the effectiveness of an organizational-level orientation training program in the socialization of...

Running Head: ORIENTATION TRAINING

The Effectiveness of an Organizational-Level Orientation

Training Program in the Socialization of New Hires

Howard J. Klein and Natasha A. Weaver

The Ohio State University

Personnel Psychology (200). 53(1), 47-66DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.tb00193.x

The authors thank Nancy Campbell, Sondra Clayton, Bob Towner-Larson, Tim Poland, Jennifer Stevens, and Deborah Wasserman for their assistance in conducting this study and John P. Wanous, Georgia T Chao, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. A version of this paper was presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Dallas, Texas, April 1998. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Howard J. Klein, Department of Management and Human Resources, Max M. Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, 2100 Neil Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1144; [email protected].



Abstract

This quasi-experimental field study examined the impact of attending a voluntary,

organizational-level new employee orientation training program on organizational

socialization. Six content dimensions of socialization were measured before and one to

two months following orientation training for a sample of 116 new employees in a

variety of occupations. Results revealed that employees attending the orientation

training were significantly more socialized on three of the six socialization content

dimensions (goals/values, history, and people) than employees who did not attend the

training. Employees attending the orientation training also had significantly higher

levels of affective organizational commitment than non attendees, a relationship that

was fully mediated by the socialization content dimensions, primarily goals/values and

history.



Organizational socialization is the process by which employees learn about and

adapt to new jobs, roles, and the culture of the workplace (Fisher, 1986; Van Maanen

& Schein, 1979). Organizational socialization has been linked to a number of

important organizational outcomes including increased organizational commitment,

job involvement, role orientation and tenure (Allen & Meyer, 1990a; Bauer, Morrison,

& Callister, 1998; Fisher, 1986). Although socialization is an ongoing process, the

focus of the current study is on the socialization of new hires, which is when

adjustment issues are most intense and problematic and when employees are most

susceptible to the organization’s influence (Berlew & Hall, 1966; Jones, 1983; Van

Maanen & Schein, 1979). Specifically, the current study focuses on evaluating the

impact of a formal organizational-level orientation training program, a common tactic

used in socializing new hires.

There has been a resurgence in socialization research (Saks & Ashforth, 1997a)

and that research has focused on several different issues. One approach has concerned

the stages through which newcomers progress (e.g., Buchanan, 1974; Feldman, 1976;

1981; Wanous, 1992). A second approach to the study of socialization has focused on

how new hires learn about and make sense of their new environment (e.g., Louis,

1980; Morrison, 1993; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). A third approach has focused on

various tactics organizations use to facilitate socialization (e.g., Louis, Posner, &

Powell, 1983; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Finally, socialization research has

focused on the content of socialization (e.g., Chao, O’Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, &

Gardner, 1994; Feldman, 1981; Fisher, 1986). From this perspective, socialization is a

learning process in which individuals need to acquire a variety of information and

behaviors to become effective organizational members (Fisher, 1986). Chao et al.

(1994) integrated previous work on the content of socialization into six dimensions,

representing distinct information domains which need to be learned for successful

adjustment. These different content areas are: politics, history, people, performance

proficiency, language, and goals/values. The current study integrates the latter two

approaches by assessing the mastery of socialization content in order to evaluate the

effectiveness of a common socialization tactic.

Orientation programs are a form of employee training designed to introduce

new employees to their job, the people they will be working with, and the larger

organization. These training programs can play a critical role during socialization by

providing newcomers with a variety of important information (Anderson,

Cunningham-Snell, & Hiagh, 1990). Orientation programs may take the form of formal

training programs, informal orientating activities by peers and supervisors (Louis et al.,

1983), or a combination of both. Orientation programs also differ in the extent to

which they provide information about the broader organization in addition to

information about the job and immediate work environment. While both formal and

informal orientations are important for effective socialization and employees need to

be oriented to both their jobs and the broader organization, the focus here is on a

formal, organizational-level orientation training program.

Most organizations use formal orientation training as part of the socialization

process (Saks & Ashforth, 1997a), making it one of the most common types of training

programs (Bassi & Van Buren, 1998). Despite their widespread use, there has been

little research on orientation training programs (Wanous, 1993). The practitioner

literature provides examples of companies thought to do a good job with orientation

training (e.g., Martinez, 1992; McGarrell, 1984) but there is surprisingly little in the

academic literature examining the impact or most appropriate structure of these

programs. Louis et al. (1983) concluded that “the impact of these sessions was

somewhat tenuous” (p. 865) and other authors have questioned the usefulness of

orientation training programs in fostering newcomer adjustment (e.g., Anderson et al.,

1990; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). A few studies (e.g., Gommersall & Meyers, 1966;

Meglino, DeNisi, Youngblood, & Williams, 1988; Waung, 1995) have evaluated the

impact of specific elements in orientation programs (e.g., reducing stress, providing

realistic job previews) but those elements focus on the job or work environment, not

the broader organization.

