Joint effects of social networks and information giving on innovative performance after organizational entry

Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014) 352–360

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Vocational Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

Joint effects of social networks and information giving on innovative performance after organizational entry☆ Markku Jokisaari a,b,*, Jukka Vuori a b c

c

Durham University, England, UK University of Turku, Finland Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Finland

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 12 August 2014 Keywords: Organizational socialization Brokerage Social networks Innovative performance Proactive behavior

a b s t r a c t We combine the social network approach and organizational socialization literature in order to examine the influence of social networks and proactive behavior on newcomers' innovative performance. A sample of new employees completed questionnaires on social network and proactive measures, and their supervisors rated their innovative performance. The results suggest that both sparse (low density) social networks and newcomers' information giving were related to innovative performance. The results also indicate that information giving moderated the relation between sparse social networks and innovative performance: when newcomers' information giving was high, the characteristics of their social networks were not related to their innovative performance. © 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc.

Organizational socialization is argued to be a process that fosters new employees' integration into organizations (e.g., Feldman, 1981). Research has shown that socialization during organizational entry is related to newcomers' adjustment to work, i.e. mastering the tasks of the job, social integration with co-workers, and obtaining knowledge about their role in the job and organization (review, Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison, 2007). Furthermore, some scholars have argued that new employees do not only try to adjust and fit into the new environment; they also try to propose new ideas and introduce changes at the workplace, i.e. show innovative performance (e.g., Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison, 2007; Feldman, 1994). Some scholars even suggest that organizations expect employees to show innovative behavior at the workplace (Unsworth, Wall, & Carter, 2005). Indeed, it has been argued that innovative behavior is an essential aim of successful socialization: “organizational socialization – if it is truly to make new recruits effective, participating members – should lead to innovation and spontaneous cooperation” (Feldman, 1981: 315; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). Organizational socialization theory and research has focused on newcomers' “role orientation” when examining newcomers as a source of change and new ideas at the workplace. Role orientation refers to behavior that aims to either maintain the status quo in one's job (custodial role orientation) or attempts to change work practices and even redefine one's role in the job (content and role innovation; Van Maanen & Schein, 1979). As antecedents of role innovation, earlier research has examined socialization tactics, i.e. the organizational means with which to socialize new employees, such as training, and newcomers' proactive behavior. Research findings indicate that socialization tactics (Ashforth & Saks, 1996; Jones, 1986) and proactive behavior such as seeking feedback (e.g., Ashforth, Sluss, & Saks, 2007; Mignerey, Rubin, & Gorden, 1995) are related to self-rated role innovation. Earlier socialization ☆ An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Sunbelt Conference of the International Network for Social Network Analysis (INSNA), 21–26 May 2013, Hamburg, Germany. Different research questions based in part on this data set were examined in Jokisaari (2013). The role of leader-member and social network relations in newcomers’ role performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 96–104. This study was in part supported by the Finnish Work Environment Fund (#108067) and the Academy of Finland (#124294). ⁎ Corresponding author at: Durham University Business School, Mill Hill Lane, Durham, DH1 3LB, UK. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Jokisaari).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2014.08.007 0001-8791/© 2014 Published by Elsevier Inc.

