Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Society and Business ReviewStaff induction practices and organizational socialization: A review and extension of thedebateElena P. Antonacopoulou, Wolfgang H. Güttel,
Article information:To cite this document:Elena P. Antonacopoulou, Wolfgang H. Güttel, (2010) "Staff induction practices and organizationalsocialization: A review and extension of the debate", Society and Business Review, Vol. 5 Issue: 1,pp.22-47, https://doi.org/10.1108/17465681011017246Permanent link to this document:https://doi.org/10.1108/17465681011017246
Downloaded on: 16 October 2017, At: 06:50 (PT)References: this document contains references to 57 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6301 times since 2010*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:(2002),"Employee induction in licensed retail organisations", International Journalof Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 14 Iss 1 pp. 6-13 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110210415060">https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110210415060</a>(2006),"Organizational socialization: A new theoretical model and recommendations for future researchand HRM practices in organizations", Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 Iss 5 pp. 492-516 <ahref="https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610673997">https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940610673997</a>
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:616458 []
For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
Staff induction practices andorganizational socializationA review and extension of the debate
Elena P. AntonacopoulouGNOSIS, University of Liverpool Management School, Liverpool, UK, and
Wolfgang H. GuttelInstitute of Human Resource and Change Management,
Johannes Kepler-University Linz, Linz, Austria
Abstract
Purpose – Socialization is one of the fundamental processes that define how collectivities emerge.Socialization underpins the social structures that shape not only how social actors interact in communitybut also the boundaries of action and the rules of engagement. In the context of organizations, socializationis a process that significantly shapes organization in the way core practices shape how things are done andwhy they are done in particular ways. This emphasis on consistency within and between practices is seento be greatly facilitated by specific practices like staff induction. The purpose of this paper is to review thecurrent conceptual and empirical research on staff induction as a process of organizational socializationand outlines some of the areas for future research particularly if a social practice perspective is adopted.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper presents a systematic review of the relevantliterature on organizational socialization and staff induction and outlines themes to which the debatecan usefully be extended.
Findings – This paper focuses on how staff induction practices provide valuable insights about howsocial agents (especially newcomers) get socialized in organizations.
Research limitations/implications – This paper provides a foundation for the various staff inductionpractices that other papers in this issue will be presenting. By outlining the current debate and insights fromprevious empirical research on staff induction, the objective is to extend the debate by outlining some newavenues for research that papers in the special issue both respond to and further explicate.
Originality/value – This paper explores staff induction and organizational socialization as apractice that can provide new insights into the dynamics of social interaction within organizations.
Keywords Induction, Socialization, Organizational culture
Paper type Conceptual paper
IntroductionMany old organizations, e.g. the University of Bologna (1088), the Catholic Church(approx. 100 AD), the British Army (1661) or companies such as Siemens (1847) or
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1746-5680.htm
The authors would like to acknowledge the Financial Support received by the UK ResearchFunding Councils – ESRC/EPSRC Advanced Institute of Management Research, as part of theAIM International Project “Practice and practising: a comparison across organizations,industries and countries” under Grant No. RES-331-25-0024 led by Professor ElenaP. Antonacopoulou. The authors would also like to acknowledge Yvon Pesqueux and StefanKonlechner for feedback to earlier versions of this paper and Swetketu Patnaik, PhD candidate atthe University of Liverpool for research assistance in collecting some of the papers used incompiling the initial literature review.
SBR5,1
22
Society and Business ReviewVol. 5 No. 1, 2010pp. 22-47q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1746-5680DOI 10.1108/17465681011017246
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
General Electric (1879) – have preserved their organizational memory by continuouslyintegrating newcomers into the firm. In a sense, these organizations have remained the“same” in terms of their identities even if they have changed their strategies,structures, processes, or employees over time. Moreover, in their daily activities,employees act on behalf of the organization thus, reproduce the organizationcontinuously through their behavior. Nevertheless, these organizations have survivedas they have been able to adapt, change, and innovate in order to meet changingexpectations of their continuously evolving environments. What these illustrativeexamples suggest is that organizations and organizing emerge amidst the continuityand discontinuity that underpins the core management and organizational practicesperformed by organizational agents (Antonacopoulou and Pesqueux, 2010). Our focushere is to unpack the interplay between continuity and discontinuity in relation to theprocess of organizational socialization and in particular, staff induction practices. Staffinduction practices govern unconsciously or deliberately organizational socialization.They can be perceived as core mechanisms of the way in which firms introducenewcomers into the organization and thus, make the continuous recreation of theorganization and of its memory system possible (Birnholtz et al., 2007).
Staff induction and socialization (Ardts et al., 2001) are central to the reproduction ofan organization because they enable new individuals to become functional membersof a collectivity (Anderson-Gough et al., 2000). They also supports organizationalrecreation by sustaining, as well as, renewing aspects of the organization’s character(Birnholtz et al., 2007). Consequently, staff induction and socialization are importantmechanisms for both organizations and newcomers. On the one hand, organizationscontinuously need new employees for their sustainability and for organizationalgrowth in particular. On the other hand, employees need to reduce complexity whenthey enter into a new organization in order to be able to contribute to organizationalactivities (Bauer et al., 1998). In essence, organizational socialization includes the entireprocess of actions taken by the organization and action taken by the newcomer toensure effective adjustment (Tuttle, 2002).
In this paper, we critically review, analyze, and discuss the conceptual and empiricalcontributions to the staff induction and organizational socialization debate. Ourobjective in reviewing the existing literature is to both highlight the main insightsabout these important organizational processes and practices, and also identify thecritical extensions that could usefully be made to advance the debate in the field. It isalso our intention with this paper, to provide a backdrop to subsequent papers in thespecial issue discussing staff induction practices so that readers can engage directlywith the key findings and contributions the empirical analysis of staff inductionpractices presents. We are mindful that Bauer et al. (1998) and Cooper-Thomas andAnderson (2006) have provided literature reviews and Bauer et al. (2007) conducted ameta-analysis of staff induction and organizational socialization from a psychologicalperspective. The analysis in this paper integrates the insights of these earlier reviewsof the literature and extends beyond a psychological perspective to also make thecritical connections with the wider human resource management (HRM) perspective.This appears to be missing in the current debate and our intention hence, is to explorethe link between organizational socialization, staff induction, and HRM systems.We, therefore, contribute to the existing literature in three ways: first, we explicatethe strengths and weaknesses of existing staff induction and socialization research
Staff inductionpractices
23
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
and we indicate fields for subsequent research from a social practice perspective.Second, we analyze the contribution of HRM as a practice governing staff induction.Third, we provide an outlook for future research on staff induction and socializationby integrating the insights of hitherto dispersed psychological, sociological, andmanagement perspectives.
We organize the analysis in three sections. Following the introduction we review anddiscuss the dominant conceptualizations of organizational socialization and the role ofstaff induction practice therein. In the section that follows we explicate the wayempirically informed research has advanced our understanding of the way thesepractices are performed in different contexts and the consequences these practices havefor both the organization and the individual employee. The discussion and conclusionsections bring these various insights together and outline directions for future research.
Staff induction and organizational socialization: conceptual backgroundOver the last two decades, organizational socialization has advanced to a central topicin the field of HRM (Cable and Parsons, 2001; Ardts et al., 2001; Tuttle, 2002). At thesame time, this stream of research has also attracted increasing attention inmainstream management research particularly in relation to research on learning andknowledge sharing in organizations (Ostroff and Kozlowski, 1992; Danielson, 2004).A common feature of the literature is the focus on organizational socialization mostly,and typical for HRM research, seeking to develop a normative advice on how newemployees can be better integrated into their new working environment. In the HRMliterature, organizational socialization is widely recognized as a key process ensuringnew employees can be efficiently and effectively integrated within the organizationonce they are recruited.
This practice of introducing a new employee, viewed through the lens of anthropology,organizational sociology, and social psychology is termed as organizational socialization.In this section, we start with an analysis of the conceptual literature on staff induction andorganizational socialization. Subsequently, we describe HRM strategies that are designedto govern staff induction and the organizational socialization of employees.
Staff induction and organizational socializationOrganizational socialization has been defined as “the learning process by whichnewcomers develop attitudes and behavior that are necessary to function as afully-fledged member of the organization” (Ardts et al., 2001, p. 159). Skeats (1991, p. 16)defines staff induction as:
[. . .] any arrangement made to familiarize the new employee with the organization, safetyrules, general conditions of employment, and the work of the section or department in whichthey are employed.
Organizational socialization extends the action of introducing a new employee to theorganization with the process of imparting the norms on how to behave in a way that isacceptable to the social group one becomes part of.
Organizational socialization focuses on the interaction between a stable social systemand the new members who enter it (Schein, 1988). Therefore, organizational socialization isthe “process by which one is taught and learns the ‘ropes’ of a particular organizationalrole” (van Maanen and Schein, 1979, p. 211). Organizational socialization consists of formal
SBR5,1
24
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
and informal processes that enable new individuals to become successfully functionalmembers of a collectivity (Anderson-Gough et al., 2000). Successful socialization is thetransformation from an outsider to participating as an effective insider (Feldman, 1976).As Cooper-Thomas and Anderson (2006, p. 492) put it: “Organizational socializationreflects a learning process through which a new organizational employee adapts fromoutsider to integrated and effective insider.” This process of learning involves thedevelopment of knowledge about the organizational structure, its formal rules and officialgoals, as well as, its social rules that are shaped by the firm’s history, traditions, andpolitics of the organization. Furthermore, the newcomer is introduced to his work unit andis taught how the working tasks and functions have to be fulfilled (Cooper-Thomasand Anderson, 2006). The central aim of organizational socialization is the transfer of joband task relevant information to the new organizational member. On the one hand, from anorganizational perspective, staff induction strives to stimulate learning in order tofamiliarize a new employee with the systems, rules, conditions, and colleagues in the newworkplace. On the other hand, organizational socialization includes from an individualperspective beyond familiarization with the social rules and regulations the assimilation ofthose values, norms, and behavior patterns that are necessary for any new member tolearn (Schein, 1988).
