A framework for understanding the role of unlearning in onboarding

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Human Resource Management Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/hrmr

A framework for understanding the role of unlearning in onboarding ⁎

Karen Beckera, , Adelle Bishb a

Professor of Management/HRM, USC Business School, Sippy Downs Drive, Sippy Downs, QLD 4556, Australia Associate Professor of Management (HRM), College of Business and Economics, North Carolina A&T State University, 1601 East Market Street, Greensboro, NC 27411, USA

b

A R T IC LE I N F O

ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Onboarding Socialization Learning Unlearning Induction Orientation Newcomer Talent segments

Onboarding provides an opportunity to realize a return on investment from hiring processes, and to ensure that new employees meet their full potential. Therefore, designing and managing effective onboarding is an important human resource management function. Discussion of onboarding emerged from the psychology literature and has focused heavily on socialization. In this paper, we offer a new framework of onboarding from a learning theory perspective. This framework contributes to the onboarding literature by identifying two additional and critical considerations. First, we demonstrate that learning theory provides a new lens through which to view onboarding, and we examine how the specific concept of unlearning could be applied in this context. In addition, we argue that it is critical to recognize the unique learning needs of specific talent segments to design appropriate onboarding. We conclude with key considerations for future research to enhance the onboarding experience for newcomers and optimize organizational outcomes.

1. Introduction From a talent management perspective, onboarding provides an opportunity to realize a return on investment in hiring processes, and to ensure that newcomers quickly become engaged and productive. Onboarding is defined as “the process of helping new hires adjust to social and performance aspects of their new jobs quickly and smoothly” (Bauer, 2010, p. 1), and the key contribution of this paper is the development of a framework for effective onboarding that extends current models, applies a new lens, and provides directions for future research. Use of the term “onboarding” is relatively recent, emerging particularly in the human resources management (HRM) and management literature from the early 2000s (Bauer, 2010; Bradt & Vonnegut, 2009; Caldwell & Peters, 2018; Gupta, Bhattacharya, Sheorey, & Coelho, 2018; Klein, Polin, & Leigh Sutton, 2015; Meyer & Bartels, 2017; Snell, 2006); however, onboarding is not a new phenomenon. Onboarding is referred to in earlier literature as orientation or orienting (Klein & Heuser, 2008; Mestre, Stainer, & Stainer, 1997; Smith, 1984; Wanous & Reichers, 2000) or, to a lesser extent, induction (Van den Broek, 1997), and use of these terms as alternatives continues to date (e.g., Daskalaki, 2012). Yet, while research has demonstrated the benefits of onboarding (Ellis, Nifadkar, Bauer, & Erdogan, 2017; Meyer & Bartels, 2017), we have little evidence about the utility of specific onboarding practices and critical design elements required for an onboarding process to support newcomer needs and organizational objectives (Klein & Polin, 2012). Retention rates indicate that, in practice, onboarding is problematic, with reports that on average 17% of new hires

⁎

Corresponding author at: USC Business School, University of the Sunshine Coast, Locked Bag 4, Maroochydore, Sunshine Coast 4558, Australia. E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Becker).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100730 Received 13 March 2019; Received in revised form 23 August 2019; Accepted 13 October 2019 1053-4822/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Karen Becker and Adelle Bish, Human Resource Management Review, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100730

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

K. Becker and A. Bish

leave an organization during the first three months of employment (Ellis et al., 2017). Furthermore, it has been reported that “half of all senior outside hires fail within 18 months in a new position and half of all hourly workers leave new jobs within the first 120 days” (Bauer, 2010, p. 1). There is clearly room to improve the design and implementation of onboarding (Kurnat-Thoma, Ganger, Peterson, & Channell, 2017; Stein & Christiansen, 2010) to improve newcomer adjustment, the time required to reach optimal performance, and retention rates (Harpelund, 2019). In order to respond to the practical challenges associated with onboarding, theoretically we may need to consider poor retention rates through an alternative lens. We argue that the problem of premature turnover may stem in part from a lack of recognition of the role of learning in onboarding and how organizations can best facilitate such learning. We believe that onboarding is first and foremost a learning process; on the part of both the individual and the organization. In particular, we argue that understanding the pivotal role of learning in the successful integration of newcomers into an organization will optimize a wide range of short-term and longer-term individual and organizational outcomes. Researchers have categorized outcomes as either proximal or distal; with proximal outcomes reported to include role clarity, social integration, perceived fit (Klein & Heuser, 2008), task mastery, work group integration, and political knowledge (KammeyerMueller & Wanberg, 2003). Distal outcomes have been found to relate to performance (Bauer, Bodner, Erdogan, Truxillo, & Tucker, 2007), job satisfaction (Bauer et al., 2007; Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002; Meyer & Bartels, 2017; Myers & Oetzel, 2003), organizational commitment (Bauer et al., 2007; Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Meyer & Bartels, 2017), organizational identity (Myers & Oetzel, 2003), intention to stay (Bauer et al., 2007; Ellis et al., 2017), withdrawal behaviors (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005), intention to leave (Cooper-Thomas & Anderson, 2002; Gupta et al., 2018; Jones, 1986; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003; Myers & Oetzel, 2003), and turnover (Bauer et al., 2007). Although proximal and distal outcomes have been the focus of many studies, Klein and Heuser (2008) added a third dimension, learning outcomes, arguing that socialization also has consequences related to learning that are more immediate than even the proximal outcomes typically discussed in the socialization literature. These learning outcomes relate specifically to developing new knowledge and mastery of the content of socialization processes (Klein & Heuser, 2008). If learning outcomes are more immediate than even proximal outcomes, then these may be central to explaining the premature turnover of new hires. This paper and the proposed framework therefore make two critical contributions to the onboarding literature. First, we argue that there is an opportunity to look beyond use of the theories currently dominating the discussion to consider onboarding through the lens of learning theory. Learning theory provides an opportunity to consider onboarding from the perspective of what the newcomer requires, not just from the perspective of what information the organization needs to impart. There has been limited explicit focus on the learning aspects of onboarding, although Klein and Heuser (2008) made advances toward this end by commencing the discussion of how learning theory can be applied to socialization. Building on this work, our paper extends current thinking by considering how the specific concept of unlearning applies to the process of onboarding. The inclusion of learning theory allows us to better consider the range of individual differences in newcomers' learning needs and how organizations can adapt their onboarding design accordingly. In addition to moving the theoretical lens, we also argue that recognizing and adapting to the learning needs of specific groups of newcomers is an important design consideration for more effective onboarding. We focus specifically on newcomers with long histories in professions or industry sectors with heavy socialization; for example, military veterans entering the civilian workforce. Much of the literature to date has viewed new employees as a homogenous group and a “blank slate” ready to take in the information provided during onboarding, regardless of previous experience. As a result, the learning needs of particular talent segments are overlooked. These talent segments are often recruited for their strategic value to the firm (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005) as they represent an opportunity to add diversity of thinking, behavior, and previous experiences that serve as a catalyst for organizational creativity, innovation, and renewal. However, we contend that differentiation of these unique talent segments should not end at the hiring stage. Onboarding must also consider the differential nature of talent segments and the ways in which their learning needs may differ during this socialization process. Our proposed framework is a direct response to calls to reframe onboarding to consider the identity and strengths of the newcomer (Cable, Gino, & Staats, 2013), recognize that newcomers are not homogeneous in their socialization experiences (Solinger, Van Olffen, Roe, & Hofmans, 2013), and to address the practical need to identify the most critical design features of the onboarding process (Kurnat-Thoma et al., 2017). The integration of learning holds promise for enhancing the strategic effectiveness of onboarding as a talent optimization tool (Schiemann, 2014). As such, our framework is intended to inform onboarding design, improve individual and organizational outcomes, and provide propositions for future research. We commence by providing the theoretical foundations and the proposed framework, along with key propositions to inform future research. 2. Framework development and propositions 2.1. Overview Originating from interactional psychology, organizational socialization is the predominant theory underpinning discussions of onboarding. Van Maanen and Schein (1979, p. 1) define organizational socialization as “the process by which an individual acquires the social knowledge and skills necessary to assume an organizational role.” This process is most often considered at the point at which the new employee joins the organization but is also argued to be an ongoing process that occurs whenever individuals change tasks or jobs during their time in the organization (Van Maanen, 1978). Whilst socialization and onboarding are often used synonymously, Klein et al. (2015) make an important distinction between socialization and onboarding. They argue that socialization 2