M. Jokisaari, J. Vuori / Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014) 352–360

353

literature generally suggests that new employees will perform innovatively at the workplace, depending on formal socialization practices in the organization and on their proactive behavior. However, recent socialization theory argues that one has to also focus on the social environment as well as newcomers' behavior in order to understand the success of socialization, shown by, for example, innovative performance. That is, organizational socialization has been characterized as a process during which the social ties and interaction between new employees and more experienced members of the organization, i.e. organizational insiders, are the main tools for bringing newcomers “on-board” (e.g., Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison, 2007; Jablin, 2001; Reichers, 1987). Unfortunately there seems to be no earlier research on how the characteristics of the social environment, such as social ties between newcomers and organizational insiders, relate to innovative performance after organizational entry. This is surprising, since theory on creativity in organizations emphasizes the importance of the social environment in developing new, useful ideas at the workplace (e.g., Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Thus, our first aim was to examine how the characteristics of newcomers' social environments, as indicated by their social networks at the workplace, are related to their innovative behavior. Furthermore, socialization research on newcomer proactive behavior has mainly focused on how newcomers seek information and feedback from organizational insiders in order to learn and adjust to their jobs. However, newcomers may also give more experienced members of the organization information (e.g., Jablin, 2001) and this information giving may enhance their integration with organizational insiders and support their innovative performance. Indeed, earlier research suggests that organizational insiders appreciate newcomers' knowledge (Gallagher & Sias, 2009). The second aim of our study was to examine the role of such newcomers' information giving to organizational insiders in innovative performance. Finally, given that social interaction between new employees and organizational insiders is a key for successful socialization, it is of great importance to focus on how the characteristics of the social environment and newcomer behavior interactively enhance successful socialization (e.g., Ashforth, Sluss, & Harrison, 2007; Ashforth, Sluss, & Saks, 2007; Reichers, 1987). Unfortunately, socialization research on the social environment and research on proactive behavior have to a large extent proceeded independently of each other (cf., Kammeyer-Mueller, Wanberg, Rubenstein, & Song, 2013). Thus, our final aim was to investigate the joint effects of social networks and proactive behavior, i.e. information giving related to innovative behavior after organizational entry. To further strengthen our research design we used supervisor ratings of innovative behavior in order to obtain organizational insiders' views on newcomer behavior, since earlier socialization research has mainly used newcomers' self-ratings in examining their role innovation. 1. Theory and hypotheses 1.1. Social network approach and innovative performance The probability of individuals' proposing creative or innovative ideas is inherently tied to their social environment (e.g., George, 2007). It has been typically argued that the social environment is an important source of knowledge, advice, and encouragement for the development of innovative ideas (e.g., Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003; Woodman et al., 1993). The social network approach in particular argues that the ways in which a person gets information and advice, resulting in innovative or creative performance, is dependent on the characteristics of the social networks at the workplace (e.g., Burt, 2005). An important characteristic of a social network is how its members are connected to one another, i.e. the network structure. Network brokerage refers to a sparse network structure in which people are not interconnected well and few people “broker” information and advice to those who are not connected to each other. In describing this kind of network structure, the “network density” concept refers to the extent to which the members are connected to each other. Thus, a brokerage network is characterized by low density, since people do not share many ties with each other (e.g., Marsden, 1990). The social network approach argues that the “brokerage role” in a sparse network brings a person information benefits, since this kind of role typically exists between people who belong to different social groups, and information is often more heterogeneous between groups than in a single group (Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973). Earlier research has shown mixed findings regarding the role of network brokerage in innovative performance and in related activities such as creativity. Some research findings indicate that brokerage networks are related to innovative ideas (Burt, 2004), whereas others show the opposite, i.e. closed (high density) networks are related to involvement in innovation (Obstfeld, 2005). In contrast, some research shows no relation between network brokerage and creativity, i.e. providing new, useful ideas (PerrySmith, 2006; Zhou, Shin, Brass, Choi, & Zhang, 2009). Finally, some studies show that network brokerage has contingent effects on innovative performance (Fleming, Mingo, & Chen, 2007; Tortoriello & Krackhardt, 2010). For example, they show that actors' experience in the field moderates the effect of brokerage on innovation (Fleming et al., 2007). However, the innovative performance of new employees in particular may depend on their location in the sparse networks of relationships i.e. networks which offer brokerage opportunities, since newcomers often have limited knowledge about the people, procedures, and practices in the organization. Indeed, earlier research suggests that new employees in an organization have limited knowledge concerning “who-knows-what” in the organization (Singh, Hansen, & Podolny, 2010), and limited task-, role- and organization-related knowledge after organizational entry (e.g., Jablin, 2001). Since newcomers often have these knowledge limitations, sparse networks may play an important role in their ability to acquire information and knowledge for their performance. In line with this argumentation, earlier research has shown that newcomers' sparse social networks are related to job performance (Jokisaari, 2013). Along similar lines, research on work groups has found that new members benefit more from network ties than people who are familiar with each other (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006). Furthermore, newcomers' innovative performance may benefit from sparse networks, because they are often a source of heterogeneous information and this kind of information frequently plays an important role in innovative performance (e.g., George, 2007).

354

M. Jokisaari, J. Vuori / Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014) 352–360

First, innovative performance often consists of combining knowledge from different domains, i.e. domain knowledge (e.g., Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). Indeed, “to innovate, problem solvers must disentangle the extant knowledge learned in the context of one domain in order to see how it could be valuable in another.” (Hargadon, 2002: 45). As noted above, the social network approach suggests that through sparse networks, newcomers obtain information and opinions from different domains, since sparse networks often channel information from various groups (e.g., Burt, 2005). The structural holes argument in particular argues that when links are missing between people in a network, i.e. it has structural holes, the focal person, who is a broker between these disconnected ties and related domains, gains information and vision benefits (Burt, 1992). Indeed, earlier research has shown that sparse networks are related to access to people in different domains (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001), good ideas (Burt, 2004), and social knowledge in the organization (Obstfeld, 2005). Second, the social network approach argues that sparse networks may offer increased autonomy to a focal person who has a brokerage role, since they are likely to have access to different groups and their opinions, and are able to decide how to share this knowledge further with others in the network who themselves have no access to this knowledge (Burt, 1992). This autonomy may in part enhance new employees' knowledge-sharing with others. Furthermore, increased autonomy may decrease social pressure to foster the status quo in work practices and knowledge, since the brokerage role may enable social interaction with different groups, and people are not necessarily tied to the existing norms and practices of a single group (e.g., Burt, 2005). In a similar vein, earlier socialization literature suggests that group norms may inhibit innovative performance: “More so than individual norms, group norms are likely to be both traditional and custodial [status quo] in orientation (often reflected by the popular idioms, ‘the path of least resistance’ or the ‘lowest common denominator’) which serve to severely limit the newcomers' potential responses to their novel work situation.” (Van Maanen & Schein, 1979: 43). Thus, we predicted that: Hypothesis 1. Newcomers' sparse (low density) social networks relate positively to their innovative performance.

