Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2019 Socialization tactics & Commitment-
based HR system: A Multi-level
Analysis Their moderating role on the relationship between uncertainty
and role clarity
Name: Keyla Hassell
Student number: 2018080 / u376907
Name of supervisors: Sasa Batistic and Christina Meyers
Project period: October – August 2019
Project theme: Socialization
Master Thesis – Human Resource Studies
Tilburg University – School of Social and Behavioural Sciences
| Keyla Hassell
1
ABSTRACT
When entering an organization, newcomers face a high degree of uncertainty. Socialization
tactics and human resource (HR) systems are contextual constructs that can be used to lower
uncertainty. However, socialization research has only investigated the perception of the
newcomers and not team members perception of newcomer’s socialization process. Therefore,
team members’ perception of newcomer’s feelings will be investigated because taking into
account employee exchanges is important for a work team and their interdependency makes
team members a good judge of newcomer’s viewpoint. A cross-sectional multi-level study was
conducted with convenience sampling. The sample consisted of 102 team members and 30
newcomers nested in 27 teams. Results showed that team members’ perception of newcomer’s
uncertainty is negatively related to team members’ perception of newcomer’s role clarity.
Moreover, individualized socialization tactics negatively moderated the relationship between
team members’ perception of newcomer’s uncertainty and team members’ perception of
newcomer’s role clarity. In contrast, commitment-based HR-system positively moderated the
relationship between team members’ perception of newcomer’s uncertainty and team
members’ perception of newcomer’s role clarity. Finally, this research presents several future
research directions, and theoretical and practical implications.
Keywords: uncertainty, role clarity, individualized socialization tactics, commitment-based
HR system, job demands-resources model
| Keyla Hassell
2
INTRODUCTION
The reality shock and uncertainty newcomers face when entering an organization for the first
time is typically highlighted in socialization research (Ashforth & Saks, 1996). Immersion in
an unknown environment involves uncertainty concerning the role an individual is expected to
take upon (Black, Mendenhall & Oddou, 1991). Newcomers’ uncertainty can have costly
outcomes such as premature turnover (Bauer, Erdogan, Bodner, Turxillo & Tucker, 2007).
Therefore, organizations need to effectively socialize newcomers (e.g. from one organization
to another, or one position to another; Ellis et al., 2015) because it facilitates work adjustments
and retains employees in the organization (Batistic, 2018). Organizational socialization is the
“process by which an individual acquires the social knowledge and skills necessary to assume
an organizational role” (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 211). Ineffective socialization costs
the organization time and money (Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010). The total turnover costs
can vary between 90% to 200% of annual salary (Cascio, 2006; Mitchell, Holtom, & Lee,
2001).
Moreover, previous research on organizational socialization has paid much attention on
the association between a newcomers’ and their organization (Anderson and Thomas, 1996;
Ashforth, Sluss & Harrison et al., 2007). However, much research has not focused on a more
localized context such as learning on the job (Anderson, Riddle & Martin, 1999), where
majority of the job interactions and socialization occurs (Batistic & Kenda, 2018). A portion
of this issue may be that there is no widely-recognized theory of organizational context (Johns,
2006). The role of the broader organizational context in the socialization process needs more
investigation (Batistic, 2018) and it is important for the socialization of newcomers. According
to Johns (2006), contextual factors can be manifested in different ways which can shape
newcomers’ behavior and attitudes, such as socialization tactics and HR systems (Batistic,
2018). Context highlights the way in which organizations provide information to newcomers
(Batistic, 2018).
This study is expected to make four contributions to the socialization and HR literature.
The first contribution is that this research fills in the gap in literature that prior research mainly
focused on assessing newcomers’ self-reports and do not take into account perceptions of
peers’ self-reports of the level of socialization of newcomers, which was a suggestion of the
several studies (e.g. Morrison, 1993; Sluss & Thompson, 2012). Therefore, newcomer’s
uncertainty and role clarity will be taken from the perspective of the team members.
| Keyla Hassell
3
The second contribution is using individualized socialization tactics as contextual
constructs. Individualized socialization tactics suggests an absence of structure where
newcomers are socially integrated more by developing their own approaches (Ashforth, Saks,
& Lee, 1997). According to Johns (2006), contextual factors can shape behaviors and attitudes,
therefore, using to individualized socialization tactics can result in lower levels of uncertainty
experienced during early socialization (Saks & Ashforth, 1997a). In addition, previous research
showed that institutionalized socialization tactics are the most important (e.g. Ashforth &
Nurmohamed, 2012), but individualized socialization tactics provide localized learning
(Batistic, 2018), thus it can be assumed that theoretically both concepts are equally important.
This research only explores one which is individualized socialization tactics.
The third contribution is using commitment-based HR system as contextual constructs.
Commitment-based HR system aims to enhance development and knowledge by providing
trainings (Batisitic, 2018). Moreover, the organizational context is of great influence in the
determining the specific behavior of employees (Van Dierendonck & Patterson, 2010). It is
useful to investigate commitment-based HR system as a contextual factor, since it can generate
more insight into if commitment-based HR system is beneficial in reducing uncertainty.
The last contribution is the multilevel research design of this research which
investigates individualized socialization tactics and commitment-based HR as second level
contextual factors. This study reacts to the suggestions of Ashforth et al, (2007) and Allen,
Eby, Chao and Bauer (2017) to integrate a multi-level viewpoint into the socialization
literature. Particularly, it is expected that individualized socialization tactics at a higher level
(team manager) mitigate the relationship between newcomers’ perceived uncertainty and role
clarity. Moreover, HR has been slow to adopt a multi-level viewpoint (Molloy et al., 2010).
Thus, taking a multilevel approach in this research could investigate how commitment-based
HR systems at a higher level (team manager) influence the relationship between newcomers’
perceived uncertainty and role clarity.
In brief, this research focuses on the team members’ perspective of the newcomer’s
uncertainty and role clarity, and team manager’s perspective of commitment-based HR system
and individualized socialization tactics. Based on the previously mentioned points, the research
question for this study is as followed: To what extent does uncertainty relate to role clarity,
and to what extent is this relationship moderated by individualized socialization tactics and
commitment-based HR system?
| Keyla Hassell
4
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Uncertainty and role clarity
Uncertainty is referred to as a psychological state that arises from an individual feeling
a lack of control of the situation and one's self (Michael, 1973). When entering new
organizations, newcomers face high levels of uncertainty (Jones, 1986; Ashforth et al., 2007;
Ellis et al., 2017). Uncertainty in regard to new roles, tasks and social interactions with
organizational members is naturally stressful (Morrison, 1995). The key processes in
assimilation is that of reaffirming control through lowering uncertainty (Black et al., 1991).
Newcomers leave one workgroup and organization to enter another, abandon fractions of their
old identities for new identities comparable with their new employer and void a familiar role
to learn a new role (Miller and Jablin, 1991). Therefore, new employees must deal with the
uncertainty that is related to expectations (Katz, 1980). Uncertainty is one cause that
newcomers may fail to acquire positive attitudes towards their new organization (Ellis et al.,
2015).
Role clarity is when an individual has adequate information about their priorities,
responsibilities, and goals, together with knowledge of how to accordingly follow those goals
(Kahn, Wolfe, Quinn, Snoek, & Rosenthal, 1964). The role theory literature highlights that it
is greatly important that newcomers obtain role clarity in their jobs, because numerous
organizational outcomes (e.g. job performance), rely upon the extent employees are aware of
what is expected from them in their job roles (e.g., Graen, 1976). Previous research suggested
that uncertainty is reflected in role ambiguity and role conflict which newcomers experience
(Miller and Jablin, 1991). Moreover, uncertainty and low role clarity are theoretically related
due to the lack of information and knowledge involved in both of the construct (Batistic et al.,
working paper). The relevance of researching uncertainty and role clarity among newcomers
is largely linked to the socialization literature, which argues that newcomers seek relevant
information to reduce uncertainty and, in turn, attain role clarity (Ellis, et al., 2017)
Furthermore, the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) can be used to explain the
relationship between uncertainty and role clarity. The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model
suggests that working environments can be categorized into two broad categories job demands
and job resources, which are differently associated to specific results (Demerouti, et al., 2001)
such as role clarity. Aforementioned, the lack of information is the relation between uncertainty
and low role clarity. Lack of information means lack of job resources (i.e. performance
feedback and social support from peers; Demerouti et al., 2001). Job resources foster
| Keyla Hassell
5
employees’ learning (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008), and assist in increasing knowledge of
employees. In this case, there are insufficient job resources which signifies the negative
relationship.
Lastly, team members’ perception of the newcomer’s uncertainty and role clarity will
be used because exchange dynamics in organizations are not whole without taking into account
of employee exchanges with another very vital for the work team (Cole, Schaninger and Harris,
2002). Team members can determine the newcomer’s perceptions in a competent manner
because they work as a team and are interdependent. To summarize the above arguments, it is
proposed in this study that uncertainty negatively related to role clarity.
Hypothesis 1: Uncertainty is negatively related to role clarity.
The moderating role of individualized socialization tactics
Socialization tactics refer to “the ways in which the experiences of individuals in
transition from one role to another are structured for them by others in the organization” (Van
Maanen & Schein, 1979, p. 230). Socialization tactics can be seen as a contextual factor
because it operates in cross-level effects where the influence of a higher level (e.g. team
manager) of analysis affects a lower level (e.g. team members) of analysis, in order to shape
behaviors or attitudes (Johns, 2006), which can be seen as a multi-level paradigm. Indeed,
Ashforth et al., (2007) suggested extending the focus from socialization tactics to sources of
socialization tactics, specifically the organization, group (via occupational and localized
norms), and leader-newcomer relationship because it may provide more precise theoretical and
practical predictions. Therefore, it is assumed that newcomers are generally socialized through
certain interpersonal and group-based interactions (Anderson and Thomas, 1996; Ashforth et
al., 2007), which are based in localized contexts (Ashforth et al., 2007) due to three reasons.
First, organizations largely affect the individual via localized context because a great deal of
tacit knowledge about the organization is implicitly learned through immersion in abundant,
specific contexts (Chao, 1997). Second, localized contexts allow impromptu observation and
interaction around developing issues because organizations continue to decentralize decision-
making (Ashforth et al., 2007). Lastly, much of the information that newcomers seek to learn
and find more beneficial is wedged at the local level, such as task requirements (Morrison,
1995) and interpersonal and group norms (Katz, 1980). For instance, most training in
organizations is fairly informal and unstructured, which occurs on-the-job in an unplanned
manner (Chao, 1997).
| Keyla Hassell
6
Van Maanen and Schein (1979) described how socialization tactics impact newcomers’
custodial, role-innovative, or content-innovative reactions or how the tactics can influence the
integration of the newcomers by lower role conflict, role ambiguity and intentions to quit (Saks
& Ashforth, 1997a, Saks & Gruman, 2018). Jones (1986) conducted the first empirical research
on socialization tactics which were identified by Van Maanen and Schein (1979). He
conceptualized the six tactics as two contrasting dimensions that he entitled institutional
socialization (collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial and investiture tactics) and
individualized socialization (individual, informal, random, variable, disjunctive, and
divestiture tactics; Jones 1986; Saks & Gruman, 2018). This research will focus on
individualized socialization tactics.
