Kammeyer-Mueller and Wanberg 2003

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
2003, Vol. 88, No. 5, 779 –794 0021-9010/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.779
Unwrapping the Organizational Entry Process: Disentangling Multiple

Antecedents and Their Pathways to Adjustment
John D. Kammeyer-Mueller Connie R. Wanberg

University of Florida University of Minnesota
This 4-wave longitudinal study of newcomers in 7 organizations examined preentry knowledge, proactive
personality, and socialization influences as antecedents of both proximal (task mastery, role clarity, work
group integration, and political knowledge) and distal (organizational commitment, work withdrawal, and
turnover) indicators of newcomer adjustment. Results suggest that preentry knowledge, proactive
personality, and socialization influences from the organization, supervisors, and coworkers are indepen-
dently related to proximal adjustment outcomes, consistent with a theoretical framework highlighting
distinct dimensions of organizational and work task adjustment. The proximal adjustment outcomes
partially mediated most of the relationships between the antecedents of adjustment and organizational
commitment, work withdrawal, and turnover.
The period of early entry is one of the most critical phases of influence of newcomers’ characteristics, including preentry knowl-
organizational life. During this time newcomers determine what edge regarding the job (Louis, 1980; Nicholson, 1984; Wanous,
their new organization is like and decide whether they “fit in.” 1992) or newcomers’ willingness or ability to engage in proactive
Many researchers have proposed that newcomers’ initial attitudes adaptation in which they go through the process of achieving
strongly influence subsequent attitudes and behavior (e.g., Mow- adjustment by changing their personal schemata to fit with the
day, Porter, & Steers, 1982; Wanous, 1992). Evidence that work situation (Jones, 1983; Miller & Jablin, 1991). Other theories
attitudes soon after entry are highly correlated with attitudes many emphasize influences on newcomers from organizations’ use of
months later supports these contentions (e.g., Adkins, 1995; Mor- formal socialization tactics (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Wa-
rison, 1993a). Numerous labor market studies have further shown nous, 1992). Still others suggest adjustment arises primarily
that recently hired workers are the most likely to turn over (e.g., through interpersonal communications between newcomers and
Farber, 1994; Jovanovic, 1979). This early turnover will be costly established members of the organization, like leaders and cowork-
because employees are departing after investments have been ers (Moreland & Levine, 2001; Reichers, 1987).
made into recruitment, selection, and training but before the orga- This study extends previous work by examining a unified per-
nization has been able to realize returns on these investments in the spective on organizational adjustment by examining how these
form of performance (Griffeth & Hom, 2001). In sum, understand- antecedents relate to variables that are more “proximal” to the
ing organizational entry is of critical importance. process of adjustment and more global or “distal” indicators of
At the heart of organizational entry is the concept of newcomer newcomer adjustment by using a sample of newcomers to seven
adjustment, which includes knowledge, confidence, and motiva- different organizations (see Figure 1). First, preentry knowledge
tion for performing a work role, and commitment to the or-
regarding the job affects newcomers’ ability to select jobs that
ganization and its goals (Ashford & Taylor, 1990; Hulin, 1991;
match their skills and abilities and facilitates the acquisition of
Nicholson, 1984). Considerable progress has been made toward
information regarding the new environment. Second, newcomers’
understanding how adjustment arises, but the literature remains
disposition toward proactive behavior increases their acquisition of
divided along a number of fronts. Some theories emphasize the
knowledge of the work environment and their willingness to
modify their work role to match their preferences. Third, formal
organizational training and orientation materials, leaders in the
John D. Kammeyer-Mueller, Department of Management, University of organization, and coworkers provide newcomers with important
Florida; Connie R. Wanberg, Industrial Relations Center, University of social information through socialization. Unlike previous research,
Minnesota. we also focused on differences across these sources of socializa-
This research project was supported through the Human Resources tion influence.
Research Institute at the University of Minnesota, Department of Human Relatively little is known about how these processes work in
Resources and Industrial Relations. This study used data collected as part tandem. There are also competing claims from the literature re-
of the University of Minnesota Project on New Organizational Employees.
garding the relative importance of these antecedents of adjustment,
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John D.
Kammeyer-Mueller, Warrington College of Business Administration, De- claims that can be best examined in a study that includes assess-
partment of Management, 206 Stuzin Hall, P.O. Box 117165, University of ments of each of the antecedents. For example, some researchers
Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7165. E-mail: john.kammeyer- working on small group socialization have proposed that there is
[email protected] little impact from organizational efforts (e.g., Moreland & Levine,
779
780 KAMMEYER-MUELLER AND WANBERG
Figure 1. Conceptual model of adjustment for organizational newcomers.
2001); others have proposed that because organizations are strong sidered the major hallmarks of successful adjustment (Hulin, 1991;
situations, there is little support for individual differences as an- Wanous, 1992). Furthermore, theory and research suggests that the
tecedents of newcomer adjustment (e.g., Saks & Ashforth, 2000). two domains may have different antecedents (Hanisch & Hulin,
Other researchers have proposed that the effect of socialization 1990; Hanisch, Hulin, & Roznowski, 1998). This distinction is
processes may be attenuated by preentry knowledge of the orga- analogous to the distinction between person– organization and
nization (Louis, 1980), and still others have proposed that individ- person–job fit (e.g., Kristof, 1996).
ual dispositions toward proactivity have not been adequately ad- Organizational commitment consists of a belief in the organi-
dressed as predictors of newcomer adjustment (Crant, 2000). zation’s goals and values and the willingness to exert effort on
In addition to disentangling the effects of various antecedents of behalf of the organization (Mowday et al., 1982). Acceptance of
adjustment, we also endeavored to test the pathways by which the organization’s underlying values is a critical component of
these antecedents help transform newcomers into organizational adjustment in many theories (e.g., Ashford & Taylor, 1990; Reich-
insiders. Research has focused primarily on distal outcomes of ers, 1987; Wanous, 1992). Commitment has also been linked to
newcomer adjustment, especially attitudes toward the organiza- newcomers’ perceptions that they can obtain desired rewards
tion, without sufficient attention paid to the processes underlying through maintaining membership in the organization (Hulin, 1991;
the development of these distal outcomes (Bauer, Morrison, & Moreland & Levine, 2001). Numerous studies have related com-
Callister, 1998; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). The specific proximal mitment to adequacy of preentry information and socialization, but
outcomes of adjustment highlighted in this study are task mastery, generally without mediating variables considered or without mul-
role clarity, group integration, and political knowledge. Ulti- tiple antecedents and mediators considered simultaneously (e.g.,
mately, we propose that successful achievement of these proximal Fisher, 1985; Hom, Griffeth, Palich, & Bracker, 1999; Louis,
adjustment outcomes leads to other, more distal adjustment out- Posner, & Powell, 1983; Meglino, DeNisi, Youngblood, & Wil-
comes, such as higher organizational commitment, lower work liams, 1988; Saks, 1995). In other words, it is known that com-
withdrawal, and lower likelihood of turnover. mitment is a potential outcome of adjustment, but it is not yet
known how commitment is developed during organizational entry.
Newcomer Adjustment Work withdrawal is a combination of behaviors that reflect an
attempt to psychologically disengage from work tasks, such as
We introduce the distal outcomes before examining the means
failing to attend scheduled meetings, doing substandard work, and
by which these distal outcomes may be affected by the organiza-
tional entry process. avoiding work (Hanisch & Hulin, 1990). Besides indicating poor
adjustment, work withdrawal also reflects poor task performance
and thus is of considerable organizational interest. The premise
Distal Adjustment Outcomes
behind withdrawal research is that these behaviors reflect a com-
Our distal outcomes were chosen to reflect unique and important mon underlying attitudinal aversion to the activities required on
attitudinal (organizational commitment) and behavioral (work the job. These reactions are not necessarily directed toward the
withdrawal and turnover) reactions to the workplace that are organization as a whole. Work withdrawal behaviors are theoret-
conceptualized to be influenced by more proximal learning and ically defined as ways to avoid one’s job tasks while maintaining
social integration on the part of the employee. Our distal outcomes organizational membership, but because they represent poor per-
fall into the already established rubrics of commitment to the formance and disrupt organizational functioning, they are actually
organization and behavioral participation at work, which are con- worse for the organization than if the employee would simply turn
UNWRAPPING ORGANIZATIONAL ENTRY 781
over. As such, withdrawal is a critical indicator of adjustment. 1986; Reichers, 1987; Taormina, 1994). As operationalized in our
Studies have not linked the proximal adjustment variables in this present study, task mastery reflects this learning as a self-appraisal
study to work withdrawal behaviors previously, despite the theo- of one’s ability to successfully fulfill job responsibilities. Because
retical linkages between adjustment and withdrawal (Hulin, 1991). task mastery relates to the ease and skill with which one can
Turnover is the complete withdrawal of an individual from a complete work, newcomers who master their tasks may find their
work setting. The use of turnover to indicate newcomer adjustment jobs more pleasant and may feel less desire to withdraw, consistent
has long been emphasized by researchers examining the effects of with a self-reinforcing nonrecursive model of successful perfor-
realistic job previews (Wanous, 1992). The possibility that turn- mance and work attitudes (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton,
over results from poor socialization or adjustment has been dis- 2001). Those who have greater confidence that they will succeed
cussed in theoretical reviews (e.g., Hom & Griffeth, 1995; Mor- in a task should also be more likely to exert effort toward the task
timer & Simmons, 1978), but few studies in the socialization (Bandura, 1999). Meta-analytic evidence supports the contention
literature have examined turnover directly (see Cable & Parsons, that there is a negative relationship between task performance and
2001, and Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000, for exceptions), withdrawal behaviors (Bycio, 1992). The relationship between
and none have used hazard methodologies to capture the time until task mastery and organizational commitment is less theoretically
the turnover event occurred.1 clear, and empirical research has shown weak relationships be-
tween task mastery and commitment in prior studies involving
newcomers (Adkins, 1995; Bauer & Green, 1998; Klein &
Proximal Adjustment Outcomes
Weaver, 2000; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Saks, 1995). Task
So how might these conceptually more distal outcomes be mastery therefore seems to be related to the work, rather than the
impacted by the adjustment process? To date, research has not organizational, domain.
addressed this question. Two recent, critical reviews of the
Hypothesis 1: Newcomer task mastery will be negatively