An organization is able to convey knowledge about its formal and social rules tonew employees and to reproduce its “character” over time understood as “coherentcontent of the ensemble of dispositions that generates the distinctive actions of theorganizations” (Birnholtz et al., 2007, p. 317) on the basis of staff induction programsthat have to be consistent with the overall human resource strategy. New employeeslearn the organizational routine’s underlying rules during the socialization process(March, 1991; Mills and Murgatroyd, 1991, pp. 35-7).
Indicators for successful integration into an organization include organizationalattachment and commitment, job satisfaction, social integration, role clarity, taskmastery, values congruence, and (perceived) fit (Bauer and Green, 1994; Brett et al.,1990; Cable and Parsons, 2001; Morrison, 1993a, b; Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller,2000). Staff induction programs seek to govern the newcomer’s socialization in a waythat (s)he will become a fully functional member of the organization quickly. vanMaanen and Schein (1979) posit that socialization is a necessary process for anewcomer to assume an organizational role without disrupting ongoing activities.In the course of the socialization process, the newcomer acquires knowledge necessaryto manage everyday organizational life. Learning provides a common link betweenstaff induction and organizational socialization.
van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) seminal paper “Towards a theory of organizationalsocialization” is considered as the most influential theoretical contribution onorganizational socialization. It provides the conceptual foundation that guidedsubsequent empirical research on organizational socialization along variousdimensions relating to the introduction of new employees. Some of these dimensionshave been empirically explored in subsequent studies. In particular, socializationresearch investigates newcomer adjustment (Ashforth and Saks, 1996; Ardts et al.,2001; Allen, 2006; Bauer et al., 2007), newcomer’s commitment, and role orientation(Allen and Meyer, 1990), the fit between the newcomer and the organization (Cableand Parsons, 2001) and the construction of social identity (Ashforth and Mael, 1989;Arnold and Nichoson, 1991).
Staff inductionpractices
25
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
According to van Maanen and Schein (1979, p. 211), “new members must be taughtto see the organizational world as do their more experienced colleagues if the traditionsof the organizations are to survive.” The experienced members of the organization playa critical role in ensuring that the newcomer does not cause “disruptions” to theexisting functioning of the organization or “embarrass or cast a disparaging light onothers,” or “question” too many of the established cultural solutions worked out for theorganization previously. Inductees acquire social knowledge and working skillsnecessary to take the organizational role. On the basis of these considerations,van Maanen and Schein (1979) present six tactics that organizations select consciouslyor otherwise to structure the learning experience of a newcomer to a particular role(Cooper-Thomas and Anderson, 2006; Ardts et al., 2001):
(1) Collective vs individual. Whether newcomers are socialized in groups orindividually.
(2) Formal vs informal. Whether or not newcomers are segregated from insidersduring socialization.
(3) Sequential vs random. Whether or not newcomers are told explicitly about thesequencing of planned socialization events.
(4) Fixed vs variable. Whether or not there is an explicit, fixed timetable forcompleting the various socialization stages.
(5) Serial vs disjunctive. Whether or not previous job incumbents are available asrole models for newcomers.
(6) Investiture vs divestiture. Whether or not newcomers receive positive socialsupport from insiders.
These socialization tactics described by van Maanen and Schein (1979) can be seen as acontinuum with two poles: the first pole – the institutionalized socialization – is basedon a group process and is strongly orchestrated by the organization. In contrast, thesecond pole reflects an individualized socialization process that is less governed by theorganization (Jones, 1986; Ardts et al., 2001). Institutionalized socialization tactics leadto the adaptation of custodial orientation, whilst individualized socialization tacticslead to more innovative newcomer role orientations. Major (2000, p. 364) explains that:“Institutionalized tactics are likely to be ineffective in encouraging personal growthand development and may even be dysfunctional when newcomer flexibility andadaptability are important goals.” Accordingly, Ardts et al. (2001) establish a linkbetween the abstract socialization tactics of an organization and its concrete personnelinstruments like an induction program, training and education, career planning, andcounselling as well as performance appraisals. As the socialization tactics reflect“general characteristics of concrete socialization-interventions” (Ardts et al., 2001,p. 161), induction practices can be described in terms of socialization tactics that mayconsist of a specific combination of the six poles presented by van Maanen and Schein(1979).
Staff induction and HRM practicesFeldman (1988) was among the first to draw attention to the need to link organizationalsocialization programs and policies more closely to other HRM practices. Baker andFeldman (1991) presented a framework to link socialization tactics proposed by
SBR5,1
26
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
van Maanen and Schein (1979) to HRM practices in order to achieve three broadercorporate strategic goals, namely: innovation, quality enhancement, and cost reduction.They argue that organizations can achieve these corporate goals by following a three-stepapproach:
(1) identifying the corporate strategy being pursued;
(2) identifying what types of employee behaviors are requested; and
(3) developing a socialization program that can produce the desired behavior types.
The fundamental argument that underpins this framework is that for a socializationprogram to be successful, it should not only adjust individuals to the organization, butrather should facilitate individual efforts towards organizational goals, as socializationtactics are not an end in themselves and have implications for how broaderorganizational goals are attained. Socialization tactics refer to HRM methodsorganizations use to facilitate a smooth integration of newcomers into the organizationby reducing uncertainty and anxiety associated with the reality shock of joining a neworganization, and to acquire social and technical knowledge for task performance(Bauer et al., 1998; Cable and Parson, 2001; Allen, 2006). The organization’s concreteinduction practices that are derived from abstract socialization tactics have tobe consistent with the overall HRM strategy (Baron and Kreps, 1999). In general, twoconsistent HRM strategies can be identified in the hitherto HRM literature:
(1) a bureaucratic or control strategy; and
(2) a commitment strategy (Lengnick-Hall et al., 2009).
A control-based HRM strategy reflects specific employment practices correspondingwith a specific set of formal (administrative) rules and procedures (Osterman, 1984)that are based on hierarchical control. Its formal rule system is centrally planned andbureaucratically structured. The strategic practices are, therefore, input-orientedand planned. In terms of its general logic, a control strategy can be connected to aninstitutionalized socialization process and a bureaucratic induction approachwhere formal, standardized, and restricting induction practices enable theintegration of newcomers and, thus, organizational recreation. Hired cohorts have a“common initiatory and learning experience” (Allen and Meyer, 1990, p. 847). Theirinduction phase is guided by formal rules and standardized (sequential and fixed)induction practices with corresponding and “explicit guidelines about the sequenceand timing of progression in an organization” (Allen and Meyer, 1990, p. 847). The useof serial tactics including appropriate role models may promote a custodial roleorientation as newcomers are exposed to someone who has done, or is doing, their newjob. They have clearer guidelines for the job and less need to learn on their own thannewcomers who have no such exposure (Allen and Meyer, 1990, p. 848). Furthermore,the “social support from organization members confirms the newcomer’s identity,constituting investiture” (Allen and Meyer, 1990, pp. 847-8). Finally, the sequential andfixed tactics, where newcomers receive information about the organization, makenewcomers less likely to “rock the boat” (Jones, 1986, p. 265). Consequently, inducteeslearn a conformist role behavior that restricts them in applying new knowledge andinterpreting existing rules and norms. Overall, the focus in this approach lies onknowledge deepening.
Staff inductionpractices
27
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
In contrast to the control HRM strategy, the commitment strategy represents abundle of HRM practices that “aim at getting more from workers by giving more tothem” (Baron and Kreps, 1999, p. 189). They facilitate the employee’s commitment byusing long-term employment guarantees, team-based production systems, job rotationor quality cycles (Baron and Kreps, 1999; Osterman and Burton, 2005), and arecharacterized by a high degree of self-organization and a looser, less strictly formalized,and decentrally regulated rule system. Their strategic processes are output-oriented,governed, and controlled regarding the central goals of the organization; actors have anindividual sphere of influence. Furthermore, the self-organization and social learningprocesses of a commitment strategy encourage the flexibility and creativity of actorsand, therefore, enhance the innovation potentials of new employees. Owing to the basiclogic of the commitment strategy, the general socialization process is moreindividualized and less governed by the organization than in the institutionalizedprocess of the control strategy.
The corresponding induction practice can be described as a “clan approach” that isguided by social rules and is flexible not standardized. There is a unique initiatory andlearning experience (it is individual) and on-the-job training (it is informal). Providinglittle information about the sequence or timing of career progression, the organizationuses random and variable socialization tactics. Requiring newcomers to develop theirown roles, it employs a disjunctive tactic. Finally, treatment by organization membersthat disconfirms newcomers’ identities constitutes divestiture which according toAllen and Meyer (1990, p. 848) “encourages innovative role orientations because, unlikeinvestiture, it causes newcomers to question assumptions about their behavior andchallenges them to justify or modify it.” On the one hand, these induction practicesprovide newcomers with the required background knowledge (i.e. understanding of thefirm’s strategy and their ability to perform exploratory learning) to correctly interpretthe core of organizational routines (i.e. their ostensive aspects; Feldman and Pentland,2003; Pentland and Feldman, 2005) and corresponding social norms and sanctionmechanisms. On the other hand, induction practices enable them to develop newinterpretations of the ostensive aspect and enfold their innovation potential. Thecentral aim is the broadening of the existing knowledge base.