It is expected that individualized socialization tactics mitigate the relationship between
uncertainty and role clarity. The usage of individualized socialization for newcomers is
important because it encourages them to develop their own unique approach to their roles
(Batistic, 2018) which can lower uncertainty. As the opposite, institutional socialization
encourages newcomers to accept predefined roles submissively and it provides a structured
experience (Batistic, 2018). Moreover, prior literature greatly highlighted the role of
institutionalized tactics and their beneficial results on newcomers’ assimilation (Ashforth et
al., 2007; Saks, Uggerslev & Fassina, 2007; Ashforth & Nurmohamed, 2012). However, recent
research suggested that a personalized approach for adjusting newcomers will be more
effective (Batistic, 2018; Batistic & Kenda, 2018). The use of individualized socialization can
be beneficial for our framework.
Firstly, it is proposed that individual and informal socialization offset the negative
relationship between uncertainty and role clarity. Individualized tactics enable newcomers to
learn individually and informally with specific personalized and on-the-job experience, as
opposed to formal context (Chao, 1997; Batistic, 2018). Likewise, Chao (1997) proposed that
abundant information is learned through individualized participation in localized contexts. The
benefits of individual and informal tactics are knowledge about explicit tasks and the
organization is learnt, including on-the-job training and orientation which enable key
newcomers to comprehend how things work, how to get things done and who is really
important (Chao, 1997; Klein & Weaver, 2000). This can provide newcomers with information
that is lacking in the uncertainty and role clarity relationship and make the relationship less
negative. When dealing with complex tasks, trainings tend to happen on-the-job and just-in-
time (Chao, 1997; Batistic & Kenda, 2018).
| Keyla Hassell
7
Secondly, it is expected that random and variable socialization buffers the negative
relationship between uncertainty and role clarity. Random tactics ensure skills are learned
when facing a specific problem and have high value for newcomers (Kramer, 2010). Ashforth
et al., (2007) recognized that learning in localized contexts can provide information about the
broader environment, so that more institutionalized forms may be redundant for particular
kinds of newcomers. Such localized context can once again mitigate the negative relationship
between uncertainty and role clarity. In addition, variable tactics allow flexibility (Batistic,
2018) and this shows that the organization is signaling no time pressure and may be understood
encouragingly by newcomers and will build trust (Batistic, 2018). Therefore, it is expected that
individual, informal, random and variable socialization tactics buffer the negative relationship
between uncertainty and role clarity.
Thirdly, two individualized tactics, namely disjunctive, and divestiture tactics, will not
be used in this study due to several reasons. Disjunctive tactics involve socializing newcomers
with no formal mentor or role model (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Batistic & Kenda, 2018).
Using disjunctive approach would further obstruct the proposed model because individualized
tactics lack structure which is provided by institutionalized tactics (Batistic et al., working
paper). Moreover, divestiture tactics create the perceived need to obtain knowledge by
stripping away the newcomers’ identity so that they are confronted with uncertainty (Van
Maanen & Schein, 1979; Batistic & Kenda, 2018). This tactic can be portrayed as negative, for
instance resulting in ethical conflict and higher emotional exhaustion (Kammeyer-Mueller,
Simon & Rich, 2012).
In addition, it could be argued that the interaction between job demands and job
resources can have either positive outcomes or negative outcomes within the framework of JD-
R model (Bakker, Demerouti & Euwema, 2005; Bakker, Demerouti, Taris, Schaufeli &
Schreurs, 2003). As mentioned above, uncertainty is characterized as a state of lack of control
which can be seen as a demand, and individualized socialization tactics (individual, informal,
random, variable) are the resources that buffer the effect of uncertainty on work outcomes such
as role clarity.
Hypothesis 2: Individualized socialization tactics negatively moderates the relationship
between uncertainty and role clarity, in such a way that this relationship is weaker under the
higher levels of individualized socialization tactics.
| Keyla Hassell
8
The moderating role of HR commitment
Organizations adopt diverse HR systems to achieve a competitive advantage based on
different values and the uniqueness of human capital (Lepak & Snell, 1999). HR systems can
be seen as a multilevel phenomenon because they impact people on the individual, team and
organization level (Shipton et al., 2017; Peccei & Van De Voorde, 2019). HR systems are a
vital contextual factor, as they aid to form an individual’s perceptions of what is essential in
performing the work (Ostroff & Bowen, 2016). A human resource (HR) system is defined as
“a set of distinct but interrelated activities, functions, and processes that are directed at
attracting, developing, and maintaining (or disposing of) a firm's human resources” (Lado &
Wilson, 1994, p.701). The empirically supported HR architecture model (Lepak & Snell, 1999)
differentiates four types of HR systems, namely commitment-based HR system, collaborative
HR system, productivity-based HR system and compliance-based HR system. Commitment-
based HR systems will be used in this study because it intended to develop a trusting and long-
term relationship between the organization and the employee (Batistic, Cerne, Kase & Zupic,
2016) by providing trainings, teambuilding (e.g. information-sharing) and encouragement (e.g.
career development; Lepak & Snell, 1999; Ceylan, 2013). Since uncertainty is uncomfortable,
and so individuals seek information to lower it in order to reach a comfortable state (Kramer
& Kramer, 2010). Trainings are strongly emphasized to increase employees' knowledge and
skills in a localized context (Batistic et al, 2016). Further, teambuilding can encourage
newcomers to engage with their peers, as they look to their peers for information and for social
validation (Ashford et al., 2007). In addition, Batistic (2018) suggested that newcomers in new
roles will benefit the most with specific HR systems such as commitment-based HR system,
which can further increase the value of knowledge, skills and abilities.
It is proposed that commitment-based HR system offset the relationship between
uncertainty and role clarity. Firstly, organizations adopting the developmental commitment-
based HR system obtain superior human capital and encourage their employees to constantly
participate in knowledge enhancing activities (Batistic et al., 2016). Secondly, commitment-
based HR system allows for more autonomy, discretion and opportunities to partake in
decision-making which contribute to perceptions of being in control and stimulate intrinsic
motivation (Fuller Jr, Kester, & Cox, 2010). In such environments, newcomers can gradually
feel less uncertainty. Thirdly, contextual factors can exhibit itself in several ways such as a
configuration or bundle of stimuli that shape behaviors or attitudes (Johns, 2006). A bundle of
HR practices and policies are the basis of the commitment-based HR system (Batistic, 2018)
intended to stimulate a particular behavior or attitude (Johns, 2006). Thirdly, the JD-R model
| Keyla Hassell
9
can be used to justify this interaction. A commitment-based HR system can be viewed as job
resources because it fosters employees’ learning (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008) through
extensive training. This buffers the effect between job demand which can be considered as
uncertainty, on work outcomes such as role clarity (Bakker et al., 2003). Lastly, commitment-
based HR commitment is important in the uncertainty-role clarity relationship because as
mentioned before uncertainty and low role clarity are related to lack of information, and
commitment-based HR systems can help newcomers make sense of the work environment
(Guzzo and Noonan 1994) by having HR practices that inform them such as the organization's
intranet (Batistic, 2018) and encourage sharing information (e.g. team-based pay; Delaney &
Huselid, 1996). These commitment-based HR practices are particularly essential in addressing
the uncertainty that is present upon organization entry (Batistic, 2018).
Hypothesis 3: Commitment-based HR system moderates the relationship between
uncertainty and role clarity, in such a way that the relationship is weaker under higher levels
of commitment-based HR system.
- -
Team level ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individual level
-
Figure 1: Conceptual model
Uncertainty Role clarity
Individualized
socialization tactics Commitment-
based HR system
H1
H2 H3
| Keyla Hassell
10
METHODS
Research design
The data collection consisted of questionnaires and collected at one point in time which means
that a quantitative cross-sectional design was used for this study. The questionnaires were
distributed by four human resource studies students of Tilburg University in the same Master
thesis circle, researching the concept of socialization and talent management. Convenience
sampling (Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls, & Ormston, 2013) was used and although it limits the
generalization and inference making about the entire population (Warner, 2008), it was chosen
due to time constraints. The questionnaires were distributed within the network of the students,
and each student was expected to collect at least 10 teams. For the questionnaires, see
Appendix B
Sample and Procedure
The sample consisted of 102 participants, from 27 teams, each team were required to
have a line manager, one newcomer and four other employees. This study was not targeting a
specific sector and the aim was to draw a sample from the general Dutch population because a
diverse amount of organizations is used in the socialization literature. The focus of this study
is team members’ perception of the newcomers and the team leader perception. Furthermore,
an additional analysis was conducted to examine the newcomer’s perspective, who have been
working in a team for six months or less (Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998). The overall
response rate was 41.54%, since 38 teams did not respond, which resulted in a sample of 27
teams. The teams consisted of 3 to 33 members, with an average of 12.52 per team. The average
age was 32.21 years (SD = 11.60) with 18 being the youngest measured age and 66 the oldest
age measured. The mean of task tenure (function tenure) for the sample is 49.36 months (SD =
56.68).
The organization’s representatives were contacted via e-mail or in person to distribute
the anonymous online questionnaire links, which were made via Qualtrics, the Web-based
survey tool. In addition, the paper-based version was distributed. Anonymous questionnaires
give respondents more confidence to respond truthfully. The online possibility to fill in the
questionnaire increases the perceived anonymity of the participants because the employees do
not have to hand in the questionnaire to their managers (Webster et al., 2008).
Questionnaires were created in English and Dutch, one for the newcomer, one for team
members, and one for the team leader. Items that are only available in English will be translated
into Dutch and then translated back into English via backward translation method (Brislin,
| Keyla Hassell
11
1970). The first page of the questionnaire included a cover letter with the goal of the research,
information about the anonymity of the research and a consent form to ensure voluntary
participation. To guarantee the anonymity, the respondents’ names and contact information
was not be included in the questionnaires. After collecting data from the filled-out
questionnaires, the data will be analyzed.
Measures
Previously validated scales were used in this study to measure uncertainty, role clarity,
individualized socialization tactics and commitment-based HR system. The reliability of the
scales was tested for internal consistency between the items of the construct with the use of
Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951). Team members’ perception of newcomers’ uncertainty
and role clarity was measured on the individual level, and individualized socialization tactics
and commitment-based HR system on the team level, provided by the line manager. The team
members’ perception of the newcomer will be used because according to Casciaro (1998),
hierarchy is negatively related to perception precision, which means that team members could
potentially grasp relationship quite well. The following scales were used to measure the
constructs:
Role clarity. Role clarity was measured using 6 items scale of the Rizzo, House and
Lirtzman (1970) scale. A 5-point Likert scale was used ranging from (1) “strongly disagree”
to (5) “strongly agree”. An example question is “The newcomer knows what his/her
responsibilities are”. Cronbach’s alpha of the items was .89.