socialization literature bemoaned the frequent examination of
related to work withdrawal.
broad work attitudes, like organizational commitment and job
satisfaction, as socialization outcomes without an accompany-
Besides the technical competence required for task completion,
ing examination of the processes by which these outcomes are
to function in the organizational environment, newcomers must
affected (Bauer et al., 1998; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Newcom-
learn about their job’s purpose and relationship to other jobs
ers will primarily be interested in resolving questions of how to
(Ashford & Taylor, 1990; Louis, 1980). Role clarity reflects hav-
act and how well they match the new environment, whereas
ing sufficient information about the responsibilities and objectives
appraisals of the new environment and behavioral reactions are
of one’s job in the broader organization and having knowledge of
secondary concerns (Ashford & Taylor, 1990). Further reflect-
behaviors considered appropriate for achieving these goals (Kahn,
ing the peripheral status of traditional work attitudes in adjust-
Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). Ambiguous situations
ment research, Wanous (1992, p. 209) referred to attitudes
with unclear role expectations may make it difficult for individuals
toward the organization and work effort as “signposts of suc-
to assess where to direct their efforts, resulting in confusion and
cessful socialization,” as opposed to direct outcomes of
dissatisfaction (Miller & Jablin, 1991). This sense of confusion
socialization.
may be attributed to poor organizational coordination and lack of
Several typologies for delineating proximal outcomes of adjust-
coherent purpose for jobs. Role clarity has been positively related
ment have been advanced (e.g., Bauer & Green, 1998; Chao,
O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, & Gardner, 1994; Fisher, 1986; Mor- to organizational commitment in studies of newcomer adjustment
rison, 1993b, 2002; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Van Mannen & (Adkins, 1995; Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Bauer & Green, 1998;
Schein, 1979). An examination of this literature reveals that it is Meglino et al., 1988; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). By providing a
possible to distill four primary, salient proximal outcomes (task sense of direction and purpose to one’s job, however, role clarity
mastery, role clarity, group integration, and political knowledge) may also lead to task participation. Clear goal direction is hypoth-
from existing frameworks. For example, Chao et al.’s (1994) esized to increase motivation by many theoretical frameworks and
performance proficiency, Reichers’s (1987) development of work
skills and abilities, and Fisher’s (1986) learning to do the job 1
Unfortunately, it is not possible to test hypotheses regarding the
can all be conceptualized under a general umbrella of task mas- proximal indicators of adjustment as predictors of turnover in the current
tery. Feldman’s (1981) adjustment to work group norms and study because of the timing of measurement. Proximal outcomes were
values, Fisher’s (1986) learning to function in the work group, and assessed at several months into the newcomers’ tenure. This provides the
Chao et al.’s (1994) people are related to the concept of group advantage of ensuring that the proximal outcomes have had a chance to
integration. These proximal socialization outcomes are direct rep- stabilize and separates the measurement of antecedents of adjustment and
resentations of the quality of a newcomers’ adjustment, indicating the outcomes of adjustment in time. Unfortunately, because of this delayed
both the acquisition of requisite knowledge and skill for the administration of the proximal outcome surveys, some people turned over
before the proximal outcome survey was administered. Estimates that
organizational role as well as the development of social relation-
include only individuals who completed the proximal outcome surveys
ships that will help to bind the newcomer to the organization and would be badly subject to selection bias because the relationship between
its goals. only individuals who had not experienced negative early adjustment on
A major issue for newcomers, beginning the day they start work, certain dimensions would be in the sample. Thus, no direct hypotheses are
includes acquiring the necessary knowledge and skills they need to offered for the relationship between turnover and the proximal adjustment
complete expected task behaviors (e.g., Chao et al., 1994; Fisher, outcomes in the current study.
is well supported by empirical evidence (e.g., Bandura, 1999). Antecedents of Newcomer Adjustment
From this, we expect the following:
Preentry Knowledge
Hypothesis 2: Newcomer role clarity will be positively related
to organizational commitment and negatively related to work One of the most enduring models of organizational entry relates
withdrawal. to the match between information held by newcomers before entry
into the organization and their actual experiences after starting
Outside of these role- and task-related elements, developing a work (Wanous, 1992). Those who have accurate information about
social sense of the new work environment is a critical antecedent all aspects of the job will be better able to assess the extent to
of adjustment (Fisher, 1986; Reichers, 1987). Work group integra- which they will “fit” in their new positions and will be in situations
tion relates to perceived approval from coworkers and inclusion in that better match their abilities and preferences compared with
their activities, which can be a source of social support and those who decided to take the job with poorer information. Louis
assistance. Newcomers may also use social acceptance as an (1980) and Jones (1983) further proposed that naı̈ve newcomers
indication that they fit into their new work roles, meaning they may be defensive and will have difficulty adopting new behaviors
have established a situational identity (Moreland & Levine, 2001; and ideas because of a lack of extant schemas serving as a guide.
Reichers, 1987). Theorists posit that integration into a social group This combination of self-selection and cognitive preparation sug-
gests that newcomers with more accurate information will be
involves the establishment of a situational identity and that those
better able to adjust to a new organizational environment.
who successfully establish an identity through social interactions
Research has found that newcomers with more preentry knowl-
more strongly identify with the organization as a whole (e.g.,
edge report better adjustment. Vandenberg and Scarpello (1990)
Reichers, 1987). Opportunities for social interaction on the job
found a positive relationship between accuracy of preentry infor-
were negatively related to intention to turnover for newcomers in
mation and the degree to which a new job’s rewards matched
previous research (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000), entrants’ needs, whereas Bauer and Green (1994) found preentry
whereas social support from coworkers has been related to orga- information seeking was positively related to a number of
nizational commitment (Fisher, 1985). Although social integration adjustment-related outcomes among doctoral students. Unmet ex-
may be related to increased commitment to the organization, there pectations, which should be more prevalent among those with poor
is not as strong a theoretical relationship between work group preentry information, are related to lower organizational commit-
integration and work withdrawal because those who find a pleasant ment and higher intention to turnover (Saks & Ashforth, 2000).
social environment at work will not necessarily find their actual Other results suggest pathways from preentry knowledge to ad-
work tasks any more or less pleasant. justment through more proximal processes. Posthire realistic job
previews, which act somewhat like preentry knowledge by allow-
Hypothesis 3: Newcomer work group integration will be ing newcomers to psychologically prepare for their new jobs, are
positively related to organizational commitment. related to proximal indicators of adjustment, including problem-
focused coping and role clarity (Hom et al., 1999; Meglino et al.,
Political knowledge, involving the informal network of power 1988). Social capital researchers also suggest that preentry knowl-
and interpersonal relationships in an organization, is an often edge may result from contacts inside the organization, implying
overlooked dimension of learning how to fit into a new organiza- that those with more preentry knowledge are better informed about
tion (Chao et al., 1994; Taormina, 1994). Unlike roles, which political and social behaviors required for the organization as well
describe well-defined and structural components of the workplace, (Morrison, 2002). On the basis of existing theory and research, we
organizational politics are the informal power relationships be- propose to examine the relationship between newcomer preentry
tween individuals and departments (Drory & Romm, 1990; Kac- knowledge and our broader set of proximal outcomes.
mar & Baron, 1999). Political knowledge may lead newcomers to
believe they can obtain future rewards within the organization, as Hypothesis 5: Newcomer preentry knowledge will be posi-
suggested by studies demonstrating positive relationships between tively related to task mastery, role clarity, work group inte-
political knowledge and both salary progression and career satis- gration, and political knowledge.
faction (e.g., Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). Politically knowl-
edgeable newcomers may also believe that they are more inte-
Proactive Personality
grated in the informal structure of the organization because they
have passed through more inclusion boundaries (Schein, 1978). Recent research on newcomer adjustment has focused on new-
This suggests that those who have more political knowledge will comer efforts to increase their adjustment proactively. Symbolic
be more committed to the organization. As with group integration, interactionism, exchange theory, and expectancy theory suggest
there is no clear reason to believe that more political knowledge that during the adjustment process, individuals actively interpret
leads to more work withdrawal, however, because there is no clear their environment and take on primarily those attitudes and behav-
relationship between political knowledge and one’s appraisal of iors construed to increase individual utility (Mortimer & Simmons,
how pleasant work tasks are. As such, the following is hypothe- 1978). Newcomers may find that they are not given sufficient
sized: information to function in the organization and will have to seek
out information to resolve this discrepancy (Miller & Jablin,
Hypothesis 4: Newcomer political knowledge will be posi- 1991). Several authors have demonstrated that newcomers can
tively related to organizational commitment. successfully work to integrate themselves into a new organiza-
tional context (e.g., Ashford & Black, 1996; Ashforth & Saks, ployers are concerned about them (Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas,
2000; Morrison, 1993a; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). & Cannon-Bowers, 1991). Institutionalized socialization tactics
Stable personality traits like confidence or desire for control are positively related to aggregated measures of adjustment that
have often been described as important predictors of adaptation include identification and intention to quit (Jones, 1986) and
(e.g., Jones, 1983; Nicholson, 1984). Although these hypotheses congruence with organizational values (Chatman, 1991). Although
are informative, a trait that reflects proactive behavior is more research consistently links organizational socialization efforts to
directly relevant to most adjustment theories. Recent research has broad indicators of adjustment, the pathways by which organiza-
shown that there is a dispositional tendency for some individuals to tional efforts increase adjustment are less well known. Orientation
be more proactive, meaning they behave more confidently, ac- program content can be expected to include information about the
tively work to control their environment, and seek out information organization’s mission, hierarchy, and coordination between func-
(Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant, 2000). Studies have related pro- tional areas. Organizational efforts should lead to greater under-
active personality to job performance (Crant, 1995), communica- standing of organizational structure and goals, enhancing role