The various theoretical contributions discussed in this section reveal the orientation ofstaff induction and socialization towards the tension between individual andorganizational goals which has been found to be typical of other HRM practices (e.g.training and development, see Antonacopoulou, 2001). Such tension is endemic to thepolitical nature of organizational practices, but do not explicate how the interactionbetween individual and organizational goals affects the nature of organizational practicesand the resulting degrees of socialization, institutionalization, and regeneration, all ofwhich are seen as critical outcomes of HRM practices. Empirically informed studies couldshed more light in this regard. We explore this further in the next section.
Staff induction and organizational socialization: empirical dataFollowing the seminal theoretical work of van Maanen and Schein (1979), empiricalresearch has been conducted since the early 1980s. In particular, the staff induction andsocialization are well analyzed, but mainly in psychology-based literature. Accordingto a psychological perspective, Bauer et al. (1998) and Cooper-Thomas and Anderson(2006) provide a broad literature review and Bauer et al. (2007) present results from
SBR5,1
28
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
a meta-analysis on staff induction and socialization. Bauer et al. (2007) distinguishbetween antecedents, newcomer adjustment behavior in the course of theirsocialization and outcomes. This is diagrammatically shown in Figure 1.
The meta-analysis of Bauer et al. (2007) shows, that the newcomer’s informationseeking behavior and the organization’s socialization tactics govern, on the one hand,the newcomer adjustment in terms of role clarity, self-efficacy, and social acceptance asshown in Figure 1. On the other hand, the outcome of the socialization process in termsof performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, intentions to remain, andturnover is dependent on the way newcomers adapt to the organizational andgroup-level expectations.
In this section, we advance the framework provided by Bauer et al. (2007) to presentour review of empirical research in the field of induction, socialization, and relatedHRM practices. We start with the individual and organizational antecedents, i.e. thenewcomer’s predispositions and the firm’s HRM practices which govern staffinduction. Subsequently, we present empirical data concerning the inductee’sadjustment and learning behavior over the course of their socialization. Finally, wedescribe the outcomes of staff induction and socialization by focusing on theperson-organization fit. We clearly acknowledge that most of the empirical papersaddress more than one of these fields. Nevertheless, we strive to classify the papers inthose fields where we perceive a central contribution to advance our understanding ofstaff induction and socialization. Our approach in selecting the relevant empiricalstudies for our analysis was organized in three steps. In the first step, we identifiedpapers in the EBSCO and SSCI database by using key words such as induction(inductee, induct *) and socialization. In a next step, we distinguished empirical andtheoretical papers in order to provide an empirical-based review on staff induction andsocialization. In the final step, we excluded papers lacking any relationship to amanagement perspective and papers where staff induction or socialization was onlyaddressed as a minor aspect within larger investigations (e.g. papers where the impactof HRM methods are measured in order to facilitate innovation). Based on thisapproach, we included 20 papers on staff induction, socialization, and HRM practicesin our empirical literature review, which are shown in Table I. We distill fromthese empirically informed contributions three main themes; namely, theantecedents of induction and socialization, the socialization process and outcomes ofinduction, and socialization in terms of person-organization fit. We discuss each ofthese in turn next.
Figure 1.Antecedents and outcomes
of newcomer adjustmentduring organizational
socialization
Newcomerinformation seeking
Organizationalsocialization tactics
Outcomes
Performance (+)Job satisfaction (+)
Organizational commitment (+)Intentions to remain (+)
Turnover (+)
Newcomeradjustment
Role clarity (+)Self-efficiency (+)
Social acceptance (+)
Source: Bauer et al. (2007, p. 708)
Staff inductionpractices
29
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
Au
thor
sM
eth
odF
ocu
sK
eyfi
nd
ing
s
Jon
es(1
986)
Qu
anti
tati
ve
Bio
gra
ph
yan
dp
ast
exp
erie
nce
ofn
ewco
mer
san
dth
ero
leof
inte
rper
son
alp
roce
sses
Th
ein
form
atio
nor
gan
izat
ion
sp
rov
ide
du
rin
gth
eso
cial
izat
ion
pro
cess
infl
uen
ces
new
com
er’s
adju
stm
ent
and
lev
elof
self
-effi
cacy
mod
erat
esth
eef
fect
sof
soci
aliz
atio
nZ
ahrl
yan
dT
osi
(198
9)Q
uan
tita
tiv
eS
taff
ind
uct
ion
ofb
lue
coll
arw
ork
ers
For
mal
and
coll
ecti
ve
ind
uct
ion
are
sig
nifi
can
tin
ach
iev
ing
org
aniz
atio
nal
lyd
esir
edou
tcom
essu
chas
job
orie
nta
tion
and
job
sati
sfac
tion
All
enan
dM
eyer
(199
0)Q
uan
tita
tiv
eT
he
rela
tion
ship
bet
wee
nso
cial
izat
ion
,ro
leor
ien
tati
onan
dor
gan
izat
ion
alco
mm
itm
ent
New
com
er’s
org
aniz
atio
nal
soci
aliz
atio
nex
per
ien
ces
are
neg
ativ
ely
rela
ted
toro
lein
nov
atio
nb
ut
pos
itiv
ely
rela
ted
toor
gan
izat
ion
alco
mm
itm
ent
Ch
atm
an(1
991)
Qu
anti
tati
ve
Th
efi
tb
etw
een
an
ewco
mer
and
the
org
aniz
atio
nis
esta
bli
shed
and
mai
nta
ined
Th
eex
per
ien
ced
uri
ng
the
soci
aliz
atio
np
roce
ssco
ntr
ibu
tes
sig
nifi
can
tto
chan
ge
inp
erso
n-
org
aniz
atio
nfi
tov
erth
eco
urs
eof
the
firs
ty
ear
Arn
old
and
Nic
hol
son
(199
1)Q
uan
tita
tiv
eT
he
role
ofso
cial
izat
ion
inb
rin
gin
gab
out
per
son
alch
ang
esO
rgan
izat
ion
also
cial
izat
ion
pla
ys
asi
gn
ifica
nt
role
affe
ctin
gth
eat
titu
des
and
beh
avio
rof
new
com
ers,
bu
th
asli
mit
edin
flu
ence
onth
eir
self
-con
cep
tO
stro
ffan
dK
ozlo
wsk
i(1
992)
Qu
anti
tati
ve
New
com
ers’
info
rmat
ion
acq
uis
itio
nab
out
org
aniz
atio
nal
con
tex
tual
dom
ain
sfr
omd
iffe
ren
tso
urc
es
Th
ele
arn
ing
pro
cess
ofn
ewco
mer
sre
vea
lsth
atw
her
eas
info
rmat
ion
acq
uis
itio
nd
uri
ng
the
soci
aliz
atio
np
roce
ssfo
cuse
sp
rim
aril
yon
task
-an
dro
le-r
elat
edas
pec
ts,
obse
rvat
ion
and
exp
erim
enta
tion
are
con
sid
ered
the
mos
tu
sefu
lso
urc
esof
obta
inin
gk
now
led
ge
abou
tth
eg
rou
pan
dth
eor
gan
izat
ion
Mor
riso
n(1
993a
,b
)Q
uan
tita
tiv
eT
he
effe
cts
ofin
form
atio
nse
ekin
gon
new
com
ers’
org
aniz
atio
nal
soci
aliz
atio
nN
ewco
mer
sar
ep
erce
ived
asp
ro-a
ctiv
e.T
hey
sou
gh
tte
chn
ical
info
rmat
ion
by
ask
ing
oth
ers
and
oth
erty
pes
ofin
form
atio
nth
rou
gh
obse
rvat
ion
.T
ech
nic
alin
form
atio
n,
info
rmat
ion
abou
tro
led
eman
ds
and
per
form
ance
feed
bac
kis
sou
gh
tm
ostl
yfr
omsu
per
vis
ors,
bu
tn
orm
ativ
ean
dso
cial
info
rmat
ion
from
pee
rs
(continued
)
Table I.Overview of empiricalstudies on staff induction,socialization, and HRMpractices
SBR5,1
30
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
Au
thor
sM
eth
odF
ocu
sK
eyfi
nd
ing
s
Ad
kin
s(1
995)
Qu
anti
tati
ve
Th
ere
lati
onsh
ipb
etw
een
org
aniz
atio
nal
soci
aliz
atio
nan
dp
rior
wor
kex
per
ien
ces
ofn
ewco
mer
san
def
fect
son
role
adju
stm
ent
Asi
gn
ifica
nt
rela
tion
ship
exis
tsb
etw
een
pre
vio
us
wor
kex
per
ien
ceof
the
new
com
eran
dth
eir
role
adju
stm
ent
Mig
ner
eyet
al.
(199
5)Q
uan
tita
tiv
eT
he
rela
tion
ship
bet
wee
nth
eco
mm
un
icat
ion
beh
avio
rof
new
com
ers
and
inn
ovat
ive
role
orie
nta
tion
Intr
odu
ces
alon
gsi
de
the
pro
cess
ofso
cial
izat
ion
the
pro
cess
ofin
div
idu
aliz
atio
n,
wh
ere
new
com
ers
atte
mp
tto
chan
ge
the
env
iron
men
tto
mee
tth
eir
per
son
aln
eed
san
dn
oton
lyad
her
eto
org
aniz
atio
nal
dem
and
sth
rou
gh
soci
aliz
atio
nA
shfo
rth
and
Sak
es(1
996)
Qu
anti
tati
ve
Doe
sin
stit
uti
onal
ized
soci
aliz
atio
nta
ctic
sin
du
cen
ewco
mer
sto
con
form
toor
gan
izat
ion
alg
oals
and
mai
nta
inst
atu
sq
uo?
