NEWCOMER AND ORGANIZATIONAL SOCIALIZATION TACTICS: AN INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE Andrea E.C. Griffin Adrienne Colella Srikanth Goparaju Texas A & M University, College Station, TX, USA During the past 15 years, organizational socialization research has focused ‘on two issues, The first is the need for researchers to take an interactionist perspective on the process. The second has boon both a conceptual and empirical concern with the pro-active socialization techniques employed by newcomers. The present article takes an interactionist perspective by presenting a model and propositions of how organization socialization tacties impact on and interact with newcomer pro-active socialization tactics to influence socialization outcomes. Organizational socialization has been defined as the process by which an individual acquires the attitudes, behavior, and knowledge needed to partici- pate as an organizational member (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). It is a process that involves both the organization and the employee—with an ultimate outcome being mutual acceptance (Wanous, 1980), Thus, the actions that each take to bring about organizational socialization are mutually inter- dependent Reichers, 1987). The focus of this article is to Srst review newcomer pro-active socialization tactics and organizational socielization tactics and then put forth propositions about how these actions on both parties interact to influence the socialization process and outcomes. ‘The research on organizational socialization has evolved, particularly in the theoretical realm, over the last several decades (Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998; Fisher, 1986), but there is one perspective that has not been adequately addressed—the interactionist perspective. Early work in the area of socialization focused primarily on how organizations socialized newco- mers, ic, emphasis was placed on what organizations did (Fisher, 1986; Direct all correspondence to: Andrea EC. Griffin, Department of Management, Lowsy Mays College and Graduate School of Business, Toxas A & M University, 4221 TAMU, College Station, TX 77861-4221, USA. Human Resource Management Review, Copyright 200 ‘Volume 10, Number 4, 2000, pages 458-474 bby Blsevier Science Inv All rights of reproduction in any fern resceved, ISSN: 1057-—ano2454 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW ——_vouuMe 10. NUMBER 4, 2000 Van Maanen, 1976; Wanous & Colella, 1989). In the late 1980s, several researchers argued that the socialization literature should take an interac- tionist perspective (Jones, 1983; Reichers, 1987; Schneider, 1983). These arguments helped to spur a flurry of research activity in the 1990s, which focused on the manner in which newcomers pro-actively behave to facilitate their own socialization process (e.g., Ashford & Taylor, 1990; Bauer et al., 1998). Thus, researchers have examined the theoretical underpinnings of socialization—both in content and process, and empirical studies have moved this work forward, but have examined them either primarily from the individual's or the organization's perspective. The interactionist perspec- tive would seek to integrate these two areas by examining how neweomer’s attempts at self-socialization work in tandem with the organization's at- tempts at socialization to influence socialization outcomes. Specifically, this article oxplores how the socialization tactics employed by the organization wil! impact on, and interact with the pro-active tactics used by newcomers to influence the socialization process. Before presenting this portion of the article, we present a brief review of the newcomer pro-active socialization tactics literature, followed by a brief review of Van Maanen and Schein's (1979) model of organizational tactics. NEWCOMER PRO-ACTIVE SOCIALIZATION TACTICS, During the last decade, there has been a fairly large number of studies which have empirically examined pro-active behaviors by newcomers, many of which focus on the information-seeking efforts in which newcomers engage (Bauer et al., 1998). We conducted computerized searches of psy- chology and organizational science literature to locate work that specifically examined newcomer pro-active socialization. A listing of these articles and the pro-active socialization tactics examined is presented in Table 1. Based on this review, we uncovered the following pro-active socialization tactics that newcomers may engage in and have been found to be related to the socialization process and/or its outcomes (e.g., satisfaction, twmover, perfor- mance): performance feedback secking, information seeking from technical sources, information seeking from co-workers, information seeking from supervisors, relationship building with co-workers, relationship building with supervisors, informal mentorship, job change negotiation, positive framing, involvement in work-related activities, behavioral self-management, and observation/modeling. Feedback and Information Seeking ‘There are several conceptualizations of the socialization process that focus on newcomers’ ability to acquire information. Louis’ (1980) newcomer sense- making model is one such theory. Also, Miller and Jablin’s (1991) model focuses on newcomers’ pro-active search for information in order to reduce‘SOCIALIZATION TACTICS: INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE, 455 the uncertainty associated with organizational socialization. Most empirical research on pro-active socialization has focused on information-secking beha- viors. Fer example, Morrison (1993a) investigated several types of information that newcomers seek: referent, social, feedback, technical, normative informa- tion as it relates to the behavioral and attitudinal expectations of the organi- zation. Ostroff and Kozlowski (1992) reported that newcomers searched for information that included not only task-related, referent, and social informa- tion, but alse organizational information about the company’s structure, procedures, products, performance, and power distributions. Morrison (1995) provided an integration of these frameworks by suggesting that there are seven primary types of information that organizational newcomers will seek during the socialization process: technical, referent, social, feedback, norma- tive, organizational, and political. ‘The methods by which newcomers seek information have also been the subject of empirical investigation. Research has shown that organizational newcomers will vary their tactics based on the type of information they are trying to obtain (Bauer et al., 1998), Morrison (1995) found that newcomers would use tacties such as inquiry to obtain technical informetion, but use more indirect tactics for other types of information. In the same vein, supervisors, more than other sources, are relied upon for technical, referent, and feedback information, and peers more for social information (Bauer et al., 1998). Settoon and Adkins (1997) suggested that while newcomers wil! seek information from family and friends in addition to supervisors and co-work- ers, the information from supervisors and co-workers predicted socialization outcomes as their tenure in the organization increased. Although several studies have linked newcomers’ pro-active information-seeking behavior to important outcomes (e.g., Holder, 1996; Morrison, 1993b; Ostroff & Kozlowe- ki, 1992), other studies have been inconclusive about the impact of pro-active information secking (e.g. Ashford & Black, 1996; Bauer & Green, 1998; Kramer, Callister, & Turban, 1995; Morrison, 1993a). One of our arguments in the current article is that the type of socialization tactic emplayed by organizations may impact on the effectiveness of newcomer pro-active socia- lization behavior, and thus, explain some of the inconsistency in past research findings. For the purposes of our analysis, we have distinguished four different information-seeking strategies, differentiated based on both content and source: feedback seeking, information seeking from technical sources, informa- tion seeking from co-workers, and information seeking from supervisors. We kept feedback seeking 2 separate category because feedback seeking is often a psychologically different process than asking for other less seif-referent. in- formation (Ashford, 1986; Ashford & Cummings, 1983). For other types of information, we distinguish between technical, co-worker/peer, and super- visory sources. This distinction is often made in other studies. Also, as discussed later, the ease and effectiveness of seeking information from these different sources is proposed to vary as 2 function of organizational socializa- tion tactics.