tion and participation at work (Parker, 1998), and career success clarity. Institutionalized strategies involving significant formal or-
(Seibert, Crant, & Kraimer, 1999). The latter relationship was ganizational efforts have been associated with higher role clarity
partially mediated by political knowledge, personal development, (Jones, 1986; Ashforth & Saks, 1996). This may be the limit of
and innovation (Seibert et al., 2001). Crant (2000) specifically influence attributed to the organization, however. Although orga-
called for research examining the relationship between proactive nizations may structure orientation sessions to include social in-
personality and newcomer adjustment. The only study to incorpo- teractions with coworkers, integration arising through these inter-
rate proactive personality in the socialization process found that actions will be more likely attributed to coworkers than
among new doctoral students, there was a positive relationship organization influence (Moreland & Levine, 2001). Orientation
between proactivity and task mastery, role clarity, and social sessions will not provide information regarding the political mech-
integration (Chan & Schmitt, 2000). Because researchers have anisms in the organization, as politics are often defined as informal
suggested that nearly every aspect of newcomer adjustment can be elements of the power and decision-making process that violate
facilitated by the efforts of newcomers, it is hypothesized that organizational rules (Kacmar & Baron, 1999). As such, high
proactive personality will be related to all proximal adjustment organizational influence is likely to relate primarily to the formal
outcomes. aspects of one’s work responsibilities and expectations for goals.
Hypothesis 6: Newcomer proactive personality will be posi- Hypothesis 7: Organizational socialization influence will be
tively related to task mastery, role clarity, work group inte- positively related to role clarity.
gration, and political knowledge.
Besides socialization provided by organizationally sanctioned
Influence of Socializing Agents programs, those in influential positions may exert a unique influ-
ence on role adjustment and personal integration. Unlike the or-
Although the previous antecedents of adjustment have been ganization as a whole, leaders can establish personal relationships.
described in terms of individual knowledge and personality, new- Because of their intimate knowledge of work roles and direct
comers will also encounter multiple messages coming from the observation of newcomers, these individuals are in an especially
organization, supervisors and mentors (hereafter referred to col- good position to provide guidance and information on work role
lectively as leaders), and coworkers. Few studies have attempted expectations. An especially strong link has been found between
to incorporate multiple sources of socializing influence, but initial leader clarification of job and task information and role adjustment
research has suggested that amalgamating sources of information and performance efficacy for newcomers (Bauer & Green, 1998).
into a general socialization construct would be misleading. Bauer Individuals in mentoring relationships report higher value congru-
and Green (1998) found that newcomer information seeking was ence with the organization as a whole (Chatman, 1991) and report
related to indicators of adjustment but not when supervisor clari- more knowledge about organizational reward structures compared
fying and supporting behaviors were taken into account. Ostroff with those without mentors (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1993). Re-
and Kozlowski (1992) found that no sources of information were search suggests that supervisors or mentors may be important in
significant univariate predictors of work attitudes, but multivariate explaining how informal political processes work (Ostroff & Koz-
results showed that information from supervisors was related to lowski, 1992, 1993). As with orientation, whereas leaders may
higher satisfaction, commitment, and adjustment. In another study, facilitate social communication with coworkers, social integration
compared with orientation programs and coworkers, experienced arising through these interactions will be more likely attributed to
members of the organization, such as supervisors and mentors, coworkers than through leaders. Thus, we propose the following:
were the most important socializing influences on new employees
(Anakwe & Greenhaus, 1999). These studies suggest that differ- Hypothesis 8: Leader socialization influence will be posi-
entiating between sources of socializing information may help tively associated with task mastery, role clarity, and political
explain different patterns of adjustment. knowledge.
One perspective emphasizes socialization through formal orga-
nizational orientation and training. Such programs explain how the The small group socialization perspective of Moreland and
organization works and what is valued, which should reduce role Levine (2001) de-emphasizes the organization and focuses on how
conflict and improve commitment (Miller & Jablin, 1991). In individuals learn from those occupying similar roles. Consistent
addition, organizational efforts signal to employees that their em- with this hypothesis, a study of union members found that indi-
vidualized socialization was related to commitment, whereas or- uted every 4 months. At Time 1, questions related to occupation, demo-
ganizational orientation efforts were not (Fullagar, Gallagher, Gor- graphics, preentry knowledge, and perceived mobility were asked, with
don, & Clark, 1995). Research has also shown that those who see 945 usable surveys completed, for a response rate of 61.7%. At Time 2,
coworkers as more helpful in the socialization process are more questions regarding proactive personality and the influence of socializing
satisfied, more committed, and report greater intentions to remain agents were asked, with 822 usable surveys completed. At Time 3, ques-
(Louis et al., 1983). Coworkers have been shown to be one of the tions regarding proximal adjustment outcomes were asked, with 683 usable
most significant sources of information regarding knowledge of surveys completed. At Time 4, questions regarding organizational com-
mitment and work withdrawal were asked, with 589 usable surveys re-
the work group (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Morrison, 1993b).
turned for an overall response rate of 38%. The overall retention rate is
Serial socialization tactics, involving the availability and helpful-
consistent with other longitudinal studies of socialization (Bauer et al.,
ness of role models, have also been related to higher organizational
1998). Structural equation modeling analyses, described later, were based
commitment and lower intention to turnover (Riordan, Weatherly,
on the 589 individuals who responded to all four surveys. Turnover was
Vandenberg, & Self, 2001). The research on coworker socializa- assessed by using hazard modeling. Because hazard models are able to deal
tion is not well differentiated in terms of what is learned, with with nonrandom drop out or censoring of data, it is possible to use the
researchers suggesting that every aspect of the organization can be entire sample of 822 individuals who responded to the questions at Time 2
learned through those who are most proximal to the newcomer. As regarding proactive personality and the influence of socializing agents in
such, the following hypothesis is conditionally offered: the hazard model.
Participants represented a variety of white-collar occupations. Of the
Hypothesis 9: Coworker socialization influence will be pos- 589 respondents to all four time waves, the occupational breakdown
itively associated with task mastery, role clarity, work group was as follows: 19.0% administration, 6.6% faculty members, 19.4%
integration, and political knowledge. marketing or advertising, 11.3% service, 16.5% engineering, 10.1%
research and development, 10.0% information technology, and 7.0%
Perceived Alternatives other miscellaneous occupations. The breakdown in representation by
organization is as follows: 38% of respondents were from Organiza-
Newcomers’ belief that good alternative work environments tion 1 in the high-technology industry, 8% were from Organization 2 in
exist, referred to as perceived alternatives, is a critical contextual healthcare, 3% were from Organization 3 in food distribution and
variable that is often discussed as a predictor of work attitudes and agriculture, 9% were from Organization 4 in healthcare, 23% were from
behavior distinct from adjustment. Mobility-related factors affect Organization 5 in food distribution and agriculture, 1% were from
attitudes toward the organization because the perceived quality of Organization 6 in education, and 17% were from Organization 7, which
a job is based on comparison with the perceived quality of alter- was also in education. All organizations studied had multiple locations
and divisions, so the sample was geographically dispersed. The average
natives (Hulin, 1991; Mobley et al., 1979; Mowday et al., 1982).
age of respondents was 33.3 years (SD ⫽ 0.1), and the average number
A newcomer’s attitudinal commitment to a group can also be a
of years of professional work experience was 9.02 years (SD ⫽ 8.89).
function of unfolding perceptions that this group will provide
Of the respondents, 26% indicated they had 1 or fewer years of
greater rewards than membership in alternative groups, with com-
professional experience, whereas 39% indicated that they had 10 or
mitment predicted to be reduced among those with good alterna- more years of professional experience. This suggests that the sample
tives (Moreland & Levine, 1988). Those who believe they have does not consist exclusively of individuals entering their first profes-
poor alternatives may also be reluctant to engage in work with- sional jobs, unlike much of the literature on adjustment. Of the respon-
drawal behaviors because these individuals will be concerned dents, 50.5% were female, 89.7% were White, 3.9% were Asian–Pacific
about the possibility of involuntary job loss. Recent studies have Islander, 2.4% were African American, 2.0% were Hispanic, and 2.0%
shown substantial relationships between alternatives and turnover, chose the option “other.”
further suggesting a need to consider these perceptions in measures Respondents to all four surveys were compared with those who only
of any turnover-related behavior (Kirschenbaum & Mano-Negrin, responded at Time 1. Logistic regression was used to model the probability
1999; Trevor, 2001). The inclusion of perceived alternatives also of nonresponse using predictors from the Time 1 survey, with odds ratios
incorporates extraorganizational context in the study of entry, (ORs) used as a measure of effect size. Responses at Time 4 were more
which has been suggested as an area in need of attention (Saks & likely among those who worked in administration (OR ⫽ 1.94, z ⫽ 2.20,
Ashforth, 1997). p ⫽ .03), who were White (OR ⫽ 1.81, z ⫽ 2.83, p ⫽ .01), and who
reported worse perceived alternatives at Time 1 (OR ⫽ 0.83, z ⫽ 2.42, p ⫽
Hypothesis 10: Perceived alternatives will be negatively re- .02). To assess whether nonresponse affected results, models were run
lated to commitment and positively related to work using the sample selection procedure described by Heckman (1979). In this
withdrawal. procedure, the probability of sample dropout is specifically included in the
model as a function of respondent characteristics, meaning a control for
nonrandom dropout is introduced in a manner similar to a multivariate
Method correction for nonrandom range restriction. Results from this procedure can
be compared with results of an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression
Participants equation to determine if the difference is statistically significant (Hausman,
The initial pool of participants consisted of 1,532 exempt employees 1978). If there are no significant differences between the coefficients
recently hired to seven organizations. The primary operational activities of between models, then dropout did not significantly affect parameter esti-
these organizations included manufacturing, food distribution, healthcare, mates. Results of the Hausman (1978) test showed very minor and statis-
and education. tically insignificant differences between OLS and the sample selection
The first survey was distributed to participants within their first month of models, suggesting differential attrition is not a serious concern for these