A number of other studies (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1990a; Ashforth & Saks,

1996; Baker, 1992; Jones, 1986; Saks & Ashforth, 1997b) have examined the impact

of formal or institutional socialization practices in evaluating the tactics identified by

Van Maanen & Schein (1979). It is not possible, however, to identify the independent

impact of orientation training programs from those studies. A final set of studies has

researched the availability and helpfulness of orientation training programs (Chatman,

1991; Louis et al., 1983; Nelson & Quick, 1991; Saks, 1996). These studies show that

(a) orientation programs are widely available, (b) availability is generally not

significantly related to variables thought to reflect newcomer adjustment (e.g.,

organizational commitment, turnover intentions), and (c) these programs are only rated

“moderately helpful” by new employees. In those studies, orientation training is often

not differentiated from other initial technical or job skill training programs. Nor are

distinctions made between organizational-level and job-centered orientation programs.

Additional research is needed examining the linkages between training and

socialization (Feldman, 1989; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992), particularly research

evaluating interventions that facilitate the learning of socialization content domains

(Saks & Ashforth, 1997a). The current study answers the call for additional research to

determine the most effective nature or content of orientation training (e.g., Holton,

1995; Saks & Ashforth, 1997a).

One reason for the lack of previous research examining orientation programs,

and other socialization strategies, may have been the absence of direct criteria for

measuring the extent to which an individual is socialized (Jones, 1986; Chao et al.,

1994). The most appropriate criteria would be indicators of the learning, inclusion, and

assimilation that occur during the socialization process (Chao et al., 1994; Ostroff &

Kozlowski, 1992). Without an established, comprehensive measure to assess the extent

to which employees have acquired the different kinds of knowledge and behaviors

necessary to be "socialized,” researchers have used more distal criteria (e.g.,

organizational commitment, role ambiguity, turnover intentions, performance) or

inferred a newcomer’s degree of socialization from measures such as length of tenure

(Fisher, 1986; Chao et al., 1994). Relationships have been found between socialization

tactics and a number of these distal outcomes (Feldman, 1989). However, because

these outcomes are affected by a multitude of other factors, they are inadequate

measures of socialization (Chao et al., 1994; Fisher, 1986; Ostroff & Kozlowski,

1992). The socialization scale presented by Chao et al. (1994) provides a more

proximal, direct measure of the extent or degree of socialization.

Hypotheses

The stated goals of the particular orientation program examined in this study

were to help new employees (a) feel more a part of the organization, (b) learn more

about the organization’s language, traditions, mission, history, and structure, and (c)

better understand the organization’s basic workplace principles. The outline of the

program was as follows: (a) An introduction and overview during which a notebook

containing various informational resources was distributed (b) A videotaped welcome

from the organization’s president, (c) A game/exercise aimed at familiarizing

employees with the organization’s traditions and language, (d) A videotape and

discussion covering the mission, history, and structure of the organization, and (e) A

lecture/discussion of the organization’s basic workplace principles.

Consistent with the view that socialization is a learning process, attending a

formal training program that presents information about traditions and history should

help new employees become more socialized on the history dimension of socialization

which refers to knowledge of the organization’s traditions, customs, myths, stories, and

rituals (Chao et al., 1994). The language dimension refers to the extent to which

employees understand the technical language, acronyms, slang, and jargon unique to

their organization, job, and profession (Chao et al., 1994). While an organizational-

level orientation program could not be expected to facilitate the learning of language

specific to one’s job or profession, this program did include a module that explained

terms and acronyms unique to the organization. As such, employees attending the

program should become more socialized on that aspect of the language dimension.

Since the program also covered the organization’s mission and workplace principles,

the goals/values dimension, which concerns employees’ understanding of and

identification with both the formal and unwritten goals and values of their organization

(Chao et al., 1994), should also be impacted. Attending the orientation training

program should clearly help increase employee awareness and understanding of the

company’s goals and values. Employees cannot embrace an organization’s goals or

values if they are not made aware of those goals and values. While awareness does not

assure acceptance, having those goals and values presented and explained

systematically and persuasively in a training program should facilitate acceptance

(Latham, Erez, & Locke, 1988). A new employee attending an orientation program

explicitly addressing these issues should become more socialized on the goals/values

dimension and become socialized sooner than a new employee left to haphazardly infer

the organization’s goals and values over time and on their own.

While formal structure was also covered in the training program, it was thought

that this was insufficient to help socialize new employees on the dimension of politics

which concerns employees’ knowledge of the formal and informal work relationships

and power structures within their organization (Chao et al., 1994). Knowledge of the

formal structure is a part of understanding who is important in the organization, but

politics often reside outside of the formal authority structure (Mayes & Allen, 1977).

The informal structure is, therefore, as critical if not more so for understanding how

things really work, who is really important, and how to get things done. Since

knowledge conveyed about the formal structure is unlikely to generalize to

understanding the informal structure, orientation attendance is unlikely to facilitate

socialization on the politics dimension. The orientation program also was not expected

to influence the people or performance dimensions of socialization. Employees who

have mastered the people dimension have established successful and satisfying work

relationships with organizational members where as performance proficiency concerns

the mastery of the tasks necessary to perform their job (Chao et al., 1994). Because the

orientation program was not job specific, the information learned should not, in and of

itself, have helped new employees become more proficient in their job tasks.