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

K. Becker and A. Bish

typically refers to the processes occurring within newcomers as they enter an organization and adapt to their new surroundings. In contrast, onboarding discussions tend to focus on the organizational actions taken to facilitate this socialization (Klein et al., 2015). Whilst acknowledging that the distinction between these two terms is important, understanding how organizations contribute to the socialization of new employees through onboarding is a key question. Because onboarding has its roots in socialization literature, it has typically been discussed as a process of individual adaption to new organizational realities (Feldman, 1981; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Theory from the psychology domain, by its very nature, focuses predominantly on the individual, and therefore this literature has emphasized individual differences in terms of characteristics such as proactivity, self-efficacy, skills, and abilities, and how these may impact upon socialization (e.g., Gupta et al., 2018; Kammeyer-Mueller & Wanberg, 2003). However, we argue that viewing onboarding as a learning process first and foremost, and recognizing that regardless of capabilities and experience there will be a period of learning and adaption for the organization and the newcomer, will ensure a more proactive and nuanced approach to onboarding design. This perspective necessitates action by the organization and its managers, rather than just adaption by the individual (Cable et al., 2013; Kurnat-Thoma et al., 2017; Stein & Christiansen, 2010). Although theories of socialization provide a sound basis for understanding the extent to which an individual assimilates into the organization as a result of onboarding, adopting a learning perspective places more emphasis on the need for organizations to design the appropriate infrastructure and architecture of onboarding strategy, policy, processes, and content to ensure that learning occurs. An appropriate design should include planning specific opportunities for the individual to learn about the organization and enable them to share their knowledge with those in the organization for mutual benefit. Klein and Heuser (2008) and Klein et al. (2015) have made advancements by advocating for a learning perspective, considering the content and process of onboarding, and highlighting the temporal aspects involved. However, there remains a vast opportunity to apply and be informed by a learning theory perspective, and to critically consider how the concept of unlearning can inform a more comprehensive understanding of the processes occurring during onboarding. The framework underpinning this paper is presented in Fig. 1. As noted previously, it is widely accepted that effective onboarding can enhance positive outcomes and reduce negative outcomes for individuals and organizations, as depicted in the framework. Therefore, the key focus of this paper is not on the outcomes of onboarding but on the processes central to achieving such outcomes and, even then, moving beyond just content and process to consider learning and the role of unlearning in onboarding. 2.2. Limitations of existing onboarding models A range of onboarding and socialization models have been developed, and research typically focuses on either the content or process of socialization, but in some cases may be a combination of the two. One of the earliest and most cited models of socialization was presented by Van Maanen and Schein (1979), who identified six tactical dimensions of socialization: Collective vs Individual Socialization Processes, Formal vs Informal Socialization Processes, Sequential vs Random Steps in the Socialization Process, Fixed vs Variable Socialization Processes, Serial vs Disjunctive Socialization Processes, and Investiture vs Divestiture Socialization Processes. Although referring to these continuums as tactics, this model is still broad in terms of its application and suggests only that organizational onboarding can be classified according to these six dimensions. The model by Van Maanen and Schein (1979) provided a first step in the discussion of socialization; however, their model left room for far more detailed research into how these decisions can be translated into organizational actions to ensure newcomers assimilate effectively into their new environment. Specifically in relation to content, and to inform a more detailed understanding of onboarding, Klein and Heuser (2008) expanded a model of socialization originally developed by Chao, O'Leary-Kelly, Wolf, Klein, and Gardner (1994), identifying 12 content areas: Language, History, Task Proficiency, Working Relationships, Social Relationships, Structure, Politics, Goals and Strategy, Culture and Values, Rules and Policies, Navigation, and Inducements. They argued that each of these dimensions contributes to effective socialization but may differ according to the level of the organization at which this content knowledge is imparted (i.e., organizational, divisional, departmental, work group, or individual job). They also introduced the temporal element of socialization by acknowledging that the socialization process takes place over time and the content of each dimension may be most appropriately addressed at different stages in the newcomer's introduction to the organization. This model provided a far more detailed perspective of socialization to inform onboarding practice than had been evident in previous literature. Beyond content requirements for socialization, Klein and Heuser (2008) also developed the Inform-Welcome-Guide (IWG) model to identify critical onboarding areas, and Klein et al. (2015) further developed this model and identified specific practices within each area. The Inform category of activity includes sub-categories of communication, resources, and training. The Welcome category includes practices that enable social connections, and the Guide category refers to the allocation of one-on-one support through allocation of mentors or a “buddy” to assist with the transition into the organization. Even these researchers, however, note that the focus on actions taken by the employing organization does not consider individual differences. We argue that these individual differences are not only represented by traits and behaviors but also by the knowledge and frames of references amassed by newcomers during previous employment. In a similar vein to the IWG model (Klein & Heuser, 2008), the “4Cs” model, developed by Bauer (2010), suggests that onboarding comprises four levels which relate predominantly to the content of the onboarding but also hints at process elements. These include Compliance at the lowest level (i.e., giving the basic information about policy and legal requirements), Clarification (of the role and expectations), Culture (identifying formal and informal cultural norms and expectations), and at the highest level, Connection (i.e., providing an opportunity to build the necessary relationships and networks to be successful). The 4Cs model incorporates not only the necessary content for a newcomer to assimilate effectively but also reinforces important organizational actions, such as facilitating connections and ensuring opportunities to develop informal knowledge about the organization. A study by Meyer and Bartels (2017) 3

•

•

Type of fit (supplementary or complementary) Previous socialization (talent segment)

Newcomer Attributes

•

• •

4

• Timing of events/experiences

Onboarding Process

Declarative, procedural, cognitive, motor skills or attitudes

Knowledge type:

Onboarding Content

Design of Onboarding Experience

Fig. 1. A framework for unlearning during onboarding.