employment. Data were collected longitudinally, with new surveys distrib- data.
Measures organizational influence, ␣ ⫽ .93 for leader influence, and ␣ ⫽ .92 for
coworker influence. Items created for the current study are included in the
Control variables. Because differences in structure might be correlated Appendix.
with perceptions of organizational socialization efforts, fixed effect dummy Perceived alternatives. Perceived alternatives were assessed with the
codes were used to control for organization and occupation. Organization items “How easy or difficult would it be for you to find a job with another
was known based on the organization that originally supplied the contact employer at least as good as the one you have now,” ranging from 1 (very
information. All other control variables were assessed at Time 1 as reported difficult) to 5 (very easy), and “How would you describe the number of
by respondents. The number of hours worked was assessed based on a comparable jobs, with all types of employers, for a person with your
respondent report of the number of hours that they worked in a typical qualifications,” ranging from 1 (a very small number of comparable jobs)
week during the first survey period. Hours spent at work captures the to 5 (a very large number of comparable jobs) from Price and Mueller’s
amount of time the individual has to interact with others at work, and will (1981) widely used scale (Steel & Griffeth, 1989). Reliability was ␣ ⫽ .77.
also help to control for differences in labor market attachment. Ethnicity Proximal adjustment outcomes. Self-rated task mastery was assessed
(1⫽ White, 0 ⫽ non-White) and gender (0 ⫽ male, 1 ⫽ female) were also with four items from Morrison (1993a) and with three items from Chao et
controlled for because of evidence from the Glass Ceiling Commission
al. (1994). An example item is “I am confident about the adequacy of my
(1995) that suggests that the provision of informal information regarding
skills and abilities to perform my job within this organization.” Role clarity
the organization may be differentially available to women and minorities.
was measured with six items from the Rizzo, House, and Lirtzman (1970)
The number of years of education and professional experience held by
scale. This measure has been shown to have strong convergent and dis-
newcomers was held constant to distinguish between socialization in the
criminant validity in meta-analytic research (Jackson & Schuler, 1985).
organization and socialization in the world of work as a whole. Education
Example items include “I feel certain about how much authority I have,”
was reported in categories ranging from 1 (high school or less) to 5
and “Clear, planned goals and objectives exist for my job.” Work group
(graduate degree). Years of professional work experience were assessed
integration was measured with a combination of four items from Morrison
through the item “How many years of professional work experience do you
(1993a) and three items from Chao et al. (1994). Sample items included,
have, in any occupation?”
“My co-workers seem to accept me as one of them,” and “Within my work
Preentry knowledge. Newcomers reported their level of preentry
group, I would easily be identified as ‘one of the gang’.” Political knowl-
knowledge using a five-item measure (Breaugh & Mann, 1984). Consistent
edge was assessed with five items from Chao et al. (1994). Items included,
with the theoretical principles underlying hypotheses offered for this study,
“I do not have a good understanding of the politics in my organization,”
this measure indicates how much information newcomers have about their
and “I know who the most influential people are in my organization.”
new jobs in advance rather than measuring met expectations. Example
Responses for all proximal adjustment outcomes were on a 5-point scale
items included “I knew the good and bad points of this job when I was
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Reliability for the
hired” and “I had a clear understanding of what this job entailed before I
scores were ␣ ⫽ .84 for task mastery, ␣ ⫽ .89 for role clarity, ␣ ⫽ .91 for
accepted it.” Similar items have been used to examine level of preentry
work group integration, and ␣ ⫽ .67 for politics.
information in previous research involving newcomer adjustment (Van-
denberg & Scarpello, 1990). Responses were scored from 1 (strongly Distal adjustment outcomes. Organizational commitment was mea-
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Reliability for this scale was ␣ ⫽ .85. sured through Mowday, Steers, and Porter’s Organizational Commitment
Proactive personality. Proactive personality was assessed using a 10- Questionnaire (1979). This measure has consistently demonstrated high
item scale (Seibert et al., 1999). This measure shows positive correlations internal consistency and prediction of a number of related constructs (cf.
with need for achievement, conscientiousness, and extraversion consistent Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). The nine-item version of the scale, which has
with the theoretical foundation for proactive personality, with lower cor- higher internal consistency and less overlap with the construct of intention
relations for less theoretically related constructs (e.g., Bateman & Crant, to turnover, was selected for this study. Respondents indicated their agree-
1993). Responses were provided on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 ment with statements such as “I find that my values and this organization’s
(strongly agree). Example items included, “I am constantly on the lookout values are very similar,” and “I really care about the fate of this organi-
for new ways to improve my life,” and “If I see something I don’t like, I zation” on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
fix it.” Reliability for this scale was ␣ ⫽ .89. agree). Work withdrawal was assessed based on self-reports of the fre-
Socializing Influences Scale. Comparison of organizations, leaders, quency with which employees engage in withdrawal behaviors (i.e., failing
and coworkers as agents of socialization is important for this study. to attend scheduled meetings, allowing others to do your work for you, do
Consequently, an initial set of 15 items was developed for this study based poor quality work, make excuses to go somewhere to get out of work) on
on the literature on adaptation (Ashford & Taylor, 1990) and overviews of a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (once a week or more)
socialization (Fisher, 1986). The items asked newcomers to what extent (Roznowski & Hanisch, 1990). Reliability was ␣ ⫽ .90 for commitment
they have been influenced by the three sources of socialization across and ␣ ⫽ .76 for withdrawal.
seven broad domains of adaptation. On the basis of exploratory factor Hire date and termination date were collected from the organizations for
analyses and suggestions from a pilot group of 85 undergraduates, the scale use in the turnover regressions, with days employed as the underlying
was reduced to seven items per agent of socialization, and item wordings measure of duration of employment. Because the focus of this study is
were modified. The hypothesized factor structure was tested using confir- early adjustment, the maximal period of observation for duration of em-
matory factor analysis on the 814 participants who completed all social- ployment was 1.5 years, or 547 days. Because measures for role clarity,
izing influences items at Time 2. Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested that task mastery, group integration, and political knowledge were administered
multiple indices be used for judging model fit, particularly a combination at Time 3, these variables could not be used as predictors of turnover
of standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMSR) ⬍ 0.08 with compar- because much of the observed turnover had already occurred when the
ative fit index (CFI) ⬎ .95. The hypothesized three-factor model specifying surveys were distributed. A total of 78 individuals, or 9.4% of the sample
distinct organization, leader, and coworker socialization factors had ade- of 822 individuals with useable data, turned over during the entire 1.5-year
quate fit indices (SRMSR ⫽ 0.03, CFI ⫽ .94) and fit much better than study period. The duration of employment for those who turned over
either a one-factor model specifying a general socialization factor ranged from 168 to 540 days (M ⫽ 375, SD ⫽ 88.4). Of these individu-
(SRMSR ⫽ 0.28, CFI ⫽ .43) or a two-factor model combining leader and als, 2 turned over between 0 and 200 days of employment, 18 turned over
coworker factors into one “interpersonal sources of influence” factor between 201 and 300 days of employment, 29 turned over between 301 and
(SRMSR ⫽ 0.15, CFI ⫽ .70). The mean standardized factor loading in the 400 days of employment, 22 turned over between 401 and 500 days of
final model was 0.86 (range ⫽ .72 to .94). Reliability was ␣ ⫽ .94 for employment, and 9 turned over between 501 and 547 days of employment.
Note. N ⫽ 589. Correlations above the diagonal are for raw summary scale scores. Correlations below the diagonal are partial correlations between latent constructs and are corrected for measurement error
on the diagonal for composite variables. 95% confidence intervals for ICC include zero for all variables. Correlations greater than .09 are significant at p ⬍ .05. Correlations greater than .11 are significant at
and non-normality. The subdiagonal correlations have organization, occupation, hours worked, years of professional experience, ethnicity, gender, and education partialled out. Coefficient alphas are in bold italics
⫺.01
⫺.05
⫺.05
⫺.06
⫺.25
.10
⫺.10
⫺.10
⫺.04
.02
.05
⫺.22
⫺.21
⫺.11
⫺.15
⫺.27
.76
Analyses
17
p ⬍ .01. ICC ⫽ within-organization intraclass correlation coefficient; T1 ⫽ variable collected at Time 1; T2 ⫽ variable collected at Time 2; T3 ⫽ variable collected at Time 3; T4 ⫽ variable collected at Time 4.
The hypothesized measurement and structural models (along with sev-
.11
⫺.03
⫺.03
⫺.01
.05
⫺.13
.27
.14
.22
.23
.21
.12
.34
.32
.20
.90
⫺.34
eral competing models) were estimated using LISREL 8.51 (Jöreskog &
16
Sörbom, 2001). Because inclusion of all 58 items used to measure latent
constructs would result in a low subject–parameter ratio, item parcels were
.06
.01
.08
.02
⫺.03
.01
.11
.13
.07
.19
.05
.30
.38
.30
.67
.31
⫺.16
15
developed such that each latent construct had three manifest indicators. The
exception was perceived alternatives that had two manifest indicators
.03
.01
.08
⫺.04
⫺.11
.09
.17
.14
.17
.19
.27
.29
.40
.91
.41
.41
⫺.23
corresponding to the two items in the scale. To hold control variables
14
constant without using up model degrees of freedom, control variables
were partialled out of the covariance matrix prior to analysis. The covari-
⫺.05
⫺.04
.03
⫺.03
.05
.05
.34
.07
.19
.22
.11
.43
.89
.48
.52
.39
⫺.26
ance matrix was screened, and all variables were normalized prior to
13
analysis using Prelis (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2001). For all models the CFI,
SRMSR, root-mean-squared error of approximation (RMSEA), and ex-
⫺.07
.05
.07
⫺.02
.09
.11
.16
.30
.01
.05
.00
.84
.53
.37
.37
.18
⫺.26
12
pected cross validation index (ECVI) are presented to gauge model fit. The
latter two indices have the desirable property of providing better fit
statistics for more parsimonious models and have calculable confidence
.00
.04
.13
⫺.07
⫺.18
⫺.04
.09
⫺.01
.29
.35
.92
⫺.01
.12
.27
.05
.24
.03
11
intervals (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). The ECVI is assessed relative to
saturated and independence baseline models, with lower values indicating
.08
.05
.03
⫺.01
⫺.03
⫺.04
.12
.09
.34
.93
.38
.02
.20
.21
.23
.21
.02
superior fit. For the covariance matrix used for estimations in this study,
10
the fully saturated ECVI ⫽ 2.125, and the independence ECVI ⫽ 19.707.
Parsimony ratios are also presented, which are the residual degrees of
⫺.01
⫺.10
.05
⫺.19
⫺.07
.03
.08
.06
.94
.38
.29
.01
.19
.17
.10
.22
⫺.12
freedom for the estimated model divided by the degrees of freedom for the
9
null (uncorrelated) model (Mulaik et al., 1989). Higher values of this index
indicate more parsimonious models.
.09
⫺.03
⫺.04
.07
.06
.16
.02
.89
.02
.05
⫺.02
.37
.12
.13
.15
.14
⫺.16
8
Hazard regression, in which the hazard rate for leaving a job is the
dependent variable, was used to assess employment duration (Singer &
.02
.03
.03
.09
⫺.13
⫺.13
.85
.08
.12
.14
.14
.23
.42
.25
.20
.32
⫺.13
Willett, 1991). The analysis of duration data is not currently available in
7
standard structural equation software packages; thus, this estimation was