Uncertainty. Uncertainty was measured using the felt uncertainty scale of McGregor,
Zanna, Holmes and Spencer (2001). The scale consisted of 16 items that describe different
feelings and emotions. A 5-point Likert scale was used ranging from (1) “very slightly or not
at all” to (5) “extremely”. An example question is “Indicate to what extent you think the
newcomer has felt this way since he/she has entered your current organization or current
team: Uneasy”. Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was .95.
Individualized socialization tactics. Individualized socialization tactics (individual,
informal, random, variable) were measured using 20 items from Jones (1986). The scale
consisted of 5 items per tactic. A 7-Likert scale will be used ranging from (1) “strongly
disagree” to (7) “strongly agree”. An example question to measure informal socialization
tactics is “Much of newcomers’ job knowledge has been acquired informally on a trial and
error basis”. Higher scores on the scale represent institutionalized socialization tactics and
lower scores represent individualized socialization tactics. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was
.74.
| Keyla Hassell
12
Commitment-based HR system. Commitment-based HR system was measured using
22 items from Lepak and Snell (2002) scale. Five HR practices, namely job design, recruitment
and selection, training and development, performance appraisal, and compensation, was used
on this scale. A 7-Likert scale was used ranging from (1) “strongly disagree” to (5) “strongly
agree”. An example question is “Employees perform jobs that have a high degree of job
security”. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .71.
Control variables. Task (function) tenure and age were included in this study because
both were positively and significantly related to role clarity, and both variables reflect
employees’ experiences, which enhances employees’ understanding of their job roles
(Kauppila, 2014).
Analysis
Before the conceptual model can be tested, the reversed items were recoded, and the
data set was checked for missing values and outliers. The missing data was analyzed using
the Little’s (1988) Missing Completely At Random (MCAR) procedure. The team leader (χ2
(105) = 0.000, p = 1.000) and team members data set (χ2 (178) = 187.694, p = .295) showed
that the data was missing at random. The newcomer data did not have any missing data.
Following, the Expectation Maximization (E-M) Algorithm (Dempster, Laird, and Rubin
1977) was used to replace missing values with predicted values. EM was chosen because it
provides the most accurate estimates at all levels of missing data and it exhibits less bias
(Enders, 2003; Rubin, Witkiewitz, Andre & Reilly, 2007). In addition, the data were checked
for outliers, however, the outliers were not excluded from the data set because it could not be
concluded if all outliers were actually erroneous as they could also be a cause of random
variation.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis. To test the validity of the scales, the confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation was used in order to verify the
factors with the AMOS24 software (Farrell, 2010). The main interest in CFA is to verify the
extent to which the proposed model could sufficiently describe the sample data (Shek & Yu,
2014). The cut-off criteria of fit indexes by Hu and Bentler (1999) were used.
Only the team members data was tested because it had higher numbers of data (102)
while team leader had below 30 participants. Therefore, only role clarity scale and
uncertainty scale were tested. Without modification indices, the model indicated a significant
chi-square (χ2 (208) = 525.012, CMID/DF = 2.52, p < .01), which suggests an insufficient
model fit. Other results were the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .80 (< .95), Tucker and
Lewis’s index of fit (TLI) = .78 (< .95), Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) = .63 (<
| Keyla Hassell
13
.80), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .12 (> .06). In addition, the
factor loadings were sufficiently high, ranging from 1.00 to 1.45, exceeding .50
(unstandardized; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
After the use of modification indices, a better model fit was found. Chi-square (χ2
(200) = 406.574, CMID/DF = 2.03, p < .01), suggests an insufficient model fit. Other
outcomes were the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .87 (< .95), Tucker and Lewis’s index of
fit (TLI) = .85 (< .95), Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI) = .712 (< .80), and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .10 (< .06). In addition, the factor loadings were
sufficiently high, ranging from 1.00 to 1.49, exceeding .50 (unstandardized; Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994).
In sum, the RMSEA fit indices demonstrated a sufficient fit between the data and the
hypothesized measurement model. Both TLI and CFI were .85 or higher, which signifies
sufficient fit. Based on these fit indices, it was decided that the model fit is sufficient, and
continue with the analyses. The fit indices can be found in Appendix D
Common Method Variance. The data was going to be investigated for common
method bias by using the common latent factor, which consists of including and excluding the
common latent factor and then compare the standardized regression weights. According to
Podsakoff, MacKennzie, Lee and Podsakoff (2003), common method bias arises when
differences in responses are caused by the instrument rather than the actual tendencies of the
participants that the instrument attempts to reveal. Items with a score of .2 or higher could
indicate common method bias. CFA output of this research showed that there were no items
with a difference higher than .2, therefore, common method bias did not appear in this research.
Hierarchical linear modeling. To test the hypotheses in this research, Hox (2010)
incremental improvement procedure was utilized in order to test two sets of multilevel
models built on theoretical predictions. Hierarchical linear modeling (random coefficient
modeling) with full-maximum likelihood (FML) in HLM7 student version (Raudenbush,
Bryk, & Congdon, 2017) was conducted to examine whether uncertainty, individualized
socialization tactics and commitment-based HR system are predictive of team members’ role
clarity. Six models for hypothesis testing was analyzed.
a) only role clarity was presented as an outcome variable in order to examine the intercept
and test if there is any difference at the group level to verify the necessity of the multi-
level modeling
b) Level 1 variables (uncertainty, task tenure and age) was added as predictors to role clarity,
which tested hypothesis 1.
| Keyla Hassell
14
c) Level 2 variable; individualized socialization tactics was evaluated to determine if there
is a cross-level effect on role clarity.
d) Level 2 variable; commitment-based HR system will be evaluated to determine if there is
a cross-level effect on role clarity.
e) The interaction of uncertainty with individualized socialization tactics towards role clarity
was examined, which tested hypothesis 2.
f) The interaction of uncertainty with commitment-based HR system towards role clarity
was investigated which tested hypothesis 3.
Finally, a simple slope test was conducted to examine the visual of a statistically significant
interaction (Aiken & West, 1991).
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
The descriptive statistics and correlation of the variables used in this research are
demonstrated in Table 1. On level 1 for team members, uncertainty correlated negatively with
role clarity (r = -.25), p < .05). On the other hand, there is a positive relationship between age
and task tenure (r = .46, p < .05), which means that employees who have higher task tenure
tend to be older. On level 1 for newcomers, uncertainty and role clarity were negatively
correlated (r = -.57, p < .01) which means that newcomers who have higher uncertainty have
lower role clarity. On the level 2 for team leaders, individualized socialization tactics and
commitment-based HR correlate positively (r = .44, p < .05).
| Keyla Hassell
15
Table 2
Descriptive statistics, reliability and correlations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4
Level 1 (individual level) team members
1. Uncertainty 1.94 0.79 (.95)
2. Role Clarity 3.63 0.73 -.25* (.89)
3. Age 32.21 11.60 -.10 -.02
4. Task Tenurea 49.36 56.68 -.10 .042 .46**
Level 2 (team level) team leaders
1. Individualized socialization tactics 3.48 0.64 (.74)
2. Commitment-based HR system 3.44 0.36 .44* (.71)
Note. N (level 1) team members = 102 (uncertainty and role clarity), 101 (age), 99 (task tenure),
N (level 2) team leaders = 27. aTask Tenure is in months. Cronbach’s alphas are on the diagonal
in parentheses. *p <.05, two tailed. **p<.01, two tailed
Multi-level analysis results
Hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine whether team members’ perception
of newcomer’s uncertainty, team individualized socialization tactics and team commitment-
based HR system were predictive of team members’ perceptions of newcomer’s role clarity.
As aforementioned, the six models for hypothesis testing were analyzed with full maximum
likelihood in HLM7 student version in predicting team members’ perception of newcomer’s
role clarity.
In the first model, only team members’ perception of newcomer’s role clarity was added
as an outcome variable in order to evaluate the intercept and test if there was any difference at
the group level to verify the possibility of multi-level modeling. The results showed χ2 (26) =
56.18, p < .01, indicating that there is a significant variance in team members’ perception of
newcomer’s role clarity by the higher-level grouping and multi-level analysis could be
conducted.
In the second model, team members’ perception of newcomer’s uncertainty (group
mean centered in order to avoid misspecification and improve interpretation of the main effect;
Kreft, Leeuw & Aiken, 1995) was added as level one predictor with control variables age and
task tenure (grand mean centered) to team members’ perception of newcomer’s role clarity. In
Hypothesis 1, it was proposed that uncertainty is negatively related to role clarity. All the
| Keyla Hassell
16
control variables showed no significant outcomes, however, the results of team members’
perception of newcomer’s uncertainty on team members’ perception of newcomer’s role clarity
was significant (γ = .25, SE = .11, p < .05), indicating that H1 was supported.
In the third and fourth model, individualized socialization tactics (individual, informal,
random, variable; grand mean) or commitment-based HR system (grand mean centered) were
used to examine the cross-level on team members’ perception of newcomer’s role clarity. The
results of individualized socialization tactics showed a significant direct cross-level
relationship (γ = -.39, SE = .13, p < .01). The results of commitment-based HR-system indicated
that there is no significant result of any direct cross-level relationship (γ = .54, SE = .25, p <
.05).
In the fifth and last model investigated if there would be any interaction of team
individualized socialization tactics and team commitment-based HR system with team
members’ perception of newcomer’s uncertainty towards team members’ perception of
newcomer’s role clarity (see Appendix E). Hypothesis 2 proposed that individualized
socialization tactics negatively moderates the relationship between uncertainty and role clarity.
The result showed γ = -.28, SE = .13, p < .05, indicating that H2 was supported. Hypothesis 3
proposed that commitment-based HR system negatively moderates the relationship between
uncertainty and role clarity. The results of showed γ = .69, SE = .33, p < .05, indicating that H3
was not supported.
Lastly, a simple slope test was conducted. The coefficient variance matrix output of the
model five and six analysis was used with an online calculating tool for HLM 2-way
interactions created by Preacher, Curran, and Bauer (2006). The lower and upper values were
computed at 1 standard deviation above and below the means, with the use of unstandardized
scores. The outcomes of the simple slope test for individualized socialization tactics was at
lower bound γ SL|low = -1.11, SD = .40, p = .01 and at upper bound γ SL|high = -1.47, SD = .56, p
= .01. The outcomes of the simple slope test for commitment-based HR system was at lower
bound γ SL|low = 2.66, SD = .99, p = .01 and at upper bound γ SL|high = 3.15, SD = 1.23, p = .02.
Therefore, at the low and high, individualized socialization tactics and commitment-based HR
system the slopes are significant, see in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
| Keyla Hassell
17
Figure 2. Simple slopes for moderating effect of individualized socialization tactics on felt
uncertainty-role clarity relationship.