1.2. Information giving and innovative performance Socialization literature has argued that newcomers are purposive agents in organizational socialization: they actively try to direct their learning and adjustment to work during integration into a new organization (e.g., Ashford & Black, 1996; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992). Newcomers' proactive behavior has been the particular focus of research. Proactive behavior refers to behavior such as information and feedback seeking, i.e. an employee's acquisition of job-related information, and feedback on how they are performing in the job. Unfortunately, research on newcomer proactivity has mostly examined how newcomers seek or obtain information from co-workers and supervisors, and less attention has been paid to the fact that newcomers may also give information to others, i.e. more experienced members of the organization may ask for information from a newcomer. Indeed, “if we are more fully to understand the how and with what effect newcomers and oldtimers share information (positive and negative), we need to supplement our studies of information seeking behavior with exploring information-giving behavior also.” (Jablin, 2001, 774). A few studies have examined newcomers' information giving (Kramer, Callister, & Turbanc, 1995; Rollag, 2004). For example, Rollag (2004) found that newcomers' information and advice giving was related to their newcomer status, that is, the more others asked a newcomer for information or advice, the more a newcomer reported that they felt they were a full member of the organization. Kramer et al. (1995) examined information giving among newcomers and internal job changers and found that it was negatively related to intentions to quit. Earlier research on both social networks and organizational socialization suggests that there are certain prerequisites to newcomers giving information to “oldtimers”. First, the socialization literature suggests that newcomers have to feel they have the competence and skills to perform in the job before they are willing give information or advice to others: “Employees reported that … they felt they needed to earn the right to make suggestions, and the way to do this was to demonstrate competence.” (Feldman, 1981: 315–316). Second, earlier research on social networks suggests that when others in the organization know what a focal employee knows and value this knowledge, the more likely they are to ask that person for information (Borgatti & Cross, 2003). Specifically, earlier research on social networks has found that the likelihood of a person seeking information from a network tie increases when they know what that person knows (Borgatti & Cross, 2003), value that person's knowledge (Borgatti & Cross, 2003) and when that person has expertise (Cross & Sproull, 2004). Thus, earlier research, on both socialization and social networks, suggests that the likelihood of new employees' information giving increases when a new employee feels that they have the competence to perform and that others value their knowledge. Furthermore, when more experienced members of the organization ask a newcomer for information, this may also increase the newcomer's work mastery beliefs, i.e. having skills and knowledge to perform in the job, since social feedback is an important antecedent of mastery beliefs (e.g., Gist & Mitchell, 1992). Indeed earlier research has found that the characteristics of social networks are related to one's mastery beliefs at the workplace (Burkhardt, 1994). Increased work mastery in turn increases the likelihood of suggesting new ideas and practices to people beyond one's network ties, higher up in the organization, for example, supervisors (e.g., Feldman, 1981). Earlier research has also shown that perceiving that their knowledge and ideas are valued by others supports employees' creative behavior (Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-McIntyre, 2003). Hypothesis 2. Newcomers' information giving to social network ties relates positively to their innovative performance.

1.3. Joint effects of social networks and information giving on innovative performance As noted above, the social network approach argues that a focal person's social networks enhance his or her performance mainly because of information benefits gained through the networks (e.g., Burt, Kilduff, & Tasselli, 2013). For example, sparse networks