run separately, consistent with other recent research investigating structural
⫺.02
⫺.09
⫺.03
⫺.19
⫺.18
.77
⫺.08
.10
⫺.08
⫺.10
⫺.10
.15
.11
.09
⫺.02
⫺.15
.00
equations and duration models (Hom & Kinicki, 2001). The Cox hazard
6
model used in this study requires proportional hazard functions, with no

significant interactions between time and the predictors. Tests developed
⫺.06
.11
.02
.09
—
5
by Grambsch and Therneau (1994) showed that the proportional hazards

assumption was violated, ␹2(24, N ⫽ 822) ⫽ 46.38, p ⬍ .01, but stratifying
.17
⫺.07
⫺.02
the baseline hazard by gender and ethnicity resolved the nonproportionality

—
4
problem, ␹2(22, N ⫽ 822) ⫽ 22.76, p ⫽ .42. Thus, coefficients from this

stratified model are presented. Coefficients and significance levels for the
⫺.17
.02
—
unstratified model were essentially identical to the stratified model.

3
⫺.04
Scale Means, Standard Deviations, Reliability, and Correlations
Results
2
The raw scale means, standard deviations, and correlations for

—
1
the central study variables are presented above the diagonal in

ICC
.06
.01
.07
.16
.13
.12
.03
.03
.08
.05
.02
.03
.02
.00
.01
.14
.01
Table 1. Because the data used in this study came from seven
different organizations, within-organization intraclass correlations
7.84
0.30
0.50
2.16
8.89
0.97
0.80
0.61
0.93
0.88
0.80
0.68
0.83
0.76
0.66
0.77
0.47
were computed for all variables as well (Bliese, 2000). The 95%
SD
confidence intervals for all of the intraclass correlation coefficient

(ICC)(1) estimates included zero. The low correspondence of
45.17
0.90
0.50
17.50
9.02
2.89
3.95
3.72
2.56
3.53
3.89
3.97
3.65
4.12
3.48
3.67
1.53
M
observations within organizations relative to the total variance is

not surprising given the high geographical and functional variabil-
Organizational commitment (T4)
ity for employees in most organizations. Although these ICC(1)

Organizational influence (T2)
values are low, organizational fixed effects were partialled out of

Perceived alternatives (T1)
Proactive personality (T2)

Preentry knowledge (T1)
the covariance matrix prior to analysis (which reduces all ICC[1]

Political knowledge (T3)
Coworker influence (T2)
Group integration (T3)
Work withdrawal (T4)

Leader influence (T2)
values to zero) to control for organization effects and to minimize

Hours worked (T1)
Variable
Task mastery (T3)
problems due to violations of independence.

Role clarity (T3)
Experience (T1)
Education (T1)
One descriptive finding is of note. Mean values of coworker

Ethnicity (T1)
Gender (T1)
influence were significantly higher than values for leader influ-

ence (d ⫽ 0.42; 95% CI ⫽ 0.31, 0.53) or organizational in-
fluence (d ⫽ 1.53; 95% CI ⫽ 1.43, 1.63), and values for leader
Table 1
influence were significantly higher than values for organiza-

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
tional influence (d ⫽ 1.07; 95% CI ⫽ 0.97, 1.18). This ordering is

consistent with literature suggesting coworkers and leaders pro- To assess generalizability, a multisample analysis was con-
vide more socialization influence than organizations. ducted using the three organizations with over 100 participants.
The structural models were estimated with all parameters con-
strained to be equal for all organizations and then contrasted with
Model Comparisons
models in which structural coefficients (including the ⌽ and ⌿
Our first step was to examine the measurement model, or the matrices) were free to vary across organizations such that the
discriminant validity, of our constructs (Anderson & Gerbing, generalizability of these coefficients was assessed (Jöreskog &
1988). To demonstrate discriminant validity, the hypothesized Sörbom, 1996). Relaxing constraints did not substantially change
measurement model was contrasted against two competing mea- the model fit indices, with the 90% CI ⫽ 0.03, 0.05 for RMSEA
surement models: (a) a single common factor model that allowed for all constrained and unconstrained models and the CFI ⫽ .93.
all item parcels to load on a single latent variable and (b) latent This provides preliminary support for the hypothesis that the
variables in aggregated groupings with all socialization influences structural parameters generalize across organizations after holding
indicators on a single factor, all proximal outcome indicators on a organization fixed effects constant, although further research is
single factor, and all distal outcome indicators on a single factor. needed.
Table 2 presents the fit indices for these measurement models. The We describe the hypothesized model below because it fit as
alternative models demonstrate poor fit with the data. On the basis well as the alternatives and is matched to an a priori theoreti-
of criteria from Hu and Bentler (1999) and the significant differ- cal structure. Figure 2 presents the path diagram for Model 1.
ence between the hypothesized model’s ECVI and the saturated Table 3 presents the standardized structural coefficients from
model ECVI, the hypothesized measurement model was the only Model 1.
measurement model to show acceptable fit. The mean standardized
factor loading was 0.67, and all t values were greater than 8. Proximal Outcome 3 Distal Outcome Relationships
Correlations between latent constructs as estimated in this mea-
surement model are presented below the diagonal in Table 1. The first four hypotheses pertained to the relationship between
We then estimated three structural models to contrast the pro- the proximal adjustment outcomes measured at Time 3 with the
posed theoretical model with two alternative empirical possibili- distal adjustment outcomes measured at Time 4. Hypothesis 1
ties. Model 1, the hypothesized model, allowed for direct effects suggests that because task mastery relates primarily to the work
from antecedents of adjustment to distal outcomes, for a total of 33 domain, it would be negatively related to work withdrawal. This
structural coefficients. Model 2, which has more parameters than hypothesis was supported. Hypothesis 2 proposed that because role
the hypothesized model, constrained paths from perceived alter- clarity should affect both the organizational and work domains, it
natives to the proximal outcomes to zero, but left all other param- would be positively related to commitment and negatively related
eters free for a total of 40 structural coefficients. If Model 2 is to withdrawal. This hypothesis was also fully supported.
supported above Model 1, this suggests that the theory introduced Group integration and political knowledge were conceptualized
in the introduction is an oversimplification of the pattern of rela- as more organization-related than task-related adjustment out-
tionships between constructs involved in newcomer adjustment, comes. Hypothesis 3 suggested that group integration would be
and that the specific theoretical grounding for constraining some positively related to organizational commitment. This was sup-
paths to nonsignificance is not warranted. Model 3 eliminated the ported. Contrary to Hypothesis 4, which proposed a positive rela-
nonsignificant paths from Model 1 for a total of 21 structural tionship between political knowledge and commitment, political
coefficients. If Model 3 receives greater support than Model 1, it knowledge was not significantly related to organizational commit-
suggests that the hypothesized conceptual model is unnecessarily ment, although the lack of a relationship between political knowl-
complex, and a different theoretical perspective is warranted that edge and work withdrawal was as anticipated. Overall, the results
introduces more constraints. were consistent with the framework of distinguishing between
Table 2
Fit Indices for Alternative Models
Parsimony RMSEA ECVI