Figure 3. Simple slopes for moderating effect of commitment-based HR system on felt
uncertainty-role clarity relationship
UNCERTAINTY
UNCERTAINTY
RO
LE
CL
AR
ITY
UNCERTAINTY
RO
LE
CL
AR
ITY
Table 3
Results of hierarchical moderated regression analysis
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
Level 1 β β β β β β
Intercept 3.66** (.09) 3.65** (.09) 3.64** (.08) 3.64** (.09) 3.65** (.08) 3.65** (.09)
Age -.00 (.01) 0.00 (.01) -.00 (.01) .00 (.01) .00 (.01)
Task Tenurea .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00)
Uncertainty -.25* (.11) -.30** (.09) -.25** (.09)
Level 2
Individualized Socialization Tactics -.39** (.15) -.40** (.15)
Commitment-based HR system 0.54* (.25) .55* (.24)
Level 2 Interaction effect
Uncertainty x Individualized Socialization Tactics -.28* (.13)
Uncertainty x Commitment-based HR system .69* (.33)
Pseudo-R .02 .10 .06 .15 .12
Deviance 218.13 229.79 226.60 229.07 223.32 224.02
Note. N (level 1) team members = 102 (uncertainty and role clarity), 101 (age), 99 (task tenure). N (level 2) team leaders = 27. aTask Tenure is in
months. Entries are estimations of fixed effects with robust standard errors. *p <.05, two tailed. **p<.01, two tailed
Additional analysis
This analysis examined the newcomers’ perspective in order to test if it differs from
what the team members’ perception of the newcomer in their team. The sample size was 30
which is very small. The average age was 28.53 years (SD = 10.61) with 18 being the youngest
measured age and 56 the oldest age measured. The mean of task tenure for the sample is 7.41
(SD = 10.36).
Moreover, the same scales are used as the team member’s perception of the newcomer’s
feelings. However, they are rephrased towards the newcomers. For role clarity scale, an
example question was “I feel certain about how much authority I have”, with a Cronbach alpha
of .79. For the uncertainty scale, an` example question is “Indicate to what extent you have
felt this way since you have entered your current organization or current team: Unsure of self
or goals”, with a Cronbach alpha of .90. The team manager scales remained the same.
Furthermore, Hayes PROCESS (2013) was used to analyze the moderating effect of
individualized socialization tactics and commitment-based HR system on newcomer’s
uncertainty and role clarity (model 1 was used for both analyses). After preliminary screening,
all assumptions of linearity and normality for regression analysis were met. The first hypothesis
proposed that uncertainty is negatively related to role clarity. After running the multiple
regression analysis, the results showed that there is a negatively significant relationship
between newcomer’s uncertainty and role clarity (b = -.55, SE = .20, p < .01) and (b = -.58, SE
= .21, p < .01), thus H1 was supported.
The second hypothesis assumed that individualized socialization tactics (individual,
informal, random, variable) negatively moderates the uncertainty-role clarity relationship. The
outcomes revealed that there is no significant interaction of team individualized socialization
tactics on newcomer’s uncertainty and role clarity relationship (b = .19, SE = .29, p = .52).
The third hypothesis proposed that commitment-based HR system negatively
moderates the relationship between uncertainty and role clarity. The results indicated that there
is no significant interaction of team commitment-based HR system on the relationship between
newcomer’s uncertainty and role clarity (b = -.17, SE = .78, p = .83).
| Keyla Hassell
20
Table 4
Descriptive statistics, reliability and correlations
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4
Level 1 (individual level)
1. Uncertainty 1.88 0.61 (.90)
2. Role Clarity 3.82 0.60 -.57** (.79)
3. Age 28.53 10.61 -.25 -.00
4. Task Tenurea 7.41 10.36 .22 -.22 .092
Note. N (level 1) = 32, N (level 2) team leaders = 27. aTask Tenure is in months. Cronbach’s
alphas are on the diagonal in parentheses. *p <.05, two tailed. **p<.01, two tailed
Table 5
Results of Regression analysis
Variable β SE t R2
Model 1: F(5,24) = 7.95** .42
Uncertainty -.55** .20 -2.83
Individualized Socialization Tactics -.17 .20 -.84
Uncertainty x Individualized Socialization Tactics .19 .29 .66
Age -.01 .01 -.95
Task Tenurea -.01 .01 -.48
Model 2: F(5,24) = 4.58** .38
Uncertainty -.58** .21 -2.71
Commitment-based HR system -.02 .51 -.04
Uncertainty x Commitment-based HR system -.17 .78 -.22
Age -.01 .01 -.34
Task Tenurea -.01 .01 -.62
Note. N = 32. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. aTask Tenure is in months.
*p <.05, two tailed. **p<.01, two tailed
| Keyla Hassell
21
DISCUSSION
Drawing on the Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R; Demerouti et al., 2001), the current
study set out to investigate uncertainty and role clarity relationship. It was investigated from
the team members’ perspective of the newcomer and additional analysis was conducted with
the newcomer’s perspective. Additionally, the role of individualized socialization tactics and
commitment-based HR system have in the team as a context was examined. In order to explore
these relationships, a cross-sectional multi-level analysis and an additional individual analysis
was conducted. The results indicate that in fact there is a significant negative relationship
between uncertainty and role clarity for both newcomer’s perspective and the team members’
perspective of the newcomer. Moreover, individualized socialization tactics negatively
moderate the relationship between team members’ perception of the newcomer’s uncertainty
and team members’ perception of the newcomer’s role clarity. While, commitment-based HR
system positively moderate the relationship between team members’ perception of the
newcomer’s uncertainty and team members’ perception of the newcomer’s role clarity which
was not expected. Furthermore, there is no significant interaction of individualized
socialization tactics and commitment-based HR system between the newcomer’s uncertainty
and the newcomer’s role clarity from the perspective of the newcomer.
Theoretical contribution
The contribution of this thesis is four-fold. The first contribution is filling in the gap in
literature that prior research mainly focused on assessing newcomers’ self-reports and do not
take into account the perceptions of peers’ self-reports of the level of socialization of
newcomers, which was a suggestion of the several studies (e.g. Morrison, 1993; Sluss &
Thompson, 2012). Team members' perceptions of their team and team members' social network
ties are expected to coevolve (Schulte, Cohen & Klein, 2012) and shape the extent to which
team members turn to one another for advice, help, and support (e.g., Ibarra and Andrews 1993,
Umphress, Labianca, Brass, Kass & Scholten. 2003). Therefore, team members are good at
assessing certain kind of information of newcomers. This research explored team members’
perception of newcomer’s feelings. Since they are a team and they are interdependent, team
members may know information about the newcomer’s perceptions. An additional analysis
was conducted to compare the different scores between the team members’ perception of
newcomers and the newcomer’s perception. The relationship between uncertainty and role
clarity was negatively significant for both analyses. However, the moderating effect of
individualized socialization tactics and commitment-based HR-system on the relationship
| Keyla Hassell
22
between uncertainty and role clarity differ for both analyses. For the team members’ perception
of newcomers’ analysis, moderations were significant, but for the newcomer’s analysis, the
moderations were not significant. This can possibly be due to the sample size of the
newcomer’s data set. However, there is no assurance that if the data set were to be larger that
there would be significant moderations in the newcomer’s data set. In addition, Casciaro (1998)
concluded that both contextual factors and individual differences have key effects on accuracy
in interpersonal perception. A reason for the mixed results could be that individual personality
plays a vital role in predicting accuracy in interpersonal perceptions (Casciaro,1998). The team
members’- or newcomers’ personality that answered the questionnaire might not be suitable at
predicting perceptions of others and themselves. Therefore, it can only be concluded that the
results were inconclusive and further research is needed.
The second contribution is theorizing individualized socialization tactics as a
contextual variable. The results are in line with prior research, suggesting that the context can
shape behavior and attitudes (Johns, 2006). Specifically, the exploration of individualized
socialization tactics in combination with team members’ perception of newcomer’s uncertainty
that could explain team members’ perception of newcomer’s role clarity is, to the best of the
researcher’s knowledge, an unexplored field. This research promotes that individualized
socialization tactics can be effective for adjusting newcomers and lowering uncertainty. This
provides newcomers with a specific personalized and on-the-job experience that may better
integrate them (Batistic, 2018) and ample information is learned through participation in
localized contexts (Chao, 1997). Consequently, it was assumed that individualized
socialization tactics will negatively moderate the relationship between uncertainty and role
clarity. The results confirmed this relationship, indicating that individualized socialization
tactics help newcomers attain more role clarity. The moderating effect applies to individuals
with low and high individualized socialization tactics.
The third contribution is the investigation of commitment-based HR system as a
contextual construct in combination with team members’ perception of newcomer’s
uncertainty that could explain team members’ perception of newcomer’s role clarity is an
unexplored field. This research proposed that commitment-based HR system negatively
moderates the uncertainty-role clarity relationship. However, the results showed that
commitment-based HR system has a positive significant influence on the relationship between
uncertainty and role clarity, which makes that relationship more negative. An explanation for
this is that it depends on the strategic value of the newcomer. Organizations need to choose the
appropriate matching HR system for the right group of newcomers with certain human capital
| Keyla Hassell
23
(Batistic, 2018). In addition, the slope suggests that organizations should provide strong
commitment-based HR system in order to have high role clarity. Organizations should spread
the message throughout the chain and make sure managers implement those practices and it is
perceived as intended. If it is perceived as low commitment-based HR-system, then it will not
function correctly.
The last contribution is the multi-level research design in order to investigate how a
team manager’s contextual perspective embraces itself in a team environment. If it differs from
one team to another, and if the team manager’s constructs influence individual constructs.
Previous research suggests exploring the effects of the team on the individual in order to have
a more comprehensive understanding of the construct that is being investigated (Papaioannou,
Marsh & Theodorakis, 2004). Moreover, the team manager’s score was used as the team’s
perspective and was analyzed to answer the research question. This research demonstrated that
taking into account different perspectives such as the team manager can indicate the extent to
which the newcomers are being socialized effectively. The results showed that individualized
socialization tactics and commitment-based HR system provided by the team manager have
different effects on the uncertainty-role clarity relationship. Individualized socialization tactics
are helping newcomers reduce uncertainty and high commitment-based HR system is needed
to decrease newcomer’s uncertainty (uncertainty and role clarity from the team members’
perspective). The success of socialization of newcomers needs to be examined more broadly,
by including the different stakeholders’ views (Cooper-Thomas, & Anderson, 2006). Further,
this research extends socialization research and answers the request of Ashforth et al., (2007)
to sources of socialization tactics, specifically the organization and group (via occupational and
localized norms) relationship. In addition, this research extends HR literature by doing multi-
level research (Molloy et al., 2010).
Limitations and future research
Although the current research has valuable theoretical contributions, the following
limitations should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results.
