1

Social integration of organizational newcomers:

Socialization tactics and emotional stability in relation to access to

resources and social integration.

Master thesis - Tilburg University

Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences

2017-2018

Author R.K.J. Valk

ANR 504698

EMPLID 1274087

Supervisor dr. S. Batistič

Second reader dr. R.F. Poell

Theme Socialization process

Project period September 2017 – May 2018

2

Abstract

When a newcomer enters an organization, the organizational socialization process starts.

In this period the new employee acquires the attitudes, behavior, and knowledge they need to

be a participating member in the organization but also to socially integrate. A model based on

the uncertainty reduction theory has been created to explore the relationships between serial

socialization tactics and social integration mediated by access to resources and information.

Furthermore, emotional stability is included as a moderator in the relationship between serial

socialization tactics and access to resources and information. This research is a case study, the

data were collected within a large international company with its headquarters in the

Netherlands. A survey has been distributed to all newcomers who had been at the company for

one to three months. This resulted in a total of 504 respondents. The results, based on a multiple

regression analysis, demonstrate that resources and information partially mediate the

relationship between serial socialization tactics and social integration. This suggests that serial

socialization tactics are positively related to the access new hires have to resources and

information and is also positively related to the social integration of a new hire. Additionally

the results reveal that emotional stability does not moderate the relationship between serial

socialization tactics and access to resources and information. Based on the results, the paper

presents several theoretical and practical implications.

Keywords: Socialization tactics, serial tactics, access to resources and information, social

integration, emotional stability

3

Introduction

Organizational socialization is the process through which an individual acquires the

attitudes, behavior, and knowledge needed to participate as an organizational member (Van

Maanen & Schein, 1979). Within this process, there are two main factors: first, the perspective

of the employee who is trying to define his or her role within the organization, and second, the

perspective of the organization that is seeking to influence and shape its new members (Fisher,

1986). It is therefore apparent that both the newcomer and the organization influence the

socialization process (Reichers, 1987). The individual becomes part of the organization,

meaning that the newcomer can influence the organization; on the other hand, the organization

also has an impact on the individual (Anderson, Riddle, & Martin, 1999). Both the individual

and organization can benefit from a smooth socialization process (among other advantages, it

reduces uncertainty, increases job satisfaction, and passes on organizational culture; Carr,

Pearson, Vest, & Boyar, 2006; Fisher, 1986; Louis 1990). However, ineffective socialization

can have noticeable consequences for the organization. Fisher (1986) has argued that ineffective

socialization results in turnover intention, which then leads to a loss of productivity and disrupts

work, a costly consequence (Shaw, Gupta, & Delery, 2005; Louis, 1990). Investments in

recruitment and training are wasted, as they result in increased costs (Kammeyer-Mueller &

Wanberg, 2003). This illustrates the importance of a carefully considered socialization process.

One of the main research topics in the socialization literature is socialization tactics.

Different studies have collected empirical evidence that links socialization tactics to newcomer

adjustment such as learning (e.g., task mastery, organizational knowledge, and role clarity) and

assimilation (e.g., social integration; Bauer, Morrison, & Callister, 1998; Bauer, Bodner,

Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007; Saks & Ashforth 1997a). Within this research the focus

will be on the investiture and serial tactics as these are assumed to contribute to the relationships

newcomers develop with organizational insiders. The link between socialization tactics and the

social integration of a newcomer has been confirmed by previous studies, but there is little

research that examines the mediating mechanisms (e.g., social capital, knowledge acquisition,

and the influence of personal characteristics). Multiple scholars (Fang, Duffy, & Shaw, 2011;

Bauer et al., 1998; Saks & Ashforth, 1997a) have called for more research to examine these

mechanisms.

During organizational socialization, new hires arrive in an uncertain situation, in which

they have to learn quickly and integrate into different social groups (Berger, 1979). The

uncertainty reduction theory argues that newcomers to an organization desire to increase the

4

predictability of interactions between themselves and others (Berger & Calabrese, 1975).

Therefore, the new hire is motivated to reduce this uncertainty to a manageable level. This can

be achieved by newcomers seeking resources and information. Social interaction with

colleagues helps the new employee better understand his or her environment (Saks & Ashforth,

1997). Both organizational and individual socialization factors help new employees to find

resources and information through interacting and communicating with insiders. Previous

research from Fang et al. (2011) has proposed social capital as a mediating mechanism; that

study explained that social resources are embedded in social networks and explored how

individuals can achieve certain goals by using those networks. Lin (1999) has defined social

capital as resources that are embedded in a social structure. Information and resources are

accessible when an individual engages in purposive actions. This definition distinguishes

among three different factors: resources that are embedded in a social structure, the extent to

which such social resources are accessible to an individual, and the mobilization of such social

resources via purposive actions. Socialization tactics can help to develop relationships that will

provide individuals with access to resources and information (Fang et al., 2011) and will

eventually lead to better social integration (Bauer et al., 1998; Bauer et al., 2007; Saks &

Ashforth 1997a).

Every employee is different and copes in a unique way with a new and uncertain

environment. Personal characteristics are expected to influence the way in which employees

build relationships to obtain access to resources and information (Anderson, 2008). The Big

Five personality traits are extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, emotional stability,

and openness. This research focuses on emotional stability. It is believed that scoring low on

emotional stability affects people’s social skills and sociability (Digman, 1990; Furukawa,

Sarason, & Sarason, 1998), which can result in smaller social networks. (Kalish & Robins,

2006). Judge, Erez, Bono, and Thoresen (2003) have reported that emotional stability plays an

important role in an individual’s fundamental beliefs about his or her own competence and self-

worth. It is therefore less likely that he or she will socialize with other members of the

organization to seek information, even if the company provides the opportunity (Grumam &

Saks, 2011).

During the socialization process, newcomers are presented with social networking

opportunities. Anderson (2008) has claimed that there is reason to believe that individual

differences affect the way they take advantage of these opportunities. His view suggests that

personality traits could have a moderating effect. Therefore, emotional stability is used as a

moderator in the relationship between socialization tactics and access to resources and

5

information. It is proposed that employees with a high level of emotional stability have more

access to resources and information when presented with serial and investiture socialization

tactics.

This study aims to make two contributions to the socialization field. First, while it

follows the work of Fang et al. (2011), Bauer et al. (1998), Bauer et al. (2007), and Saks and

Ashforth (1997a), it differs from these past studies by researching access to resources and

information and how this mediates the relationship between socialization tactics and social

integration. Second, it explores the personality trait emotional stability as a moderator.

This results in the following research questions: To what extent does access to resources

and information mediate the effects of investiture and serial socialization tactics on social

integration? And to what extent does the personality trait emotional stability moderate the

effects of investiture and serial socialization tactics to access to resources and information?

Theoretical Framework

Socialization tactics in relation to access to resources and information

Van Maanen and Schein (1979) have described socialization tactics as “the ways in

which the experiences of individuals in transition from one role to another are structured for

them by others in the organization” (p.230). They have proposed six different tactics that

organizations can use to achieve the desired outcome from newcomers. The first tactic is formal

versus informal (distinguishing newcomers from regular organizational members or seeing

them as part of the same group). The second tactic is collective versus individual (socializing

new members as a group or individually). The third tactic is sequential versus random (a clear

process or a random choice of activities). The fourth tactic is fixed versus variable (clear

information about the steps that need to be taken or no clear overview of what needs to be done).

The fifth tactic is serial versus disjunctive (a newcomer is trained by an experienced staff

member or there is no formal support). The sixth and final tactic is investiture versus divestiture

(the identity and personality of the newcomer are accepted, or the organization encourages the

newcomer to reject his or her prior identity).

The six tactics named by van Maanen and Schein (1979) have been frequently

researched and reviewed. Based on empirical research, Jones (1986) has proposed that the six

bipolar tactics (collective, formal, sequential, fixed, serial, and investiture) collectively

constitute institutionalized socialization. These tactics provide new hires with a structured and

formalized socialization experience that reduces uncertainty. Furthermore, different studies

6

have found that institutionalized socialization is negatively related to role ambiguity, role

conflict, and turnover intentions; however, it is positively related to job satisfaction and

organizational commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Ashforth, Sluss, &

Saks, 2006). Conversely, Jones (1986) referred to individual, informal, random, variable,

disjunctive, and divestiture tactics as individualized socialization. These tactics help

newcomers question the current situation and innovate in their new roles. Jones not only divided

the six tactics into institutionalized and individualized socialization, based on factor analysis,

but also concluded that the six tactics can be grouped into three subgroups. First, social factors

which exist out of serial and investiture tactics. Jones (1986) proposed that these are the most

important because they provide employees with social cues and facilitate learning. The second

group is the content factors; formed by sequential and fixed tactics, these focus on the content

of the information. The third subgroup is context, containing formal and collective tactics. This

explains how an organization provides information.

This research focuses on the tactics that are assumed to contribute to the relationships

newcomers develop with organizational insiders. Saks, Uggerslev, and Fassina (2007) tested

the three factors of Jones (1986) in their meta-analytic review and also found that social tactics

are the main predictors of newcomer adjustment. Moreover, the research found that social

tactics are strongly related to the access newcomers have to social capital. Therefore, the first

tactic that is examined is investiture (versus divestiture). Investiture tactics present newcomers

with social support, which can provide them with positive feedback, help them to develop

relationships, and enable them to gain feelings of competence and confidence within these

interactions (Allen, 2006). These positive interactions with supportive organizational members’

tactics help new hires to feel accepted (Cable and Parsons, 2001).

The second set of tactics related to building relations and achieving social integration is

serial (versus disjunctive) tactics. A newcomer may be assigned to an experienced staff member

who will serve as a mentor and role model, or conversely, no formal support may be in place

(Van Maanen & Schein, 1979; Batistic, 2017). Serial tactics give experienced organizational

members the chance to act as role models and provide the new hire with access to particular

resources and information (Fang, et al., 2011). Moreover Bauer et al. (2007) found in their

meta-analytic review that fixed, serial, and investiture tactics are significantly correlated with

social acceptance.

The meta-analytical review of Saks et al. (2007) supports the proposition that investiture

and serial socialization tactics are the most strongly related to newcomers’ access to social

capital. They also found that these tactics are predictors of both proximal (e.g., role conflict and

7

role ambiguity) and distal (organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover intention)

outcomes.

