0001-8791/$ - e front matter © 2006 Elvier Inc. All rights rerved.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.03.001
Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 90–104
/locate/jvb
Organizational socialization tactics and newcomer
proactive behaviors: An integrative study
Jamie A. Gruman ¤, Alan M. Saks, David I. Zweig
Department of Management, University of Toronto at Scarborough, 1265 Military Trail, Toronto,
Ont., Canada M1C 1A4
Received 16 August 2005Available online 18 April 2006
Abstract
The purpo of this study was to examine the relationship between organizational socialization tac-tics, newcomers’ lf-e Y cacy, proactive behaviors, and socialization outcomes. Bad on a sample of 140co-op university students who completed surveys at the end of their work term, the results indicated that newcomers’ lf-e Y cacy and institutionalized socialization tactics were positively relat
ed to new-comer proactive behaviors. The results also indicated that newcomer proactive behaviors partially med-iated the relationship between their lf-e Y cacy and organizational socialization tactics with a number of proximal and distal socialization outcomes. Furthermore, feedback-eking and information-eking moderated the relationship between socialization tactics and veral socialization outcomes. Institution-alized socialization tactics were more strongly related to socialization outcomes for newcomers who engaged in less feedback-eking and information-eking behavior. The results support an interac-tionist approach to organizational socialization in which newcomers’ lf-e Y cacy, proactive behavior,and organizational socialization tactics all contribute to newcomers’ adjustment and socialization.© 2006 Elvier Inc. All rights rerved.
Keywords:Socialization; Proactive behavior; Occupational adjustment; E mployee attitudes; Socialization tactics; Newcomer adjustment; Self-e Y cacy
*Corresponding author. Fax: +1 416 287 7392.
E-mail address: gruman@utsc.utoronto.ca (J.A. Gruman).
J.A. Gruman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 90–10491 1. Introduction
When individuals join organizations, they must learn to understand and make n of their new surroundings (Louis, 1980). The method by which this n-making occurs is known as organizational socialization. Organizational socialization is the process by which individuals acquire the attitudes, behaviors, knowledge, and skills required to par-ticipate and function e V ectively as a member of an organization (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). The manner in which organizations socialize their newcomers is important becau it a V ects the success of socialization and newcomers’ adjustment (Saks & Ashforth, 1997a).
One approach to studying organizational socialization involves examining the tactics employed by organizations to structure newcomers’ socialization experience (Van Maa-nen & Schein, 1979). This approach regards individuals as passive, reactive agents and in isolation may not fully capture the dynamics of the socialization process. More recently, an alternative approach to understanding socialization has emerged in which individuals are viewed as active agents in the socialization process (Morrison, 1993a, 1993b). This approach focus on lf-initiated or proactive behaviors on the part of newcomers in order to navigate the ambiguity inherent in occupying a new organizational role (e.g., Ashford, 1986). A third approach considers the interaction of individual and organiza-tional factors or what is known as the interactionist perspective. The interactionist per-spective eks to int
egrate the individual and organizational perspectives by examining how they interact to in X uence socialization outcomes (Gri Y n, Colella, & Goparaju, 2000).
The interactionist perspective, however, has not received much empirical attention (Gri Y n et al., 2000). According to Bauer, Morrison, and Callister (1998), most studies have failed to adopt an interactionist perspective of organizational socialization and instead have focud on either the e V ects of contextual factors or newcomers’ attributes or behaviors.
The purpo of this study was to integrate the individual and organizational perspec-tives in accordance with the interactionist perspective. In particular, we examine the e V ects of lf-e Y cacy and organizational socialization tactics on newcomer proactivity as well as the mediating and moderating e V ects of proactivity. Our basic proposition is that the extent to which newcomers can engage in proactive tactics is a function of their lf-e Y cacy and the socialization tactics employed by their organization.