‘VOLUME 10, NUMBER 4, 2000 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW 456 Arejes ‘uowezipe1008 jeu09 (suoxjouny paywiessoase9 ue pelvosoupéed) diysion feuonoes-ss0ig, juuinfy —-eziueSi0 ‘uoyoRssyes gor = -uel feUOJUI puR ;eUO (2661) 12 2 OFYD (uojssnosip engoe) seehojdwe quewysnipy —10sjsedns_ ‘siax10m-09. (0661) Hebuiem feurpm6u07 syonpoid sewunsuog, ‘Bupjess oeqpee4 wos upjeas yoegpee ue ‘weUpless NeIg SIUEPNIS VEIN PE —_(YuoKUNUIWOD'uORDEJsHES) feupnybu0y ‘sseuisng ayenpeifiepun) quougsnipe jo sepoyy eBueys gol ‘abueys-yos (S661) Plolysy pue yoKIg (juaunpuiuicd “uonoR) -eues qo! ‘eouewioyed) sewootno uosezirepos GeBeueu ay) hq eoueydeo 08 40 sBuyjes} “foroyo sueBeuewu ‘siex0M-09 —souBUUOYed ‘ALIZ}9 el04) Burjees uoweuzojul seuypryBuo7, 4#ou) “sayenpesB e6e1}0D ‘sSupe: uoRepoWUosdyY ——_peyUBLO-{e}0s pur -yse (9661) ueerD pue seneg queUNRUUOD ‘CAnAnON oid yoreeses “e) aouet sluepnys jeopop —Joved se yons susosino sonianoe reupnyi6u0y pue siequiew Aynoey 40M “UOHePOWIWIODDY —PTE|EI>HOM UI UoUAAJOAU; —_—_(pEEL) UAAIE) pue seneg ‘@6pamouy squepnis LUJeWOp "Jo1}U09 40) ‘eyenpeiBsepun jue euisep ‘uonoeysqes feupnyuc7 = -eBeuew pue Suyesuibuz of ‘eouewoped gor (9861) 99FIa Pue piojysy ub)sep Apis gor ‘sajqeuen juepuedeg Fons UOHEZIIENOS HES JO SEpoy /ENpIAIPUI PeujWEXy yey) SeIPNig jo (eduzeg) UEWUIN A aevL457 SOCIALIZATION TACTICS: INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE (060d pou wo panuyuoo) reurpn6u0y ‘squewunoooy Jeuoyses-s8019, soyenpeib va s1g91e0 FeuOKOS-ss019 ——_/UOHPEN-LOU UI UOLIOAA reuogoes-ss0in, reurpry6u0y siequiow! Aynoes sioyd soidooye uoyeBequt ye00s pue “Ae! Jos “Ai@{Sew Se) “uOHEINYNOOY Panjacel 40 exe) st von eUO;U! Moy “uorreuojut jo ssounjosy, Bupjoos Uuoneusoyu! jo $1809 121908 “youuod gos ‘AyNBiquae o}Oy juausuwoo ‘uonezyejoos ‘wesbord diysioqewi jo nyeA, Bupjees yoeqnee, jo sis09 uoneniesqo ySnoiyy pue ‘sioswwedns ‘si0d wo ‘uoHeUO;U! quol9je1 eqnee} [e!0s pue voneuMojUl svvew od “uoneuioju jeomyooy Supjees enissed pue anyoy uonewoyut jeonyod 420 “enmeuuoU “feUON -e7ueBio ‘eos ‘yesreid -de "queseje1 ‘yeoruyoer Jo Buyowuour 10 Aunbuj seounos Aued pays pug ‘weupur ‘Uero saiberes Bupjees-uoRew0}U diysuoneyai yo ssouesoj9 sowew YY voRDeJeIU SOM diysiowueut yeuos (sanbiuyoe; yo0u1p -u)) Bupoyuou snsien Bunoye—Bupjeas yoeapee4 (26661) Uosiu0/W (S661) uosWOy (9661) s8pI0H4 (ge6t) sobuoyg pue UueUNoH (2661) ‘fe y9 s0pe5"VOLUME 10, MBER 4, 2000 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW 458 suojeziuetio vonenieunedxe “Aunbuy (661) eU0N208-85019 SSMoJeA uy StawOOMON ‘Bupjoasoyuy ‘Gujwiesy je10og pismorzoy) pUE (RLS squaiajal (spuayy “Ause}) feuonezjuebio-enxe pur (siep0m-00 ‘siosiuedrs) feuoeziuebio-eNut Jo asf) (2661) SUP/PY PUL LOONES yesieaya uewysiund juowWWos “AeIxUe eS ‘premeryes ‘Bumes yeulpny6uo7 ‘SqUEIUNODE joAG| ANUZ ‘eOUBUUO}ed gol ‘uoNBANOW —«fBOD-¥Jes ‘UOBAIESGO-jeg (9661) HUOWUSY pu SHEg feuypny6u07 sisyepeds yyeey (ewan 4 ‘983148 0} OW stosiaedns ‘Bu! sezenpe.5 —_-ysn/pe ‘enea| 0} suonuayu) YOWOW “UOHBIUeUIUEGXS jswuepnys Buyesuiiue “JeAOUIN) ":U@UAILUIOD “S1@)0M-09 ‘S}UBIBJO (e661) reurpm6uoy pur ssoutsne ‘wogoejsnes gor ‘enyootgo ‘uoneAasqQ PISMOFZON PUE OSE sozenpest sswepnis Byyeaui6u9 uogisinboe (e661) feu0yoes-sso1g) pue sseuisng woReULOjUI jo ADBOY duysiowey DISMOIZOY PUE HORSE oeqpes} IRlp0s pue ‘eouewnojied feujpr6uo7, squBWUNCODY —=—PEUIEIGO UOHEUUOIUE MOH —Bupjees uoneussoyyy (e664) voswOW ‘ubisep Apmis or seiqeueA juepuEdeg ‘SOUTEL ApnIg (panunuog) batawsSOCIALIZATION TACTICS: INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE 459 Relationship Building ‘The informal relationships newcomers form with co-workers, supervisors, and mentors has also been an important means of successful socialization (Louis, 1980; Reichers, 1987). These relationships can help the socialization of newcomers by serving as @ means of information, advice, social support, stress reduction, and/or skill and role behavior instruction (Louis, Posner, & Powell, 1983; Major, Kozlowski, Chao, & Gardner, 1995; Nelson & Quick, 1991; Reichers, 1987). Empirical research has indicated that new- comers’ efforts to build relationships with both peers and supervisors is important to the socialization process (e.g., Ashford & Black, 1996; Settoon & Adkins, 1997). informal Mentor Relationships Newcomers may also form relationships with other insiders who act as informal mentors (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992). There is a great deal of research which points out the positive effects of mentoring on newcomer adjustment (¢.g., Chatman, 1991; Dreher & Asch, 1990; Kram, 1985). Here, we only consider informal mentor relationships, or the initiation of such, as a pro-active tactic, because formal mentorship programs are instituted by the organization, not newcomers. In a study comparing protégés in formal and informal mentor relationships, Chao et al. (992) found that those in informal relationships received moze career-related support from their mentors and higher salaries than those in formal mentor relationships. Those in informal relationships reported many more favorable outcomes than those who were not mentored at all. Job Change Negotiation Job change negotiation has been another way that newcomers have been proposed to gain control and overcome uncertainty during socialization (Ash- ford & Black, 1996; Dawis & Lofquist, 1978; Nicholson, 1984), This pro-active behavior involves newcomers attempting to change their job duties or the manner and means by which they carry out their jobs. For example, new- comers may focus on the tasks they perform well or on tasks that provide more developmental opportunities. Recent empirical work (Ashford & Black, 1996) has found equivocal results regarding the impact of this tactic on newcomer performance and job satisfaction. Positive Framing Positive framing has also been demonstrated to be pro-active tactic used by individuals to edapt to new, uncertain, or stressful situations (Ashford & Black, 1996). Positive framing can be viewed as a form of cognitive self- management whereby individuals consciously control how they frame various460 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW voume ‘0, nuvacn 4, 000, situations so as to increase their self-confidence and self-efficacy (Ashford & Black, 1996). Ashford and Black (1996) found positive framing to be related to both newcomer performance and job satisfaction. Involvement in Work-Related Activities Involvement in work activities is defined a» newcomers’ pro-active volvement in “extra-curricular” work-related activities. These are activ- ities that, while work-related, are not part of the newcomer's defined role behaviors. An example of this pro-active socialization technique is pro- vided by Bauer and Green (1994) who found that graduate students’ “professional involvement” (measured