Investiture and serial socialization tactics provide newcomers with access to

experienced organizational members who act as role models and give newcomers social support

and feedback. These elements are necessary to develop relationships and gain confidence in

those interactions (Allen, 2006; Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Cable & Parsons, 2001). The tactics

also guide newcomers to the right resources and information, helping them to interact and

communicate with organizational insiders and to thereby enhance their networks (Fang, et al.,

2011). Therefore, the expectation is that serial and investiture tactics help new employees to

receive accurate, systematic, and consistent information from appropriate sources (Fang, et al.,

2011). This assumption leads to the first two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Investiture socialization tactics are positively related to access to resources and

information.

Hypothesis 2: Serial socialization tactics are positively related to access to resources and

information.

Access to resources and information in relation to social integration

According to Fisher (1986), during organizational entry, new employees feel that they

need to reduce uncertainty about tasks, roles, and social transitions. Researchers have defined

three main goals that newcomers must accomplish in order to successfully integrate. The first

goal is to have a task transition wherein learning the tasks and gaining confidence in the role

are important. The second goal is resolution of role demands, which emphasizes understanding

of the tasks involved. The third goal is the social transition, which relates to feeling accepted

within the organization (Fischer, 1986; Morrison, 2002; Feldman, 1981).

Within this research, the focus is on social transition, also called social integration. The

aim is to identify how access to resources and information is related to social integration. Social

integration has a strong and potentially lasting impact on distal socialization outcomes such as

job performance and attitudes (Bauer et al., 2007; Saks, Uggerslev, & Fassina, 2007).

As mentioned before, socialization is a process influenced not only by organizational

initiatives but also by newcomers (Morison, 1993). A primary way in which newcomers reduce

uncertainty (Berger, 1979) is by seeking resources and information (Ashford, 1986). This also

enables the newcomer to better understand his or her new environment (Ashford & Taylor,

8

1990). A resource during the socialization process could be a colleague who possesses or

controls resources and information that are useful for the new hire in reaching his or her goals

(Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001).

In most research, social integration is about developing relationships in kind and

quantity; the role of seeking resources and information is often not taken into account (Morison,

1993). “The better the accessible embedded resources, the better embedded resources can and

will be mobilized in purposive actions by an individual” (Lin, 1999:42). Moreover, Blumer

(1969) has argued that the structure of relations is not where the essence of society lies and that

our results are instead dependent on an ongoing process of taking action. This suggests that

relationships between new hires and existing employees are meaningless without action.

Within this research, the focus is on the access that newcomers have to resources and

information, since these are the key means through which social capital is manifested (Seibert

et al., 2001). When newcomers enter an organization, they begin interacting with insiders to

access resources and information. They need to take action to access particular resources and

will start building relationships. By building these relationships with existing members of the

organization, they achieve full social integration (Fang et al., 2011). Access to resources and

information allows newcomers to achieve desired outcomes by supporting the flow of

information, reinforcing a social identity, and building a social network (Burt, 1992; Coleman,

1990; Lin, 1982, 1999). It is expected that access to resources and information helps

newcomers achieve social integration (Fang et al., 2011).

Hypothesis 3: Access to resources and information is positively related to social integration.

Investiture socialization tactics in relation to social integration mediated by access to

resources and information

Investiture socialization tactics are focused on accepting the identity of a new employee.

Newcomers can feel uncertain about being accepted and must begin interacting with

organizational insiders. Investiture tactics also allow organizational insiders to provide

feedback and social support, which directly help employees with the important social or

interpersonal aspects of the socialization process (Allen, 2006). Positive feedback and support

from organizational members lead to greater social acceptance for the new hire. This indicates

a direct relation between investiture socialization tactics and social integration. Bauer et al.

(2007) confirmed that investiture tactics are significantly correlated with the social acceptance

of a newcomer.

9

In line with Hypotheses 1 and 3, it is expected that the direct relationship between

investiture socialization tactics to social integration is partially mediated by access to resources

and information. As mentioned before, investiture tactics directly assist employees with social

or interpersonal aspects of the socialization process. This not only aids social integration but

also is critical for newcomers to obtain access to information and resources (Fang et al., 2011).

By receiving positive feedback and social support, they begin to develop a network and gain

confidence in interactions (Allen, 2006; Ashforth & Saks, 1996), which suggests that

employees feel accepted and socially integrated as a result (Fang et al., 2011; Cable and

Parsons, 2001; Bauer et al., 2007). It is expected that access to resources and information

partially mediates the relationship between investiture tactics and social integration.

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between investiture socialization tactics and social integration

is partially mediated by access to resources and information.

Serial socialization tactics in relation to social integration mediated by access to resources

and information

Serial socialization tactics provide a newcomer with a mentor. The mentor is an

experienced organizational member. Newcomers begin connecting directly with an

organizational insider who is also able to introduce them to other organizational members.

Morrison (2002) has stated that how newcomers are connected with insiders affects how

employees socially integrate. Serial tactics help newcomers to learn about organizational groups

and to build relationships at an early stage, which leads to greater social acceptance (Haueter,

Macan, & Winter, 2003; Bauer et al., 2007; Sonnentag, Niessen, & Ohly, 2004). Bauer et al.

(2007) confirmed that among others, serial tactics are related to social acceptance. It is therefore

expected that there is a direct relationship between serial socialization tactics and social

integration.

In addition, it is expected that the relationship between serial socialization tactics and

social integration is mediated by resources and information. This is in line with Hypotheses 2

and 3. When an experienced colleague is assigned to the newcomer as a mentor, the newcomer

gains direct access to information and resources (Fang et al., 2011). The newcomer is thereby

quickly embedded in the organizational network and given the opportunity to invest in building

relationships (Burt, 1992).

10

Developing these relationships is critical to social integration. It is expected that access

to resources and information partially mediates the relationship between serial socialization

tactics and social integration.

Hypothesis 5: The relationship between serial socialization tactics and social integration is

partially mediated by access to resources and information.

Moderating effect of emotional stability

Research on socialization tactics and related outcomes has mainly taken a “one size fits

all” approach. Within this approach, it is assumed that every new hire prefers the same

socialization tactics and would therefore benefit from the same access to resources and

information (Gruman & Saks, 2011). This approach is from an organizational perspective;

organizations choose particular socialization tactics to reach desired outcomes (Bauer et al.,

1998).

From a social capital perspective, the existing literature has mostly focused on the

structure of relationships between employees; little research has taken into account the personal

characteristics of employees and how these affect social capital benefits (Ibarra, 1992; Kalish,

2006). Ibarra (1992) found evidence that employees may differ in their ability to achieve those

social capital benefits. Anderson (2008) has likewise argued that there is reason to believe that

individual differences may affect the way employees take advantage of social networking

opportunities. However, more evidence is needed regarding whether different personality traits

impact social capital benefits such as access to resources and information (Mehra, Kilduff, &

Brass, 2001; Fang et al., 2011). Anderson’s view indicates a moderating effect of personality

traits. To determine whether there are personal traits that influence the link between

socialization tactics and access to resources and information, this research focuses on the

personality trait emotional stability as a potential moderating variable.

Personality traits such as emotional stability may explain how people react in stressful

situations (Bolger & Schilling, 1991). Being a newcomer in an organization is an uncertain

situation and can be stressful. Watson and Hubbard (1996) have demonstrated that individuals

that score high on emotional stability are more likely to cope well with stressful situations. They

appraise themselves and their environment more positively and are inclined to interpret

uncertain situations in a positive manner (Watson & Clark, 1984). Personality traits explain

individual behavior and stable patterns of behavior, thought, and emotion (Hogan, Hogan, &

11

Roberts, 1996). This indicates a moderating role; emotional stability is a stable pattern that aids

understanding of behavior in a particular situation.

Emotional stability is also referred to as “stability,” “emotionality,” and “neuroticism”

(Borgatta, 1964; Conley, 1985; Hakel, 1974; John, 1989; Lorr & Manning, 1978; Norman,

1963). Traits that are often related to emotional stability are feeling angry, anxious, depressed,

embarrassed, emotional, insecure, or worried (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Employees entering a

new company experience different kinds of feelings, and their perceptions of organizational

activities can be influenced by their emotional stability (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller,

2000). Employees who score high on emotional stability tend to portray uncertain situations in

a positive way and do not feel personally rejected when an organization does not accept their

prior identity. It is therefore likely that they experience less difficulty with stressful situations

(Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). They are also less likely to experience dysfunctional

job-related thought processes such as overgeneralization and perfectionism (Judge & Locke,

1993). Additionally, Necowitz and Roznowski (1994) state that employees who score high on

emotional stability will be more inclined to recall positive job-relevant information compared

to employees who score low on emotional stability, they will be inclined to recall more negative

job-relevant information. It is therefore expected that employees who score high on emotional

stability benefit more than other employees from the positive relationship between investiture

socialization tactics and access to resources and information.

Hypothesis 6a: High levels of emotional stability strengthen the positive effect of

investiture socialization tactics on access to resources and information and also enhance social

integration.

People who score high on emotional stability tend to have a positive opinion of not only

their surroundings but also themselves, which can result in more interactions with colleagues

and make these individuals more likely to seek out learning opportunities (Judge & Bono,

2001). As mentioned in Hypotheses 1 and 2, serial and investiture tactics are the strongest

predictors of access to social capital. It is expected that this relationship is stronger when

employees score higher on emotional stability. Emotional stability has a positive effect on

people’s social skills and sociability (Digman, 1990; Furukawa, Sarason, & Sarason, 1998).

People who experience more positive emotions at work will be less dependent on others

however their positive attitude will make them a desirable companion, which will work in their

favor when they are building their network (Judge & Locke, 1993; Brief, Butcher, & Roberson,

12

1995). When an organization provides newcomers with opportunities to seek resources and

information, employees that score high on emotional stability are more likely to take advantage

of these chances to socialize and to pursue the resources and information (Gruman & Saks,

2011). It is anticipated that employees who score high on emotional stability benefit even more

from serial socialization tactics. The experienced organizational member assigned to the

newcomer provides him or her with support, feedback, and learning opportunities.

Hypothesis 6b: High levels of emotional stability strengthen the positive effect of serial

socialization tactics on access to resources and information and also enhance social

integration.

Figure 1. Conceptual model. The proposed relationships tested in this study are presented in

this figure.

Methods

Research design and procedure

The research was conducted in close cooperation with the researched company. The

topic, goals, and deadlines of this study were established in consultation with the company.