Initial destabilization Discarding and experimentation Developing and relinquishing

Unlearning Subprocesses

Routine, wiping, or deep

Form of Unlearning Required

Unlearning

Development of new knowledge Mastery of content of socialization

Role clarity Social integration Perceived fit Task mastery Work group integration Political knowledge

•

• • •

• • •

Performance Job satisfaction Org commitment/ identification Intention to stay/leave Turnover Organizational performance Organizational innovation

Distal outcomes

•

• • • • •

Proximal outcomes

•

•

Learning outcomes

K. Becker and A. Bish

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

K. Becker and A. Bish

investigated the impact of the four levels of onboarding (the 4Cs) on a range of outcomes. It was identified that all four of these levels are necessary and that those who received onboarding that included the highest level (i.e., Connection) reported higher perceived utility of the onboarding program and higher perceived organizational support, organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. This connection provides a feeling of social acceptance that a meta-analysis of onboarding outcomes has shown to be a key factor in newcomer success (Bauer et al., 2007). In contrast, a recent study has warned that this drive to seek social acceptance may also lead newcomers to engage in risky behavior, influenced by existing employees (Liu, Bamberger, Wang, Shi, & Bacharach, 2019). These studies again point to the importance of considering learning at all points in the onboarding process—both the prior learning of newcomers and the learning they engage in once they enter the organization. In summary, previous studies have established the need for onboarding and have made progress toward developing models to inform onboarding practice, focusing heavily on content and less so on process. These studies have identified critical knowledge for newcomers that, if provided in an effective manner, will assist integration. However, even in discussions of process, the focus remains on organizational actions to facilitate socialization, assuming that the presentation of appropriate content at an appropriate time will ensure positive individual and organizational outcomes. We argue that these discussions do not adequately recognize the onboarding process as one of learning, and more importantly unlearning. 2.3. The role of learning and unlearning in onboarding Whilst onboarding has in practice been a key activity for learning and development professionals, we argue that learning theory could be applied in a far more profound way in research to understand the processes occurring during a newcomer's entry into an organization. Klein and Heuser (2008) argue that considering learning outcomes is a critical first step for onboarding and were seminal in applying learning theory in this context. By commencing the discussion of socialization as learning, Klein and Heuser (2008) provided a new perspective for future onboarding research by considering the specifics of learning during the process. However, we argue that as a part of this learning focus, it is critical to recognize the impact of newcomers' previous experiences and tailor onboarding experiences accordingly. Recognition of these experiences leads to our argument that learning theory, and especially the more recent work on unlearning, has a critical role to play—particularly for those new employees with extensive previous socialization in significantly different organizational environments. This alternative perspective provides an opportunity to explore and enhance both the theory and practice of onboarding, and provides directions for future research. Unlearning has been recognized as a phenomenon related to, but distinct from, learning (Becker, 2005; Hedberg, 1981; Hislop, Bosley, Coombs, & Holland, 2014; Klammer & Gueldenberg, 2018; Newstrom, 1983; Nystrom & Starbuck, 1984), and has been defined as “the process of reducing or eliminating pre-existing knowledge or habits that would otherwise represent formidable barriers to new learning” (Newstrom, 1983, p. 36). The unlearning literature has grown significantly in the last few decades, with unlearning being a focus of research at both the individual (Becker, 2010; Bridges, 1991; Duffy, 2003; Matsuo, 2018) and organizational level (Brook, Pedler, Abbott, & Burgoyne, 2016; Hedberg, 1981; Sinkula, 2002). Unlearning researchers and theorists argue that learning is not simply a process of acquiring new knowledge but often requires relinquishing past knowledge, behaviors, or ways of thinking; that is, changing cognitive structures and ways of thinking (cognitive perspective) or changing routines or habits (behavioral perspective) (Klammer & Gueldenberg, 2018). Early conceptualizations of learning have been criticized for implicitly assuming that learners are a “blank slate,” and warnings have been offered about this fallacy (Newstrom, 1983), arguing that adult learners come with deeply entrenched knowledge and ways of working that may hinder learning. In the case of onboarding, these warnings are germane. It cannot be assumed that newcomers are immediately ready to receive onboarding content. On the contrary, we argue there must be recognition of the individual's history and the impact it may have on the ways in which they socialize. Indeed, Daskalaki (2012) argues that during onboarding, the assumption should not be made that the newcomer is devoid of knowledge. Rather, it should be accepted that this individual has a history of socialization in other settings that may inhibit assimilation. In particular, she points to the military induction process as an example, arguing that the military uses extensive socialization and has a strong culture that serves to develop a cohesive environment whilst in the military. However, this type of socialization leads to transition challenges for military veterans entering civilian work environments where the organizational environment differs significantly from what they have previously experienced (King, 2012). Therefore, considering unlearning explicitly in the design of onboarding has the potential benefit of enhancing onboarding processes broadly and for specific talent segments. The following sections explore the current understanding of unlearning in more detail and apply this knowledge to onboarding to develop specific propositions. First, the different types or forms of unlearning have been identified to provide insight into why some elements of onboarding may be more or less difficult for newcomers. Second, the content of onboarding is considered in light of the extent to which some content may require more or less unlearning. Finally, the subprocesses of unlearning are discussed to identify how these subprocesses might be enhanced by considering temporal aspects of onboarding. 2.4. Forms of unlearning and onboarding It has been proposed that unlearning can take three differing forms: routine unlearning, wiping, and deep unlearning (Rushmer & Davies, 2004). Routine unlearning, also referred to as fading (Hislop et al., 2014), typically refers to times when an individual may need to replace one, often simple, behavior with another. This form of unlearning represents a behavioral focus, suggesting that by doing something differently, we unlearn. Examples of this form of unlearning relate to relatively simple tasks to which the individual may feel limited emotional attachment, such as changing how an individual completes a particular administrative form or a change in 5