Regarding the people dimension, no effect was predicted because attending this session

did not help introduce newcomers to the individuals with whom they would be

interacting on a day-to-day basis.

H1: Employees attending orientation will be more socialized than employees

not attending orientation only on those dimensions related to the goals

of that program, specifically the goals/values, history, and language

dimensions.

As noted previously, socialization has been linked to a number of important

distal outcomes. One of the earliest and most frequently examined of those outcomes is

organizational commitment. In particular, it is affective organizational commitment,

the psychological attachment to, identification with, and involvement in the

organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991) that should be influenced by organizational

practices such as socialization (Wiener, 1982). Socialization practices have long been

thought to influence the development of organizational commitment (Berlew & Hall,

1966; Buchanan, 1974; Meyer & Allen, 1991) and a number of studies have found

institutionalized socialization tactics to be associated with higher commitment (e.g.,

Allen & Meyer, 1990a; Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Baker, 1992; Jones, 1986; Saks &

Ashforth, 1997b).

No previous research has examined the relationships between the Chao et al.

(1994) dimensions of socialization content and organizational commitment. Previous

research has, however, demonstrated that formal socialization tactics are related to

distal outcomes including organizational commitment (e.g.,. Allen, & Meyer, 1990a;

Jones, 1986). Therefore, the more direct measures of socialization content, particularly

those which focus more on the organization (e.g., history, goals/values) than the job

(e.g., performance proficiency), can be expected to relate to organizational

commitment. While the conceptual linkage between being well socialized and having

high affective organizational commitment is apparent, it does not necessarily follow

that any particular socialization tactic will directly result in increased commitment.

Simply attending an orientation training program, for example, would not in and of

itself be expected to increase commitment. Rather, as argued earlier, orientation

attendance should influence the learning of socialization content. That increased

socialization, in turn, should result in higher affective organizational commitment.

For the particular orientation training program examined in this study,

attending orientation should result in increased awareness of and socialization on the

organization’s goals, values, history, and language. Increased socialization on those

dimensions should, in turn, result in enhanced feelings of attachment to and

identification with the organization. Therefore, it is hypothesized that attending the

orientation training program in this study should result in increased affective

organizational commitment through the increased learning of socialization content.

Stated differently, the more proximal outcomes (i.e., being more socialized) of a

socialization tactic (e.g., orientation training) should mediate the effects of that tactic

on the more distal outcomes (e.g., affective organizational commitment). Therefore,

any observed relationship between attending orientation and organizational

commitment is predicted to be mediated by the effected socialization content domains.

H2: Orientation attendance will be positively related to affective organizational

commitment and that relationship will be fully mediated by the

socialization content dimensions of goals/values, history, and language.

METHOD

Subjects

The study was conducted in a large educational institution. The final sample

used in the analyses consisted of 116 newly hired employees. These employees worked

in 80 different departments and held 70 different job titles. The sample did not include

faculty members, instructors, or student employees. Given the large number of

different job titles, job classification codes were obtained to simplify the categorization

of participants. Those codes indicated that 39% of these employees were in

professional positions (e.g., accountants, architects), 36% in clerical positions, 12% in

technical/paraprofessional positions (e.g., computer programmers, dental assistants),

9% in administrative positions (e.g., program or placement directors), 2% in skilled

craft positions, and 2% in service/maintenance positions. On average, the employees in

the final sample had been with the organization for 87 days. This sample was mostly

white (83%), female (70%) and, on average, 35 years old. As for educational

background, all employees in the final sample had at least a high school diploma with

41% having earned a college degree and 28% holding advanced degrees.

The Orientation Program

The central training unit of the organization, a division of the Human

Resources department, offers an orientation program for new employees. At the time

of the study, this program was three hours in length, voluntary, and open to all full

time employees who had been employed less then six months. The goals of the

program and it basic structure were presented previously. This program was not

offered during the three-month period prior to the start of this study during which time

the content of the program was revised. The program was then offered six times over

the next nine months with the same content, materials, and instructors. The study

focused on employees eligible to attend those six sessions. The program was

advertised, along with other offered programs, in the organization’s monthly

newsletter. In addition, a postcard was sent to new hires inviting them to attend the

orientation program. Enrollment was on a first to sign-up basis and was limited to 30

employees per session. Supervisors signed up their new employees or employees

interested in attending registered themselves after obtaining approval from their

supervisors.

Procedure

The researchers obtained copies of the mailing lists used by the training unit to

advertise the program. These lists contained the names and work addresses of recently

hired employees. The first list, obtained in September, contained employees hired

during the previous six months. The two subsequent lists, obtained in January and

April, contained employees hired during the preceding three months. A total of 243

non-faculty and non-student employees were identified from these lists. While the data

were collected in three waves, the procedures followed were identical. After receiving

the list of new hires, questionnaires were mailed to each employee on that list along

with an informed consent form, cover letter, and return envelope. The initial

questionnaire assessed the extent to which employees were socialized (subsequently

referred to as pre-training socialization) and demographic information. The first

questionnaire was completed by 142 employees (a response rate of 58%).