Based on the needs of the firm and the student’s research goal, the student developed a survey

consisting of 46 items. The English-language survey was distributed digitally via Survey Gizmo

to all the employees who had joined the company within the past one to three months. The study

featured a cross-sectional design and relied on convenience sampling.

The distribution of the survey was achieved by approaching the company’s recruitment

and onboarding managers. They received information about the study and were asked to help

during the data collection process. The survey link, along with a cover letter, was sent directly

to the new hires by e-mail. At that point, the data collection started. A reminder was sent after

four days to increase the number of respondents. The data collected were exported from Survey

Gizmo and imported into IBM SPSS Statistics 24. The cover letter and the questionnaire are

found in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.

13

Sample

The research was conducted within a large international company with its headquarters

in the Netherlands. The company has more than 18,000 employees working worldwide and

employs more than 105 nationalities spread over 60 offices. The questionnaire was randomly

distributed within a group of 1,272 employees from all over the world who work fulltime (32

or more hours a week) and who had recently joined the company (within the last one to three

months). These employees were selected as they had recently experienced the socialization

process and were able to reflect on that process. The sample consisted of 506 respondents, and

the response rate was 44.9%. The average age of the sample was 25–34 years old. Second, the

average tenure of the employees was between four and six years. The sample consisted of 405

(80.5%) male respondents and 98 (19.5%) female respondents. The descriptive statistics

illustrate that the majority (41.5%) of the respondents held a master’s degree. An overview of

the descriptive statistics is presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Means, standard deviations, percentages, and n of the demographic characteristics of the

sample

Characteristics n % M SD

Age (in years) 503 25-34* 1.01

Tenure (in years) 503 4-6* 1.97

Gender 503 .19 .396

Male 405 80.5

Female 98 19.5

Education 503 2.67 .892

Associate degree 33 6.5

Bachelor’s degree 191 37.7

Master’s degree 210 41.5

PhD 48 9.5

Other 21 4.2

*Categorical variables are treated as continuous variables based on the intervals of each category.

14

Reliability analysis

The construct validity of the model was tested using IBM SPSS Statistics 25. The next

paragraph presents the individual scales and describes how they were tested.

Investiture (versus divestiture) tactics and serial (versus disjunctive) tactics

The first two scales, “investiture (versus divestiture)” and “serial (versus disjunctive),”

were measured using the scale of Jones (1986). For each variable, a five-item Likert scale was

included. These items employed seven-point scales ranging from “strongly disagree” to

“strongly agree.” An example item for “investiture (versus divestiture)” is “Almost all of my

colleagues have been supportive of me personally.” A reversed example item for “serial (versus

disjunctive)” is “I have received little guidance from experienced organizational members as to

how I should perform my job.”

The investiture tactics scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .215 and could be increased to

.409 by deleting item 3, “I have had to change my attitudes and values to be accepted in this

organization.” There were also negative inter-item correlations found, meaning that the scale

was not reliable and therefore not fit for its purpose. The Cronbach’s alpha of the serial tactics

scale was .696 and could increase when item one was deleted to .704. In this case, no negative

inter-item correlations were found, which meant that this was a reliable scale.

Access to resources and information

The third scale, “access to resources and information,” was measured by using

Spreitzers’ (1996) six-item scale. The scale measures access to resources with three items, while

the other three items are designed to measure access to information (1 = “strongly disagree” to

7 = “strongly agree”). An example item for access to resources is “I have access to all resources

I need to do my job well.” An example item for access to information is “I understand top

management’s vision of the organization.” The Cronbach’s alpha of the “access to resources

and information” scale was .848. No negative inter-item correlations were found, and this scale

was therefore reliable.

Social integration

The fourth scale measured social integration. This was evaluated by using Price and

Mueller’s (1986) five-item scale. Examples are “I feel comfortable around my co-workers,”

and “My co-workers seem to accept me as one of them.” The Cronbach’s alpha of the “social

15

integration” scale was .718. There were no negative inter-correlations found, and this scale was

therefore found to be reliable.

Emotional stability

The fifth scale, “emotional stability,” was measured using Shafer’s (1999a) six-item

bipolar scale. The participant was presented with trait-term pairs using a seven-point semantic

differential type scale. The participant was asked to mark where he or she scored by checking

which of the two options best described him or her. An example is “at ease to nervous” and

“calm to anxious.” The Cronbach’s alpha of the “emotional stability” scale was .817. There

were no negative inter-correlations found, and this scale was therefore reliable.

Control variables

To rule out spurious relations, this study used the following control variables: gender (0

= male, 1 = female), age (in years; Ashforth, Sluss, and Saks, 2007), education, and employment

type (fixed position, flex position, or internship). These variables might have affected how

individuals interpreted the socialization tactics and which socialization tactics they had

experienced. Education could have been related to skills at the time of hiring, and age may have

been linked to the career stage of the new hire (Feldman, 1989). The variable employment type

was used to control for different groups within the organization. The type of contract could have

influenced how new hires felt about their future at the company and how willing they were to

invest time in learning and building relationships. The questions are shown in Appendix B. For

more information on the reliability test, see Appendix E.

Analysis

When the data collection was completed, the survey was closed, and the data were

exported to an Excel CSV document. The first screening of the data took place in Excel. The

results were checked for missing data and imported into IBM SPSS Statistics 25. Dummy

variables and new variables for the reversed items were added, and the descriptive statistics

were calculated. This resulted in an overview of the sample’s demographic characteristics with

means and standard deviations (see Table 1). Outliers were identified for the variables

investiture, emotional stability, resources and information, and social integration. By examining

the 5% trimmed, it could be concluded that the outliers did not strongly impact the mean scores

of the scale; therefore, the outliers were not deleted from the sample (Gather, 1986)

16

The data were normally distributed and homoscedastic. The next step was to perform

the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). A CFA can be used for different purposes, such as the

development of new measures, evaluation of psychometric properties, construct validation, and

testing of measurement invariance (Harrington, 2009). In this study, a CFA was used to test the

predeveloped scales of the constructs to determine whether they were consistent with

expectations. The goal was to determine if the original structure of the scales worked with the

data from this research. Finally, the hypotheses were tested with Hayes’ PROCESS macro in

SPSS (Hayes, 2013); model 7 was used. The PROCESS Macro allows for testing of moderated

mediation models to estimate the conditional indirect coefficients for different levels of

emotional stability. Additionally, multicollinearity was tested. Multicollinearity arises when

two or more predictors are highly correlated. To prevent high multicollinearity, researchers

must center the variables and create an interaction term.

Next, PROCESS macro was used to test the mediation part of the model following the

Baron and Kenny (1986) approach. First, the direct relationship of serial socialization tactics

on social integration was tested. The next step was to check whether this relationship was

significant. The last step was to assess whether the relationship between resources and

information and social integration was significant and to determine how this affected the

relationship between serial socialization tactics and social integration. There are different

methods to test the partial mediation effect, the Sobel test being one of them. However, this test

often underestimates the effect of the mediator and assumes that there is a symmetric

distribution, which can result in incorrect conclusions. The PROCESS macro used

bootstrapping to estimate the conditional indirect effects of access to resources and information

in relation to serial and investiture social integration tactics. To test whether the indirect effect

is significant by using the bootstrapping procedure. All the main variables, as well as the control

variables that were significantly related to the main variables, were included in the multiple

regression analysis (Hayes, 2013). The results from the analysis are further discussed in the

results section.

17

Results

Bivariate correlations

The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was used to test the bivariate correlations among

all variables in the model. The control variables were also tested to determine how they were

related to the main variables. Table 2 contains an overview of the means, standard deviations,

and correlations of the main variables and control variables. The main variables were linked to

each other as expected, and the control variable employment type was correlated with the main

variables.

18

Table 2

Means, standard deviations, and correlations

Notes: R&I stands for “resources and Information,” social int. stands for “social integration,” and emotional st. stands for “emotional stability.”

n = 504. Cronbach’s alphas are on the diagonal in parentheses

* p < .05, ** p < .01 (two tailed)

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Investiture 5.39 .749 (.215)

2. Serial 5.18 .963 .359** (.696)

3. R&I 5.59 .821 .208** .406** (.848)

4. Social int. 3.94 .501 .205** .324** .412** (.718)

5. Emotional St. 2.29 .656 -.126** -.220** -.155** -.174** (.817)

6. Age . .010 -.033 -.038 -.071 -.086 -

7. Gender -.077 -.019 -.049 -.046 .083 .036 -

8. Education .046 -.044 -.072 -.069 -.007 -.003 .006 -

9. Employment .019* .037 -.074 -.147** -.058 -.004 -.034 -.015 -

19

Confirmatory factor analysis

A CFA in IBM SPSS Amos 25 was used to test the construct validity of the model and

to identify if the factor structure fit the data. It explored and verified the factors and the loadings

of the factors (Blunch, 2012). A research model with five variables was drawn in IBM SPSS

Amos 25; additionally, the observed and latent variables were drawn. The results indicated that

all the regression weights were significant (p < .01). To check whether there was a good fit with

the model, the student considered different values. First, the chi-square divided by degrees of

freedom value (CMIN/DF = 2.126). The closer the chi-square is to 1, the better the fit. Scores

between 2 and 5 indicate a reasonable fit (Marsh & Hocevar, 1985) The next values were the

comparative fit index (CFI = .92) with a cutoff value close to .95, the root mean square error of

approximation (RMSEA = .052) with a cutoff value close to .06, the standardized root mean

square residual (SRMR = .0643) with a cutoff value close to .08, and the TLI (TLI = .896) with

a cutoff value of .9. These values all indicated a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Appendix C

contains an overview of the CFA output, including the regression weights.

Multiple regression and hypothesis testing

Based on the previous results, the student tested the hypotheses using Hayes’ PROCESS

for the multiple regression analysis. An overview of the results is shown in Table 3. Hypotheses

1 and 4 could not be tested since the investiture socialization tactics scale was excluded from

the model based on reliability testing. Even though the scale was proven to be unreliable, an

additional analysis with investiture included in the model is presented at the end of this section

to provide a full picture. These results needs be interpret with caution.

The second hypothesis was part of confirming the partial mediation that was expected.

To confirm partial mediation, a positive relationship between serial socialization tactics and

access to resources and information was required. The results of the analysis presented in Table

3 for model 1 indicate that there was indeed a significant positive relationship between serial

socialization tactics and access to resources and information (b = .2570, p < 0.04). Hypothesis

2 was therefore accepted.