Model df ratio ␹2 ␹2/df CFI SRMSR 90% CI 90% CI
Measurement
Single factor 560 .94 8,496 15.46 .26 .137 .165, .171 16.4, 17.5
Aggregated measures 539 .91 4,324 8.29 .65 .096 .114, .120 8.18, 8.93
Hypothesized measures 494 .83 774 1.69 .97 .033 .027, .035 1.64, 1.89
Structural
Model 1 505 .85 809** 1.72 .97 .039 .027, .036 1.65, 1.91
Model 2 498 .84 797** 1.72 .97 .036 .027, .036 1.66, 1.92
Model 3 520 .87 844** 1.71 .97 .046 .028, .036 1.66, 1.92
Note. N ⫽ 589. CFI ⫽ comparative fit index; SRMSR ⫽ standardized root-mean-squared residual; RMSEA ⫽
root-mean-squared error of approximation; ECVI ⫽ expected cross validation index; CI ⫽ confidence interval.
** p ⬍ .01.
Figure 2. Structural Model 1. N ⫽ 589. All numbers reflect standardized path coefficients for latent variables
with organization, occupation, hours worked, years of preofessinal experience, ethnicity, gender, and education
partialled out.
Table 3
Prediction of Adjustment Outcomes: Standardized Structural Coefficient Estimates From Model 1
Proximal adjustment Distal adjustment
Task Role Work group Political Organizational Work

mastery clarity integration knowledge commitment withdrawal
Variable ␥ SE ␥ SE ␥ SE ␥ SE ␥ SE ␥ SE
Antecedents of adjustment
Preentry knowledge .21** .05 .39** .05 .21** .05 .17** .05 .13** .05 ⫺.02 .06
Proactive personality .36** .05 .09 .04 .13** .05 .13** .05 .09* .04 ⫺.09 .06
Organization influence — .09* .04 — — .08 .04 ⫺.14* .05
Leader influence ⫺.04 .05 .08 .05 — .18** .05 .02 .05 .10 .06
Coworker influence ⫺.04 .05 .02 .05 .24** .05 ⫺.04 .05 .09 .05 .06 .06
Perceived alternatives — — — — ⫺.18** .05 .05 .05
Proximal adjustment ␤ SE ␤ SE
Task mastery — ⫺.15** .07

Role clarity .17** .06 ⫺.17** .07
Group integration .23** .05 —
Political knowledge .05 .06 —
R2 .18 .21 .14 .09 .31 .13
Note. N ⫽ 589. Organization, occupation, hours worked, years of professional experience, ethnicity, gender, and education were partialled out
of the covariance matrix prior to analysis. Dashes indicate parameter values constrained to zero values. All values are for standardized path
coefficients.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
work and organizational domains of adjustment for organizational cluded) and structural coefficients ␥fm (direct effects from ante-
newcomers. There were also no results demonstrating significant, cedents of adjustment to distal outcomes with proximal outcomes
unhypothesized relationships between the proximal and distal out- included) as suggested by Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998). This
comes of adjustment in the unconstrained model (Model 2), which is essentially the same as the traditional two-step regression pro-
supports the validity of the theoretically applied constraints in cedure for assessing mediation except in a structural equation
Model 1. modeling framework. The percentage mediated from Table 4 rep-
resents the percentage by which the reduced form coefficient
Antecedent3 Proximal Outcome Relationships decreases when the mediating proximal outcomes are included
(Alwin & Hauser, 1975). This focuses attention on the magnitude
Hypotheses 5 and 6 both related to the characteristics of persons of the mediation relationship rather than focusing on statistical
as they came into their new organizations. Hypothesis 5 proposed significance.
that newcomer proactive personality would be related to all prox- As shown in Table 4, there were significant direct effects on
imal adjustment outcomes. Although proactive personality was organizational commitment from preentry knowledge and proac-
significantly related to task mastery, work group integration, and tive personality when proximal outcomes were included in the
political knowledge as hypothesized, it was not related to role model. For all cases, less than 50% of the influence of the predic-
clarity. Hypothesis 6, which related to preentry knowledge, was tors on the distal outcomes mediated through the proximal vari-
fully supported. As expected, preentry knowledge was positively ables. Other variables may mediate between these antecedents of
related to task mastery, role clarity, work group integration, and adjustment and commitment. The significant reduced form coef-
political knowledge. ficients for organizational influence and coworker influence were
The socialization influence variables at Time 2 showed much both reduced below significance in the full model, although the
more specific effects than the person-related variables on the percentage mediated for both of these relationships was compar-
Time 3 proximal adjustment outcomes, as suggested in Hypotheses atively small. The path between preentry knowledge to work
7–9. Consistent with Hypothesis 7, organization influence was withdrawal was almost fully mediated by the proximal adjustment
positively related to role clarity. Hypothesis 8, which proposed that outcomes. On the other hand, the path from proactive personality
influence from leaders would be significantly related to role clar- to work withdrawal was only 44% mediated by the proximal
ity, political knowledge, and task mastery, was only partially variables, and the path from organizational influence to work
supported. The hypothesized relationship with political knowledge withdrawal was barely mediated at all.
was found, but the relationships with task mastery and role clarity
were not significant. Hypothesis 9, which proposed that influence Turnover Results
from coworkers would be related to all the proximal outcomes,
was mostly rejected. Influence from coworkers was significantly Table 5 displays the results for turnover. Because the proximal
related to group integration, but was not significantly related to outcomes were assessed at Time 3, these variables could not be
task mastery, role clarity, or political knowledge. used as predictors of turnover because a significant proportion of
Hypothesis 10 proposed that perceived alternatives would be turnover had occurred before these measures had been adminis-
negatively related to commitment and positively related to work tered. Coefficients from the hazard models were exponentiated,
withdrawal. There was a negative relationship between perceived meaning they are relative hazard ratios (rhr) with values below one
alternatives and organizational commitment, but the relationship indicating that a variable reduces the hazard of leaving the job, and
between perceived alternatives and work withdrawal was small values above one indicating that a variable increases the hazard of
and not statistically significant. leaving the job. All scale scores were standardized prior to anal-
ysis; therefore, coefficients can be interpreted in terms of standard
deviation units. The results from these regressions demonstrated
Mediating Relationships
that preentry knowledge and leader influence were both negatively
Mediation was assessed on the basis of the difference between related to turnover, with hazard ratios of rhr ⫽ 0.74 and
reduced form coefficients ␥rf (direct effects from antecedents of rhr ⫽ 0.72, respectively. None of the other antecedents of adjust-
adjustment to distal outcomes without proximal outcomes in- ment were significantly related to turnover hazard.
Table 4
Reduced Form and Full Model Coefficients for Mediation Analysis
Organizational commitment Work withdrawal
Variable ␥rf ␥fm Mediated (%) ␥rf ␥fm Mediated (%)
Preentry knowledge .26** .13** 50 ⫺.12** ⫺.02 83

Proactive personality .14** .09* 36 ⫺.16* ⫺.09 44
Organization influence .10* .08 20 ⫺.15* ⫺.14* 7
Leader influence .04 .02 50 .09 .10 ⫺11
Coworker influence .14** .09 36 .06 .06 0
Note. N ⫽ 589.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01.
Table 5 knowledge than obtaining information from interpersonal commu-