Alt
hou
gh
the
imp
act
ofso
cial
izat
ion
tact
ics
win
esov
erti
me
they
are
stil
lth
eyb
ind
new
com
ers
toth
eor
gan
izat
ion
alid
enti
tyP
ratt
(200
0)Q
ual
itat
ive
Sen
se-m
akin
gan
dse
nse
-bre
akin
gp
ract
ices
inem
plo
yee
s’id
enti
fica
tion
wit
hth
eor
gan
izat
ion
Aco
mb
inat
ion
ofse
nse
-mak
ing
and
sen
se-
bre
akin
gis
nec
essa
ryto
man
age
iden
tifi
cati
onan
dco
mm
itm
ent
ofem
plo
yee
sin
the
pro
cess
ofb
ecom
ing
afu
lly
inte
gra
ted
mem
ber
ofan
org
aniz
atio
nC
able
and
Par
son
s(2
001)
Qu
anti
tati
ve
Th
ein
flu
ence
ofso
cial
izat
ion
tact
ics
onch
ang
ing
new
com
ers’
val
ues
New
com
ers’
val
ues
shif
tto
war
ds
the
org
aniz
atio
n’s
val
ues
wh
enth
eyex
per
ien
ceso
cial
izat
ion
tact
ics
that
are
seq
uen
tial
and
fix
ed.
Ser
ial
and
inv
esti
ture
-ori
ente
dso
cial
izat
ion
tact
ics
are
mor
eh
elp
ful
insh
ifti
ng
new
com
ers’
per
son
alv
alu
esto
war
ds
per
cep
tion
sof
thei
ror
gan
izat
ion
’sv
alu
esC
oop
er-T
hom
asan
dA
nd
erso
n(2
002)
Qu
anti
tati
ve
Inte
gra
tion
ofn
ewco
mer
sfa
cili
tate
sp
osit
ive
atti
tud
inal
outc
omes
by
pro
vid
ing
the
con
tex
tfo
rn
ewco
mer
lear
nin
g
Inst
itu
tion
aliz
edp
atte
rns
ofor
gan
izat
ion
also
cial
izat
ion
hav
ea
pos
itiv
ein
flu
ence
onjo
bsa
tisf
acti
onan
dor
gan
izat
ion
alco
mm
itm
ent
Mor
riso
n(2
002)
Qu
anti
tati
ve
Th
eso
cial
rela
tion
ship
sof
soci
aliz
atio
nA
net
wor
kof
rela
tion
ship
sw
ith
insi
der
sis
inte
gra
lto
soci
aliz
atio
n
(continued
)
Table I.
Staff inductionpractices
31
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
Au
thor
sM
eth
odF
ocu
sK
eyfi
nd
ing
s
Kam
mey
er-M
uel
ler
and
Wan
ber
g(2
003)
Qu
anti
tati
ve
New
com
ers’
pre
-en
try
kn
owle
dg
ean
dp
erso
nal
ity
trai
tsas
pre
dic
tors
ofro
lead
just
men
t
Th
ele
ader
s’in
flu
ence
isth
eon
lysi
gn
ifica
nt
pre
dic
tor
red
uci
ng
new
com
ers’
turn
over
,b
ut
doe
sn
otim
pac
tor
gan
izat
ion
alco
mm
itm
ent.
Co-
wor
ker
sfo
un
dto
infl
uen
cen
ewco
mer
’sin
teg
rati
onC
oop
er-T
hom
aset
al.
(200
4)Q
uan
tita
tiv
eC
han
ges
inn
ewco
mer
’sfi
tp
erce
pti
ons
New
com
ers’
do
not
chan
ge
thei
rp
erce
pti
ons
inth
efi
rst
mon
ths
ofso
cial
izat
ion
asth
ere
isst
abil
ity
inac
tual
fit
over
tim
eK
imet
al.
(200
5)Q
uan
tita
tiv
eT
he
lin
kb
etw
een
org
aniz
atio
nal
soci
aliz
atio
nta
ctic
san
dp
erso
n-o
rgan
izat
ion
fit
Aco
mm
onm
essa
ge
and
pos
itiv
eso
cial
mod
els
con
trib
ute
tog
reat
erco
ng
ruen
ceb
etw
een
ind
ivid
ual
and
org
aniz
atio
nal
val
ues
Par
ean
dL
eM
aist
re(2
006)
Qu
alit
ativ
eD
istr
ibu
ted
men
tori
ng
thro
ug
hte
amm
emb
erk
now
led
ge
shar
ing
Th
eim
por
tan
ceof
acti
ve
lear
nin
gan
dth
ero
leof
the
team
men
tors
hip
inh
avin
gth
en
eces
sary
kn
owle
dg
eav
aila
ble
All
en(2
006)
Qu
anti
tati
ve
Th
eim
pac
tof
soci
aliz
atio
nta
ctic
son
turn
over
beh
avio
rS
eria
lan
din
ves
tin
gso
cial
izat
ion
tact
ics
red
uce
the
chan
ces
ofsu
bse
qu
ent
turn
over
amon
gn
ewco
mer
sJo
kis
aari
and
Nu
rmi
(200
9)Q
uan
tita
tiv
eW
het
her
sup
erv
isor
’ssu
pp
ort
infl
uen
ces
new
com
ers’
lear
nin
g,
role
clar
ity
and
wor
km
aste
ry
Th
esu
per
vis
or’s
sup
por
tis
par
ticu
larl
yim
por
tan
tin
the
firs
tm
onth
sin
ord
erfo
rn
ewco
mer
sto
dev
elop
wor
km
aste
ry
Table I.
SBR5,1
32
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
Antecedents: characteristics of newcomers and socialization tacticsBased on the conceptual work of van Maanen and Schein (1979), Jones (1986) conductedone of the first empirical studies of staff induction. By taking an interactionistperspective and exploring through a psychological lens, he argues that individualdifferences and attribution processes play a significant role in moderating thenewcomer’s adjustment to the organization and personal and role outcomes. Jones(1986) seeks to put the emphasis on the biography and past experience of the newcomeras forces influencing the outcome of the socialization process. The ability of theorganization to influence the newcomer’s behavior is also affected by a variety ofinterpersonal processes. The attribution process plays a significant role in moderatingthe way in which role related and cultural knowledge is transmitted. Jones (1986)empirically tested his model in a survey-based longitudinal study of 127 MBA studentsand examined how the information organizations provide during the socializationprocess influence newcomers’ adjustment to the organization and how the newcomers’level of self-efficacy moderate the effects of socialization practices in newcomers’subsequent job orientations. Based on his findings, he concluded that, as predicted byvan Maanen and Schein (1979), different patterns of socialization lead to differentforms of newcomer adjustment to the organization. His findings highlight thesignificance of the social dimension in socialization – investiture and serialprocesses – in influencing role orientations and subsequent adjustment to theorganization. At the same time, both collective and formal socialization tactics arefound to be relatively less influential in assuaging uncertainty surrounding the entryprocess. The most significant insight that emerged from his research is that theconcept of self-efficacy moderates the learning process in relation to socializationactivities. Socialization tactics produce a stronger custodial role orientation when thenewcomer possesses low levels of self-efficacy (Jones, 1986, p. 262). He concludes thatan institutionalized approach to socialization leads to custodial role orientation,whereas a more individualized approach contributes to innovative role orientation.
Allen and Meyer (1990) replicated Jones’s (1986) research and examined therelationship between socialization dimensions and two of the outcomes: roleorientation and organizational commitment. Their quantitative study, similar toJones (1986), focused on 132 university MBA students and undergraduates from twosuccessive programs. They found out that the newcomer’s organizational socializationexperiences are negatively related to role innovation but positively related toorganizational commitment. Therefore, Allen and Mayer (1990, p. 885) recommend:
Organizations that want employees who are both committed and willing to innovate might bebest advised to use investiture to foster commitment but at the same time to minimize theinfluence of current or previous job incumbents and encourage newcomers to develop theirown strategies for dealing with their new roles, a disjunctive tactic.
Similar to Allen and Meyer (1990), Ashforth and Saks (1996) also replicated the work ofJones (1986) and focused on 295 graduates leaving university to study how thesocialization process facilitated the newcomer’s adjustment to their new workenvironment. Ashforth and Saks’ (1996) study also provided support to Jones’ (1986)claim that institutionalized socialization tactics induce newcomers to conform toestablished organizational goals and methods and hence maintain the status quo.Although such tactics are viewed negatively in relation to role innovation, neverthelesssuch tactics are found to be more helpful in reducing uncertainties that impair
Staff inductionpractices
33
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
newcomer adjustment as argued by van Maanen and Schein (1979) and Jones (1986).Two key insights emerged from Ashforth and Saks’ (1996, p. 170) research related tothe issues of binding newcomers to organizational identity and the declining effect ofsocialization tactics and suggest that “the institutionalized socialization inducesnewcomers to define themselves in terms of their organizational membership, bindingtheir self-conceptions with the perceived identity of the organization.” According toAshforth and Saks (1996), the impact of the socialization tactics wanes over time as thenewcomers develop a more stable sense of their roles and new work environment andbecome less responsive to institutionalized socialization, instead of becoming moreresponsive to other stimuli in the workplace.