For mediation to occur the variable “access to resources and information” must have a

significant positive relationship with the dependent variable “social integration.” This was

anticipated by Hypothesis 3 and confirmed by the results from the analysis shown in Table 3.

The results reveal that there was a positive relationship between access to resources and

information and social integration (b = .1984, p < 0.000). Based on these results, Hypothesis 3

was accepted.

20

To fully confirm partial mediation, the student needed to test Hypothesis 5. It was

expected that access to resources and information would partially mediate the relationship

between serial socialization tactics and social integration. The results demonstrate that the

relationship between serial socialization tactics and social integration remained significant after

including the mediator access to resources and information. Additionally, they confirmed the

partial mediation because the relationship between serial socialization tactics and social

integration was weaker after access to resources and information was included as a mediator (b

= .1019 < b = .2570). The final test to confirm partial mediation was controlling for the

bootstrapping values using 5,000 iterations. The bootstrapping value method with a 95%

confidence interval was preferred since it is able to produce more accurate results (MacKinnon,

Warsi, & Dwyer, 1995).

The upper and lower limits of the bootstrapping values (95%, BootLLCI .0402,

BootULCI .0931) revealed that there was no zero-value between them (Table 4). This

confirmed the indirect effect, so Hypothesis 5 was accepted.

Additionally, the interaction effect needed to be tested. A conditional PROCESS

analysis was used to test Hypothesis 6b. This hypothesis proposed that high levels of emotional

stability would strengthen the positive effect of serial socialization tactics on access to resources

and information and therefore enhance social integration. The interaction term between serial

socialization tactics and emotional stability was found to be non-significant (b = .254, p = .62).

Hypothesis 6b was therefore not supported. A complete overview of the Hayes’ PROCESS

regression output is found in Appendix F.

Figure 2. Researched model. The proposed relationships tested in this study are presented in

this figure including the results

.254

.257** .198***

.102***

21

Table 3

Conditional direct and indirect effects of serial socialization tactics on social integration,

mediated by access to resources and information and moderated by emotional stability

Predictor variable B SE T R2

Model 1: F(7, 492) = 16.1972*** .4328***

Main effect on the mediator variable: R&I

Serial socialization tactics .2570* .1253 2.0518

Emotional stability -.261 .2725 -.9617

Serial tactics X emotional stability .0340 .0525 .6477

Educational level -.0594 .0385 -1.5442

Age -.0225 .0340 -.6604

Gender -.0758 .0862 -.8800

Employment type -.1737* .0702 -2.4751

Model 2: F(6, 493) = 22.9549***

Main effect on dependent variable: social integration .4673***

Serial socialization tactics .1019*** .0234 4.3506

Resources and information .1984*** .0276 7.1869

Educational level -.0221 .0236 -.9360

Age -.0280 .0208 -1.3458

Gender -.0376 .0528 -.7115

Employment type -.1440*** .0432 -3.3322

Moderated mediation analysis

Bootstrap results for conditional indirect effect of serial socialization tactics on social

integration at values of the moderator (emotional stability)

Boot indirect Boot SE LL 95% CI UL 95%CI

1.667 (-1SD) .0622* .0150 .0334 .0922

2.333 (0SD) .0667* .0137 .0402 .0931

3.000 (+1SD) .0712* .0169 .0391 .1051

Index of moderated mediation

.0067 .0123 -.0153 .0338

Notes: n = 500; sample size = 50,000; LL = lower limit; CI = confidence interval; UL = upper limit. *p <0.05, ** p <0.01, *** p <0.001

22

Multiple regression and hypothesis testing including the investiture scale

The investiture socialization tactics scale was not found to be reliable during the

reliability testing. In this section, the results with the 5 item scale included in the model are

briefly presented, but it is important to take into consideration the reliability of the scale and

interpret the results with caution.

The results demonstrated that Hypothesis 1 could not be confirmed; a positive

relationship was expected between investiture socialization tactics and resources and

information, while the results pointed to a negative effect (b = -.243, p = .0111). The third

hypothesis predicted a positive relationship between access to resources and information and

social integration. This hypothesis was confirmed (b = .2298, p = .000). The fourth hypothesis

anticipated that access to resources and information would partially mediate the relationship

between investiture socialization tactics and social integration. The relationship between

investiture socialization tactics and social integration remained significant when the mediator

access to resources and information was included. Additionally, the results confirmed partial

mediation because the relationship between investiture socialization tactics and social

integration was weaker when access to resources and information was incorporated as a

mediator (b = .0578 < b = -.2430). The bootstrapping values (95% Boot LLCI .0111, BootULCI

.1039) confirmed the partial mediation. Hypothesis 6a was not supported; the interaction term

between investiture socialization tactics and emotional stability was found to be significant (b

= .2117, p = .000), but the index of moderated mediation revealed a non-significant result (95%

BootLLCI -.0231, BootULCI .0848).

See Appendix G for a complete overview of the Hayes’ PROCESS regression output.

Discussion

This study investigated the relationship of investiture and serial socialization tactics on

access to resources and information and explored how that can relates to higher levels of social

integration. The topic is highly interesting since ineffective socialization can have meaningful

consequences. Ineffective socialization results in turnover intention, loss of productivity, and

higher recruitment and training costs (Fisher, 1986; Shaw, Gupta, & Delery, 2005; Louis, 1980;

Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003).

Additionally, the role of the individual characteristic emotional stability was studied to

see if it attenuated or strengthened the relationship between investiture and serial socialization

tactics and access to resources and information. The results show that serial socialization tactics

23

are positively related to social integration. Access to resources and information partially

mediates this relationship in a positive way. Further, emotional stability does not moderate the

relationship between serial socialization tactics and access to resources and information. The

next steps are discussing the study’s theoretical contribution, its limitations, and suggestions

for future research. Finally, the practical implications based on the previous results are

discussed.

Theoretical contributions

Previous research regarding socialization tactics and access to resources and

information has focused on measuring social capital by gauging the network structure of the

new hire (Fang, 2011). In this present study, social capital was not measured using the network

structure of the new hire; the focus was instead on the new hire’s access to particular resources

and information, as well as on his or her actions. This is in line with the uncertainty reduction

theory; a new hire is motivated to reduce uncertainty by seeking resources and information

(Saks & Ashforth, 1997). The question is how organizations can influence this process. The

impact of serial socialization tactics was therefore measured to demonstrate how this factor is

related to new hires’ access to resources and information. The results reveal that serial

socialization tactics are positively linked to the access new hires have to the resources and

information they need. These findings are in line with Fang et al. (2011), who proposed that

socialization tactics can help individuals to access particular resources and information. From

an organizational perspective, having an experienced colleague help newcomers and ensuring

role clarity both contribute to perceiving more access to resources and information new hires

need.

Another important aspect during the socialization process is the social integration of an

employee. Social integration has a strong impact on different distal socialization outcomes such

as job performance and attitudes (Bauer et al., 2007; Saks, Uggersleve, & Fassina, 2007). The

results point to a positive relationship between serial socialization tactics and social integration

mediated by access to resources and information, which is in line with previous research (Fang,

2011; Bauer et al., 1998; Bauer et al., 2007; Saks & Ashforth, 1997a). This paper thus

contributes to the literature by testing this relationship in a multinational company.

Additionally, approaching social capital from an action-taking standpoint and finding

significant results imply that social capital can be measured in several ways. The results suggest

that accessing resources and information supports new hires in building relationships with

colleagues. From an organizational perspective, it is important to help new hires understand the

24

strategies and goals of the firm. Moreover, new hires should be able to obtain resources when

they have an idea and should have access to resources and information to do their job well. This

will have a positive impact on how new hires perceive their social integration.

The second contribution relates to the personality trait emotional stability. Emotional

stability does not moderate the relationship between serial socialization tactics and access to

resources and information. There are different possible explanations for this finding. According

to Tidwell and Sias (2005), a longitudinal method is necessary for adequate trait measurement.

By evaluating emotional stability once, one may fail to measure a long-term trait, but instead

capture a temporary mood or state (George, 1992). States can vary daily and might be affected

by the situation (George, 1992). Within this research, access to resources was measured over a

longer time period, between one and three months, in varied contexts. A longitudinal approach

to measuring emotional stability could impact the results.

From a theoretical standpoint, it is possible that personal characteristics such as

emotional stability do not function as a moderator within this relationship. Previous research

has also found a direct relationship between emotional stability and access to resources and

information. Both Fang et al. (2011) and Judge and Bono (2001) reported that emotional

stability is a potential facilitator of the mobilization of resources and information. Individual

differences in areas such as personality may influence newcomers’ access to social capital and

their approach to constructing their social network. Digman (1990) has suggested that the level

of emotional stability affects employees’ social skills. Additionally, emotional stability could

affect their sociability (Furukawa, Sarason, & Sarason, 1998), which could impact both how

the new hires interact with organizational insiders and how these insiders react to them (Bauer

et al., 1998; Saks & Ashforth, 1997a). Both are instrumental in gaining access to the right

resources and information and eventually achieving social integration. As previously

mentioned, employees need to take action to actually access resources and information. Kuhl

(1981) has stated that people who score high on emotional stability tend to be more relaxed and

confident, which makes them more action-oriented. This all indicates that there is a possible

direct relationship between emotional stability and access to resources and information.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

Several limitations impacted this research and should be taken into account when

interpreting the results. First, this research employed a cross-sectional design, which means that

the data were collected at one point in time due to time restrictions. It is therefore not possible

to draw inferences about the causality of the variables. It is recommended to use a longitudinal

25

research design in the future by collecting data at different moments in time. Socialization is a

process that evolves over time, and the changes that occur in that process are important. For

this reason, it is possible that data collected at just one point in time are insufficient (Ritchie,

Lewis, Nicholls, & Ormston, 2013). Previous research on socialization models has suggested

that the needs of a new hire are likely to change over time (e.g., Feldman, 1976; Porter, Lawler,

& Hackman, 1975). Different feelings and emotions are involved during the socialization

process (e.g., uncertainty). When a newcomer enters an organization, he or she desires

information and social support. The need for serial socialization tactics may be stronger during

this first period. However, when an employee is starting to feel more secure, other desires may

emerge (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Kats, 1980). Longitudinal studies offer insight into these

patterns of change and could possibly point to a cause-effect relationship over time. This paper

recommends that future researchers in this area collect data in different waves using the same

sample to increase the chance of identifying causality (Rajulton, 2001). Previous research has

indicated that the socialization process is usually measured at a three-month interval. This could

mean that the first measurement takes place when a newcomer enters the organization, the

second after three months, the third at six months, and so on (Bauer et al., 1998; Bauer et al.,

2007). Ashforth (2012) has elaborated on this topic and has concluded that it is difficult to

create a clear overview of when and how often certain processes and outcomes should be

assessed. The socialization process is dependent on the context and individuals involved, which

makes measuring it complex.

