their socialization and learning

than if they did have such a role model because they lack the information

that such a role model would provide. Second, along the same line of

reasoning, since they do not have a formal mentor, any informal mentor

would be even more important to their effective socialization (Chao et al.,

1992). Forming informal mentor relationships are also likely to be very

important for newcomers subject to divestiture tactics, since in this case, the

mentor would be needed to lessen the stress caused by divestiture tactics.

Therefore, under individualized social tactics, both the career-related and

psychosocial functions of informal mentors are particularly important

(Kram, 1985).

Third, positive framing should be more important when divestiture tactics

are employed because newcomers need to interpret the organization's discon-

firming treatment of them as a ``rite of passage'' (Wanous, 1980), otherwise,

they would be likely to hold and maintain negative feelings toward the

organization. Such active positive framing would not be as necessary under

investiture tactics where newcomers are treated in an accepting and suppor-

tive manner.

Finally, observation/modeling is expected to be more effective under insti-

tutionalized social tactics (serial and investiture) because newcomers are

explicitly provided with acceptable role models. Under more individualized

social settings, newcomers may choose inappropriate role models or model

divestiture type behaviors, which are not appropriate given the newcomer's

role. In summary, we propose:

Proposition 3b. Information seeking from co-workers and super-visors, forming informal mentor relationships, and positive framingshould be more strongly and positively related to socializationoutcomes when the social/interpersonal aspects of organizationtactics are individualized as opposed to when they are institutiona-lized. Observation/modeling should be more strongly and positivelyrelated to socialization outcomes when the social/interpersonalaspects of organization tactics are institutionalized as opposed towhen they are individualized.


SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

In the most recent and comprehensive review of the organizational socializa-

tion literature, Bauer et al. (1998) suggest that the effectiveness of newcomer

pro-active socialization tactics (particularly various types of information seek-

ing) be studied as a function of other variables, such as organizational tactics.

This article addresses this issue and is meant to provide conceptual direction

for future empirical work. We essentially argue that organizational tactics

both impact the likelihood that newcomers engage in various pro-active tactics

and that they moderate the effectiveness of pro-active tactics that do occur.

Exact relationships are expected to vary as a function of the organizational

tactic and specific newcomer pro-active tactics. We provided specific research

propositions concerning these relationships.

The past 10 years of socialization research have focused heavily on new-

comers as being pro-active in their new environments, thus, extending past

research that tended to focus only on what organizations did to newcomers

during socialization (Bauer et al., 1998). However, calls for an interactionist

perspective of socialization which surfaced during the 1980s (e.g., Jones, 1983;

Reichers, 1987; Schneider, 1983) have still not received a great deal of

empirical attention. Hopefully, this article will stimulate research that will

allow for closer examination of these issues.

Another way in which this article can guide future research is to form the

basis for examining issues of fit in the context of organizational and newcomer

preferences for specific socialization tactics. Organizational fit is usually

conceptualized in terms of values fit or skills and abilities versus needs fit

(Kristof, 1996). Here, we suggest that newcomers may enter an organization

with some predisposition toward engaging in certain socialization tactics that

will be either effective or ineffective depending on the organizational tactics.

For example, newcomers who seek to control uncertainty by seeking informa-

tion from supervisors and co-workers would be a poor fit in organizations where

newcomers have little individual access to supervisors or more experienced co-

workers (e.g., a collective tactic). Newcomers may also experience frustration

because organizational tactics prevent them from engaging in the behaviors

that they prefer to use to learn the job and reduce uncertainty. Research on this

issue would add to our understanding of the processes that occur early in

newcomers' socialization experiences that shape their perceptions of fit with

the organization and the resulting decision to stay and participate.

The current article is bound to the time period of early socialization. A

logical extension of this work would be to examine these effects over time.

Can newcomers self-correct their own pro-active tactics to make the most out

of those being employed by the organization? What influences this self-

correction? Are some scenarios easier to correct than others? Future research

that addresses these issues and extends the current model across time is

certainly warranted.