This finding is consistent with Zahrly and Tosi’s (1989, p. 72) results, which suggestthat although:
[. . .] induction mode is one of the strongest variables influencing outcomes during earlytenure [. . .] the effects of induction mode would lessen over time and that other personal andorganizational variables would become stronger.
Zahrly and Tosi’s (1989) longitudinal study of the differential effect of the collective andindividualized induction process on the role of adjustment of 64 production flooremployees in a new manufacturing facility was focused on blue collar workers. Thefindings from their study demonstrate the significance of formal and collective inductionon achieving organizationally desired outcomes such as job orientation and jobsatisfaction. However, contrary to van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) argument, neitherformal and collective induction process nor the informal and individual induction processsignificantly influence either high worker involvement or strong team cohesion.
Morrison (1993a, b) investigated the information seeking behavior of 135 (Morrison,1993a) and 205 (Morrison, 1993b) new accountants in a survey study. In both studies, sheidentified pro-active newcomers who use different sources for receiving informationnecessary for them to integrate themselves into the organization. Newcomers capturetechnical information by asking others and other types of information throughobservation. Technical information, information about role demands and performancefeedback is sought mostly from supervisors, but normative and social information frompeers. Her data also show that the frequency of information seeking is related tosatisfaction, performance, and intentions to leave at six months (Morrison, 1993b, p. 584).
Adkins’ (1995) study on the socialization process of 171 mental health specialistsexplored the relation between the organizational socialization process and prior workexperience of newcomers adjustment. Drawing on Morrison’s (1993a, b) conceptualization,based on the longitudinal research findings, she considers developing a sense of taskcompetence, developing work role clarity, developing realistic expectations about the job,and developing interpersonal relationships as key tasks involved in the socializationprocess. Performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and turnover aretaken as key outcomes of the socialization process. Adkins (1995, p. 885) does not find inher survey-based study any significant relationship between previous work experienceand role adjustment. Nevertheless, she acknowledges that:
[. . .] although the present study found very few relationships between previous workexperience and socialization variables, it may be premature to conclude that previousexperience has no impact on socialization whatsoever.
SBR5,1
34
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
Socialization process: adjustment and learning behaviorOne of the key arguments, van Maanen and Schein (1979) proposed relates to thesignificance of organizational socialization in influencing newcomers’ behavior,attitudes, and self-image so that the newcomers become more congruent with theirwork environment. Arnold and Nicholson (1991) exclusively focused on understandingthe role of organizational socialization in bringing about personal changes. The extentto which a person’s self-concept differs from what they believed in the past wasconceptualized as an indication of personal change. In a longitudinal case studyresearch, Arnold and Nicholson (1991) examined the self-concept of 94 newcomersdrawn from different departments in British Petroleum plc. They arrived at theconclusion that although the process of organizational socialization plays a significantrole in affecting the attitudes and behavior of newcomers, it has limited influence of theself-concept of inductees. Organizational commitment is thus enhanced whennewcomers become more familiar with their supervisors and get involved as wellwith successful company members.
In their survey-based longitudinal study, Kammeyer-Mueller and Wanberg (2003)developed a structural equation model based on data of 589 inductees. They identifiedthe newcomer’s pre-entry knowledge and his or her proactive personality as significantpredictor of adjustment. According to their data, organizational influence is slightlypositively related to role clarity and organizational commitment. Kammeyer-Muellerand Wanberg (2003) identified the leader’s influence as the only significant predictorreducing newcomers’ turnover, but surprisingly does not impact organizationalcommitment. Finally, they emphasize the significance of the co-workers’ influence onthe newcomer’s integration into the work group.
Allen (2006) investigated the impact of socialization tactics on turnover behavior. In hissurvey-based study, which investigated the socialization process of 259 employees of alarge financial service organization, he found out that serial and investing socializationtactics, proposed by van Maanen and Schein (1979), lower the extant of subsequentturnover among newcomers. The results emphasize the importance of the social nature oflearning and adjustment as also suggested by Cooper-Thomas et al. (2004). These tacticsactively embed new employees into the organization. Moreover, on-the-job embeddedness,according to Mitchell et al. (2001) affects the extent to which individuals have links toother people, the extent to which individuals perceive a fit with their organization,and sacrifices of material or psychological benefits that would be lost by quitting, issignificantly negatively correlated with turnover, whereas off-the-job embeddedness isnot. Embeddedness helps newcomers to develop relationships and competenciesconcerning their task fulfillment and consistent with the demands of the organization.Serial tactics that provide experienced organizational members as role models do notincrease the degree of embeddedness but reduce the risk of turnover (Allen, 2006).
The newcomers’ adaptation over the course of their socialization process can also beperceived as a learning process (Ostroff and Kozlowski, 1992; Mignerey et al., 1995;Cable et al., 2000). The view that the socialization of newcomers to their neworganizational contexts requires that the inductees learn to understand and make senseof their new settings underpins the learning perspective associated with organizationalsocialization (Louis, 1980). Feldman (1981), in particular, perceives the organizationalsocialization process with the acquisition of a set of appropriate role behaviors and thedevelopment of work skills, as well as adjustment to the work group’s norms and values.
Staff inductionpractices
35
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
Ostroff and Kozlowski (1992) note that job-related tasks, work roles, groupprocesses, and organizational attributes are four content dimensions that encompassthe important contextual features relevant to the socialization learning process.Accordingly, Ostroff and Kozlowski (1992) focus on investigating newcomers’information acquisition about organizational contextual domains from differentsources. They also examine the relationship between information acquisition andknowledge of domains and seek to understand the relationship between informationacquisition from sources, knowledge of domains, and socialization outcomes. Based onthe responses collected from 151 university leaving graduates who provide theinformation five months after joining the new organizations, Ostroff and Kozlowski’s(1992) research provided significant insights into the learning process of newcomers.They particularly note that whereas information acquisition during the socializationprocess focuses primarily on task- and role-related aspects, observation andexperimentation are considered as the most useful sources of obtaining knowledgeabout the group and the organization. The findings also demonstrate that supervisorsare seen as a source of information and knowledge about the task and role domainsare most useful for positive socialization outcomes. The most significant finding toemerge from Ostroff and Kozlowski’s (1992, p. 869) study relates to the perceivedimportance attached to the acquisition of information and mastery of task and role orgroup issues as compared to issues relating to learning of values, norms, goals, andculture of the organization:
[. . .] when socialization is viewed from a long term perspective, the contextual features of theorganizational environment may become critical and play a greater role after newcomershave achieved task and role mastery.
Mignerey et al. (1995) explored in a survey-based study the issue of information seekingbehavior of newcomers albeit with the objective of understanding the relationshipbetween the communication behavior of newcomers and innovative role orientation.According to Mignerey et al. (1995), during organizational entry, newcomers are involvedin both the socialization process as well as the individualization process. Whereassocialization refers to the process by which a newcomer is taught the value systems,norms, and required behavior to become an organizational member (van Maanen andSchein, 1979), individualization is the process whereby the employee attempts to changethe environment to meet personal needs. They found out that institutionalized inductiontactics provide orientation for newcomers. Thus, inductees are better able to obtaininformation about the organization that reduces uncertainty. On the contrary,individualized induction tactics enable newcomers to experience the organizationwithout many restrictions or norms. Consequently, firms that seek to enhance innovativerole orientations create an environment where newcomers are not socialized wholly informal ways. Instead, inductees acquire information and knowledge necessary for taskperformance independently from veterans and other newcomers.
Morrison (2002) used a sample of 154 inductees for her quantitative study of theimpact of social relationships on socialization. According to their findings, newcomersbecome socialized not only by interacting with insiders, but also by developing acertain network of relationships with insiders. She concludes that “is not what insidersdo – provide information, initiate interaction, and so forth – but also how theyare connected to a newcomer that affects socialization” (Morrison, 2002, p. 1137).
SBR5,1
36
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
She perceives socialization as a process where inductees learn in informationalnetworks their job requirements and roles; a process in which newcomers areproactive, as proposed by her earlier studies (Morrison, 1993a, b).
The integration of newcomers into the British Army was investigated byCooper-Thomas and Anderson (2002) with a longitudinal study of 201 recruits. Theirkey finding is “that organizational socialization tactics facilitate positive attitudinaloutcomes by providing the context for newcomer learning” (Cooper-Thomas andAnderson, 2002, p. 432). Owing to the intensity of Army training during the firstweeks, they also identify significant adjustment after two months. Suchinstitutionalized socialization tactics enables structuring learning and thus,significantly predict information acquisition behavior of inductees. Cooper-Thomasand Anderson (2002) also identified the positive influence of institutionalized patternsof organizational socialization on job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Jokisaari and Nurmi (2009) investigated newcomer learning, i.e. how newcomersachieve role clarity and work mastery in relation to the supervisor’s support. Theirstudy is based on a longitudinal survey of 409 graduates from polytechnic schools inFinland. Jokisaari and Nurmi (2009, p. 538) show “that the greater the decrease inperceived supervisor support the greater the decrease in newcomers’ role clarity andjob satisfaction during six-21 months after organizational entry.” Therefore, theirresults are consistent with those of previous studies that emphasize the importance ofsupervisors in organizational socialization (Bauer and Green, 1994; Major et al., 1995,Morrison, 2002). Jokisaari and Nurmi’s (2009) results show that the supervisor’ssupport is particularly important during the first months in order to develop workmastery. Thereafter, co-workers and their feedback to the newcomer’s performanceplay a role in the development of work mastery over time.