by the degree that they engaged in various oxtra-role activities such as attending non-mandatory seminars and social events) was related to their performance, role ambiguity, acceptance, and commitment. Behavioral Self-Management Saks and Ashforth (1996) examined the effectiveness of behavioral self-management techniques as a form of pro-active newcomer socializa- tion. Specifically, they considered self-observation, goal setting, selfre- ward and punishment, and rehearsal. While their results were mixed, they did find that such behavioral management techniques helped reduce early anxiety. Behavioral self-management may be any type of behavior or strategy that newcomers employ to improve their own performance and/or Iearning, Observation/Modeling Social learning theory posits that one of the primary ways in which people learn, a primary task of socialization, is through the observation and modeling of the behavior of appropriate others Gandura, 1971). Several scholars have posited that observation and modeling are an important way in which new- comers learn during socialization (Miller & Jablin, 1991; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992; Smith & Kozlowski, 1994; Weiss, 1978). Indeed, Ostroff and Kozlowski (1992) found that observation was the most common way that newcomers reported learning on the job. In summary, there has been a great deal of recent research which has examined the behaviors that newcomers use to pro-netively facilitate theix own socislization and the effectiveness of those behaviors (or cognitions) in doing so. However, empirical rescarch, where there exists a substantial body, indicates conflicting and/or equivocal results. In other words, pro-active socialization behavior is not always found to he related to the socialization outcomes 2s predicted. Our argument hore is that the effectiveness of these tactics is also a function of the tacties used by the organization. Thus, we now tum to a discussion of organization socialization tacties.SOCIALIZATION TACTICS: INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE 461 ORGANIZATION SOCIALIZATION TACTICS Most research on organization socialization tacties has been based on Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) model developed to predict the role orientation which would be adopted by newcomers. Essentialiy, this model posits that the type of tactics employed by organizations will influence whether newcomers adopt a custodial, status quo, or innovative role response. Van Maanen and Schein (1979) proposed six tacties that organizations can use to structure the socialization experience of employees. Each of the six sccialization tactics consists of a bipolar continuum where one end represents institutionslized socialization and the other represents individual socialization (Jones, 1986). The tactic of collective (vs. individual) socialization refers to the grouping of organizational newcomers and putting them though a common set of experi- ences, rather than providing each newcomer with a set of unique experiences. Formal (vs. informal) socialization focuses on segregating organizational new- comers from other organizational members during a defined socialization period, as opposed to integrating newcomers with more experienced. organizational members, Sequential (vs. random) socialization provides a fixed sequence of socialization steps that leads to the assumption of the new organizational/job role, as opposed to random socialization, which is characterized by ambiguous and changing sequences of events. Fixed (vs. variable) socialization provides an established timetable for the initial socialization and integration process, whereasa variable socialization tactic provides no set timetable for the unfolding ofthe process. Serial (vs. disjunctive) socialization processes are characterized by newcomers being socialized by an experienced member of the organization (Le.,.8 mentor), whereas disjunctive processes do not utilize specific role models. Investiture (vs. divestiture) socialization focuses on validation of the incoming identity and personal characteristics of the newcomer, rather that focusing on stripping these characteristics away (often in a demoralizing way). Rather than treat each dimension separately, we adopt Jones’ (1986) three- dimensional grouping based on Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) typology and later factor analysis findings. Collective-individual and formal—informal tech- niques are grouped together to form a context-related tactic. Collective/formal represent the institutional end of the continuum. Sequential-random and fixed—variabie tactics are linked together to comprise a content-related tactic. Sequentiai/fixed represent the institutional end of the continuum. Finally, serial~disjunctive and divestiture-investiture are combined to form a social- related socialization tactic, Serial/investiture represent the institutional end of the continuum, We classify investiture as an institutional tactic based on the findings of Allen and Meyer (1990) and Jones (1986). Organizations that use more institutionalized tactics—by formally orienting newcomers in groups, providing a fixed career sequence, providing insider role models for neweomers, and providing interpersonal support and acceptance te newcomers are thought to yield more compliant employees who understand and accept organizational values. Individualized tactics, which involve indivi- dual orientation, more variable career progression, few role models, and462 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW vo.UMe 10, uMBER 4. 000 pressure newcomers to change their self-identities are thought to yield more innovative employees who are less accepting of the status quo (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Jones, 1986; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Chao et ai, (1994) propose that other sources of variance in the socializa- tion process should also be addressed. We are suggesting that one source of variance is the newcomer's attempts at self-socialization. In other words, socialization outcomes will be a fanetion of the interaction between new- comer’s pro-active socialization tactics and the socialization tactics employed by the organization. We now turn to a discussion of our model of how newcomer and organization socialization tacties may interact to influence socialization outcomes, NEWCOMER-ORGANIZATION TACTIC INTERACTION MODEL Fig. 1 presents a schematic model of the ideas presented in this articie. Before examining the model in moro detail, the assumptions and boundary conditions of the model need to be discussed. First, we assume that newcomers are somewhat stable in their employment of various pro-active socialization tactics due to particular learning or interpersonal preferences on the part of the newcomer (Louis, 1980). Indeed, what little research that has focused on why newcomers engage in various pro-active behaviors has focused on stable personality traits, For cxample, Ashford and Cummings (1986) found a relationship between individuals’ tolerance for ambiguity and pro-active feed- back-seeking behavior. Reichers (1987) suggested that individual difference variables such as tolerance for ambiguity, field dependence, and need for affiliation would be related to higher incidences of newcomer pro-active behaviors. Ashford and Black (1996) found that individuals with a high desire for control tended to engage in more information secking, relationship building with co-workers, job change negotiations, and positive framing. Major and Kozlowski (1997) studied the role of self-efficacy in information-seeking beha- viors exhibited by newcomers. Thus, since newcomer pro-activity is linked with stable traits, it is unlikely that