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

K. Becker and A. Bish

a simple process. Whilst the previous way of operating will initially present a barrier, by enacting the new behavior, the old behavior is unlearnt through lack of application. Therefore, when routine unlearning is required, onboarding may simply require a focus on designing learning interventions that explain and reinforce new behaviors. The next form of unlearning, referred to as wiping (Rushmer & Davies, 2004), is suggested to be accelerated and directed unlearning that is deliberate and planned by the organization, rather than relying on individuals to relinquish past knowledge or behaviors. This form of unlearning has been equated with incremental change (Hislop et al., 2014). Rushmer and Davies (2004) suggest that this form of unlearning represents social and cognitive elements rather than simply behavioral change. It is argued that this unlearning will involve either directives to change behavior or providing evidence that might persuade individuals to relinquish past behaviors and replace them with new behaviors. For onboarding, wiping could be planned into activities that surface and acknowledge past experiences or behaviors, along with presenting examples of new ways to undertake tasks aligned with organizational expectations. Ensuring that onboarding recognizes the potential for old knowledge to hinder the uptake of new knowledge will be critical, and therefore onboarding could involve a reflective process to allow for unlearning and transition. The final form of unlearning, deep unlearning (Rushmer & Davies, 2004), refers to unlearning involving “shock and rupture.” This form of unlearning is less likely to be as planned and deliberate as wiping but results in the eventual release of long-held beliefs or ways of operating. This form of unlearning is seen as transformational and often involves the individual questioning fundamental and deep-rooted ways of knowing or understanding (Hislop et al., 2014). In a situation where the newcomer carries extensive socialization in environments with significantly different values and culture, deep unlearning is likely to be involved in (and indeed required for) effective onboarding. However, if such “culture shock” is not anticipated, there may be ineffective socialization with the potential for turnover or negative impact on performance. Accordingly, the design of onboarding programs will need to consider the form of unlearning required for the newcomer or talent segment, and identify the points during their transition where it is anticipated that newcomers will experience the need for routine unlearning, wiping, or deep unlearning. Bearing this in mind, we propose the following: Proposition 1. The design of onboarding programs needs to consider the form of unlearning required (routine, wiping, or deep) for each newcomer or talent segment. Wiping or deep unlearning is proposed to require more mitigation of potential culture shock for the newcomer than routine unlearning.

2.5. Onboarding knowledge type and unlearning The second consideration for unlearning during onboarding is the type of knowledge to be conveyed. In one of the few extant contributions explicitly to take a learning perspective, Klein and Heuser (2008) applied the Gagne and Briggs' learning model to onboarding, taking an “instructional system approach.” This approach sought to determine the knowledge type to be acquired within each of the 12 knowledge onboarding content areas (Language, History, Task Proficiency, Working Relationships, Social Relationships, Structure, Politics, Goals and Strategy, Culture and Values, Rules and Policies, Navigation, and Inducements). These dimensions were then categorized as procedural knowledge, declarative knowledge, strategic knowledge, attitudes, or motor skills. Using these onboarding dimensions developed by Klein and Heuser (2008), we argue that particular elements of onboarding content will challenge the newcomer more than others and therefore will require more unlearning. Where the content is straightforward, unrelated to past socialization, or there is limited emotional attachment to previous ways of knowing or behaving, then unlearning will not necessarily be required as a significant part of onboarding. However, when the newcomer is required to question fundamental assumptions or radically change the way they are accustomed to behaving, the importance of effective unlearning will be significant. Failure to undertake this unlearning has the potential to hinder successful onboarding and ultimately successful job performance. Fig. 2 illustrates the potential significance of unlearning for effective onboarding on a continuum with the corresponding onboarding dimensions and types of knowledge identified by Klein and Heuser (2008). It is proposed that some onboarding dimensions represent content that is less contentious or tightly-held than others and will, therefore, require less effort on behalf of the individual to unlearn and adapt to new surroundings. Specifically, where an onboarding dimension represents only declarative knowledge (i.e., predominantly factual information; Debowski, 2006), it is likely that unlearning will not prove as difficult as when the knowledge is cognitive or attitudinal. Such declarative knowledge includes structures, roles, strategies, or history that may differ from those with which the newcomer is familiar. Most individuals would accept that organizations differ in terms of these elements, and these differences do not necessarily challenge previously held knowledge, values, or beliefs. To unlearn, and replace existing knowledge with new knowledge, is therefore likely to be straightforward. In contrast, those elements of onboarding representing complex knowledge, encompassing a range of types of knowledge and sometimes involving attitudinal elements, may require more effort to unlearn. Therefore, for the newcomer to understand new colleagues in terms of both working and social relationships, and know how to navigate implicit rules, politics, and organizational culture—particularly when these differ significantly to previous experience—more fundamental unlearning may be involved. Where the content is challenging to the individual, there is an increased risk of not unlearning, which ultimately can impact upon job performance and increase the likelihood of turnover. Considering why a newcomer might struggle to acquire some knowledge and setting up processes to aid unlearning has the potential to enhance the newcomer's performance and aid their socialization. Understanding that different types of knowledge may impact on unlearning signals significant considerations for onboarding, and leads to the following propositions: Proposition 2. The type of content that a newcomer needs to learn will present more of a challenge for their adaptation when the 6

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

K. Becker and A. Bish

Amount of Unlearning

Low

Medium

Working Relationships

Language

(Procedural Declarative Cognitive)

(Declarative) History

Social Relationships

(Declarative) Inducements (Declarative) Structure (Declarative)

High

(Declarative Cognitive) Task Proficiency (Procedural Declarative Cognitive Motor Skills)

Politics (Procedural Declarative Cognitive) Culture and Values (Procedural Attitudes)

Goals and Strategy (Declarative) Rules and Policies

Navigation

(Procedural Declarative)

(Procedural)

Fig. 2. Amount of unlearning applied to onboarding dimensions and knowledge types (dimensions and types from Klein & Heuser, 2008, p. 317).

content is of a cognitive or attitudinal nature as this requires more unlearning to occur. Proposition 3. Content that is knowledge-based (e.g., declarative or procedural) is not as challenging for effective adaptation of the newcomer as this requires less unlearning to occur. 2.6. Unlearning subprocesses and timing for onboarding Thus far, we have considered the implications of the types of unlearning required and that the nature of the content of onboarding relates to unlearning and the types of unlearning recognized in the literature. However, there is deeper knowledge of unlearning relating to the process through which an individual transitions during unlearning. This understanding of unlearning as a process raises questions around temporal aspects of onboarding, in particular identifying the most appropriate times to design for unlearning in an onboarding program, and it is therefore both the subprocesses of unlearning and timing of onboarding interventions that must be recognized in the framework. There have been a number of attempts to operationalize the process of unlearning (e.g., Cegarra-Navarro & Wensley, 2019; Fiol & O'Connor, 2017b; Visser, 2017), although there are significant similarities and overlaps. The process offered by Fiol and O'Connor (2017a) has been adopted in our framework, recognizing three subprocesses of unlearning. These processes were identified as an initial destabilization process, followed by ongoing discarding of “old knowledge” whilst also experimenting with “new knowledge,” and, finally, developing a new understanding and relinquishing past knowledge or behavior. Considering unlearning during this process allows for a more targeted approach to onboarding by identifying the stages through which a newcomer will progress during onboarding. Within these subprocesses, stimuli were identified, either positive or negative, that act as a catalyst for the subprocess. If unlearning is important for onboarding, then it will be necessary to consider how each of these unlearning subprocesses could be facilitated during the onboarding process. Table 1 shows the potential considerations for onboarding practice and process to initiate the three subprocesses of unlearning. The breakdown of unlearning into subprocesses provides the opportunity to analyze how onboarding might assist newcomers in specific parts of the unlearning process. By understanding unlearning as a process rather than a single event, onboarding can be designed to allow time for newcomers to process new knowledge or expected behaviors to facilitate unlearning. Such discussion of unlearning and onboarding as a process leads to a question around timing of the onboarding process to allow time for these 7