M. Jokisaari, J. Vuori / Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014) 352–360

355

assumingly enable access to heterogeneous information and ideas, and this information enhances a person's innovative performance (e.g., Burt, 2004). However, if a focal person has competence and knowledge, she or he may not need more heterogeneous information through his or her brokerage role in the network ties in order to show innovative performance. Indeed, “information diversity is the key factor predicting performance, not the network” (Burt et al., 2013: 535). Thus, as argued above, when a newcomer is giving information to others in the network, this reflects the fact that they feel confident of the competence and valuable knowledge that they have to share with more experienced co-workers at (e.g., Feldman, 1981). In addition, when co-workers ask a focal newcomer for information, this means that they value the newcomer's knowledge and know that it is relevant to share (Borgatti & Cross, 2003). Furthermore, research on social networks suggests that if a person likes a network tie, i.e. has a strong tie,he or she is more likely to seek information from the tie (Casciaro & Lobo, 2008; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). Earlier research on networks further suggests that these kinds of strong ties are beneficial in transferring complex knowledge, since strong ties are characterized by closeness, trust and frequent communication (e.g., Granovetter, 1983). In other words, “the more emotionally involved two individuals are with each other, the more time and effort they are willing to put forth on behalf of each other, including effort in the form of transferring knowledge.” (Reagans & McEvily, 2003: 244). Thus, a more experienced member of the organization asking for information from a newcomer often implies a strong rather than weak tie between them. This kind of relation and related communication may help a newcomer in acquiring complex knowledge that enhances their innovative performance (cf. Aral & Van Alstyne, 2011). Consequently, a new employee who is a source of information to others at the workplace may not be in need of further novel information through his or her sparse networks to the same extent as a new employee who has no information or advice to share with others in order to show innovative performance. Hypothesis 3. Newcomers' information giving moderates the relation between newcomers' sparse (low density) networks and their innovative performance: Sparse networks are associated with innovative performance when newcomers' information giving is low, but when their information giving is high there is no association between newcomers' sparse networks and their innovative performance.

2. Methods 2.1. Sample and procedures Surveys were administered to new employees three months after their organizational entry into two Finnish municipalities. A total of 220 (44%) new employees returned their surveys. We obtained information on new employees and the names of their supervisors from the organization's personnel records. However, in one organization, we had to ask the new employees the names of their immediate supervisors. The supervisors' surveys were sent out on the basis of this information, and 124 (56%) were returned. Furthermore, by including questions that asked supervisors to evaluate new employees' innovative performance, we found 81 matched supervisor– new employee dyads. According to t-tests, respondents with supervisor-rated innovative performance and respondents with no available supervisor rating of innovative performance did not differ with respect to control variables (work experience, job rank, feedback seeking, network size, network status, tie strength) or study variables (network density, information giving). All the participants were permanent employees, their previous job experience in the current occupational field was three years (Md), 86% were women, and their median age was 29. The participants' occupations included engineer, marketing assistant, dentist, teacher, cook, nurse, nursing assistant, physiotherapist, and psychologist. 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Social networks The ego-network measure was used to examine newcomers' direct ties and how these ties were connected to one another (e.g., Marsden, 1990). Scholars of social network approach suggest that informal discussion relations should be included in the examination of social networks (e.g., Burt, 2005). The participants were first asked to list the social ties at the workplace with whom they discussed important matters related to their work: “People often discuss important matters with others. If you think of the people in your workplace and look back over the last few months, who are those with whom you have most often discussed important matters related to your work or workplace? Please write below the first names or initials of persons with whom you have discussed these issues.” Participants were allowed to name up to five contacts (e.g., Podolny & Baron, 1997; M = 3.7). 2.2.2. Network density Next, participants were asked to evaluate the relations between pairs of network persons by indicating whether or not the persons in each pair discuss important work-related matters with each other (e.g., “Do Person 1 and Person 2 discuss important matters with each other?”) 1 = never or seldom; 2 = every now and then; 3 = very often. The relation between a pair of named network persons was coded 0 if the participant reported that these persons do not or seldom discuss things with each other, 0.5 if the participant indicated that they discuss things with each other every now and then, and 1 if the participant reported that they discuss things very often with each other. Network density was the mean of the strength of ties between all named network persons, i.e. the average