newcomers will immediately change their own tactics when those tactics fail to achieve desired results. However, we also propose below that the tactics used by the organization will influence the likelihood of newcomers engaging in various pro-netive tactics, no matter what their personal propensity is. Although newcomers may be fairly stable and persistent in their use of various pro-active tactics, it is unreasonable to assume that they would persist in the long-term in using the same tactics if they resulted in negative feedback or sanctions from the organization. Thus, one boundary condition of this article is that it focuses on early socialization and does not consider long-term effects of the use of ineffective socialization tactics. It is reasonable to focus solely on early socialization since research has demonstrated that the dynamics which occur during the first months of socialization can have long reaching effects (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Bauer et al., 1998; Engle & Lord, 1997; Liden, Wayne,‘SOCIALIZATION TACTICS: iNTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE, 463 ‘Organizational Socialization Tactics B Context Content Social P2a__| Sommiv tmnt | Brady Vuh | rote Dot {Ee £ t 1 Newcomer Proactive |__Tactics_ "Feedback Seeking Plb P2b Pap [Socalimaiion? Teformation Seeking Pie © From: Coworkers From Supervisors Job Saittetion Relacnship Building Job Perform. Supers rpc Informal Mentorship Commitment Job Change Negotiation Suess Positive Framing Retention “Tevolvement in Ext Alienation | Work Related Activities Mota | Behavioral Sete ‘Acceptance | Management Integration | _Odservation Modeling = Figure 1. Model of Organizational Socialization Tactics on the Effectiveness of Newcomer Pro-Active Tactics. & Stilwell, 1993; Wanous, 1980). Yet, it is important to note here that future work in this area should also focus on the long-term process of how newcomers learn to adjust their pro-active tacties to better use in a particular organiza- tional environment. A second boundary condition of this model is that we conceptualize the notion of socialization outcomes broadly. The socialization literature has examined many possible outcomes, and it not our intent to introduce new outcomes here. Neither is it our intent to make predictions about certain, specific outcomes. The socialization outcomes that have been traditionaliy studied in the literature have focused on attitudinal or performance-based measures, such as job satisfaction, job performance, learning, organizational commitment, stress, intentions to leave, and actual turnover (Ashforth & Sake, 1996; Bauer et al., 1998; Fisher, 1986; Wanous, 1980; Wanous & Coleila, 1989) as the determinants of effective socialization. Others have also focused on the newcomer’s perceived level of social integration (Morrison, 1993a; Wanous, 1989) {e.g., employee alienation, mutual acceptance, integration) as well as their decision to participate in the workplace (March & Simon, 1968). These variables may be seen as antecedents to the traditional attitudinal variables, as well as performance-based measures that are often used to determine the effectiveness of organizational socialization tactics. Thus, when we refer to “socialization outcomes” or the “effectiveness of socialization,” we are referring to any or all of the outcomes listed in Fig. 1.464 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW voLune vo, uw 4 200 ‘The most important section of our model is that which illustrates how organizational tactics will (1) impact on the likelihood that newcomers will use various tactics; and (2) moderate the relationship between newcomer tactics and socialization outecmes. As depicted in Fig. 1, we angue that the two types of tactics work together through two mechanisms. First, organization tactics can impact on the likelihood that a newcomer can effectively execute a particular tactic. For example, the organizational context can prevent a newcomer who is trying to sec performance feedback from actually obtaining any information. Second, organization tacties can impact on how effective a tactic actually is when employed by the neweomer. For example, a newcomer may seek feedback, actually obtain it, but is perceived poorly for doing so or obtains inaccurate information. In this case, the newcomer sought feedback, obtained it, but the hehavior is not effective due to the organizational context. ‘The next section of the article focuses on these relationships and presents specific propositions. NEWCOMER-ORGANIZATION TACTIC INTERACTIONS: SOME PROPOSITIONS: In order to clarify the following presentation, we concentrate on how each genoral category of organization tactics (context, content, and social aspects) will impact on (1) the likelihood that various newcomer tactics can be enacted; and (2) the likelihood that the newcomer tactic will be successful. Context-Related Organizational Tactics ‘The institutional context of organizational socialization is typically char- acterized by socialization processes that are formal and collective (Van Meanen & Schein, 1979). In this context, newcomers aro usually provided with orientation in a group setting, separated from current employees, and provided with more structured formal experiences. Newcomers are not likely to have many interactions with experienced co-workers or even supervisors. In contrast, socialization contexts that are more individually oriented offer informal learning experiences that are often ad hoc, and individuals are socialized separately (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). When the context of organizational socialization is institutionalized, new- comers will be unlikely to interact with experienced co-workers, supervisors, and potential mentors, indeed, most contact will be with other newcomers. ‘Therefore, their ability to seek information from and build relationships with these sources will be seriously curtailed. Also, due to the structured nature of the entry experience, where activities and work are specifically defined, new- comers will be less likely to be xble to engage in job change negotiations or involve themselves in extra work-related activities. There is nothing inherent about an institutional context that would prevent newcomers from engaging in feedback sceking (they would have a large normative comparison group ofSOCIALIZATION TACTICS: INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE 465 other newcomers), positive framing, behavioral self-management, or observa- tion modeling. Furthermore, there is nothing inherent about individualized contextual tactics that would prohibit newcomers from engaging in any pro- active socialization tactic. Thus, we propose: Proposition 1a. When the context of organizational socialization is institutionalized (collective and formal), neweomers will be less likely to engage in the following pro-active individual socialization tacti information seeking from co-workers and supervisors, informal mentor- ship, job change negotiation, and extra work-related activities. It can be argued that, overall, newcomer pro-active socialization tactics would be more necessary in an individual contextual socialization environment than in an institutionalized environment. Because socialization experiences are structured and uniformly applied to all newcomers in an institutional context, those tactics that newcomers are able to use are likely to matter less, then when the newcomer is not provided with specific socialization experi- ences, which is the case with individual contexts. In other words, because newcomers in individual contexts are not provided with specific socialization experiences, anything that they can do to facilitate their own socialization should have a bigger effect