Finally, this article only concerned a certain set of newcomer pro-active

socialization tactics, based on our review of literature specifically addres-


sing this issue. However, other forms of pro-active socialization are also

likely to be employed. One such category of behaviors that warrants

attention is the impression management techniques employed by new-

comers. This article was also limited to discussing socialization context

in terms of Van Maanen and Schein's (1979) tactical dimensions. This

model can be extended to include other ways of describing organizational

socialization contexts. For example, the political context of the organization

may influence which self-socialization tactics are likely to provide new-

comers with social currency and political leverage, in addition to providing

them traditional job-based information and performance outcomes (Ashford

& Northcraft, 1992; Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1986; Morrison & Bies, 1991;

Wanous, 1989).

The practical implications of this article are significant. At one level, we

suggest that organizations, by the use of certain socialization tactics, can

hurt the chances of newcomers becoming effectively socialized because they

either squelch newcomers' attempts to engage in various pro-active tactics or

because they hinder the effectiveness of various tactics. Specifically, we

suggest scenarios in which organization tactics may actually prohibit new-

comers from using pro-active tactics that would be most useful. For example,

in Proposition 3b, we suggest that building informal mentor relationships

would be most helpful for newcomers when the social aspects of socialization

are individualized. In other words, informal mentors will be most helpful

when formal mentors are not available and newcomers are receiving negative

and stressful information from those they work with. Yet, we also suggest in

Proposition 3a that newcomers will be unlikely to pro-actively form informal

mentor relationships under these organizational tactics. Thus, in this scenar-

io, organizations may be preventing newcomers from engaging in pro-active

tactics that would be most effective. Thus, this research has implications for

ways in which organizations can align their own socialization tactics with

newcomer tactics to most quickly and effectively integrate newcomers into

the organization.

In conclusion, we proposed that organizational socialization tactics can

impact on the likelihood that newcomers can or will employ various pro-active

socialization techniques. Furthermore, organizational tactics can moderate the

effectiveness of various newcomer tactics. We have put forth specific proposi-

tions that we hope will guide future research to simultaneously consider

newcomer and organizational behavior during socialization.

REFERENCES

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). Organizational socialization tactics: A longitudinal ana-

lysis of links to newcomers' commitment and role orientation. Academy of Manage-

ment Journal, 33, 847±858.

Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective.

Academy of Management Journal, 29, 465±487.


Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: A role of desire

for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 199±214.

Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as individual resource: Personal stra-

tegies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-

cesses, 32, 370±398.

Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1985). Proactive feedback seeking: The instrumental use

of the information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 67±79.

Ashford, S. J., & Northcraft, G. B. (1992). Conveying more (or less) than we realize: The role

of impression management in feedback seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 52, 310±334.

Ashford, S. J., & Taylor, M. S. (1990). Adaptations to work transitions: An integrative ap-

proach. In G. R. Ferris, & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human

resource management (vol. 8, pp. 1±39). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1995). Work-role transitions: A longitudinal examina-

tion of the Nicholson model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-

chology, 68, 157±175.

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

adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149±178.

Baker, W. K. (1995). Allen and Meyers 1990 longitudinal study: A reanalysis and reinter-

pretation using structural equation modeling. Human Relations, 48, 169±186.

Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1994). The effect of newcomer involvement in work related

activities: A longitudinal study of socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,

211±223.

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1998). Testing the combined effects of newcomer informa-

tion seeking and manager behavior on socialization. Journal of Applied Psychol-

ogy, 83, 72±83.

Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A

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

Research in personnel and human resource management (vol. 16, pp. 149±214). Green-

wich, CT: JAI Press.

Black, J. S. (1992). Socializing American expatriate managers overseas: Tactics, tenure, and

role innovation. Group and Organization Management, 17, 171±192.

Black, J. S., & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Fitting in or making jobs fit: Factors affecting mode of

adjustment for new hires. Human Relations, 48, 421±437.

Brett, J. M., Feldman, D. C., & Weingart, L. R. (1990). Feedback seeking behavior of new

hires and job changers. Journal of Management, 16, 737±749.

Chao, G. R., O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organiza-

tional socialization: Its contents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79,

730±743.

Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A

comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with non-mentored counterparts.