First, this research has a cross-sectional design, which indicates that data were collected
at one point in time due to time constraints. Therefore, it is not possible to specify about the
causality of the variables. Socialization research usually has measured newcomer’s behaviors
several times during the entry phase, which allows understanding of newcomers’ behavior and
how it may change over time as they familiarize to their new roles (Boswell, Shipp, Payne, &
Culbertson, 2009; Chen, 2005). Therefore, the data is likely is insufficient because it was
collected at one point in time (Ritchie et al., 2013). It is recommended to future research could
| Keyla Hassell
24
make use of longitudinal research. Collecting data in different waves with the same sample can
increase the opportunity of identifying causality (Rajulton, 2001). Prior research has suggested
that the socialization process is typically measured at a three-month interval, at the entry, three
months, and six months following the entry evolution (Bauer et al., 2007). Another
recommendation is diary study because Ashforth (2012) mentioned newcomers experience
entry shock and that socialization is also usually measured multiple times during the entry
period. Ashforth (2012) concluded about this topic that it is challenging to create a clear
overview of how often and when specific processes and outcomes should be evaluated. The
socialization process is reliant on individuals involved and the context, which makes measuring
it complicated.
Second, the sample size was small for this study. The sample consisted of 27
organizations from the Netherlands which includes 27 team managers, 102 team members and
30 newcomers. Many methodologists have warned that a small sample size indicates low
statistical power, that is, a high probability of Type II error (e.g., Cohen, 1970). Thus, especially
the additional analysis was with a very small sample, which can possibly explain the non-
significant of the interactions. In addition, organizations in the current research have been
approached via the network of the students, which is called convenient sampling (Ritchie et
al., 2013). Therefore, it could lack representativeness and it needs to be studied further if the
findings can be generalized to other countries and organizations (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Future
research could make use of a bigger sample size and random sampling in order to have a more
representative sample.
Third, this study only examined the commitment-based HR system as a contextual
factor, which makes the relationship between team members’ perception of newcomer’s
uncertainty and role clarity more negative. Contextual factors can exhibit itself in several ways
such as a configuration or bundle of stimuli that shape behaviors or attitudes (Johns, 2006)
such as HR systems. In addition, other HR systems were excluded from this research such as
compliance-based HR system (Lepak & Snell, 1999) and their effects on the relationship
between the uncertainty-role clarity relationships. ki Further, Lepak and Snell (1999) state that
employment modes are rarely similar, and HR systems depend on the dynamics of human
capital. Thus, future research should investigate the effects of contextual constructs, such as
different HR systems or a combination of HR systems, to gain more insight into the relationship
they could have with role clarity. Another future research could be using several types of HR
systems in combination with socialization tactics. Batistic (2018) argued that once HR systems
are in place, different socialization tactics can be used to socialize newcomers. For example,
| Keyla Hassell
25
compliance HR system and institutionalized approaches, because compliance HR system is
implemented for technical jobs which are less complicated and institutionalized approach can
provide guidelines and collective way of socialization those newcomers.
Practical implications
This study leads to various practical implication for organizations with the desire to
improve newcomers’ adjustment. Newcomers attempt to reduce feelings of uncertainty when
they enter an organization. Uncertainty can be mitigated by individualized socialization tactics;
which organizations can use to assist newcomers. Firstly, organizations can think on how they
inform newcomers, for example having a devoted section for newcomers on the organization’s
intranet (Batistic, 2018), on-the-job training and orientation, which can enable newcomers to
understand how the organization operates. Secondly, welcoming activities (e.g. informal
meetings) or informal activities organized by the firm which encourage newcomers and
organizational members to come together and build relationships. With the individualized
socialization tactics, the organization demonstrates flexibility and it may be understood
positively by newcomers. Overall, separately from the socialization process, the main objective
of these activities is to strengthen the organizational culture and to provide newcomers with a
sense of purpose, which can be reflected in higher newcomers’ performance (Klein & Polin,
2012).
Moreover, understanding organizational context such as commitment-based HR system
is vital for organizations and managers. Managers influence employees by the signals they send
about valued behavior, attitudes, and how the environment define achievement. Therefore,
organizations and managers should take their role seriously and provide the right signals for
employees to follow them. This research suggests that with high commitment-based HR system
can be beneficial in the relationship between uncertainty and role clarity from the view of team
members’ perceptions. Therefore, it might be good for organizations to focus on implementing
high commitment-based HR-system and make sure it is perceived as high by employees. High
commitment-based HR system develops a trusting relationship between the employee and the
organization (Batistic et al., 2016) by providing teambuilding, trainings and career
development opportunities (Lepak & Snell, 1999; Ceylan, 2013). These activities can provide
newcomers with information to increase role clarity and build relationships with coworkers.
| Keyla Hassell
26
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Allen, D. G. (2006). Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness
and turnover? Journal of Management, 32, 237–256. doi:10.1177/0149206305280103.
Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. (2010). Retaining talent: Replacing
misconceptions with evidence-based strategies. Academy of management
Perspectives, 24(2), 48-64. doi:10.5465/ AMP.2010.51827775.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Chao, G. T., & Bauer, T. N. (2017). Taking stock of two relational
aspects of organizational life: Tracing the history and shaping the future of socialization
and mentoring research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 324-337.
doi:10.1037/apl0000086.
Anderson, N., Thomas, H.D.C., 1996. Work group socialization. In: West, M.A. (Ed.),
Handbook of work group psychology. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, pp. 423–
450.
Anderson, C. M., Riddle, B. L., & Martin, M. M. (1999). Socialization processes in groups. The
handbook of group communication theory and research, 139-163.
Ashforth, B. E. (2012). The role of time in socialization. The Oxford handbook of
organizational socialization, 161. doi: 10.4324/9781410600035.
Ashford, S. J., & Nurmohamed, S. (2012). From Past to Present and Into the Future: A
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Socialization Literature. In C. R. Wanberg (Ed.), The Oxford
Handbook of Organizational Socialization (pp. 8-24). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ashforth, B. K., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer
adjustment. Academy of management Journal, 39(1), 149-178.
Ashforth, B. E., Saks, A. M., & Lee, R. T. (1997). On the dimensionality of Jones'(1986)
measures of organizational socialization tactics. International Journal of Selection and
Assessment, 5(4), 200-214.
Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D. M., & Harrison, S. H. (2007). Socialization in organizational
contexts. In G. P. Hodgkinson & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International Review of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 22, 1–70. Chichester: Wiley.
Arbuckle JL. (2009). Amos 17.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS.
| Keyla Hassell
27
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career
development international, 13(3), 209-223. doi: 10.1108/13620430810870476.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job
demands on burnout. Journal of occupational health psychology, 10(2), 170. doi:
10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170.
Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., Taris, T. W., Schaufeli, W. B., & Schreurs, P. J. (2003). A
multigroup analysis of the job demands-resources model in four home care
organizations. International Journal of stress management, 10(1), 16. doi:
10.1177/0018726700536001.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods. Oxford University Press, USA.
Batistič, S. (2018). Looking beyond-socialization tactics: The role of human resource systems
in the socialization process. Human Resource Management Review, 28(2), 220-233.
doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.06.004.
Batistic, S. (2014). Organizational socialization tactics, individual differences, and the
relationship building process in early socialization: a personal network change
perspective (Doctoral dissertation, University of Reading).
Batistič, S., Černe, M., Kaše, R., & Zupic, I. (2016). The role of organizational context in
fostering employee proactive behavior: The interplay between HR system
configurations and relational climates. European Management Journal, 34(5), 579-
588. doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2016.01.008.
Batistič, S., & Kaše, R. (2015). The organizational socialization field fragmentation: A
bibliometric review. Scientometrics, 104(1), 121–146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11192-015-1538-1.
Batistic, S., & Kenda, R. (2018). Toward a model of socializing project team members: An
integrative approach. International Journal of Project Management, 36(5), 687-700.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.03.003.
Batistic, S., Meyer, M. C., & Cooper-Thomas, H. (working paper). Even the brightest start
loses its light: a dual multi-level process of the organizational socialization of talented
newcomers. Tilburg university. Seville conference.
Bauer, T. N., Bodner, T., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Tucker, J. S. (2007). Newcomer
adjustment during organizational socialization: a meta-analytic review of antecedents,
outcomes, and methods. Journal of applied psychology, 92(3), 707. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.92.3.707.
| Keyla Hassell
28
Bauer, D. J., & Curran, P. J. (2005). Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression:
Inferential and graphical techniques. Multivariate behavioral research, 40(3), 373-400.
doi: 10.1207/s15327906mbr4003_5.
Bauer, T., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational socialization: a review
and directions for future research. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and
human resources management (Vol. 16, pp. 149-214). Stamford, CT.
Black, J. S., Mendenhall, M., & Oddou, G. (1991). Toward a comprehensive model of
international adjustment: An integration of multiple theoretical perspectives. Academy
of management review, 16(2), 291-317. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/258863.
Boswell, W. R., Shipp, A. J., Payne, S. C., & Culbertson, S. S. (2009). Changes in newcomer
job satisfaction over time: Examining the pattern of honeymoons and hangovers.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 844. doi: 10.1037/a0014975.
Casciaro, T. (1998). Seeing things clearly: Social structure, personality, and accuracy in social
network perception. Social Networks, 20(4), 331-351. doi: 10.1016/S0378-
8733(98)00008-2
Cascio, W. F. (2006). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits
(7th ed.). Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Ceylan, C. (2013). Commitment-based HR practices, different types of innovation activities
and firm innovation performance. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 24(1), 208-226. doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.680601.
Chao, G. T. (1997). Unstructured training and development: The role of organizational
socialization. In S. W. J. Kozlowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas & M. S. Teachout (Eds.),
Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 129–151). Mahwah:
Erlbaum.
Chen, G. (2005). Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes. The
Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 101–116. retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20159643.
Cohen, J. (1970). Approximate power and sample size determination for common one-sample
and two-sample hypothesis tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30,
811–831. doi: 10.1177/001316447003000404.
Cole, M. S., Schaninger Jr, W. S., & Harris, S. G. (2002). The workplace social exchange
network: A multilevel, conceptual examination. Group & Organization Management,
27(1), 142-167. doi: 10.1177/1059601102027001008
| Keyla Hassell
29
Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & 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. doi:
10.1108/02683940610673997.
Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices
on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal,
39(4), 949–969.
Demerouti E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001). The Job Demands -
Resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512. doi:
10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.499.
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete
data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the royal statistical society. Series B
(methodological), 1-38. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2984875.
DeSimone, J. A., Harms, P. D., & DeSimone, A. J. (2015). Best practice recommendations for
data screening. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(2), 171-181. doi:
10.1002/job.1962.
Den Hartog, D.N., Boselie, P. and Paauwe, J. 2004. Performance Management: A Model and
Research Agenda. Applied Psychology, 53: 556–569. doi:10.1111/j.1464-
0597.2004.00188.
Ellis, A. M., Bauer, T. N., Mansfield, L. R., Erdogan, B., Truxillo, D. M., & Simon, L. S.
(2015). Navigating uncharted waters: Newcomer socialization through the lens of stress
theory. Journal of Management, 41(1), 203-235.doi: 10.1177/0149206314557525.
Ellis, A. M., Nifadkar, S. S., Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2017). Newcomer adjustment:
Examining the role of managers’ perception of newcomer proactive behavior during
organizational socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(6), 993-1001.
doi:10.1037/apl0000201.