than if they were provided with lock-step socializa- tion experiences. Thus, we propose: Proposition 1b. All newcomer pro-active socialization tactics should be more strongly and positively related to socialization outcomes when the context of organization tactics are individualized as opposed to when they are institutionalized. Furthermore, some socialization experiences may actually be ineffective in institutionalized contexts. Often, newcomers aro put through institutionalized socialization contexts so that they form an “esprit de corps” among themselves, ‘This is why this tactic ig so common in military and police organizations (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Relationship building with other newcomers may provide an important opportunity to create 2 support network that may be essential to the success of the new employees as they progress in the organization (Chatman, 1991). Thus, any type of pro-active behavior that would cause them to be perceived negatively by other newcomers could actually be detrimental to long-term socialization, Job change negotiations that could be perceived by other neweomers as breaking equity or procedural justice rules would be one such tactic (Greenberg, 1990). Another newcomer tactic that may interact negatively with institutional contexts is observation/modeling. It is generally argued that the successful impact of modeling on individual performance outcomes depends on people choosing a successful model (Weiss, 1978). Because newcomers in an institutional context may choose other newcomers as models, they may learn behaviors that are idiosyncratic to the model but not necessarily rewarded by the organization, This is less of a problem if newcomers can466 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW ——vouue 10, NBER 6, 000 choose co-workers or supervisors as models because the newcomer is aiso Likely to observe how that model has been rewarded by the organization over a period of time (Smith & Kozlowski, 1994). Consequently, newcomers would be less likely to choose experienced co-worker or supervisor models who did not behave in a manner rewarded by the organization (Weiss, 1978). However, experienced co-worker and supervisor models are less available to newcomers in an institutionalize context. Proposition 1b predicted that overall, pro-active socialization tactics would be less effective, but still positively related to socialization outcomes. Given the above discussion, we add the caveat that some newcomer tactics may actually be negatively related to outcomes. We propose: Proposition te. When the context of organizational socialization is institutionalized (collective and formal), the following newcomer pro- active socialization tactics of job change negotiation and observation/ modeling will be negatively related to socialization outcomes. Content-Related Organizational Tactics Tnstitutionalized content tactics (sequential and fixed) are characterized by having newcomers move through a specific order of assignments or positions according to a set timetable, ie., there is a specific set of socialization steps which occur at specific intervals (Black & Ashford, 1995). Individualized content tactics (random and variable) are characterized by having no set pattern of positions or timetables for newcomers to follow as they become socialized. Thus, the content dimension of organizational socialization tactics varies the degree of ambiguity faced by newcomers (Allen & Meyer, 1980; Baker, 1995). We argue that the content of organizational socialization tactics will influence the Hkelihood of four types of pro-active behaviors; feedback seeking, information seeking from supervisors, information sceking from experienced co-workers, and job change negotiation. First, feedback-seeking behavior (Ashford, 1986; Fedor, Rensvold, & Adams, 1992) and other information- seeking behavior (e.g., Morrison, 1993a,b) are more likely to be employed when newcomers face an ambiguous and uncertain socialization environment, where expectations, role requirements, and progress criteria are unclear. Thus, when the content of socialization is individualized (ie., random and variable), and newcomers face a more uncertain course of progression (Jones, 1986), it would be expected that they would engage in more feedback- and information- seeking behaviors than when the content of socialization was more institutio- nalized (i.e., sequential and fixed). Second, empirical research examining the effects of organizational socializa- tion tactics on newcomers’ role orientation has consistently found that sequen- tial and fixed tactics are negatively related to role innovation (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Ashforth & Saks, 1995; Baker, 1995; Black, 1992; Black & Ashford, 1995; Jones, 1986). Because common measures of role innovation (Jones, 1986; West,‘SOCIALIZATION TACTICS: !NTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE 487 1987), in part, assess a newcomer’s attempts at changing his or her job duties, ‘one can extrapolate to say that newcomers are less likely to engage in job change negotiations when the content of socialization is institutionalized, Jones (1986) suggests that the reason for this is because newcomers are unwilling to “rock the boat” if their progression in the organization has alveady been determined. Thus, we propose: Proposition 2a. When the content of organizational socialization is institutionalize (sequential and fixed), newcomers will be loss likely to engage in the following pro-active individual socialization tactics: feedback seeking, information seeking from co-workers and supervisors, and job change negotiation. In terms of the moderating role of socialization content tactics on the effectiveness of various pro-active tactics, there is no reason to believe that those tactics influencing the performance of neweomers (.e., feedback seeking, information seeking, behavioral self-management, and observation/modeling) would be more or less effective under institutionalized or individualized content scenarios. Anything that could help a newcomer perform better in either ease should be positively related to socialization outeomes. However, because individualized content allows for variability in the socia- lization and career paths of newcomers, the social guidance, career support, and sponsorship gained from informal networks and mentors (e.g., Chao et al., 1992) may play a more important role than when the newcomers’ progression is more institutionalized. Furthermore, any activities that give the newcomer breadth of experience or exposure, such as engagement in extra work activ- ities, should also be more offective when content tactics are individualized as opposed to institutionalized. Thus, we propose: Proposition 2b. Relationship building with co-workers and super- visors, forming informal mentor relationships and involvement in extra work activities, should be more strongly and positively related to socialization outcomes when the content of organization tactics are individualized as opposed to when they are institutionalized. Sociai-Related Organizational Tactics Finally, the last two categorizations (serial vs. disjunctive and investiture vs. divestiture) of socialization tactics developed by Van Maanen and Schein (1979) refer to the social or interpersonal aspects of organizational socializa- tion. On the institutional side of this continuum are serial tactics whereby newcomers are provided with mentors or more experienced job incumbents to serve as xoie models. On the individualized side are disjunctive tactics where newcomers do not have access to prior job incumbents or roie models. At the institutionalized end of the continuum, investiture tactics suggest to the newcomer that