Sessions of the orientation program were scheduled approximately two and six

weeks following the time employees received these materials. For those employees

who attended the orientation program, a survey was administered at the end of that

session assessing participants’ reactions to the program. A final questionnaire was sent

to all employees who responded to the first questionnaire. This questionnaire was

mailed ten weeks after the first questionnaire, either one or two months following the

orientation program for those that attended. This final survey assessed the extent to

which employees were socialized (post-training socialization) as well as organizational

commitment. The second questionnaire was returned by 118 employees (a response

rate of 83%). Archival data were obtained from organizational records concerning the

date of employment, department, job title, job classification, and orientation

attendance. Two employees were dropped from the sample because they returned the

first questionnaire after having attended the orientation program, resulting in the final

sample of 116 newly hired employees.

Quasi-Experimental Design

The design of this study can best be described as employing non-equivalent

dependent variables and a non-random control group. The voluntary nature of this

orientation program provided natural treatment and control groups. The main concern

with non-random groups is the potential lack of equivalence. The use of non-

equivalent dependent variables (Cook & Campbell, 1979), however, allows for the

elimination of several threats to internal validity despite the lack of random

assignment. Because we hypothesized orientation attendance to impact some

socialization dimensions but not others (i.e., non-equivalent dependent variables), we

could rule out alternative explanations such as history, maturation, or an overall

“Hawthorne effect” as those explanations would not be consistent with the differential

pattern of change predicted among the socialization dimensions. Furthermore, the use

of pre-training measures of socialization along with the demographic data collected

allowed us to assess the equivalence of the two groups and, where necessary,

statistically control for observed initial differences.

Measures

Orientation Attendance. This dichotomous variable reflects whether the

orientation program was attended. Records obtained from the training unit were used

to verify whether employees in the sample did or did not attend the new employee

orientation program.

Employee Tenure. The number of days employed when the first questionnaire

was completed served as the measure of tenure. This value was calculated as the

difference between the date on the signed consent form and the date of hire obtained

from organizational records.

Socialization. The level of socialization on each of the six content dimensions

was assessed using the scale presented by Chao et al. (1994). Participants rated their

agreement with each of the 34 items using a 5-point Likert scale. Construct validity

evidence for this instrument is provided by Chao et al. (1994). As noted by Bauer et al.

(1998), some of the Chao et al. (1994) dimensions are broad and multidimensional

which may be problematic for some research questions. Of particular concern in this

study is the fact that three of the dimensions (history, politics, and language) contain

items which assess job or unit-level information as well as organizational-level

knowledge. Because the focus of this study was on assessing the impact of an

organizational-level orientation program, six items which did not address

organizational-level knowledge were eliminated from those three dimensions.

The first dimension, politics, was tapped by five items (e.g., I know who the

most influential people are in this organization). In the current study, the politics sub-

scale demonstrated an alpha reliability of .63 on the first questionnaire and .74 on the

second administration. Three items measured the second dimension, history, (e.g., I am

not familiar with the organization’s customs, rituals, ceremonies, and celebrations -

reverse coded). In the current study, the history sub-scale demonstrated alpha

reliability estimates of .77 and .86. Another socialization dimension assessed by the

Chao et al. scale is organizational goals/values. Seven items assessed this dimension

(e.g., I understand the goals of my organization.). In the current study, alpha reliability

estimates of .79 and .82 were observed for the goals/values sub-scale. A fourth

dimension, people, was tapped by six items (e.g., I am usually excluded from informal

gatherings of people within this organization - reverse coded). In the current study, the

people sub-scale demonstrated an alpha reliability of .79 and .78 on the two

administrations. Five items measured the fifth dimension, performance proficiency

(e.g., I have learned how to successfully perform my job in an efficient manner). In the

current study, the performance sub-scale demonstrated an alpha reliability estimates

of .77 on the pre-training questionnaire and .75 on the post-training questionnaire. The

final socialization dimension assessed by the Chao et al. scale is language. Two items

assess this dimension (e.g., I do not always understand what this organization’s

abbreviations and acronyms mean - reverse coded). Alpha reliability estimates of .68

and .72 were observed for the language sub-scale.

Reactions. Participants indicated their agreement with six statements assessing

their perceptions of the quality and usefulness of the orientation program (e.g., “The

content of this program closely matched what I needed to learn”) using a 5-point Likert

scale. The alpha reliability estimate was 0.79.

Organizational Commitment. Affective organizational commitment was

assessed using the 8 item scale presented by Allen and Meyer (1990b). Coefficient

alpha was 0.88 in this sample.

RESULTS

Initial Analyses

Of the 116 employees in the final sample, 55 attended the orientation training

program and 61 did not. A series of tests were conducted to assess the comparability of

these two groups of employees. Chi2 tests were used to examine several categorical

variables. No significant differences were evident between orientation attendees and

non-attendees with respect to the distribution of job classification, race, gender, or

education level. One way ANOVAs with orientation attendance as the dependent

variable were used to examine age and tenure. No significant differences were evident

regarding age but those respondents who did not attend orientation (m=100.85) were

employed significantly longer (F(1,114)=17.82, p<.01) then those who did attend

orientation (m=72.67). As a result, the effects of tenure were statistically controlled in

testing the hypotheses. In addition to these demographic variables, potential

differences in pre-training levels of socialization were also examined using a series of

ANCOVAs with tenure as the covariate. For all six dimensions of pre-training

socialization, the main effect for orientation attendance was non-significant (F values

ranged from 0.01 to 0.66) indicating that the two groups were initially comparable in

terms of their degree of socialization.

Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and alpha reliability estimates for

all variables are presented in Table 1. Prior to testing the hypotheses, the reaction

measure was examined as an initial indicator of the effectiveness of the orientation

program. The mean reported in Table 1 indicates that participants agreed that the

program was worthwhile and delivered appropriately.

------------------------------

Insert Table 1 about here

-------------------------------

Tests of Hypotheses

The first hypothesis stated that employees attending orientation would be more

socialized than employees not attending orientation on the dimensions of goals/values,

history, and language. Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for each of

the six socialization dimensions separately for orientation attendees and non-attendees

and for both the pre-training and post-training administrations of that scale. To test the

hypothesis, a series of ANCOVAs were conducted examining the main effect for

orientation attendance on each of the post-training socialization dimensions controlling

for tenure and that same dimension of pre-training socialization. Attending the

orientation program had a significant main effect on the post-training measures of

history (η2=.25, p<.01) and goals/values (η2=.06, p<.05) as predicted but not on

language (2 =.01, n.s.). In addition, orientation attendance had a significant main

effect on the post-training measure of the people dimension (η 2=.14, p<.01) which was

not predicted.

------------------------------


-------------------------------

The second hypothesis stated that socialization would mediate the relationship

between attending orientation and the distal outcome of affective organizational

commitment. To support this mediation hypothesis, it needs to be shown that (a)

orientation attendance is significantly related to organizational commitment, (b)

orientation attendance is significantly related to socialization, (c) socialization is

significantly related to organizational commitment, and (d) when controlling for

socialization, the relationship between orientation attendance and organizational

commitment becomes non-significant (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Table 1 indicates that

orientation attendance was significantly related to affective organizational commitment

(r = .25, p < .01). When affective commitment was regressed on tenure and then on

orientation attendance in a second hierarchical step, orientation attendance accounted

for a significant increment of commitment variance ΔR2 = .03, F = 4.05, p < .05). The

analyses reported previously for Hypotheses 1 indicated that orientation attendance

was significantly related to the people, goals/values, and history dimensions of

socialization. It remains to be demonstrated that the mastery of socialization content

relates to commitment and that when controlled, the relationship between orientation

attendance and commitment becomes non-significant.

The correlations in Table 1 indicate that all six of the post-training socialization

dimensions were significantly and positively related to affective organizational

commitment. Hierarchical multiple regression was used to control for tenure and to

determine the combined and unique variance accounted for in organizational

commitment by the six socialization dimensions. Table 3 presents the results of that

analysis. The six socialization dimensions accounted for a significant amount of the

variance in affective organizational commitment (38%). Of the six dimensions, only

history and goals/values had significant beta weights. Therefore, to support the

mediation hypothesis, it only remains to be demonstrated that the relationship between

orientation attendance and commitment becomes non-significant when controlling for

socialization. Hierarchical multiple regression was again used and, when orientation

attendance was entered as a second hierarchical step (after tenure and the six post-

training socialization dimensions), no additional variance in affective organizational

commitment was explained ΔR2 = .00, F = 0.10, n.s.). Given that the incremental

variance in commitment explained by orientation attendance dropped from a

significant 3% to a non-significant 0% when controlling for socialization, full

mediation can be concluded in support of Hypothesis 2.

-------------------------------


-------------------------------

DISCUSSION

This study assessed the effects of a formal, organizational-level orientation

training program on the mastery of socialization content and the affective commitment

of new hires. The first hypothesis predicted that, given the goals of the orientation

training program, employees attending orientation would be more socialized on the

dimensions of goals/values, history, and language. Program attendance did impact

socialization on the dimensions of goals/values and history but not on the language

dimension. Attending orientation also had an effect on the people dimension which

was not anticipated. No impact was expected or observed regarding the performance or

politics dimensions. Orientation attendance was also associated with higher affective

organizational commitment and, consistent with the second hypotheses, that

relationship was fully mediated by socialization, namely the goals/values and history

dimensions.

Organizations that provide a strong, organizational-level orientation have been

identified as benchmark companies for their orientation practices (e.g., Martinez,1992).

Despite the widespread use of orientation training programs, this study represents one

of few efforts at examining the impact of this particular type of program. Given that

socialization is viewed as one of the primary mechanisms for transmitting

organizational culture, it is surprising that so few studies have examined how

newcomers learn about organizational norms and values (Bauer et al., 1998). The

current study addresses a number of other criticisms made of past socialization

research (Bauer et al., 1998; Fisher, 1986; Saks & Ashforth, 1997a). These include the

continued reliance on traditional, distal outcomes rather than more proximal and

theoretically relevant outcomes, the lack of experimental or quasi-experimental

studies, and the tendency to rely on a homogeneous sample -- recent graduates going

into professional occupations.