The second limitation is that the method used was a questionnaire, a method susceptible

to bias. New hires were self-reporting, which may have motivated them to give socially

desirable answers (Austin, Deary, Gibson, McGregor, & Dent, 1998). Future research would

benefit from additional analyses (e.g., interviews or focus groups). In-depth interviews are a

powerful tool for generating descriptions and interpretations of an employee’s social world

(Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls, & Ormston, 2013). By performing an in-depth interview, the

researcher can speak to employees who have knowledge and experience of the problem of

interest. It is an opportunity to learn and see the world from another perspective (Ruben &

Rubin, 2012). A focus group, on the other hand, not only offers insight into employees’ own

experiences, but also allows them to hear how other employees have experienced the

socialization process. Participants in the focus group listen, reflect on what is said, and possibly

consider their standpoint further. This can result in additional material triggered by the

responses of other new hires (Ritchie, Lewis, Nicholls, & Ormston, 2013).

26

The third limitation is that this study only used one of the Big Five characteristics.

Emotional stability showed a non-significant relationship in the model. However, earlier

research has suggested that personality characteristics such as agreeableness and openness to

experience are significantly related to investiture and serial socialization tactics (Gruman &

Saks, 2011). Moreover, research related to resource- and information-seeking has found that

conscientiousness impacts the way new hires seek resources and information (Tidwell & Sias,

2005). As regards future research, it is important to include all the Big Five characteristics:

extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to

experience. This will provide greater insight into how employees in a given social context seek

resources and information and how their social integration might differ (Morrison, 1993).

Finally, in future research it would be of additional value to include a context related

variable besides the personal characteristics, such as personal organization fit. Personal

organizational fit is the compatibility between a new employee and the organization in which

they work (Bowen, Ledford, & Nathan, 1991). Personal organizational fit plays an important

role in the recruitment process however there is less research on how personal organizational

fit develops through the socialization process (Cable & Parsons, 2001). During the socialization

process an organization has the opportunity to ensure the continuity of central values and norms,

providing newcomers with guidelines on how to respond to their work environment and their

coordination with coworkers (Bauer et al., 1998). At the same time the new employee is feeling

uncertain and it trying to learn about their new environment through social contacts. Cable and

Parsons (2001) Found that new employees perceive higher levels of personal organization fit

when they are exposed to serial and investiture tactics. The opportunity to learn and interact

with from an experienced organizational member and positive social support help the new hire

to experience a better fit. Additionally the interactions with an experienced organizational

member encourages new employees to accept the existing norms and values. It appears that

positive social interactions with colleagues give the new employee the opportunity to learn and

adopt the values of their new environment. For future research it would be interesting to see

how the values of a new, the organizational values and the fit between them are related to the

social integration of a new employee.

27

Practical implications

The research results lead to several practical implications for organizations wishing to

improve new hires’ access to resources and information and to help them socially integrate.

New hires attempt to reduce their feelings of uncertainty as they enter an organization.

Uncertainty can be mitigated by providing resources and information via different

communication channels and stimulating social interaction with superiors and colleagues (Saks

and Ashforth, 1997a). The organization can assist new hires in this process by developing

different serial socialization tactics. First, it is important for an organization to have practices

in place that ensure new hires are not left to their own devices. Firms should therefore promote

and reward organizational members for their involvement (Baker & Dutton, 2007). Social

contacts are important for a new hire, these contacts help a new hire to feel socially accepted.

One of these practices could be a mentor program in which an experienced organizational

member is assigned to the new hire to provide him or her with information, resources, social

contacts, and advice about how to perform the job. Ideally, the mentor should be someone who

has performed the same job him or herself (Jones, 1986). As this mentor performed their job

before he or she has the most knowledge about the resources and information a new hire needs

to perform their job well. A new hire will be able to use these resources and information to start

building a network in the organization.

Additionally, mentors should help newcomers develop strategies to create a stronger

connection with their supervisor and coworkers (Saks & Grumman, 2011). The mentor is also

able to introduce the new hire to important stakeholders. These first social contacts are

important in feeling accepted and socially integrated within the organization. Also the

relationship the new hire builds with his or her mentor could contribute to them feeling socially

integrated.

When designing and implementing socialization tactics within the organization, a firm

might benefit from organizing informal activities compelling newcomers and organizational

members to come together and work on network skills to start developing an internal network.

An example of an informal activity could be introducing new hires to all the different social

activities and clubs within the organization. Joining a club or an activity is beneficial for the

social network of the new hire. According to Burt (1992), obtaining contacts in different areas

of an organization also allows a new employee to acquire resources and information. A new

hire will be able to use these resources and information to further develop their social network.

28

Reference list

Allen, D. G. 2006. Do organizational socialization tactics influence newcomer embeddedness

and turnover? Journal of Management, 32: 237-256.

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective,

continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of occupational

and organizational psychology, 63(1), 1-18.

Anderson, M. H. (2008). Social networks and the cognitive motivation to realize network

opportunities: A study of managers' information gathering behaviors. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 51-78.

Anderson, C. M., Riddle, B. L., & Martin, M. M. (1999). Socialization processes in groups.

The handbook of group communication theory and research, 139-163.

Ashford, S. J. (1986). Feedback-seeking in individual adaptation: A resource

perspective. Academy of Management journal, 29(3), 465-487.

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., Sluss, D. M., & Saks, A. M. (2006). Socialization tactics, proactivity, and

learning: how process and content influence adjustment. In annual meeting of the

Academy of Management, Atlanta.

Ashford, S. J., & Taylor, M. S. (1990). Adaptation to work transitions: An integrative

approach. Research in personnel and human resources management, 8, 1-39.

Austin, E.J., Deary, I.J., Gibon, G. J., McGregor, M.J., & Dent, J.B. (1998). Individual

response spread in self-report scales: Personality correlations and consequences.

Personality and Individual Differences, 24(3), 421-438. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(97)

00175-X

Baker, W., & Dutton, J. E. (2007). Enabling positive social capital in organizations. Exploring

positive relationships at work: Building a theoretical and research

foundation, 325345.

29

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job

performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel psychology, 44(1), 1-26

Batistič, S. (2017). Looking beyond-socialization tactics: The role of human resource systems

in the socialization process. Human Resource Management Review.

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), 707-721.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.707

Bauer, T., Morrison, E. & Callister, R. (1998). Organizational socialization: A review and

directions for future research. Research in Personnel and Human Resources

Management. 16. 149-214.

Berger, C. R. (1979). Beyond initial interaction: Uncertainty, understanding, and the

development of interpersonal relationships. Language and social psychology, 122-144.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond:

Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human

communication research, 1(2), 99-112.

Blumer, H. (1969). Fashion: From class differentiation to collective selection. The

sociological Quarterly, 10(3), 275-291.

Blumer, H. (2012). Symbolic Interactionism [1969]. Contemporary Sociological Theory, 62.

Blunch, N. (2012). Introduction to structural equation modeling using IBM SPSS statistics

and AMOS. Sage.

Bolger, N., & Schilling, E. A. (1991). Personality and the problems of everyday life: The role

of neuroticism in exposure and reactivity to daily stressors. Journal of

personality, 59(3), 355-386.

30

Borgatta, E. F. (1964). The structure of personality characteristics. Systems Research and

Behavioral Science, 9(1), 8-17.

Bowen, D. E., Ledford Jr, G. E., & Nathan, B. R. (1991). Hiring for the organization, not the

job. Academy of Management Perspectives, 5(4), 35-51.

Brass, D. J. (1995). Creativity: It’s all in your social network. Creative action in

organizations, 94, 99.

Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and job attitudes:

The effects of positive mood-inducing events and negative affectivity on job

satisfaction in a field experiment. Organizational behavior and human decision

processes, 62(1), 55-62.

Burt, R.S., (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. 2001. Organization tactics and person-organization fit.

Personnel Psychology, 54: 1-23.

Carr, J. C., Pearson, A. W., Vest, M. J., & Boyar, S. L. (2006). Prior occupational experience,

anticipatory socialization, and employee retention. Journal of management, 32(3),

343-359.

Coleman, J. S., (1990). Foundations of Social Theory, Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA

Conley, J. J. (1985). Longitudinal stability of personality traits: A multitrait–multimethod–

multioccasion analysis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 49(5), 1266.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual

review of psychology, 41(1), 417-440.

Fang, R., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2011). The organizational socialization process:

Review and development of a social capital model. Journal of Management, 37(1),

127-152.

Feldman, D. C. 1976b. A practical program for employee socialization.Organizational

Dynamics, autumn: 64-80.

31

Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of

management review, 6(2), 309-318.

Feldman, D. C. 1989. Careers in organizations: Recent trends and future directions. Journal of

Management, 15: 135- 156.

Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational Socialization: An integrative review. Research in

Personnel and Human Resource Management, 4. 101-145.

Furukawa, T., Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1998). Social support and adjustment to a

novel social environment. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 44(1), 56-70.

Gather, U. (1986). Robust estimation of the mean of the exponential distribution in outlier

situations. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 15(8), 2323-2345.

George, J. M. (1992). The role of personality in organizational life: Issues and evidence.

Journal of Management, 2(18), 185-213.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, 78(6),

1360-1380.

Gruman, J. A., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Socialization preferences and intentions: Does one size

fit all? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 419-427.

Gruman, J. A., Saks, A. M. & Zweig, D. I. (2006). Organizational socialization tactics and

newcomer proactive behavior: An integrative study. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

69, 90–104.

Hakel, M. D. (1974). Normative personality factors recovered from ratings of personality

descriptors: The beholder's eye. Personnel psychology, 27(3), 409-421.

Harrington, D. (2009). Confirmatory factor analysis. Oxford University Press.