Predictors of Turnover Hazard nications. Seibert et al. (2001) recently demonstrated a similar
relationship between proactivity and political knowledge in a
Turnover sample of more established workers. The current study extends
Predictor rhr SE
these findings by showing this relationship also holds for organi-
zational newcomers.
Hours worked 0.98 0.02 Unlike the comprehensive effects for the person-related vari-
Education 0.94 0.06 ables, each socializing influence was related to only one or two
Professional experience 0.99 0.02
other adjustment-related outcomes. Organizational influence was
Perceived alternatives 1.17 0.17
Preentry knowledge 0.64 0.12* positively related to role clarity, but the standardized effect size of
Proactive personality 1.13 0.16 this relationship was relatively small, which was only partially
Organizational influence 1.06 0.14 consistent with Hypothesis 7. However, organizational influence
Leader influence 0.72 0.10* was positively related to organizational commitment and nega-
Coworker influence 0.96 0.11
tively related to work withdrawal. The mediation analysis suggests
Model df 22 that the effect of organizational influence on these outcomes is not
Model ␹2 76.75** well explained by the proximal adjustment outcomes examined in
the current study. One potential alternative explanation for the
Note. N ⫽ 822. Baseline hazard stratified by gender and ethnicity. Or-
ganization and occupation were also controlled in this analysis. Coeffi-
relationship between organizational influence and the distal out-
cients for these variables are available on request from John D. Kammeyer- comes is that orientation and training sessions act to increase
Mueller. rhr ⫽ relative hazard ratio, with values higher than 1.00 perceptions of organizational trust and support, as suggested by
indicating increased turnover as the predictor increases and values lower Tannenbaum and colleagues (1991).
than 1.00 indicating decreased turnover as the predictor increases relative Leader influence stood out as a predictor of the proximal ad-
to the baseline.
* p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. justment outcome of political knowledge, as expected in Hypoth-
esis 8, and was the only socialization factor that was significantly
related to reduced turnover hazard. Previous research on the topic
of organizational socialization has suggested that those in leader-
Discussion ship positions are likely to provide some of the most important
Organizational entry is one of the most important phases of socialization outcomes (e.g., Anakwe & Greenhaus, 1999; Bauer
organizational life. Despite long-term interest in the topic, research & Green, 1998; Morrison, 2002; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1993). On
has not clarified how antecedents of influence are related to the other hand, leader influence was not significantly related to
newcomer adjustment. Implications of this study are considered organizational commitment and work withdrawal in either the
below. reduced form or the full model. It is not clear, based on the current
results, why supervisor influence might reduce turnover without
affecting commitment. It may be that newcomers develop com-
Antecedents of Adjustment
mitment to their specific supervisor rather than to the organization
This study provides corroboration for prior research suggesting as a whole.
that preentry knowledge is a significant predictor of adjustment Coworker influence was almost exclusively related to group
(Wanous, 1992), as expected based on Hypothesis 5. The compar- integration; thus the components of Hypothesis 9 regarding a
atively large effect sizes for preentry knowledge and the signifi- relationship between coworker influence and task mastery, role
cant negative relationship between preentry knowledge and turn- clarity, and political knowledge were not supported. These results
over argue for the importance of this variable. Although the may appear to conflict with recent theories arguing that coworker
relationship between information adequacy and organizational socialization is critical (Moreland & Levine, 2001) and empirical
commitment among newcomers has been shown previously (Meg- studies showing newcomers proactively seek more information
lino et al., 1988; Saks & Cronshaw, 1990), the current results from coworkers than from any other source (Ostroff & Kozlowski,
suggest that preentry knowledge may have its influence on orga- 1992). However, the mean levels of coworker socialization in this
nizational commitment through its positive effects on task mastery, sample were also much higher than mean levels of other social-
role clarity, group integration, and political knowledge. ization influences. Coworker influence was also the antecedent of
Proactive personality was also a seemingly critical characteristic adjustment that was most strongly related to organizational com-
for newcomers in our study in improving their adjustment, con- mitment in the reduced form equations. It should be borne in mind
sistent with Hypothesis 6. Advancing previous literature, our study that the results suggest variability in coworker influence levels
found that newcomers who reported that they tended to be proac- may not be a significant predictor of several proximal outcomes,
tive experienced more positive adjustment outcomes, including even though all respondents did agree that coworker influence was
increased task mastery, group integration, and political knowledge. important.
These results extend and support a recent recognition in the so- Perceived alternatives were shown to be an important correlate
cialization literature that newcomers play an important proactive of adjustment, as evinced by the comparatively strong negative
role in their own adjustment and suggest proactive socialization relationship between alternatives and organizational commitment
may be determined by personal factors (e.g., Wanberg & as anticipated by Hypothesis 10. The importance of perceived
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Ostroff and Kozlowski (1992) also alternatives in the process of adjustment, particularly in the liter-
found watching and trying were more significantly related to task ature on socialization, has been largely overlooked (Saks & Ash-
forth, 1997). A growing body of empirical research (Kirschen- On the social side, the current results also agree with Hypoth-
baum & Mano-Negrin, 1999; Trevor, 2001) has supported esis 3 and similar findings that demonstrate higher commitment
theoretical work that emphasizes the importance of alternatives in among those with greater knowledge regarding their work group’s
the development of work attitudes. Although these studies show a functioning (Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992) or stronger friendship
relationship between perceived alternatives and turnover, the cur- networks (Morrison, 2002). Group integration was also a signifi-
rent study demonstrates that organizational newcomers who be- cant predictor of organizational commitment, with a fairly large
lieve they have good alternatives will tend to be less committed. standardized effect size relative to other predictors. Organizations
However, there did not appear to be a strong relationship between may find that cooperation and coordination within work groups
perceived alternatives and work withdrawal behaviors. will spill over into a greater desire to fit with the organization as
There are several practical implications that arise from these a whole. Political knowledge was not related to organizational
results. Although causal inferences are not warranted, the findings commitment or work withdrawal, contrary to Hypothesis 4, which
suggest there may be advantages to providing recruits with com- suggests that those who understand how informal decisions are
prehensive, accurate information. Meta-analytic results, however, made may not have a more positive view of organizational
suggest that the correlation between realistic job previews and functioning.
adequacy of prehire information is small (r ⫽ ⫺.02; Phillips, Although conceptualized as proximal in the socialization liter-
1998). More developed preentry opportunities to learn about jobs ature and in our model, it should be noted that these relationships
may be advisable, such as extended work samples or internships. may also possibly be reciprocal—for example, that organizational
Increased empirical investigation of these widely used interven- commitment could also have a reciprocal influence on task mas-
tions is strongly recommended. In addition, research should ex- tery through a motivational process. Future research involving
amine other potential antecedents of preentry knowledge, such as repeated longitudinal measures of these constructs may help to
general mental ability, social networks (Morrison, 2002), and the resolve these issues.
amount of time newcomers spend researching their new jobs
before entry. Organizations may find that the administration of Conclusions
personality surveys early during the selection process may be
useful, either to select primarily those who have higher proactivity This study demonstrates that the conceptual model provided in
or to identify individuals who may need more assistance in adjust- Figure 1 is a useful unifying framework for predicting the course
ment because they are less proactive. Organizations may also be of newcomer adjustment. First, this study demonstrates how the
well served by ensuring that supervisors and coworkers, who antecedents of adjustment, including that of preentry knowledge,
appear to provide important socialization information, are well proactive personality, and socialization influences from the orga-
trained for this role. Peer and supervisory mentoring programs are nization, supervisors, and coworkers work in tandem, hopefully
one potential mechanism to leverage the existing patterns of so- resolving some issues regarding competing claims from the liter-
cialization to greater effect (cf. Allen, McManus, & Russell, 1999; ature regarding the importance of these different antecedents.
Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1993). The fact that neither coworker nor Second, this study also shows how proximal outcomes mediate the
supervisory socialization facilitated role clarity or task mastery relationship between antecedents of adjustment and distal out-
was contrary to our expectations. Methods that might help get this comes. Third, the current article is the first to differentially mea-
information to newcomers once they are on the job should be sure sources of socialization information. The inclusion of a new
explored. scale of socialization that specifically identifies different sources
of socializing information demonstrated that there are differences
Achieving Distal Adjustment Outcomes in what is provided by the three sources of socialization we
examined and that these differences are consistent with theoretical
The distal outcome results were consistent with the theoretical principles described in the literature review.
division of organizational and task domains. Task mastery and role This study had a number of methodological advantages over
clarity had distinct, but partially overlapping, relationships with previous studies in the area of organizational adjustment. Although
sources of information and adjustment (Morrison, 2002). Task other studies have had elements of the research design employed
mastery was unrelated to organizational commitment, but was here, the combination of a multiwave, multiorganization design
related to reduced work withdrawal, providing partial support for with a sample of newcomers who were heterogeneous with respect
Hypothesis 1. Those who are better able to complete their work to occupation and experience is a distinction between this study
tasks may gain a greater sense of accomplishment from work and and previous research. However, a number of caveats are in order
will have less drive to avoid working, consistent with the theoret- in interpreting these results. First, the data are self-report in nature
ical model of work withdrawal described by Hulin (1991). Role with the exception of turnover. Common methods bias concerns
clarity was substantially related to both commitment and with- are reduced by our separation of measures by 4 months in time
drawal as expected based on Hypothesis 2. The positive relation- over four time waves. The highly differentiated pattern of results
ship between role clarity and organizational commitment suggests across survey domains further suggests that collecting information
that individuals who have a clear sense of their job responsibilities from a common source did not lead to an inflated set of relation-
will have more positive feelings toward the organization as a ships across all variables. In addition, most of the constructs of
whole. The consistent relationship between role clarity and the interest are internal psychological processes that are best answered
indicators of adjustment suggest that the emphasis on role clarity by the individual experiencing the process (Sackett & Larson,
as the critical outcome of socialization in Van Maanen and 1990). Although there was occupational diversity, the sample was
Schein’s (1979) work is well founded. made up exclusively of white-collar workers, so generalization of
these results outside of this population is not warranted. Future Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person–
research should endeavor to compare these results with these other organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54, 1–23.
occupational samples that might have much different patterns of Chan, D., & Schmitt, N. (2000). Interindividual differences in intraindi-
socialization and to build on these findings by examining reports vidual changes in proactivity during organizational entry: A latent
from leaders and coworkers in the process of adjustment. growth modeling approach to understanding newcomer adaptation. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 85, 190 –210.
Chao, G. T., O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D.
References (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730 –743.
Adkins, C. L. (1995). Previous work experience and organizational social-
Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and
ization: A longitudinal investigation. Academy of Management Jour-
socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quar-
nal, 38, 839 – 862.
terly, 36, 459 – 484.
Allen, T. D., McManus, S. E., & Russell, J. E. A. (1999). Newcomer
Crant, J. M. (1995). The proactive personality scale as a predictor of
socialization and stress: Formal peer relationships as a source of support.
entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management, 34,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 453– 470.
42– 49.
Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). The decomposition of effects in path
analysis. American Sociological Review, 40, 37– 47. Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Man-
Anakwe, U. P., & Greenhaus, J. H. (1999). Effective socialization of agement, 26, 435– 462.
employees: Socialization content perspective. Journal of Managerial Drory, A., & Romm, T. (1990). The definition of organizational politics: A
Issues, 11, 315–329. review. Human Relations, 43, 1133–1154.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in Farber, H. S. (1994). The analysis of interfirm worker mobility. Journal of
practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Labor Economics, 12, 554 –593.
Bulletin, 103, 411– 423. Fisher, C. D. (1985) Social support and adjustment to work: A longitudinal
Ashford, S. J., & Black, J. S. (1996). Proactivity during organizational study. Journal of Management, 11, 39 –53.
entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review.
199 –214. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and
Ashford, S. J., & Taylor, S. M. (1990). Adaptation to work transitions: An human resources management (Vol. 4, 101–145). Greenwich, CT: JAI
integrative approach. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds). Research Press.
in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 8, pp. 1–39). Fullagar, C. A., Gallagher, D. G., Gordon, M. E., & Clark, P. F. (1995).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Impact of early socialization on union commitment and participation: A
Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 147–157.
effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, Glass Ceiling Commission. (1995). Fact-finding report. Washington, DC:
149 –178. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (2000). Personal control in organization: A Grambsch, P. M., & Therneau, T. M. (1994). Proportional hazards tests and
longitudinal investigation with newcomers. Human Relations, 53, 311– diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika, 81, 515–526.
339. Griffeth, R. W., & Hom, P. W. (2001). Retaining valued employees.
Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
& O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd Hanisch, K. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1990). Job attitudes and organizational
ed., pp. 154 –196). New York: Guilford. withdrawal: An examination of retirement and other voluntary with-
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of drawal behaviors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 37, 60 –78.
organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organi- Hanisch, K. A., Hulin, C. L., & Roznowski, M. (1998). The importance of
zational Behavior, 14, 103–118. individuals’ repertoires of behaviors: The scientific appropriateness of
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1994). Effect of newcomer involvement in studying multiple behaviors and general attitudes. Journal of Organiza-
work-related activities: A longitudinal study of socialization. Journal of
tional Behavior, 19, 463– 480.
Applied Psychology, 79, 211–223.
Hausman, J. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46,
Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1998). Testing the combined effects of
1251–1271.
newcomer information seeking and manager behavior on socialization.
Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 72– 83.
Econometrica, 47, 153–161.
Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational
Hom, P. W., & Griffeth, R. W. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH:
socialization: A review and directions for future research. In G. R. Ferris
South-Western College Publishing.
(Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management
(Vol. 16, pp. 149 –214). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Hom, P. W., Griffeth, R. W., Palich, L. E., & Bracker, J. S. (1999).
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and Revisiting met expectations as a reason why realistic job previews work.
reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein Personnel Psychology, 52, 97–112.
& S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods Hom, P. W., & Kinicki, A. J. (2001). Toward a greater understanding of
in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349 – how dissatisfaction drives employee turnover. Academy of Management
381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Journal, 44, 975–987.
Breaugh, J. A., & Mann, R. B. (1984). Recruiting source effects: A test of Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
two alternative explanations. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 57, structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
261–267. tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model Hulin, C. L. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commitment in organi-
fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation zations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of
models (pp. 136 –162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 443–505). Palo
Bycio, P. (1992). Job performance and absenteeism: A review and meta- Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
analysis. Human Relations, 45, 193–220. Jackson, S. E., & Schuler, R. S. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual
critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,
Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 36, 16 –78. 173–183.
Jones, G. R. (1983). Psychological orientation and the process of organi- Morrison, E. W. (1993b). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types,
zational socialization: An interactionist perspective. Academy of Man- modes, sources, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36,
agement Review, 8, 464 – 474. 557–589.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social
adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45,
262–279. 1149 –1160.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide. Mortimer, J. T., & Simmons, R. G. (1978). Adult socialization. Annual
Chicago: Scientific Software International. Review of Sociology, 4, 421– 454.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2001). LISREL 8.51 [Computer software]. Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W., & Steers, R. M. (1982). Employee–
Chicago: Scientific Software International. organization linkages. San Francisco: Academic Press.
Jovanovic, B. (1979). Job matching and the theory of turnover. Journal of Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement
Political Economy, 87, 972–990. of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14,
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job 224 –247.
satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., &
review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376 – 407. Stillwell, C. D. (1989). An evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for
Kacmar, K. M., & Baron, R. A. (1999). Organizational politics: The state structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430 – 445.
of the field, links to related processes, and an agenda for future research. Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative
In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources Science Quarterly, 29, 172–191.
management (Vol. 17, pp. 1–39). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1992). Organizational socialization as a
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psy-
(1964). Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. chology, 45, 849 – 874.
New York: Wiley. Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1993). The role of mentoring in the
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social information gathering processes of newcomers during early organiza-
psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook
tional socialization. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 170 –183.
of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 233–265). Boston: McGraw-
Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job
Hill.
enrichment and other organizational interventions. Journal of Applied
Kirschenbaum, A., & Mano-Negrin, R. (1999). Underlying labor market
Psychology, 83, 835– 852.
dimensions of “opportunities”: The case of employee turnover. Human
Phillips, J. M. (1998). Effects of realistic job previews on multiple orga-
Relations, 52, 1233–1255.
nizational outcomes: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Jour-
Klein, H. J., & Weaver, N. A. (2000). The effectiveness of an
nal, 41, 673– 690.
organizational-level orientation training program in the socialization of
Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1981). A causal model of turnover for
new hires. Personnel Psychology, 53, 47– 66.
nurses. Academy of Management Journal, 24, 543–565.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person– organization fit: An integrative review of its
Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer social-
conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychol-
ization rates. Academy of Management Review, 12, 278 –287.
ogy, 49, 1– 49.
Riordan, C. M., Weatherly, E. W., Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (2001).
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers expe-
The effects of pre-entry experiences and socialization tactics on new-
rience in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 25, 226 –251. comer attitudes and turnover. Journal of Managerial Issues, 13, 159 –
Louis, M. R., Posner, B. Z., & Powell, G. N. (1983). The availability and 176.
helpfulness of socialization practices. Personnel Psychology, 36, 857– Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and
866. ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quar-
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the terly, 15, 150 –163.
antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commit- Roznowski, M., & Hanisch, K. A. (1990). Building systematic heteroge-
ment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194. neity into work attitudes and behavior measures. Journal of Vocational
Meglino, B. M., DeNisi, A. S., Youngblood, S. A., & Williams, K. J. Behavior, 36, 361–375.
(1988). Effects of realistic job previews: A comparison using an en- Sackett, P. R., & Larson, J. R. (1990). Research strategies and tactics in
hancement and a reduction preview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M.
259 –266. Hough (Eds), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology:
Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organi- Vol. 1. (2nd ed., pp. 419 – 489). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
zational entry: Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy Press.
of Management Review, 16, 92–120. Saks, A. M. (1995). Longitudinal field investigation of the moderating and
Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1979). mediating effects of self-efficacy on the relationship between training
Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. and newcomer adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 211–225.
Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493–522. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization:
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1988). Group dynamics over time: Making sense of the past and present as a prologue for the future.
Development and socialization in small groups. In J. E. McGrath (Ed), Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234 –279.
The social psychology of time: New perspectives (pp. 151–181). Thou- Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2000). The role of dispositions, entry
sand Oaks, CA: Sage. stressors, and behavioral plasticity theory in predicting newcomers’
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2001). Socialization in organizations and adjustment to work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 43– 62.
work groups. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and Saks, A. M., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1990). A process investigation of realistic
research (pp. 69 –112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. job previews: Mediating variables and channels of communication.
Morrison, E. W. (1993a). Longitudinal study of the effects of information Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 221–236.
Schein, E. H. (1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organi- Taormina, R. J. (1994). The organizational socialization inventory. Inter-
zational needs. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. national Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2, 133–145
Seibert, S. E., Crant, J. M., & Kraimer, M. L. (1999). Proactive personality Trevor, C. O. (2001). Interactions among actual ease-of-movement deter-
and career success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 416 – 427. minants and job satisfaction in the prediction of voluntary turnover.
Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive Academy of Management Journal, 44, 621– 638.
people do? A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and Vandenberg, R. J., & Scarpello, V. (1990). The matching model: An
career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845– 874. examination of the processes underlying realistic job previews. Journal
Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1991). Modeling the days of our lives: Using of Applied Psychology, 75, 60 – 67.
survival analysis when designing and analyzing longitudinal studies of Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Towards a theory of organiza-
duration and the timing of events. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 268 –290. tional socialization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational
Steel, R. P., & Griffeth, R. W. (1989). The elusive relationship between behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209 –264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
perceived employment opportunity and turnover behavior: A methodolog- Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and
ical or conceptual artifact? Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 846 – 854. outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Journal of Applied
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. Psychology, 85, 373–385.
(1991). Meeting trainees’ expectations: The influence of training fulfill- Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection,
ment on the development of commitment, self-efficacy, and motivation. orientation, and socialization of newcomers. Reading, MA: Addison-
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 759 –769. Wesley.
Appendix
Socializing Influences Scale Items
For each of the following item stems, participants reported their re- 4. To what extent have each of the following influenced what you
sponses for the domains orientation, training, and other organizational see as most important to learn?
efforts, supervisors or others higher up in the organization, and other
co-workers. 5. To what extent have each of the following influenced how you
have adapted to your work environment?
1. To what extent have each of the following influenced how you have
“learned the ropes” as you’ve entered your new work environment?
6. To what extent have each of the following influenced your ideas
2. To what extent have each of the following affected your ideas about about appropriate attitudes and norms for your job, work group,
appropriate behaviors for your job, work group, and organization? and organization?
3. To what extent have each of the following influenced how much 7. To what extent have each of the following influenced how you
you have learned about the way your organization works? have figured out how to act in your work environment?
Received July 18, 2002

