The Costs and Benefits of Newcomer Adjustment Strategies - Research Paper Example

? The Costs and Benefits of Newcomer Adjustment Strategies Task: The Costs and Benefits of Newcomer Adjustment Strategies There exist slightly varied delineations of organizational socialization. For example, Bauer et al. define organizational socialization as the procedure through which an individual transforms from being foreign to the organization to being a member (Bauer et al 2007). Thomas and Anderson used this definition (Thomas & Anderson, 2006). Chao et al. opine that organizational socialization deals with the learning materials and procedures through which an individual adapts to a specific role in an organization (Chao et al., 1994). The differences observed in definition are not significant, and arise from the use of varied terms divergently. Such terms include individualization, assimilation, and adaptation. For example, Kramer pointed out these variances by using Moreland and Levine and Jablin’s definition (Kramer, 2010). Nevertheless, all the definitions bear strands of commonality in that they point to the learning content, process and ways through which organizations admit and process new employees to become members of the same organizations. In the past several decades, the field of organizational socialization has been cited as having the greatest variance in data and theory (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Additionally, there abounded criticism that there is lack of pragmaticinvestigation in the area. However, in recent times, scholars have extensively addressed these concerns. Nevertheless, there is no unified organizational socialization theory (Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003). Instead, there exist models describing the stages a person undergoes during organizational socialization. One of those models is the Van Maanen and Scheines 1979 model of socialization tactics (Van Maanen and Scheines 1979). They developed a theory associating specific socialization variables and behavioral reactions. These variables are comparable to tactics. They developed six tactics group versus individual, official vs casual, progressive versus unsystematic, fixed versus adjustable, sequential versus adjunctive and investiture versus divestiture. They opined that the use of these tactics determines the role orientations of new employees. The combination of the all the first tactics in each pair result in an employee who follows the already established organizational behavior. Combinations of the second variables in each pair lead to an individual who challenges the existing organizational behaviors and develop their own role orientation (Saks &Ashforth, 1997). Another theory is the uncertainty decreasemodel. The theory works from the premises that new employees face a lot of uncertainty in their workstations and their work efforts aim at reducing these uncertainties. This makes work more predictable and less certain. This uncertainty is provided through information disseminated to the new comers, often, through interactions with managers and peers. If these interactions succeed, the employees adapt to their roles efficiently and elevate their chances of remaining in the organization. Another theory has been the social cognitive theory. It advances that human behavior is explainable through the observed interface between intellectual, private and ecological factors. The preceding analysis of present research serves to reveal two things. One is the importance of organizational socialization and second is the direction and emphasis of research and debate in organizational socialization. Studies in organization socialization are important in revealing what individuals undergo during when they join a new organization. This is important since, as revealed in Van Maanen and Scheines’s tactics combinations, they influence the identity and role orientation an employee assumes (Van Maanen and Scheines, 1979; Cooper-Thomas & Wilson, 2011). These factors impactadeptness, impetus, throughput, and job contentment of a new employee (Thomas & Anderson, 2006). Consequently, studies,in socialization, seek ways to ensure establishments socialize individuals to become the personnel the organizations needs. Chatman, in her research to identify what influenced how an individual fits in an organization, identified two factors (Chatman, 1991). These were selection and socialization. Consequently, studies in organization socialization provide information regarding the different tactics organization use to socialize their employees. This information indicate the effectiveness of the various tactics to enable organizations chose between a variety of tactics depending on what companies seek from their employees. It also helps different players in understanding what individuals go through as new members of organizations and how this shapes their role in the organization (Rollag, 2007). In recent times, however, research has shifted from theoretical models and increasingly concentrated on the tactics new employees and organizations utilize to guide the assimilation into the organization (Cooper-Thomas & Wilson, 2011). Various scholars have sought to categorize all the tactics that have been in use in organizational socialization into distinctive groups. Though varied categorizations have been developed, proactivity, behavioral self-management, coping, social dimensions, information seeking, feedback seeking, expatriate adjustment and impression management (Cooper-Thomas & Wilson, 2011), categorizations also follows the Van Maanen and Scheines (1979) robust theoretical categorization (Van Maanen and Scheines, 1979; Bauer et al., 2007, Saks &Ashforth, 2007). However, in a bid to produce reliable categorizations than previously offered, Cooper-Thomas and Wilson suggested a novel categorization. The first category included opportunistic tactics. This involves new comers adjusting through observing others and joining voluntary teaching. The second category included shared tactics. This involves new employees and colleagues harmoniously participating in the socialization process. The two entities involve themselves in deliberate efforts to aid the novel employee to fit in the organization. The third category included self-determined tactics. These tactics involve the