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

K. Becker and A. Bish

Table 1 Unlearning subprocesses, nature and stimuli (Fiol & O'Connor, 2017a), and onboarding requirements. Unlearning subprocesses

Primary nature of unlearning

Primary stimuli for unlearning

Potential onboarding requirements

Initial destabilization of old routine

Personal Ostensive Increasingly social and interactive Performative Social Ostensive

Negative Progressively

Experiential activities to question current knowledge and contrast between existing and new knowledge or behavior

Positive Tempered Positive

Support mechanisms such as mentoring and coaching, employee resource groups Formal learning and development activities providing new content and processes

Ongoing discarding from use (old) and experimenting (new) Develop new understanding and release old understanding

unlearning subprocesses, and therefore temporal aspects of unlearning during onboarding become paramount. Klein and Heuser (2008) propose that delivery of onboarding content requires thoughtful consideration of the timing of interventions and highlight the limited focus on this element of socialization. Their proposal suggests that elements of onboarding need to occur over the first 12 months of employment and should be paced according to the need for different types of content. They suggest that the onboarding process can be separated into eight timeframes: during recruitment and hiring, after hire (but before commencement), first day, first week, first month, second to third month, fourth to sixth month, and between six and twelve months. Onboarding, therefore, cannot be undertaken in an ad hoc manner, as it is critical to ensure that newcomers receive the information and support they need at the appropriate time in the onboarding process. As a part of the onboarding design, time horizons must allow for the unlearning process (and inherent subprocesses) to occur, predominantly where the content may challenge previously held beliefs or accepted ways of working, leading to the following proposition: Proposition 6. Onboarding interventions and experiences need to be designed and timed to allow for unlearning subprocesses (initial destabilization, discarding and experimenting, and developing and relinquishing) to occur.

2.7. Type of fit and unlearning during onboarding Beyond consideration of the unlearning required for both content and processes of onboarding, there is also a need to consider newcomer attributes; in particular the type of fit and previous socialization of the individual. A bibliographic study by Batistič and Kaše (2015) charted the development of the discussion of socialization and onboarding from the 1980s' emphasis on socialization tactics (i.e., steps the organization takes in orienting a newcomer), to the 1990s' focus on newcomer attributes such as proactivity, information seeking, and uncertainty reduction, to the conclusion that, since the 2000s, a combination of these two perspectives has emerged producing a person-by-situation perspective. Importantly, they called for more research that recognizes the importance of fit between the individual and the environment they enter as a newcomer. Therefore, we argue that considering newcomer attributes and those of the environment into which they enter is critical, and person-environment (P–E) fit theory has the potential to inform this discussion. P–E fit is an interactionist theory with roots in interactional psychology (Morley, 2007) and is defined as “the compatibility between an individual and a work environment that occurs when their characteristics are well matched” (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005, p. 281). This compatibility has been explored in relation to a range of variables: person–job, person–organization, person–group, person–supervisor (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005), and person–vocation (Holland, 1985), with person–organization (PeO) fit being most relevant to onboarding discussions. Fundamentally, PeO fit literature argues that there is a need for synergy between an individual's personal attributes and the environment in which they operate (Kristof-Brown & Guay, 2011), and is the basis of much of the recruitment and selection literature (see, e.g., Coldwell, Billsberry, van Meurs, & Marsh, 2008; De Cooman et al., 2009; McCulloch & Turban, 2007). P–E fit as a theory suggests that focus should not be solely on the individual or on the situation in which they are placed but on the interaction of the two as the main determinant of outcomes (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987); hence, there is a strong link to decisions made during the hiring process. However, in the case of onboarding, it is also important that attention is given to the ongoing interaction between the newcomer and the organization they have entered, and therefore PeO fit has also been used in socialization studies (Cable & Parsons, 2001). Importantly, our framework considers the type of PeO fit as a critical distinction in terms of the amount of unlearning a newcomer may encounter. One of the critical issues in the PeO fit discussion is the optimum level of fit; having too many individuals who “fit” too closely might lead to homogeneity and groupthink, whereas a lack of fit may lead to turnover or other negative outcomes associated with a lack of assimilation. This discussion leads to an important distinction that has been made regarding fit, with the identification of two different types of fit: supplementary and complementary (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). Supplementary fit has been described as a close match between the individual and the organization, whereby the new employee is similar to others in the environment and therefore increases the quantum of these characteristics (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). Alternatively, an individual may represent a complementary fit, where they add to the organization and bring characteristics not currently present but beneficial to the organization (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987). It has been claimed that many hiring decisions in organizations are based on complementary rather than supplementary fit, aiming to build rather than amplify capabilities (Muchinsky & Monahan, 8

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

K. Becker and A. Bish

1987). It would then follow that onboarding processes must recognize the extent to which the organization sought supplementary versus complementary fit during the recruitment and selection process, in order to accommodate these different talent segments during onboarding. It could be argued that those representing supplementary fit are more likely to be easily socialized due to their similarity to those already in the organization. In contrast, it will be important to recognize that those who are a complementary fit may require socialization aimed at assisting them to use the different capabilities and approaches for which they were hired to the ultimate benefit of the organization. We therefore offer the following proposition: Proposition 7. Newcomers considered a complementary fit will require more unlearning, and therefore more comprehensive onboarding, than those considered a supplementary fit.

2.8. Talent segments, previous socialization, and unlearning during onboarding Beyond the extent of individual fit, we argue that considering the needs of unique groups of newcomers in the onboarding process is critical, particularly when deep unlearning is required. When Newstrom (1983) warned about the fallacy that learners begin with a “clean slate,” he suggested that some types of knowledge require more unlearning than others. For example, where no similar behavior or knowledge currently exists, unlearning will be negligible, whereas increasing or decreasing the amount of behavior needed will require moderate unlearning. Maximum unlearning is likely to be required when one behavior must fully replace another—a situation faced by particular talent segments that have been socialized in very different settings (Newstrom, 1983). Therefore, for many organizations, it will be vital to understand the history and previous experience of newcomers to determine the level of unlearning needed and the focus required on unlearning within onboarding processes. Only then will onboarding meet the diverse needs of all newcomers. Moving the conversation from considering newcomers as a homogenous group to considering the unique needs of categories or groups of newcomers has been recognized recently as a potential way to enhance the effectiveness of onboarding (Klein et al., 2015). Considering such groups is particularly relevant when planning strategic talent management approaches aimed at attracting, recruiting and retaining specific talent segments, such as military veterans (King, 2012), or undertaking diversity initiatives targeting women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields (Puritty et al., 2017). Beyond recruitment, onboarding needs to be seen as an equally strategic initiative of the firm to maximize both inclusion (Puritty et al., 2017) and the potential contribution of these groups of talent and the return on investment. Batistič (2018, p. 229) suggests that: [o]rganizations can and do have different cohorts of newcomers joining them and based on the value and uniqueness of their human capital, we propose some socialization tactics might be more beneficial than others. Acknowledging this can provide newcomers with a more tailored experience, resulting in a more effective socialization process that enhances individual and organizational performance. In examining such individual differences, we argue that there is a case for considering different talent segments to assist those responsible for onboarding to balance between taking a standard organizational approach and attempting individual interventions. A talent segment approach to designing onboarding processes provides a group-based intervention (Kurnat-Thoma et al., 2017) (with an in-built peer support network), customized to the specific needs of a particular group in the critical early stages of socialization, and connects those encountering similar unlearning processes. Talent segment designs can also be used to inform supervisors and managers of the specific needs of newcomers so that they are more adequately prepared to provide support. To consider the needs of the individual newcomer and assess the potential extent to which unlearning may be required, it is important to analyze their background and experiences, their knowledge, and the organizational contexts and cultures in which they have worked. Three indicators that can assist in categorizing newcomers are: (a) similarity of previous role(s), (b) similarity of previous industry, and (c) whether they were hired as a supplementary or complementary fit. Table 2 combines these three indicators and identifies the potential need for unlearning during onboarding. Where newcomers have been hired for supplementary fit, from similar roles in similar industries, much of the onboarding process will be unlikely to require deep unlearning. However, where the newcomer has been hired as a complementary fit for the organization to acquire additional capabilities, careful attention to bespoke designs for onboarding may be required to assist in the transition. We argue that fundamental to this design is the unlearning required, both in content and process. Indeed, existing knowledge may not even be the legacy of one previous organization; it may be an industry or professional socialization that has taken place over a significant number of years. Becker (2018) argues that unlearning can sometimes be a challenge because there is significant Table 2 Categorizing newcomers' needs for unlearning during onboarding.