he or she is valued and the organization accepts his or her identity. Individualized divestiture tactics communicate to neweomers that488 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 10, NunER 4, 000 their previous identity is not accepted and that they must change to fit the organization. The above tactics vary primarily along the dimension of whether the newcomer has social support or not. Given that individualized social/interpersonal tactics (particularly divesti- ture) can be personally threatening to newcomers, they may be more likely to avoid secking feedback in this instance because it would be too costly to do so (Ashford, 1986; Ashford & Cummings, 1983). Indeed, one of the primary deterrents to feedback-seeking behavior is ego-defensiveness whereby people avoid looking for information about themselves that may be negative (Ashford, 1986). Newcomers in the individualized scenario may also avoid requesting information from co-workers and supervisors for the same reasons. The nature of the disjunctive experience would also deter neweomors from actively buil ing relationships with co-workers and supervisors because the organization consciously demonstrating a lack of social support for these neweomers. It is difficult to attempt to form relationships with ethers that are acting as though one is not accepted by the group. In contrast, investiture tacties, which serve to make newcomers feel valued and welcomed, should explicitly lead to such pro- active bonding (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Gn the other hand, due to the nature of the serial vs. disjunctive tactic, it is also expected that newcomers in the individualized scenario would be more likely to form informal mentor relationships and loss likely to engage in observation and modeling. Those in disjunctive situations are expected to be more likely to form informal mentor relationships because they have not received a formal mentor or role model as have newcomers in a serial situation. Also, they would be less likely to engage in observation/modeling because there is less likely to be an appropriate role model present. The effects of these socialization tactics on job change negotiation are more difficult to predict. In fact, there has been debate in the literature over this issue (see Jones, 1986). Earlier, it was noted that job change negotiation could be thought of as one aspect of role innovation. In that case, arguments have been made that disjunctive tactics should lead to more innovation (or job change negotiation) because they cause newcomers to excel in their roles (ie. “Tl show them!”) (Jones, 1986} or they should lead to more passive responses Ge., less job change nogotiation) because newcomers are essentially broken down (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Empirical research on this issue has not solved the debate, thus, we do not put forth a specific proposition. In summary, we propose: Proposition 3a. When the social aspects of organizational tactics are institutionalized (cerial and investiture), newcomers will be less likely to form informal mentor relationships. When the social aspects of organizational tactics are individualized (disjunctive and divestiture), newcomers will be less likely to engage in the following pro-active socialization tactics: performance feedback seeking, information seeking from co-workers and supervisors, relationship building with co-workers and supervisors, and observation/modeling.‘SOCIALIZATION TACTICS: INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE, 469 In terms of the effectiveness of various pro-active tactics, the social tactics are expected to moderate relationships between information seeking from co- workers and supervisors, positive framing, informal mentor relationships, behavioral self-management, and observation/modeling. The individualized aspects of social tactics (disjunctive and divestiture) should lead to stronger relationships between information seeking, positive framing, and informal mentor relationships and socialization outcomes than institutionalized social tactics. On the other hand, institutionalized social tactics should lead to stronger effects for observation/modeling. First, under disjunctive tactics, newcomers are not given supervision or help from an immediate predecessor (there may not even be one) or mentor. ‘Thus, their willingness to seek out information from other co-workers and supervisors would be more important to their socialization and learning than if they did have such 2 role model because they lack the information that such a role mode! would provide. Second, along the same line of yeasoning, since they do not have a formal mentor, any informal mentor would be even more important to their effective socialization (Chao et al., 1992). Forming informa! mentor relationships are also likely to be very important for newcomers subject to divestiture tactics, since in this case, the mentor would be needed to lessen the stress caused by divestiture tactics Therefore, under individualized social tactics, both the career-related and psychosocial functions of informal mentors are particularly important (Kram, 1985). Third, positive framing should be more important when divestiture tactics are employed because newcomers need to interpret the organization’s discon- firming treatment of them as a “rite of passage” (Wanous, 1980), otherwise, they would be likely to hold and maintain negative feclings toward the organization. Such active positive framing would not be as necessary under investiture tactics where newcomers are treated in ar accepting and suppor- tive manner, Finaily, observation/modeling is expected to be more effective under insti- tutionalized social tactics (serial and investiture) because newcomers are explicitly provided with acceptable role models. Under more individualized social settings, newcomers may choose inappropriate role models or model divestiture type behaviors, which are not appropriate given the newcomer’s vole, In summary, we propose: Proposition &b. information seeking from co-workers and super- visors, forming informal mentor relationships, and positive framing should be more strongly and positively related to socialization outcomes when the social/interpersonal aspects of organization tactics are individualized as opposed to when they are institutiona- lized. Observation/modeling should be more strongly and positively related to socialization outcomes when the social/interpersonal aspects of organization tactics are institutionalized as epposed to when they are individualized470 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW VOLUME 1a, NUMBER 4, 2000 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION In the most recent and comprehensive review of the organizational socializa- tion literature, Bauer et al. (1998) suggest that the effectiveness of newcomer pro-active socialization tactics (particularly various types of information seek- ing) be studied as a function of other variables, such as organizational tactics. ‘This article addresses this issue and is meant to provide conceptual direction for future empirical work. We essentially argue that organizational tactics both impact the likelihood that newcomers engage in various pro-active tactics and that they moderate the effectiveness of pro-active tactics that do occur. Exact relationships are expected to vary as a function of the orgenizational tactic and specific newcomer pro-active tactics. We provided specific research propositions concerning these relationships, The past 10 years of socialization research have focused heavily on new- comers as being pro-active in their new environments, thus, extending past research that tended to focus only on what organizations did to newcomers