Haueter, J. A., Macan, T. H., & Winter, J. (2003). Measurement of newcomer socialization:

Construct validation of a multidimensional scale. Journal of vocational

behavior, 63(1), 20-39.

Hayes, J. R. (2013). The complete problem solver. Routledge.

32

Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment

decisions: Questions and answers. American psychologist, 51(5), 469.

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.

Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure

and access in an advertising firm. Administrative science quarterly, 422-447.

John, O. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In Personality

psychology (pp. 261-271). Springer, New York, NY.

Jones, G.R. (1986) Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments to

organizations. Academy of Management Journal,29, 262-279

Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem,

generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job

satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied

Psychology, 86(1), 80.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self‐evaluations scale:

Development of a measure. Personnel psychology, 56(2), 303-331.

Judge, T. A., & Locke, E. A. (1993). Effect of dysfunctional thought processes on subjective

well-being and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 475.

Kalish, Y., & Robins, G. (2006). Psychological predispositions and network structure: The

relationship between individual predispositions, structural holes and network

closure. Social Networks, 28(1), 56-84.

Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Wanberg, C. R. (2003). Unwrapping the organizational entry

process: disentangling multiple antecedents and their pathways to adjustment. Journal

of Applied Psychology, 88(5) 779.

Katz, R. 1980. Time and work: Toward an integrative perspective. In B. M. Staw & L. L.

Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 2: 81-127. Greenwich,

T: JAI Press.

33

Kuhl, J. (1981). Motivational and functional helplessness: The moderating effect of state

versus action orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(1), 155.

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-51.

Lorr, M., & Manning, T. T. (1978). Personality correlates of the sex role types. Journal of

Clinical Psychology, 34(4), 884-888.

Louis, M.R. (1990). Acculturation in the workplace: Newcomers and lay ethnographers. In B.

Schneider (ed.), Organizational climate and culture, 85-129

MacKinnon, D. P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J. H. (1995). A simulation study of mediated effect

measures. Multivariate behavioral research, 30(1), 41-62.

Marsh, H.W. & Hocevar, D.(1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study

of self-concept: First- and higher-order factor models and their invariance across

groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562–582.

Mehra, A., Kilduff, M., & Brass, D. J. (2001). The social networks of high and low self-

monitors: Implications for workplace performance. Administrative science

quarterly, 46(1), 121-146

Morrison, E. W. (1993). Longitudinal study of the effects of information seeking on

newcomer socialization. Journal of applied psychology, 78(2), 173.

Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources,

and outcomes. Academy of management Journal, 36(3), 557-589.

Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers' relationships: The role of social network ties during

socialization. Academy of management Journal, 45(6), 1149-1160.

Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated

factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 66(6), 574.

Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1975). Behavior in organizations.

Price, J. L., & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Absenteeism and turnover of hospital employees.

34

Rajulton, F. (2001). The fundamentals of longitudinal research: an overview. Canadian

Studies in Population, 28(2), 169-185.

Reichers, A.E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates.

Academy of Management Review, 12,278-287.

Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., Nicholls, C. M., & Ormston, R. (Eds.). (2013). Qualitative research

practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage.

Ruben, H. and Rubin, I. (2012). Qualitative Interviewing: the Art of Hearing Data, London:

Sage.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: Making sense of the past

and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of vocational Behavior, 51(2), 234-

279.

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.

Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., & Liden, R.C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success.

Academy of Management Journal, 22, 219-237

Shafer, A. B. (1999a). Brief bipolar markers for the Five Factor Model of Personality.

Psychological Reports, 84, 1173–1179

Shaw, J. D., Gupta, N., & Delery, J. E. (2005). Alternative conceptualizations of the

relationship between voluntary turnover and organizational performance. Academy of

management journal, 48(1), 50-68.

Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological

empowerment. Academy of management journal, 39(2), 483-504.

Tidwell, M., & Sias, P. (2005). Personality and information seeking: Understanding how traits

influence information-seeking behaviors. The Journal of Business Communication

(1973), 42(1), 51-77.

Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264

35

Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity

in the socialization process. Journal of applied psychology, 85(3), 373.

Watson, D., & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in

the context of the Five‐Factor model. Journal of personality, 64(4), 737-774.

36

Appendix A – Cover letter

Dear (new) Colleague,

Welcome to (company name). We hope you settled in well and that you enjoy working here.

(Company name) finds it very important that you feel welcome and that you have access to

the necessary information and tools in order to be able to perform your new job. Therefore we

are working hard on improving our onboarding process. Onboarding is related to different

activities and processes that are in place within the organization to make you feel welcome as

a new employee and to ensure you have the right knowledge, skills and behaviors to perform

well in your new job.

As you have recently experienced (company name) onboarding process, we would very much

appreciate if you can share your feedback with us. Your input will be used to improve our

Onboarding process in 2018 as well as for master thesis purposes. All answers will remain

confidential and anonymous.

We divided the survey in several subtopics.

Onboarding experience

Working within (company name)

Social and personal aspects

General information

Below you can find the link to our survey it will take 5 to 10 min. to fill in the questionnaire.

https://www.surveygizmo.com/s3/4113729/Onboarding-Survey-2018

If you have any questions regarding the master thesis, please contact: (email address)

(Contact details mentor)

Once again, thank you very much and success in your new job at (company name)!

Kind regards,

(Researchers name)

37

Appendix B – Survey

Onboarding Survey 2018

1) Onboarding experience

Strongly

disagree Disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Neither

agree or

disagree

Somewhat

agree Agree

Strongly

agree

I have been

made to feel

that my skills

and abilities

are very

important in

this

organization

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Almost all of

my colleagues

have been

supportive of

me

personally.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I have had to

change my

attitudes and

values to be

accepted in

this

organization.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

My colleagues

have gone out

of their way to

help me adjust

to this

organization.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I feel that

experienced

organizational

members have

held me at

distance until I

conform to

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

38

their

expectations.

Experienced

organizational

members see

advising or

training

newcomers as

one of their

main job

responsibilities

in this

organization.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I am gaining a

clear

understanding

of my role in

this

organization

from

observing my

senior

colleagues.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I have

received little

guidance from

experienced

organizational

members as to

how I should

perform my

job.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I have little or

no access to

people who

have

previously

performed my

role in this

organization.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I have been

generally left

alone to

discover what

my role should

be in this

organization.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I have been

through a set

of training

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

39

experiences

which are

specifically

designed to

give

newcomers a

thorough

knowledge of

job related

skills.

During my

training for

this job I was

normally

physically

apart from

regular

organizational

members.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I did not

perform any of

my normal job

responsibilities

until I was

thoroughly

familiar with

departmental

procedures

and work

methods.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Much of my

job knowledge

has been

acquired

informally on

a trial and

error basis.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I have been

very aware

that I am seen

as "learning

the ropes" in

this

organization.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

40

Working within (company name)

2) Working within (company name)

Strongly

disagree Disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Neither

agree or

disagree

Somewhat

agree Agree

Strongly

agree

I have access

to all

resources I

need to do

my job well.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I understand

the strategies

and goals of

my

organization.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

When I need

additional

resources to

do my job I

usually get

them.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I have access

to

information I

need to do

my job well.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I can obtain

the necessary

resources to

support new

ideas.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

I understand

top

management's

vision of the

organization.

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

41

Social aspects

3) What would you say about the atmosphere in your immediate work group in terms of friendliness? 1 = not friendly

at all to 5 = very friendly

( ) 1 ( ) 2 ( ) 3 ( ) 4 ( ) 5

4) To what extend do people in your immediate work group help you find ways to do a better job?

( ) Never ( ) Almost never ( ) Occasionally / Sometimes ( ) Almost every time ( ) Always

5) To what extent do you discuss personal problems with individuals in your immediate work group?

( ) Never ( ) Almost never ( ) Occasionally / Sometimes ( ) Almost every time ( ) Always

6) I feel comfortable around my co-workers.

( ) Strongly disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Neither agree or disagree ( ) Agree ( ) Strongly agree

7) My co-workers seem to accept me as one of them.

( ) Strongly disagree ( ) Disagree ( ) Neither agree or disagree ( ) Agree ( ) Strongly agree

Personal aspects (part 1)

Please select the option that bests describes your personality.

8) At ease - Nervous

( ) Very at ease ( ) Slightly at ease ( ) Neither at ease or nervous ( ) Slightly nervous ( ) Very nervous

9) Calm - Anxious

( ) Very calm ( ) Slightly calm ( ) Neither calm or anxious ( ) Slightly anxious ( ) Very anxious

10) Unagitated - Tense

( ) Very unagitated ( ) Slightly unagitated ( ) Neither unagitated or tense ( ) Slightly tense ( ) Very tense

11) Unworried - Fearfull

( ) Very unworried ( ) Slightly unworried ( ) Neither unworried or fearfull ( ) Slightly fearfull ( ) Very fearfull

12) Self-assured - Worrying

( ) Very self-assured ( ) Slightly self-assured ( ) Neither self-assured or worrying ( ) Slightly worrying

( ) Very worrying

13) Hardy - Vulnerable

( ) Very hardy ( ) Slightly hardy ( ) Neither hardy or vulnerable ( ) Slightly vulnerable ( ) Very

vulnerable

42

Personal aspects (part 2)

14) Quiet - Talkative

( ) Very quiet ( ) Slightly quiet ( ) Neither quiet or talkative ( ) Slightly talkative ( ) Very talkative

15) Introverted - Extraverted

( ) Very introverted ( ) Slightly introverted ( ) Neither introverted or extraverted ( ) Slightly extraverted ( )

Very extraverted

16) Retiring (modest) - Sociable

( ) Very retiring ( ) Slightly retiring ( ) Neither retiring or sociable ( ) Slightly sociable ( ) Very sociable

17) Shy - Outgoing

( ) Very shy ( ) Slightly shy ( ) Neither shy or outgoing ( ) Slightly outgoing ( ) Very outgoing

18) Reserved – Friendly

( ) Very reserved ( ) Slightly reserved ( ) Neither reserved or friendly ( ) Slightly friendly ( )

Very friendly

19) Loner – Joiner

( ) Very a loner ( ) Slightly a loner ( ) Neither a loner or a joiner ( ) Slightly a joiner ( ) Very a joiner

General information

20) Gender:

( ) Male

( ) Female

21) Age:

( ) 18-24

( ) 25-34

( ) 35-44

( ) 45-54

43

( ) 55-64

( ) 65-74

22) Tenure (total working years):