Several limitations of this study also need to be recognized. The primary

weakness of this research is the fact that new employees were not randomly assigned

to conditions. The use of non-equivalent dependent variables (Cook & Campbell,

1979), however, allows for the elimination of several threats to internal validity. The

two groups were initially comparable as there were no significant differences in pre-

training socialization or on several demographic variables. There was a significant

difference in tenure which was statistically controlled. It is possible, of course, that

there were other, unassessed systematic differences between those who attended the

orientation training program and those who did not (e.g., individual differences, initial

productivity, motivation to be socialized, supervisor supportiveness). It is extremely

unlikely, however, that such factors accounted for the observed findings. First, had the

groups differed significantly in terms of these variables, differential socialization

should have been apparent by the time participants completed the pre-training

socialization measure. No such differences were evident.

Second, we predicted that the orientation training program would have a

specific pattern of effects of on the six socialization dimensions (i.e., non-equivalent

dependent variables) and differential effects were observed. The orientation program,

for the most part, affected the dimensions it was designed to impact. If the observed

increases in socialization were due to some unmeasured variable and not the

orientation program, one would expect a broader or different pattern of effects on the

six socialization dimensions. It could also be argued that the responses of program

attendees reflected an increased awareness of how they should answer rather than

actually being more socialized. If this was happening, however, program attendees

should have shown superior socialization on the dimensions of politics and language,

since language and formal structure were also addressed in the training. Again here,

the use of non-equivalent dependent variables suggests that this was not the case.

Another potential limitation concerns the generalizability of the findings given

that the study looked at a single training program within a single organization. The

history and goals/ values of any organization are going to be unique but the observed

impact of highlighting and transmitting that information in an organizational-level

orientation program should be highly generalizable. While the study was conducted

within a single organization, it is comparable to other large, multi-divisional

organizations in that there are actually several distinct sub-organizations within the

institution. The fact that our sample included employees holding so many different

types of jobs from so many different departments further enhances the generalizability

of the results.

A final limitation is the possibility that employees in the current study were not

sufficiently “new” to fully observe the predicted effects. The socialization process

appears to occur rapidly after entry (Bauer & Green, 1994) followed by a period of

relative stability (Morrison, 1993). This suggests that socialization variables need to be

assessed early in the process (Saks & Ashforth, 1997a). The employees in the current

sample had been on the job almost three months and five months, on average, when

they completed the two questionnaires. As a result, many participants may have

already advanced from the encounter stage (Feldman, 1981). While it may have been

helpful for employees to have attended the orientation program sooner, hiring patterns

often preclude offering such programs with the frequency needed for them to be timely

for all new hires. In addition, it has been argued that companies should take a longer

term perspective to orientation and not immediately overload new employees with

information (e.g., Feldman, 1988; McGarrell, 1984; Starcke, 1996). Ostroff and

Koslowski (1992) found that newcomers focused on acquiring information about task

and role issues during early job experiences rather than information about the

organizational domain. A valuable avenue for future research would be to examine the

relative effectiveness of providing training on topics such as goals/values and history

early versus later in the orientation process.

There were two unexpected findings in this study, the first being the absence of

a significant effect of orientation attendance on the language dimension. It appears that

the orientation program, while covering some unique organizational terms and

acronyms, did not address enough obscure or difficult to learn terms to significantly

increase attendees understanding of the organization’s jargon. The second unexpected

finding concerned the people dimension of socialization which was significantly

related to orientation attendance. While not hypothesized, the knowledge gained about

the organization in the orientation training program may have helped new employees

develop social relationships with other organizational members. That is, having a

better understanding of the history, traditions, and values of the organization may have

helped new employees engage co-workers in discussion, join in on others

conversations, and be more quickly accepted. This is consistent with the findings of

Saks and Ashforth (1997b) who concluded that the ability of newcomers to socialize

themselves through proactive information seeking is partly a function of the tactics

organizations use to socialize them.

Alternatively, this finding could reflect a bias in who chose to attend the

orientation training program. Certain individual traits or work group characteristics

may have led new employees to both attend the voluntary orientation program and

more quickly develop social relationships within the organization. It should again be

reiterated, however, that there were no significant differences between attendees and

non-attendees in the pre-training measure of the people dimension of socialization (or

in any of the dimensions). As such, the effect of any unmeasured variable or process

did not occur until after attending the orientation program.

Given the widespread use of formal orientation training, the need is clear for

additional research on the appropriate content, timing, and impact of these programs.

The socialization scale presented by Chao et al. (1994) is a potentially useful measure

by which to evaluate whether changes in socialization have occurred as a result of

orientation training or the implementation of other socialization tactics. While the scale

has previously been used to measure long-term changes in socialization (e.g., Chao et

al., 1994), the current study demonstrates that it is also sensitive enough to detect the

changes that occur during the crucial initial months of employment. While the

dimensions of socialization did exhibit differential relationships with orientation

attendance, largely as anticipated, some limitations of this scale were apparent in this

study. Factor analytic results were not reported because our sample size was not large

enough to have confidence in the stability of the observed factor structure. However, it

should be noted that a clean six factor solution was not supported in this study, with or

without the removal of the six items. While the results of a small sample factor

analysis do not invalidate the results from a large sample study, the scale

intercorrelations, presented in Table 1, are larger than what might be desired among

distinct dimensions and these intercorrelations are actually smaller, on average, then

those reported for the Chao et al. (1994) sample.