Based on the activity theory (Engestrom et al., 1999), Pare and Le Maistre (2006)provide qualitative and longitudinal data of the school-to-work transition. They showthe importance of active learning and the role of the team and team member(“distributed mentoring”) in order to make the necessary information and knowledgefor the inductee available. Pare and Le Maistre distinguish between a passive andactive learning behavior. The former is characterized by learning from others and byfollowing predefined instructions. Active learning, by contrast, enables newcomers to“stimulate and change the communities they seek to join, forcing them to look again athabitual practice and, in the process, causing them to learn more about themselves andabout their work” (Pare and Le Maistre, 2006, p. 378). The authors also stress the factthat newcomers learn from others through the inclusion into a team, where distributedmentoring happens. They perceive this kind of learning more important than learningfrom supervisors as task complexity would overcharge them in guiding individuallearning effectively.
In an ethnographic study, Pratt (2000) investigated the process of sense-making (i.e. theprovision of meaning) and sense-breaking (i.e. the break-down of meaning) practices in anetwork marketing organization in order to investigate the employees’ identification withtheir firm. He found out that only a combination of tactics of sense-making andsense-breaking is necessary to manage identification and commitment of employees withtheir firm, which is necessary for becoming a fully integrated member of an organization.Sense-breaking happens through dream-building activities (e.g. setting personal goals)where the current sense is devalued. New sense is given through positive programming
Staff inductionpractices
37
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
where supportive members (e.g. mentors) of the organization provide a new meaning thatlead in combination with the replacement of old sense (through sense-breaking) to apositive identification with the firm. Finally, Pratt’s (2000, p. 485) study also suggests,“that identification is not a one-time, all-or-nothing process whereby an individual comesto match his or her values with an organization. Rather, individuals can changeidentification states.”
Outcome: person-organization fitThe relationship between organizational socialization and the issue of matching peopleand organizations has been a key objective towards which staff induction practiceshave been directed towards meeting. Person-organization fit is defined as thecongruence between patterns of organizational values and patterns of individualvalues (Chatman, 1991). Considering that organizational socialization is fundamentalto ensure the continuity of organizational values and norms (van Maanen and Schein,1979), the tactics employed during the socialization process must help to establishcompatibility between people and the organization (Cable and Parsons, 2001).
Chatman (1991) investigated how the fit of a newcomer with his or her organizationis established as a whole and how that relationship is maintained by focusing herstudy on 171 entry level auditors in eight of the largest US accounting firms. Accordingto Chatman (1991), the selection and socialization processes are essentially viewed ascomplementary processes in accounting firms. Her findings support the view thatalthough selection contributes significantly to value congruence at entry, theexperience during the socialization process significantly contributes to changes inperson-organization fit over the newcomer’s first year. Moreover, formal socializationtactics result in recruits in accounting firms learning more about the technical aspect ofauditing and less about the norms and values of the firms. Insights from Chatman’s(1991) study provide also support to Arnold and Nicholson’s (1991) results highlightingthe significance of newcomer’s relationships with supervisors and other senior staff inenhancing the organizational commitment of the newcomers.
Cable and Parson (2001) focused their attention on university leaving graduates.Findings from their research demonstrate the socialization tactics employed byorganizations influence changes in newcomers’ values. Although sequential, fixed,serial, and investiture-oriented socialization tactics result in positiveperson-organization fit perception, newcomers’ values shift towards their perceptionof their organizations’ values when they experience socialization tactics that aresequential and fixed. Serial and investiture socialization tactics are more helpful inshifting newcomers’ personal values towards perceptions of their organizations’values. Cable and Parson (2001) provide also support for the observations of Chatman(1991), which highlighted that newcomers are more likely to internalize the values oftheir organization if they spend social time with organizational insiders.
The quantitative study of Cooper-Thomas et al. (2004) examines changes innewcomer’s fit perceptions with a sample of 198 newcomers in a global professionalservice firm. They draw on the work of Chatman and Jehn (1994) who propose thatchanges result from:
(1) a change in the newcomer’s values as a result of socialization;
(2) if the newcomer’s initial perception of organizational values may change as aresult of their experience in the organization; or
SBR5,1
38
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
(3) from a change of the organization’s values over time in response to external orinternal events.
Cooper-Thomas et al. (2004, p. 69) conclude that “actual fit as measured atorganizational entry is a significant predictor of perceived fit and individual outcomesafter the first stage of socialization.” Moreover, newcomers do not change their ownvalues in the first months of socialization, as there is stability in actual fit over time.Over the course of time, newcomers validate their initial perception of organizationalvalues. The degree to which initial fit perceptions depends on newcomers’ experiencewith socialization tactics.
Kim et al. (2005) conducted a survey-based study of 279 employee-supervisor pairsin seven organizations in order to investigate the linkage between organizationalsocialization tactics and person-organization fit. They found out that employeesperceive a greater congruence between their individual values with the firm’s valuesystem when they receive a common message and positive social models. However,firms cannot entirely control the effects of their socialization tactics on new entrant’sperson-organization fit as employees themselves play an important role. Inducteesframe their entry process positively or negatively and thus influence the effect of thesocialization tactics on the person-organization fit.
Taken together, the empirical studies of staff induction and socialization reflect awhole variety of issues that act as conditions affecting degrees of identification withthe organization’s values and expectations, degrees of adjustment, andperson-organization fit. Despite the variety of issues the various studies raise theydo share several key issues in common, including the dominance of a psychologicalperspective in analyzing staff induction and socialization practices. We explicate theimplications of this dominant psychological view in Discussion section beforeoutlining additional avenues for further research.
DiscussionIn analyzing the conceptual and empirical studies on staff induction and organizationalsocialization in the previous sections, we sought to highlight both the issues that attractedattention so far. The Discussion section distills the main insights that existing researchprovides and outlines the missing links that existing research does not fully address. Thisprovides a useful basis for outlining the possible extensions that a practice perspective canbring to the analysis of staff induction and organizational socialization.
Key insights from individual focused research of organizational socializationAlthough van Maanen and Schein (1979) positioned their ground-breaking paper onsocialization from an organizational perspective, outlining different tactics forintegrating newcomers into an organization, the bulk of the research undertaken since,is notably conducted with a dominant focus on the individual inductee. By focusingmuch of the analysis on the individual newcomer as the main unit of analysis theorientation is also more geared towards psychological aspects of staff induction andsocialization that include perception and behavioral attitudes. In line with this kind ofpsychological research, only two out of 20 studies applied qualitative methods.
Perhaps, as a consequence of this orientation, we also note that HRM issues areprimarily discussed by referring to van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) or Jones’s (1986)
Staff inductionpractices
39
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
distinction between different socialization tactics (institutionalized vs individualized).It is interesting to observe that empirical literature on induction does not discuss widerHRM issues. For example, issues such as the relationship to the HRM strategy, therelationship to and consistency between different HRM practices are not taken intoaccount. Only staff selection is mentioned in induction papers as prior experience andthe fit between individual and organizational values is dependent on the newcomer’spast, which could be a criterion in the selection practice.
The existing research is therefore, predominantly concerned with the influence ofinstitutionalized or individualized staff induction tactics on the newcomer’s perceptionor behavior. One of the key insights from the existing research is that institutionalizedstaff induction programs influence the perception of the person-organization fit as theyenable the firm to send consistent massages to inductees. Formally institutionalizedprograms also provide a context for structured learning that reduces insecurity andambiguity and results in clear role-expectations and facilitates newcomers’sense-making. However, the main objective of institutionalized staff inductionprograms is the newcomer’s adjustment to organizational needs. Consequently,institutionalized induction programs raise adjustment pressure and reduce the optionsfor newcomers to innovate and to change existing expectations.
Moreover, what we discern from the empirical findings is that more impact on thenewcomer’s adjustment behavior results from co-workers than from institutionalizedinduction programs. Co-workers and the work group are perceived as important forlearning the values and norms of the organization. Distributed mentoring of teammembers facilitates cultural integration and provides knowledge for task fulfillment.Supervisors are also ranked high on the level of importance they have in facilitatingrole clarity that leads to job satisfaction. Over the course of the socialization process,the team members’ feedback is more important as inductees are transformed into anaccepted team member. Nevertheless, the influence of co-workers and of supervisors ispositively related to the inductee’s commitment to the firm. Existing role modelsprovide a sense-making function, which is not important for team integration butreduces the turnover rate.
Social integration and task knowledge are the key learning issues duringsocialization. Newcomers learn role behavior, group norms, and, more generally,orientation, as well as, work skills. Existing research shows that there is a limitedinfluence of prior experience, which can be perceived as a result of adjustment pressureand the limited scope of a newcomer to influence the organization. Staff inductionprograms therefore, have limited influence on the core of the personality. Inducteeslearn the ropes of their roles without changing core values of their personality. Hence, itappears that institutionalization dominates over individualization. This imbalance inthe way staff induction and socialization are understood and pursued in practiceexposes not only a gap in existing research. It also reveals the range of possibilities toexamine such processes from a practice perspective.
Extensions to the current debate: the case for a practice perspectiveA practice perspective would seem particularly relevant in further unpacking theintricacies in staff induction and organizational socialization. As Antonacopoulou andPesqueux (2010) argue, a practice orientation can provide clearer indications aboutthe ways in which institutionalization and socialization connect as well as differ.