Similar industry Supplementary fit Complementary fit Different industry Supplementary fit Complementary fit

Similar role

Different role

Low Moderate

Moderate High

Moderate High

Moderate High

9

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

K. Becker and A. Bish

knowledge amassed in particular professions or situations that go beyond a single organization. It is argued that professions have a “culture” of their own that might play a significant role in influencing the ability of individuals to adapt to new situations. The military is an example of individuals developing a strong sense of commitment to previous roles. It has been widely acknowledged that the military utilizes extensive socialization practices with new recruits to ensure they adequately adapt to their new environment (Daskalaki, 2012). Cooper-Thomas and Anderson (2002), for example, present a study on military recruits and note how rapidly socialization occurs in this environment. The military invests significant time into socializing new recruits; therefore, when transitioning out of military service, veterans may find adapting to new environments requires significant unlearning. In a review of veteran transition research, Watson, Perry, Ripley, and Chittum (2017) found that organizations underestimate the scale of “mindshift” required for veterans, and that there is evidence of organizations hiring large numbers of veterans without the required strategic efforts to ensure successful integration. King (2012) refers to a “cultural learning curve” that veterans experience, and notes that, for many veterans, this is their first experience in a civilian organization. Those responsible for onboarding and retention could be drawing on information about their collective backgrounds, experiences, military culture, and roles to design an appropriate onboarding strategy and interventions to ensure that veterans are able to complete the significant unlearning process to bridge the cultural divide, and ultimately be effective in their career transition. Therefore, considering this knowledge as a potential obstacle to the onboarding process for these individuals is critical. The greater the behavioral and emotional unlearning effort required across all three subprocesses of unlearning, the higher the risk of inadequate socialization and therefore the more architecture is required as a part of the onboarding process, as suggested in the following proposition: Proposition 8. Previous socialization in significantly different organizational environments will require more unlearning and therefore more comprehensive onboarding. In summary, we propose that taking a learning perspective to socialization and onboarding, and, in particular, considering how facilitating unlearning may enhance these processes, advances existing literature that considers onboarding from a psychological perspective. In addition, learning and development literature traditionally advocates that the first step in any learning intervention design is to undertake a learning needs analysis (Delahaye, 2011; Noe, 2008). We argue that considering the learning needs of specific talent segments targeted during hiring provides the opportunity to design bespoke onboarding to meet the anticipated unique needs of each segment. 3. Conclusions and future directions As contemporary workforces become more mobile and move employment more readily, organizations will continue to have a significant percentage of new employees in their ranks at any one time (Wang, Zhan, McCune, & Truxillo, 2011). For this reason, it is critical to ensure that new employees are socialized effectively and efficiently (Batistič & Kaše, 2015), and that onboarding is designed appropriately to ensure that newcomers adapt to the organization and are productive in as short a time as possible. Our conceptualization of onboarding as a learning process and the key role of unlearning in this process enhances onboarding literature and contributes to informing the design of effective onboarding programs and guiding future research directions. In addition, we argue that it is timely to consider the design of onboarding to recognize the unique career transition requirements of particular talent segments to boost retention rates and maximize opportunities for newcomers to contribute to their full potential. 3.1. Theoretical implications Discussions of onboarding to date have taken a psychological perspective, considering how newcomers socialize within a new organizational environment. However, this perspective does not provide a comprehensive understanding of all the elements of the onboarding process. This paper contributes to the HRM literature by adopting a learning lens through which to consider onboarding—particularly by arguing for consideration of unlearning as a part of onboarding. Although unlearning has been discussed in the organizational development, human resource development, and learning literature (Becker, 2010; Hislop et al., 2014; Newstrom, 1983; Tsang, 2008; Zhao, Lu, & Wang, 2013), mainstream HRM and organizational behavior literature has been less likely to engage in such discussions. We argue it is time for a focus on learning and unlearning to advance theories of onboarding. This is not just a different perspective on onboarding but provides us with a better understanding of how learning and unlearning mechanisms relate to the onboarding process, offering substantial enhancement of our understanding of the complex psychological processes involved in onboarding. In relation to PeO fit theory, the onboarding process must consider whether the individual has been hired as a complementary or supplementary fit. Where an individual has been recruited for supplementary fit (i.e., they are considered similar to those already in the organization), unlearning may not be a significant issue. However, in cases where the individual has been selected to bring new or different perspectives (they are considered a complementary fit), it may be important to consider unlearning—both for the new recruit and for those within the organization. If potential recruits were targeted for their differences and their potential to make new or different contributions to enhance organizational effectiveness, it may also be necessary to identify where onboarding might assist existing employees to be exposed to new ideas and be encouraged to unlearn existing knowledge and approaches. Indeed, Daskalaki (2012) argues that it is critical to reconsider new employee induction as more than just a managerial process imparting knowledge but as a chance to begin a discourse between the new employee and the organization. Whilst this paper has not delved into this issue of co-learning, it is certainly an area for future consideration; particularly where existing staff and the organization might also engage in unlearning with the newcomer as a catalyst. 10