Enders, C. K. (2003). Using the expectation maximization algorithm to estimate coefficient
alpha for scales with item-level missing data. Psychological methods, 8(3), 322.
doi:10.1037/1082-989X.8.3.322.
Farrell, A. M. (2010). Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty,
and Shiu (2009). Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 324-327.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.003.
Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel
systems. Research in personnel and human resources management, 3(1), 141-183. doi:
| Keyla Hassell
30
Fuller, J. B., Jr., Kester, K., & Cox, S. S. (2010). Proactive personality and job performance:
exploring job autonomy as a moderator. Journal of Managerial Issues, 22(1), 35-51.
Graen, G. B. (1976). Role-making process within complex organizations. In M. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: McNally.
Griffeth, R. W., & Hom, P. W. (2001). Retaining valued employees. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guzzo, R.A. and Noonan, K.A. 1994. Human Resource Practices as Communications and the
Psychological Contract. Human Resource Management, 33: 447–462.
doi:10.1002/hrm.3930330311.
Hart, Z. P. & Miller, V. D. (2005). Context and message content during organizational
socialization: A research note. Human Communication Research, 31, 295–309. doi:
10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00873.
Hayes, A. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis.
New York, NY: Guilford, 3–4. https://doi.org/978-1-60918-230-4.
Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. New York: Routledge.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural equation modeling:
a multidisciplinary journal, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,
productivity, and corporate financial performance. Academy of management
journal, 38(3), 635-672.
Ibarra, H., & Andrews, S. B. (1993). Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of
network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Administrative science
quarterly, 277-303.
Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of
management review, 31(2), 386-408. doi:10.5465/amr.2006.20208687.
Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279.doi: 10.2307/256188.
Jöreskog K. G, Sörbom D. (2004). LISREL 8.7 for Windows. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific
Software International.
Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964). Organizational
stress. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1965-08866-000.
Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & de Hoogh, A. H. (2013). Ethical leadership and followers'
helping and initiative: The role of demonstrated responsibility and job autonomy.
| Keyla Hassell
31
European journal of work and organizational psychology, 22(2), 165-181. doi:
10.1080/1359432x.2011.640773.
Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., Simon, L. S., Rich, B. L., 2012. The psychic cost of doing wrong:
ethical conflict, divestiture socialization, and emotional exhaustion. Journal of
management, 38(3), 784–808. doi: 10.1177/0149206310381133.
Katz, R. 1980. Time and work: Toward an integrative perspective. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cum-
mings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 2: 81-121. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.
Kreft, I. G., De Leeuw, J., & Aiken, L. S. (1995). The effect of different forms of centering in
hierarchical linear models. Multivariate behavioral research, 30(1), 1-21. doi:
10.1207/s15327906mbr3001_1.
Klein, H. J., & Polin, B. (2012). Are organizations on board with best practices onboarding?
In C. R. Wanberg (Ed.), The oxford handbook of organizational socialization (pp. 267–
287). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Klein, H. J., & Weaver, N. A. (2000). The effectiveness of an organizational-level orientation
training program in the socialization of new hires. Personnel Psychology, 53(1), 47–
66. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00193.x.
Kramer, M. W. (2010). Organizational socialization: Joining and leaving organizations.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lado, A. A., & Wilson, M. C. (1994). Human resource systems and sustained competitive
advantage: A competency-based perspective. Academy of management review, 19(4),
699-727.
Lapointe, É., Vandenberghe, C., & Boudrias, J. S. (2014). Organizational socialization tactics
and newcomer adjustment: The mediating role of role clarity and affect‐based trust
relationships. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87(3), 599-624.
doi: :10.1111/joop.12065.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of
human capital allocation and development. Academy of management review, 24(1), 31-
48. doi:10.5465/amr.1999.1580439.
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Examining the human resource architecture: The
relationships among human capital, employment, and human resource
configurations. Journal of management, 28(4), 517-543.
doi:10.1177/014920630202800403.
| Keyla Hassell
32
Little, R. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing
values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198-1202.
doi:10.2307/2290157.
Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience in entering
unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative science quarterly, 226-251.
Mahalanobis, P. C. (1936). On the generalized distance in statistics. National Institute of
Science of India. 2, 49–55.
Michael, D. N. (1973). On learning to plan and planning to learn: The social psychology of
changing toward future responsive societal learning, San Francisco, Jose.
Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., & Lee, T. W. (2001). How to keep your best employees:
Developing an effective retention policy. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 15(4), 96-108.
Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry:
Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16(1),
92-120. doi:10.2307/258608.
Molloy, J., Ployhart, R. and Wright, P. (2010). ‘The myth of “the” micro–macro divide:
bridging system-level and disciplinary divides’. Journal of Management, 37: 2, 581–
609. doi: 10.1177/0149206310365000.
Morrison, E. W. (1995). Information Usefulness and Acquisition During Organizational
Encounter. Management Communication Quarterly, 9(2), 131-155.
doi:10.1177/0893318995009002001.
Morrison, E. W. (1993). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on newcomer
socialization. Journal of applied psychology, 78(2), 173. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.78.2.173.
Nishii, L. H., & Paluch, R. M. (2018). Leaders as HR sense givers: Four HR implementation
behaviors that create strong HR systems. Human Resource Management Review. 28(3),
319-323. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.02.007.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York,
NY:McGraw-Hill.
Ostroff, C., & Bowen, D. E. (2016). Reflections on the 2014 decade award: Is there strength in
the construct of HR system strength?. Academy of Management Review, 41(2), 196-
214. doi: 10.5465/amr.2015.0323.
Papaioannou, A., Marsh, H. W., & Theodorakis, Y. (2004). A multilevel approach to
motivational climate in physical education and sport settings: An individual or a group
| Keyla Hassell
33
level construct?. Journal of sport and exercise psychology, 26(1), 90-118.
doi:10.1123/jsep.26.1.90.
Peccei, R., & Van De Voorde, K. (2019). The application of the multilevel paradigm in human
resource management–outcomes research: Taking stock and going forward.
Journal of Management, 45(2), 786-818. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00322.x
Pfeffer, J., and Salancik, G. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource
Dependence Perspective, Harper Row, New York.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing
interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve
analysis. Journal of educational and behavioral statistics, 31(4), 437-448.
doi:10.3102/10769986031004437 HLM 2-way interaction:
http://www.quantpsy.org/interact/hlm2
Rajulton, F. (2001). The fundamentals of longitudinal research: an overview. Canadian Studies
in Population, 28(2), 169-185.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data
analysis methods. (Vol. 1). London, UK: Sage.
Raudenbush, S.W., Bryk, A.S, & Congdon, R. (2017). HLM 7.03 for Windows [Computer
software]. Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research
practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage.
Riordan, C. M., Weatherly, E. W., Vandenberg, R. J., & Self, R. M. (2001). The effects of pre-
entry experiences and socialization tactics on newcomer attitudes and turnover. Journal
of Managerial Issues, 13(2), 159–176.
Rousseau, D.M. 1995. Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and
Unwritten Agreements, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rubin, L. H., Witkiewitz, K., Andre, J. S., & Reilly, S. (2007). Methods for handling missing
data in the behavioral neurosciences: Don’t throw the baby rat out with the bath
water. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 5(2), A71.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997a). Organizational Socialization: Making Sense of the
Past and Present as a Prologue for the Future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234-
279. doi: 10.1006/jvbe.1997.1614.
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2011). Getting newcomers engaged: The role of socialization
tactics. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(5), 383-402.
doi:10.1108/02683941111139001.
| Keyla Hassell
34
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2012). Getting Newcomers on Board: A Review of Socialization
Practices and Introduction to Socialization Resource Theory. In C. R. Wanberg (Ed.),
The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Socialization (pp. 27-55). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Saks, A. M., & Gruman, J. A. (2018). Socialization resources theory and newcomers’ work
engagement: a new pathway to newcomer socialization. Career Development
International, 23(1), 12-32. doi: 10.1108/CDI-12-2016-0214.
Saks, A. M., Uggerslev, K. L., & Fassina, N. E. (2007). Socialization tactics and newcomer
adjustment: A meta-analytic review and test of a model. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 70(3), 413-446. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2006.12.004.
Schulte, M., Cohen, N. A., & Klein, K. J. (2012). The coevolution of network ties and
perceptions of team psychological safety. Organization Science, 23(2), 564-581.doi:
10.1287/orsc.1100.0582.
Shek, D. T., & Yu, L. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS: a
demonstration. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 13(2),
191-204. doi: 10.1515/ijdhd-2014-0305.
Shipton, H., Budhwar, P., Sparrow, P., & Brown, A. (2017). Editorial overview: HRM and
innovation—a multi‐level perspective. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(2),
203-208. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12138.
Skuza, A., Scullion, H., & McDonnell, A. (2013). An analysis of the talent management
challenges in a post-communist country: The case of Poland. The International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 24(3), 453-470.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.694111.
Sluss, D. M., & Thompson, B. S. (2012). Socializing the newcomer: The mediating role of
leader–member exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 119(1), 114-125. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.05.005.
Snell, A. (2006). Onboarding: Speeding the way up to productivity. Dublin, CA: Taleo
Research.
Umphress, E. E., Labianca, G., Brass, D. J., Kass, E., & Scholten, L. (2003). The role of
instrumental and expressive social ties in employees' perceptions of organizational
justice. Organization science, 14(6), 738-753. doi: 10.1287/orsc.14.6.738.24865
Van Dierendonck, D., & Patterson, K. (2010). Servant leadership: Developments in theory and
research. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
| Keyla Hassell
35
Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. In B.
M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 209-264). Greenwich:
JAI Press, Inc.
Zijlstra, W. P., Van Der Ark, L. A., & Sijtsma, K. (2007). Outlier detection in test and
questionnaire data. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(3), 531-555.
doi:10.1080/00273170701384340
| Keyla Hassell
36
APPENDIX A
COVER LETTER FOR TEAM MANAGER AND TEAM MEMBER
Dear participant,
Thank you for agreeing to participate in the Socialization of Talents research project. This questionnaire is about the socialization of newcomers and about the effects of an organization’s talent management approach.
Anonymity By participating in this research, you contribute to a large database that will be analyzed by the two principal investigators and their master students mentioned below. Strict anonymity of your answers is guaranteed, and all personal information will be deleted from the dataset. Furthermore, only the research team of Tilburg University will have access to your answers and will be used for education and research purposes only. For future research, a completely anonymous data file will be stored for ten years on the secure servers of our university.
Due to anonymity of the respondents we will therefore ask you to fill in the unique identifying code the researcher provided you with, in order to indicate your team membership. Note that we never report back answers of individual team members to their team manager. Team scores are created by the average of the scores of the team members, or by the team manager’s score, in which case the team manager represents the team. In addition, the Ethical Review Board of Tilburg University has approved this research.
Please read the following instructions before completing the questionnaire: 1. We kindly ask you to answer in the questions yourself, without consultation with
others..2. For the question that regard teams: please select the answer option that in your
opinion most closely matches the situation in your team.3. The questionnaire asks for your opinion, so you can never give a wrong answer!4. Do not think about single questions for too long, but select the answer category
that comes to mind first.5. The same questions are sometimes asked in different ways to increase the
reliability of the questionnaire.6. Completing this questionnaire will take about 10-15 minutes.