employee actively altering the environment to enhance adjustment (Cooper-Thomas & Wilson, 2011). Additionally, since a majority of new recruits includes veterans, new employees are becoming dependent on their own efforts in adjustment (Saks & Ashforth, 2007). Individuals evaluate the perceived costs and benefits in determining the tactics they will utilize (Cable & Parsons, 2001; Saks, Uggerslev & Fassina, 2006). Cooper-Thomas and Wilson integrated the various costs and benefits proposed by previous studies to fit in three categories. These included performance, ego and social costs (Cooper-Thomas & Wilson, 2011). The supposedoutlays and paybacks associated with each category of determine the choice of tactics adopted by the employees. This research empirically evaluates the hypothesis that opportunistic tactics bear lower perceived costs than shared tactics, and shared tactics bear lower perceived costs than self-determined tactics. Results The research tested the following two hypotheses. One was that opportunistic tactics bore lower perceived costs than shared tactics. The second hypothesis was that shared tactics bore lower perceived costs than self-determined tactics. According to the results, opportunistic tactics indicated significantly lower perceived costs (M= 3.69 (0.81)) than shared tactics (M= 4.31(0.86)). This was in support of my hypothesis, that opportunistic tactics had lower perceived costs than shared tactics. However, the results showed no backing for the subsequentsupposition. The costs of shared tactics (M= 4.31(0.86)) was not significantly different from the cost accrued from self-determined tactics (M=4.30 (0.86)). This meant that the perceived costs of shared tactics and self-determined tactics were almost the same. Performance costs included time, amount of physical effort, mental exertion, presence of misleading information, and possibility of misinterpretation of information. Ego costs included declines in confidence, self-concept, anxiety, negative self-image, and embarrassment. Social costs included alienation from colleagues, overt exposure of employees’ weaknesses, revelation of employee concerns to colleagues, depiction of new employee as overly anxious, violation of social norms, and exhibition of incompetence. Discussion This study set to evaluate the relative perceived costs associated with three tactics categories, opportunistic, shared and self-determined as developed by Cooper-Thomas and Wilson. The two scholars significantly synthesized the numerous tactics known to be used by organizations and employees to enhance adaptation into three distinct categories. Furthermore, the postulated that opportunistic tactics had lower perceived costs than shared tactics, which in turn had lower perceived costs than self-determined costs. The results of the study revealed support for the first hypothesis but nullified the second hypothesis. According to the results, opportunistic tactics indicated significantly lower supposed costs (M= 3.69 (0.81)) than shared tactics (M= 4.31(0.86)). This supports the first supposition. This means that when novel employees learn from opportunities presented to them, such as through observation and attendance of voluntary training, had a lower perceived cost than the tactics that involved both the employee and the colleagues working collaboratively towards adjustment in the organization. Further, the results indicated that concerted efforts by both the worker and the other members of the organization had almost the same perceived costs as when new employees utilized or altered the environment to facilitate their socialization. Theoretical implications The first category, opportunistic tactics, refers to ways facilitated by the organization to aid the employee in adjusting. However, the other two categories include ways in which the individual has a greater control of the methods utilized in socialization. The lower perceived costs of opportunistic tactics indicate the preference of most individuals to learn by observation and the avenues provided by the organization. These avenues cause less friction, take little time and effort. However, they result in an individual who has conformed to the organizational norms. The other two categories of tactics are less preferred because they require elevated efforts, take more time and may cause uncertainties and anxieties. This has momentous ramifications since perceived costs influence the choice of tactics more than the perceived benefits (Cooper-Thomas & Wilson, 2011). This means that a majority of the respondents in the study would have preferred to utilize opportunistic tactics in their socializations.This also means that they are more confortable establishing the defined roles their jobs and assuming them with the least modifications. As indicated by Saks and Ashforth (1997), research should be focused on process and how tactics influence new employees’ adjustment. In the preceding years, studies had focused on the processes influencing the socialization tactics (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). However, such studies were fragmented and using constructs with no definite differentiations. This meant that hypotheses regarding the processes affecting the choice of tactics were largely untestable. Using the three categories delineated by cooper-Thomas and Wilson (2011) enables an empirical verification of the processes involved in determination of tactics. This study substantiates the claim proposed by Mignerey et al. (1995) that institutionalized socialization was linearly linked to communication fulfillment and ascription sureness. They suggested that the tactics provided by the organization resulted in enhanced communication and confidence. However, like earlier studies, their study did not evaluate all the variables but focused on a broad categorization of institutionalized and individual tactics. Furthermore, these studies focused on some outcome criteria including role indistinctness, role conflict, intents to resign, occupationcontentment, organizational commitment and role orientations (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Consequently, these studies did not evaluate what swayed the choice of institutionalized or self-driven strategies. This was inhibited by the utilization of outcome criteria, which are secondary outcomes