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

K. Becker and A. Bish

In addition to informing the HRM literature, we have also contributed to the unlearning literature, demonstrating that it can be applied to specific processes within the organization. Traditionally, the unlearning literature has taken a broader perspective and focused on the unlearning needed during times of organizational change (e.g., Brook et al., 2016; Hislop et al., 2014; Morais-Storz & Nguyen, 2017), to enhance strategic flexibility (Wang, Qi, & Zhao, 2019), facilitate innovation (e.g., Akgun, Byrne, Lynn, & Keskin, 2007; Akgun, Lynn, & Byrne, 2006; Becker, 2008; Leal-Rodríguez, Eldridge, Roldán, Leal-Millán, & Ortega-Gutiérrez, 2015), create knowledge (Ortega Gutiérrez, Cegarra Navarro, Cepeda Carrión, & Leal Rodríguez, 2015), or build strategic resilience (Morais-Storz & Nguyen, 2017). Applying unlearning to a specific HRM function such as onboarding suggests the concept of unlearning has more potential than is currently being realized. Indeed, even though general interest in unlearning continues to grow, there have been calls for “robust conceptual and empirical evidence to advance the [unlearning] field” (Klammer & Gueldenberg, 2018, p. 1). Testing the framework and accompanying propositions from this paper would provide a basis for such advancement. 3.2. Practical implications From a practical perspective, considering unlearning during the onboarding process can shine a new light for HRM practitioners on the best way to approach onboarding and improve its implementation. The unlearning process requires that time is allocated to surfacing previous experience and explaining the reasons behind practices or expectations that are different from those to which the newcomers are accustomed. In essence, conducting appropriate “due diligence” will ensure the design of the most appropriate onboarding processes and experiences to reflect the newcomer's background and recruitment purpose. It might also mean that a more deliberate temporal aspect is added to the onboarding process to ensure that individuals have the time required to relinquish past practice and behaviors—particularly when there is an emotional attachment to such knowledge. As argued by Kurnat-Thoma et al. (2017), based upon their study of an onboarding intervention for nurses, the design considerations for the onboarding process (at 30, 60 and 90 day milestones) have critical implications for newcomer success in adjusting to intense work. Furthermore, when recruiting specific talent segments, consideration of their collective experiences and potentially unique requirements provides the opportunity to enhance their onboarding experience, particularly for those recruited from significantly different organizational or professional contexts. However, HR professionals must also bear in mind that, particularly where new hires represent a chance to build additional capability (i.e., a complementary fit), unlearning should not just occur for the newcomer. Onboarding should be viewed as an opportunity to introduce new ideas to help the organization develop and adapt; it is not just a generic process to align the newcomer with the organization. It is therefore imperative that organizations provide proactive avenues for meaningful interactions with existing employees during the onboarding process. 3.3. Future research directions Although the research undertaken to date has built a solid foundation for the socialization literature, there is still much to understand about how to develop effective onboarding practices, and the proposed framework requires further empirical testing. While there has been recognition of the importance of differentiating talent, and considering talent segments when designing HR systems (Boudreau & Ramstad, 2005; Collings & Mellahi, 2009), there is limited empirical evidence of how organizations can include newcomers who have unique needs and contributions to make. It is important for future research to focus on these different talent segments—particularly those who represent a complementary fit with the current organizational environment. We concur with the view of Klein et al. (2015) that future research examining the needs of different types of newcomers and the onboarding processes that may be required to meet their needs will be a significant advancement in the onboarding literature. Future research will also need to focus on how unique groups make sense of a new organizational environment and whether there are organizational or individual actions that can assist in this process. In particular, exploring how unlearning can be included as an explicit part of the onboarding process is imperative. Understanding how newcomers deal with the cognitive dissonance involved in assimilating and the unlearning that occurs would inform a more complete approach to onboarding in organizations, ideally through a longitudinal design (M. Wang et al., 2011) to better capture the dynamic nature of the process over time (Solinger et al., 2013). Ultimately, this research would continue to advance our understanding of the critical design issues for onboarding to ensure it provides a return on investment for recruitment and selection activities and allows newcomers to be as effective as possible in the least amount of time. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. References Akgun, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Lynn, G. S., & Keskin, H. (2007). New product development in turbulent environments: Impact of improvisation and unlearning on new product performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24, 203–230. Akgun, A. E., Lynn, G. S., & Byrne, J. C. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of unlearning in new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23, 73–88. Batistič, S. (2018). Looking beyond-socialization tactics: The role of human resource systems in the socialization process. Human Resource Management Review, 28, 220–233. Batistič, S., & Kaše, R. (2015). The organizational socialization field fragmentation: A bibliometric review. Scientometrics, 104, 121–146. Bauer, T. N. (2010). Onboarding new employees: Maximizing success. SHRM foundation’s effective practice guideline series. USA: SHRM Foundation. 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, 707–721. Becker, K. (2005). Individual and organisational unlearning: Directions for future research. International Journal of Organisation Behaviour, 9, 659–670.