Permission statement I have read and understood this form. I understand the purpose of the research and understand what is asked of me. I understand that I can stop my participation in this research at any time and that I can decide not to answer questions. I understand that participation is confidential and that no conclusions are drawn on the basis of my individual contribution. I understand that the anonymized data from this research will be kept for 10 years on a secure server, as per protocol. I voluntarily participate in this research. I understand that I can ask questions about the research to the following people: Christina Meyers and Sasa Batistic.
By signing below, you agree with the conditions mentioned above.
Signature: __________________________________________
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in the research!
On behalf of the research team
Keyla Hassell, Caitlin van Mil, Ana Tolentino, Alicia Meijer ,Dr. Christina Meyers , Dr. Sasa Batistic.
| Keyla Hassell
37
For any comments or complaints about this research, you can also contact the Ethics Review Board of Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences.
APPENDIX B
COVER LETTER FOR NEWCOMER
Dear participant,
Thank you for agreeing to participate in the Socialization of Talents research project. This questionnaire is about the socialization of newcomers and about the effects of an organization’s talent management approach.
Anonymity By participating in this research, you contribute to a large database that will be analyzed by the two principal investigators and their master students mentioned below. Strict anonymity of your answers is guaranteed, and all personal information will be deleted from the dataset. Furthermore, only the research team of Tilburg University will have access to your answers and will be used for education and research purposes only. For future research, a completely anonymous data file will be stored for ten years on the secure servers of our university.
Due to anonymity of the respondents, we will therefore ask you to fill in the unique identifying code the researcher provided you with, in order to indicate your team membership. Note that we will never report back answers of individual team members to their team manager. Team scores are created by the average of the scores of the team members, or by the team manager’s score, in which case the team manager represents the team. In addition, the Ethical Review Board of Tilburg University has approved this research.
Please read the following instructions before completing the questionnaire: 1. We kindly ask you to answer the questions yourself, without consultation with others..
2. For the questions that regard teams: please select the answer option that inyour opinion most closely matches the situation in your team.
3. The questionnaire asks for your opinion, so you can never give a wronganswer!
4. Do not think about single questions for too long, but select the answer categorythat comes to mind first.
5. The same questions are sometimes asked in different ways to increase thereliability of the questionnaire.
6. Completing this questionnaire will take about 15-20 minutes.
Permission statement I have read and understood this form. I understand the purpose of the research and understand what is asked of me. I understand that I can stop my participation in this research at any time and that I can decide not to answer questions. I understand that participation is confidential and that no conclusions are drawn on the basis of my individual contribution. I understand that the anonymized data from this research will be kept for 10 years on a secure server, as per protocol. I voluntarily participate in this research. I understand that I can ask questions about the research to the following people: Christina Meyers and Sasa Batistic.
By signing below, you agree with the conditions mentioned above.
Signature: __________________________________________
| Keyla Hassell
38
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in the research!
On behalf of the research team
Keyla Hassell, Caitlin van Mil, Ana Tolentino, Alicia Meijer , Dr. Christina Meyers, Dr. Sasa Batistic.
For any comments or complaints about this research, you can also contact the Ethics Review Board of Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences.
APPENDIX C
QUESTIONNAIRE Please select the box that applies to you, or enter your answer on the dotted line
Please give the name of YOUR ORGANIZATION. This information is used for matching purpose only.
……………………………………................................
Please fill in the code the researcher provided you with. We need this information to be able to compare and link the aggregate data. No one will get to see your answers (except the Tilburg University research team). ……………………………………................................
SOCIALIZATION TACTICS FOR TEAM LEADER QUESTIONNAIRE
The following questions are about the socialization process of new team members. Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the statements below.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Somewhat disagree
4 Neither agree or disagree
5 Somewhat
agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree
In the last six months, newcomers in my team have been extensively involved
with other new recruits in common, job related training activities. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Newcomers in my team have been instrumental in helping each other to understand their job requirements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
My team puts all newcomers through the same set of learning experiences. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Most of newcomers’ training has been carried out apart from other newcomers in my team. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
There is a sense of "being in the same boat" amongst newcomers in my team. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Newcomers in my team have been through a set of training experiences, which are specifically designed, to give them a thorough knowledge of job related skills.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
During newcomers’ training for this job, they were normally physically apart from regular organizational members. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
| Keyla Hassell
39
Newcomers in my team did not perform any of their normal job responsibilities until they were thoroughly familiar with departmental procedures and work methods.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Much of newcomers’ job knowledge in my team has been acquired informally on a trial and error basis.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Newcomers have been very aware that they are seen as "learning the ropes"
in my team.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
There is a clear pattern for newcomers in the way one role leads to another or
one job assignment leads to another in my team.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Each stage of the training process for newcomers in my team has, and will,
expand and build upon the job knowledge gained during the preceeding stages
of the process.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The movement from role to role and function to function to build up experience
and a track record is very apparent newcomers in my team.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
My team does not put newcomers through an identifiable sequence of learning
experiences.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The steps in the career ladder for newcomers are clearly specified in my team.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Newcomers in my team can predict their future career path by observing other
people's experiences.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Newcomers have a good knowledge of the time it will take them to go through
the various stages of the training process in my team.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The way in which newcomers’ progress through in my team will follow a fixed
timetable of events has been clearly communicated.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Newcomers have little idea when to expect a new job assignment or training
exercise in my team.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Most of newcomers’ knowledge of what may happen to them in the future
comes informally, through the grapevine, rather than through regular
organizational channels.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
COMMITMENT-BASED HR SYSTEM FOR TEAM LEADER QUESTIONNAIRE
The following questions are about your team and the organization. Please indicate
the extent to which you agree with each of the statements below.
1
Strongly disagree
2
Disagree
3
Neither agree nor
disagree
4
Agree
5
Strongly agree
Employees perform jobs that allow them to routinely make changes. 1 2 3 4 5
| Keyla Hassell
40
Employees perform jobs that empower them to make decisions.
1 2 3 4 5
Employees perform jobs that have a high degree of job security.
1 2 3 4 5
Employees perform jobs that include a wide variety of tasks.
1 2 3 4 5
Employees perform jobs that involve job rotation.
1 2 3 4 5
The recruitment/selection process for employees emphasizes promotion from within.
1 2 3 4 5
The recruitment/selection process for employees focuses on selecting the best all-around candidate, regardless of the specific job.
1 2 3 4 5
The recruitment/selection process for employees focuses on their ability to contribute to our strategic objectives.
1 2 3 4 5
The recruitment/selection process for employees places priority on their potential to learn (e.g., aptitude).
1 2 3 4 5
Training activities for employees are comprehensive.
1 2 3 4 5
Training activities for employees are continuous.
1 2 3 4 5
Training activities for employees require extensive investments of
time/money.
1 2 3 4 5
Training activities for employees seek to increase short-term productivity.
1 2 3 4 5
Our training activities for employees strive to develop firm-specific
skills/knowledge.
1 2 3 4 5
Performance appraisals for employees are based on input from multiple
sources (peers, subordinates, etc.).
1 2 3 4 5
Performance appraisals for employees emphasize employee learning.
1 2 3 4 5
Performance appraisals for employees focus on their contribution to our strategic objectives.
1 2 3 4 5
Performance appraisals for employees include developmental feedback.
1 2 3 4 5
Compensation/rewards for employees focus primarily on their short-term performance.
1 2 3 4 5
Compensation/rewards for employees include an extensive benefits package.
1 2 3 4 5
Compensation/rewards for employees include stock ownership programs (Employee stock ownership plan, etc).
1 2 3 4 5
Compensation/rewards for employees provide incentives for new ideas. 1 2 3 4 5
| Keyla Hassell
41
FELT UNCERTAINTY FOR TEAM MEMBER QUESTIONNAIRE
IMPORTANT: In the following section, we will ask you to answer questions about the
person who has been in the team for six months or less (i.e., hereafter the
newcomer).
Your team has one (or more) newcomer(s), that is, a person who has entered the
team no longer than 6 months ago. The following questions will ask you about
your experiences with the last newcomer that joined your team.
This part consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and
emotions. Indicate to what extent you think the newcomer has felt this way
since he/she has entered your current team.
1 Very slightly or not at
all
2 A Little
3 Moderately
4 Quite a bit
5
Extremely
Mixed. 1 2 3 4 5
Uneasy. 1 2 3 4 5
Torn. 1 2 3 4 5
Bothered. 1 2 3 4 5
Preoccupied. 1 2 3 4 5
Confused. 1 2 3 4 5
Unsure of self or goals. 1 2 3 4 5
Contradictory. 1 2 3 4 5
Distractible. 1 2 3 4 5
Unclear. 1 2 3 4 5
Restless. 1 2 3 4 5
Confused about identity. 1 2 3 4 5
Uncomfortable. 1 2 3 4 5
Conflicted. 1 2 3 4 5
In- decisive. 1 2 3 4 5
Chaotic. 1 2 3 4 5
Based on your own experience with the newcomer, please indicate the extent to
which you agree with each of the statements below.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree
4 Agree
5 Strongly agree
The newcomer knows what his/her responsibilities are. 1 2 3 4 5
The newcomer knows exactly what is expected of him/her. 1 2 3 4 5
The newcomer knows how to divide his/her time properly. 1 2 3 4 5
The newcomer has clear, planned goals and objectives for his/her job. 1 2 3 4 5
| Keyla Hassell
42
The newcomer feels certain about how much authority he/she has. 1 2 3 4 5
The newcomer knows what has to be done 1 2 3 4 5
ROLE CLARITY FOR NEWCOMERS QUESTIONNAIRE
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the statements below.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Neither agree nor disagree
4 Agree
5 Strongly agree
I know what my responsibilities are. 1 2 3 4 5
I know exactly what is expected of me. 1 2 3 4 5
I know how to divide my time properly. 1 2 3 4 5
I have clear, planned goals and objectives for my job. 1 2 3 4 5
I feel certain about how much authority I have. 1 2 3 4 5
I know what has to be done.
1 2 3 4 5
FELT UNCERTAINTY FOR NEWCOMER QUESTIONNAIRE
This part consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions.
Indicate to what extent you have felt this way since you have entered your current
team.
1 Very slightly or not at
all
2 A Little
3 Moderately
4 Quite a bit
5
Extremely
Mixed. 1 2 3 4 5
Uneasy. 1 2 3 4 5
Torn. 1 2 3 4 5
Bothered. 1 2 3 4 5
Preoccupied. 1 2 3 4 5
Confused. 1 2 3 4 5
Unsure of self or goals. 1 2 3 4 5
Contradictory. 1 2 3 4 5
Distractible. 1 2 3 4 5
Unclear. 1 2 3 4 5
Restless. 1 2 3 4 5
Confused about identity. 1 2 3 4 5
Uncomfortable. 1 2 3 4 5
Conflicted. 1 2 3 4 5
In- decisive. 1 2 3 4 5
Chaotic. 1 2 3 4 5
DEMOGRAPHICS
What is your gender?