356

M. Jokisaari, J. Vuori / Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014) 352–360

level of interconnection between named network ties (e.g., Marsden, 1990; Podolny & Baron, 1997). The density measure requires the participant to name at least two network persons. 2.2.3. Information giving Participants were asked to rate each named network person by answering (after Borgatti & Cross, 2003): “To what extent does this person ask you for information or advice on work-related matters?” (1 = seldom, 5 = very often). We measured information giving by counting all network ties to whom a focal participant reported giving information or advice “rather often”, “often” or “very often” on a five-point scale (1 = seldom, 5 = very often). 2.2.4. Innovative performance Supervisors used a four-item measure to evaluate new employees' innovative performance (Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez, 1998), i.e., “creativity and innovation in one's job and the organization as a whole” (e.g., “coming up with new ideas”; “creating better processes and routines”; 1 = “needs much improvement”, 5 = “excellent”). We averaged the responses to the four items to create the innovative performance measure (α = .92). 2.2.5. Control variables The statistical analyses controlled for several variables that may relate to innovative performance. These variables related to organization, characteristics of the participant (work experience, job rank, occupational domain), proactive behavior (feedback seeking), and network variables (strength of ties, network status, number of network ties). A respondent's organization was a dummy-coded variable, since there were two organizations. Work experience was measured by asking: “How much work experience do you have in your current occupational field? (years)”. Job rank was measured by asking: “What is your position in the organization?” (1 = employee, 2 = expert, 3 = manager responsibilities). Job rank was recoded into two dummy variables (rank1: 1 = expert, 0 = other; rank2: 1 = manager responsibilities, 0 = other). Occupational domain included dummy variables for most frequent occupational domains among participants (e.g., teacher = 1, other = 0; financial controller = 1, other = 0; school nurse = 1, other = 0). Strength of ties was measured by asking participants to rate each named network person: “How close do you feel to this person?” (1 = not at all, 5 = very close; e.g., Seibert et al., 2001). The strength of the ties variable consisted of the mean of the ratings of all named network persons. Network status indicated the number of network ties who were supervisors or leaders (e.g. Morrison, 2002). Network size was the number of named network persons. Feedback seeking was measured by three items (Ashford & Black, 1996; e.g., “How often have you sought feedback on your performance after assignments?”). Responses for these items were averaged (α = .83). 3. Results Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients of the study variables. For example, network density was not related to information giving, but both variables correlated with innovative performance. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to examine the hypotheses. The control variables in the equations were: organization, employee's job rank, occupational domain, previous work experience (Model 1), feedback seeking (Model 2); and network size, network status, and strength of ties (Model 3). The independent variables were entered into the equation in the following order: network density (Model 4), information giving (Model 5), and interaction term between network density and information giving (Model 6). Among occupational domain-related dummy variables, only one dummy variable was related to innovative performance, and was

Table 1 Intercorrelations, and descriptive statistics of study variables.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. a

Variable

M

SD

Innovative performance Network density Information giving Network size Network status Strength of ties Feedback seeking Organizationa Rank 1b Rank 2b Work experience Occupational domainc

3.71 0.58 1.88 3.75 0.77 2.92 2.65 0.33 0.16 0.03 3.37 0.01

0.80 0.24 1.46 1.46 0.77 0.64 0.94 0.47 0.37 0.16 2.55 0.11

Dummy variable for organization. b Dummy variable for job rank. c Dummy variable for occupational domain. ⁎ p b .05 ⁎⁎ p b .01.

1 −.23⁎ .35⁎⁎ .21 .05 .17 .19 −.27⁎ −.02 −.07 .23⁎ −.17

2

.00 −.14 −.02 −.02 .12 −.00 −.08 −.03 −.10 −.09

3

.52⁎⁎ −.04 .34⁎⁎ .35⁎⁎ −.17 .20 −.20 .09 .09

4

.34⁎⁎ −.01 .15 −.10 .27⁎ −.08 .15 .10

5

−.16 .13 −.03 .25⁎ .25⁎ −.01 .03

6

7

8

9

10

11

.21 −.02 −.09 −.01 .19 .12

−.17 .06 −.11 −.16 .12

−.02 −.11 −.13 .16

−.06 .05 −.05

.12 −.02

.08

M. Jokisaari, J. Vuori / Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014) 352–360

357

Table 2 Results of regression analysis for innovative performance.

Control 1.

2. 3.

Independent 4. 5. 6. ΔR2 ΔF R2

Model:

1

2

3

4

5

6

Organizationa Job rank 1b Job rank 2b Work experience Occupational domainc Feedback seeking Network size Network status Strength of ties

−.25⁎ −.04 −.10 .24⁎

−.22⁎ −.06 −.11 .26⁎

−.24⁎ −.10 −.11 .25⁎

−.15

−.16 .19

−.17 .14 .23 .02 .09

−.21⁎ −.10 −.12 .27⁎ −.21⁎

−.23⁎ −.12 −.09 .28⁎ −.21⁎

−.24⁎ −.14 −.09 .28⁎⁎ −.21⁎

.18 .17 .04 .13

.14 .02 .02 .02

.13 .01 .07 .05

−.30⁎⁎

−.34⁎⁎ .34⁎

.08 7.22⁎⁎ .32

.07 6.42⁎ .39

−.39⁎⁎ .29⁎ .22⁎ .04 4.17⁎

Network density Information giving Network density ∗ information giving .15 2.41⁎ .15