11

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

K. Becker and A. Bish

Becker, K. (2008). Unlearning as a driver, of sustainable change and innovation: Three Australian case studies. International Journal of Technology Management, 42, 89–106. Becker, K. (2010). Facilitating unlearning during implementation of new technology. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23, 251–268. Becker, K. (2018). Organizational unlearning: Time to expand our horizons? The Learning Organization, 25, 180–189. Boudreau, J. W., & Ramstad, P. M. (2005). Talentship, talent segmentation, and sustainability: A new HR decision science paradigm for a new strategy definition. Human Resource Management, 44, 129–136. Bradt, G. B., & Vonnegut, M. (2009). Onboarding: How to get your new employees up to speed in half the time. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Bridges, W. (1991). Managing transitions: Making the most of change. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Brook, C., Pedler, M., Abbott, C., & Burgoyne, J. (2016). On stopping doing those things that are not getting us to where we want to be: Unlearning, wicked problems and critical action learning. Human Relations, 69, 369–389. Cable, D. M., Gino, F., & Staats, B. R. (2013). Reinventing employee onboarding. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(3), 23–28. Cable, D. M., & Parsons, C. K. (2001). Socialization tactics and person-organization fit. Personnel Psychology, 54, 1–23. Caldwell, C., & Peters, R. (2018). New employee onboarding–psychological contracts and ethical perspectives. Journal of Management Development, 37, 27–39. Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., & Wensley, A. (2019). Promoting intentional unlearning through an unlearning cycle. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 32, 67–79. 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. Coldwell, D., Billsberry, J., van Meurs, N., & Marsh, P. (2008). The effects of person-organization ethical fit on employee attraction and retention: Towards a testable explanatory model. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 611–622. Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 19, 304–313. Cooper-Thomas, H., & Anderson, N. (2002). Newcomer adjustment: The relationship between organizational socialization tactics, information acquisition and attitudes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 423–437. Daskalaki, M. (2012). Recontextualizing new employee induction: Organizational entry as a change space. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 48, 93–114. De Cooman, R., De Gieter, S., Pepermans, R., Hermans, S., Bois, C., Caers, R., & Jegers, M. (2009). Person-organization fit: Testing socialization and attractionselection-attrition hypotheses. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(1), 102–107. Debowski, S. (2006). Knowledge management. Milton: John Wiley & Sons. Delahaye, B. L. (2011). Human resource development: Managing learning and knowledge capital (3rd ed.). Prahran, VIC: Tilde University Press. Duffy, F. M. (2003). I think, therefore i am resistant to change. Journal of Staff Development, 24, 30–36. Ellis, A. M., Nifadkar, S. S., Bauer, T. N., & Erdogan, B. (2017). Newcomer adjustment: Examining the role of managers’ perception of newcomer proactive behavior during organizational socialization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 993–1001. Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of Management Review, 6, 309–318. Fiol, C. M., & O’Connor, E. J. (2017a). Unlearning established organizational routines – Part ii. The Learning Organization, 24, 82–92. Fiol, M., & O'Connor, E. (2017b). Unlearning established organizational routines - Part i. The Learning Organization, 24, 13–29. Gupta, P. D., Bhattacharya, S., Sheorey, P., & Coelho, P. (2018). Relationship between onboarding experience and turnover intention: Intervening role of locus of control and self-efficacy. Industrial and Commercial Training, 50, 61–80. Harpelund, C. (2019). Prelims, onboarding: Getting new hires off to a flying start. Emerald Publishing Limitedi–viii. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78769-581820191001. Hedberg, B. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. Nystrom, & W. H. Starbuck (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of organizational design. Vol. 1. London: Cambridge University Press. Hislop, D., Bosley, S., Coombs, C. R., & Holland, J. (2014). The process of individual unlearning: A neglected topic in an under-researched field. Management Learning, 45, 540–560. Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices: A theory of careers (2 ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers’ adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279. 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, 779–794. King, E. (2012). Retaining troop talent. Public Manager, 41(1), 16–19. Klammer, A., & Gueldenberg, S. (2018). Unlearning and forgetting in organizations: A systematic review of literature. Journal of Knowledge Management, 25, 180–189. Klein, H. J., & Heuser, A. E. (2008). The learning of socialization content: A framework for researching orientating practices. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 27, 279–336. Klein, H. J., & Polin, B. (2012). Are organizations on board with best practices onboarding. The Oxford handbook of organizational socialization (pp. 267–287). New York: Oxford University Press. Klein, H. J., Polin, B., & Leigh Sutton, K. (2015). Specific onboarding practices for the socialization of new employees. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23, 263–283. Kristof-Brown, A. L., & Guay, R. P. (2011). Person-environment fit. In S. Zedeck (Ed.). APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol 3: Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization (pp. 3–50). American Psychological Association. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of person–job, person–organization, person–group, and person–supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342. Kurnat-Thoma, E., Ganger, M., Peterson, K., & Channell, L. (2017). Reducing annual hospital and registered nurse staff turnover—A 10-element onboarding program intervention. SAGE Open Nursing, 3, 1–13. Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., Eldridge, S., Roldán, J. L., Leal-Millán, A. G., & Ortega-Gutiérrez, J. (2015). Organizational unlearning, innovation outcomes, and performance: The moderating effect of firm size. Journal of Business Research, 68, 803–809. Liu, S., Bamberger, P., Wang, M., Shi, J., & Bacharach, S. B. (2019). When onboarding becomes risky: Extending social learning theory to explain newcomers’ adoption of heavy drinking with clients. Human Relations, 1–29 (0018726719842653). Matsuo, M. (2018). Goal orientation, critical reflection, and unlearning: An individual-level study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 29, 49–66. McCulloch, M. C., & Turban, D. B. (2007). Using person-organization fit to select employees for high-turnover jobs. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15, 63–71. Mestre, M., Stainer, A., & Stainer, L. (1997). Employee orientation-the Japanese approach. Employee Relations, 19, 443–456. Meyer, A. M., & Bartels, L. K. (2017). The impact of onboarding levels on perceived utility, organizational commitment, organizational support, and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 17(5), 10–27. Morais-Storz, M., & Nguyen, N. (2017). The role of unlearning in metamorphosis and strategic resilience. The Learning Organization, 24, 93–106. Morley, M. J. (2007). Person-organization fit. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 109–117. Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31, 268–277. Myers, K. K., & Oetzel, J. G. (2003). Exploring the dimensions of organizational assimilation: Creating and validating a measure. Communication Quarterly, 51, 438–457. Newstrom, J. W. (1983). The management of unlearning: Exploding the “clean slate” fallacy. Training and Development Journal, 37(8), 36–39. Noe, R. A. (2008). Employee training and development (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin. Nystrom, P. C., & Starbuck, W. H. (1984). To avoid organizational crises, unlearn. Organizational Dynamics, 12(4), 53–65. Ortega Gutiérrez, J., Cegarra Navarro, J. G., Cepeda Carrión, G. A., & Leal Rodríguez, A. L. (2015). Linking unlearning with quality of health services through knowledge corridors. Journal of Business Research, 68, 815–822.

12

Human Resource Management Review xxx (xxxx) xxxx

K. Becker and A. Bish

Puritty, C., Strickland, L. R., Alia, E., Blonder, B., Klein, E., Kohl, M. T., & Tellman, B. (2017). Without inclusion, diversity initiatives may not be enough. Science, 357, 1101–1102. Rushmer, R., & Davies, H. (2004). Unlearning in health care. Quality and safety in health care. 13(suppl 2). Quality and safety in health care (pp. ii10–ii15). Schiemann, W. A. (2014). From talent management to talent optimization. Journal of World Business, 49, 281–288. Sinkula, J. M. (2002). Market-based success, organizational routines, and unlearning. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 17, 253–269. Smith, R. E. (1984). Employee orientation: 10 steps to success. The Personnel Journal, 63(12), 46–48. Snell, A. (2006). Researching onboarding best practice. Strategic HR Review, 5(6), 32–35. Solinger, O. N., Van Olffen, W., Roe, R. A., & Hofmans, J. (2013). On becoming (un) committed: A taxonomy and test of newcomer onboarding scenarios. Organization Science, 24, 1640–1661. Stein, M., & Christiansen, L. (2010). Successful onboarding. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing. Tsang, E. W. K. (2008). Transferring knowledge to acquisition joint ventures: An organizational unlearning perspective. Management Learning, 39(5), 5–20. Van den Broek, D. (1997). Human resource management, cultural control and union avoidance: An Australian case study. Journal of Industrial Relations, 39, 332–348. Van Maanen, J. (1978). People processing: Strategies of organizational socialization. Organizational Dynamics, 7(1), 19–36. Van Maanen, J. E., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209–264. Visser, M. (2017). Learning and unlearning: A conceptual note. The Learning Organization, 24, 49–57. Wang, M., Zhan, Y., McCune, E., & Truxillo, D. (2011). Understanding newcomers’adaptability and work-related outcomes: Testing the mediating roles of perceived P–E fit variables. Personnel Psychology, 64, 163–189. Wang, X., Qi, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2019). Individual unlearning, organizational unlearning and strategic flexibility: The down-up change perspective. Baltic Journal of Management, 14, 2–18. Wanous, J. P., & Reichers, A. E. (2000). New employee orientation programs. Human Resource Management Review, 10, 435–451. Watson, K. W., Perry, M., Ripley, B., & Chittum, R. (2017). How your company can better retain employees who are veterans. Harvard Business Review (July). Zhao, Y., Lu, Y., & Wang, X. (2013). Organizational unlearning and organizational relearning: A dynamic process of knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17, 902–912.

13