during socialization (Bauer et al., 1998}. However, calls for an interactionist perspective of socialization which surfaced during the 1980s (e.g., Jones, 1983; Reichers, 1987; Schneider, 1983) have still not received a great deal of empirical attention. Hopefully, this article will stimulate research that will allow for closer examination of these issues. Another way in which this article can guide future research is to form the basis for examining issues of fit in the context of organizational and newcomer preferences for specific socialization tactics. Organizational fit is usually conceptualized in terms of values fit or skills and abilities versus needs fit (Kristof, 1996). Here, we suggest that newcomers may enter an organization with some predisposition toward engaging in certain socialization tactics that will be either effective or ineffective depending on the organizational tactics. For example, newcomers who seek to control uncertainty by seeking informa- tion from supervisors and co-workers would be a poor fit in organizations where newcomers have little individual access to supervisors or more experienced co- workers (e.g., a collective tactic). Newcomers may also experience frustration because organizational tactics prevent them from engaging in the behaviors that they prefer to use to learn the job and reduce uncertainty. Research on this issue would add to our understanding of the processes that occur early in newcomers’ socialization experiences that shape their perceptions of fit with the organization and the resulting decision to stay and participate. "The current article is bound to the time period of early socialization. A logical extension of this work would be to examine these effects over time. Can newcomers self-correct their own pro-active tactics to make the most out of those being employed by the organization? What influences this self- correction? Are some scenarios easier to correct than others? Future research that addresses these issues and extends the current mode! across time is certainly warranted. Finally, this article only concerned a certain set of newcomer pro-active socialization tactics, based on cur review of literature specifically addres-SOCIALIZATION TACTICS: INTERACTICNIST PERSPECTIVE 471 sing this issue. However, other forms of pro-active socialization are alse likely to be employed. One such category of behaviors that warrants attention is the impression management techniques employed by new- comers. This article was also limited to discussing socialization context in terms of Van Maanen and Schein’s (1979) tactical dimensions. This model can be extended to include other ways of describing organizational socialization contexts. For example, the political context of the organization may influence which self-socialization tactics are likely to provide new- comers with social currency and political leverage, in addition te providing them traditional job-based information and performance outcomes (Ashford & Northeraft, 1992; Giacalone & Rosenfeld, 1986; Morrison & Bies, 1991; Wanous, 1989). ‘The practical implications of this article are significant. At one level, we suggest that organizations, by the use of certain socialization tactics, can hurt the chances of newcomers becoming effectively socialized because they either squelch newcomers’ attempts to engage in various pro-active tactics or because they hinder the effectiveness of various tactics. Specifically, we suggest scenarios in which organization tactics may actually prohibit new- comers from using pro-active tacties that would be most useful. For example, in Proposition 3b, we suggest that building informal mentor relationships wouid he most helpful for newcomers when the social aspects of socialization are individualized. In other words, informal mentors will be most helpful when formal mentors are not available and newcomers are receiving negative and stressful information from those they work with. Yet, we also suggest in Proposition 3a that newcomers will be unlikely to pro-actively form informai mentor relationships under these organizational tactics. Thus, in this seenar- io, organizations may be preventing newcomers from engaging in pro-active tactics that would be most effective. Thus, this research has implications for ways in which organizations can align their own socialization tactics with newcomer tacties to most quickly and effectively integrate newcomers into the organization. In conclusion, we proposed that organizational socialization tactics can impact on the likelihood that newcomers can or will employ various pro-active socialization techniques. Furthermore, organizational tactics can moderate the effectiveness of various newcomer tactics. We have put forth specific proposi- tions that we hope will guide future research to simultancously consider newcomer and organizational behavior during socialization. REFERENCES Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). Organizational socialization tactics: A longitudinal ana- lysis of links to newcomers’ commitment and role orientation. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 23, 847-858, Ashford, 8. J. (1986). Feedback seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 465-487.472 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW —voULME 16, numaen 4, 2000 Ashford, 8. J., & Black, J. 8. (1996), Prosetivity during organizational entry: A role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 199-214. Ashford, 8. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as individual resource: Pereonal stra- togios of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro- cesses, 32, 370-398, Ashford, 8. J., & Cummings, L. L.. (1985). Proactive feedback secking: The instrumental use of the information environment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, £8, 87-79. Ashford, $.d., & Nozthevatt, (i. B. (1992). Conveying more (or less) than we realize: The role of impression management in feedback sooking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 310-834. Ashford, 8. J., & Taylor, M. 8. (3990). Adaptations to work transitions: An integrative ap- proach. In GR. Ferris, & K. M. Rowland Eds), Research in personnel and human resource management (vol. 8, pp. 1-89). Greenwich, CP: JAI Press. Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A.M. (1995}. Work-ole transitions: A longitudinal examina- tion of the Nicholson model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy- chology, 68, 187-175. Ashforth, B.E., & Saks, A. M, (1986), Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 149-178, Baker, W. K. (1995), Allon and Meyers 1990 longitudinal study: A reanalysis and reintor- pretation using structural equation modeling. Human Relations, 48, 169-186. Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. Morristown, Nd: Generel Learning Press. Bauer, T.N., & Green, 8. @. (1994). The effect of newcomer involvement in work related activities: A longitudinal study of socialization, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 211-223, Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G, (1998). Testing the combined effects of neweomer innforma- tion seeking and manager behavior on socialization. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 83, 72-83. Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A review and directions for future rescarch. In G. RB. Forris, & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (vol. 16, pp. 148-214). Green- wich, CT: JAE Press, Black, 5. 