( ) Less than one year

( ) 1-3 years

( ) 4-6 years

( ) 7-10 years

( ) 11-15 years

( ) 15+

23) Highest achieved education level:

( ) Associate degree

( ) Bachelor's degree

( ) Master's degree

( ) PhD

( ) Other - Write In: _________________________________________________

24) Employment type:

( ) Company name (fix)

( ) Agency / contractor (flex)

( ) Internship

25) Career track:

( ) Project manager

( ) Manager

( ) Expert

26) Country of origin: Options

27) Work location: Options

44

Appendix C – Regression weights and output CFA

Table 4

Unstandardized regression weights

Factor loading Estimate S.E. C.R. P

Investiture 5 Investiture -.949 .184 -5.147 ***

Investiture 4 Investiture .993 .156 6.357 ***

Investiture 3 Investiture -.765 .197 -3.889 ***

Investiture 2 Investiture .890 .104 8.524 ***

Investiture 1 Investiture 1.000

Serial 5 Serial -1.017 .134 -7.615 ***

Serial 4 Serial -.778 .143 -5.429 ***

Serial 3 Serial -1.084 .157 -6.925 ***

Serial 2 Serial .874 .090 9.725 ***

Serial 1 Serial 1.000

Information3 Resourceinfo .670 .081 8.253 ***

Information2 Resourceinfo .839 .065 12.807 ***

Information1 Resourceinfo 1.018 .058 17.492 ***

Resources3 Resourceinfo .870 .076 11.510 ***

Resources2 Resourceinfo .643 .062 10.329 ***

Resources1 Resourceinfo 1.000

Social5 Social 1.265 .115 10.975 ***

Social4 Social 1.117 .105 10.648 ***

Social3 Social .207 .153 1.353 ***

Social2 Social 1.042 .114 9.113 ***

Social1 Social 1.000

Neuroticism6 Neuroticism .667 .089 7.498 ***

Neuroticism5 Neuroticism 1.184 .116 10.244 ***

Neuroticism4 Neuroticism .961 .088 10.884 ***

Neuroticism3 Neuroticism 1.325 .129 10.308 ***

Neuroticism2 Neuroticism .941 .074 12.705 ***

Neuroticism1 Neuroticism 1.000

*** P = < .001

45

Table 5

CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF p CMIN/DF

Default model 96 559.530 282 .000 2.126

Saturated model 378 .000 0

Independence model 27 4134.911 351 .000 11.780

Table 6

Baseline comparisons

Model NFI RFI IFI TLI CFI

Default model .855 .820 .918 .896 .916

Saturated model 1.000 1.000 1.000

Independence model .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

Table 7

RMSEA and SRMR

Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Default model .052 .046 .058 .276

Independence model .161 .157 .165 .000

SRMR .0643

Results (default model)

Minimum was achieved

Chi-square = 599.530

Degrees of freedom =282

Probability level = .000

46

Appendix D – Standardized regression weights including difference with common latent

factor

Table 8

Standardized regression weights

Loading Estimate with

CLF

Estimate without

CLF

Delta

Investiture 5 Investiture 0.127 -0.326 -0.453

Investiture 4 Investiture 0.357 0.394 0.037

Investiture 3 Investiture 0.223 -0.237 -0.46

Investiture 2 Investiture 0.394 0.527 0.133

Investiture 1 Investiture 0.527 0.543 0.016

Serial 5 Serial -0.13 -0.476 -0.346

Serial 4 Serial 0.152 -0.346 -0.498

Serial 3 Serial 0.024 -0.455 -0.479

Serial 2 Serial 1.127 0.551 -0.576

Serial 1 Serial 1.049 0.566 -0.483

Information3 Resourceinfo 0.666 0.562 -0.104

Information2 Resourceinfo 0.621 0.685 0.064

Information1 Resourceinfo 0.7 0.826 0.126

Resources3 Resourceinfo 0.726 0.751 0.025

Resources2 Resourceinfo 0.654 0.683 0.029

Resources1 Resourceinfo 0.647 0.73 0.083

Social5 Social 0.704 0.806 0.102

Social4 Social 0.765 0.801 0.036

Social3 Social 0.334 0.09 -0.244

Social2 Social 0.452 0.625 0.173

Social1 Social 0.457 0.554 0.097

47

Neuroticism6 Neuroticism 0.435 0.461 0.026

Neuroticism5 Neuroticism 0.698 0.748 0.05

Neuroticism4 Neuroticism 0.625 0.653 0.028

Neuroticism3 Neuroticism 0.753 0.801 0.048

Neuroticism2 Neuroticism 0.557 0.578 0.021

Neuroticism1 Neuroticism 0.553 0.612 0.059

Appendix E – Reliability analysis

Reliability Investiture scale

Table 9

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based

on

Standardized

Items N of Items

.215 .456 5

Table 10

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean

if Item

Deleted

Scale

Variance if

Item

Deleted

Corrected

Item-Total

Correlation

Squared

Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if

Item

Deleted

Investiture, skills and

abilities

20.98 35.126 .106 .148 .195

Investiture, support

colleague

20.50 33.635 .284 .271 .135

48

Investiture, change

attitudes and values

21.87 9.189 .120 .032 .409

Investiture, help

colleague adjustment

21.62 33.540 .132 .180 .173

Investiture, distance

colleagues

21.67 32.085 .156 .074 .150

49

Table 11

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

Investiture,

skills and

abilities

Investiture,

support

colleague

Investiture,

change

attitudes

and values

Investiture,

help

colleague

adjustment

Investiture,

distance

colleagues

Investiture, skills and

abilities

1.000 .368 -.025 .227 .064

Investiture, support

colleague

.368 1.000 .088 .389 .185

Investiture, change

attitudes and values

-.025 .088 1.000 .055 .147

Investiture, help

colleague adjustment

.227 .389 .055 1.000 -.061

Investiture, distance

colleagues

.064 .185 .147 -.061 1.000

50

Reliability Serial scale

Table 12

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based

on

Standardized

Items N of Items

.696 .690 5

Table 13

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean

if Item

Deleted

Scale

Variance if

Item

Deleted

Corrected

Item-Total

Correlation

Squared

Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if

Item

Deleted

Serial, advising and

training main

responsibilities

20.62 19.459 .291 .271 .704

Serial, clear

understanding role

20.45 19.430 .343 .255 .687

Serial, little guidance

colleagues

21.01 14.655 .509 .342 .622

Serial, no access

previously performed

job

20.47 15.314 .499 .386 .625

Serial, Left alone 20.60 14.608 .629 .420 .564

51

Table 14

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

Serial,

advising and

training main

responsibilitie

s

Serial, clear

understanding

role

Serial, little

guidance

colleagues

Serial, no

access

previously

performed job

Serial, Left

alone

Serial, advising and

training main

responsibilities

1.000 .479 .137 .049 .275

Serial, clear

understanding role

.479 1.000 .144 .162 .265

Serial, little guidance

colleagues

.137 .144 1.000 .514 .512

Serial, no access

previously performed

job

.049 .162 .514 1.000 .544

Serial, Left alone .275 .265 .512 .544 1.000

52

Reliability access to resources and information scale

Table 15

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based

on

Standardized

Items N of Items

.848 .851 6

Table 16

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale

Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected

Item-Total

Correlation

Squared

Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

Resources, acces to do

job

27.96 16.155 .689 .547 .813

Resources, strategies

and goals

27.54 19.022 .646 .467 .824

Resources, need

additional resources

27.74 17.711 .645 .456 .821

Information, access to 27.76 16.988 .714 .590 .807

Information, resources

support new ideas

28.07 17.610 .639 .414 .822

Information,

understanding vision

27.93 18.909 .484 .357 .851

53

Table 17

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

Resources,

acces to do

job

Resources,

strategies and

goals

Resources,

need additional

resources

Information,

access to

Information,

resources

support new

ideas

Information,

understanding vision

Resources, acces to

do job

1.000 .498 .554 .704 .507 .345

Resources,

strategies and goals

.498 1.000 .443 .502 .463 .572

Resources, need

additional resources

.554 .443 1.000 .612 .534 .314

Information, access

to

.704 .502 .612 1.000 .528 .321

Information,

resources support

new ideas

.507 .463 .534 .528 1.000 .415

Information,

understanding

vision

.345 .572 .314 .321 .415 1.000

54

Reliability Neuroticism scale

Table 18

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based

on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.817 .816 6

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean if

Item Deleted

Scale

Variance if

Item Deleted

Corrected

Item-Total

Correlation

Squared

Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if Item

Deleted

Neuroticism, At ease -

Nervous

11.58 10.895 .654 .478 .772

Neuroticism, Calm -

Anxious

11.68 11.298 .590 .424 .787

Neuroticism, Unagitated

- Tense

11.34 11.133 .621 .405 .779

Neuroticism, Unworried

- Fearfull

11.35 11.789 .603 .391 .785

Neuroticism, Self-

assured - Worrying

11.59 11.299 .614 .385 .781

Neuroticism, Hardy -

Vulnerable

11.42 12.794 .407 .192 .823

55

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

Neuroticism,

At ease -

Nervous

Neuroticism,

Calm -

Anxious

Neuroticism,

Unagitated -

Tense

Neuroticism,

Unworried -

Fearfull

Neuroticism,

Self-assured

- Worrying

Neuroticism,

Hardy -

Vulnerable

Neuroticism, At ease

- Nervous

1.000 .611 .505 .473 .473 .285

Neuroticism, Calm -

Anxious

.611 1.000 .463 .381 .447 .238

Neuroticism,

Unagitated - Tense

.505 .463 1.000 .531 .444 .317

Neuroticism,

Unworried - Fearfull

.473 .381 .531 1.000 .487 .327

Neuroticism, Self-

assured - Worrying

.473 .447 .444 .487 1.000 .393

Neuroticism, Hardy

- Vulnerable

.285 .238 .317 .327 .393 1.000

56

Reliability social integration scale

Table 19

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based

on

Standardized

Items

N of Items

.718 .752 5

Item-Total Statistics

Scale Mean

if Item

Deleted

Scale

Variance if

Item

Deleted

Corrected

Item-Total

Correlation

Squared

Multiple

Correlation

Cronbach's

Alpha if

Item

Deleted

Social, rate

friendliness

15.39 4.492 .444 .260 .683

Social, colleagues

help to do better job

15.67 4.510 .511 .278 .658

Social, personal

problems

16.88 4.391 .289 .107 .776

Social, comfortable

around co-workers

15.49 4.467 .651 .532 .617

Social, acceptance

co-workers

15.54 4.342 .625 .532 .618

57

Inter-Item Correlation Matrix

Social, rate

friendliness

Social,

colleagues

help to do

better job

Social,

personal

problems

Social,

comfortable

around co-

workers

Social,

acceptance

co-workers

Social, rate friendliness 1.000 .363 .132 .456 .441

Social, colleagues help

to do better job

.363 1.000 .255 .429 .470

Social, personal

problems

.132 .255 1.000 .291 .236

Social, comfortable

around co-workers

.456 .429 .291 1.000 .696

Social, acceptance co-

workers

.441 .470 .236 .696 1.000

58

Appendix F: Hayes PROCESS with Serial Socialization tactics

Run MATRIX procedure:

**************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Version 3.00 *****************

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com

Documentation available in Hayes (2018). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

**************************************************************************

Model : 7

Y : SocialTo

X : SerialTo

M : Resource

W : Neurotic

Covariates:

Educatio Age Gender Employme

Sample

Size: 500

**************************************************************************

OUTCOME VARIABLE:

Resource

Model Summary

R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p

.4328 .1873 .5795 16.1972 7.0000 492.0000 .0000

Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI

constant 4.9106 .7002 7.0135 .0000 3.5349 6.2863

SerialTo .2570 .1253 2.0518 .0407 .0109 .5032

Neurotic -.2621 .2725 -.9617 .3367 -.7976 .2734

Int_1 .0340 .0525 .6477 .5175 -.0691 .1371

59

Educatio -.0594 .0385 -1.5442 .1232 -.1351 .0162

Age -.0225 .0340 -.6604 .5093 -.0893 .0443

Gender -.0758 .0862 -.8800 .3793 -.2452 .0935

Employme -.1737 .0702 -2.4751 .0137 -.3117 -.0358

Product terms key:

Int_1 : SerialTo x Neurotic

Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s):

R2-chng F df1 df2 p

X*W .0007 .4195 1.0000 492.0000 .5175

**************************************************************************

OUTCOME VARIABLE:

SocialTo

Model Summary

R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p

.4673 .2184 .2187 22.9549 6.0000 493.0000 .0000

Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI

constant 2.6539 .1918 13.8368 .0000 2.2770 3.0307

SerialTo .1019 .0234 4.3506 .0000 .0559 .1479

Resource .1984 .0276 7.1869 .0000 .1442 .2526

Educatio -.0221 .0236 -.9360 .3497 -.0686 .0243

Age -.0280 .0208 -1.3458 .1790 -.0688 .0129

Gender -.0376 .0528 -.7115 .4771 -.1413 .0662

Employme -.1440 .0432 -3.3322 .0009 -.2289 -.0591

****************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y *****************

Direct effect of X on Y

Effect se t p LLCI ULCI

.1019 .0234 4.3506 .0000 .0559 .1479

60

Conditional indirect effects of X on Y:

INDIRECT EFFECT:

SerialTo -> Resource -> SocialTo

Neurotic Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI

1.6667 .0622 .0150 .0334 .0922

2.3333 .0667 .0137 .0402 .0931

3.0000 .0712 .0169 .0391 .1051

Index of moderated mediation:

Index BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI

Neurotic .0067 .0123 -.0153 .0338

---

*********************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND ERRORS ************************

Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:

95.0000

Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals:

5000

W values in conditional tables are the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles.

NOTE: Variables names longer than eight characters can produce incorrect output.

Shorter variable names are recommended.

------ END MATRIX -----

61

Appendix G: Hayes PROCESS with Investiture Socialization tactics

Run MATRIX procedure:

**************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Version 3.00 *****************

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com

Documentation available in Hayes (2018). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

**************************************************************************

Model : 7

Y : SocialTo

X : InvestTo

M : Resource

W : Neurotic

Covariates:

Educatio Age Gender Employme

Sample

Size: 500

**************************************************************************

OUTCOME VARIABLE:

Resource

Model Summary

R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p

.3317 .1101 .6345 8.6916 7.0000 492.0000 .0000

Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI

constant 7.7864 .5548 14.0346 .0000 6.6963 8.8764

InvestTo -.2430 .0954 -2.5483 .0111 -.4304 -.0557

Neurotic -1.2753 .2702 -4.7198 .0000 -1.8061 -.7444

Int_1 .2117 .0510 4.1534 .0000 .1116 .3119

Educatio -.0718 .0402 -1.7835 .0751 -.1508 .0073

62

Age -.0400 .0355 -1.1255 .2609 -.1097 .0298

Gender -.0510 .0904 -.5639 .5731 -.2286 .1267

Employme -.1974 .0739 -2.6724 .0078 -.3425 -.0523

Product terms key:

Int_1 : InvestTo x Neurotic

Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s):

R2-chng F df1 df2 p

X*W .0312 17.2508 1.0000 492.0000 .0000

----------

Focal predict: InvestTo (X)

Mod var: Neurotic (W)

Conditional effects of the focal predictor at values of the moderator(s):

Neurotic Effect se t p LLCI ULCI

1.6667 .1098 .0301 3.6545 .0003 .0508 .1689

2.3333 .2510 .0408 6.1443 .0000 .1707 .3312

3.0000 .3921 .0689 5.6934 .0000 .2568 .5274

**************************************************************************

OUTCOME VARIABLE:

SocialTo

Model Summary

R R-sq MSE F df1 df2 p

.4533 .2055 .2223 21.2478 6.0000 493.0000 .0000

Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI

constant 2.7028 .1942 13.9188 .0000 2.3212 3.0843

InvestTo .0578 .0177 3.2580 .0012 .0229 .0927

Resource .2298 .0260 8.8532 .0000 .1788 .2809

Educatio -.0272 .0239 -1.1378 .2558 -.0741 .0198

63

Age -.0317 .0209 -1.5150 .1304 -.0729 .0094

Gender -.0241 .0534 -.4510 .6522 -.1289 .0808

Employme -.1347 .0435 -3.0988 .0021 -.2201 -.0493

****************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y *****************

Direct effect of X on Y

Effect se t p LLCI ULCI

.0578 .0177 3.2580 .0012 .0229 .0927

Conditional indirect effects of X on Y:

INDIRECT EFFECT:

InvestTo -> Resource -> SocialTo

Neurotic Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI

1.6667 .0252 .0298 .0111 .1042

2.3333 .0577 .0181 .0347 .1039

3.0000 .0901 .0235 .0453 .1377

Index of moderated mediation:

Index BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI

Neurotic .0487 .0298 -.0231 .0848

---

*********************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND ERRORS ************************

Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:

95.0000

Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals:

5000

W values in conditional tables are the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles.

NOTE: Variables names longer than eight characters can produce incorrect output.

Shorter variable names are recommended.

64

------ END MATRIX -----

Run MATRIX procedure:

**************** PROCESS Procedure for SPSS Version 3.00 *****************

Written by Andrew F. Hayes, Ph.D. www.afhayes.com

Documentation available in Hayes (2018). www.guilford.com/p/hayes3

**************************************************************************

Model : 7

Y : SocialTo

X : InvestTo

M : Resource

W : Neurotic

Covariates:

Educatio Age Gender Employme

Sample

Size: 500

**************************************************************************

OUTCOME VARIABLE:

Resource

Model Summary

R R-sq MSE F df1 df2

p

.3317 .1101 .6345 8.6916 7.0000 492.0000

.0000

Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI

constant 7.7864 .5548 14.0346 .0000 6.6963 8.8764

InvestTo -.2430 .0954 -2.5483 .0111 -.4304 -.0557

Neurotic -1.2753 .2702 -4.7198 .0000 -1.8061 -.7444

Int_1 .2117 .0510 4.1534 .0000 .1116 .3119

Educatio -.0718 .0402 -1.7835 .0751 -.1508 .0073

Age -.0400 .0355 -1.1255 .2609 -.1097 .0298

Gender -.0510 .0904 -.5639 .5731 -.2286 .1267

Employme -.1974 .0739 -2.6724 .0078 -.3425 -.0523

Product terms key:

Int_1 : InvestTo x Neurotic

Test(s) of highest order unconditional interaction(s):

R2-chng F df1 df2 p

X*W .0312 17.2508 1.0000 492.0000 .0000

----------

Focal predict: InvestTo (X)

Mod var: Neurotic (W)

Conditional effects of the focal predictor at values of the moderator(s):

Neurotic Effect se t p LLCI

ULCI

1.6667 .1098 .0301 3.6545 .0003 .0508

.1689

2.3333 .2510 .0408 6.1443 .0000 .1707

.3312

65

3.0000 .3921 .0689 5.6934 .0000 .2568

.5274

**************************************************************************

OUTCOME VARIABLE:

SocialTo

Model Summary

R R-sq MSE F df1 df2

p

.4533 .2055 .2223 21.2478 6.0000 493.0000

.0000

Model

coeff se t p LLCI ULCI

constant 2.7028 .1942 13.9188 .0000 2.3212 3.0843

InvestTo .0578 .0177 3.2580 .0012 .0229 .0927

Resource .2298 .0260 8.8532 .0000 .1788 .2809

Educatio -.0272 .0239 -1.1378 .2558 -.0741 .0198

Age -.0317 .0209 -1.5150 .1304 -.0729 .0094

Gender -.0241 .0534 -.4510 .6522 -.1289 .0808

Employme -.1347 .0435 -3.0988 .0021 -.2201 -.0493

****************** DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF X ON Y *****************

Direct effect of X on Y

Effect se t p LLCI ULCI

.0578 .0177 3.2580 .0012 .0229 .0927

Conditional indirect effects of X on Y:

INDIRECT EFFECT:

InvestTo -> Resource -> SocialTo

Neurotic Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI

1.6667 .0252 .0298 .0111 .1042

2.3333 .0577 .0181 .0347 .1039

3.0000 .0901 .0235 .0453 .1377

Index of moderated mediation:

Index BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI

Neurotic .0487 .0298 -.0231 .0848

---

*********************** ANALYSIS NOTES AND ERRORS ************************

Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output:

95.0000

Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals:

5000

W values in conditional tables are the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles.

NOTE: Variables names longer than eight characters can produce incorrect

output.

Shorter variable names are recommended.

------ END MATRIX -----