.03 2.81 .18

.06 1.63 .24

.43

a

Dummy variable for organization. Dummy variable for job rank. Dummy variable for occupational domain. ⁎ p b .05. ⁎⁎ p b .01. b c

thus included in the final analyses. The results were similar, as reported below, when all other dummy variables indicating occupational titles were included in the model. As shown in Table 2, the results showed that newcomers' network density was related to their innovative performance: the lower the newcomers' network density, the higher their innovative performance (ΔR2 = .08; ΔF = 7.22, p b .01). Thus Hypothesis 1 was supported. The results further showed that newcomers' information giving was related to innovative performance: the higher the newcomers' information giving, the higher their innovative performance (ΔR2 = .07; ΔF = 6.42, p b .05). This finding supported Hypothesis 2. Finally, to test Hypothesis 3, a two-way interaction term was entered into the model (model 6). The independent variables were centered before the cross-product term was calculated (Aiken & West, 1991). As shown in Table 2, information giving moderated the relation between network density and innovative performance (ΔR2 = .04; ΔF = 4.17, p b .05). To further examine this moderator effect, simple slopes of high information giving and low information giving (i.e., one standard deviation below the mean, and one standard deviation above the mean) were tested. In support of Hypothesis 3, network density was more strongly related to innovative performance when newcomers' information giving was low (B = −1.43, t = −2.42, p b 0.05) than when it was high (B = −.72, t = −1.45, ns.). Fig. 1 illustrates these results. We performed additional regression analyses with different operationalization of information giving (information giving as averaged value from all network ties, and information giving as a sum variable across all network ties), and the results were similar to those reported in Table 2. We also ran an additional analysis to examine the possible joint effects of feedback seeking and network density on innovative performance, but the results showed no relation to innovative performance.

4

3.5

Innovative Performance 3

Low information giving High information giving

2.5

2 Low

Network density

High

Fig. 1. Interaction of information giving and network density.

358

M. Jokisaari, J. Vuori / Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014) 352–360

4. Discussion We examined the characteristics of newcomers' social networks and their information giving to network ties as antecedents of innovative performance. The study results contribute to the organizational socialization literature by showing that new employees' networks of relationships at the workplace may help them show innovative behavior, since they often have limited knowledge about “who-knows-what” (Singh et al., 2010) and about the organization's work practices (e.g., Jablin, 2001). The results reported here suggest that sparse networks may offer newcomers a channel for information and autonomy to consider alternative ways in which to do the job, as indicated by innovative performance. In addition, the results add to organizational socialization literature by demonstrating the important role that newcomers' information giving plays in their innovative performance. It seems that newcomers not only seek information from others in the organization, as has been typically examined in earlier socialization research (e.g., Cooper-Thomas & Burke, 2012), but that they also give information to others and suggest innovative ideas at the workplace. Finally, the results contribute to the literature by showing the interactive effect of social networks and newcomer behavior on innovative performance. The results are in line with earlier research that has shown the relation between sparse networks and innovative ideas (Burt, 2004). The social network approach argues that sparse networks provide a person with information and vision benefits, since in this kind of network people typically belong to different social units, and information is often more heterogeneous between groups than within a single group (Burt, 1992; Granovetter, 1973). In addition, it has been argued that sparse networks typically enable a brokerage role, which provides autonomy for a person to perform in their job more independently than networks in which people are highly connected to each other (Burt, 1992). These information and autonomy benefits may explain the association between newcomers' sparse networks and their innovative performance. However, that said, some earlier findings indicate that there may be no relation between sparse networks and innovative performance (e.g., Zhou et al., 2009) or on the contrary, that dense networks are related more to innovation involvement among experienced employees (Obstfeld, 2005). A possible explanation for these mixed findings may be time in the organization or in a particular group. For example, earlier research has found that new members benefit more from network ties than people who are familiar with each other (Balkundi & Harrison, 2006). Indeed, new employees in particular may benefit from their networks of relationships at the workplace, since they often have limited knowledge about the people, “who-knows-what” (Singh et al., 2010), and practices within the organization (e.g., Jablin, 2001). The results reported here suggest that sparse networks may offer them a channel for information and advice to compensate for this lack of knowledge; even autonomy to consider alternative ways in which to do their job or play their role in the organization. The results further showed that newcomers' information giving to their network ties was related to innovative performance. One possible explanation may be that the information giving variable reflects the fact that a newcomer has the competence to perform in their work, and that they have novel or alternative ideas regarding the work. In addition, since network ties ask new employees for information or advice, this indicates that they value the focal newcomer's knowledge and skills (Borgatti & Cross, 2003). This kind of perceived expertise can be a source of status in the group (Van der Vegt, Bunderson, & Oosterhof, 2006), and enhance information sharing and related innovative performance. This study adds to socialization literature by demonstrating the important role that newcomers' information giving to their network ties assumingly plays in their socialization. Earlier socialization research has emphasized the active role of newcomers in their socialization, but this literature has mainly examined how newcomers seek information from others in the organization and how this information seeking is related to socialization and its outcomes (e.g., Cooper-Thomas & Burke, 2012). However, it seems that newcomers are also a source of information to others at the workplace, and sharing their information with others may be an important part of their socialization process. It may also improve their innovative performance. In addition, as others ask the newcomer for information or advice, this may increase their visibility at the workplace and enhance network development later on (Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2012). For example, earlier research suggests that one's performance in the job is an important antecedent of one's network position later on (Lee, 2010). The results further showed that newcomers' information giving moderated the relation between sparse networks and innovative performance. That is, when newcomers' information giving was high, there was no association between sparse networks and innovative performance. This may indicate that newcomers, who give information to their networks ties, may already have the competence and information needed to perform, and may not need their network ties as a source of information for new ideas to the same extent as newcomers who do not share information with others. In line with this explanation, earlier research suggests that “experience, it seems, leads to the possession of information such that one does not need to ask others for help.” (O'Reilly, 1982, p. 769). Furthermore, when others ask information from a newcomer they assumingly have a strong rather than a weak tie with this person, since people tend to ask for information and advice from people they like or feel close to (Casciaro & Lobo, 2008; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). These kinds of strong ties are beneficial in transferring complex knowledge, since strong ties are characterized by closeness, trust and frequent communication (e.g., Granovetter, 1983; Hansen, 1999). Thus, when newcomers give information to others, it may be more likely that they are also acquiring complex knowledge from others during the exchange of information, and this supports their innovative performance. These results have implications for the literature on the role of social networks in innovative performance and creativity. Typically, research on creativity or innovative performance has examined the benefits of social networks on a focal person's creativity or innovative performance (e.g., Burt, 2005). That is, social networks have been seen as a resource, i.e. information and novel ideas, for a focal person. In turn, this information benefit has been considered a critical element in creativity or innovative performance (e.g., PerrySmith, 2006). However, this study argued that a focal person may be a source of information to others in the networks, and does not merely seek or receive information from networks. Perhaps the literature on creativity and innovative performance should not only focus on networks as a source of information but also on how a person may be a source of information to others. For example,