1. Organizational socialization tactics
The most popular typology of organizational socialization is that developed by Van Maanen and Schein (1979) who propod a theoretical explanation for how speci W c social-ization tactics produ
ce di V erent role orientations. Their typology consists of six bipolar tactics. The tactic of collective (vs. individual) socialization refers to whether newcomers go through common learning experiences, designed to produce uniform respons to situa-tions, or idiosyncratic experiences that permit a variety of respons. Formal (vs. informal) socialization refers to whether newcomers are isolated from other organizational members while they learn their roles, or whether they become part of work groups immediately upon occupying their new positions and learn on-the-job. Sequential (vs. random) socialization refers to whether newcomers receive clear guidelines regarding the quence of activities
92J.A. Gruman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 90–104
and experiences they will encounter or an ambiguous quence. Fixed(vs. variable) socialization pertains to whether newcomers receive detailed knowledge of the timetables associated with completing each stage in the socialization process, or no such information about completion of a stage of learning. Serial(vs. disjunctive) socialization refers to whether veteran organizational members act as role models for newcomers, or whether newcomers are required to make n of their experiences on their own. Finally, investi-ture (vs. divestiture) involves either con W rming and reinforcing newcomers’ lf-identities and providing social support or stripping them away through ne
gative communication and rebuilding them in the form the organization desires.
In the W rst empirical study on socialization tactics, Jones (1986) classi W ed the tactics as being either institutionalized (consisting of collective, formal, quential, W xed, rial, and investiture) or individualized (consisting of individual, informal, random, variable, disjunc-tive, and divestiture). While institutionalized socialization re X ects a more structured and formalized socialization process, individualized socialization tends to re X ect an abnce of structure such that newcomers are socialized more by default than design (Ashforth, Saks, & Lee, 1997).
Although numerous studies have found that socialization tactics are related to newcom-ers’ adjustment (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Cable & Parsons, 2001; Jones, 1986; Kim, Cable, & Kim, 2005), only a few studies have examined the mechanisms that underlie the e V ects of socialization tactics. Mignerey, Rubin, and Gorden (1995) found that institutionalized socialization tactics were positively related to information–feedback eking behaviors. Saks and Ashforth (1997b) and Cooper-Thomas and Anderson (2002) found that informa-tion acquisition mediated the relationship between socialization tactics and outcomes. In the prent study, we extend this area of rearch by investigating the extent to which organizational socialization tactics in X uence newcomers’ proactive behaviors.
2. Newcomer proactive behaviors
When individuals occupy new organizational positions, they may engage proactively in behaviors or tactics that foster and hasten their adjustment. Proactive behavior can be de W ned as changing the status quo by taking initiative in order to improve existing circum-stances, or to create new ones (Crant, 2000). Proactive behaviors such as feedback-eking and information-eking enable newcomers to learn about their abilities, better understand the work environment and speci W c tasks, and adjust their behavior in order to improve their socialization and career success (Ashford & Black, 1996; Morrison, 1993a, 1993b; Ostro V & Kozlowski, 1992; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000).
However, despite the growing interest in newcomers’ proactive behavior, little rearch has examined the factors that predict newcomer’s proactivity. Although there is some evi-dence that individual di V erences are important (Ashford & Black, 1996; Kammeyer-Muel-ler & Wanberg, 2003; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000), few studies have examined how the organizational context might also in X uence newcomers’ propensity to engage in proactive tactics.
In the prent study, we extend the literature on newcomer proactivity in veral ways. First, we con
sider an individual di V erence variable that has been found to be important for newcomers’ socialization but has not been included in previous rearch on newcomer pro-activity–lf-e Y cacy. Second, we provide one of the W rst tests of the relationship between organizational socialization tactics and newcomer proactive behaviors.
J.A. Gruman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 90–10493 2.1. Newcomer lf-e Y cacy and proactivity
Self-e Y cacy refers to individuals’ judgments regarding their capability to successfully perform speci W c tasks and behaviors (Bandura, 1986). Self-e Y cacy has been found to be negatively related to newcomer’s entry anxiety and positively related to job attitudes and behaviors (Saks, 1994, 1995). Becau individuals with stronger lf-e Y cacy beliefs are more likely to organize and execute cours of action required to attain desired outcomes (Bandura, 1986), we expected newcomers with higher lf-e Y cacy to be more likely to engage in proactive behaviors. Therefore, our W rst hypothesis is the following: Hypothesis1. Newcomers’ lf-e Y cacy is positively related to proactive behaviors.
2.2. Socialization tactics and newcomer proactivity
Gri Y n et al. (2000) propod a model in which they argued that organizational sociali-zation tactics a V ect the likelihood that newcomers will engage in proactive tactics. How-ever, whether institutionalized or individualized tactics will be related to proactive behavior is not entirely clear (Gri Y n et al., 2000). In fact, newcomers might be more or less proactive when socialization is either institutionalized or individualized.