of socialization (Haueter, Macan & Winter, 2003). The trio questioned the validity of the criteria since other factors, apart from socialization, could influence the outcomes. In their opinion, new constructs that were appropriate and focusing on identifying learning responses and attitudes resulting from socialization would enhance both practical and theoretical knowledge. The present use of the costs and benefits provide a basis for evaluating the processes that govern the choice of tactics in an appropriate manner as proposed by Haueter, Macan and Winter. The perceived costs in terms of performance, ego and social perspectives are easily measurable. These categorizations may form the base of further research focused on tactics utilized during socialization. This would reduce further the variance between evidence and theory in organizational socialization expressed by Wanous and Colella (1989) Practical implications The report indicates that the perceived performance, ego and social costs for opportunistic tactics are lower that for shared and self-driven tactics. Consequently, more individuals are bound to utilize the institutionalized tactics. However, proactive outcomes bear a strong link to socialization outcomes (Saks, Gruman& Cooper-Thomas, 2011). This means that though proactive behaviors are largely ignored, they contribute significantly to socialization. This they indicated was because personnelinvolved in preemptiveactions were likely to get a rewarded in what they sought. For example, if anmember actively seeks for information, there is a high possibility that the employee will get the information (Saks, Gruman& Cooper-Thomas, 2011).In the context of present findings, and then it is evident that organizations miss the benefits of proactive behavior. Institutionalized tactics emphasize conformity to the organizational norms. Furthermore, new employees, as revealed by the study, perceive opportunistic tactics as bearing low costs; since costs take preference over benefits, employees are likely to utilize opportunistic tactics. This indicates that proactive behaviors receive no emphasis either from establishments or from employees. Consequently, the benefits associated with proactive behavior are lost. In such a scenario, organizations need to tap the benefits of employee proactive behaviors by encouraging self-determined tactics. Since effective socialization results in the elevated performance and diminished turnover, organizations are set to benefit when new employees are effectively socialized. Therefore, organizations need to review their socialization procedures and orientations in order to encourage more proactive behaviors. There is, therefore, need for research on how organizations can promote the employee use of proactive behaviors in socialization. Saks, Gruman and Cooper-Thomas (2011) revealed complexity of the use of proactive behaviors. They indicated that since the effectiveness of proactive behaviors is dependent on the behaviors of two entities. These include the novelmember and the other personnel in the organization. This means it is not automatic that proactive behavior from recruits will bear proactive outcomes. Therefore promoting proactive behaviors is a complex act of balancing the extent of new employees’ behavior with responses from the rest of the personnel (Saks, Grumanand Cooper-Thomas, 2011). Therefore, there is need for research into ways this balance can be achieved without compromising on performance of either party, which would hurt the organization. Limitations of the study A number of things should be considered before generalizing the results of this study. The study drew its respondent exclusively from university students. Therefore, it is unrepresentative of veteran employees who join new organizations. Therefore the results may be untrue for this population. Furthermore, the causality of the perception expressed by the respondents concerning benefits and costs of strategies could not be evaluated. References Bauer et al. (2007). Newcomer adjustments during organizational socialization: a Meta analytic review of antecedents, outcomes, and methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 707-721. Cable, D. & Parsons, C. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54(1), 1–23. Chao et al. (1994). Organizational socialization: its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 730-743. Chatman, J. (1991). Matching people and organizations: selection and socialization in public accounting firms.Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1991), 459-484. Cooper-Thomas, H. & Anderson, N. (2006). Organizational socialization: a new theoretical model and recommendations for future research and HRM practices in organizations.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(5), 492-516. Cooper-Thomas, H. & Wilson, M. (2011).Influences on newcomers’ adjustment tactic use.International journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(4), 389-404. Haueter, J., Macan, T. & Winter, J. (2003). Measurement of newcomer socialization: Construct validation ofa multidimensional scale. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63 (2003) 20–39. Kammeyer-Mueller, J. & Wanberg, C. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry process: disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 779–794. Kramer, M. (2008). Organizational socialization: joining and leaving organizations. Malden, MA: Polity Press. Rollag, K. (2007). De?ning the term ‘new’ in new employee research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 63–75. Saks, A. & Ashforth, B. (1997). Organizational Socialization: Making Sense of the Past and Present as a Prologue for the Future.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234–279. Saks, A., Gruman, J. &Cooper-Thomas, H. (2010).The neglected role of proactive behavior and outcomes in newcomer socialization.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2011) 36-46. Saks, A., Uggerslev, K. & Fassina, N. (2006). Socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: a meta-analytic review and test of a model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70 (2007) 413–446. Van Maanen, J. & Schein, E. H. (1979).Toward a theory of organizational socialization.Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209–264. . Read More