8. (1992). Socializing American expatriate managers overseas: Tactics, tenure, and role innovation. Group and Organization Management, 17, 171-192 Black, J. S., & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Fitting in ov making jobs fit: Factors affecting mode of adjustment for new hires. Human Relations, 48, 421-437, Brett, J. M., Feldman, D. C., & Weingart, L. R. (1990). Feedback socking behavior of new hires and job changers, Journal of Management, 16, 737-748. Chao, G. R., O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, 8, Klein, H.d., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organi tional socialization: Fts contents and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730-748, Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D, (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with non-mentored counterparts. Personnel Paychology, 45, 619-696. Chatman, J. A. (1981). Matching poopie and organizations: Selection and socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-484. Dawis, R. V., & Lofguist, 1 H. (1978). A note on the dynamies of work adjustment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 12, 76-79. Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (2990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional and technical positions. /ournal of Applied Peychology, 75, 539-646.SOCIALIZATION TACTICS: INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE 473 Engle, E. E., & Lord, R. G. (1997), Implicit theories, self-schomas, and leader-member ex- change, Academy of Management Journal, 40, 988-1010. Fedor, D. B, Rensvold, 8. B, & Adams, 8. M, (1992). An investigation of factors expected to affect feedback secking: A longitudinal field study. Personnel Pey- chology, 45, 779-805. Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. in @. R. Ferris, & K, M. Rowland (Ras), Research in personnel and human resource management (vol. 4, pp. 101-145). Greenwieh, CT: JAI Press, Giacalone, R. A. , & Rosenfeld, P. (1986). Self-presentation and self-promotion in an organi- zational setting. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 821-826. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432. Heimann, B., & Pittenger, K. K. S, (1996). The impact of formal mentorship on socialization and commitment of newcomers. Journal of Managerial Fesues, 8, 108-117. Holder, T. (1996). Women in nontraditional occupations: Information seeking during orga- nizational entry. Journal of Business Communication, 33, 6-26. Jones, G. R. (1983). Peychological orientation and the procoss of organizational socialization: An interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 8, 464-474. Jones, G. R, (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy and newcomers adjustments to orga- nizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262-279, Kram, K. E. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life Glenview, IL: Seott Foresman. Kramer, M. W., Callister, R. R., & Turban, D. B. (2996). Information receiving and giving during job transitions. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 181-170, Kristof, A. L, (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualization, meastiroment and implications, Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal study on the early develop- ment of leadermember exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 662-674. Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense-making: What newcomers experience in entering onfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 228-251. Louis, M. R., Posner, B. Z., & Powell, G. N. (1983). The aveilability and helpfulness of socialization practices, Personnel Psychology, 36, 857-266. Major, D. A., & Kozlowski, 8. W. J. (1997). Newcomer information seeking: Individual and ‘contextual influences, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5, 16-28. Major, D. A., Kozlowski, 8. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Gardner, P. D. (1995). A longitudinal investigation of newcomer expectations, early socialization outcomes and the moder- ating effect of role development factors. Journal of Applied Paychology, 86, 418-433. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958), Organizations. New York: Wiloy. Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seoking during organizational entry: Influence, tactics and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 1 92-120. Morrison, E. W. (1993). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on neweomer socialization, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 173-183. ‘Morrison, E. W. (1999). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources and outcomes. Aeademy of Management -Journal, 36, 557-589. Morrison, E. W. (1995). Information usefulness and acquisition during organizational en- counter, Management Communication Quarterly, 9, 181-165. ‘Morrison, B. W., & Bics, R, J. (1991). Impression management in the feedback-secking process: A literature review and research agenda. Academy of Management Review, 18, 622-541,474 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REVIEW ——_vo.UMe 10, BER 4,200 Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1991). Social support and newcomer adjustment in organiza tion: Attachment theory at work? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 12, 543-854. Nicholson, N. (1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, ¥72-191 Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: The role of information acquisition, Personne! Psychology, 45, 849-874. Ostroff, ©., & Kozlowski, 8. W. J. (1993). The tole of mentoring in the information gathering processes of newcomers during early organizational socialization. Journal of Voca- tional Behavior, 42, 170-183, Reichers, A. E, (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. Acad- emy of Management Review, 12, 278-287. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1896), Proactive socialization and behavioral selfmenage- ment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 487, 301-323. Schneider, B. E, (2883), Interactional psychology and organizational behavior. In L. L. Cum- mings & B. M. Staw (Bds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 5, pp. 1-31). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Settoon, R. P., & Adkins, C. L. (1997). Newcomer socialization: The role of super- visors, coworkers, friends and family members. Journal of Business and Psy chology, 11, 112-124, Smith, E. M., & Kozlowski, 8. W. J. (1994). Socialization and adaptation: Individual and contexttial influences on social learning strategies. In S, W. J. Kozlowski (Ed), Tran- sitions during organizational socialization: Newcomer expectation, information seeking sand learning outcomes. Symposiure Conducted at the 9th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Paycholegy, Nashville, TN. April. Van Masnen, 5. (1976). Breaking in: Socialization to work. Ta R. Dubin (Ed), Handbook of ‘work, organization and society (pp. 67-180). Chicago: Rend MeNally. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational secialization. In L. L, Cummings, & B, Staw (Rds), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 1, pp. 209-264), Groonvrich, CT: JAE Press. Wanous, J. P. (1980). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection and sociatization of new- comers, Reading, MA: Addivon Wesley. Wanous, J. P. (1989). Impression management. at organizationat entry. In R. A. Giacalone, & P, Rosenfeld (ds.), Impression management in the organization (pp. 253 ~268). Hills daie, NJ: L. Erlbaum Assoc. Wanous, J. P., & Colelia, A. (1989). Organizationst entry research: Current status and future directions. In G. R. Ferris, & K. M. Rowland (Eds), Research in personnel and human resource management (vol. 7, pp. 69-120), Greenwich, OT: JAT Press. Weiss, H. M. (1978). Social learning of work values in organizations. Journal of Applied Paychology, 68, 711-718. West, M. A, (1987). A measure of role innovation at work, British Journal of Social Psychol- 0, 26, 83-86.