As noted by Bauer et al. (1998), some of the Chao et al. (1994) dimensions are

broad and multidimensional. Goals and values are, for example, distinct constructs that

are combined into one content dimension. One issue, evident in this study, is the level

of analysis at which some items are written. In addition to the six content dimensions,

the various items address four different level of analysis foci: the job, the work group,

the organization, and one’s trade or profession. Depending on the focus of the

socialization tactic being evaluated, it may make more theoretical sense to focus on

those levels than the content dimensions. Additional items would need to be written in

order to have reliable sub-scales reflecting the various levels within each of the content

dimensions. An alternative approach would be to identify level dimensions across the

content dimensions which may also require the inclusion of new items. Saks and

Ashford (1997a) similarly suggested that an additional scale be developed to

specifically address work group socialization. Another potentially important difference

among the scale items is the fact that some assess the learning of factual or procedural

knowledge while others address the integration of knowledge. Again here, depending

on the intent of the socialization tactic, it may be more appropriate to look only at

items assessing one type of learning or the other. It remains to be demonstrated

whether the Chao et al. (1994) scale items can be differentiated along these lines in a

reliable, valid manner. Future research on the properties of this scale and potential

modifications to address these additional dimensions is clearly warranted.

Future research, if possible, also needs to examine the effects of attending

orientation programs in a more controlled field experiment. It would also be useful to

examine informal as well as formal orientation activities and those orientation

activities that are job-focused in addition to those that introduce new employees to the

broader organization. The results of the current study suggest that having an

organizational-level orientation training program covering such topics as traditions and

workplace principles can help employees become more socialized on the history and

goals/values dimensions. Being more socialized on these dimensions, in turn, related to

affective organizational commitment. While numerous other factors can also impact

commitment, this study suggests that even a brief exposure to these topics can be

effective and is valuable. To have confidence in more specific prescriptions for

practice will require researchers to direct more attention to orientation training than has

previously been the case.

REFERENCES

Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990a). Organizational socialization tactics: A

longitudinal analysis of links to newcomers’ commitment and role orientation.

Academy of Management Journal, 33, 847-858.

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

affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of

Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18.

Anderson, N. R., Cunningham-Snell, N. A., & Hiagh, J. (1996). Induction

training as socialization: Current practice and attitudes to evaluation in British

organizations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 4, 169-183.

Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A. M. (1996). Socialization Tactics: Longitudinal

effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149-178.

Baker, W. K. (1992). Employee socialization strategies and the presence of

union representation. Labor Studies Journal, 17, 5-17.

Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The mediator-moderator variable

distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical

considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Bassi, L. J., & Van Buren, M. E. (1998). The 1998 ASTD state of the industry

report. Training and Development, 52(1), 21-43.

Bauer, T. N., & Green, S. G. (1994). Effect of newcomer involvement in work-

related activities: A longitudinal study of socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology,

79, 211-223.

Bauer, T. N., Morrison, E. W., & Callister, R. R. (1998). Organizational

Socialization: A review and directions for future research. Research in Personnel and

Human Resource Management, 16, 149-214.

Berlew, D. E., & Hall, D. T. (1966). The socialization of managers: Effects of

expectations on performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 11, 207-223.

Buchanan, B. (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization

of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546.

Chao, G. T., O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D.

(1994). Organizational Socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 79, 730-743.

Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and

socialization in public accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459-

484.

Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and

analysis issues for field settings. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Feldman, D. C. (1976). A contingency theory of socialization. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 21, 433-452.

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

Academy of Management Review, 6, 309-318.

Feldman, D. C. (1988). Managing careers in organizations. Glenview, IL:

Scott, Foresman.

Feldman, D. C. (1989). Socialization, resocialization, and retraining: Reframing

the research agenda. In I. Goldstein (Ed.), Training and development in organizations

(pp. 376-416). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

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

Gommersall, E. R., & Meyers, M. S. (1966). Breakthrough in on-the-job

training. Harvard Business Review, 44, 62-72.

Holton, E. F. III (1995). College graduates’ experiences and attitudes during

organizational entry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6, 59-78.

Jones, G. R. (1983). Psychological orientation and the process of organizational

socialization: An interactionist perspective. Academy of Management Review, 8, 464-

474.

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

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

Latham, G. P., Erez, M., & Locke, E. A. (1988). Resolving scientific disputes

by the joint design of crucial experiments by the antagonists: Application to the Erez-

Latham dispute regarding participation in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology

Monograph, 73, 753-772.

Louis, M. R. (1980). Surprise and sense making: What newcomers experience

in entering unfamiliar organizational settings. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25,

226-251.

Louis, M. R., Posner, B. Z., & Powell, G. N. (1983). The Availability and

Helpfulness of Socialization Practices. Personnel Psychology, 36, 857-881.

Martinez, M. N. (1992). Disney training works magic. HRMagazine, 37(5), 53-

57.