SBR5,1
40
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
Moreover, a practice perspective can also reveal the ways in which tensions are engagedwith in the way a practice is performed. Hence, a practice perspective provides scope tounderstand the social actor not only as a psychological subject, but also as anindependent player who not only subordinates their goals in order to fit theorganizational agenda. Instead, we can afford to explore the ways in whichpractitioners/inductees/social actors shape their practice by virtue of the practicaljudgments they make that leave always room for them to also shape the practice and thecharacter of its performance. A practice perspective may retain the individual centrestage, however, it is more concerned with unpacking the process of individualization, asmuch as it seeks to understand this in the context of institutionalization. This means thata practice perspective of examining staff induction and socialization would be moreconcerned with the complex interplay between organizational values and norms, workgroups, supervisors and inductees in order to understand the modes of learning andknowing that individuals entering organizations engage in as they come to think(perceive) and act, i.e. perform organizational practices – in accordance to pre-existingorganizational standards or try to shift such standards accordingly. This is a coreprocess through which organizations with their idiosyncratic identity survive. All thesedimensions of current research on induction and socialization are diagrammaticallyshown in Figure 2.
This dominant individual-centric approach to staff induction and organizationalsocialization could be further extended beyond the psychological perspective. It couldusefully be complemented by empirical studies that capture the learning process andthe complex interplay with the collective dimension where theories on practice wouldbe appropriate.
Fundamentally, a practice perspective could usefully enrich our understanding ofthe way seemingly “static” and institutionalized practices such as staff induction and
Figure 2.Thematic map of
empirical staff inductionand organizational
socialization research
HR Systemsgovernance of staff induction programs:
socialization tacticsOrganizational
perspective(expectations to
the inductee)Institutionalized Individualized
Knowledge provision and adjustment pressure
Role ofsupervisor
Role ofteam
members
Role oforganizational
culture
Individualperspective
(expectations tothe firm)
Individualcharacteristics(experience,
information seekingbehavior)
Induction processnewcomer's learning process(task knowledge, group andorganizational knowledge) O
utco
me
|ad
just
men
t vs
role
inno
vatio
npe
rcei
ved
P-O
-fit
Out
com
e ||
job
satis
fact
ion,
turn
over
etc
.
Out
com
e |||
orga
niza
tiona
l sur
viva
l
Knowledge provision and adjustment pressure
Staff inductionpractices
41
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
socialization are also constantly reconfiguring and dynamic. Surprisingly, in ourreview of the literature, we failed to identify any paper that investigates induction andsocialization in a variety of dynamic environments. Other research shows that it makesclearly a difference in the expectations of employees (and of newcomers) in whichenvironment a firm performs. For example, in high-velocity markets, the need forknowledge creation and innovation is higher than in moderately dynamic marketswhere the use of established routines serves as key for success. Consequently, staffinduction will be performed differently; either allowing innovation or facilitatingadaptation to the existing standards. We also failed to find any study that links staffinduction and socialization to topics that address organizational survival over a longerperiod of time. Research on organizational memory and organizational recreation couldserve as a promising perspective to anchor staff induction in a broader organizationaland strategic context.
Along similar lines we would encourage further empirical research on staffinduction as part of a wider set of HRM practices. This would promote a greateranalysis of the inter-practice dynamics which contribute significantly towards therelative balance between continuity and discontinuity that the shape organizations andtheir development, as much as it would affect the experiences of newcomers. A greaterunderstanding of how multiple practices cluster under a broader strategic priorities(such as HRM) would provide scope for capturing the conditions that affect how thebalance between institutionalization and individualization may also be reached.
ConclusionsThis paper presented a state of art review of the current debate in relation to staffinduction and organizational socialization. Contrary to previous reviews of theliterature by Bauer et al. (2007) and Cooper-Thomas and Anderson (2002), thisoverview of the debate extends beyond the psychological perspectives that dominatesthe research in this field, and offers an alternative perspective. A practice perspective isproposed for future research which provides a foundation for tapping into a range ofother aspects affecting staff induction and socialization including a range of additionalthemes in relation to HRM, organizational memory, organizational routines to namebut a few. Perhaps, more fundamentally a practice perspective opens up the possibilityto understand how the sense of stability and change are negotiated amidst the ongoingemergence that governs organization. This means that practices like staff inductionand socialization may be predominantly geared towards fostering a sense of stabilityand continuity by encouraging the reproduction of organizational values and enforcingorganizational priorities. However, amidst this process of institutionalization lies also asense of progress that can be made possible due to individual’s active participation inshaping the direction of organizational practices. Individual’s actions have thepotential to introduce different degrees of change by virtue of how practices areperformed.
This view is shared by Danielson (2004) who points out that induction andsocialization processes can be structured as reviewing processes within the organizationsupporting innovation and growth by fostering greater renewal capacity throughorganizational agility. She particularly draws attention to the importance of continuouslearning and adaptation to achieve sustained competitive success throughorganizational renewal and change. This view challenges the dominant orientation
SBR5,1
42
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
towards the individual as the transitioning party in the process of induction andsocialization. Instead, it invites a greater focus on how a team, a department, or theorganization experiences the socialization during the process of socializing new staff.If indeed learning is critical to socialization then clearly the newcomer cannot be the onlylearning party. There is a scope in future research on induction and socialization to alsoexplore how and what do existing members learn from newcomers. Some of the papersin this special issue explore these possibilities empirically, which hitherto has only beenconsidered conceptually.
In short, this paper extends the current staff induction and organizationalsocialization debate by drawing attention to three key issues: first, it draws attention tothe importance of exploring the connections between staff induction, socialization, andorganizational recreation by focusing in particular on learning and knowledge. Second,it highlights the inter- and intra-practice dynamics of staff induction and socializationas part of a wider field of HRM practices. The connections between HRM practices canprovide a basis for a more consistent and coherent pursuit of organizationaldevelopment. Third, a practice as opposed to a psychological perspectives as a basisfor rethinking staff induction and socialization promotes reciprocity in the interactionthat governs the way newcomers interact with the organization, their team,supervisors and their underlying values, rules, procedures, and ways of doing things.A practice perspective embraces tensions as a natural part of the way organizationsemerge hence, acknowledges the positive role of conflict between newcomers andincumbents, where inductees have the potential to shake existing norms and value sets,as much as they are being taught how to reproduce these.
References
Adkins, C.L. (1995), “Previous work experience and organizational socialization: a longitudinalexamination”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 839-62.
Allen, G. (2006), “Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness andturnover?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32, pp. 237-56.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “Organizational socialization tactics: a longitudinal analysis oflinks to newcomers’ commitment and role orientation”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 847-58.
Anderson-Gough, F., Grey, C. and Robson, K. (2000), “In the name of the client: the serviceethic in two professional services firms”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 9, pp. 1151-74.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. (2001), “The paradoxical nature of the relationship between training andlearning”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 327-50.
Antonacopoulou, E.P. and Pesequeux, Y. (2010), “Practice of socialization and the socialization ofpractice”, Society and Business Review (forthcoming).
Ardts, J., Jansen, P. and van der Velde, M. (2001), “The breaking in of new employees:effectiveness of socialization tactics and personnel instruments”, Journal of ManagementDevelopment, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 159-67.
Arnold, J. and Nicholson, N. (1991), “Construing of self and others at work in the early years ofcorporate careers”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 621-63.
Ashforth, B.K. and Saks, A.M. (1996), “Socialization tactics: longitudinal effects on newcomeradjustment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 149-78.
Staff inductionpractices
43
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.
Baker, H.E. and Feldman, D.C. (1991), “Linking organizational socialization tactics withcorporate human resource management strategies”, Human Resource ManagementReview, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 193-202.
Baron, J.N. and Kreps, D.M. (1999), Strategic Human Resources: Frameworks for GeneralManagers, Wiley, New York, NY.
Bauer, T.N. and Green, S.G. (1994), “Effect of newcomer involvement in work related activities:a longitudinal study of socialization”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.
Bauer, T.N., Bodner, T. and Tucker, J.S. (2007), “Newcomer adjustment during organizationalsocialization: a meta-analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 707-21.
Bauer, T.N., Morrison, E.W. and Callister, R.R. (1998), “Organizational socialization: a review anddirections for future research”, in Ferries, G.R. (Ed.), Research in Personnel and HumanResource Management, Vol. 16, pp. 149-214.
Birnholtz, J.P., Cohen, M.D. and Hoch, S.V. (2007), “Organizational character: on the regenerationof camp poplar grove”, Organization Science, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 315-32.
Brett, J.M., Feldman, D.C. and Weingart, L.R. (1990), “Feedback-seeking behavior of new hiresand job changes”, Journal of Management, Vol. 16, pp. 737-49.
Cable, D.M. and Parsons, C.K. (2001), “Socialization tactics and person-organization fit”,Personnel Psychology, Vol. 54, pp. 1-23.
Cable, D.M., Alman-Smith, L., Mulvey, P.W. and Edwards, J.R. (2000), “The sources and accuracyof job applicants’ beliefs about organizational culture”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1076-85.
Chatman, J.A. (1991), “Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization in publicaccounting firms”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 459-84.
Chatman, J.A. and Jehn, K.A. (1994), “Assessing the relationship between industry characteristicsand organizational culture: how different can you be?”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 522-33.
Cooper-Thomas, H.D. and Anderson, N. (2002), “Newcomer adjustment: the relationship betweenorganizational socialization tactics, information acquisition and attitudes”, Journal ofOccupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 75, pp. 423-37.
Cooper-Thomas, H.D. and Anderson, N. (2006), “Organizational socialization. A new theoreticalmodel and recommendations for future research and HRM practices in organizations”,Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 492-516.
Cooper-Thomas, H.D., van Vianen, A. and Anderson, N. (2004), “Changes in person-organizationfit: the impact of socialization tactics on perceived and actual P-O fit”, European Journal ofWork and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 52-78.
Danielson, M.M. (2004), “A theory of continuous socialization for organizational renewal”,Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 354-84.