☐ Male
☐ Female
| Keyla Hassell
43
What is your age (in years)?
………….. years old
For how long have you been working in this team?
…………..year(s) …….. month(s) For how long have you been working for this organization? (in years)
…………..year(s) …….. month(s) For how long have you been working in this function/role? (in months)
…………..year(s) …….. month(s) How many members does your team have?
…………..members
Thank you for your cooperation!
Please add your comments/remarks below
| Keyla Hassell
44
APPENDIX D
D.1 AMOS model without modification indices
D.2 CFA without modification indices
Model Fit Summary
CMIN
Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
Default model 45 525.012 208 .000 2.524
Saturated model 253 .000 0
Independence model 22 1826.139 231 .000 7.905
RMR, GFI
Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI
Default model .082 .699 .634 .575
Saturated model .000 1.000
| Keyla Hassell
45
Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI
Independence model .440 .200 .124 .183
Baseline Comparisons
Model NFI
Delta1
RFI
rho1
IFI
Delta2
TLI
rho2 CFI
Default model .713 .681 .804 .779 .801
Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000
Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Parsimony-Adjusted Measures
Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI
Default model .900 .642 .721
Saturated model .000 .000 .000
Independence model 1.000 .000 .000
NCP
Model NCP LO 90 HI 90
Default model 317.012 253.313 388.391
Saturated model .000 .000 .000
Independence model 1595.139 1462.749 1734.959
FMIN
Model FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90
Default model 5.198 3.139 2.508 3.845
Saturated model .000 .000 .000 .000
Independence model 18.081 15.793 14.483 17.178
RMSEA
Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE
Default model .123 .110 .136 .000
Independence model .261 .250 .273 .000
AIC
Model AIC BCC BIC CAIC
Default model 615.012 641.550 733.135 778.135
Saturated model 506.000 655.205 1170.118 1423.118
Independence model 1870.139 1883.113 1927.888 1949.888
ECVI
Model ECVI LO 90 HI 90 MECVI
Default model 6.089 5.459 6.796 6.352
Saturated model 5.010 5.010 5.010 6.487
Independence model 18.516 17.205 19.901 18.645
HOELTER
Model HOELTER
.05
HOELTER
.01
Default model 47 50
| Keyla Hassell
46
Model HOELTER
.05
HOELTER
.01
Independence model 15 16
Minimization: .132
Miscellaneous: 1.860
Bootstrap: .000
Total: 1.992
D.3 AMOS Best Model Fit
| Keyla Hassell
47
D.4 CFA with modification indices
Model Fit Summary
CMIN
Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF
Default model 54 396.114 199 .000 1.991
Saturated model 253 .000 0
Independence model 22 1826.139 231 .000 7.905
RMR, GFI
Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI
Default model .075 .776 .715 .610
Saturated model .000 1.000
Independence model .440 .200 .124 .183
Baseline Comparisons
Model NFI
Delta1
RFI
rho1
IFI
Delta2
TLI
rho2 CFI
Default model .783 .748 .879 .857 .876
Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000
Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Parsimony-Adjusted Measures
Model PRATIO PNFI PCFI
Default model .861 .675 .755
Saturated model .000 .000 .000
Independence model 1.000 .000 .000
NCP
Model NCP LO 90 HI 90
Default model 197.114 144.309 257.704
Saturated model .000 .000 .000
Independence model 1595.139 1462.749 1734.959
FMIN
Model FMIN F0 LO 90 HI 90
Default model 3.922 1.952 1.429 2.552
Saturated model .000 .000 .000 .000
Independence model 18.081 15.793 14.483 17.178
RMSEA
Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE
Default model .099 .085 .113 .000
Independence model .261 .250 .273 .000
AIC
Model AIC BCC BIC CAIC
Default model 504.114 535.960 645.862 699.862
| Keyla Hassell
48
Model AIC BCC BIC CAIC
Saturated model 506.000 655.205 1170.118 1423.118
Independence model 1870.139 1883.113 1927.888 1949.888
ECVI
Model ECVI LO 90 HI 90 MECVI
Default model 4.991 4.468 5.591 5.307
Saturated model 5.010 5.010 5.010 6.487
Independence model 18.516 17.205 19.901 18.645
HOELTER
Model HOELTER
.05
HOELTER
.01
Default model 60 64
Independence model 15 16
Minimization: .051
Miscellaneous: 1.056
Bootstrap: .000
Total: 1.107
APPENDIX E
E.1 Hierarchical Linear Modeling with Individualized Socialization Tactics
Specifications for this HLM2 run
The maximum number of level-1 units = 102
The maximum number of level-2 units = 27
The maximum number of iterations = 100
Method of estimation: restricted maximum likelihood
The outcome variable is ROLECL_T
Summary of the model specified
Level-1 Model
ROLECL_Tij = β0j + β1j*(AGEij) + β2j*(TASK_TENij) + β3j*(EMO_TOTAij) + rij
Level-2 Model
β0j = γ00 + γ01*(SOCIALIZj) + u0j
β1j = γ10
β2j = γ20
β3j = γ30 + γ31*(SOCIALIZj)
EMO_TOTA has been centered around the group mean.
AGE TASK_TEN have been centered around the grand mean.
| Keyla Hassell
49
SOCIALIZ has been centered around the grand mean.
Mixed Model
ROLECL_Tij = γ00 + γ01*SOCIALIZj
+ γ10*AGEij
+ γ20*TASK_TENij
+ γ30*EMO_TOTAij + γ31*SOCIALIZj*EMO_TOTAij
+ u0j+ rij
Run-time deletion has reduced the number of level-1 records to 99
Final Results - Iteration 11
Iterations stopped due to small change in likelihood function
σ2 = 0.39482
τ
INTRCPT1,β0 0.07085
Random level-1 coefficient Reliability estimate
INTRCPT1,β0 0.381
The value of the log-likelihood function at iteration 11 = -1.116611E+002
Final estimation of fixed effects:
Fixed Effect Coefficient Standard
error t-ratio
Approx.
d.f. p-value
For INTRCPT1, β0
INTRCPT2, γ00 3.645735 0.083145 43.848 25 <0.001
SOCIALIZ, γ01 -0.404154 0.134084 -3.014 25 0.006
For AGE slope, β1
INTRCPT2, γ10 0.003405 0.007580 0.449 68 0.655
For TASK_TEN slope, β2
INTRCPT2, γ20 0.000277 0.001421 0.195 68 0.846
For EMO_TOTA slope, β3
INTRCPT2, γ30 -0.302279 0.116803 -2.588 68 0.012
SOCIALIZ, γ31 -0.283245 0.186602 -1.518 68 0.134
Final estimation of fixed effects
(with robust standard errors)
Fixed Effect Coefficient Standard
error t-ratio
Approx.
d.f. p-value
For INTRCPT1, β0
INTRCPT2, γ00 3.645735 0.078186 46.629 25 <0.001
SOCIALIZ, γ01 -0.404154 0.147407 -2.742 25 0.011
For AGE slope, β1
INTRCPT2, γ10 0.003405 0.006673 0.510 68 0.611
For TASK_TEN slope, β2
INTRCPT2, γ20 0.000277 0.001202 0.231 68 0.818
| Keyla Hassell
50
For EMO_TOTA slope, β3
INTRCPT2, γ30 -0.302279 0.092452 -3.270 68 0.002
SOCIALIZ, γ31 -0.283245 0.125556 -2.256 68 0.027
Final estimation of variance components
Random Effect Standard
Deviation
Variance
Component d.f. χ2 p-value
INTRCPT1, u0 0.26618 0.07085 25 40.75417 0.024
level-1, r 0.62834 0.39482
Statistics for current covariance components model
Deviance = 223.322219
Number of estimated parameters = 2
E.2 Hierarchical Linear Modeling with Commitment-Based HR system
Specifications for this HLM2 run
The maximum number of level-1 units = 102
The maximum number of level-2 units = 27
The maximum number of iterations = 100
Method of estimation: restricted maximum likelihood
The outcome variable is ROLECL_T
Summary of the model specified
Level-1 Model
ROLECL_Tij = β0j + β1j*(AGEij) + β2j*(TASK_TENij) + β3j*(EMO_TOTAij) + rij
Level-2 Model
β0j = γ00 + γ01*(COMMITMj) + u0j
β1j = γ10
β2j = γ20
β3j = γ30 + γ31*(COMMITMj)
EMO_TOTA has been centered around the group mean.
AGE TASK_TEN have been centered around the grand mean.
COMMITM has been centered around the grand mean.
Mixed Model
ROLECL_Tij = γ00 + γ01*COMMITMj
+ γ10*AGEij
+ γ20*TASK_TENij
| Keyla Hassell
51
+ γ30*EMO_TOTAij + γ31*COMMITMj*EMO_TOTAij
+ u0j+ rij
Run-time deletion has reduced the number of level-1 records to 99
Final Results - Iteration 11
Iterations stopped due to small change in likelihood function
σ2 = 0.39102
τ
INTRCPT1,β0 0.10712
Random level-1 coefficient Reliability estimate
INTRCPT1,β0 0.481
The value of the log-likelihood function at iteration 11 = -1.120091E+002
Final estimation of fixed effects:
Fixed Effect Coefficient Standard
error t-ratio
Approx.
d.f. p-value
For INTRCPT1, β0
INTRCPT2, γ00 3.647691 0.091004 40.083 25 <0.001
COMMITM, γ01 0.546530 0.273946 1.995 25 0.057
For AGE slope, β1
INTRCPT2, γ10 -0.000577 0.007686 -0.075 68 0.940
For TASK_TEN slope, β2
INTRCPT2, γ20 0.001123 0.001460 0.769 68 0.445
For EMO_TOTA slope, β3
INTRCPT2, γ30 -0.250319 0.112594 -2.223 68 0.030
COMMITM, γ31 0.685796 0.403749 1.699 68 0.094
Final estimation of fixed effects
(with robust standard errors)
Fixed Effect Coefficient Standard
error t-ratio
Approx.
d.f. p-value
For INTRCPT1, β0
INTRCPT2, γ00 3.647691 0.086569 42.136 25 <0.001
COMMITM, γ01 0.546530 0.241682 2.261 25 0.033
For AGE slope, β1
INTRCPT2, γ10 -0.000577 0.006030 -0.096 68 0.924
For TASK_TEN slope, β2
INTRCPT2, γ20 0.001123 0.001111 1.011 68 0.316
For EMO_TOTA slope, β3
INTRCPT2, γ30 -0.250319 0.092633 -2.702 68 0.009
COMMITM, γ31 0.685796 0.327880 2.092 68 0.040
Final estimation of variance components
Random Effect Standard
Deviation
Variance
Component d.f. χ2 p-value
| Keyla Hassell
52
INTRCPT1, u0 0.32729 0.10712 25 49.71115 0.003
level-1, r 0.62531 0.39102
Statistics for current covariance components model
Deviance = 224.018245
Number of estimated parameters = 2