On the one hand, becau institutionalized socialization tactics provide a formal and structured tting in which newcomers can communicate and interact with nior co-work-ers and receive positive social support, it should be much easier for them to engage in pro-active behaviors such as information-eking, feedback-eking, relationship building, networking, and so on. In other words, institutionalized socialization tactics make it relatively easy if not inviting for newcomers to be proactive.
On the other hand, becau individualized socialization tactics result in an ambiguous and unstructured socialization experience in which expectations and role requirements are unclear, newcomers need to be proactive in order to reduce the inherent ambiguity and uncertainty. In other words, individualized socialization almost forces newcomers to be proactive in order to acquire the necessary information that can lower their uncertainty and allow them to make n of their surroun
dings. As noted by Gri Y n et al. (2000), proactive tactics are more necessary in an individualized socialization environment.
Thus, arguments can be advanced to explain why institutionalized and individualized tactics might each promote proactive behavior. Therefore, we propo and test the follow-ing competing hypothes:
Hypothesis2a. Institutionalized socialization tactics will be related to newcomer proactive behaviors.
Hypothesis2b. Individualized socialization tactics will be related to newcomer proactive behaviors.
3. Socialization outcomes
Previous studies have found that lf-e Y cacy, socialization tactics, and newcomer proac-tive tactics are independently related to socialization outcomes (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Mor-rison, 1993a, 1993b; Ostro V & Kozlowski, 1992; Saks, 1995). For example, newcomers with higher lf-e Y cacy beliefs are more likely to execute cours of action that lead to desired out-
94J.A. Gruman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 69 (2006) 90–104
comes. They are more likely to exert the e V ort required to overcome obstacles and to cope with entry anxiety and uncertainty (Saks, 1994, 1995). As a result, they are more likely to be successful in their socialization and adjustment. Therefore, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis3. Newcomers’ lf-e Y cacy is positively related to (a) task mastery, (b) role clarity, (c) social integration, (d) person–job W t, (e) person–organization W t, (f) job satisfac-tion, (g) organizational commitment, and (h) intent to return.
Institutionalized socialization tactics as well as proactive behaviors are also expected to result in positive socialization outcomes becau they provide newcomers with information to guide their behavior and reduce entry uncertainty, and also lead to the formation of relationships and social networks. Therefore, we expected institutionalized socialization tactics and proactive behaviors to result in more positive socialization outcomes and hypothesize that:
Hypothesis4. Institutionalized socialization tactics will be positively related to (a) task mastery, (b) role clarity, (c) social integration, (d) person–job W t, (e) person–organization W t, (f) job satisfaction, (g) organizational commitment, and (h) intent to return. Hypothesis5. Newcomer proactive behaviors are positively related to (a) task mastery, (b) role clarity, (c) social integration, (d) person–job W t, (e) person–organization W t, (f) job satisfaction, (g) organizational commitment, and (h) intent to return.
Further, given that we expected lf-e Y cacy and organizational socialization tactics to lead to newcomer proactive behaviors and socialization outcomes, and proactive behaviors to also result in socialization outcomes, it follows that proactivity might mediate the rela-tionships between lf-e Y cacy and socialization tactics with the outcomes. Therefore, we hypothesize that:
Hypothesis6. Newcomer proactive behaviors will mediate the relationship between lf-e Y cacy and socialization tactics with (a) task mastery, (b) role clarity, (c) social integra-tion, (d) person–job W t, (e) person–organization W t, (f) job satisfaction, (g) organizational commitment, and (h) intent to return.
Finally, Gri Y n et al. (2000) propod that organizational socialization tactics and new-comer proactive behaviors interact to in X uence socialization outcomes. In the only study to investigate such interaction e V ects, Kim et al. (2005) found that institutionalized sociali-zation tactics were more strongly related to PO W t perceptions for newcomers’ who engaged in positive framing and when newcomers did not engage in relationship building. One limitation of their study, however, is that the only outcome variable was PO W t percep-tions. In the prent study, we extend their W ndings to a wider array of proximal and distal socialization outcomes.
As suggested by Kim et al. (2005), we expect proactive tactics to have a replacement e V ect for institutionalized socialization tactics. In other words, if newcomers obtain information and positive social support through their own proactive e V orts, then they preempt the bene W-cial e V ects of institutionalized socialization tactics. Therefore, we hypothesize that: Hypothesis7. Proactive behaviors moderate the relationship between organizational socialization tactics and socialization outcomes. Institutionalized socialization tactics are positively related to socialization outcomes for newcomers who do not engage in proactive behaviors but not for newcomers who engage in proactive behaviors.