Engestrom, Y., Miettinen, R. and Punamaki, R.-L. (Eds) (1999), Perspectives on Activity Theory,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Feldman, D.C. (1976), “A practical program for employee socialization”, OrganizationalDynamics, Autuum, pp. 64-80.
Feldman, D.C. (1981), “The multiple socialization of organization members”, Academy ofManagement Review, Vol. 6, pp. 309-18.
SBR5,1
44
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
Feldman, D.C. (1988), Managing Careers in Organizations, Scott-Foresman, Glenview, IL.
Feldman, M.S. and Pentland, B.T. (2003), “Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a sourceof flexibility and change”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 94-118.
Jokisaari, M. and Nurmi, J.-E. (2009), “Change in newcomers’ supervisor support and socializationoutcomes after organizational entry”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 3,pp. 527-44.
Jones, G.R. (1986), “Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments toorganizations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 262-79.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. and Wanberg, C.R. (2003), “Unwrapping the organizational entryprocess: disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 779-94.
Kim, T.-Y., Cable, D.M. and Kim, S.-P. (2005), “Socialization tactics, employee proactivity, andperson-organization fit”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 2, pp. 232-41.
Lengnick-Hall, M.L., Lengnick-Hall, C.A., Andrade, L.S. and Drake, B. (2009), “Strategic humanresource management: the evolution of the field”, Human Resource Management Review,Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 64-85.
Louis, M.R. (1980), “Career transitions: variations and commonalities”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 5, pp. 329-40.
Major, D.A. (2000), “Effective newcomer socialization into high-performance organizationalcultures”, in Ashkanasy, N.M. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate,Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 355-68.
Major, D.A., Kozlowski, S.W.J., Chao, G.T. and Gardner, P.D. (1995), “A longitudinalinvestigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes, and the moderatingeffects of role development factors”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 418-31.
March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, OrganizationScience, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87.
Mignerey, J.T., Rubin, R.B. and Gorden, W.I. (1995), “Organizational entry: an investigation ofnewcomer communication behavior and uncertainty”, Communication Research, Vol. 22,pp. 54-85.
Mills, A.J. and Murgatroyd, S.J. (1991), Organizational Rules. A Framework for UnderstandingOrganizational Action, Open University Press, Milton Keynes.
Mitchell, T.R., Holtom, B.C., Lee, T.W., Sablynski, C.J. and Erez, M. (2001), “Why people stay:using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover”, Academy of Management Journal,Vol. 44, pp. 1102-21.
Morrison, E.W. (1993a), “Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomersocialization”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78, pp. 173-83.
Morrison, E.W. (1993b), “Newcomer information seeking: exploring types, modes, sources,and outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 557-789.
Morrison, E.W. (2002), “Newcomer’s relationships: the role of social network tied duringsocialization”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1149-60.
Osterman, P. (1984), “Introduction: the nature and importance of internal labor markets”,in Osterman, P. (Ed.), Internal Labor Markets, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Osterman, P. and Burton, M.D. (2005), “Ports and ladders: the nature and relevance ofinternal labor markets in a changing world”, in Ackroyd, S., Batt, R.L., Thompson, P. andTolbert, P.S. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Work and Organization, Oxford UniversityPress, Oxford, pp. 425-45.
Staff inductionpractices
45
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
Ostroff, C. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (1992), “Organizational socialization as a learningprocess: the role of information acquisition”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 4,pp. 849-74.
Pare, A. and Le Maistre, C. (2006), “Active learning in the workplace: transforming individualsand institutions”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 363-81.
Pentland, B.T. and Feldman, M.S. (2005), “Organizational routines as a unit of analysis”,Industrial & Corporate Change, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 793-815.
Pratt, M.G. (2000), “The good, the bad, and the ambivalent: managing identification amongAmway”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 456-93.
Schein, E.H. (1988), “Organizational socialization and the profession of management”, SloanManagement Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Skeats, J. (1991), Successful Induction: How to Get the Most From Your Employees, Kogan Page,London.
Tuttle, M. (2002), “A review and critique of Van Maanen and Schein’s ‘toward a theory oforganizational socialization’ and implications for human resource development”, HumanResource Development Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 66-90.
van Maanen, J. and Schein, E.H. (1979), “Toward a theory of organizational socialization”,Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1, pp. 209-64.
Wanberg, C.R. and Kammeyer-Mueller, J.D. (2000), “Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in thesocialization process”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 373-85.
Zahrly, J. and Tosi, H. (1989), “The differential effect of organizational induction process on earlywork role adjustment”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 59-74.
About the authorsElena P. Antonacopoulou is a Professor of Organizational Behavior at the University ofLiverpool Management School where she leads GNOSIS – a research initiative advancingpractice relevant management scholarship. Her principal research interests include change andlearning practices in organizations and the development of new methodologies for studyingsocial complexity. She is currently undertaking a series of research projects in organizationallearning, social practice and dynamic capabilities working collaboratively with leadingresearchers internationally and with practitioners and policy-makers in co-creating knowledgefor action. She writes on all the above areas and her work is published in international journalssuch as Organization Studies, Journal of Management Studies, and Academy of ManagementReview. She is currently Subject Editor for Organizational Learning and Knowledge for theEmergence: Complexity and Organizational Journal and has recently completed a five-year termas joint Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal Management Learning. She serves on theEditorial Board of Organization Science, Academy of Management Learning and EducationJournal, Society, Business and Organization Journal, and Irish Journal of Management. She hasrecently completed a four-year prestigious senior research fellowship as part of the AdvancedInstitute of Management Research. She has served on the EGOS Board for two terms (six years)and has been elected in several positions at board and executive levels at the Academy ofManagement (USA) where she has now been appointed to lead the Practice ThemeCommittee. Elena P. Antonacopoulou is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]
Wolfgang H. Guttel is a Professor for Human Resource and Change Management at theJohannes Kepler University Linz (Austria). Previously, he served as full Professor at theUniversity of Kassel (Germany) and as temporary Professor at the universities of Hamburg(Germany) and Kassel (Germany), research fellow at the universities of Padua (Italy) andLiverpool (the UK), and Assistant Professor at the WU Vienna (Austria). His main research field
SBR5,1
46
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
concerns strategic learning, i.e. linking learning, knowledge creation, transfer, and replication onindividual, group, and organizational level with strategic objectives. In particular, organizationalambidexterity, i.e. the integration of competing learning modes of exploration and exploitation,dynamic capabilities, i.e. the firm’s mode to govern change, and replication, i.e. the transfer ofsuccessful business models in new markets, are investigated in relation to human resource andchange management. Research results are presented at international conferences and publishedin several books and scholarly journals. Prior to his academic career he acted as managementconsultant at Daimler-Benz AG in Stuttgart (Germany), at Diebold Management Consulting inVienna (Austria) and as independent consultant within a consulting network (1997-2002).
Staff inductionpractices
47
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
This article has been cited by:
1. Úbeda-GarcíaMercedes, Mercedes Úbeda-García, Claver-CortésEnrique, Enrique Claver-Cortés, Marco-LajaraBartolomé, Bartolomé Marco-Lajara, Zaragoza-SáezPatrocinio, Patrocinio Zaragoza-Sáez. 2017.Human resource flexibility and performance in the hotel industry. Personnel Review 46:4, 824-846.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Stéphane Moyson, Nadine Raaphorst, Sandra Groeneveld, Steven Van de Walle. 2017. OrganizationalSocialization in Public Administration Research. The American Review of Public Administration 22,027507401769616. [Crossref]
3. Mercedes Úbeda-García, Enrique Claver-Cortés, Bartolome Marco-Lajara, Patrocinio Zaragoza-Sáez.2016. Toward Organizational Ambidexterity in the Hotel Industry. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 57:4,367-378. [Crossref]
4. Sean Kearney. 2015. Reconceptualizing beginning teacher induction as organizational socialization: Asituated learning model. Cogent Education 2:1. . [Crossref]
5. Uğur Yozgat, Dilek Güngörmez. 2015. The Mediating Role of Social Integration on the Effect of ProactiveSocialization Tactics Applied by Newcomers on their Organizational Commitment. Procedia - Social andBehavioral Sciences 207, 462-471. [Crossref]
6. Thomas S. Calvard. 2015. INTEGRATING ORGANIZATION STUDIES AND COMMUNITYPSYCHOLOGY: A PROCESS MODEL OF AN ORGANIZING SENSE OF PLACE IN WORKINGLIVES. Journal of Community Psychology 43:6, 654-686. [Crossref]
7. Aled Jones, Daniel Kelly. 2014. Whistle-blowing and workplace culture in older peoples' care: qualitativeinsights from the healthcare and social care workforce. Sociology of Health & Illness 36:7, 986-1002.[Crossref]
8. Jennifer Waterhouse, Erica French, Naomi Puchala. 2014. The Impact of Socialisation on Graduates’Public Service Motivation - a Mixed Method Study. Australian Journal of Public Administration 73:2,247-259. [Crossref]
9. Diego Ponte, Carlo Rizzi. 2010. Understanding socialization practice: factors fostering and hindering itsevolution. Society and Business Review 5:2, 144-154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Elena P. Antonacopoulou, Yvon Pesqueux. 2010. The practice of socialization and the socialization ofpractice. Society and Business Review 5:1, 10-21. [Crossref]
11. Silvia Gherardi, Manuela Perrotta. 2010. Where is induction? Profession, peer group and organization incontention. Society and Business Review 5:1, 84-98. [Crossref]
Dow
nloa
ded
by A
BE
, Mis
s C
lair
e Si
egel
At 0
6:50
16
Oct
ober
201
7 (P
T)