M. Jokisaari, J. Vuori / Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014) 352–360

359

earlier research has found that organizational insiders appreciate new employees' new vision and perspectives (Gallagher & Sias, 2009), and newcomers' behavior is related to group performance (Chen & Klimoski, 2003) and new members in the group relate to creativity (Choi & Thompson, 2005). This study has limitations that necessitate further research and limit the generalizability of its findings. The cross-sectional study design offers no information regarding causality. For example, newcomers who show innovative performance may be asked for information and advice by more experienced members of the organization, rather than vice versa. However, in line with earlier theories, we would like to argue that newcomers' information giving was also related to the characteristics of their social network ties and proactive behavior. That is, newcomers were more likely to give information to their network ties when these ties were strong rather than weak, i.e. the strength of the ties was high (see Table 1, r = .34). This is in line with the earlier social network theory that strong ties enhance transferring of knowledge (Granovetter, 1983; Reagans & McEvily, 2003: 244). In addition, newcomers' information giving was also related to their proactive behavior, i.e. feedback seeking (see Table 1, r = .35). However, the strength of ties and feedback seeking were not related to innovative performance. Thus it seems that a focal person's information giving also reflects the characteristics of their network ties and their proactive behavior, and may not only indicate a reciprocal relation with innovative performance. Future research with longitudinal research designs is needed to examine the causal direction between social networks, information giving and innovative performance. In addition, using longitudinal design, one could possibly examine the extent to which creativity or innovative spirals exist over time among new employees, as suggested by the literature (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). That is, if new employees' initial social networks and information giving first enhance their innovative performance, to what extent does their innovative performance in turn foster the development of their networks later on, as the newcomers' reputation and visibility increase in the organization (e.g., Jokisaari & Nurmi, 2012). A further limitation is that this study was drawn from Finnish employees, and that they worked in the public sector domain. Thus further research is needed, using different kinds of samples. The results of this study have possible practical implications. It could be beneficial for organizations if employers developed organizational practices that encouraged newcomers to share their views and opinions. This might include developing an interpersonal climate in which new employees feel comfortable and secure enough to share their ideas and opinions, i.e. experience psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999). Psychological safety may be particularly needed by new employees who seem to be hesitant to share their ideas or opinions before they feel confident of their own skills and performance (Feldman, 1981). In turn, this kind of exchange between new employees and more experienced members of the organization may further develop their working relationships. In addition, organizational practices could enable informal meeting opportunities for newcomers to interact socially and share activities with others at the workplace (e.g., Bolino, Turnley, & Bloodgood, 2002). These meetings would be opportunities for social exchange between newcomers and organizational insiders, and would facilitate getting to know each other and developing relationships over time. To conclude, this study examined newcomers' innovative performance by capitalizing on the social network approach and the proactive perspective to newcomer socialization. The results indicate that newcomers' information giving moderated the relation between social networks and innovative performance; when newcomers' information giving was high, the characteristics of their social networks were not related to their innovative performance.

References Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Aral, S., & Van Alstyne, M. (2011). The diversity-bandwidth trade-off. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 90–171. Ashford, S. J., & Black, S. J. (1996). Proactivity during organizational entry: The role of desire for control. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 199–214. Ashforth, B. E., & Saks, A.M. (1996). Socialization tactics: Longitudinal effects on newcomer adjustment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 149–178. Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D.M., & Harrison, S. H. (2007). Socialization in organizational contexts. In G. P. Hodgkinson, & J. K. Ford (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1–70). New York: Wiley & Sons. Ashforth, B. E., Sluss, D.M., & Saks, A.M. (2007). Socialization tactics, proactive behavior, and newcomer learning: Integrating socialization models. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 447–462. Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: A strong inference about network structure's effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 41–68. Bolino, M. C., Turnley, W. H., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505–522. Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49, 432–445. Burkhardt, M. E. (1994). Social interaction effects following a technological change: A longitudinal investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 869–898. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 349–399. Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Burt, R. S., Kilduff, M., & Tasselli, S. (2013). Social network analysis: Foundations and frontiers on advantage. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 527–547. Casciaro, & Lobo (2008). When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 655–684. Chen, G., & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 591–607. Choi, H. S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 121–132. Cooper-Thomas, H. D., & Burke, S. E. (2012). Newcomer proactive behavior: Can there be too much of a good thing? In C. Wanberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational socialization (pp. 56–77). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Cross, R., & Sproull, L. (2004). More than an answer: Information relationships for actionable knowledge. Organization Science, 15, 446–462. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-McIntyre, K. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 618–630. Feldman, D. C. (1981). The multiple socialization of organization members. Academy of Management Review, 6, 309–318.

360

M. Jokisaari, J. Vuori / Journal of Vocational Behavior 85 (2014) 352–360

Feldman, D. C. (1994). Who's socializing whom? The impact of socializing newcomers on insiders, work groups, and organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 4, 213–233. Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 443–475. Gallagher, E. B., & Sias, P.M. (2009). The new employee as a source of uncertainty: Veteran employee information seeking about new hires. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 23–46. George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 439–477. Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380. Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233. Hansen (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82–111. Hargadon, A. B. (2002). Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation. In R. I. Sutton, & B.M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, 24. (pp. 41–85). New York: Elsevier. Jablin, F. M. (2001). Organizational entry, assimilation, and disengagement/exit. In F. M. Jablin, & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 732–818). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jokisaari, M. (2013). The role of leader-member and social network relations in newcomers' role performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 96–104. Jokisaari, M., & Nurmi, J. -E. (2012). Getting the right connections? The consequences and antecedents of social networks in newcomer socialization. In C. Wanberg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational socialization (pp. 78–96). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Jones, G. R. (1986). Socialization tactics, self-efficacy, and newcomers' adjustments to organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 262–279. Kammeyer-Mueller, J., Wanberg, C., Rubenstein, A., & Song, Z. (2013). Support, undermining, and newcomer socialization: Fitting in during the first 90 days. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1104–1124. Kramer, M. W., Callister, R. R., & Turbanc, D. B. (1995). Information‐receiving and information‐giving during job transitions. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 151–170. Lee, J. J. (2010). Heterogeneity, brokerage, and innovative performance: Endogenous formation of collaborative inventor networks. Organization Science, 21, 804–822. Marsden, P. (1990). Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 435–463. Mignerey, J. T., Rubin, R. B., & Gorden, W. I. (1995). Organizational entry: An investigation of newcomer communication behavior and uncertainty. Communication Research, 22, 54–85. Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers' relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1149–1160. O’Reilly, C. (1982). Variations in decision-makers use of information sources: The impact of quality and accessibility of information. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 756–771. Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 100–130. Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849–874. Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 85–101. Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network model. Academy of Management Review, 28, 89–106. Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62, 673–693. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240–267. Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. Academy of Management Review, 12, 278–287. Rollag, K. (2004). The impact of relative tenure on newcomer socialization dynamics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 853–872. Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 219–237. Singh, J., Hansen, M. T., & Podolny, J. M. (2010). The world is not small for everyone: Inequality in searching for knowledge in organizations. Management Science, 56, 1415–1438. Tortoriello, M., & Krackhardt, D. (2010). Activating cross-boundary knowledge: The role of Simmelian ties in the generation of innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 167–181. Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Carter, A. (2005). Creative requirement: A neglected construct in the study of creativity? Group & Organization Management, 30, 541–560. Van der Vegt, G. S., Bunderson, J. S., & Oosterhof, A. (2006). Expertness diversity and interpersonal helping in teams: Why those who need the most help end up getting the least. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 877–893. Van Maanen, J., & Schein, E. H. (1979). Toward a theory of organizational socialization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1, 209–264. Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 540–555. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321. Zhou, J., Shin, S. J., Brass, D. J., Choi, J., & Zhang, Z. -X. (2009). Social networks, personal values, and creativity: Evidence for curvilinear and interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1544–1552.