Revision received November 15, 2002
Accepted February 3, 2003 䡲

Kammeyer-Mueller and Wanberg 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kammeyer-Mueller and Wanberg 2003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kammeyer-Mueller and Wanberg 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Applied Psychology Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2003, Vol. 88, No. 5, 779 –794 0021-9010/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.779

Unwrapping the Organizational Entry Process: Disentangling Multiple

John D. Kammeyer-Mueller Connie R. Wanberg

Figure 1. Conceptual model of adjustment for organizational newcomers.

standard structural equation software packages; thus, this estimation was

model used in this study requires proportional hazard functions, with no

by Grambsch and Therneau (1994) showed that the proportional hazards

the baseline hazard by gender and ethnicity resolved the nonproportionality

problem, ␹2(22, N ⫽ 822) ⫽ 22.76, p ⫽ .42. Thus, coefficients from this

unstratified model were essentially identical to the stratified model.

The raw scale means, standard deviations, and correlations for

the central study variables are presented above the diagonal in

confidence intervals for all of the intraclass correlation coefficient

observations within organizations relative to the total variance is

ity for employees in most organizations. Although these ICC(1)

values are low, organizational fixed effects were partialled out of

Proactive personality (T2)

the covariance matrix prior to analysis (which reduces all ICC[1]

Group integration (T3)

Work withdrawal (T4)

values to zero) to control for organization effects and to minimize

Task mastery (T3)

problems due to violations of independence.

One descriptive finding is of note. Mean values of coworker

influence were significantly higher than values for leader influ-

influence were significantly higher than values for organiza-

tional influence (d ⫽ 1.07; 95% CI ⫽ 0.97, 1.18). This ordering is

Parsimony RMSEA ECVI

Proximal adjustment Distal adjustment

Task Role Work group Political Organizational Work

Task mastery — ⫺.15** .07

R2 .18 .21 .14 .09 .31 .13

Organizational commitment Work withdrawal

Variable ␥rf ␥fm Mediated (%) ␥rf ␥fm Mediated (%)

Preentry knowledge .26** .13** 50 ⫺.12** ⫺.02 83

Table 5 knowledge than obtaining information from interpersonal commu-

Socializing Influences Scale Items

Received July 18, 2002

You might also like

Preentry knowledge .26 .13 50 ⫺.12** ⫺.02 83