Mayes, B. T., & Allen, R. W. (1977). Toward a definition of organizational

politics. Academy of Management Review, 2, 672-678.

McGarrell, E. J. (1984). An organizational system that builds productivity.

Personnel Administrator, 34(8), 56-60.

Meglino, B. M., DeNisi, A. S., Youngblood, S. A., & Williams, K. J. (1988).

Effects of realistic job previews: A comparison using an enhancement and reduction

preview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 259-266.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of

organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89.

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

seeking on newcomer socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 173-183.

Nelson, D. L., & Quick, J. C. (1991). Social support and newcomer adjustment

in organizations: Attachment theory at work? Journal of Occupational Behavior, 12,

543-554.

Ostroff, C. & Kozlowski, S. W. (1992). Organizational socialization as a

learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849-

874.

Saks, A. M. (1996). The relationship between the amount and helpfulness of

entry training and work outcomes. Human Relations, 49(4) 429-451.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997a). Organizational socialization: Making

sense of the past and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational

Behavior, 51, 234-279.

Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997b). Socialization tactics and newcomer

information acquisition. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 5, 48-61.

Starcke, A. M. (1996). Building a better orientation program. HRMagazine,

41(11), 107-114.

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

socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209-264.

Wanous, J. P. (1992). Organizational entry: Recruitment, selection, and

socialization of newcomers (Second Edition). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Publishing Co.

Wanous, J. P. (1993). Newcomer orientation programs that facilitate

organizational entry. In Schuler, H., Far, J. L., & Smith, M. (Eds.), Personnel Selection

and Assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Waung, M. (1995). The effects of self-regulatory coping orientation on

newcomer adjustment and job survival. Personnel Psychology, 48, 633-650.

Weiner, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. Academy

of Management Review, 7, 418-428

Table 1

Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelation matrix

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Orientation 0.47 .50 ----

2. Pre-Politics 3.05 .60 .05 (.63)

3. Pre-History 2.92 .94 .00 .49** (.77)

4. Pre-Goals/Values 3.57 .56 -.03 .51** .46** (.79)

5. Pre-People 3.71 .54 .11 .31** .15 .23** (.79)

6. Pre-Performance 3.77 .72 .02 .21** .11 .10 .29** (.77)

7. Pre-Language 2.74 .87 .04 .48** .39** .21** .33** .16 (.68)

8. Reactions 4.11 .49 ---- .05 -.24 .28 .03 .18 -.09 (.79)

9. Post-Politics 3.22 .62 .18* .52** .34** .19* .31** .44** .41** .27 (.74)

10. Post-History 3.34 .93 .37** .34** .62** .36** .24** .10 .29** .19 .46** (.86)

11. Post-Goals/Values 3.61 .54 .20* .39** .38** .69** .27** .10 .13 .43** .42** .48** (.82)

12. Post-People 3.75 .54 .28** .28** .16 .09 .72** .22* .20* .23 .31** .34** .40

13. Post-Performance 3.94 .61 .13 .06 .00 -.09 .19* .53** .11 .59** .39** .08* .20

14. Post-Language 3.01 .82 .12 .33** .45** .26** .32** .18* .59** .23 .58** .49** .31

15. Affective Com 3.21 .70 .25** .34** .33** .46** .35** .29** .27** .59** .45** .51** .56

*p<0.05, **p<0.01. Reliability estimates are in parentheses.

Table 2

Group means, standard deviations, and the results of ANCOVAs testingthe effects of new employee orientation attendance on post-training socialization

controlling for tenure and pre-training socialization

SocializationDimension

MeasurementTiming

Non Attendees AttendeesANCOVA

Faη2

M SD M SD

PoliticsPre-Training 3.03 0.61 3.09 0.58

0.89 .01Post-Training 3.12 0.64 3.34 0.58

History Pre-Training 2.92 0.95 2.92 0.94 31.11** .25

Post-Training 3.02 0.94 3.70 0.77

Goals/ValuesPre-Training 3.58 0.58 3.55 0.54

6.30* .06Post-Training 3.50 0.54 3.72 0.52

PeoplePre-Training 3.66 0.53 3.79 0.55

15.53** .14Post-Training 3.61 0.54 3.91 0.50

PerformancePre-Training 3.76 0.69 3.79 0.79

2.56 .03Post-Training 3.86 0.61 4.02 0.59

LanguagePre-Training 2.71 0.93 2.78 0.77

0.99 .01Post-Training 2.92 0.79 3.11 0.84

aMain effects for NEO Attendance on each of the socialization dimensions controlling for tenure and that same dimension of pre-training socialization.

Table 3

Results of regressing affective commitment on tenure and post-training socialization.

Step Independent Variable ΔR2 Beta F

1 Tenure .04 4.89*

2 .38 11.87**

Post-Politics .18 3.08

Post-History .26 7.49**

Post-Goals/Values .31 11.78**

Post-People .09 1.10

Post-Performance .01 0.02

Post-Language -.04 0.20

Total R2 .42 11.21**

*p<.05. **p<.01.

the effectiveness of an organizational-level orientation training program in the socialization of...

Documents