Personnel Psychology, 45, 619±636.

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

public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459±484.

Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1978). A note on the dynamics of work adjustment. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, 12, 76±79.

Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women

in managerial, professional and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,

539±546.


Engle, E. E., & Lord, R. G. (1997). Implicit theories, self-schemas, and leader±member ex-

change. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 988±1010.

Fedor, D. B., Rensvold, R. B., & Adams, S. M. (1992). An investigation of factors

expected to affect feedback seeking: A longitudinal field study. Personnel Psy-

chology, 45, 779±805.

Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. In G. R. Ferris, &

K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (vol. 4,

pp. 101±145). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Giacalone, R. A. , & Rosenfeld, P. (1986). Self-presentation and self-promotion in an organi-

zational setting. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 321±326.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of

Management, 16, 399±432.

Heimann, B., & Pittenger, K. K. S. (1996). The impact of formal mentorship on socialization

and commitment of newcomers. Journal of Managerial Issues, 8, 108±117.

Holder, T. (1996). Women in nontraditional occupations: Information seeking during orga-

nizational entry. Journal of Business Communication, 33, 6±26.

Jones, G. R. (1983). Psychological orientation and the process of organizational socialization:

An interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 8, 464±474.

Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy and newcomers adjustments to orga-

nizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262±279.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life.

Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.

Kramer, M. W., Callister, R. R. , & Turban, D. B. (1995). Information receiving and giving

during job transitions. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 151±170.

Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person±organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualization,

measurement and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1±49.

Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early develop-

ment of leader±member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662±674.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense-making: What newcomers experience in entering

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

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

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

Major, D. A., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1997). Newcomer information seeking: Individual and

contextual influences. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5, 16±28.

Major, D. A., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal

investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes and the moder-

ating effect of role development factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 418±431.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry:

Influence, tactics and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16,

92±120.

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

socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 173±183.

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

outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557±589.

Morrison, E. W. (1995). Information usefulness and acquisition during organizational en-

counter. Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 131±155.

Morrison, E. W., & Bies, R. J. (1991). Impression management in the feedback-seeking

process: A literature review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review,

16, 522±541.


Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1991). Social support and newcomer adjustment in organiza-

tion: Attachment theory at work? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 543±554.

Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly,

29, 172±191.

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

The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849±874.

Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1993). The role of mentoring in the information gathering

processes of newcomers during early organizational socialization. Journal of Voca-

tional Behavior, 42, 170±183.

Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. Acad-

emy of Management Review, 12, 278±287.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1996). Proactive socialization and behavioral self-manage-

ment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 487, 301±323.

Schneider, B. E. (1983). Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. In L. L. Cum-

mings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 5, pp. 1±31).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Settoon, R. P., & Adkins, C. L. (1997). Newcomer socialization: The role of super-

visors, coworkers, friends and family members. Journal of Business and Psy-

chology, 11, 112±124.

Smith, E. M., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1994). Socialization and adaptation: Individual and

contextual influences on social learning strategies. In S. W. J. Kozlowski (Ed.), Tran-

sitions during organizational socialization: Newcomer expectation, information seeking

and learning outcomes. Symposium Conducted at the 9th Annual Conference of the

Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN. April.

Van Maanen, J. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. In R. Dubin (Ed.), Handbook of

work, organization and society (pp. 67±130). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In

L. L. Cummings, & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 1,

pp. 209±264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wanous, J. P. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection and socialization of new-

comers. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Wanous, J. P. (1989). Impression management at organizational entry. In R. A. Giacalone, &

P. Rosenfeld (Eds.), Impression management in the organization ( pp. 253 ±268). Hills-

dale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Assoc.

Wanous, J. P., & Colella, A. (1989). Organizational entry research: Current status and future

directions. In G. R. Ferris, & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human

resource management (vol. 7, pp. 59±120). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Weiss, H. M. (1978). Social learning of work values in organizations. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 63, 711±718.

West, M. A. (1987). A measure of role innovation at work. British Journal of Social Psychol-

ogy, 26, 83±85.


newcomer and organizational socialization tactics:...

Documents